Cited by 385Mental Health Research TopicsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Exploring the idiographic dynamics of mood and anxiety via network analysis

Fisher, Aaron J., Reeves, Jonathan W., Lawyer, Glenn, Medaglia, John D., Rubel, Julian A.·2017·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

Individual variation is increasingly recognized as important to psychopathology research. Concurrently, new methods of analysis based on network models are bringing new perspectives on mental (dys)function. This current work analyzed idiographic multivariate time series data using a novel network methodology that incorporates contemporaneous and lagged associations in mood and anxiety symptomatology. Data were taken from 40 individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), or comorbid GAD and MDD, who answered questions about 21 descriptors of mood and anxiety symptomatology 4 times a day over a period of approximately 30 days. The model provided an excellent fit to the intraindividual symptom dynamics of all 40 individuals. The most central symptoms in contemporaneous systems were those related to positive and negative mood. The temporal networks highlighted the importance of anger to symptomatology, while also finding that depressed mood and worry-the principal diagnostic criteria for GAD and MDD-were the least influential nodes across the sample. The method's potential for analysis of individual symptom patterns is demonstrated by 3 exemplar participants. Idiographic network-based analysis may fundamentally alter the way psychopathology is assessed, classified, and treated, allowing researchers and clinicians to better understand individual symptom dynamics. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/abn0000311

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fisher, A. J., Reeves, J. W., Lawyer, G., Medaglia, J. D., & Rubel, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Universität Trier (DE)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2017-11
Volume
126
Issue
8
Pages
1044-1056
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2770243687
Cited by
385
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
43.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, anger, worry, positive and negative mood, symptom centrality
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Anger, Anxiety Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Psychopathology, Comorbidity, Multivariate Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review