OBJECTIVE: To examine the factor structure of the Conners Parent Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form (CPRS-R:S) and the Conners Teacher Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form (CTRS-R:S) in children who are long-term survivors of acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) or brain tumors (BT)and who have received central nervous system directed treatment. METHOD: Parents and teachers of 150 long-term survivors completed the CPRS-R:S or CTRS-R:S as part of a screening battery. The data were submitted to a maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis to test the construct validity of the scales and the forms were compared. The CPRS-R:S was also compared to selected subscales of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) for further validation. RESULTS: The analyses demonstrated an adequate fit of the original three-factor structure of the CTRS-R:S [oppositional, cognitive problems/inattention, hyperactivity]. The analyses of the CPRS-R:S suggested a less adequate fit of the original three-factor structure but principal components factor analysis yielded a three-factor solution with factors similar to those of Conners' original factor structure. Significant correlations were found between the CPRS-R:S and the selected subscales of the CBCL. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the similar construct validity of the original CTRS-R:S and CPRS-R:S. Although significantly correlated, the CPRS-R:S and CTRS-R:S are not interchangeable in the assessment of survivors of childhood cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the factor structure of the Conners Parent Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form (CPRS-R:S) and the Conners Teacher Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form (CTRS-R:S) in children who are long-term survivors of acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) or brain tumors (BT)and who have received central nervous system directed treatment. METHOD: Parents and teachers of 150 long-term survivors completed the CPRS-R:S or CTRS-R:S as part of a screening battery. The data were submitted to a maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis to test the construct validity of the scales and the forms were compared. The CPRS-R:S was also compared to selected subscales of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) for further validation. RESULTS: The analyses demonstrated an adequate fit of the original three-factor structure of the CTRS-R:S [oppositional, cognitive problems/inattention, hyperactivity]. The analyses of the CPRS-R:S suggested a less adequate fit of the original three-factor structure but principal components factor analysis yielded a three-factor solution with factors similar to those of Conners' original factor structure. Significant correlations were found between the CPRS-R:S and the selected subscales of the CBCL. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the similar construct validity of the original CTRS-R:S and CPRS-R:S. Although significantly correlated, the CPRS-R:S and CTRS-R:S are not interchangeable in the assessment of survivors of childhood cancer.
Authors: Lisa S Kahalley; Vida L Tyc; Stephanie J Wilson; Jenna Nelms; Melissa M Hudson; Shengjie Wu; Xiaoping Xiong; Pamela S Hinds Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Pierre Fumeaux; Catherine Mercier; Sylvain Roche; Jean Iwaz; Michel Bader; Philippe Stéphan; René Ecochard; Olivier Revol Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Katherine H Moyer; Victoria W Willard; Alan M Gross; Kelli L Netson; Jason M Ashford; Lisa S Kahalley; Shengjie Wu; Xiaoping Xiong; Heather M Conklin Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Cortney Wolfe-Christensen; Larry L Mullins; Terry A Stinnett; Melissa Y Carpentier; David A Fedele Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2009-12