Kathleen Myers1, Nancy C Winters. 1. University of Washington School of Medicine, and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle 98105, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article, the second in the Journal's series of 10-year updates on rating scales, summarizes scales assessing internalizing disorders. METHOD: The authors sampled articles on mood and anxiety disorders over the past 25 years, selected scales with multiple citations over many years, and reviewed their properties. Those with adequate psychometric properties, plus continued wide literature citations or a current special niche, are presented here. RESULTS: Rating scales for depression were developed and/or examined in the 1980s. Despite generally strong properties, they lack clear construct validity. Most have parent-report forms that broaden their suitability with youths. Anxiety scales were developed bimodally. Those developed in the 1960s to 1970s were downward modifications of adult scales. They have been criticized for unclear constructs and unsuitability for youths. Newer scales developed in the 1990s have addressed these problems and have parent-report forms. However, their utility is still being determined. CONCLUSIONS: Rating scales can reliably, validly, and efficiently measure youths' internalizing psychopathology. They have great utility in research, treatment planning, and accountability in practice. However, the user must define the goals of measurement, consider the construct the scale measures, and use the scale within its defined capabilities. The use of more than one scale for a task is recommended.
OBJECTIVE: This article, the second in the Journal's series of 10-year updates on rating scales, summarizes scales assessing internalizing disorders. METHOD: The authors sampled articles on mood and anxiety disorders over the past 25 years, selected scales with multiple citations over many years, and reviewed their properties. Those with adequate psychometric properties, plus continued wide literature citations or a current special niche, are presented here. RESULTS: Rating scales for depression were developed and/or examined in the 1980s. Despite generally strong properties, they lack clear construct validity. Most have parent-report forms that broaden their suitability with youths. Anxiety scales were developed bimodally. Those developed in the 1960s to 1970s were downward modifications of adult scales. They have been criticized for unclear constructs and unsuitability for youths. Newer scales developed in the 1990s have addressed these problems and have parent-report forms. However, their utility is still being determined. CONCLUSIONS: Rating scales can reliably, validly, and efficiently measure youths' internalizing psychopathology. They have great utility in research, treatment planning, and accountability in practice. However, the user must define the goals of measurement, consider the construct the scale measures, and use the scale within its defined capabilities. The use of more than one scale for a task is recommended.
Authors: Jihad Makhoul; Rima T Nakkash; Taghreed El Hajj; Sawsan Abdulrahim; Mayada Kanj; Ziyad Mahfoud; Rema A Afifi Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2010-05-06
Authors: Joseph R Cohen; Carolyn N Spiro; Jami F Young; Brandon E Gibb; Benjamin L Hankin; John R Z Abela Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 2015-11
Authors: Chelsea Sawyers; Thomas Ollendick; Melissa A Brotman; Daniel S Pine; Ellen Leibenluft; Dever M Carney; Roxann Roberson-Nay; John M Hettema Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 3.568