OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the field trials for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder was to select valid diagnostic thresholds for these disorders and to compare the psychometric properties of DSM-IV criteria for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder with previous DSM diagnostic formulations. METHOD: Structured diagnostic interviews, standardized clinician's validation diagnoses, and multiple measures of impairment were obtained for 440 clinic-referred children and adolescents aged 4-17 years. RESULTS: A diagnostic threshold of four symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder optimized identification of impaired children, improved agreement somewhat with the clinician's validation diagnosis, and had somewhat better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. In the case of conduct disorder, the optimal time window for ascertainment of symptoms was clarified. A diagnostic threshold of three symptoms of conduct disorder maximized accurate identification of impaired children and agreement with the clinician's validation diagnosis and resulted in slightly better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. Compared with the DSM-III-R definition, the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder was somewhat more prevalent, but the prevalence of conduct disorder was essentially unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV definitions of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder are somewhat better than DSM-III-R definitions in terms of internal consistency and test-retest agreement, and the validity of the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder is slightly better than that of DSM-III-R.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the field trials for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder was to select valid diagnostic thresholds for these disorders and to compare the psychometric properties of DSM-IV criteria for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder with previous DSM diagnostic formulations. METHOD: Structured diagnostic interviews, standardized clinician's validation diagnoses, and multiple measures of impairment were obtained for 440 clinic-referred children and adolescents aged 4-17 years. RESULTS: A diagnostic threshold of four symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder optimized identification of impaired children, improved agreement somewhat with the clinician's validation diagnosis, and had somewhat better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. In the case of conduct disorder, the optimal time window for ascertainment of symptoms was clarified. A diagnostic threshold of three symptoms of conduct disorder maximized accurate identification of impaired children and agreement with the clinician's validation diagnosis and resulted in slightly better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. Compared with the DSM-III-R definition, the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder was somewhat more prevalent, but the prevalence of conduct disorder was essentially unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV definitions of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder are somewhat better than DSM-III-R definitions in terms of internal consistency and test-retest agreement, and the validity of the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder is slightly better than that of DSM-III-R.
Authors: Andrea Chronis-Tuscano; Brooke S G Molina; William E Pelham; Brooks Applegate; Allison Dahlke; Meghan Overmyer; Benjamin B Lahey Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-10
Authors: Benjamin B Lahey; Robert F Krueger; Paul J Rathouz; Irwin D Waldman; David H Zald Journal: Psychol Bull Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 17.737
Authors: Geoffrey M Reed; Pratap Sharan; Tahilia J Rebello; Jared W Keeley; María Elena Medina-Mora; Oye Gureje; José Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Shigenobu Kanba; Brigitte Khoury; Cary S Kogan; Valery N Krasnov; Mario Maj; Jair de Jesus Mari; Dan J Stein; Min Zhao; Tsuyoshi Akiyama; Howard F Andrews; Elson Asevedo; Majda Cheour; Tecelli Domínguez-Martínez; Joseph El-Khoury; Andrea Fiorillo; Jean Grenier; Nitin Gupta; Lola Kola; Maya Kulygina; Itziar Leal-Leturia; Mario Luciano; Bulumko Lusu; J Nicolas; I Martínez-López; Chihiro Matsumoto; Lucky Umukoro Onofa; Sabrina Paterniti; Shivani Purnima; Rebeca Robles; Manoj K Sahu; Goodman Sibeko; Na Zhong; Michael B First; Wolfgang Gaebel; Anne M Lovell; Toshimasa Maruta; Michael C Roberts; Kathleen M Pike Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 49.548