Internalizing symptoms, well-being, and correlates in adolescence: A multiverse exploration via cross-lagged panel network models

Abstract

Internalizing symptoms are the most prevalent mental health problem in adolescents, with sharp increases seen, particularly for girls, and evidence that young people today report more problems than previous generations. It is therefore critical to measure and monitor these states on a large scale and consider correlates. We used novel panel network methodology to explore relationships between internalizing symptoms, well-being, and inter/intrapersonal indicators. A multiverse design was used with 32 conditions to consider the stability of results across arbitrary researcher decisions in a large community sample over three years (N = 15,843, aged 11–12 at Time 1). Networks were consistently similar for girls and boys. Stable trait-like effects within anxiety, attentional, and social indicators were found. Within-person networks were densely connected and suggested mental health and inter/intrapersonal correlates related to one another in similar complex ways. The multiverse design suggested the particular operationalization of items can substantially influence conclusions. Nevertheless, indicators such as thinking clearly, unhappiness, dealing with stress, and worry showed more consistent centrality, suggesting these indicators may play particularly important roles in the development of mental health in adolescence.

Dual-Factor Mental Health from Childhood to Early Adolescence and Associated Factors: A Latent Transition Analysis

“…Studies that focus on symptoms alone capture mental health development in a small, symptomatic subset of the population. By contrast, studies that incorporate data on symptoms and wellbeing provide greater insights on mental health in the general population (given that the majority of the population are asymptomatic, variability in subjective wellbeing is important; Black et al, 2021). Furthermore, dual-factor research can inform early identification of those who may later become symptomatic (e.g., the vulnerable class noted above), while also helping to distinguish between symptomatic cases that are struggling (e.g., those who are symptomatic but content) and those that are languishing (e.g., the troubled class).…”

Measuring general mental health in early-mid adolescence: A systematic meta-review of content and psychometrics

“…Furthermore, other measure reviews have often looked at narrower domains within GMH (e.g., Proctor et al, 2009), but this work across adolescent GMH has yet to be brought together. This is important since outcomes within GMH are sometimes referred to or treated interchangeably (Fuhrmann et al, 2021;Orben & Przybylski, 2019), and can be conceptually similar (Alexandrova & Haybron, 2016;Black et al, 2021). A meta-review to consider conceptual and broader psychometric issues is therefore timely.…”

“…However, it is currently unclear how these constructs relate to one another conceptually or their relative psychometric qualities. This is needed since some work has started to explore empirically the relationships between different domains (e.g., Black et al, 2019;Patalay & Fitzsimons, 2016), but findings in this area seem to be sensitive to measurement issues such as informant (Patalay & Fitzsimons, 2018) and operationalisation (Black et al, 2021). While a body of literature has been devoted to interpreting apparently paradoxical differences between positive and negative mental health outcomes (Iasiello & Agteren, 2020), we argue the known issues with adolescent mental health data (Bentley et al, 2019;Rutter & Pickles, 2016;Wolpert & Rutter, 2018) may mean such paradoxes are in fact artefacts, as some work has suggested (Furlong et al, 2017).…”

Measuring general mental health in early‐mid adolescence: A systematic meta‐review of content and psychometrics

“…However, it is currently unclear how these constructs relate to one another conceptually or their relative psychometric qualities. This is needed since some work has started to explore empirically the relationships between different domains (e.g., Black et al., 2019 ; Patalay & Fitzsimons, 2016 ), but findings in this area seem to be sensitive to measurement issues such as informant (Patalay & Fitzsimons, 2018 ) and operationalisation (Black et al., 2021 ). While a body of literature has been devoted to interpreting apparently paradoxical differences between positive and negative mental health outcomes (Iasiello & Agteren, 2020 ), we argue the known issues with adolescent mental health data (Bentley et al., 2019 ; Rutter & Pickles, 2016 ; Wolpert & Rutter, 2018 ) may mean such paradoxes are in fact artefacts, as some work has suggested (Furlong et al., 2017 ).…”

“…Furthermore, other measure reviews have often looked at narrower domains within GMH (e.g., Proctor et al., 2009 ), but this work across adolescent GMH has yet to be brought together. This is important since outcomes within GMH are sometimes referred to or treated interchangeably (Fuhrmann et al., 2021 ; Orben & Przybylski, 2019 ), and can be conceptually similar (Alexandrova & Haybron, 2016 ; Black et al., 2021 ). A meta‐review to consider conceptual and broader psychometric issues is therefore timely.…”