BACKGROUND: Although childhood adversity is a potent determinant of psychopathology, relatively little is known about how the characteristics of adversity exposure, including its developmental timing or duration, influence subsequent mental health outcomes. This study compared three models from life course theory (recency, accumulation, sensitive period) to determine which one(s) best explained this relationship. METHODS: Prospective data came from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n = 7476). Four adversities commonly linked to psychopathology (caregiver physical/emotional abuse; sexual/physical abuse; financial stress; parent legal problems) were measured repeatedly from birth to age 8. Using a statistical modeling approach grounded in least angle regression, we determined the theoretical model(s) explaining the most variability (r2) in psychopathology symptoms measured at age 8 using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and evaluated the magnitude of each association. RESULTS: Recency was the best fitting theoretical model for the effect of physical/sexual abuse (girls r2 = 2.35%; boys r2 = 1.68%). Both recency (girls r2 = 1.55%) and accumulation (boys r2 = 1.71%) were the best fitting models for caregiver physical/emotional abuse. Sensitive period models were chosen alone (parent legal problems in boys r2 = 0.29%) and with accumulation (financial stress in girls r2 = 3.08%) more rarely. Substantial effect sizes were observed (standardized mean differences = 0.22-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Child psychopathology symptoms are primarily explained by recency and accumulation models. Evidence for sensitive periods did not emerge strongly in these data. These findings underscore the need to measure the characteristics of adversity, which can aid in understanding disease mechanisms and determining how best to reduce the consequences of exposure to adversity.
BACKGROUND: Although childhood adversity is a potent determinant of psychopathology, relatively little is known about how the characteristics of adversity exposure, including its developmental timing or duration, influence subsequent mental health outcomes. This study compared three models from life course theory (recency, accumulation, sensitive period) to determine which one(s) best explained this relationship. METHODS: Prospective data came from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n = 7476). Four adversities commonly linked to psychopathology (caregiver physical/emotional abuse; sexual/physical abuse; financial stress; parent legal problems) were measured repeatedly from birth to age 8. Using a statistical modeling approach grounded in least angle regression, we determined the theoretical model(s) explaining the most variability (r2) in psychopathology symptoms measured at age 8 using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and evaluated the magnitude of each association. RESULTS: Recency was the best fitting theoretical model for the effect of physical/sexual abuse (girls r2 = 2.35%; boys r2 = 1.68%). Both recency (girls r2 = 1.55%) and accumulation (boys r2 = 1.71%) were the best fitting models for caregiver physical/emotional abuse. Sensitive period models were chosen alone (parent legal problems in boys r2 = 0.29%) and with accumulation (financial stress in girls r2 = 3.08%) more rarely. Substantial effect sizes were observed (standardized mean differences = 0.22-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Child psychopathology symptoms are primarily explained by recency and accumulation models. Evidence for sensitive periods did not emerge strongly in these data. These findings underscore the need to measure the characteristics of adversity, which can aid in understanding disease mechanisms and determining how best to reduce the consequences of exposure to adversity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Childhood adversity; accumulation; life course; psychopathology; recency; sensitive period
Authors: Jake M Najman; Mohammad R Hayatbakhsh; Alexandra Clavarino; William Bor; Michael J O'Callaghan; Gail M Williams Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sahana Murthy; Gary A Kane; Nicole J Katchur; Paula S Lara Mejia; Gracious Obiofuma; Timothy J Buschman; Bruce S McEwen; Elizabeth Gould Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Erin C Dunn; Kristen Nishimi; Alexander Neumann; Alice Renaud; Charlotte A M Cecil; Ezra S Susser; Henning Tiemeier Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Joshua L Roffman; Eren D Sipahi; Kevin F Dowling; Dylan E Hughes; Casey E Hopkinson; Hang Lee; Hamdi Eryilmaz; Lee S Cohen; Jodi Gilman; Alysa E Doyle; Erin C Dunn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shakira F Suglia; Rebecca A Campo; Alison G M Brown; Catherine Stoney; Cheryl A Boyce; Allison A Appleton; Maria E Bleil; Renée Boynton-Jarrett; Shanta R Dube; Erin C Dunn; Bruce J Ellis; Christopher P Fagundes; Nia J Heard-Garris; Sara R Jaffee; Sara B Johnson; Mahasin S Mujahid; Natalie Slopen; Shaoyong Su; Sarah E Watamura Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Sandro Marini; Kathryn A Davis; Thomas W Soare; Yiwen Zhu; Matthew J Suderman; Andrew J Simpkin; Andrew D A C Smith; Erika J Wolf; Caroline L Relton; Erin C Dunn Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Kathryn A Davis; Rebecca V Mountain; Olivia R Pickett; Pamela K Den Besten; Felicitas B Bidlack; Erin C Dunn Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 13.382