ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Measuring functioning among youth using the Columbia impairment scale: investigating dimensionality and measurement invariance among 14-17 year olds using mental health services and their caregivers.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite being a widely used and recommended measure of functioning, the Columbia Impairment Scale (CIS) lacks consensus on scale structure and whether child- and parent-report versions measure the same construct(s). This study aimed to better understand the structure and test for measurement invariance across groups of youth and their caregivers.
methodsThe sample included youth 14-17 years of age accessing mental health services, and their caregiver (most often mother), recruited from one of five mental health outpatient hospital sites in Toronto, Canada between September 2016 and March 2020. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) was used to investigate dimensionality and test for measurement invariance using standard model fit statistics.
resultsA total of 189 youth-caregiver dyads were included in the analysis. Youth were on average aged 15.7 (sd = 1.1); 64% were female. Caregivers had a mean age of 48.2 (sd = 7.4) and were 87% mothers. Using ESEM, evidence of a three-factor model was found ("work/school", "home/family" and "socializing"), which included several, large conceptually relevant cross-loadings. Using this model, full metric invariance between youth and caregivers was established, but strong evidence of scalar invariance was not found.
conclusionsWhile a multi-dimensional model provided the best fit for the CIS, the presence of several large cross-loadings calls into question whether and how the global scale can best be used in clinical and research settings. Lack of evidence of scalar invariance suggests that multi-informant data should be interpreted carefully. Next steps should include testing for essential unidimensionality.
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.