How is affective instability defined and measured: A systematic review
Standard
How is affective instability defined and measured: A systematic review. / Marwaha, Steven ; He, Zhimin; Broome, Matthew et al.
In: Psychological Medicine, Vol. 44, No. 9, 07.2014, p. 1793-1808.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex - Download
}
RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download
TY - JOUR
T1 - How is affective instability defined and measured: A systematic review
AU - Marwaha, Steven
AU - He, Zhimin
AU - Broome, Matthew
AU - Singh, Swaran
AU - Scott, Jan
AU - Eyden, Julie
AU - Wolke, Dieter
PY - 2014/7
Y1 - 2014/7
N2 - Affective instability (AI) is poorly defined but considered clinically important. The aim of this study was to examine definitions and measures of AI employed in clinical populations.This study was a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and Web of Science databases were searched. Also five journals were hand searched. Primary empirical studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after, and observational investigations were included. Studies were selected, data extracted and quality appraised. A narrative synthesis was completed.A total of 11 443 abstracts were screened and 37 studies selected for final analysis on the basis that they provided a definition and measure of AI. Numbers of definitions for each of the terms employed in included studies were: AI (n = 7), affective lability (n = 6), affective dysregulation (n = 1), emotional dysregulation (n = 4), emotion regulation (n = 2), emotional lability (n = 1), mood instability (n = 2), mood lability (n = 1) and mood swings (n = 1); however, these concepts showed considerable overlap in features. A total of 24 distinct measures were identified that could be categorized as primarily measuring one of four facets of AI (oscillation, intensity, ability to regulate and affect change triggered by environment) or as measuring general emotional regulation.A clearer definition of AI is required. We propose AI be defined as ‘rapid oscillations of intense affect, with a difficulty in regulating these oscillations or their behavioural consequences’. No single measure comprehensively assesses AI and a combination of current measures is required for assessment. A new short measure of AI that is reliable and validated against external criteria is needed
AB - Affective instability (AI) is poorly defined but considered clinically important. The aim of this study was to examine definitions and measures of AI employed in clinical populations.This study was a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and Web of Science databases were searched. Also five journals were hand searched. Primary empirical studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after, and observational investigations were included. Studies were selected, data extracted and quality appraised. A narrative synthesis was completed.A total of 11 443 abstracts were screened and 37 studies selected for final analysis on the basis that they provided a definition and measure of AI. Numbers of definitions for each of the terms employed in included studies were: AI (n = 7), affective lability (n = 6), affective dysregulation (n = 1), emotional dysregulation (n = 4), emotion regulation (n = 2), emotional lability (n = 1), mood instability (n = 2), mood lability (n = 1) and mood swings (n = 1); however, these concepts showed considerable overlap in features. A total of 24 distinct measures were identified that could be categorized as primarily measuring one of four facets of AI (oscillation, intensity, ability to regulate and affect change triggered by environment) or as measuring general emotional regulation.A clearer definition of AI is required. We propose AI be defined as ‘rapid oscillations of intense affect, with a difficulty in regulating these oscillations or their behavioural consequences’. No single measure comprehensively assesses AI and a combination of current measures is required for assessment. A new short measure of AI that is reliable and validated against external criteria is needed
KW - affective instability
KW - dysregulation
KW - mood lability
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/2160/44027
U2 - 10.1017/S0033291713002407
DO - 10.1017/S0033291713002407
M3 - Article
VL - 44
SP - 1793
EP - 1808
JO - Psychological Medicine
JF - Psychological Medicine
SN - 0033-2917
IS - 9
ER -