Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31799882›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53

Meta-Analysis of the RDoC Social Processing Domain across Units of Analysis in Children and Adolescents.

Tessa Clarkson, Erin Kang, Nicole Capriola-Hall, Matthew D Lerner, Johanna Jarcho, Mitchell J Prinstein

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Threat Appraisal and Pediatric Anxiety: Proof of Concept of a Latent Variable Approach.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Looking Back at the Next 40 Years of ASD Neuroscience Research.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Developmental Psychopathology and the Research Domain Criteria: Friend or Foe?Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53
    Article
  9. RDoC and Psychopathology among Youth: Misplaced Assumptions and an Agenda for Future Research.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tessa ClarksonDepartment of Psychology, Temple University.
Erin KangDepartment of Psychology, Stony Brook University.
Nicole Capriola-HallDepartment of Psychology, University of Alabama.
Matthew D LernerDepartment of Psychology, Stony Brook University.ORCID 0000-0002-7373-6663
Johanna JarchoDepartment of Psychology, Temple University.
Mitchell J PrinsteinDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Stony Brook University · USTemple University · USUniversity of Alabama · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Optimizing Prediction of Social Deficits in Autism Spectrum DisordersR01MH110585 · NIMH · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI LERNER, MATTHEW DANIEL · 2016 to 2020
$2.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH110585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis meta-analysis advances a framework to understand correspondence among units of analysis of the social processing construct within Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).

methodAs 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 (

resultsEight 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.

conclusionsThese 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.

Indexed as

AdolescentAge FactorsAnxiety DisordersAutism Spectrum DisorderChildHumansMental DisordersNational Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)United States

Identifiers

PMID31799882
PMCPMC7269876
OpenAlexW2992646449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.