The Research Domain Criteria seeks to bridge knowledge from neuroscience with clinical practice by promoting research into valid neurocognitive phenotypes and dimensions, irrespective of symptoms and diagnoses as currently conceptualized. While the Research Domain Criteria offers a vision of future research and practice, its 39 functional constructs need refinement to better target new phenotyping efforts. This study aimed to determine which Research Domain Criteria constructs are most relevant to understanding obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, based on a consensus between experts in the field of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.
Based on a modified Delphi method, 46 experts were recruited from Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Over three rounds, experts had the opportunity to review their opinion in light of feedback from the previous round, which included how their response compared to other experts and a summary of comments given.
Thirty-four experts completed round one, of whom 28 (82%) completed round two and 24 (71%) completed round three. At the final round, four constructs were endorsed by ⩾75% of experts as \'primary constructs\' and therefore central to understanding obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Of these constructs, one came from the Positive Valence System (Habit), two from the Cognitive Control System (Response Selection/Inhibition and Performance Monitoring) and the final construct was an additional item suggested by experts (Compulsivity).
This study identified four Research Domain Criteria constructs that, according to experts, cut across different obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. These constructs represent key areas for future investigation, and may have potential implications for clinical practice in terms of diagnostic processes and therapeutic management of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.

The majority of studies which have aimed to identify cognitive and motivational factors at play in ADHD have investigated cognitive-control processes and reinforcement effects in isolation. Notably, in recent years, the interaction between these two processes has been increasingly examined. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive and critical review of the behavioral and functional neuroimaging studies that have investigated reinforcement effects on inhibitory control in ADHD. The findings of our meta-analyses show that reinforcement can normalize inhibitory control in children and adolescents with ADHD to the baseline level of controls. Furthermore, the data suggests that inhibitory control may improve to a larger extent in youth with ADHD compared with controls, as a function of reinforcement. Based on (1) this review and meta-analyses, (2) functional neuroimaging studies in healthy populations, and (3) existing ADHD and neurobiological models of dual processes, we propose specific guidelines for future research, which are anticipated to further elucidate processes underlying impulsive behavior associated with ADHD.