This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (47)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Michael H. Boyle, PhD; David R. Offord, MD; Yvonne A. Racine, MA; Peter Szatmari, MD; Mark Sanford, MB, ChB; Jan E. Fleming, MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54(9):793-799.

Abstract
Background
The advantages and disadvantages of lay-administered structured interviews and self-administered problem checklists for estimating prevalence and associated features of childhood psychiatric disorder have attracted little comment. This article compares the scientific adequacy of these 2 instruments for classifying DSM-III-R categories of childhood psychiatric disorder in general population samples.

Methods
Study data are from parental assessments of 251 children aged 6 to 16 years participating in a 2-stage measurement evaluation study. Reliability and validity were compared between the Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (the structured interview used in the study) and the revised Ontario Child Health Study scales (the self-administered problem checklist used in the study).

Results
Reliability estimates based on the k statistic were comparable for the 2 instruments and ranged from 0.21 (conduct disorder) to 0.70 (depression) on the lay interview and from 0.27 (depression) to 0.61 (oppositional defiant disorder) on the self-administered checklist. Validity coefficients tended to favor the checklist categories, but only marginally.

Conclusions
On balance, differences in reliability and validity were small between the 2 instruments. These differences would appear to have no discernible impact on the knowledge about prevalence and associated features of disorder generated by use of such instruments in general population surveys.

Author Affiliations
From the Centre for Studies of Children at Risk, Department of Psychiatry, McMaster University, and the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Hamilton, Ontario.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Approaches to psychiatric assessment in epidemiological studies of children
McClellan et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009;63:i4-i14.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

ODD, ADHD, Versus ODD+ADHD in Clinic and Community Adults
Gadow et al.
J Atten Disord 2007;11:374-383.
ABSTRACT  

Psychiatric Comorbidity in ADHD Symptom Subtypes in Clinic and Community Adults
Sprafkin et al.
J Atten Disord 2007;11:114-124.
ABSTRACT  

Evidence based medicine and evaluation of mental health services: methodological issues and future directions
Barnes et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. 1999;80:280-285.
FULL TEXT  

A checklist and structured lay interview had low agreement but comparable validity for childhood psychiatric disorders
Berger
Evid. Based Ment. Health 1998;1:90-90.
FULL TEXT  

Child Psychiatric Disorder: Measures, Causal Mechanisms, and Interventions
Rutter
Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:785-789.
ABSTRACT