1,721,027 research outputs found

    Using network analysis to identify central symptoms of adolescent depression

    No full text
    Objective: Experiencing depression symptoms, even at mild to moderate levels, is associated with maladaptive outcomes for adolescents. We used network analysis to evaluate which symptoms (and associations between symptoms) are most central to adolescent depression. Method: Participants were part of a large, diverse community sample (N = 1,409) of adolescents between the ages of 13-19 years old. Network analysis was used to identify the most central symptoms (nodes) and associations between symptoms (edges) assessed by the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI). We also evaluated these centrality indicators for network robustness using stability and accuracy tests, associated symptom centrality with mean levels of symptoms, and examined potential differences between the structure and connectivity of depression networks in boys and girls. Results: The most central symptoms in the network were self-hatred, loneliness, sadness, and pessimism. The strongest associations between symptoms were sadness-crying, anhedonia-school dislike, sadness-loneliness, school work difficulty-school performance decrement, self-hatred-negative body image, sleep disturbance-fatigue, and self-deprecation-self-blame. The network was robust to stability and accuracy tests. Notably, symptom centrality and mean levels of symptoms were not associated. Boys and girls’ networks did not differ in levels of connectivity, though the link between body image and self-hatred was stronger in girls than boys. Conclusions: Self-hatred, loneliness, sadness, and pessimism were the most central symptoms in adolescent depression networks, suggesting these symptoms (and associations between symptoms) should be prioritized in theoretical models of adolescent depression and could also serve as important treatment targets for adolescent depression interventions

    Specificity and overlap of attention and memory biases in depression

    Get PDF
    Attentional and memory biases are viewed as crucial cognitive processes underlying symptoms of depression. However, it is still unclear whether these two biases are uniquely related to depression or whether they show substantial overlap. We investigated the degree of specificity and overlap of attentional and memory biases for depressotypic stimuli in relation to depression and anxiety by means of meta-analytic commonality analysis. By including four published studies, we considered a pool of 463 healthy and subclinically depressed individuals, different experimental paradigms, and different psychological measures. Memory bias is reliably and strongly related to depression and, specifically, to symptoms of negative mood, worthlessness, feelings of failure, and pessimism. Memory bias for negative information was minimally related to anxiety. Moreover, neither attentional bias nor the overlap between attentional and memory biases were significantly related to depression. Limitations include cross-sectional nature of the study. Our study showed that, across different paradigms and psychological measures, memory bias (and not attentional bias) represents a primary mechanism in depression

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore