ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Harmonizing the CBCL and SDQ ADHD scores by using linear equating, kernel equating, item response theory and machine learning methods.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engaging longitudinal cohort participants in a research priority setting process for the Raine Study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Bridging the gap: A conversion framework for CDR-SB and MoCA scores in Alzheimer's disease and related dementia.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A problem that applied researchers and practitioners often face is the fact that different institutions within research consortia use different scales to evaluate the same construct which makes comparison of the results and pooling challenging. In order to meaningfully pool and compare the scores, the scales should be harmonized. The aim of this paper is to use different test equating methods to harmonize the ADHD scores from Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and to see which method leads to the result. Methods: Sample consists of 1551 parent reports of children aged 10-11.5 years from Raine study on both CBCL and SDQ (common persons design). We used linear equating, kernel equating, Item Response Theory (IRT), and the following machine learning methods: regression (linear and ordinal), random forest (regression and classification) and Support Vector Machine (regression and classification). Efficacy of the methods is operationalized in terms of the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of differences between predicted and observed scores in cross-validation. Results and discussion: Results showed that with single group design, it is the best to use the methods that use item level information and that treat the outcome as interval measurement level (regression approach).
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.