ArticlePCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2025
Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory: Parent version.
Article in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2025. 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.
- Psychometric properties of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory in Chinese children aged 8-11 years.Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory: Parent version.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We developed a Japanese version of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI) and evaluated its validity and reliability. Methods: A total of 2433 parents and 108 students in grades 4 and above participated in this study. First, we assessed the agreement between the parents' evaluations of internalizing disorders (anxiety and depression modules) and their children's self-reports. The criterion-related validity of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-inattention, ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity, and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) modules was also evaluated. Subsequently, we investigated whether cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) items differed from the ADHD items through factor analysis and examined the relationship between CDS and internalizing problems. Finally, we established normative data to adapt the CABI for use in the Japanese population. Results: Parents' observational evaluations of internalizing disorders showed moderate agreement with children's self-reports. The ADHD-inattention, ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity, and ODD modules demonstrated moderate to high criterion-related validity. Factor analysis revealed that the CDS module assesses symptoms distinct from ADHD symptoms. In the Japanese population, CDS exhibited a two-factor structure (daydreaming and mental confusion), with developmental changes observed across age groups. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the CABI are moderate to high. Conclusions: The scores of each CABI module were found to be reliable and valid within the Japanese sample. Future clinical research should focus on the evaluation of CDS, which is often comorbid with ADHD.
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.