The American journal of psychiatry · 1994
DSM-IV field trials for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder in children and adolescents.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Lahey B B, Applegate B, Barkley R A, Garfinkel B, McBurnett K, Kerdyk L, Greenhill L, Hynd G W, Frick P J, Newcorn J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the field trials for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder was to select valid diagnostic thresholds for these disorders and to compare the psychometric properties of DSM-IV criteria for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder with previous DSM diagnostic formulations.
METHOD: Structured diagnostic interviews, standardized clinician's validation diagnoses, and multiple measures of impairment were obtained for 440 clinic-referred children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.
RESULTS: A diagnostic threshold of four symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder optimized identification of impaired children, improved agreement somewhat with the clinician's validation diagnosis, and had somewhat better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. In the case of conduct disorder, the optimal time window for ascertainment of symptoms was clarified. A diagnostic threshold of three symptoms of conduct disorder maximized accurate identification of impaired children and agreement with the clinician's validation diagnosis and resulted in slightly better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. Compared with the DSM-III-R definition, the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder was somewhat more prevalent, but the prevalence of conduct disorder was essentially unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV definitions of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder are somewhat better than DSM-III-R definitions in terms of internal consistency and test-retest agreement, and the validity of the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder is slightly better than that of DSM-III-R.
METHOD: Structured diagnostic interviews, standardized clinician's validation diagnoses, and multiple measures of impairment were obtained for 440 clinic-referred children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.
RESULTS: A diagnostic threshold of four symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder optimized identification of impaired children, improved agreement somewhat with the clinician's validation diagnosis, and had somewhat better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. In the case of conduct disorder, the optimal time window for ascertainment of symptoms was clarified. A diagnostic threshold of three symptoms of conduct disorder maximized accurate identification of impaired children and agreement with the clinician's validation diagnosis and resulted in slightly better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. Compared with the DSM-III-R definition, the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder was somewhat more prevalent, but the prevalence of conduct disorder was essentially unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV definitions of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder are somewhat better than DSM-III-R definitions in terms of internal consistency and test-retest agreement, and the validity of the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder is slightly better than that of DSM-III-R.