For several decades, psychological research on bipolar disorder languished. The robust heritability of the disorder , coupled with the great gains provided by lithium , led to a biological zeitgeist. Few psychologists considered the disorder as a target for their work, and the portfolio of NIMH grants for the disorder was quite small. In 1988, an NIH task force was convened to evaluate the state of findings, and their recommendations led to a significant change in the field (Prien & Potter, 1988). Acknowledging the high relapse rates on medications alone, they pushed for more basic research on the predictors of symptoms, as well as more research on psychosocial treatments to supplement medication approaches. Within a few years, a set of psychological treatment outcome trials were funded. These trials did more than supply a set of treatment outcome findings; they increased the visibility of the disorder in psychology departments and at psychology conferences. Within the last 10 years, this visibility has paid off in a new generation of trainees who are entering the field and tackling a broader and broader array of topics.
During this time, several issues have become particularly pertinent. Of concern, the rate of bipolar diagnoses among children and adolescents has ballooned; by one recent estimate, treatment visits for childhood and adolescent bipolar disorder have increased 50-fold within the past 10 years . Questions have been raised about how to validate developmentally appropriate criteria, while attending to the significant costs of either under-or over-diagnosing the disorder. In this vein, perhaps the most significant public health need is the development of reliable and valid tools to facilitate accurate diagnosis among children and adolescents. Hence, our first articles in this section provide new data regarding these issues. Dr. Henry