Objective
Dysregulated children experience significant impairment in regulating their affect, behavior, and cognitions and are at risk for numerous adverse sequelae. The unclear phenomenology of their symptoms presents a barrier to evidence-based diagnosis and treatment.
Method
The cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological mechanisms of dysregulation were examined in a mixed clinical and community sample of 294 children ages 7-17 using the Research Domain Criteria constructs of cognitive control and frustrative nonreward.
Results
Results showed that caregivers of dysregulated children viewed them as having many more problems with everyday executive function than children with moderate or low levels of psychiatric symptoms; however, during standardized assessments of more complex cognitive control tasks, performance of dysregulated children differed only from children with low symptoms on tests of cognitive flexibility. In addition, when frustrated, dysregulated children performed more poorly on the Go/No-Go Task and demonstrated less autonomic flexibility as indexed by low respiratory sinus arrhythmia and pre-ejection period scores.
Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest that autonomic inflexibility and impaired cognitive function in the context of frustration may be mechanisms underlying childhood dysregulation.

Research has highlighted the relevance of biological measures in explaining antisocial behavior, but the inclusion of such measures in clinical practice is lagging behind. According to the integrative biopsychosocial model, biological measures should be studied together with psychological and social-environmental factors. In this data-driven study, we applied this comprehensive model to explain non-violent and violent delinquency of 876 at-risk youth (715 male, 9-27 years), by combining nine biological (autonomic-nervous-system; endocrinological), nine psychological, and seven social-environmental measures. Using latent-class-regression analysis we uncovered four distinct psychologically-driven biological clusters, which differed in non-violent and violent delinquency-risk, moderated by social-environmental variables: a biological-psychopathic traits; low problem; high problem; and biological-reactive group. Individual vulnerabilities to (non-)violent delinquency depended on social-environmental context that differed between clusters. These findings highlight the importance of biological and psychological factors, in the context of social-environmental factors, in explaining (non)-violent delinquency.