BACKGROUND: An extended re-assessment of the psychometric properties of the LSPPK, an instrument aimed at identifying children with emotional and behavioural problems. METHODS: Data came from a national sample in The Netherlands of parents of 1248 children (aged 5-6 years) interviewed by child health professionals (CHP). Data were obtained regarding psychosocial problems, treatment status and scores on the LSPPK (Parent and CHP Index), and on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The scale structure, reliability, criterion and content validity and added value of the LSPPK were assessed using the CBCL and treatment status as criteria. RESULTS: The scale structure corresponded with that found originally; the LSPPK improved the prediction of problems according to the CBCL, compared to predictions using readily available risk indicators alone. Reliability varied between 0.55 and 0.69. For the LSPPK Parent Index, sensitivity varied between 0.42 and 0.50. For the CHP Index sensitivity varied between 0.60 and 0.96, but specificity varied between 0.76 and 0.79. Both indices were very sensitive for attention and social problems, but less so for other problems. CONCLUSION: The LSPPK Parent Index cannot distinguish sufficiently between children with or without serious problems. Either too many children with problems remain unnoticed or too many children without problems are labelled as a case. The LSPPK CHP Index, reflecting the CHP's interpretation of the Parent Index after interviewing the parents does not compensate adequately for the weaknesses of the Parent Index. Better assessment procedures and strategies need to be developed.
BACKGROUND: An extended re-assessment of the psychometric properties of the LSPPK, an instrument aimed at identifying children with emotional and behavioural problems. METHODS: Data came from a national sample in The Netherlands of parents of 1248 children (aged 5-6 years) interviewed by child health professionals (CHP). Data were obtained regarding psychosocial problems, treatment status and scores on the LSPPK (Parent and CHP Index), and on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The scale structure, reliability, criterion and content validity and added value of the LSPPK were assessed using the CBCL and treatment status as criteria. RESULTS: The scale structure corresponded with that found originally; the LSPPK improved the prediction of problems according to the CBCL, compared to predictions using readily available risk indicators alone. Reliability varied between 0.55 and 0.69. For the LSPPK Parent Index, sensitivity varied between 0.42 and 0.50. For the CHP Index sensitivity varied between 0.60 and 0.96, but specificity varied between 0.76 and 0.79. Both indices were very sensitive for attention and social problems, but less so for other problems. CONCLUSION: The LSPPK Parent Index cannot distinguish sufficiently between children with or without serious problems. Either too many children with problems remain unnoticed or too many children without problems are labelled as a case. The LSPPK CHP Index, reflecting the CHP's interpretation of the Parent Index after interviewing the parents does not compensate adequately for the weaknesses of the Parent Index. Better assessment procedures and strategies need to be developed.
Authors: S A Reijneveld; P Harland; E Brugman; F C Verhulst; S P Verloove-Vanhorick Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Mathilde R Crone; Anton G C Vogels; Femke Hoekstra; Philip D A Treffers; Sijmen A Reijneveld Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 3.295