OBJECTIVE: To examine the criterion validity of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) Version 2.3 in the NIMH Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study, using a design that permitted several comparisons of DISC-generated diagnoses with diagnoses based on clinician symptom ratings. METHOD: Two hundred forty-seven youths were selected from the 1,285 parent-youth pairs that constituted the four-site MECA sample. Subjects who screened positive for any of the five diagnostic areas under investigation in the validity study (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, depressive disorder, and the major anxiety disorders) were recruited, as well as a comparable number of screen negatives. Clinicians reinterviewed separately both the youth and the primary caregiver using the DISC followed by a clinical-style interview, and then they rated the presence of symptoms and impairment. Computer algorithms combined this information into diagnoses using comparable rules for both DISC and clinical rating diagnoses. RESULTS: In general, the DISC showed moderate to good validity across a number of diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest some specific diagnostic areas in which further revision of the DISC is warranted. Three main sources of variability in DISC-clinician diagnostic agreement were evident over and above that due to the instrument itself, including (1) the informant used, (2) the algorithm applied in synthesizing symptom reports, and (3) the design of the validity comparison.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the criterion validity of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) Version 2.3 in the NIMH Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study, using a design that permitted several comparisons of DISC-generated diagnoses with diagnoses based on clinician symptom ratings. METHOD: Two hundred forty-seven youths were selected from the 1,285 parent-youth pairs that constituted the four-site MECA sample. Subjects who screened positive for any of the five diagnostic areas under investigation in the validity study (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, depressive disorder, and the major anxiety disorders) were recruited, as well as a comparable number of screen negatives. Clinicians reinterviewed separately both the youth and the primary caregiver using the DISC followed by a clinical-style interview, and then they rated the presence of symptoms and impairment. Computer algorithms combined this information into diagnoses using comparable rules for both DISC and clinical rating diagnoses. RESULTS: In general, the DISC showed moderate to good validity across a number of diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest some specific diagnostic areas in which further revision of the DISC is warranted. Three main sources of variability in DISC-clinician diagnostic agreement were evident over and above that due to the instrument itself, including (1) the informant used, (2) the algorithm applied in synthesizing symptom reports, and (3) the design of the validity comparison.
Authors: B B Lahey; S H Goodman; I D Waldman; H Bird; G Canino; P Jensen; D Regier; P J Leaf; R Gordon; B Applegate Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 1999-08
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: Jennifer Greif Green; Shelli Avenevoli; Michael J Gruber; Ronald C Kessler; Matthew D Lakoma; Kathleen Ries Merikangas; Nancy A Sampson; Alan M Zaslavsky Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Michael S Robbins; Daniel J Feaster; Viviana E Horigian; Michael Rohrbaugh; Varda Shoham; Ken Bachrach; Michael Miller; Kathleen A Burlew; Candy Hodgkins; Ibis Carrion; Nancy Vandermark; Eric Schindler; Robert Werstlein; José Szapocznik Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2011-10-03
Authors: John M Brehm; Sima K Ramratnam; Sze Man Tse; Damien C Croteau-Chonka; Maria Pino-Yanes; Christian Rosas-Salazar; Augusto A Litonjua; Benjamin A Raby; Nadia Boutaoui; Yueh-Ying Han; Wei Chen; Erick Forno; Anna L Marsland; Nicole R Nugent; Celeste Eng; Angel Colón-Semidey; María Alvarez; Edna Acosta-Pérez; Melissa L Spear; Fernando D Martinez; Lydiana Avila; Scott T Weiss; Manuel Soto-Quiros; Carole Ober; Dan L Nicolae; Kathleen C Barnes; Robert F Lemanske; Robert C Strunk; Andrew Liu; Stephanie J London; Frank Gilliland; Patrick Sleiman; Michael March; Hakon Hakonarson; Qing Ling Duan; Jay K Kolls; Gregory K Fritz; Donglei Hu; Negar Fani; Jennifer S Stevens; Lynn M Almli; Esteban G Burchard; Jaemin Shin; Elizabeth L McQuaid; Kerry Ressler; Glorisa Canino; Juan C Celedón Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 21.405