The Quintessence of Child Conduct Problems: Identifying Central Behaviors through Network Analysis
Child conduct problems are generally treated as a latent construct or as an additive index, where indicators are considered equally reflective indicators, in line with the “common cause hypothesis”. The current study presents a third alternative, where conduct problems constitute behaviors that associate and interact, in terms of a multivariate network structure. The aims of the study were to investigate the network structure of conduct problems and reveal strongly connected and central behaviors. Child gender and age were included into the analyses to uncover how these relate to the specific behaviors. The sample comprised of parent-reported data of 551 Norwegian children (age 3–12) with moderate to high levels of conduct problems, who reported intensity of 22 behaviors using the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. The research questions were examined by estimating a correlational and partial correlational LASSO network of conduct problems. Results showed that behaviors in general were positively connected. The majority of behaviors clustered into two distinct domains, reflecting inattention and oppositional defiant behavior. Furthermore, results showed that behaviors showed differential centrality, i.e., not all behaviors were equally important to the conceptualization of child conduct problems. Implications of the results for assessment and intervention are discussed.
KeywordsConduct problems Children Network analysis
I am grateful to the following people who worked extensively toward the coordination of the study, data collection, and data management: John Kjøbli, Trine Staer, Terje Christiansen, Roar Solholm, and Bjørn Arild Kristiansen.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The current study did not receive any founding.
Conflict of Interest
S. Hukkelberg declare no conflicts of interest and confirm that all the research meets ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of the study country.
The current study was conducted with the informed consent of all participants. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of a medical ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Burns, G. L., & Patterson, D. R. (2000). Factor structure of the Eyberg child behavior inventory: A parent rating scale of oppositional defiantdefiant behavior toward adults, inattentive behavior, and conduct problem behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(4), 569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coid, J. W. (2003). Formulating strategies for the primary prevention of adult antisocial behaviour:‘high risk’or ‘population’strategies. Early prevention of adult antisocial. behaviour, 32–78.Google Scholar
- Costantini, G., Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., Perugini, M., Mõttus, R., Waldorp, L. J., & Cramer, A. O. J. (2014). State of the aRt in personality research: A tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. Journal of Research in Personality, 54, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2002). Formative vs. reflective indicators in measure development: Does the choice of indicators matter? : Cornell University, Center for Hospitality Research.Google Scholar
- Epskamp, S., & Fried, E. I. (2016). A primer on estimating regularized Psychological Networks. Arxiv Preprint (ID 160701367) 1–21.Google Scholar
- Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., & Fried, E. I. (2016). Estimating psychological Networks and their stability: A tutorial paper. Arxiv Preprint (ID 160408045) 1–34.Google Scholar
- Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Christ, M. A. G., & Hanson, K. (1992). Familial risk factors to oppositional defiantdefiant disorder and conduct disorder: Parental psychopathology and maternal parenting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hukkelberg, S. S. (2017). A reexamination of child problem behaviors as measured by ECBI: factor structure and measurement invariance across two parent training interventions. Assessment, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117706022.
- Hukkelberg, S. S., Reedtz, C., & Kjøbli, J. (2016). Construct validity of the eyberg child behavior inventory (ECBI). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Google Scholar
- Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies. Social policy report. Volume 26, number 4. Society for Research in child development.Google Scholar
- Levy, F., Hawes, D. J., & Johns, A. (2015). 25 Externalizing and Internalizing Comorbidity (pp. 443). Oxford: The Oxford handbook of externalizing spectrum disorders.Google Scholar
- Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Child delinquents. Sage.Google Scholar
- Moffitt, T. E., & Scott, S. (2008). Conduct disorders of childhood and adolescence, Conduct Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence.Google Scholar
- Ogden, T. (2014). Complex Roots and Branches of Antisocial Behavior. In Handbook of child well-being (pp. 2577–2591): Springer.Google Scholar
- Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process (Vol. 3): Castalia Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys: A social interactional approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Google Scholar
- Reedtz, C., Bertelsen, B., Lurie, J. I. M., Handegard, B. H., Clifford, G., & Morch, W. T. (2008). Eyberg child behavior inventory (ECBI): Norwegian norms to identify conduct problems in children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00621.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Skogen, J., & Torvik, F. (2013). Atferdsforstyrrelser blant barn og unge i Norge. Beregnet forekomst og bruk av hjelpetiltak[Problem behaviors in children and youths in Norway. Estimated prevalence and interventions]. In In. Oslo: The Norwegian Institute of Public Health.Google Scholar
- Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of theRoyal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 267–288.Google Scholar
- van Borkulo, C. D., Borsboom, D., Epskamp, S., Blanken, T. F., Boschloo, L., Schoevers, R. A., et al. (2014). A new method for constructing networks frombinary data. Scientific Reports, 4.Google Scholar