- Email: [email protected]
4.10 Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Comorbid Specific Learning Disorder Demonstrate Cognitive Weakness Compared to Autism Spectrum Disorder Alone
NEW RESEARCH POSTERS 4.9 — 4.11
RF, TEMP, EC Supported by NIH Grant T32 MH100019-03 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.224
4.9 PEER VICTIMIZATION IN ADOLESCENCE, AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INTERNALIZING AND EXTERNALIZING PROBLEMS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Flavie Laroque, MSC, University of Montreal, flavie.laroque@ umontreal.ca; Mohammad Afzali, PhD, CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center, [email protected]; Patricia Conrod, PhD, University of Montreal, [email protected] Objectives: There is limited evidence on the role of personality traits in the development of psychopathology among children who are victimized, yet personality plays an important role in the type of victims and in the prediction of mental disorders. Methods: Five-year data from 3,612 seventh grade adolescents of a randomized controlled trial (personality-targeted intervention) were used to determine levels of victimization, depressive, anxiety, and ADHD symptoms, conduct problems, and personality. Multilevel linear modelling analyses assessed general vulnerability and concurrent effect of victimization as the time varying predictor of the four assessed psychopathological domains. Interaction between time and general vulnerability and concurrent effect of victimization were evaluated. To assess the moderating role of personality on the effect of victimization on the four domains, we added the interaction between personality and general vulnerability and concurrent effect. Results: There is a general vulnerability of victimization on conduct problems and ADHD symptoms (b ¼ 0.20, SE ¼ 0.012, P < 0.01; b ¼ 0.22, SE ¼ 0.020, P < 0.01), concurrent effect on conduct problems (b ¼ 0.070, SE ¼ 0.013, P < 0.01), and vulnerability and concurrent effect on anxiety and depressive symptoms (b ¼ 0.48, SE ¼ 0.056, P < 0.01; b ¼ 0.83, SE ¼ 0.078, P < 0.01; b ¼ 0.18, SE ¼ 0.083, P < 0.05; b ¼ 0.36, SE ¼ 0.115, P < 0.01) along with significant time interactions for these effects. Externalizing personality increases general vulnerability and concurrent effect on conduct problems (b ¼ 0.013, SE ¼ 0.006, P < 0.05; b ¼ 0.017, SE ¼ 0.007, P < 0.05), increases general vulnerability on ADHD symptoms (b ¼ 0.034, SE ¼ 0.012, P < 0.01), and decreases general vulnerability on depressive symptoms (b ¼ —0.066, SE ¼ 0.027, P < 0.05). Internalizing personality increases the general vulnerability and concurrent effect on depressive symptoms (b ¼ 0.056, SE ¼ 0.027, P < 0.05; b ¼ 0.058, SE ¼ 0.024, P < 0.05) and increases general vulnerability on anxiety symptoms (b ¼ 0.046, SE ¼ 0.019, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings view victimization as a dynamic experience at high risk for psychiatric disorders that could be partly explained by underlying personality. Our study supports calls within the literature to move away from traditional programs toward personality-targeted programs.
PSP, BLY, LONG Supported by the Canadian Institutes Health Research Grant FRN 114887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.225
4.10 CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AND COMORBID SPECIFIC LEARNING DISORDER DEMONSTRATE COGNITIVE WEAKNESS COMPARED TO AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER ALONE Patrick S. McGuinness, BA, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected]; Nathan E. Cook, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected]; Hillary Bush, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, hbush@ pchi.partners.org; Hannah Lind, BA, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected]; Pieter J. Vuijk, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected];
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT P SYCHIATRY VOLUME 56 NUMBER 10S OCTOBER 2017
Alysa E. Doyle, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School and The Broad Institute, doylea@ helix.mgh.harvard.edu; Ellen B. Braaten, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, ebraaten@ mgh.harvard.edu Objectives: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and specific learning disorder (SLD) are each associated with neurocognitive weakness. However, to our knowledge, no study has examined whether comorbid SLD confers any additive negative effect on cognition or executive functioning for youth with ASD. The present study aims to identify cognitive and executive functioning weaknesses in a clinically referred sample. In the present study, youth with ASD and comorbid SLD were hypothesized to have lower cognitive scores and elevated executive function ratings. Methods: Participants were 46 youth aged 6-15 years (M ¼ 9.7, SD ¼ 2.4, 75% male) with ASD, referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Youth with ASD and comorbid SLD (ASD+LD; n ¼ 23) were individually matched to youth with ASD only (n ¼ 23) based on age, sex, race, autism severity, ADHD severity, and comorbid psychiatric diagnosis. Working memory index (WMI), processing speed index (PSI) and general ability index (GAI) of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) were compared using ANCOVA (controlling for medication status) and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) parent report scale scores were compared using ANOVA. Group differences on all indices and subscales were further analyzed with post-hoc paired sample t-tests. Results: The ASD+LD group had a significant deficit in the overall WISC-IV profile, F(1, 131) ¼ 6.17, p ¼ 0.014. When looking at specific index scores in the WISC-IV, WMI was significantly lower in the ASD+LD group (M ¼ 89.7, SD ¼ 18.1) as compared to the ASD only group (M ¼ 97.5, SD ¼ 13.5), [t(21) ¼ -1.72, p ¼ 0.05], representing a medium effect size (Cohen’s d ¼ 0.49). Groups did not differ on PSI or GAI. Overall parent-rated executive functioning scores were not significantly different, F(1, 350) ¼ 1.44, p ¼ 0.23. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the planning/organizing subscale was significantly weaker in ASD+LD [t(21) ¼ 2.6, p ¼ 0.01], (d ¼ 0.60). Conclusions: Youth with ASD+LD may be at greater risk for working memory, processing speed and planning challenges compared to youth with ASD only. Understanding and identifying potential sources of, or contributors to, cognitive difficulties is critical for clinical care and supporting development.
ASD, LD, CM http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.226
4.11 THE DEVELOPMENTAL PROPENSITY MODEL EXTENDS TO OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER Amy J. Mikolajewski, PhD, Tulane University School of Medicine, [email protected]; Sara A. Hart, PhD, Florida State University, [email protected]; Jeanette Taylor, PhD, Florida State University, [email protected] Objectives: Previous research has provided support for the developmental propensity model in which three socio-emotional dispositions (prosociality, negative emotionality, and daring) lead to increased risk for the development of conduct disorder (CD). The current study extends this research by examining the developmental propensity model in relation to ODD, which is often conceptualized as a precursor to CD. Based on previous research, prosociality was divided into two factors (dispositional sympathy and respect for rules) rather than being examined as a unitary construct. Methods: Parents of 694 same-sex twins (ages 7–13 years) from the Florida State Twin Registry provided ratings of their children’s dispositions and oppositional defiant behaviors as part of a larger project. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships among the dispositions and ODD (while taking nonindependence of twins into account using clustering). Because several models of ODD have recently been proposed in the literature, a confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare a one-factor (ODD), two-factor (irritability, headstrong/hurtful), three-factor (negative affect, oppositional, antagonistic), and a second three-factor (irritable, headstrong, and hurtful) model of ODD. The final model, which is consistent with the conceptualization of
www.jaacap.org
S231
RF, TEMP, EC Supported by NIH Grant T32 MH100019-03 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.224
4.9 PEER VICTIMIZATION IN ADOLESCENCE, AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INTERNALIZING AND EXTERNALIZING PROBLEMS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Flavie Laroque, MSC, University of Montreal, flavie.laroque@ umontreal.ca; Mohammad Afzali, PhD, CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center, [email protected]; Patricia Conrod, PhD, University of Montreal, [email protected] Objectives: There is limited evidence on the role of personality traits in the development of psychopathology among children who are victimized, yet personality plays an important role in the type of victims and in the prediction of mental disorders. Methods: Five-year data from 3,612 seventh grade adolescents of a randomized controlled trial (personality-targeted intervention) were used to determine levels of victimization, depressive, anxiety, and ADHD symptoms, conduct problems, and personality. Multilevel linear modelling analyses assessed general vulnerability and concurrent effect of victimization as the time varying predictor of the four assessed psychopathological domains. Interaction between time and general vulnerability and concurrent effect of victimization were evaluated. To assess the moderating role of personality on the effect of victimization on the four domains, we added the interaction between personality and general vulnerability and concurrent effect. Results: There is a general vulnerability of victimization on conduct problems and ADHD symptoms (b ¼ 0.20, SE ¼ 0.012, P < 0.01; b ¼ 0.22, SE ¼ 0.020, P < 0.01), concurrent effect on conduct problems (b ¼ 0.070, SE ¼ 0.013, P < 0.01), and vulnerability and concurrent effect on anxiety and depressive symptoms (b ¼ 0.48, SE ¼ 0.056, P < 0.01; b ¼ 0.83, SE ¼ 0.078, P < 0.01; b ¼ 0.18, SE ¼ 0.083, P < 0.05; b ¼ 0.36, SE ¼ 0.115, P < 0.01) along with significant time interactions for these effects. Externalizing personality increases general vulnerability and concurrent effect on conduct problems (b ¼ 0.013, SE ¼ 0.006, P < 0.05; b ¼ 0.017, SE ¼ 0.007, P < 0.05), increases general vulnerability on ADHD symptoms (b ¼ 0.034, SE ¼ 0.012, P < 0.01), and decreases general vulnerability on depressive symptoms (b ¼ —0.066, SE ¼ 0.027, P < 0.05). Internalizing personality increases the general vulnerability and concurrent effect on depressive symptoms (b ¼ 0.056, SE ¼ 0.027, P < 0.05; b ¼ 0.058, SE ¼ 0.024, P < 0.05) and increases general vulnerability on anxiety symptoms (b ¼ 0.046, SE ¼ 0.019, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings view victimization as a dynamic experience at high risk for psychiatric disorders that could be partly explained by underlying personality. Our study supports calls within the literature to move away from traditional programs toward personality-targeted programs.
PSP, BLY, LONG Supported by the Canadian Institutes Health Research Grant FRN 114887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.225
4.10 CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AND COMORBID SPECIFIC LEARNING DISORDER DEMONSTRATE COGNITIVE WEAKNESS COMPARED TO AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER ALONE Patrick S. McGuinness, BA, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected]; Nathan E. Cook, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected]; Hillary Bush, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, hbush@ pchi.partners.org; Hannah Lind, BA, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected]; Pieter J. Vuijk, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, [email protected];
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT P SYCHIATRY VOLUME 56 NUMBER 10S OCTOBER 2017
Alysa E. Doyle, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School and The Broad Institute, doylea@ helix.mgh.harvard.edu; Ellen B. Braaten, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, ebraaten@ mgh.harvard.edu Objectives: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and specific learning disorder (SLD) are each associated with neurocognitive weakness. However, to our knowledge, no study has examined whether comorbid SLD confers any additive negative effect on cognition or executive functioning for youth with ASD. The present study aims to identify cognitive and executive functioning weaknesses in a clinically referred sample. In the present study, youth with ASD and comorbid SLD were hypothesized to have lower cognitive scores and elevated executive function ratings. Methods: Participants were 46 youth aged 6-15 years (M ¼ 9.7, SD ¼ 2.4, 75% male) with ASD, referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Youth with ASD and comorbid SLD (ASD+LD; n ¼ 23) were individually matched to youth with ASD only (n ¼ 23) based on age, sex, race, autism severity, ADHD severity, and comorbid psychiatric diagnosis. Working memory index (WMI), processing speed index (PSI) and general ability index (GAI) of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) were compared using ANCOVA (controlling for medication status) and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) parent report scale scores were compared using ANOVA. Group differences on all indices and subscales were further analyzed with post-hoc paired sample t-tests. Results: The ASD+LD group had a significant deficit in the overall WISC-IV profile, F(1, 131) ¼ 6.17, p ¼ 0.014. When looking at specific index scores in the WISC-IV, WMI was significantly lower in the ASD+LD group (M ¼ 89.7, SD ¼ 18.1) as compared to the ASD only group (M ¼ 97.5, SD ¼ 13.5), [t(21) ¼ -1.72, p ¼ 0.05], representing a medium effect size (Cohen’s d ¼ 0.49). Groups did not differ on PSI or GAI. Overall parent-rated executive functioning scores were not significantly different, F(1, 350) ¼ 1.44, p ¼ 0.23. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the planning/organizing subscale was significantly weaker in ASD+LD [t(21) ¼ 2.6, p ¼ 0.01], (d ¼ 0.60). Conclusions: Youth with ASD+LD may be at greater risk for working memory, processing speed and planning challenges compared to youth with ASD only. Understanding and identifying potential sources of, or contributors to, cognitive difficulties is critical for clinical care and supporting development.
ASD, LD, CM http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.226
4.11 THE DEVELOPMENTAL PROPENSITY MODEL EXTENDS TO OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER Amy J. Mikolajewski, PhD, Tulane University School of Medicine, [email protected]; Sara A. Hart, PhD, Florida State University, [email protected]; Jeanette Taylor, PhD, Florida State University, [email protected] Objectives: Previous research has provided support for the developmental propensity model in which three socio-emotional dispositions (prosociality, negative emotionality, and daring) lead to increased risk for the development of conduct disorder (CD). The current study extends this research by examining the developmental propensity model in relation to ODD, which is often conceptualized as a precursor to CD. Based on previous research, prosociality was divided into two factors (dispositional sympathy and respect for rules) rather than being examined as a unitary construct. Methods: Parents of 694 same-sex twins (ages 7–13 years) from the Florida State Twin Registry provided ratings of their children’s dispositions and oppositional defiant behaviors as part of a larger project. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships among the dispositions and ODD (while taking nonindependence of twins into account using clustering). Because several models of ODD have recently been proposed in the literature, a confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare a one-factor (ODD), two-factor (irritability, headstrong/hurtful), three-factor (negative affect, oppositional, antagonistic), and a second three-factor (irritable, headstrong, and hurtful) model of ODD. The final model, which is consistent with the conceptualization of
www.jaacap.org
S231