The ADNM-20 distinguishes between people with low, moderate, and high symptomatology. The recommendation for a cut-off score at 47.5 facilitates the use of the ADNM-20 in research and practice.

No abstract

In preparation for ICD-11, the adjustment disorder (AjD) diagnosis has undergone considerable revisions; however, the latent structure of AjD remains uncertain. It is unclear whether AjD is best represented as a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. This study performed a comprehensive assessment of the latent structure of AjD symptomatology and assessed its concurrent and discriminant validity. Individuals who experienced involuntary job loss (N = 333) completed a self-report measure of AjD symptoms. Seven alternative models of AjD were tested using confirmatory factor analysis. General psychological distress, impairment in social functioning, occupational self-efficacy, and sense of coherence were used as criterion variables for construct validity. In the confirmatory factor analysis, a bifactor solution with one dominant general AjD factor and 5 correlated group factors (preoccupation, failure-to-adapt, avoidance, affective reaction, and impulsivity) provided optimal fit. As expected, the AjD factor showed strong positive associations with general psychological distress and impairments in social functioning and moderately negative associations with occupational self-efficacy and sense of coherence. With regard to unidimensionality or multidimensionality of AjD symptoms, the current results indicate the plausibility of a unidimensional conceptualization. Future research should focus on essential key characteristics and a reduction of symptoms for the AjD definition.

Background: Adjustment disorder (AjD) was redefined for ICD-11 with core symptoms of preoccupation with a stressor and failure to adapt. The socio-interpersonal framework model for stress-response syndromes suggests that interpersonal factors, besides intrapersonal processes, substantially contribute to the development of AjD. Objective: The current study aimed to identify predictive factors in the development of AjD symptoms by the application of a framework model for stress-response syndromes. Method: N = 321 recently laid-off participants (47.7% female) were assessed with a newly developed standardized clinical diagnostic interview section on ICD-11 AjD. Self-report questionnaires measured AjD symptom severity, and interpersonal and intrapersonal predictors. Path analysis was used to model the associations between AjD symptom severity and the predictor variables. We conducted logistic regression to identify associated characteristics of diagnostic status. Results: AjD symptoms were highly prevalent and 25.6% of participants met the diagnostic criteria. Higher loneliness, higher dysfunctional disclosure, and lower self-efficacy were associated with both higher symptom severity and higher likelihood of meeting the diagnostic criteria for AjD. Higher perceived social support was associated with higher likelihood for AjD diagnosis. Conclusions: Research on risk factors for AjD is still sparse. This study provided empirical evidence on the role of interpersonal factors supporting the socio-interpersonal model for stress-response syndromes.

Background/Objective: The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) will provide a new definition of adjustment disorder (AjD). The aim of the present study is to report on prevalence and correlates of ICD-11 AjD in a high-risk sample. Method: Three hundred thirty persons who had lost their job involuntarily were sampled by local job centres. The Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered with a new AjD module. Associations between AjD and correlates were investigated with logistic regression analyses. Results: 27.3% of the participants reported the AjD core symptom pattern. 13.8% men and 17.2% women met diagnostic guidelines of ICD-11 AjD. Prevalence increased with age and exposure to multiple stressors. The AjD core symptom pattern was associated with various sociodemographic correlates (e. g., lower financial household budget), whereas the full ICD-11 diagnosis including the exclusion algorithm was not. Regarding work-related factors, AjD occurred with a lower probability if the last job position had higher responsibilities and more general confidence for the future. Conclusions: ICD-11 AjD has a high prevalence among persons who lost their jobs involuntarily. Healthcare professionals should be aware of this problem. Research to investigate the ICD-11 AjD concept in the general populations and other subpopulations is needed.