ArticleJAACAP open2026
Studying Development of Psychopathology Using Changing Measures to Account for Heterotypic Continuity.
Article in JAACAP open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Psychopathology shows changes in behavioral manifestation across development, that is, heterotypic continuity. However, research has paid little attention to how to account for heterotypic continuity when examining the development of psychopathology. This longitudinal study accounted for heterotypic continuity of multiple psychopathology dimensions by using developmental scaling to place multi-informant ratings of children's behavior problems onto the same scale to chart children's trajectories. Method: The study examined children's (N = 231) development of 3 psychopathology dimensions-externalizing, internalizing, and thought-disordered-using different measures across 7 timepoints from 3 to 7.5 years of age. Psychopathology dimensions were assessed by mother-, father-, and teacher/caregiver-report. We compared 3 assessment approaches: the common items, upward/downward extension, and construct-valid items approaches. We compared 2 scoring approaches: mean scoring and developmental scaling. Developmental scaling aims to place scores from age-differing measures onto the same scale. We compared their accuracy, for externalizing problems, in terms of criterion validity with respect to observations of compliance and attention to task. Results: Using different measures across ages (ie, construct-valid items approach) was the most accurate assessment approach-modestly more accurate than using the common items or upward/downward extension-in terms of criterion validity with respect to observations of compliance and attention to task ( Conclusion: Using (1) age-differing measures to account for heterotypic continuity and (2) developmental scaling to link scores from the different measures onto the same scale may enable studying development of psychopathology across the lifespan. Diversity & Inclusion Statement: We worked to ensure sex and gender balance in the recruitment of human participants. We worked to ensure race, ethnic, and/or other types of diversity in the recruitment of human participants. We worked to ensure that the study questionnaires were prepared in an inclusive way. Study registration information: School readiness study: https://osf.io/jzxb8.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.