Common cause versus dynamic mutualism: Insights into ADHD's common comorbidities.

IF 4.1
JCPP advances Pub Date : 2026-06-18 DOI:10.1002/jcv2.70142
Zheyue Peng, Ashley L Watts
{"title":"Common cause versus dynamic mutualism: Insights into ADHD's common comorbidities.","authors":"Zheyue Peng, Ashley L Watts","doi":"10.1002/jcv2.70142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Contemporary classification systems differ in their conceptualization of ADHD as either an externalizing or neurodevelopmental condition, with both perspectives promoting the common cause model as an explanation of ADHD's comorbidity. An alternative theory, dynamic mutualism, proposes that ADHD's comorbidity emerges through reciprocal interactions among symptoms over time, as opposed to a common cause.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tested the common cause and the dynamic mutualism theories in explaining the associations between aspects of ADHD (i.e., ADHD, inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, cognitive disengagement) and the neurodevelopmental and externalizing spectra across four waves of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study data (<i>n</i> = 11,878 youths aged 9-10 at baseline; 48% female).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results largely supported the common cause theory in explaining the developmental links between ADHD and both the externalizing and neurodevelopmental spectra. Findings varied across ADHD subdimensions, although not substantially, with hyperactivity/impulsivity more closely linked to the externalizing spectrum and cognitive disengagement more closely linked to the neurodevelopmental spectrum.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ADHD is best conceptualized as a disorder that bridges both the externalizing and neurodevelopmental domains, rather than fitting exclusively within either category. Given the assessment structure of the ABCD Study, there was more support for the common cause model compared with dynamic mutualism.</p>","PeriodicalId":73542,"journal":{"name":"JCPP advances","volume":" ","pages":"e70142"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13339281/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCPP advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.70142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Contemporary classification systems differ in their conceptualization of ADHD as either an externalizing or neurodevelopmental condition, with both perspectives promoting the common cause model as an explanation of ADHD's comorbidity. An alternative theory, dynamic mutualism, proposes that ADHD's comorbidity emerges through reciprocal interactions among symptoms over time, as opposed to a common cause.

Methods: We tested the common cause and the dynamic mutualism theories in explaining the associations between aspects of ADHD (i.e., ADHD, inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, cognitive disengagement) and the neurodevelopmental and externalizing spectra across four waves of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study data (n = 11,878 youths aged 9-10 at baseline; 48% female).

Results: Results largely supported the common cause theory in explaining the developmental links between ADHD and both the externalizing and neurodevelopmental spectra. Findings varied across ADHD subdimensions, although not substantially, with hyperactivity/impulsivity more closely linked to the externalizing spectrum and cognitive disengagement more closely linked to the neurodevelopmental spectrum.

Conclusion: ADHD is best conceptualized as a disorder that bridges both the externalizing and neurodevelopmental domains, rather than fitting exclusively within either category. Given the assessment structure of the ABCD Study, there was more support for the common cause model compared with dynamic mutualism.

共同原因与动态互惠:对ADHD常见合并症的见解。
背景:当代的分类系统在ADHD的概念上存在差异,无论是外部性的还是神经发育性的,这两种观点都促进了共同原因模型作为ADHD合并症的解释。另一种理论,动态互惠,提出多动症的共病是通过症状之间的相互作用而出现的,而不是一个共同的原因。方法:我们测试了共同原因理论和动态相互作用理论来解释ADHD(即ADHD、注意力不集中、多动/冲动、认知分离)与青少年大脑认知发展(ABCD)研究数据(n = 11,878名9-10岁的基线青少年,其中48%为女性)四波神经发育和外化谱之间的关系。结果:结果在很大程度上支持了共同原因理论,解释了ADHD与外化和神经发育谱之间的发展联系。ADHD子维度的研究结果各不相同,尽管不是很大,但多动/冲动与外化谱更密切相关,认知脱离与神经发育谱更密切相关。结论:ADHD最好被定义为一种连接外化和神经发育领域的障碍,而不是只属于任何一类。从ABCD研究的评估结构来看,共同原因模型比动态共生模型更受支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书