OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis advances a framework to understand correspondence among units of analysis of the social processing construct within Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). METHOD: As requested for this special issue, eligible studies cited an RDoC-initiative paper or mentioned RDoC in the abstract, title, or keywords were empirical and peer reviewed, and described a correlation or regression analysis (r, β, or odds ratio) between two different units of analysis in the social processing domain in youth. We examined the frequency (descriptive statistics) and magnitude of correspondence between unit-pairs (random effects models), and predefined moderators (meta-regression). RESULTS: Eight of the twenty-eight possible unit-by-unit pairs were identified, with subjective-by-behavior units being the most common. Of those, only subjective-by-circuit had significant correspondence between units. Moderator analysis revealed that the age and diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder moderated correspondence between subjective-by-circuit units of analysis, and that a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder moderated correspondence between subjective-by-gene units of analysis. Younger ages and inclusion of either diagnostic group reduced correspondence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the RDoC initiative has generated limited research within the social processing domain across units of analysis in youth to date. Moreover, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded studies do not appear to be biased toward supporting the RDoC framework. However, the limited number of included studies precludes the generalizability of these findings and underscores the need for further research. Despite this, results suggest that the NIMH model for providing standard batteries of measurement tools may effectively reduce spurious correlations between subjective-by-behavior units of analysis.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis advances a framework to understand correspondence among units of analysis of the social processing construct within Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). METHOD: As requested for this special issue, eligible studies cited an RDoC-initiative paper or mentioned RDoC in the abstract, title, or keywords were empirical and peer reviewed, and described a correlation or regression analysis (r, β, or odds ratio) between two different units of analysis in the social processing domain in youth. We examined the frequency (descriptive statistics) and magnitude of correspondence between unit-pairs (random effects models), and predefined moderators (meta-regression). RESULTS: Eight of the twenty-eight possible unit-by-unit pairs were identified, with subjective-by-behavior units being the most common. Of those, only subjective-by-circuit had significant correspondence between units. Moderator analysis revealed that the age and diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder moderated correspondence between subjective-by-circuit units of analysis, and that a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder moderated correspondence between subjective-by-gene units of analysis. Younger ages and inclusion of either diagnostic group reduced correspondence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the RDoC initiative has generated limited research within the social processing domain across units of analysis in youth to date. Moreover, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded studies do not appear to be biased toward supporting the RDoC framework. However, the limited number of included studies precludes the generalizability of these findings and underscores the need for further research. Despite this, results suggest that the NIMH model for providing standard batteries of measurement tools may effectively reduce spurious correlations between subjective-by-behavior units of analysis.
Authors: Thomas Insel; Bruce Cuthbert; Marjorie Garvey; Robert Heinssen; Daniel S Pine; Kevin Quinn; Charles Sanislow; Philip Wang Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Natalia M Kleinhans; Todd Richards; Kurt Weaver; L Clark Johnson; Jessica Greenson; Geraldine Dawson; Elizabeth Aylward Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: Armin Raznahan; Yohan Lee; Reva Stidd; Robert Long; Dede Greenstein; Liv Clasen; Anjene Addington; Nitin Gogtay; Judith L Rapoport; Jay N Giedd Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-09-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: A Ting Wang; Mirella Dapretto; Ahmad R Hariri; Marian Sigman; Susan Y Bookheimer Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Danielle A Baribeau; Annie Dupuis; Tara A Paton; Stephen W Scherer; Russell J Schachar; Paul D Arnold; Peter Szatmari; Rob Nicolson; Stelios Georgiades; Jennifer Crosbie; Jessica Brian; Alana Iaboni; Jason Lerch; Evdokia Anagnostou Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Aleksandra Kaurin; Stefanie L Sequeira; Cecile D Ladouceur; Kirsten M P McKone; Dana Rosen; Neil Jones; Aidan G C Wright; Jennifer S Silk Journal: J Psychopathol Clin Sci Date: 2022-08
Authors: Karim Ibrahim; Carla Kalvin; Simon Morand-Beaulieu; George He; Kevin A Pelphrey; Gregory McCarthy; Denis G Sukhodolsky Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 4.861