Self-report assessment of Positive Appraisal Style (PAS): Development of a process-focused and a content-focused questionnaire for use in mental health and resilience research

Positive Appraisal Style Theory of Resilience posits that a person's general style of evaluating stressors plays a central role in mental health and resilience. Specifically, a tendency to appraise stressors positively (positive appraisal style; PAS) is theorized to be protective of mental health and thus a key resilience factor. To this date no measures of PAS exist. Here, we present two scales that measure perceived positive appraisal style, one focusing on cognitive processes that lead to positive appraisals in stressful situations (PASS-process), and the other focusing on the appraisal contents (PASS-content). For PASS-process, the items of the existing questionnaires Brief COPE and CERQ-short were analyzed in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA) in independent samples (N = 1157 and N = 1704). The resulting 10-item questionnaire was internally consistent (α = .78, 95% CI [.86, .87]) and showed good convergent and discriminant validity in comparisons with self-report measures of trait optimism, neuroticism, urgency, and spontaneity. For PASS-content, a newly generated item pool of 29 items across stressor appraisal content dimensions (probability, magnitude, and coping potential) were subjected to EFA and CFA in two independent samples (N = 1174 and N = 1611). The resulting 14-item scale showed good internal consistency (α = .87, 95% CI [.86, .87]), as well as good convergent and discriminant validity within the nomological network. The two scales are a new and reliable way to assess self-perceived positive appraisal style in large-scale studies, which could offer key insights into mechanisms of resilience.

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on mental health in Germany: longitudinal observation of different mental health trajectories and protective factors

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting measures can be regarded as a global stressor. Cross-sectional studies showed rather negative impacts on people's mental health, while longitudinal studies considering pre-lockdown data are still scarce. The present study investigated the impact of COVID-19 related lockdown measures in a longitudinal German sample, assessed since 2017. During lockdown, 523 participants completed additional weekly online questionnaires on e.g., mental health, COVID-19-related and general stressor exposure. Predictors for and distinct trajectories of mental health outcomes were determined, using multilevel models and latent growth mixture models, respectively. Positive pandemic appraisal, social support, and adaptive cognitive emotion regulation were positively, whereas perceived stress, daily hassles, and feeling lonely negatively related to mental health outcomes in the entire sample. Three subgroups ("recovered," 9.0%; "resilient," 82.6%; "delayed dysfunction," 8.4%) with different mental health responses to initial lockdown measures were identified. Subgroups differed in perceived stress and COVID-19-specific positive appraisal. Although most participants remained mentally healthy, as observed in the resilient group, we also observed inter-individual differences. Participants' psychological state deteriorated over time in the delayed dysfunction group, putting them at risk for mental disorder development. Consequently, health services should especially identify and allocate resources to vulnerable individuals.

Risk Stratification for Bipolar Disorder Using Polygenic Risk Scores Among Young High-Risk Adults

Objective: Identifying high-risk groups with an increased genetic liability for bipolar disorder (BD) will provide insights into the etiology of BD and contribute to early detection of BD. We used the BD polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from BD genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to explore how such genetic risk manifests in young, high-risk adults. We postulated that BD-PRS would be associated with risk factors for BD. Methods: A final sample of 185 young, high-risk German adults (aged 18-35 years) were grouped into three risk groups and compared to a healthy control group (n = 1,100). The risk groups comprised 117 cases with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 45 with major depressive disorder (MDD), and 23 help-seeking adults with early recognition symptoms [ER: positive family history for BD, (sub)threshold affective symptomatology and/or mood swings, sleeping disorder]. BD-PRS was computed for each participant. Logistic regression models (controlling for sex, age, and the first five ancestry principal components) were used to assess associations of BD-PRS and the high-risk phenotypes. Results: We observed an association between BD-PRS and combined risk group status (OR = 1.48, p < 0.001), ADHD diagnosis (OR = 1.32, p = 0.009), MDD diagnosis (OR = 1.96, p < 0.001), and ER group status (OR = 1.7, p = 0.025; not significant after correction for multiple testing) compared to healthy controls. Conclusions: In the present study, increased genetic risk for BD was a significant predictor for MDD and ADHD status, but not for ER. These findings support an underlying shared risk for both MDD and BD as well as ADHD and BD. Improving our understanding of the underlying genetic architecture of these phenotypes may aid in early identification and risk stratification.