The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.140105

There are two divergent viewpoints on the phenomenology and outcome of bipolar I (BP I) disorder in youth. Disparities evolved as unintended consequences from investigators’ inconsistencies both in translating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III, DSM-III-R, and DSM-IV criteria and in operationalizing them differently in their standardized assessments. Rates of conservatively diagnosed BP I are lower both in community studies of youths than in adults and from liberally defined BP I in youths. Rates of co-occurring attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are lower in conservatively than liberally defined children and adolescents with BP I. Rates of both BP I and of ADHD are lower in off-spring of BP I probands, and outcome more closely approximates that of adults with BP I in conservatively versus liberally defined children and teens with BP I. Both perspectives can claim evidence for reliability and validity that support their positions. However, the samples are so different that it is difficult to compare studies conducted from these different perspectives.

(Reprinted from Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2014; 10:529–551, with permission from Annual Reviews)