Threat Interpretation Bias in Children With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Examining Maternal Influences.

J Cogn Psychother

School of Applied Psychology and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.

Published: January 2015

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in children is a chronic and debilitating disorder. Cognitive theories propose that threat biases may play a role in the development and maintenance of various anxiety disorders, including OCD. Although there is a small body of research examining cognitive theories of OCD in samples of children and youth (e.g., Reynolds & Reeves, 2008), to date, there are no studies that have examined overestimation of threat in children in relation to ambiguous scenarios that may imbue mildly aversive, neutral, and positive interpretations. Children with primary OCD and their mothers ( = 22 dyads) and nonclinical children and their mothers ( = 26 dyads) participated in this study. Children with OCD were less accurate in identifying expected feelings across scenarios and perceived all types of situations as being more difficult compared with nonclinical children; however, after controlling for self-reported anxiety symptoms, there were no group differences. Child groups did not differ on other indices of interpretation bias. Mothers of children with OCD, compared with mothers of nonclinical children, also interpreted all types of situations as more threatening and difficult and were less accurate in identifying appropriate emotions in ambiguous situations that may imbue mildly positive connotations. Results are discussed in terms of the broader literature on interpretation bias in anxious children and youth and implications for future research and practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.29.3.230DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

interpretation bias
12
nonclinical children
12
children
11
obsessive-compulsive disorder
8
cognitive theories
8
children youth
8
imbue mildly
8
mothers dyads
8
children ocd
8
accurate identifying
8

Similar Publications

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating new systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) have increased dramatically over the last decade. These trials often incorporate topical therapies either as permitted concomitant or rescue treatments. Differential use of these topicals post-randomisation introduces potential bias as they may nullify or exaggerate treatment responses.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Due to the challenges of conducting randomised controlled trials (randomised trials) of dietary interventions, evidence in nutrition often comes from non-randomised (observational) studies of nutritional exposures-called nutritional epidemiology studies. When using systematic reviews of such studies to advise patients or populations on optimal dietary habits, users of the evidence (eg, healthcare professionals such as clinicians, health service and policy workers) should first evaluate the rigour (validity) and utility (applicability) of the systematic review. Issues in making this judgement include whether the review addressed a sensible question; included an exhaustive literature search; was scrupulous in the selection of studies and the collection of data; and presented results in a useful manner.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This article continues from a prior commentary on evaluating the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials addressing nutritional interventions. Having provided a synopsis of the risk of bias issues, we now address how to understand trial results, including the interpretation of best estimates of effect and the corresponding precision (eg, 95% CIs), as well as the applicability of the evidence to patients based on their unique circumstances (eg, patients' values and preferences when trading off potential desirable and undesirable health outcomes and indicators (eg, cholesterol), and the potential burden and cost of an intervention). Authors can express the estimates of effect for health outcomes and indicators in relative terms (relative risks, relative risk reductions, OR or HRs)-measures that are generally consistent across populations-and absolute terms (risk differences)-measures that are more intuitive to clinicians and patients.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The purpose of this article, part 1 of 2 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is to provide readers (eg, clinicians, patients, health service and policy decision-makers) of the nutrition literature structured guidance on interpreting RCTs. Evaluation of a given RCT involves several considerations, including the potential for risk of bias, the assessment of estimates of effect and their corresponding precision, and the applicability of the evidence to one's patient. Risk of bias refers to flaws in the design or conduct of a study that may lead to a deviation from measuring the underlying true effect of an intervention.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Construct validity and responsiveness of upper limb outcome measures are essential to interpret motor recovery poststroke. Evaluating the associations between clinical upper limb measures and sensor-based arm use (AU) fosters a coherent understanding of motor recovery. Defining sensor-based AU metrics for intentional upper limb movements could be crucial in mitigating bias from walking-related activities.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!