MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1089/cap.2006.0035

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology · 2007

Choosing an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder rating scale: is item randomization necessary?

Sprafkin Joyce, Gadow Kenneth D

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

Although behavior rating scales are generally considered de riguer for best clinical practices in the diagnosis and medical management of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they are often time consuming to score, especially if items are arranged in random order. This study compares two methods of ordering rating scale items; namely, diagnostic-cluster versus randomized-order formats.

METHODS

Participants were the parents of 207 consecutive referrals (5-17 years) to a child psychiatry outpatient service who were diagnosed as having a variety of emotional and behavioral disorders. Children were assessed with a battery of standardized assessment instruments and clinical interviews, including the ADHD Symptom Checklist-4. Half completed a diagnostic-cluster version and half completed a randomized-order version.

RESULTS

Findings indicated that the internal consistency reliability, clinical utility (for identifying children with ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder), and concurrent validity of the two-item arrangement formats were virtually identical.

CONCLUSION

Item arrangement does not appear to impact the reliability or validity of a commonly used ADHD rating scale.

Для цитирования: Sprafkin Joyce, Gadow Kenneth D. Choosing an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder rating scale: is item randomization necessary?. Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology. 2007. DOI: 10.1089/cap.2006.0035.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.