Search

Background: This study examines the use of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) to screen for childhood psychiatric disorder based on Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (DISC-IV) classifications of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), separation anxiety (SAD), generalized anxiety (GAD) and major depression (MDD). Methods: Data for analysis come from a sample of 399 children and adolescents aged 5–17 years old referred to child mental health outpatient services in three Ontario cities. Mothers were administered the BCFPI on three occasions: baseline, 2 and 13 months; and the DISC-IV on two occasions: 1 and 12 months. Results: Based on kappa, test–retest reliability for disorders classified by the BCFPI exceeded .50 for all conditions except MDD (.45). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, area-under-the-curve (AUC) estimates for BCFPI scale score associations with DISC-IV classifications of disorder exceeded .80 for CD, ODD, ADHD and SAD; and were lower for GAD (.76) and MDD (.75). In stratified analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in AUC estimates for boys versus girls and 5 to 11 versus 12 to 17-year-olds. Conclusions: Classifications of childhood disorder derived from the BCFPI provided a reasonable approximation to disorders classified by the DISC-IV administered by lay interviewers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A better understanding of factors contributing to the observed variability in estimates of test–retest reliability in published studies on standardized diagnostic interviews (SDI) is needed. The objectives of this systematic review and meta‐analysis were to estimate the pooled test–retest reliability for parent and youth assessments of seven common disorders, and to examine sources of between‐study heterogeneity in reliability. Methods: Following a systematic review of the literature, multilevel random effects meta‐analyses were used to analyse 202 reliability estimates (Cohen's kappa = ҡ) from 31 eligible studies and 5,369 assessments of 3,344 children and youth. Results: Pooled reliability was moderate at ҡ = .58 (CI 95% 0.53–0.63) and between‐study heterogeneity was substantial (Q = 2,063 (df = 201), p < .001 and I2 = 79%). In subgroup analysis, reliability varied across informants for specific types of psychiatric disorder (ҡ = .53–.69 for parent vs. ҡ = .39–.68 for youth) with estimates significantly higher for parents on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and the broad groupings of externalizing and any disorder. Reliability was also significantly higher in studies with indicators of poor or fair study methodology quality (sample size <50, retest interval <7 days). Conclusions: Our findings raise important questions about the meaningfulness of published evidence on the test–retest reliability of SDIs and the usefulness of these tools in both clinical and research contexts. Potential remedies include the introduction of standardized study and reporting requirements for reliability studies, and exploration of other approaches to assessing and classifying child and adolescent psychiatric disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]