Problem checklists and standardized diagnostic interviews: evidence of psychometric equivalence for classifying psychiatric disorder among children and youth in epidemiological studies / Michael H. BOYLE in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 64-5 (May 2023)  

Public ISBD [article]  inJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 64-5 (May 2023) . - p.779-786 Titre : Problem checklists and standardized diagnostic interviews: evidence of psychometric equivalence for classifying psychiatric disorder among children and youth in epidemiological studies Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Michael H. BOYLE, Auteur ; Laura DUNCAN, Auteur ; Li WANG, Auteur ; Katholiki GEORGIADES, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.779-786 Langues : Anglais (eng) Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background The standard approach for classifying child/youth psychiatric disorder as present or absent in epidemiological studies is lay-administered structured, standardized diagnostic interviews (interviews) based on categorical taxonomies such as the DSM and ICD. Converting problem checklist scale scores (checklists) to binary classifications provides a simple, inexpensive alternative. Methods Using assessments obtained from 737 parents, we determine if child/youth behavioral, attentional, and emotional disorder classifications based on checklists are equivalent psychometrically to interview classifications. We test this hypothesis by (1) comparing their test-retest reliabilities based on kappa (?), (2) estimating their observed agreement at times 1 and 2, and (3) in structural equation models, comparing their strength of association with clinical status and reported use of prescription medication to treat disorder. A confidence interval approach is used to determine if parameter differences lie within the smallest effect size of interest set at +0.125. Results The test-retest reliabilities (?) for interviews compared with checklists met criteria for statistical equivalence: behavioral, .67 and .70; attentional, .64 and .66; and emotional, .61 and .65. Observed agreement between the checklist and interviews on classifications of disorder at times 1 and 2 was, on average, ? = .61. On average, the ? coefficients estimating associations with clinical status were .59 (interviews) and .63 (checklists); and with prescription medication use, .69 (interviews) and .71 (checklists). Behavioral and attentional disorders met criteria for statistical equivalence. Emotional disorder did not, although the coefficients were stronger numerically for the checklist. Conclusions Classifications of child/youth psychiatric disorder from parent-reported checklists and interviews are equivalent psychometrically. The practical advantages of checklists over interviews for classifying disorder (lower administration cost and respondent burden) are enhanced by their ability to measure disorder dimensionally. Checklists provide an option to interviews in epidemiological studies of common child/youth psychiatric disorders. En ligne : https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13735 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=501 [article] Problem checklists and standardized diagnostic interviews: evidence of psychometric equivalence for classifying psychiatric disorder among children and youth in epidemiological studies [texte imprimé] / Michael H. BOYLE, Auteur ; Laura DUNCAN, Auteur ; Li WANG, Auteur ; Katholiki GEORGIADES, Auteur . - p.779-786. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 64-5 (May 2023) . - p.779-786 Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background The standard approach for classifying child/youth psychiatric disorder as present or absent in epidemiological studies is lay-administered structured, standardized diagnostic interviews (interviews) based on categorical taxonomies such as the DSM and ICD. Converting problem checklist scale scores (checklists) to binary classifications provides a simple, inexpensive alternative. Methods Using assessments obtained from 737 parents, we determine if child/youth behavioral, attentional, and emotional disorder classifications based on checklists are equivalent psychometrically to interview classifications. We test this hypothesis by (1) comparing their test-retest reliabilities based on kappa (?), (2) estimating their observed agreement at times 1 and 2, and (3) in structural equation models, comparing their strength of association with clinical status and reported use of prescription medication to treat disorder. A confidence interval approach is used to determine if parameter differences lie within the smallest effect size of interest set at +0.125. Results The test-retest reliabilities (?) for interviews compared with checklists met criteria for statistical equivalence: behavioral, .67 and .70; attentional, .64 and .66; and emotional, .61 and .65. Observed agreement between the checklist and interviews on classifications of disorder at times 1 and 2 was, on average, ? = .61. On average, the ? coefficients estimating associations with clinical status were .59 (interviews) and .63 (checklists); and with prescription medication use, .69 (interviews) and .71 (checklists). Behavioral and attentional disorders met criteria for statistical equivalence. Emotional disorder did not, although the coefficients were stronger numerically for the checklist. Conclusions Classifications of child/youth psychiatric disorder from parent-reported checklists and interviews are equivalent psychometrically. The practical advantages of checklists over interviews for classifying disorder (lower administration cost and respondent burden) are enhanced by their ability to measure disorder dimensionally. Checklists provide an option to interviews in epidemiological studies of common child/youth psychiatric disorders. En ligne : https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13735 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=501

Research Review: Test-retest reliability of standardized diagnostic interviews to assess child and adolescent psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Laura DUNCAN in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60-1 (January 2019)  

Public ISBD [article]  inJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 60-1 (January 2019) . - p.16-29 Titre : Research Review: Test-retest reliability of standardized diagnostic interviews to assess child and adolescent psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Laura DUNCAN, Auteur ; Jinette COMEAU, Auteur ; Lifang WANG, Auteur ; Irene VITOROULIS, Auteur ; Michael H. BOYLE, Auteur ; Kathryn J. BENNETT, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.16-29 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : Reliability  adolescent  child  meta-analysis  psychiatric disorders  structured interviews  systematic review Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : BACKGROUND: A better understanding of factors contributing to the observed variability in estimates of test-retest reliability in published studies on standardized diagnostic interviews (SDI) is needed. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate the pooled test-retest reliability for parent and youth assessments of seven common disorders, and to examine sources of between-study heterogeneity in reliability. METHODS: Following a systematic review of the literature, multilevel random effects meta-analyses were used to analyse 202 reliability estimates (Cohen's kappa = ) from 31 eligible studies and 5,369 assessments of 3,344 children and youth. RESULTS: Pooled reliability was moderate at = .58 (CI 95% 0.53-0.63) and between-study heterogeneity was substantial (Q = 2,063 (df = 201), p < .001 and I(2) = 79%). In subgroup analysis, reliability varied across informants for specific types of psychiatric disorder ( = .53-.69 for parent vs. = .39-.68 for youth) with estimates significantly higher for parents on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and the broad groupings of externalizing and any disorder. Reliability was also significantly higher in studies with indicators of poor or fair study methodology quality (sample size <50, retest interval <7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings raise important questions about the meaningfulness of published evidence on the test-retest reliability of SDIs and the usefulness of these tools in both clinical and research contexts. Potential remedies include the introduction of standardized study and reporting requirements for reliability studies, and exploration of other approaches to assessing and classifying child and adolescent psychiatric disorder. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12876 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=374 [article] Research Review: Test-retest reliability of standardized diagnostic interviews to assess child and adolescent psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis [texte imprimé] / Laura DUNCAN, Auteur ; Jinette COMEAU, Auteur ; Lifang WANG, Auteur ; Irene VITOROULIS, Auteur ; Michael H. BOYLE, Auteur ; Kathryn J. BENNETT, Auteur . - p.16-29. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 60-1 (January 2019) . - p.16-29 Mots-clés : Reliability  adolescent  child  meta-analysis  psychiatric disorders  structured interviews  systematic review Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : BACKGROUND: A better understanding of factors contributing to the observed variability in estimates of test-retest reliability in published studies on standardized diagnostic interviews (SDI) is needed. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate the pooled test-retest reliability for parent and youth assessments of seven common disorders, and to examine sources of between-study heterogeneity in reliability. METHODS: Following a systematic review of the literature, multilevel random effects meta-analyses were used to analyse 202 reliability estimates (Cohen's kappa = ) from 31 eligible studies and 5,369 assessments of 3,344 children and youth. RESULTS: Pooled reliability was moderate at = .58 (CI 95% 0.53-0.63) and between-study heterogeneity was substantial (Q = 2,063 (df = 201), p < .001 and I(2) = 79%). In subgroup analysis, reliability varied across informants for specific types of psychiatric disorder ( = .53-.69 for parent vs. = .39-.68 for youth) with estimates significantly higher for parents on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and the broad groupings of externalizing and any disorder. Reliability was also significantly higher in studies with indicators of poor or fair study methodology quality (sample size <50, retest interval <7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings raise important questions about the meaningfulness of published evidence on the test-retest reliability of SDIs and the usefulness of these tools in both clinical and research contexts. Potential remedies include the introduction of standardized study and reporting requirements for reliability studies, and exploration of other approaches to assessing and classifying child and adolescent psychiatric disorder. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12876 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=374

---

1 (1 - 2 / 2) Par page : 25 50 100 200