Dimensional Latent Structure of Early Disruptive Behavior Disorders: A Taxometric Analysis in Preschoolers

Although disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) are used as a distinct categorical diagnosis in clinical practice, they have repeatedly been described as having a dimensional structure in taxometric analyses. In the current study the authors analyzed the latent status of disruptive behaviors (DB) in a large sample (N?=?2,808) of German preschool children (2–6 years old, mean age 53.7 months, SD?=?13.5, 48.4% girls). The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) as well as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were used to compile indicators of the DB core dimensions (Temper Loss, Aggression, Noncompliance, and Low Concern for others). Three widely used taxometric methods (a) MAXEIG, (b) MAMBAC, and (c) L-Mode were applied. Simulation data were created to evaluate the Comparison Curve Fit Index values (CCFIs), which were below 0.45, supporting a dimensional solution. Hence, in the current study the latent structure of DB in preschoolers encompassed differences in degree rather than kind. Researchers and practitioners should be mindful of the dimensional latent status of DB in theory building, assessment, classification, and labeling.     

Sensitivity to spacing changes in faces and nonface objects in preschool-aged children and adults

Sensitivity to variations in the spacing of features in faces and a class of nonface objects (i.e., frontal images of cars) was tested in 3- and 4-year-old children and adults using a delayed or simultaneous two-alternative forced choice matching-to-sample task. In the adults, detection of spacing information was robust against exemplar differences for faces but varied across exemplars for cars (Experiment 1A). The 4-year-olds performed above chance in both face and car discrimination even when differences in spacing were very small (within ±1.6 standard deviations [SDs]) and the task involved memory components (Experiment 1B), and the same was true for the 3-year-olds when tested with larger spacing changes (within ±2.5 SDs) in a task that posed no memory demands (Experiment 2). An advantage in the discrimination of faces over cars was found at 4 years of age, but only when spacing cues were made more readily available (within ±2.5 SDs). Results demonstrate that the ability to discriminate objects based on feature spacing (i.e., sensitivity to second-order information) is present at 3 years of age and becomes more pronounced for faces than cars by 4 years of age.     

Gaze behavior in analytical and holistic face processing

We conducted two experiments examining children's and adults' gaze behavior when processing faces analytically (focusing on a single feature) or holistically (comparing the overall similarity of the faces). Children 6-8 and 9-10 years of age and adults were instructed to assign schematically drawn faces in Experiment 1 and photos of real faces in Experiment 2 to two categories. The categories were constructed so as to allow either an analytical or holistic categorization of the faces. During all trials, gaze behavior was recorded from stimulus onset until reaction. The location and duration of the fixations used were analyzed. Whereas the holistic processors fixated the whole area of the eyes and nose most and longest independently of age, analytical processors showed a more feature-specific gaze behavior, focusing their fixations upon the particular feature used for subsequent processing. Thus, differences in analytical and holistic face processing can be detected early in gaze behavior-that is, at the visual encoding stage.