Systematic Integration of Multi-Informant Externalizing Ratings in Clinical Settings.

Best practice clinical assessment of externalizing problems often necessitates collection of information from parents, youth themselves, and teachers. The present study tested the predictive validity of a psychometrically-driven scoring procedure to integrate multi-informant, dimensional ratings of externalizing problems. Participants were 2264 clinic-referred youth ages 6-18. Parents, teachers, and youth completed questionnaire ratings of externalizing problems (hyperactivity-inattention, conduct problems, and oppositionality-defiance) prior to an initial clinical appointment. The predictive validity of simple (highest informant rating; and all informant ratings separately) and more complex (latent S-1 bifactor model with specific informant factors; and moderated nonlinear factor analysis accounting for child age and sex) methods of informant integration was tested in predicting impairment, comorbidity, and number of clinical encounters. A simple model, in which all informant ratings were included, showed the best predictive validity across outcomes, performing as well or better than the use of the highest informant ratings or more complex latent variable models. The addition of child age and sex as moderators in the factor model did not improve predictive validity. Each informant (parent, teacher, and youth) contributes important information to the prediction of clinically-relevant outcomes. There is insufficient evidence at present to suggest that complex latent variable models should be favored over simpler models that preserve each informant's ratings.