Luiza Kvitko Axelrud1,2, Diogo Araújo DeSousa3,4, Gisele Gus Manfro3,4, Pedro Mario Pan4,5, Ana Cláudia Knackfuss3, Jair de Jesus Mari4,5, Eurípedes Constantino Miguel4,6, Luis Augusto Rohde3,4,6, Giovanni Abrahão Salum3,4. 1. Departamento de Psiquiatria e Medicina Legal, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Ramiro Barcelos, 2350, Room 2202, Porto Alegre, Brazil. luizakaxelrud@gmail.com. 2. National Institute of Developmental Psychiatry (INPD, CNPq), São Paulo, Brazil. luizakaxelrud@gmail.com. 3. Departamento de Psiquiatria e Medicina Legal, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Ramiro Barcelos, 2350, Room 2202, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 4. National Institute of Developmental Psychiatry (INPD, CNPq), São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Departamento de Psiquiatria, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Departamento de Psiquiatria, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dimensional approaches are likely to advance understanding of human behaviors and emotions. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether instruments in psychiatry capture variability at the full spectrum of these dimensions. We aimed to investigate this issue for two scales assessing distinct aspects of social functioning: the Social Aptitudes Scale (SAS), a "bidirectional" scale constructed to investigate both "ends" of social functioning; and the social Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-social), a "unidirectional" scale constructed to assess social problems. METHODS: We investigated 2512 children and adolescents aged 6-14. Item response theory was used to investigate on which range of the trait each scale captures information. We performed quantile regressions to investigate if correlations between SAS and CBCL-social vary within different levels of social aptitudes dimension and multiple logistic regressions to investigate associations with negative and positive clinical outcomes. RESULTS: SAS was able to provide information on the full range of social aptitudes, whereas CBCL-social provided information on subjects with high levels of social problems. Quantile regressions showed SAS and CBCL-social have higher correlations for subjects with low social aptitudes and non-significant correlations for subjects with high social aptitudes. Multiple logistic regressions showed that SAS was able to provide independent clinical predictions even after adjusting for CBCL-social scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide further validity to SAS and exemplify the potential of "bidirectional" scales to dimensional assessment, allowing a better understanding of variations that occur in the population and providing information for children with typical and atypical development.
PURPOSE: Dimensional approaches are likely to advance understanding of human behaviors and emotions. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether instruments in psychiatry capture variability at the full spectrum of these dimensions. We aimed to investigate this issue for two scales assessing distinct aspects of social functioning: the Social Aptitudes Scale (SAS), a "bidirectional" scale constructed to investigate both "ends" of social functioning; and the social Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-social), a "unidirectional" scale constructed to assess social problems. METHODS: We investigated 2512 children and adolescents aged 6-14. Item response theory was used to investigate on which range of the trait each scale captures information. We performed quantile regressions to investigate if correlations between SAS and CBCL-social vary within different levels of social aptitudes dimension and multiple logistic regressions to investigate associations with negative and positive clinical outcomes. RESULTS: SAS was able to provide information on the full range of social aptitudes, whereas CBCL-social provided information on subjects with high levels of social problems. Quantile regressions showed SAS and CBCL-social have higher correlations for subjects with low social aptitudes and non-significant correlations for subjects with high social aptitudes. Multiple logistic regressions showed that SAS was able to provide independent clinical predictions even after adjusting for CBCL-social scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide further validity to SAS and exemplify the potential of "bidirectional" scales to dimensional assessment, allowing a better understanding of variations that occur in the population and providing information for children with typical and atypical development.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bidirectional scales; Dimensionality; Social functioning; The Social Aptitudes Scale
Authors: Laura S Park; Christie L Burton; Annie Dupuis; Janet Shan; Eric A Storch; Jennifer Crosbie; Russell J Schachar; Paul D Arnold Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: James M Swanson; Sabrina Schuck; Miranda Mann Porter; Caryn Carlson; Catharina A Hartman; Joseph A Sergeant; Walter Clevenger; Michael Wasdell; Richard McCleary; Kimberley Lakes; Timothy Wigal Journal: Int J Educ Psychol Assess Date: 2012-04
Authors: Abraham Reichenberg; Martin Cederlöf; Andrew McMillan; Maciej Trzaskowski; Ori Kapra; Eyal Fruchter; Karen Ginat; Michael Davidson; Mark Weiser; Henrik Larsson; Robert Plomin; Paul Lichtenstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Link Tejavibulya; Max Rolison; Siyuan Gao; Qinghao Liang; Hannah Peterson; Javid Dadashkarimi; Michael C Farruggia; C Alice Hahn; Stephanie Noble; Sarah D Lichenstein; Angeliki Pollatou; Alexander J Dufford; Dustin Scheinost Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 13.437
Authors: Russell H Tobe; Anna MacKay-Brandt; Ryan Lim; Melissa Kramer; Melissa M Breland; Lucia Tu; Yiwen Tian; Kristin Dietz Trautman; Caixia Hu; Raj Sangoi; Lindsay Alexander; Vilma Gabbay; F Xavier Castellanos; Bennett L Leventhal; R Cameron Craddock; Stanley J Colcombe; Alexandre R Franco; Michael P Milham Journal: Sci Data Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 8.501
Authors: Lindsay M Alexander; Giovanni A Salum; James M Swanson; Michael P Milham Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2019-08-18 Impact factor: 8.982