Moving beyond Ordinary Factor Analysis in Studies of Personality and Personality Disorder: A Computational Modeling Perspective

Internalizing-externalizing comorbidity and regional brain volumes in the ABCD study

Despite nonoverlapping diagnostic criteria, internalizing and externalizing disorders show substantial comorbidity. This comorbidity is attributable, at least in part, to transdiagnostic neuroaffective mechanisms. Both unipolar depression and externalizing disorders are characterized by structural and functional compromises in the striatum and its projections to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and other frontal regions. Smaller volumes and dampened reward responding in these regions are associated with anhedonia and irritability - mood states that cut across the internalizing and externalizing spectra. In contrast, smaller amygdala volumes and dampened amygdala function differentiate externalizing disorders from internalizing disorders. Little is known, however, about associations between internalizing-externalizing comorbidity and brain volumes in these regions, or whether such patterns differ by sex. Using a transdiagnostic, research domain criteria (RDoC)-informed approach, we evaluate associations between heterotypic (Internalizing × Externalizing) symptom interactions and striatal, amygdalar, and ACC volumes among participants in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (N = 6,971, mean age 9.9 years, 51.6% female). Heterotypic symptoms were associated with ACC volumes for both sexes, over and above the main effects of internalizing and externalizing alone. However, heterotypic comorbidity was associated with larger ACC volumes for girls, but with smaller ACC volumes for boys. These findings suggest a need for further studies and transdiagnostic assessment by sex.

RDoC and Psychopathology among Youth: Misplaced Assumptions and an Agenda for Future Research

Now over 10 years old, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) has gained impressive traction in the adult psychopathology literature, but enthusiasm among child and adolescent psychopathologists lags somewhat behind. We consider possible reasons why RDoC has not been embraced fully in the child and adolescent literatures. We emphasize common, interrelated, and sometimes outdated assumptions that impede scientific progress that RDoC could facilitate. Traditionally, child and adolescent psychopathologists have used behavioral syndromes as gold standards against which biological markers are validated, even though behavioral syndromes are often measured with less precision; sought to identify large main effects of single biological functions on single behavioral syndromes, thereby ignoring (even if implicitly) the overwhelming etiological complexity of psychopathology; expected 1:1 correspondencies between biological functions and behaviors, despite evidence that core biological systems subserving behavior are functionally interdependent (i.e., modulate one another); and failed to consider neurobiological mechanisms of homotypic and heterotypic comorbidity and continuity. Using examples from our work, we show how a developmental, RDoC-informed approach to externalizing behavior enriches our understanding of psychopathology. We also provide an agenda for future research, which includes calls to (1) adopt neural-systems-first approaches over disorder-first approaches when studying psychopathology, (2) eschew biological reductionism by integrating environmental risk mediators into our etiopathophysiological models, (3) integrate neural vulnerabilities into the empirical latent structure of psychopathology, and (4) replace null hypothesis significance testing with computational approaches that accommodate etiological complexity by evaluating functional dependencies among RDoC constructs, including positive valence systems (approach), negative valence systems (avoidance), and arousal/regulatory systems (self-regulation).