Developmental psychopathology is an integrative discipline, wherein principles from classical developmental theory are applied to investigate clinical and psychiatric phenomena (1,2,3,32). This integration of perspectives is invaluable because it promotes our understanding of atypical development and also illuminates understanding of normative developmental processes. To illustrate, applications of developmental theories such as those of Werner, Piaget, and Erikson provide critical insights into the organization and causes of different forms of maladjustment. Conversely, studies of pathology enhance our knowledge of normal development, particularly in terms of individual differences in development as well as risk and protective processes associated with different types of outcomes.

Whereas developmental and clinical psychology are integral elements in the field of developmental psychopathology, the scope of this integrative discipline extends beyond these areas. Theory and methods from these domains are integrated with those from various others, including epidemiology, biology, neuroscience, sociology, and anthropology. Such multidomain, multicontextual approaches to inquiry are essential in moving toward the long-term goal of a more comprehensive understanding of the development of psychopathology.

A final feature of developmental psychopathology is that it bridges the often wide span between empirical research and the application of knowledge, to benefit at-risk populations. Investigators in this tradition design and implement interventions that are based in developmental theory and research on risk and protective processes, such that they inform both preventive interventions and social policy.

To summarize, the four central characteristics that define the field of developmental psychopathology are 1) the use of classical developmental theory and research to inform issues of psychopathology, 2) the use of insights from at-risk or atypical populations to increase our understanding of normal developmental processes, 3) integration of developmental and clinical perspectives with those from other disciplines, and 4) the derivation of implications for preventive and therapeutic interventions, and for social policy.

In developmental psychopathology research, risk is defined in terms of statistical probabilities: A high-risk condition is one
that carries high odds for measured maladjustment in critical domains (5). Exposure to community violence, for example, constitutes high risk given that children experiencing it reflect significantly greater maladjustment than those who do not (6). Similarly, maternal depression is a risk factor in that children of mothers with depressive diagnoses can be as much as eight times as likely as others to develop depressive disorders themselves by the adolescent years (7).

In addition to establishing discrete risk dimensions such as community violence, poverty, or parent mental illness, researchers have also examined composites of multiple risk indices such as parents’ low income and education, their histories of mental illness, and disorganization in their neighborhoods. Seminal research by Rutter (8) demonstrated that when risks such as these coexist (as they often do, in the real world), effects tend to be synergistic, with children’s outcomes being far poorer than when any of these risks existed in isolation. Use of this cumulative risk approach is well exemplified in work by Sameroff and his colleagues (9,10). These authors computed a total risk score across 10 different dimensions, assigning for each one, a score of 1 (versus 0) if the child fell in the highest quartile of continuous risk dimensions, and for dichotomous dimensions such as single parent family status, if they were present in that child’s life. An alternative approach, exemplified in work by Masten and her colleagues (11), involves standardizing values on different risk scales and adding them to obtain a composite.

Decisions regarding the use of single- or multiple-risk indices in resilience research depend on the substantive research questions. The former is used, obviously, when applied researchers seek to identify factors that might modify the effects of particular environmental risks known to have strong adverse effects, so as to eventually derive specific directions for interventions. Examples are parental divorce or bereavement; knowledge of what ameliorates the ill effects of these particular adversities has been valuable in designing appropriate interventions (12,13). Additive approaches are more constrained in this respect, precluding identification, for example, of which of the indices subsumed in the composite are more influential than others. On the other hand, composite risk indices generally explain more variance in adjustment than do any of them considered alone, and as noted earlier, they may be more realistic in that many of these risks do cooccur in actuality (5,14).

Risk is rarely absolute; the potential for deleterious outcomes varies according to age as well as other child characteristics. Prolonged separation from the primary caregiver, for example, is more harmful for infants and toddlers than for older children, whereas community violence is less likely to affect preschoolers than older youth who are more able to move about the neighborhood independently. By the same token, there are some risks relatively unique to particular groups. An example is racial discrimination, which affects ethnic minority groups but not children of Caucasian heritage.

The same construct can connote risk in one setting but be relatively benign or even beneficial in others. An example is stringency of parent discipline. Whereas high levels of control and strictness are often seen as deleterious for children, a series of studies have shown that they are actually beneficial for youngsters living in dangerous inner city neighborhoods (15,16,17,32).

In developmental psychopathology as in child psychiatry, the notion of disorder often represents psychiatric diagnoses. Researchers typically assess diagnoses via structured interviews such as the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Aged Children (K-SADS-PL) (19) or the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (NIMH DISC-IV) (20), which are usually administered to the child aged 5 and older as well as the primary caregiver. For each diagnostic category, these interviews have a series of initial probes to determine the existence of a disorder, and if responses are in the affirmative, then additional probes are asked to determine if diagnostic criteria are met.

The other approach, also commonly used, is to assess overall children’s symptom levels on different maladjustment domains, via instruments such as the Behavior Assessment System for Children, (BASC) (21) or the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (22) [and its variants, the Teacher Rating Form (TRF) and the Youth Self Report (YSR) (23)]. These measures include a list of symptoms from diverse maladjustment domains which collectively yield scores on discrete subscales (such as attention, conduct, or depressive problems); in turn, composite scores across related subscales indicate overall maladjustment, such as internalizing and externalizing symptoms (CBCL), or overall dimensions of behavior and personality (BASC).