OBJECTIVE: To examine the concurrent criterion validity of the Revised Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-R), a structured lay-administered instrument designed for use in community studies, under conditions designed to provide strict controls for information and method variance. METHOD: The DISC-R was compared with a semistructured clinical interview that covered a similar information base as the DISC-R, used standardized ratings to record symptom information, and, similar to the DISC-R, was scored by DSM-III-R-based computerized diagnostic algorithms. Subjects were 74 child and adolescent clinic attendees and their adult custodians. RESULTS: Overall, moderate levels of agreement were found between DISC-R and clinician-generated diagnoses; these findings were tempered, however, by the fact that the validation interview was less reliable than the DISC-R. CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings provide preliminary support for the use of the DISC-R, they cast some doubt on the adequacy of clinician-generated diagnoses as validation criteria and suggest that alternate approaches to the assessment of validation should be pursued.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the concurrent criterion validity of the Revised Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-R), a structured lay-administered instrument designed for use in community studies, under conditions designed to provide strict controls for information and method variance. METHOD: The DISC-R was compared with a semistructured clinical interview that covered a similar information base as the DISC-R, used standardized ratings to record symptom information, and, similar to the DISC-R, was scored by DSM-III-R-based computerized diagnostic algorithms. Subjects were 74 child and adolescent clinic attendees and their adult custodians. RESULTS: Overall, moderate levels of agreement were found between DISC-R and clinician-generated diagnoses; these findings were tempered, however, by the fact that the validation interview was less reliable than the DISC-R. CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings provide preliminary support for the use of the DISC-R, they cast some doubt on the adequacy of clinician-generated diagnoses as validation criteria and suggest that alternate approaches to the assessment of validation should be pursued.
Authors: Laurel K Leslie; Jill Weckerly; John Landsverk; Richard L Hough; Michael S Hurlburt; Patricia A Wood Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Penelope K Knapp; Michael S Hurlburt; Eric C Kostello; Heather Ladd; Lingqi Tang; Bonnie T Zima Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Kristen G Anderson; Danielle E Ramo; Marya T Schulte; Kevin Cummins; Sandra A Brown Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Gary M McClelland; Katherine S Elkington; Linda A Teplin; Karen M Abram Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 8.829