PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: This study explores the intricate relationship between cognitive functioning and aggression, with a specific focus on individuals prone to reactive or proactive aggression. The purpose of the study was to identify important neuropsychological constructs and suitable tests for comprehending and addressing aggression.
UNASSIGNED: An international panel of 32 forensic neuropsychology experts participated in this three-round Delphi study consisting of iterative online questionnaires. The experts rated the importance of constructs based on the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework. Subsequently, they suggested tests that can be used to assess these constructs and rated their suitability.
UNASSIGNED: The panel identified the RDoC domains Negative Valence Systems, Social Processes, Cognitive Systems and Positive Valence Systems as most important in understanding aggression. Notably, the results underscore the significance of Positive Valence Systems in proactive aggression and Negative Valence Systems in reactive aggression. The panel suggested a diverse array of 223 different tests, although they noted that not every RDoC construct can be effectively measured through a neuropsychological test. The added value of a multimodal assessment strategy is discussed.
UNASSIGNED: This research advances our understanding of the RDoC constructs related to aggression and provides valuable insights for assessment strategies. Rather than suggesting a fixed set of tests, our study takes a flexible approach by presenting a top-3 list for each construct. This approach allows for tailored assessment to meet specific clinical or research needs. An important limitation is the predominantly Dutch composition of the expert panel, despite extensive efforts to diversify.
UNASSIGNED: An international panel of 32 forensic neuropsychology experts participated in this three-round Delphi study consisting of iterative online questionnaires. The experts rated the importance of constructs based on the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework. Subsequently, they suggested tests that can be used to assess these constructs and rated their suitability.
UNASSIGNED: The panel identified the RDoC domains Negative Valence Systems, Social Processes, Cognitive Systems and Positive Valence Systems as most important in understanding aggression. Notably, the results underscore the significance of Positive Valence Systems in proactive aggression and Negative Valence Systems in reactive aggression. The panel suggested a diverse array of 223 different tests, although they noted that not every RDoC construct can be effectively measured through a neuropsychological test. The added value of a multimodal assessment strategy is discussed.
UNASSIGNED: This research advances our understanding of the RDoC constructs related to aggression and provides valuable insights for assessment strategies. Rather than suggesting a fixed set of tests, our study takes a flexible approach by presenting a top-3 list for each construct. This approach allows for tailored assessment to meet specific clinical or research needs. An important limitation is the predominantly Dutch composition of the expert panel, despite extensive efforts to diversify.
摘要：
■这项研究探讨了认知功能和攻击性之间的复杂关系，特别关注容易反应或主动攻击的个人。该研究的目的是确定重要的神经心理学结构和适当的测试，以理解和解决侵略。
■一个由32名法医神经心理学专家组成的国际小组参与了这项由迭代在线问卷组成的三轮Delphi研究。专家们根据研究领域标准（RDoC）框架对结构的重要性进行了评估。随后，他们提出了可用于评估这些结构的测试，并对其适用性进行评级。
■小组确定了RDoC域负价系统，社会进程,认知系统和正价系统是理解侵略最重要的系统。值得注意的是,结果强调了积极效价系统在主动侵略中的重要性和消极效价系统在反应侵略中的重要性。小组提出了一系列223种不同的测试，尽管他们指出，并非每个RDoC构建体都可以通过神经心理学测试进行有效测量。讨论了多模态评估策略的附加值。
■这项研究促进了我们对与侵略相关的RDoC结构的理解，并为评估策略提供了有价值的见解。与其建议一套固定的测试，我们的研究采用灵活的方法,为每个构建体提供前3名列表.这种方法允许定制评估以满足特定的临床或研究需求。一个重要的限制是专家小组主要由荷兰组成，尽管进行了广泛的多样化努力。
■一个由32名法医神经心理学专家组成的国际小组参与了这项由迭代在线问卷组成的三轮Delphi研究。专家们根据研究领域标准（RDoC）框架对结构的重要性进行了评估。随后，他们提出了可用于评估这些结构的测试，并对其适用性进行评级。
■小组确定了RDoC域负价系统，社会进程,认知系统和正价系统是理解侵略最重要的系统。值得注意的是,结果强调了积极效价系统在主动侵略中的重要性和消极效价系统在反应侵略中的重要性。小组提出了一系列223种不同的测试，尽管他们指出，并非每个RDoC构建体都可以通过神经心理学测试进行有效测量。讨论了多模态评估策略的附加值。
■这项研究促进了我们对与侵略相关的RDoC结构的理解，并为评估策略提供了有价值的见解。与其建议一套固定的测试，我们的研究采用灵活的方法,为每个构建体提供前3名列表.这种方法允许定制评估以满足特定的临床或研究需求。一个重要的限制是专家小组主要由荷兰组成，尽管进行了广泛的多样化努力。
