What is the Young Mania Rating Scale?

Introduction

The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), developed by Vincent E Ziegler and popularised by Robert Young, is an eleven-item multiple choice diagnostic questionnaire which psychiatrists use to measure the presence and severity of mania and associated symptoms.

Background

The scale was originally developed for use in the evaluation of adult patients with bipolar disorder, but has since been adapted for use in paediatric patients. The scale is widely used by clinicians and researchers in the diagnosis, evaluation, and quantification of manic symptomology.

A similar scale was later developed to allow clinicians to interview parents about their children’s symptoms, in order to ascertain a better diagnosis of mania in children. This parent version (P-YMRS) can be completed by a parent or a teacher to determine whether a child should receive further evaluation from a psychologist or psychiatrist. Clinical studies have demonstrated the reliability and validity of the parent version of the scale, which has been found to provide “clinically meaningful information about mood disorders in youth.” The P-YMRS does succeed in identifying most cases of childhood bipolar disorder, but it has an extremely high false positive rate.

What is the Mood Disorder Questionnaire?

Introduction

The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) is a self-report questionnaire designed to help detect bipolar disorder.

It focuses on symptoms of hypomania and mania, which are the mood states that separate bipolar disorders from other types of depression and mood disorder. It has 5 main questions, and the first question has 13 parts, for a total of 17 questions. The MDQ was originally tested with adults, but it also has been studied in adolescents ages 11 years and above. It takes approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. In 2006, a parent-report version was created to allow for assessment of bipolar symptoms in children or adolescents from a caregiver perspective, with the research looking at youths as young as 5 years old.

The MDQ has become one of the most widely studied and used questionnaires for bipolar disorder, and it has been translated into more than a dozen languages.

Development

The MDQ was developed as a screening tool for bipolar disorder, and assesses symptoms of mania and hypomania It was developed in the hopes that it would reduce the mis-diagnosis and delayed diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The first 13 items on the measure ask about any manic/hypomanic symptoms that may have occurred during one’s lifetime. These items are based on the DSM-IV criteria for bipolar disorder. Additional items then ask if these symptoms have happened during the same period of time (an “episode”), and how severely these symptoms affected functioning (assessing impairment).

In developing this tool, the MDQ was administered to a group of bipolar patients to assess feasibility and face validity, leading to revision of the items. Following this initial study, researchers have assessed psychometric properties of the MDQ, finding that the measure possesses adequate internal consistency. The measure has also demonstrated fair sensitivity in several studies, although sensitivity may be greater in inpatient versus community settings. First built for use in adults, it has been translated into many languages and tested in a range of different settings. Researchers also have studied whether parents could use this to provide useful information about their child or adolescent. Meta-analyses have found that the MDQ is one of the best self-report tools for assessing hypomania or mania in adults, and the parent report version is one of the three best options available for parents to use about their children.

Limitations

One limitation of the MDQ is that it has shown higher sensitivity when detecting bipolar I compared to other bipolar spectrum disorders. It is much less sensitive to bipolar II, often missing more than half of the cases with this diagnosis when using the recommended algorithm. Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity of the MDQ has been shown to differ by the use of a standard vs. modified cutoff (i.e. simplifies the cutoff to be based only on symptom endorsement, rather than impairment). Sensitivity and specificity of the MDQ also depend on study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Including more severe cases will increase the apparent sensitivity, because it is more likely that they will have high scores. Including healthy controls or people who are not seeking services will exaggerate the specificity of the test, as these individuals are unlikely to have manic symptoms and will score very low on the measure as a result.

Another major limitation of the MDQ is that it is not to be sensitive to treatment effects. It asks about lifetime history of symptoms, which is a strength for screening and detection, but a weakness for measuring the current severity of mood symptoms. The MDQ also uses a yes/no format for the symptoms, rather than asking about the severity of each. Other rating scales are more useful for measuring severity and treatment outcomes.

Additionally, self-report measures have some disadvantages, including bias that can stem from social desirability and demand characteristics.

What is the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale?

Introduction

The Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS) is a psychiatric screening rating scale for bipolar disorder.

Background

It was developed by Ronald Pies, and was later refined and tested by S. Nassir Ghaemi and colleagues. The BSDS arose from Pies’s experience as a psychopharmacology consultant, where he was frequently called on to manage cases of “treatment-resistant depression”. Patients are typically diagnosed during their 20s. The lifetime prevalence of BD is approximately 1%, rising to 4% if a broader definition of bipolar spectrum disorder is used.

The English version of the scale consists of 19 question items and two sections. It differs from most scales in that it does not list separate items, but rather presents a short paragraph talking about experiences that people with bipolar spectrum disorders often have. The person checks off which phrases or experiences fit them. Bipolar spectrum disorder includes bipolar I and bipolar II, and other cases not meeting criteria for those disorders.

The scale was validated in its original version and demonstrated high diagnostic sensitivity, meaning that most people with confirmed bipolar diagnoses scored high on the BSDS. The BSDS may do better than other scales at detecting types of bipolar disorder that do not involve a full manic episode, such as bipolar II or cyclothymic disorder.

What is the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders?

Introduction

The Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD; Chinese: 中国精神疾病分类方案与诊断标准), published by the Chinese Society of Psychiatry (CSP), is a clinical guide used in China for the diagnosis of mental disorders.

It is currently on a third version, the CCMD-3, written in Chinese and English. It is intentionally similar in structure and categorisation to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and DSM, the two most well-known diagnostic manuals, though it includes some variations on their main diagnoses and around 40 culturally related diagnoses.

Brief History

The first published Chinese psychiatric classificatory scheme appeared in 1979. A revised classification system, the CCMD-1, was made available in 1981 and further modified in 1984 (CCMD-2-R). The CCMD-3 was published in 2001.

Many Chinese psychiatrists believed the CCMD had special advantages over other manuals, such as simplicity, stability, the inclusion of culture-distinctive categories, and the exclusion of certain Western diagnostic categories. The Chinese translation of the ICD-10 was seen as linguistically complicated, containing very long sentences and awkward terms and syntax (Lee, 2001).

Diagnostic Categories

The diagnosis of depression is included in the CCMD, with many similar criteria to the ICD or DSM, with the core having been translated as ‘low spirits’. However, Neurasthenia is a more central diagnosis. Although also found in the ICD, its diagnosis takes a particular form in China, called ‘shenjing shuairuo’, which emphasizes somatic (bodily) complaints as well as fatigue or depressed feelings. Neurasthenia is a less stigmatising diagnosis than depression in China, being conceptually distinct from psychiatric labels, and is said to fit well with a tendency to express emotional issues in somatic terms. The concept of neurasthenia as a nervous system disorder is also said to fit well with the traditional Chinese epistemology of disease causation on the basis of disharmony of vital organs and imbalance of qi.

The diagnosis of schizophrenia is included in the CCMD. It is applied quite readily and broadly in Chinese psychiatry.

Some of the wordings of the diagnosis are different, for example rather than borderline personality disorder as in the DSM, or emotionally unstable personality disorder (borderline type) as in the ICD, the CCMD has impulsive personality disorder.

Diagnoses that are more specific to Chinese or Asian culture, though they may also be outlined in the ICD (or DSM glossary section), includes:

  • Koro or Genital retraction syndrome: excessive fear of the genitals (and also breasts in women) shrinking or drawing back into the body.
  • Zou huo ru mo (走火入魔) or qigong deviation (氣功偏差): perception of uncontrolled flow of qi in the body.
  • Mental disorders due to superstition or witchcraft.
  • Travelling psychosis.

The CCMD-3 lists several “disorders of sexual preference” including ego-dystonic homosexuality, but does not recognise paedophilia.

Koro

Koro or Genital retraction syndrome is a culture-specific syndrome from Southeast Asia in which the patient has an overpowering belief that the genitalia (or nipples in females) are shrinking and will shortly disappear. In China, it is known as shuk yang, shook yong, and suo yang (simplified Chinese: 缩阳; traditional Chinese: 縮陽). This has been associated with cultures placing a heavy emphasis on balance, or on fertility and reproduction.

Zou Huo Ru Mo

Zou huo ru mo (走火入魔) or “qigong deviation” (氣功偏差) is a mental condition characterised by the perception that there is uncontrolled flow of qi in the body. Other complaints include localised pains, headache, insomnia, and uncontrolled spontaneous movements.

What is the Toronto Alexithymia Scale?

Introduction

The Toronto Alexithymia Scale is a measure of deficiency in understanding, processing, or describing emotions.

Background

It was developed in 1986 and later revised, removing some of the items.

The current version has twenty statements rated on a five-point Likert scale.

The reliability and validity of the TAS-20 was established by a series of articles by Bagby and colleagues (1994).

Reference

Bagby, R.M., Parker, J.D.A. & Taylor, G.J. (1994) The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Item Selection and Cross-Validation of the Factor Structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 38(1), pp.23-32.

What is the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale?

Introduction

The Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) is a test to rate the severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms.

The scale, which was designed by Wayne K. Goodman and his colleagues, is used extensively in research and clinical practice to both determine severity of OCD and to monitor improvement during treatment. This scale, which measures obsessions separately from compulsions, specifically measures the severity of symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder without being biased towards or against the type of content the obsessions or compulsions might present. Following the original publication the total score is usually computed from the subscales for obsessions (items 1-5) and compulsions (items 6-10) but other algorithms exist.

Accuracy and Modifications

Goodman and his colleagues have developed the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale-Second Edition (Y-BOCS-II) in an effort to modify the original scale which, according to Goodman, “[has become] the gold standard measure of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptom severity”. In creating the Y-BOCS-II, changes were made “to the Severity Scale item content and scoring framework, integrating avoidance into the scoring of Severity Scale items, and modifying the Symptom Checklist content and format”. After reliability tests, Goodman concluded that “Taken together, the Y-BOCS-II has excellent psychometric properties in assessing the presence and severity, of obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Although the Y-BOCS remains a reliable and valid measure, the Y-BOCS-II may provide an alternative method of assessing symptom presence and severity.”

Studies have been conducted by members of the Iranian Journal of Psychiatry & Clinical Psychology to determine the accuracy of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (specifically as it appears in its Persian format). The members applied the scale to a group of individuals and, after ensuring a normal distribution of data, a series of reliability tests were performed. According to the authors, “[the] results supported satisfactory validity and reliability of translated form of Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale for research and clinical diagnostic applications”.

Children’s Version

The children’s version of the Y-BOCS, or the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scales (CY-BOCS), is a clinician-report questionnaire designed to assess symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder from childhood through early adolescence.

The CY-BOCS contains 70 questions and takes about 15-25 minutes. Each question is designed to ask about symptoms of obsessive compulsive behaviour, though the exact breakdown of questions is unknown. For each question, children rate the degree to which the question applies on a scale of 0-4. Based on research, this assessment has been found to be statistically valid and reliable, but not necessarily helpful.

Other Versions

The CY-BOCS has been adapted into several self- and parent-report versions, designed to be completed by parent and child working together, although most have not been psychometrically validated. However, these versions still ask the child to rate the severity of their obsessive compulsive behaviours and the degree to which each has been impairing. While this measure has been found to be useful in a clinic setting, scores and interpretations are taken with a grain of salt, given the lack of validation.

Another version, which is parent-focused, is similar to the original CY-BOCS and is administered to both parent and child by the clinician. This version was distributed by Solvay Pharmaceuticals in the late 1990s, creating an association between the measure and a number of pharmaceutical groups that has caused it to be avoided by most clinicians. Severity cut-off scores for this version have not been empirically determined.

What is the Neurotic Personality Questionnaire KON-2006?

Introduction

The Neurotic Personality Questionnaire KON-2006 is a psychometric tool used for diagnosing personality dysfunctions that contribute to the development of neurotic disorders.

The use of the questionnaire may facilitate the diagnosis of neurotic disorder, as well as make it easier to differentiate between neurotic and pseudoneurotic syndroms, e.g. reaction to stress. Moreover, the questionnaire enables evaluation of changes occurring in the course of treatment.

The questionnaire has been created by Jerzy W. Aleksandrowicz, Katarzyna Klasa, Jerzy A. Sobański and Dorota Stolarska in the Department of Psychotherapy of the Jagiellonian University Medical College in Kraków, Poland.

Refer to Neuroticism and Neurosis.

The Content of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire consists of 243 items that require positive or negative answer. They determine the values of 24 scales that describe areas related to the development of neurotic disorders, as well as the value of X-KON index that describes the global intensity of neurotic personality. Currently, only the Polish and Ukrainian versions of KON-2006 are available, however a number of studies based on the tool has been published in English.

Scales

The following working (approximate) names were given to KON-2006 scales:

  • Feeling of being dependent on the environment.
  • Asthenia.
  • Negative self-esteem.
  • Impulsiveness.
  • Difficulties with decision making.
  • Sense of alienation.
  • Demobilisation.
  • Tendency to take risks.
  • Difficulties in emotional relations.
  • Lack of vitality.
  • Conviction of own resourcelessness in life.
  • Sense of lack of control.
  • Deficit in internal locus of control.
  • Imagination. indulging in fiction.
  • Sense of guilt.
  • Difficulties in interpersonal relations.
  • Envy.
  • Narcissistic attitude.
  • Sense of being in danger.
  • Exaltation.
  • Irrationality.
  • Meticulousness.
  • Ponderings.
  • Sense of being overloaded.

Methodology of the Questionnaire Creation

Search for and selection of items that were used for the creation of the KON-2006 questionnaire were based on empirical methods. Analysis of usefulness of 779 items was conducted (including items drawn from scales belonging to various personality and temperament inventories e.g. 16PF, MMPI, PTS, TTS, IPIP, TCI). Clarity, explicitness and comprehensiveness of each item was evaluated and appropriate improvements were implemented. Next, a comparison of answers was made between healthy individuals and the patients that were beginning treatment due to neurotic disorders. This allowed to select 243 items most useful in differentiation of the patients with neurotic disorders from the healthy individuals. These items were used for the creation of Neurotic Personality Questionnaire. The construction of 24 scales was based on cluster analysis conducted on the population of patients at the beginning of treatment and control groups.

What is the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test?

Introduction

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is a ten-item questionnaire approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to screen patients for hazardous (risky) and harmful alcohol consumption.

Background

It was developed from a WHO multi-country collaborative study, the items being selected for the AUDIT being the best performing of approximately 150 items including in the original survey. It is widely used as a summary measure of alcohol use and related problems. It has application in primary health care, medical clinics, and hospital units and performs well in these settings. Using different cut-off points, it can also screen for Alcohol Use Disorder (DSM-5) and Alcohol Dependence. Guidelines for the use of the AUDIT have been published by WHO and are available in several languages. It has become a widely used instrument and has been translated into approximately fifty languages.

The AUDIT consists of ten questions, all of which ask explicitly about alcohol:

  • Questions 1 to 3 ask about consumption of alcohol (frequency, quantity or typical drinking occasions, and consumption likely to cause impairment);
  • Possible dependence on alcohol (Questions 4 to 6); and
  • Harmful alcohol use, including concern expressed by others (Questions 7 to 10).

Each question is scored between 0 and 4 depending on the response and so the total score ranges between 0 and 40. Based on responses in the original WHO multi-centre study a score of 8 or more is the threshold for identifying hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption with a score of 15 or more indicating likely alcohol dependence, and 20 or more indicating likely severe dependence and harm. Using the cut-off point of 8, its performance in the original collaborative WHO study indicated a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 94% for the diagnoses of hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption.

The AUDIT was designed to be used internationally, and was derived from a WHO collaborative study drawing patients from six countries, representing different regions of the world and different political and economic systems. More than 300 studies have been undertaken to examine its usefulness and validity in various settings. Multiple studies have found that the AUDIT is a reliable and valid measure in identifying alcohol abuse, hazardous consumption and harmful alcohol use (consumption leading to actual harm) and it has also been found to be a valid indicator for severity of alcohol dependence. There is some evidence that the AUDIT works in adolescents and young adults; it appears less accurate in older adults. It appears well-suited for use with college students, and also with women and members of minority groups. There has also been significant evidence for its use in the trauma patient population to screen for possible alcohol use disorders. In the trauma patient population, AUDIT has been shown to be more effective at identifying possible alcohol abuse than physician judgement and the blood alcohol content (BAC) test.

A shorter version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) has been created for rapid use, and is composed of the first 3-question of the full length AUDIT pertaining specifically to quantity of alcohol consumed. It is appropriate for screening for problem drinking in a doctor’s office.

What is the Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood?

Introduction

The Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood (DC) is a developmentally based diagnostic manual that provides clinical criteria for categorising mental health and developmental disorders in infants and toddlers.

It is organised into a five-part axis system. The book has been translated into several languages and its model is widely adopted for the assessment of children of up to five years in age.

The DC 0-3R is meant to complement, but not replace, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) of the World Health Organisation (WHO). It is intended to enhance the understanding of young children by making it possible to assess, diagnose, and treat mental health problems in infants and toddlers by allowing for the identification of disorders not addressed in other classification systems.

The DC is organised around three primary principles:

  1. That children’s psychological functioning unfolds in the context of relationships;
  2. That individual differences in temperament and constitutional strengths and vulnerabilities play a major role in how children experience and process events; and
  3. That the family’s cultural context is important for the understanding of the child’s developmental course.

Brief History

Originally published in 1994, ZERO TO THREE’s Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood (DC:03) was the first developmentally based system for diagnosing mental health and developmental disorders of infants and toddlers (i.e. 0 to 3).

The revised DC:03, published in 2005 (DC:03R) drew on empirical research and clinical practice that had occurred worldwide since the 1994 publication and extended the depth and criteria of the original DC:03.

DC:05 captures new findings relevant to diagnosis in young children and addresses unresolved issues in the field since DC:03R was published in 2005.

DC:05 is designed to help mental health and other professionals: recognize mental health and developmental challenges in infants and young children, through 5 years old; understand that relationships and psychosocial stressors contribute to mental health and developmental disorders and incorporate contextual factors into the diagnostic process; use diagnostic criteria effectively for classification, case formulation, and intervention; and facilitate research on mental health disorders in infants and young children. DC:05 enhances the professional’s ability to prevent, diagnose, and treat mental health problems in the earliest years by identifying and describing disorders not addressed in other classification systems and by pointing the way to effective intervention approaches. Individuals across disciplines, mental health clinicians, counsellors, physicians, nurses, early interventionists, social workers, and researchers will find DC:05 to be an essential guide to evaluation and treatment planning with infants, young children, and their families in a wide range of settings.

The Diagnostic Process

The diagnostic process is one that is ongoing and done over a period of time. The process includes gathering a series of information regarding the child’s behaviour and presenting problems. The information is collected by a clinician and pertains to the child’s adaptation and development across different occasions and contexts.

According to the DC, the diagnostic process consists of two aspects:

  1. The classification of disorders; and
  2. The assessment of individuals.

One of the primary reasons for the classification of disorders is to facilitate communication between professionals. Once a diagnosis has been made, a clinician can then make associations between their clients’ symptoms and previously existing knowledge regarding the disorders’ aetiology, pathogenesis, treatment, and prognosis. Furthermore, using the classification of disorders can facilitate the process of finding existing services and mental health systems that are appropriate for the particular needs of the affected child. The assessment of children thus becomes a pivotal process that is undertaken by clinicians in order to grant access to treatment and intervention services related to specified disorders.

Clinical assessment and diagnosis involves making observations and gathering information from multiple sources relating to the child’s life in conjunction with a general diagnostic scheme. Both the DSM and ICD classification systems have evolved to use a multiaxial scheme, thus, clinicians have been using them not only for the classification of disorder but also as a guide for assessment and diagnosis. The first three axes of the DSM and ICD relate to the classification of disorder, and the fourth and fifth relate to the assessment of the individual within their personal environment. Similarly, the DC also follows a multiaxial scheme.

Classification

The DC 0-3R provides a provisional diagnosis system, focusing on multi-axial classification. The system is a provisional system because it recognises the fluidity and change that may occur with more knowledge in the field. This classification system is not entirely synonymous with the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, because it concentrates on developmental issues. There is also an emphasis placed on dynamic processes, relationships, and adaptive patterns within a developmental framework. The use of this classification system imparts knowledge about the diagnostic profile of a child, and the various contextual factors that may contribute to difficulties.

The DC functions as a reference for the earlier manifestations of problems in infants and children, which can be connected to later problems in functioning. Secondly, the categorisation focuses on types of difficulties in young children that are not addressed in other classification models.

The diagnostic categories vary in description, with more familiar categories described less. Categories that are more specific to young childhood and infancy, and newly based on clinical approaches are described in more detail. Furthermore, some categories may have subtypes to promote research, clinical awareness, and intervention planning, whereas others do not. This is important information to keep in mind when reading the DC.

The Multi-Axial System

Axis I: Clinical Disorders

Axis 1 of the DC provides diagnostic classifications for the most primary symptoms of the presenting difficulties. These diagnoses focus on the infant or child’s functioning. The primary diagnoses include:

  1. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder:
    • This refers to children who may be experiencing or have experienced a single traumatic event (e.g. an earthquake), a series of traumatic events (e.g. air raids), or chronic stress (e.g. abuse).
    • Furthermore, the nature of the trauma and its effect on the child must be understood in the context of the child. Specifically, attention must be paid to factors such as social context, personality factors, and the caregivers’ ability to assist with coping.
  2. Disorders of Affect:
    • This classification of disorders is related to the infant or child’s affective and behavioural experiences.
    • This group of disorders includes mood disorders and deprivation/maltreatment disorder.
    • This classification focuses on the infant or child’s functioning in its entirety rather than a specific event or situation (refer to Affective spectrum).
  3. Adjustment Disorder:
    • When considering a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, one has to examine the situational factors to determine if it is a mild disruption in the child’s usual functioning (e.g. switching schools).
    • These difficulties must also not meet the criteria for other disorders included in the categories.
  4. Regulation Disorders of Sensory Processing:
    1. The child manifests difficulties in regulating behavioural, motor, attention, physiological, sensory, and affective processes.
    2. These difficulties can affect the child’s daily functioning and relationships (refer to Sensory processing disorder).
  5. Sleep Behaviour Disorder:
    • To diagnose a sleep disorder, the child should be showing a sleep disturbance and not be demonstrating sensory reactive or processing difficulties.
    • This diagnosis should not be used when sleep problems are related to issues of anxiety or traumatic events.
  6. Eating Behaviour Disorder:
    • This diagnosis may become evident in infancy and young childhood as the child may show difficulties in regular eating patterns.
    • The child may not be regulating feeding with physiological reactions of hunger. This diagnosis is a primary diagnosis in the absence of traumatic, affective, and regulatory difficulties (refer to eating disorder).
  7. Disorders of Relating and Communicating:
    • These disorders involve difficulties in communication, in conjunction with difficulties in regulation of physiological, motor, cognitive, and many other processes.

Axis II: Relationship Classification

Axis II focuses on children and infants developing in the context of emotional relationships. Specifically, the quality of caregiving can have a strong impact in nurturance and steering a child on a particular developmental course, either adaptive or maladaptive. This particular axis concentrates on the diagnosis of a clinical issue in the relationship between the child and the caregiver. The presence of a disorder indicates difficulties in relationships. These disorders include various patterns that highlight behaviour, affective, and psychological factors between the child and the caregiver.

  • Overinvolved.
  • Underinvolved.
  • Anxious/Tense.
  • Angry/Hostile.
  • Mixed Relationship Disorder.
  • Abusive.

Axis III: Medical and Developmental Disorders and Conditions

Axis III focuses on physical, mental, or developmental classification using other diagnosis methods. These disorders and conditions are not treated as a single diagnosis, but as a problem that may co-exist with others, as it may involve developmental difficulties.

Axis IV: Psychosocial Stressors

This axis allows clinicians to focus on the intensity of psychosocial stress, which may act as influencing agents in infant and childhood difficulties/disorders. Psychosocial stress can have direct and indirect influences on infants and children, and depends on various factors.

Axis V: Emotional and Social Functioning

Emotional and social functioning capacities can be assessed using observations of the child with primary caregivers. The essential domains of functioning can be used in these observations on a 5-point scale, that describes overall functional emotional level.

Rating Scales and Checklists

The DC contains four forms that aid clinicians in identifying disorders in infants and toddlers, in examining the extent of problem behaviours, and in determining the nature of external factors influencing the child.

  • Functional Rating Scale for Emotional and Social Functioning Capacities: to evaluate the child’s communication skills and expressions of thoughts and feelings.
  • The Parent-Infant Relationship Global Assessment Scale (PIR-GAS; from Axis II): to evaluate the quality of a caregiver-child relationship and identify relationship disorders.
  • Relationship Problems Checklist (RPCL; from Axis II): allows the clinician to identify the extent to which a caregiver-child relationship can be described by a number of criterion-based qualities.
  • Psychosocial and Environmental Stressors Checklist (from Axis IV): to provide information on the stressors experienced by the child in various contexts.

The Future of DC

Important questions remain to be answered, in spite of the revisions made in the DC. Such questions include the following:

  • How can the functional adaptation of infants and children be evaluated and described independent of diagnosis?
  • How can disruptive behaviours of typical development in infants and children be distinguished from disordered behaviours that lead to atypical development?
  • Should Excessive Crying Disorder be considered as a functional regulatory disorder? Other functional regulatory disorders include Sleeping Behaviour and Feeding Behaviour Disorders.
  • Should future editions of the DC include a Family Axis containing information about family history of mental illness, family structure and available supports, and family culture? These aspects are all central to assessment and treatment planning.

Linking Recognition Performance in Participants with Greater PTSD Symptom Severity & Ineffective Encoding Reflected in Altered Modulation of Beta Band Oscillatory Activity

Research Paper Title

Altered Modulation of Beta Band Oscillations During Memory Encoding Is Predictive of Lower Subsequent Recognition Performance in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Background

The researchers studied the relationship between electrophysiological markers of memory encoding, subsequent recognition performance, and severity of PTSD symptoms in service members with combat exposure (n = 40, age: 41.2 ± 7.2 years) and various levels of PTSD symptom severity assessed using the PTSD Check List for DSM V version (PCL-5).

Methods

Brain activity was recorded using magnetoencephalography during a serial presentation of 86 images of outdoor scenes that were studied by participants for an upcoming recognition test.

In a second session, the original images were shown intermixed with an equal number of novel images while participants performed the recognition task.

Results

Participants recognised 76.0% ± 12.1% of the original images and correctly categorised as novel 89.9% ± 7.0% of the novel images.

A negative correlation was present between PCL-5 scores and discrimination performance (Spearman rs = -0.38, p = 0.016). PCL-5 scores were also negatively correlated with the recognition accuracy for original images (rs = -0.37, p = 0.02).

Increases in theta and gamma power and decreases in alpha and beta power were observed over distributed brain networks during memory encoding.

Higher PCL-5 scores were associated with less suppression of beta band power in bilateral ventral and medial temporal regions and in the left orbitofrontal cortex.

These regions also showed positive correlations between the magnitude of suppression of beta power during encoding and subsequent recognition accuracy.

Conclusions

These findings indicate that the lower recognition performance in participants with greater PTSD symptom severity may be due in part to ineffective encoding reflected in altered modulation of beta band oscillatory activity.

Reference

Popescu, M., Popescu, E-A., DeGraba, T.J. & Hughes, J.D. (2020) Altered Modulation of Beta Band Oscillations During Memory Encoding Is Predictive of Lower Subsequent Recognition Performance in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. NeuroImage. Clinical. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102154. Epub 2019 Dec 27.