Search

ObjectiveCommonly-used youth anxiety measures may not comprehensively capture fears, worries, and experiences related to the pervasive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study described the development of the Fear of Illness and Virus Evaluation (FIVE) scales and validated the caregiver-report version.MethodAfter initial development, feedback was obtained from clinicians and researchers, who provided suggestions on item content/wording, reviewed edits, and provided support for the updated FIVE's content and face validity. Factor structure, measurement invariance, and psychometric properties were analyzed using data from a multi-site, longitudinal study of COVID-19-related effects on family functioning with 1599 caregivers from the United States and Canada.ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses indicated a hierarchical five-factor structure best fit the data, resulting in a 31-item measure with four lower-order subscales: (1) Fears about Contamination and Illness; (2) Fears about Social Distancing, (3) Avoidance Behaviors, and (4) Mitigation Behaviors, and a higher-order factor, (5) Total Fears, indicated by the two fear-related lower-order subscales. Measurement invariance by country of residence, child age, and child sex was found. All subscales demonstrated strong internal consistency, appropriate item-scale discrimination, and no floor or ceiling effects. The Total Fears subscale demonstrated appropriate test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity supported by strong correlation with a youth anxiety measure.DiscussionThe FIVE provides a psychometrically-sound measure of COVID-19-related fears and behaviors in youth in a caregiver-report format. Future research is necessary to evaluate correlates and longitudinal symptom patterns captured by the FIVE caregiver-report, as well as the validity and reliability of a youth self-report version of the FIVE.

Objective: Irritability, anger, and aggression have garnered significant attention from youth mental health researchers and clinicians; however, fundamental challenges of conceptualization and measurement persist. This article reviews the evidence base for assessing these transdiagnostic constructs in children and adolescents. Method: We conducted a preregistered systematic review of the evidence behind instruments used to measure irritability, anger, aggression, and related problems in youth. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO and PubMed, identifying 4,664 unique articles. Eligibility criteria focused on self- and proxy-report measures with peer-reviewed psychometric evidence from studies in English with youths ages 3–18. Additional measures were found through ancillary search strategies (e.g. book chapters, review articles, test publishers). Measures were screened and coded by multiple raters with acceptable reliability. Results: Overall, 68 instruments met criteria for inclusion, with scales covering irritability (n = 15), anger (n = 19), aggression (n = 45), and/or general overt externalizing problems (n = 27). Regarding overall psychometric support, 6 measures (8.8%) were classified as Excellent, 46 (67.6%) were Good, and 16 (23.5%) were Adequate. Descriptive information (e.g. informants, scales, availability, translations) and psychometric properties (e.g. reliability, validity, norms) are summarized. Conclusions: Numerous instruments for youth irritability, anger, and aggression exist with varying degrees of empirical support for specific applications. Although some measures were especially strong, none had uniformly excellent properties across all dimensions, signaling the need for further research in particular areas. Findings promote conceptual clarity while also producing a well-characterized toolkit for researchers and clinicians addressing transdiagnostic problems affecting youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assessment of oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder—the Disruptive, Impulse Control and Conduct Disorders—can be affected by biases in clinical judgment, including overestimating concerns about distinguishing symptoms from normative behavior and stigma associated with diagnosing antisocial behavior. Recent nosological changes call for special attention during assessment to symptom dimensions of limited prosocial emotions and chronic irritability. The present review summarizes best practices for evidence-based assessment of these disorders and discusses tools to identify their symptoms. Despite the focus on disruptive behavior disorders, their high degree of overlap with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder can complicate assessment. Thus, the latter disorder is also included for discussion here. Good practice in the assessment of disruptive behavior disorders involves using several means of information gathering (e.g., clinical interview, standardized rating scales or checklists), ideally via multiple informants (e.g., parent-, teacher-, and self-report). A commitment to providing a full and accurate diagnostic assessment, with careful and attentive reference to diagnostic guidelines, will mitigate concerns regarding biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]