BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Dimensions of Deprivation and Threat, Psychopathology, and Potential Mediators: A Multi-Year Longitudinal Analysis

Thu, March 21, 2:15 to 3:45pm, Hilton Baltimore, Floor: Level 1, Johnson A

Integrative Statement

The prevailing approach for examining developmental consequences of adverse childhood experiences is a cumulative risk model (Evans, Li, & Whipple, 2013), with higher numbers of adverse events associated with increasing risk for psychopathology. This model fails to account for specificity in pathways to psychopathology across different types of adversity. The Dimensional Model of Adversity and Psychopathology (DMAP; Sheridan & McLaughlin, 2014), distinguishes deprivation and threat as distinct forms of childhood adversity with different pathways to psychopathology. Deprivation involves an absence of inputs from the environment, such as cognitive and social stimulation, that influence psychopathology by altering cognitive development, such as verbal abilities. Threat includes experiences involving harm or threat of harm that increase risk for psychopathology through disruptions in social-emotional processing. This presentation will present an initial test of the DMAP as well as recent extensions and future directions for studying the DMAP.
For the initial test, data were drawn from the Child Development Project (N=585), which followed children for over a decade. We analyze data from assessment points at age 5, 6, 14, and 17 years. Mothers completed interviews (HOME Interview) at age 5 and 6 on exposure to threat and deprivation experiences. Youth verbal abilities were assessed at age 14 with the WISC. At age 17, mothers reported on child psychopathology (CBCL).
A path analysis model (Mplus) tested longitudinal paths to internalizing and externalizing problems from experiences of deprivation and threat. Models adjusted for previous internalizing and externalizing problems, socioeconomic status, and race. Overall model (Figure 1) fit was excellent, χ2(4) = 6.89, p = .14; CFI = .99; RMSEA = 0.04; SRMR = 0.02. Greater experiences of deprivation were associated with lower verbal abilities at age 14, ß = -0.26, p < .001. Scores on the threat index were not associated with verbal abilities at age 14, ß = -0.05, p = .31. Lower verbal abilities were associated with greater externalizing problems, ß = -0.16, p < .01, but not internalizing problems, ß = -0.01, p = .91. Consistent with the main study hypothesis, the indirect effect of greater deprivation to higher externalizing problems via lower verbal abilities at age 14 was significant, ß = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30]. In contrast, greater experiences of threat before age 6 were directly associated with significantly higher externalizing, ß = 0.19, p < .01, and internalizing, ß = 0.18, p < .01, problems at age 17, and the indirect effect from greater threat to higher externalizing problems via lower verbal abilities was non-significant, ß =0.07, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28].
Results from this initial test suggest that unique developmental mechanisms link different forms of adversity with psychopathology. In addition, we are actively examining the DMAP model in an independent sample of youth exploring behavioral mediators in the relations between deprivation and threat and psychopathology. We will discuss emerging findings and future directions from this replication. Our work so far suggests that in addition to efforts to prevent childhood adversity, interventions targeting cognitive development may have positive downstream effects preventing psychopathology.

Authors