Conceptualisation of restrictive repetitive behaviours across autism and orthorexia nervosa

Abstract Child and adolescent externalizing problems have often been conceptualized broadly with imprecise language (e.g., “disruptive behavior”) or inconsistently across varying taxonomies (e.g., oppositional defiant and conduct disorder symptoms, aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors). Establishing clarity around dimensions of externalizing problems is an essential step toward more accurate measurement and construct validity across the externalizing domain. To that end, the current study investigated fine-grained dimensions in the structure of youth externalizing psychopathology. Caregiver-report survey data were collected for a national community sample of 576 youth (ages 6–14; 45% female, 25% Hispanic), including measures of irritability, oppositionality, reactive and proactive aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and inattention. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine relations among externalizing dimensions at the item-level followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine relations at the construct-level. EFA results suggested that a 3-factor model best fit the data, including factors characterized by externalizing affect (e.g., “felt mad”), externalizing behavior (e.g., “bullies, threatens, or intimidates others”), and ADHD symptoms (e.g., “talks excessively”), with a few cross-loadings. Similarly, confirmatory models indicated that a 3-factor, non-hierarchical structure fit the data best when compared to three other models. Results provide support for distinct facets of the externalizing spectrum in child psychopathology, suggesting a preliminary direction for a unifying framework. These findings highlight the potential for future measurement research to further disentangle the distinct and overlapping facets of externalizing constructs, particularly using multiple methods and informants and with replication across samples.

Psychological distress during young adulthood may be influenced by early emotional experiences and current interpersonal relationships. The current study investigates the relationship between childhood emotional neglect, peer support and psychological distress in young adults. A quantitative research design was used with 200 participants aged 18-25 years selected through purposive sampling from educational institutions of Lahore. Childhood emotional neglect, peer support and psychological distress were measured with the Childhood Emotional Neglect Questionnaire (CENQ), Multidimensional Scale of Perceived social support (MSPSS), and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), respectively. Data were analyzed using Pearson- product moment correlation, hierarchical regression, PROCESS moderation analysis and one way ANOVA. Childhood emotional neglect was significantly and positively associated with psychological distress while peer support was not significantly and directly associated with psychological distress. Hierarchical regression indicates that psychological distress was significantly predicted by childhood emotional neglect, while peer support was not a significant direct predictor. The regression model explained 12.5% of variance in psychological distress. Moderation analysis showed significant interaction effects of friends’ support (P= .017) and family support (P= .032), indicating that these sources of support moderated the relationship between childhood emotional neglect and psychological distress. There were significant socio-economic differences for childhood emotional and peer support, but not for psychological distress. The findings highlight the importance of considering childhood emotional experiences and interpersonal resources when understanding psychological distress among young adults.

This study examined the association between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological distress among emerging adults aged 18-29 years. A quantitative, cross-sectional correlational design was used with online convenience sampling. Of 181 survey submissions, one record was excluded because age was missing and one because the respondent was aged 17 years; a further 18 respondents who reported a previous mental-health diagnosis were excluded. The final analytical sample comprised 161 participants (M age = 23.60, SD = 3.09; 67.1% women). Intolerance of uncertainty was measured with the 12-item Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12), and nonspecific psychological distress with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Mean IUS-12 and K10 scores were 32.11 (SD = 9.44) and 24.31 (SD = 8.09), respectively. Internal consistency estimates were .887 and .913. Pearson's correlation indicated a positive association between IUS-12 and K10 scores, r(159) = .632, p < .001, 95% CI [.529, .717]. Spearman's correlation was also positive and significant (rs = .595, p < .001, 95% bootstrap CI [.475, .699]). Higher intolerance of uncertainty was associated with greater self-reported psychological distress in this sample. The cross-sectional design, convenience sampling, self-report measures, and diagnosis-based screening limit causal inference and generalisability.