ArticleJournal of attention disorders2016
Agreement Among Categorical, Dimensional, and Impairment Criteria for ADHD and Common Comorbidities.
Article in Journal of attention disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconciling Contemporary Approaches to School Attendance and School Absenteeism: Toward Promotion and Nimble Response, Global Policy Review and Implementation, and Future Adaptability (Part 2).Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- Assessing Psychiatric Symptoms in Youth Affected by HIV: Comparing a Brief Self-Administered Rating Scale with a Structured Diagnostic Interview.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2018Observational
- Comparing the CASI-4R and the PGBI-10 M for Differentiating Bipolar Spectrum Disorders from Other Outpatient Diagnoses in Youth.Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2017Article
- Clinical Correlates of Co-occurring Psychiatric and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Symptom-Induced Impairment in Children with ASD.Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2016Article
- Psychiatric symptom impairment in children with autism spectrum disorders.Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the results of categorically based versus dimensionally based scoring algorithms for a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV)-referenced teacher rating scale for assessing ADHD and commonly co-occurring conditions and to determine their relative agreement with ratings of symptom-induced impairment.
methodTeachers completed Child and Adolescent Symptom Inventory-4R (CASI-4R) ratings for 1,092 youth (ages 6-18 years) referred to a child and adolescent psychiatry outpatient service. Caseness was determined according to DSM-IV symptom count (categorical model) and T-score (dimensional model) criteria.
resultsAgreement between symptom count and T-score cutoffs was generally good (kappa ≥ 0.61) for ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive-Impulsive, ADHD-Combined (except adolescent females), Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Conduct Disorder, but this was not the case for anxiety and depressive disorders where only 15% of kappas were good. Agreement of impairment cutoff with T-score and symptom count cutoffs ranged from poor to good.
conclusionIn general, although in many cases CASI-4R categorical and dimensional scoring algorithms generated similar results, there was considerable variability across disorders, age groups, scoring method, and in some cases, gender. Moreover, symptom counts and T-scores are not a proxy for assessing impairment suggesting that each scoring strategy likely provides unique information for clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.