View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reward Functioning in General and Specific Psychopathology in Children and Adults

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reward Functioning in General and Specific Psychopathology in Children and Adults
Language: English
Authors: Ankita Saxena, Catharina A. Hartman, Steven D. Blatt, Wanda P. Fremont, Stephen J. Glatt, Stephen V. Faraone, Yanli Zhang-James (ORCID 0000-0002-2104-0963)
Source: Journal of Attention Disorders. 2024 28(1):77-88.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (DHHS/NIH)
Contract Number: R01MH10151901A1
R01MH10151901A1S1
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Children, Adults, Rewards, Mental Disorders, Psychopathology
Geographic Terms: New York
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Child Behavior Checklist
DOI: 10.1177/10870547231201867
ISSN: 1087-0547
1557-1246
Abstract: Objective: Problems with reward processing have been implicated in multiple psychiatric disorders, but psychiatric comorbidities are common and their specificity to individual psychopathologies is unknown. Here, we evaluate the association between reward functioning and general or specific psychopathologies. Method: 1,213 adults and their1,531 children (ages 6-12) completed various measures of the Positive Valence System domain from the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Psychopathology was assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist for children and the Adult Self Report for parents. Results: One general factor identified via principal factors factor analysis explained most variance in psychopathology in both groups. Measures of reward were associated with the general factor and most specific psychopathologies. Certain reward constructs were associated solely with specific psychopathologies but not general psychopathology. However, some prior associations between reward and psychopathology did not hold following removal of comorbidity. Conclusion: Reward dysfunction is significantly associated with both general and specific psychopathologies.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475489
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEgXkZ0Y8GfJg5yaCKwNi4zAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAcsKjkPbXPxD5XErgIBEICBmvYs5dLzvmLWKCQKzTCxyA-e52b4xmnZGQsIjD0-betpq3vqMkLj5vAuojP1YeLkGmpC_cuZ4z2w2fvtylcMswmq5OJgrMQCDkEr0YdOOTPIZWUvyEl3Vu9_TW3BSPXVPjP9ZdIsPRvgPUOKKDKOI6vZiRRl0ryr_rOrIfMhRnbcUqsLCWlgM4lkQKLqJFrWl-s4ti8DlpZaes8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0173824757;gs001jan.24;2023Nov28.05:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0173824757-1">Reward Functioning in General and Specific Psychopathology in Children and Adults </title> <p>Objective: Problems with reward processing have been implicated in multiple psychiatric disorders, but psychiatric comorbidities are common and their specificity to individual psychopathologies is unknown. Here, we evaluate the association between reward functioning and general or specific psychopathologies. Method: 1,213 adults and their1,531 children (ages 6–12) completed various measures of the Positive Valence System domain from the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Psychopathology was assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist for children and the Adult Self Report for parents. Results: One general factor identified via principal factors factor analysis explained most variance in psychopathology in both groups. Measures of reward were associated with the general factor and most specific psychopathologies. Certain reward constructs were associated solely with specific psychopathologies but not general psychopathology. However, some prior associations between reward and psychopathology did not hold following removal of comorbidity. Conclusion: Reward dysfunction is significantly associated with both general and specific psychopathologies.</p> <p>Keywords: RDoC; reward; comorbid psychopathology; CBCL</p> <hd id="AN0173824757-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Although psychiatric disorders are delineated as discrete categories in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), comorbidity among disorders is common, with as many as 45% of patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for multiple disorders in 1 year ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]). In response to this challenge, among others, the US National Institute of Mental Health launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]). It provides an alternative framework for research of psychiatric diseases through the use of broad functional dimensions of human behavior. The RDoC paradigm postulates that aberrations in research-validated, normal neurobehavioral functions or constructs are responsible for disorder development. In turn, these "cross-disorder" constructs can be evaluated by both neurobiological and behavioral measures, and are grouped into higher domains that encapsulate similar processes ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]). One such domain is the Positive Valence Systems, which describes processes that direct "responses to positive motivational situations,"; constructs that fall under this umbrella include Reward Valuation, Reward Responsiveness, and Reward Learning ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other analytic approaches have also emerged to further investigate the issue of psychiatric comorbidity. One such method is factor analysis; here, comorbid disorders are grouped into higher-order factors such as "internalizing" or "externalizing" disorders. However, despite this classification, significant covariation continues to exist between these dimensions, with both clinical and genetic studies implicating a single factor, the <emph>P-factor</emph>, that reflects the presence of a variety of symptoms that cut across different psychopathologies ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref7">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref8">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref9">53</reflink>]). Regarded as analogous to the <emph>g</emph> of general intelligence by some, the presence of the <emph>P-factor</emph> has motivated studies of nonspecific and specific risk factors of psychopathology ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref11">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Altered reward functioning has been previously linked with different individual psychiatric disorders. A steeper gradient in delayed discounting has been identified in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), addictive disorders, major depressive disorder (MDD), and other conditions ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]). Substance abuse disorders (SUDs) and MDD have been associated with anhedonia and increased risky decision-making, as measured by the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref17">47</reflink>]). Additionally, increased impulsive decision-making is found in children with ADHD, though results have been mixed for adults with ADHD ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]). In addition to a heightened incidence of anhedonia, risky behavior, and reduced effort-based decision making, fMRI studies have shown aberrant reward processing in MDD patients ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref20">39</reflink>]). Finally, altered neural reactivity to reward has been observed in individuals exhibiting antisocial behavior ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref21">33</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref22">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The relationship between reward and general psychopathology is not well studied. Understanding the degree to which different reward constructs are independently associated with <emph>P-factor</emph> and specific psychopathologies will enhance our understanding of the link between reward and psychiatric illness. We hypothesized that both the <emph>P-factor</emph> and specific disorder problem severity would be independently associated with reward functioning but did not have a directional hypothesis about their relative contributions to this association. In our analysis, we extracted <emph>P</emph> via factor analysis and derived psychopathology specific scores; we then tested the association between reward measures and these measures of general and specific psychopathology.</p> <hd id="AN0173824757-3">Methods</hd> <p> <emph>Study Cohort</emph>: Child probands in the age range of 6 to 12 years were ascertained; family members of the child participants served as the adult cohort, with no intentional weighting of the non-pediatric sample. Participants were recruited from a variety of sources, including on-site recruiting at summer festivals at community programs and sporting centers, a Facebook page, Craig's List, a posting on the SUNY Upstate Medical University's clinical trials website, the distribution of pamphlets to general pediatric offices, and word of mouth. Recruitment also occurred via StudyKIK, a website where patients can identify and sign up for clinical trials; patients would find the site via social community pages and Google. To capture subjects with higher psychopathology, brochures and flyers were shared in Psychological Services Offices and Community Mental Health Organizations, including the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic at SUNY Upstate Medical University. Presentations were also made to an outpatient mental health clinic, organizations providing behavioral and mental health support to adolescents and young adults, as well as school based substance abuse prevention programs.</p> <p>After rapport was established with the proband and their family, the study was described to them, and they were presented with the voluntary opportunity to participate in the study. Adults were only included after they provided signed informed consent for experimentation with human subjects following explanation of the study, while minor subjects were required to assent to the study with at least one parent providing informed consent prior to participation.</p> <p> <emph>Participants</emph>: Inclusion forms were completed at each visit by adults to ensure subject eligibility; adults and children who had sensorimotor disabilities, diagnosed neurological disease, a history of head trauma with a documented loss of consciousness exceeding 10 min, an uncontrolled medical condition, or lack of comprehension of the English language, were excluded from the study to avoid possible confounding effects. In addition, adopted children as well as adults who could not independently complete the tasks of the study, and pregnant women or those who gave birth up to 6 months prior to the study visit, were not retained as participants. Potential participants who had an estimated intelligence quotient (IQ) below 80, as computed <emph>via</emph> the vocabulary and abstraction subtests of the Shipley-2, a well validated assessment of crystallized and fluid cognitive ability, appropriate for individuals with ages 7 to 89, were excluded from the study ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>]). Parents older than 59 were excluded to minimize effects of possible cognitive decline. In addition to inclusion forms, parents also completed mental health questionnaires for themselves and their children to determine mental health status. The investigation was carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki and the study design reviewed and approved by the SUNY Upstate institutional review board.</p> <p>Population: 1513 children, with an average age of 9 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.1) and1,232 parents between the ages of 23 and 59 years (mean = 37 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.8) made up the study population. The study population was enriched for psychopathology relative to the general population, with 41% of the child probands and 54% of the adult participants reporting a psychiatric history, as defined by having experiences of previously seeking mental healthcare for emotional or behavioral issues. The sample had nearly equal numbers of male and female juvenile participants (51% to 49%, respectively), albeit females were overrepresented in the parental population, (70% female, 30% male). Fifty-eight percent of children and 68% of parents identified as White, 23% of children and 22% of parents as Black, and 19% of children and 10% of adults as "other" or multiple races. In addition, approximately 12% of children and 7% of parents identified as Hispanic. Altogether, the dataset consisted of 950 different families with an average size of 2.94 individuals. Variations of this dataset have been used in prior studies ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref26">36</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Measures</emph>: The study visit lasted for approximately 3 hr, with participants completing several tasks and behavioral assessments. We opted to use broadband measures of psychopathology due to their ability to cover a wide range of psychopathologies efficiently; this approach has been recommended when transdiagnostic frameworks are being studied ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref27">50</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Adult Self Report (ASR)</emph>: Psychopathology in adult participants was assessed <emph>via</emph> the ASR, a self-reported, 126-item questionnaire, employed for ages 18 to 59 ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>]). It is a broadly utilized instrument that evaluates psychopathology, substance use, and adaptive functioning ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]). T-scores for symptoms of six DSM disorders (depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, somatic problems, ADHD, avoidant personality, and antisocial personality) were computed <emph>via</emph> the ASR ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]). It also provides subscales for symptoms of substance abuse (tobacco, alcohol, recreational drugs), as well as a composite total for substance abuse ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]). In addition, T-score scales are available to describe symptoms of obsessive-compulsive problems (OCP), sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT), as well as stress problems and total problems and measures of internalizing and externalizing behavior ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]). In this study, T-scores from individual substance abuse subscales, all DSM scales, and OCP and SCT were approximated as measures of problems linked to specific psychopathologies ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)</emph>: Psychopathology in children participating in the study was assessed <emph>via</emph> the CBCL, a 113-item, parent-reported questionnaire ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>]) It assesses behavioral and emotional problems in children from ages 6 to 18 ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref36">23</reflink>]). Six DSM scales are also available for the CBCL (affective problems, anxiety problems, somatic problems, ADHD, oppositional defiant problems and conduct problems), as are scales for SCT and obsessive compulsive problems (OCP) ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>]). T-scores from these scales were employed in the study.</p> <p> <emph>Reward Measures</emph>: Children completed the <emph>Experienced Pleasure Scale for Children</emph> (<emph>EPSC</emph>), <emph>Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task</emph> (EEfRT), <emph>Delayed Discounting Task (DDT) and Probability Discounting Tasks (PDT)</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>]). Adults performed the IGT, EEfRT, DDT, PDT, <emph>Temporal Experience of Pleasure (TEPS)</emph>, and <emph>Behavioral Activation System (BAS)</emph> tasks ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]). Summary measures for the aforementioned tasks were included in the study; for the IGT, EEfRT, and BAS, two analytic variables were included, the individual IGT net earnings (IGT-NE) and total latency (IGTL) the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Choice total, (EERCT) and the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Beta coefficient (EERCB), and the BAS drive and reward responsiveness scale values (BASD, BASR) ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]). See Supplemental Materials for details.</p> <p>Measures were selected based on past reliability and their ability to evaluate similar RDoC PVS constructs and subconstructs in both children and adults. In some cases, the same instrument could not be used for both age groups, so two or more were used. In children, Reward Valuation, Effort Valuation, Reward Expectancy/Prediction Error and Initial Responsiveness to Reward Attainment were evaluated by the DDT and PDT, the EEfRT, the EPSC and IGT-NE, and the EPSC and IGTL, respectively. In adults, Reward Valuation, Effort Valuation, Reward Expectancy/Prediction Error and Initial Responsiveness to Reward Attainment were evaluated by the DDT, PDT, and BASR, the BASD, the TEPS and IGT-NE, and the TEPS and IGT-NL, respectively. Quality control was ensured by use of standardized instructions for each measure or assessment as well as completion of study chart and visit checklists to ensure that all procedures and necessary assessments were performed.</p> <p> <emph>Statistical Analyses</emph>: Statistical analyses were conducted with Stata 15.1. We adjusted for age, sex, race, and ethnicity (<emph>via</emph> dummy variable coding) through ordinary least squares regression. To resolve missing income data for approximately 25% of adults, multiple imputation with 10 iterations was employed as previously described; imputation was not performed for any other variables ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref51">36</reflink>]). To derive the <emph>P-factor</emph>, a bifactor confirmatory factor analysis, as used in previous studies, was attempted ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]). In addition, principal factors factor analysis (PFFA) was conducted using T-scores for the psychopathologies selected for each age group. To evaluate the role of item overlap between the DSM scales and SCT and OCP (four items per age group), PFFA to identify the <emph>P-factor</emph> was also done exclusively with DSM scales. After the loading matrix was computed, factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were identified, and then the matrix underwent an orthogonal varimax rotation. The factor with the highest eigenvalue, that is, Factor 1, was designated the <emph>P-factor</emph>. Based on this, scores for Factor 1 were assigned to each individual as their <emph>P-factor</emph> values. In addition, the loadings for each individual disorder on Factor 1 were obtained; these values were considered representative of how much variance within each disorder could be explained by the general factor of psychopathology.</p> <p>To obtain T-score values representative of disorder-specific pathology, T-scores for individual disorders were linearly regressed against <emph>P-factor</emph> scores. The residuals computed were regarded as disorder problem specific T-scores. Factor analysis was conducted on the reward variables to evaluate potential overlap between measures. To identify which subset of reward variables were best suited for predicting the <emph>P-factor</emph> and disorder problem specific T-scores, the Furnival-Wilson leaps-and-bounds algorithm using logarithmic likelihoods was applied through the Stata function "GVSelect." The variables in the models that yielded low Bayesian and Akaike information criterions were used in linear regression.</p> <p>The relationships between the reward measures, the <emph>P-factor</emph>, and disorder-specific T-scores were evaluated by linear regression analysis. The <emph>F</emph>-test of the overall significance was used to assess whether the null hypothesis could be rejected and that the model with the proposed variables provided superior fit to a constant-only model. In order to account for the increased risk of type-I error due to multiple tests, the Benjamini-Hochberg method was used to adjust calculated <emph>p</emph>-values ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref53">14</reflink>]). Nine tests were conducted for the child data and 12 for the adult data. To determine statistical significance, we used a 5% False Discovery Rate. Two-tailed test <emph>p</emph>-values were computed for each regression coefficient and similarly compared to the alpha.</p> <p>To evaluate the univariate relationship between reward measures and disorders, Pearson's correlation coefficients were computed between reward measures and disorder problem severity. Correction for multiple testing was addressed as described for the regression analysis. 17 and 24 tests were conducted for child and adult data, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0173824757-4">Results</hd> <p> <emph>Factor Analyses of Psychopathology</emph>: The Bifactor Confirmatory Factor Analysis failed to converge; thus, PFFA was alternatively used. PFFA for both child and adult disorders yielded only one factor, that is, the <emph>P-factor</emph>, with an eigenvalue greater than 1. In children, <emph>P</emph> explained 54% of variance, and in adults, over 95%. Overall, anxiety problems loaded the highest on the <emph>P-factor</emph> in children, with externalizing disorders such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder loading the lowest (Figure 1). In adults, all non-substance use-related psychopathologies loaded substantially on <emph>P</emph>, with substance pathologies showing very low loadings (Figure 2). PFFA performed exclusively using data from subjects recruited from non-enriched sites yielded similar results to inclusive analyses for both age groups; <emph>P</emph> explained 54% of variance in children and 94% in adults.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Loadings for specific disorders on the common factor, "P," in children.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Loadings for specific disorders on the common factor, "P," in Adults.</p> <p>PFFA on datasets with OCP and SCT removed similarly yielded one general factor, with it accounting for ~67% of variance in children and ~99% in adults. In both age groups, loadings on Factor 1 were increased; however, the overall patterns were the same.</p> <p> <emph>Reward Measures and Psychopathology in Children</emph>: PFFA of reward indicators revealed a seven-factor structure, with each measure loading substantially on only one factor; correspondingly, all measures were retained. Five of the seven measures of reward significantly correlated with the <emph>P-factor</emph> and disorder-specific psychopathology scores: EERCT, PDT, DDT, IGT-NE, and EERCB (see Table 1). Table 1 shows that nearly all psychopathologies, except for OCP and Somatic problems, were significantly associated with reward measures; however, most disorder problems were linked to only a few reward measures. Table 1 shows the correlations between reward measures and psychopathology; empty table entries indicate that the correlation was not significant. One reward scale (DDT) was associated with both general psychopathology and specific psychopathologies, while the rest were uniquely associated with disorder problems (see Table 1).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Correlation of Reward Functioning With General and Specific Psychopathologies in Children.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Dependent variable</th><th align="center" colspan="9">Independent variables</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Pleasure scale</th><th align="center">Energy expenditure for reward choice total</th><th align="center">Iowa gambling total net earnings</th><th align="center">Probability discounting task</th><th align="center">Delayed discounting task</th><th align="center">Energy expenditure for reward choice beta coefficient</th><th align="center">Iowa gambling total latency</th><th align="center">Model <italic>F</italic>-statistic</th><th align="center">Model <italic>p</italic>-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P-factor</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.061 (0.028)</td><td /><td /><td>5.62</td><td>.023</td></tr><tr><td>ADHD</td><td /><td>−0.074 (0.0097)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>8.33</td><td>.0060</td></tr><tr><td>Depression</td><td /><td>−0.068 (0.015)</td><td>−0.057 (0.034)</td><td>−0.068 (0.015)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>6.28</td><td>.00090</td></tr><tr><td>Anxiety</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.10 (<0.001)</td><td>−0.086 (0.0031)</td><td /><td>13.2</td><td><.0001</td></tr><tr><td>ODD</td><td /><td /><td>−0.052 (0.050)</td><td /><td>−0.074 (0.0097)</td><td /><td /><td>6.39</td><td>.0031</td></tr><tr><td>OCS</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.047 (0.073)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>3.30</td><td>.078</td></tr><tr><td>Somatic Problems</td><td /><td>−0.031 (0.23)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>1.45</td><td>.23</td></tr><tr><td>CD</td><td /><td>−0.065 (0.020)</td><td>−0.052 (0.050)</td><td>−0.13 (<0.001)</td><td>−0.097 (0.0011)</td><td /><td /><td>10.2</td><td><.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Sluggish Cog. Tempo</td><td /><td>−0.086 (0.0031)</td><td /><td>−0.057 (0.034)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>7.80</td><td>.00090</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. In all columns absent the last two, the first number listed is the Pearson's correlation coefficient, while the value in the parentheses is the coefficient <emph>p</emph>-value. FDR correction was applied to values in the Model <emph>p</emph>-value column, and to coefficients. ODD = oppositional defiant disorder; OCP = obsessive compulsive symptoms; CD = conduct disorder; SCT = sluggish cognitive tempo.</p> <p> <emph>Reward Measures and Psychopathology in Adults</emph>: In adults, scores from nine measures (TEPS, BASR, BASD, EERCT, EERCB, IGT-NE, IGTL, PDT and DDT) correlated significantly with general and specific psychopathologies; of the nine, one, EERCT, was significantly associated with the <emph>P-factor</emph> and disorder, while the remainder were unique to disorders (see Table 2). Apart from ADHD, all specific psychopathologies were significantly associated with one or more measure of reward. As with Table 1, table entries for reward measures correlating to specific psychopathologies show their Pearson's correlation coefficient values and <emph>p</emph>-values; empty entries mean no significant relationship was found. For disorders where no relationship was found, the best performing measure was included. These findings in adults differ from the pattern seen in children, where ADHD problem severity was reward-associated but SCT, OCP, and somatic problems were not.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Correlation of Reward Functioning With General and Specific Psychopathologies in Adults.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Dependent variable</th><th align="center" colspan="11">Independent variables</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Temporal exp. of pleasure</th><th align="center">Behavioral activation system—reward resp.</th><th align="center">Behavioral activation system—drive</th><th align="center">Energy expenditure for reward choice total</th><th align="center">Iowa gambling total net earnings</th><th align="center">Probability discounting task</th><th align="center">Energy expenditure for reward choice beta coefficient</th><th align="center">Delayed discounting task</th><th align="center">Iowa gambling total latency</th><th align="center">Model <italic>F</italic>-statistic</th><th align="center">Model <italic>p</italic>-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P-factor</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.065 (0.031)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>5.18</td><td>.028</td></tr><tr><td>Depression</td><td /><td>−0.14 (<0.001)</td><td>−0.14 (<0.001)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>17.51</td><td><.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Anxiety</td><td /><td>0.10 (0.0096)</td><td>−0.0067 (0.814)</td><td>0.083 (0.0084)</td><td>−0.056 (0.055)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.070 (0.026)</td><td>6.73</td><td><.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Avoidance Per.</td><td /><td /><td>−0.066 (0.030)</td><td>−0.070 (0.026)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.065 (0.031)</td><td /><td>5.46</td><td>.0020</td></tr><tr><td>ADHD</td><td /><td /><td>0.047 (0.11)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>2.69</td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td>Antisocial Per.</td><td>−0.073 (0.023)</td><td /><td>0.17 (<0.001)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>21.31</td><td><.0001</td></tr><tr><td>SCT</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.069 (0.028)</td><td>0.061 (0.041)</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.067 (0.030)</td><td>5.08</td><td>.0026</td></tr><tr><td>OCP</td><td /><td /><td>0.085 (0.0072)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.051 (0.080)</td><td /><td>6.60</td><td>.0024</td></tr><tr><td>Somatic</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.13 (<0.001)</td><td /><td /><td>21.48</td><td><.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Tobacco</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.077 (0.0072)</td><td>−0.077 (0.0072)</td><td /><td>8.38</td><td>.0048</td></tr><tr><td>Alcohol</td><td /><td /><td>0.064 (0.032)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>5.00</td><td>.028</td></tr><tr><td>Drugs</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.086 (0.0072)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>9.16</td><td>.0033</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. In all columns absent the last two, the first number listed is the Pearson's correlation coefficient, while the value in the parentheses is the coefficient <emph>p</emph>-value. FDR correction was applied to values in the Model <emph>p</emph>-value column, and to coefficients. Antisocial Per. = antisocial personality disorder; OCP = obsessive compulsive problems; Somatic = somatic problems; SCT = sluggish cognitive tempo.</p> <p> <emph>Univariate Correlation Analysis</emph>: In both age groups, most reward measures found to be significantly associated with general and specific psychopathologies via regression also yielded statistically significant Pearson's correlation coefficients. In children, the exceptions were: IGT-NE (ODD, CD), while in adults they were IGT-NE(Anxiety), and DDT(SCT). Overall, correlation coefficients were low, with none exceeding.2.</p> <hd id="AN0173824757-5">Discussion</hd> <p>We identified a general factor of psychopathology, <emph>P</emph>, that describes an individual's overall propensity for psychopathology, by extracting the common factor between multiple disorders through PFFA. This enabled us to identify associations between measures of reward and general psychopathology, as well as specific psychopathologies.</p> <p>For both children and adults, most variance in the psychopathologies assessed was explained by the <emph>P-factor</emph>, although the amount of variance explained by the <emph>P-factor</emph> in both groups differed greatly. The ~54% seen in children aligns with earlier findings but the 95% variance explained by the adult <emph>P-factor</emph> is substantially more than in previous reports ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>]). The large percentage of variance accounted for by the <emph>P-factor</emph> suggests that much of a presumed specific psychopathology score can be attributed to general psychopathology, rather than being regarded as reflective of disorder- specific problem severity. Simultaneously, this may have occurred because the CBCL and ASR were not designed with the intent to maximally differentiate among specific domains of psychopathology, allowing for the dominance of a general factor Importantly, removal of the SCT and OCP resulted in the <emph>P-factor</emph> explaining more variance than before in both age groups and increased loadings for all disorders. This suggests that item overlap did not falsely bolster <emph>P</emph>'s encapsulation of variance, and that scale inclusion slightly improved analysis dimensionality.</p> <p>Previous work has also reported the existence of lower- order orthogonal factors, such as "internalizing" and "externalizing" disorder groupings; however, none could be identified here ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref57">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref59">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>]). These results may be due to the fact that previous studies incorporated different disorders from different instruments in their analyses. Additionally, earlier studies used multiple time points to derive <emph>P</emph>; repeated measurement of disorder-specific problem severity allows for better differentiation of specific factors due to reduction of state influences and noise. Also, study populations differed—it is conceivable that our sampling of children who were healthy and who had increased problems led to the strong dominance of a single factor, although the fact that the single factor was more dominant in the parent data speaks against this. Additionally, although the study population was enriched for people with mental health histories, prior literature on reward processing and psychopathology has arisen from analyses of populations that meet criteria for specific DSM disorders ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]). Factor structure results may thus differ because of the aforementioned characteristics as well as the fact that bifactor CFAs inherently assume an additional structure with specific factors, while PFFA seeks to maximize explanation of variance. Nonetheless, the low dimensionality in our data may very well be the reason why the bifactor CFA did not converge in the first place. Importantly, and in line with all of this, individual disorder loadings on our <emph>P-factor</emph> did not diverge substantially from those found in single factor CFA models ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]). Interestingly, in children, "internalizing" problem severity, for example, Depression, Anxiety, or OCP, had higher loadings on Factor 1 than externalizing disorder problem severity (ADHD, CD, or ODD). Thus, the PFFA derived factor, or <emph>P-factor</emph>, substantially captured aspects of internalizing problems compared with externalizing; this would affect the structure of any subsequent factors extracted. Furthermore, the substantial accounting of variance in both age groups by the <emph>P-factor</emph> inherently limits the explainability of subsequent factors.</p> <p>The <emph>P-factor</emph> has been previously associated with various measures, including IQ, executive function, and memory ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref64">12</reflink>]). In tandem, substantial work has been done on identifying linkages between different measures evaluating Reward Valuation (BAS, DDT, PDT), Reward Prediction Error (EPSC, TEPS, IGT), Responsiveness to Reward Attainment (EPSC, TEPS, IGT), and Reward Motivation/Effort Valuation (EEfRT, BASD) and various psychopathologies. This study extends existing literature in three ways: first, it identifies aberrant reward processing associated with general psychopathology in two age groups; second, it shows that some previously identified disorder-reward dysfunction correlations can be explained by the <emph>P-factor</emph>; third, it identifies areas of reward processing that appear to be disorder- specific. In children, <emph>P</emph> was significantly associated with reduced reward valuation, and with low reward motivation in adults. Both aspects of reward have been previously associated with aberrant psychiatric functioning; steep delayed discounting, identified in children, has been associated with several disorders, including ADHD, while attenuated motivation has been linked to psychiatric symptoms such as lethargy and anergy ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref66">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref67">42</reflink>]). In turn, these symptoms have been observed in various psychopathologies such as depression or schizophrenia ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref68">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref69">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>We found that some prior reports of disorder-specific associations could not be replicated after removing their common variance with the <emph>P-factor</emph>. This suggests that aspects of dysfunctional reward functioning previously associated with disorders were likely not specific for the disorder, but rather a consequence of comorbidity. For example, previously, steep delayed discounting was found to be linked with ADHD in children but failed to correlate with ADHD problem severity following removal of the general factor ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref70">16</reflink>]). Most reward measures that had previously been associated with individual disorders were neither linked to the <emph>P-factor</emph>, nor to specific psychopathology T-scores. However, certain psychopathologies maintained previous associations following removal of general psychopathology. For example, antisocial behavior has been strongly linked with increased BAS activity and the same finding was observed following <emph>P</emph> extraction ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>]). Simultaneously, SUDs have been associated with delayed discounting in the literature, but after <emph>P-factor</emph> removal, only Tobacco UD remained associated ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref73">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, even following removal of general psychopathology, most specific psychopathologies in both children and adults were associated here with unique reward measures that were not shared with the <emph>P-factor.</emph> This indicates specific areas of reward functioning particularly relevant to individual diseases. For instance, while ODD and <emph>P</emph> are both linked with increased delayed discounting, a measure of altered reward valuation, ODD is also negatively correlated with IGT-NE, a measure reflective of reduced reward responsiveness. Apart from a few disorders that did not correlate with any measures, this allows us to differentiate between mechanisms pertinent to a certain psychopathology versus a broader propensity toward general disease development. Altogether, this finding is relevant because in further studies of reward functioning and disease, it may be of interest to prioritize specific aspects of reward function relevant to unique disorders. Furthermore, understanding the interplay between general psychopathology and these disorder-specific aspects in the context of reward dysfunction may provide mechanistic insight.</p> <p>Importantly, although many significant associations were found, univariate correlations between reward measures and psychopathologies (see Tables 1 and 2) were low. This suggests that while altered reward functioning is significantly linked with disorders, the magnitude of association is small. This finding is consistent with the understanding that most psychopathologies have multifactorial etiologies; other aspects such as social and cognitive functioning may account for the unobserved associations ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref75">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref76">54</reflink>]). It is also plausible that associations between psychopathologies and the reward measures would be greater in magnitude had we been able to use direct clinical diagnoses, and acknowledge that our findings with relatively low correlations should be viewed with some caution. There is additional subjectivity as to the interpretation of the selected tasks; while they can be justified as measures of reward under the PVS, some can also be considered measures or features of decision making, in which reward is available ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref77">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref78">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref79">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173824757-6">Limitations</hd> <p>Our work must be interpreted in the context of several limitations. First, sampling for our study was enriched for psychopathology, as opposed to a population sample, and the measurement instruments used only evaluated a select group of disorders. Moreover, our population was not representative of severe psychopathology, as individuals were community-dwelling. Further study with inclusion of a greater variety of disorders and conditions that are not assessed via the ASR or CBCL, such as schizophrenia, gambling disorder, or autism spectrum disorder, as well as application of this analysis to different populations would enhance characterization of <emph>P</emph> and associated factors. Adding more disorders and more differentiated measures, possibly ones less explained by general psychopathology, would introduce greater population variance and affect computation of the <emph>P-factor</emph> and downstream calculations. Our failure to replicate previous work may also be due to our study using indirect, continuous measures of psychopathology <emph>via</emph> ASR and CBCL T-scores rather than direct clinical diagnoses.</p> <p>Also, parents were the sole raters for themselves and their children; this dependency in the data opens the possibility for informant biases. Another limitation is the exclusion of children who take psychotropic medication; this limits the spectrum of psychopathology that can be captured in the sample. In tandem, we did not obtain data on traumatic stress from the participants, which has been previously associated with internalizing and externalizing psychopathologies([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref82">31</reflink>]). Finally, the population demographics of participants also limit the generalizability of this study. Women are over-represented in this sample, and non-Black/African-American minorities are under-represented—additional study with a more balanced population could lead to different findings.</p> <hd id="AN0173824757-7">Conclusion</hd> <p>In summary, our work shows relationships between constructs of reward and general psychopathology in both children and adults, implicating different constructs across the two age groups. It also shows that some reward constructs differ in the degree to which they are associated with the <emph>P-factor</emph> and with individual psychopathologies. By identifying general and disorder-specific associations with reward functions, we may be able to separate out reward functions that play a role in the overall predisposition to psychopathology and those that steer adults or children toward a specific trajectory. Ultimately, by distinguishing between alterations in reward functioning that correspond to general versus specific psychopathologies, we can work to develop more targeted therapeutic approaches. In tandem, this knowledge can be applied to identify patients who have inclinations toward a certain psychopathology and enable early, or more efficient treatment. Altogether, this study advances knowledge about the nature of <emph>P</emph> and offers the perspective that reward mechanisms may explain the emergence of some psychopathologies and their comorbidities.</p> <hd id="AN0173824757-8">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jad-10.1177_10870547231201867 for Reward Functioning in General and Specific Psychopathology in Children and Adults by Ankita Saxena, Catharina A. Hartman, Steven D. Blatt, Wanda P. Fremont, Stephen J. Glatt, Stephen V. Faraone and Yanli Zhang-James in Journal of Attention Disorders</p> <p>Dr. Zhang-James is supported by the European Union's Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development, and demonstration under grant agreement no 602805 and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreements No 667302. Dr. Faraone's research has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 667302 and 965381; NIMH grants U01MH109536-01, U01AR076092-01A1, R0MH116037 and 5R01AG06495502; Oregon Health and Science University, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and Supernus Pharmaceutical Company. Ankita Saxena is supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research under grant agreement 202110DFD-475191-95674. We thank Patricia Forken for her role in compiling documentation for the study.</p> <ref id="AN0173824757-9"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach Edelbrock C. (1991). Child behavior checklist. Burlington, 7((Vt)), 371–392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref28" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach Rescorla L. (2003). Manual for the ASEBA adult forms & profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref30" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach T. M., Bernstein A., Dumenci L. (2005). DSM-oriented scales and statistically based syndromes for ages 18 to 59: Linking taxonomic paradigms to facilitate multitaxonomic approaches. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref25" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Albert A. B., Wagner K. E., Van Orman S. E., Anders K. M., Forken P. J., Blatt S. D., Fremont W. P., Faraone S. V., Glatt S. J. (2020). Initial responsiveness to reward attainment and psychopathology in children and adults: An RDoC study. Psychiatry Research, 289, 113021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref54" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Allegrini A. G., Cheesman R., Rimfeld K., Selzam S., Pingault J., Eley T. C., Plomin R. (2020). The p factor: Genetic analyses support a general dimension of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 61(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Amlung M., Marsden E., Holshausen K., Morris V., Patel H., Vedelago L., Naish K. R., Reed D. D., McCabe R. E. (2019). Delay discounting as a transdiagnostic process in psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(11), 1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref12" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Amlung M., Vedelago L., Acker J., Balodis I., MacKillop J. (2017). Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: A meta-analysis of continuous associations. Addiction, 112(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref38" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bull P. N., Tippett L. J., Addis D. R. (2015). Decision making in healthy participants on the Iowa Gambling Task: New insights from an operant approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 391. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref80" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carliner H., Keyes K. M., McLaughlin K. A., Meyers J. L., Dunn E. C., Martins S. S. (2016). Childhood Trauma and illicit drug use in adolescence: A Population-Based National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(8), 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caron C., Rutter M. (1991). Comorbidity in child psychopathology: Concepts, issues and research strategies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 32(7), 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1991.tb00350.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carver C. S., White T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caspi A., Houts R. M., Belsky D. W., Goldman-Mellor S. J., Harrington H., Israel S., Meier M. H., Ramrakha S., Shalev I., Poulton R., Moffitt T. E. (2014). The p Factor: One General Psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613497473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cauffman E., Shulman E. P., Steinberg L., Claus E., Banich M. T., Graham S., Woolard J. (2010). Age differences in affective decision making as indexed by performance on the Iowa Gambling Task. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen S. Y., Feng Z., Yi X. (2017). A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 9(6), 1725–1729. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.05.34</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuthbert B. N. (2014). The RDoC framework: Facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 13(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Castro Paiva G. C., de Souza Costa D., Malloy-Diniz L. F., Marques de Miranda D., Jardim de Paula J. (2019). Temporal reward discounting in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A Systematic Review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 44(6), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2019.1667996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gard D. E., Gard M. G., Kring A. M., John O. P. (2006). Anticipatory and consummatory components of the experience of pleasure: A scale development study. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1086–1102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garon N., Moore C., Waschbusch D. A. (2006). Decision making in children with ADHD only, ADHD-anxious/depressed, and control children using a child version of the Iowa Gambling Task. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9(4), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054705284501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groen Y., Gaastra G. F., Lewis-Evans B., Tucha O. (2013). Risky behavior in gambling tasks in individuals with ADHD–a systematic literature review. Plos One, 8(9), e74909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hess J. L., Radonjić N. V., Patak J., Glatt S. J., Faraone S. V. (2021). Autophagy, apoptosis, and neurodevelopmental genes might underlie selective brain region vulnerability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Molecular Psychiatry, 26, 6643–6654. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-00974-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoppenbrouwers S. S., Neumann C. S., Lewis J., Johansson P. (2015). A latent variable analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised and behavioral inhibition system/behavioral activation system factors in North American and Swedish offenders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Insel T., Cuthbert B., Garvey M., Heinssen R., Pine D. S., Quinn K., Sanislow C., Wang P.; National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD. (2010). Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on Mental Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivanova M. Y., Achenbach T. M., Dumenci L., Rescorla L. A., Almqvist F., Weintraub S., Dobrean A. (2007). Testing the 8-syndrome structure of the child behavior checklist in 30 societies. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 405–417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen A. R. (1993). Spearman's g: Links between psychometrics and biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 702, 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb17244.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaya F., Delen E., Bulut O. (2012). Test Review: Shipley-2 Manual. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(6), 593–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282912440852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin A. E. (1989). Evaluation of the pleasure scale in the assessment of anhedonia in children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(3), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198905000-00010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keren H., O'Callaghan G., Vidal-Ribas P., Buzzell G. A., Brotman M. A., Leibenluft E., Pan P. M., Meffert L., Kaiser A., Wolke S., Pine D. S., Stringaris A. (2018). Reward processing in depression: A conceptual and meta-analytic review across fMRI and EEG Studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(11), 1111–1120. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17101124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kevorkian S., Bonn-Miller M. O., Belendiuk K., Carney D. M., Roberson-Nay R., Berenz E. C. (2015). Associations among trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, cannabis use, and cannabis use disorder in a nationally representative epidemiologic sample. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 633–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovács I., Richman M. J., Janka Z., Maraz A., Andó B. (2017). Decision making measured by the Iowa gambling task in alcohol use disorder and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 181, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lahey B. B., Zald D. H., Hakes J. K., Krueger R. F., Rathouz P. J. (2014). Patterns of heterotypic continuity associated with the cross-sectional correlational structure of prevalent mental disorders in adults. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(9), 989–996. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall D. F., Passarotti A. M., Ryan K. A., Kamali M., Saunders E. F. H., Pester B., McInnis M. G., Langenecker S. A. (2016). Deficient inhibitory control as an outcome of childhood trauma. Psychiatry Research, 235, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.12.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martel M. M., Pan P. M., Hoffmann M. S., Gadelha A., Do Rosário M. C., Mari J. J., Manfro G. G., Miguel E. C., Paus T., Bressan R. A., Rohde L. A., Salum G. A. (2017). A general psychopathology factor (P factor) in children: Structural model analysis and external validation through familial risk and child global executive function. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray L., Shaw D. S., Forbes E. E., Hyde L. W. (2017). Reward-related neural correlates of antisocial behavior and callous–unemotional traits in young men. Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 2(4), 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.01.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray L., Waller R., Hyde L. W. (2018). A systematic review examining the link between psychopathic personality traits, antisocial behavior, and neural reactivity during reward and loss processing. Personality disorders, 9(6), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakamura B. J., Ebesutani C., Bernstein A., Chorpita B. F. (2009). A psychometric analysis of the child behavior checklist DSM-oriented scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31(3), 178–189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen N. H., Albert A. B., Van Orman S., Forken P., Blatt S. D., Fremont W. P., Faraone S. V., Glatt S. J. (2019). Effort valuation and psychopathology in children and adults. Psychologie Medicale, 49(16), 2801–2807. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291718003884</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NIMH. (2016). RDoC constructs: Domain: Positive valence systems. https://<ulink href="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/research-funded-by-nimh/rdoc/constructs/positive-valence-systems">www.nimh.nih.gov/research/research-funded-by-nimh/rdoc/constructs/positive-valence-systems</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Doherty J. P., Cockburn J., Pauli W. M. (2017). Learning, reward, and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pulcu E., Trotter P. D., Thomas E. J., McFarquhar M., Juhasz G., Sahakian B. J., Deakin J. F. W., Zahn R., Anderson I. M., Elliott R. (2014). Temporal discounting in major depressive disorder. Psychologie Medicale, 44(9), 1825–1834. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291713002584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radonjić N. V., Hess J. L., Rovira P., Andreassen O., Buitelaar J. K., Ching C. R. K., Franke B., Hoogman M., Jahanshad N., McDonald C., Schmaal L., Sisodiya S. M., Stein D. J., van Den Heuvel O. A., van Erp T. G. M., van Rooij D., Veltman D. J., Thompson P., Faraone S. V. (2021). Structural brain imaging studies offer clues about the effects of the shared genetic etiology among neuropsychiatric disorders. Molecular Psychiatry, 26, 2101–2110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-01002-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards J. B., Zhang L., Mitchell S. H., de Wit H. (1999). Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: Effect of alcohol. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71(2), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.71-121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizvi S. J., Lambert C., Kennedy S. (2018). Presentation and Neurobiology of Anhedonia in mood disorders: Commonalities and distinctions. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(2), 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0877-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saperia S., Da Silva S., Siddiqui I., Agid O., Daskalakis Z. J., Ravindran A., Voineskos A. N., Zakzanis K. K., Remington G., Foussias G. (2019). Reward-driven decision-making impairments in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 206, 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2018.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheres A., Tontsch C., Thoeny A. L., Kaczkurkin A. (2010). Temporal reward discounting in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: The contribution of symptom domains, reward magnitude, and session length. Biological Psychiatry, 67(7), 641–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selzam S., Coleman J. R. I., Caspi A., Moffitt T. E., Plomin R. (2018). A polygenic p factor for major psychiatric disorders. Translational Psychiatry, 8(1), 205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-018-0217-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shipley W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9, 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siqueira A. S. S. D., Flaks M. K., Biella M. M., Mauer S., Borges M. K., Aprahamian I. (2018). Decision making assessed by the Iowa gambling task and major depressive disorder a systematic review. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 12(3), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-57642018dn12-030005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smoller J. W., Andreassen O. A., Edenberg H. J., Faraone S. V., Glatt S. J., Kendler K. S. (2019). Psychiatric genetics and the structure of psychopathology. Molecular Psychiatry, 24(3), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-017-0010-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spearman C. (1904). General Intelligence, objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanton K., McDonnell C. G., Hayden E. P., Watson D. (2020). Transdiagnostic approaches to psychopathology measurement: Recommendations for measure selection, data analysis, and participant recruitment. J Abnorm Psychol, 129(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treadway M. T., Buckholtz J. W., Schwartzman A. N., Lambert W. E., Zald D. H. (2009). Worth the 'EEfRT'? The effort expenditure for rewards task as an objective measure of motivation and anhedonia. Plos One, 4(8), e6598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006598</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trøstheim M., Eikemo M., Meir R., Hansen I., Paul E., Kroll S. L., Garland E. L., Leknes S. (2020). Assessment of anhedonia in adults with and without mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 3(8), e2013233–e2013233. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waldman I. D., Poore H. E., van Hulle C., Rathouz P. J., Lahey B. B. (2016). External validity of a hierarchical dimensional model of child and adolescent psychopathology: Tests using confirmatory factor analyses and multivariate behavior genetic analyses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(8), 1053–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaso M. J., Maisto S. A., Glatt S. J., Hess J. L., Park A. (2020). Effects of polygenic risk and perceived friends' drinking and disruptive behavior on development of alcohol use across adolescence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 81(6), 808–815. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2020.81.808</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0173824757-10"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Authors: Ankita Saxena, Catharina A. Hartman, Steven D. Blatt, Wanda P. Fremont, Stephen J. Glatt, and Yanli Zhang-James declare no competing interests. In the past year, Dr. Faraone received income, potential income, travel expenses, and continuing education support and/or research support from Aardvark, Aardwolf, Akili, Atentiv, Corium, Genomind, Ironshore, Medice, Noven, Otsuka, Sandoz, Sky Therapeutics, Supernus, Tris, and Vallon. With his institution, he has US patent US20130217707 A1 for the use of sodium-hydrogen exchange inhibitors in the treatment of ADHD. In previous years, he received support from: Alcobra, Arbor, Aveksham, Axsome, CogCubed, Eli Lilly, Enzymotec, Impact, Janssen, KemPharm, Lundbeck/Takeda, Shire/Takeda, McNeil, NeuroLifeSciences, Neurovance, Novartis, Pfizer, Rhodes, Shire, and Sunovion. He also receives royalties from books published by Guilford Press: <emph>Straight Talk about Your Child's Mental Health</emph>; Oxford University Press: <emph>Schizophrenia: The Facts;</emph> and Elsevier: <emph>ADHD: Non-Pharmacologic Interventions.</emph> In addition, he is the program director of <ulink href="http://www.adhdinadults.com">http://www.adhdinadults.com</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health [grant numbers R01MH101519-01A1 and R01MH101519-01A1S1] and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program for the CoCa project [grant agreement No.667302]. This report reflects only the views of the authors and the commission bears no responsibility for any uses made of the information contained in the report.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yanli Zhang-James</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2104-0963</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental material for this article is available online.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ankita Saxena; Catharina A. Hartman; Steven D. Blatt; Wanda P. Fremont; Stephen J. Glatt; Stephen V. Faraone and Yanli Zhang-James</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Ankita Saxena, is an MD/PhD student at the department of Neuroscience at SUNY Upstate Medical University.</p> <p>Catharina A. Hartman, PhD is an Associate Professor of psychiatric epidemiology at the Interdisciplinary Center of Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE), at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG).</p> <p>Steven Blatt, MD is a Professor at the department of Pediatrics, SUNY Upstate Medical University. He is the Medical Director of the General Pediatrics Division and the Upstate Pediatric and Adolescent Center, and the Medical Director of the Foster Care Services: ENHANCE clinic.</p> <p>Wanda P. Fremont, MD is a Professor at the department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and department of Family Medicine and the Medical Director of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic at SUNY Upstate Medical University.</p> <p>Stephen Glatt, PhD is a Professor at the department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and the department of Neuroscience and Physiology at SUNY Upstate Medical University. He is the director of the PsychGene lab.</p> <p>Stephen V. Faraone, PhD, is a Distinguished Professor and Vice Chair for Research at the department of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University. He is the president of the World Federation of ADHD and a leading expert in ADHD research.</p> <p>Yanli Zhang-James, MD/PhD is an associate professor at the department of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University. Her areas of expertise include multidisciplinary research of neurosychiatric diorders and predictive modeling analytics in psychiatry.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475489
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reward Functioning in General and Specific Psychopathology in Children and Adults
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ankita+Saxena%22">Ankita Saxena</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Catharina+A%2E+Hartman%22">Catharina A. Hartman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steven+D%2E+Blatt%22">Steven D. Blatt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wanda+P%2E+Fremont%22">Wanda P. Fremont</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephen+J%2E+Glatt%22">Stephen J. Glatt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephen+V%2E+Faraone%22">Stephen V. Faraone</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yanli+Zhang-James%22">Yanli Zhang-James</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2104-0963">0000-0002-2104-0963</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Attention+Disorders%22"><i>Journal of Attention Disorders</i></searchLink>. 2024 28(1):77-88.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (DHHS/NIH)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R01MH10151901A1<br />R01MH10151901A1S1
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rewards%22">Rewards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Disorders%22">Mental Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychopathology%22">Psychopathology</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York%22">New York</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Child+Behavior+Checklist%22">Child Behavior Checklist</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/10870547231201867
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1087-0547<br />1557-1246
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective: Problems with reward processing have been implicated in multiple psychiatric disorders, but psychiatric comorbidities are common and their specificity to individual psychopathologies is unknown. Here, we evaluate the association between reward functioning and general or specific psychopathologies. Method: 1,213 adults and their1,531 children (ages 6-12) completed various measures of the Positive Valence System domain from the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Psychopathology was assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist for children and the Adult Self Report for parents. Results: One general factor identified via principal factors factor analysis explained most variance in psychopathology in both groups. Measures of reward were associated with the general factor and most specific psychopathologies. Certain reward constructs were associated solely with specific psychopathologies but not general psychopathology. However, some prior associations between reward and psychopathology did not hold following removal of comorbidity. Conclusion: Reward dysfunction is significantly associated with both general and specific psychopathologies.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475489
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475489
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/10870547231201867
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 77
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rewards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychopathology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New York
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior Checklist
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reward Functioning in General and Specific Psychopathology in Children and Adults
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ankita Saxena
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Catharina A. Hartman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Steven D. Blatt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wanda P. Fremont
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephen J. Glatt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephen V. Faraone
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yanli Zhang-James
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1087-0547
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1557-1246
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Attention Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1