Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40330598›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology2025

Supplementary scales for the school-age forms of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment rated by adolescents, parents, and teachers: Psychometric properties in German samples.

Julia Plück, Laurence Nawab, Elena Kamenetzka, Manfred Döpfner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Julia PlückDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne.
Laurence NawabDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne.
Elena KamenetzkaDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne.
Manfred DöpfnerDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Based on Achenbach's school-age questionnaires, research groups have investigated supplementary scales for stress problems, obsessive-compulsive problems, sluggish cognitive tempo, positive qualities, dysregulation, autism spectrum disorders, and mania in 6-18-year-olds partly only in some of the three perspectives the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) provides. Objective: We aimed to evaluate these dimensions for the German-language forms and, if possible, to extend their use to further rating perspectives. Methods: The internal consistencies of the supplementary scales were examined for three types of informants (parents, adolescents, and teachers) and different samples (community sample, clinical sample, and disorder-specific subsamples). Age-and gender-specific effects are displayed as well as cross-informant correlations. Additionally, different aspects of validity were analyzed: (a) convergent/divergent validity via correlations with traditional ASEBA scales (problem scales as well as the scales oriented to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition); (b) discriminative validity via differences between clinical vs. community-based sample as well as disorder-specific subgroup vs. clinical sample. Results: Most of the supplementary scales showed at least acceptable internal consistency. For some scales, we found significant but rather small and informant-dependent gender and age differences. Convergent validity of the supplementary scales differed across informants. Mean differences between the supplementary scales in the clinical and the community sample as well as the diagnosis-specific subsamples were mostly significant, with predominantly large effect sizes. Conclusions: Overall, the validity and reliability of the supplementary scales differed depending on informants and subgroups. While further research is necessary before the supplementary scales are implemented in clinical practice, initial recommendations for their use are derived. Trial registration: This project was carried out as a reanalysis of the datasets upon which the German norms for the school-age versions are based (1). Therefore, the trial was not registered.

Indexed as

2007 scalesASEBAGerman school-age versionspsychometric propertiessupplementary scales

Identifiers

PMID40330598
PMCPMC12050941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.