Advertisement

The Quintessence of Child Conduct Problems: Identifying Central Behaviors through Network Analysis

  • Silje Hukkelberg
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Conduct problems Children Network analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Experiment Participants

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.

References

  1. Armour, C., Fried, E. I., Deserno, M. K., Tsai, J., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2017). A network analysis of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and correlates in US military veterans. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 45, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axberg, U., Johansson Hanse, J., & Broberg, A. G. (2008). Parents’ description of conduct problems in their children–a test of the Eyberg child behavior inventory (ECBI) in a Swedish sample aged 3–10. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(6), 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker-Henningham, H., Scott, S., Jones, K., & Walker, S. (2012). Reducing child conduct problems and promoting social skills in a middle-income country: Cluster randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 201(2), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belfer, M. L. (2008). Child and adolescent mental disorders: The magnitude of the problem across the globe. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(3), 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. (2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(1), 113–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Harrington, H., Hogan, S., Ramrakha, S., . . . Moffitt, T. E. (2016). Childhood forecasting of a small segment of the population with large economic burden. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Cramer, A. O., Waldorp, L. J., van der Maas, H. L., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Complex realities require complex theories: Refining and extending the network approach to mental disorders. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 178–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., & van der Maas, H. L. (2017). Network analysis on attitudes: A brief tutorial. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 528–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deserno, M. K., Borsboom, D., Begeer, S., & Geurts, H. M. (2017). Multicausal systems ask for multicausal approaches: A network perspective on subjective well-being in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 21(8), 960–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Embry, D. D., & Biglan, A. (2008). Evidence-based kernels: Fundamental units of behavioral influence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(3), 75–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epskamp, S., & Fried, E. I. (2016). A primer on estimating regularized Psychological Networks. Arxiv Preprint (ID 160701367) 1–21.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Epskamp, S., Kruis, J., & Marsman, M. (2017). Estimating psychopathological networks: Be careful what you wish for. PlosOne, 12(6), e0179891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1978). Assessment of child behavior problems: The validation of a new inventory. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 7(2), 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Fried, E. I., & Nesse, R. M. (2015). Depression sum-scores don’t add up: Why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fried, E. I., Epskamp, S., Nesse, R. M., Tuerlinckx, F., & Borsboom, D. (2016). What are'good'depression symptoms? Comparing the centrality of DSM and non-DSM symptoms of depression in a network analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 189, 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, A. L., Degnan, K. A., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2006). Profiles of externalizing behavior problems for boys and girls across preschool: The roles of emotion regulation and inattention. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 913–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hukkelberg, S. (2016). The Eyberg child behavior inventory: Factorial invariance in problem behaviors across gender and age. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57(4), 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. Hukkelberg, S. S., Reedtz, C., & Kjøbli, J. (2016). Construct validity of the eyberg child behavior inventory (ECBI). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Kjøbli, J., & Ogden, T. (2012). A randomized effectiveness trial of brief parent training in primary care settings. Prevention Science, 13, 616–626.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0289y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kjøbli, J., & Ogden, T. (2014). A randomized effectiveness trial of individual child social skills training: Six-month follow-up. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 8, 31.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-014-0031-.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Kjøbli, J., Hukkelberg, S., & Ogden, T. (2013). A randomized trial of group parent training: Reducing child conduct problems in real world settings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51, 113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.11.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Child delinquents. Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moffitt, T. E., & Scott, S. (2008). Conduct disorders of childhood and adolescence, Conduct Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence.Google Scholar
  38. Ogden, T. (2014). Complex Roots and Branches of Antisocial Behavior. In Handbook of child well-being (pp. 2577–2591): Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weightednetworks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process (Vol. 3): Castalia Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  41. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys: A social interactional approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Robinson, E. A., Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1980). The standardization of an inventory of child conduct problem behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 9(1), 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmittmann, V. D., Cramer, A. O., Waldorp, L. J., Epskamp, S., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shaw, D. S., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E. M., & Nagin, D. S. (2003). Trajectories leading to school-age conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Silverthorn, P., Frick, P. J., & Reynolds, R. (2001). Timing of onset and correlates of severe conduct problems in adjudicated girls and boys. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23(3), 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Sroufe, L. A. (2009). The concept of development in developmental psychopathology. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of theRoyal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 267–288.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Webster-Stratton, C. (1996). Early-onset conduct problems: Does gender make a difference? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weis, R., Lovejoy, M. C., & Lundahl, B. W. (2005). Factor structure and discriminative validity of the Eyberg child behavior inventory with young children. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(4), 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral DevelopmentOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations