Gemma A Bernes1,2, Miguel Villodas2, Claire D Coles3,4, Julie A Kable3,4, Philip A May5,6, Wendy O Kalberg6, Elizabeth R Sowell7, Kenneth L Jones8, Edward P Riley1,2, Sarah N Mattson1,2. 1. Center for Behavioral Teratology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina Nutrition Research Institute, Kannapolis, NC, USA. 6. Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 8. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rating scales are designed to complement traditional performance-based measures, and both can provide useful information about the functioning of youth with histories of prenatal alcohol exposure. Few studies, however, have compared ratings from multiple informants or the relationship between these subjective rating scale scores and the objective results from laboratory performance-based scales. METHODS: The current study addressed both of these questions in 3 study groups: children with histories of prenatal alcohol exposure (n = 47), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n = 41), and typically developing controls (CON; n = 73). All subjects completed a standardized neuropsychological test battery, including laboratory measures of executive functioning and a self-report measure of executive function behaviors. Parents and teachers completed corresponding rating scales of executive function behaviors for each subject. This study assessed the relationship between these behavior rating scales and corresponding neuropsychological tests, and interrater agreement among the multiple informants. RESULTS: Weak correlations were found between the rating scales and laboratory measures, indicating poor convergent validity for the behavior rating scale. Interrater reliability was found but it differed by group. Agreement was found between parent and teacher ratings for children with prenatal alcohol exposure, whereas teacher-child agreement was found for those with ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate that behavior ratings can be used to supplement laboratory measures but may not be measuring cognitive abilities regardless of whether a clinical diagnosis is present. A multimethod approach should be used when measuring skills in this domain. This was one of the first studies to examine cross-informant agreement in a sample of children with prenatal alcohol exposure. Further research is necessary to understand why interrater agreement differed for children with prenatal alcohol exposure and those with ADHD.
BACKGROUND: Rating scales are designed to complement traditional performance-based measures, and both can provide useful information about the functioning of youth with histories of prenatal alcohol exposure. Few studies, however, have compared ratings from multiple informants or the relationship between these subjective rating scale scores and the objective results from laboratory performance-based scales. METHODS: The current study addressed both of these questions in 3 study groups: children with histories of prenatal alcohol exposure (n = 47), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n = 41), and typically developing controls (CON; n = 73). All subjects completed a standardized neuropsychological test battery, including laboratory measures of executive functioning and a self-report measure of executive function behaviors. Parents and teachers completed corresponding rating scales of executive function behaviors for each subject. This study assessed the relationship between these behavior rating scales and corresponding neuropsychological tests, and interrater agreement among the multiple informants. RESULTS: Weak correlations were found between the rating scales and laboratory measures, indicating poor convergent validity for the behavior rating scale. Interrater reliability was found but it differed by group. Agreement was found between parent and teacher ratings for children with prenatal alcohol exposure, whereas teacher-child agreement was found for those with ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate that behavior ratings can be used to supplement laboratory measures but may not be measuring cognitive abilities regardless of whether a clinical diagnosis is present. A multimethod approach should be used when measuring skills in this domain. This was one of the first studies to examine cross-informant agreement in a sample of children with prenatal alcohol exposure. Further research is necessary to understand why interrater agreement differed for children with prenatal alcohol exposure and those with ADHD.
Authors: Kenneth Lyons Jones; Luther K Robinson; Ludmila N Bakhireva; Galina Marintcheva; Vladimir Storojev; Anna Strahova; Svetlana Sergeevskaya; Svetlana Budantseva; Sarah N Mattson; Edward P Riley; Christina D Chambers Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-11-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lauren R Doyle; Leila Glass; Jeffrey R Wozniak; Julie A Kable; Edward P Riley; Claire D Coles; Elizabeth R Sowell; Kenneth Lyons Jones; Sarah N Mattson Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Tanya T Nguyen; Leila Glass; Claire D Coles; Julie A Kable; Philip A May; Wendy O Kalberg; Elizabeth R Sowell; Kenneth L Jones; Edward P Riley; Sarah N Mattson Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Ami S Ikeda; Valerie S Knopik; L Cinnamon Bidwell; Stephanie H Parade; Sherryl H Goodman; Eugene K Emory; Rohan H C Palmer Journal: Toxics Date: 2022-01-05