| Abstrakt: |
In summary, symptom checklists and rating scales are a cost-effective means of deriving an extensive amount of clinical information in a relatively short period of time. Measures designed to assess affect in children have primarily been self-report inventories owing to the subjective nature of the constructs being assessed. However, subscales for the assessment of anxiety and depression by significant others (parent, teacher, clinician) can be found on more general measures of behavior such as the Conners' Parent and Teacher Rating Scales, the Achenbach Parent and Teacher Forms of the Child Behavior Checklist, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children. In choosing from the array of available measures, emphasis should be placed on an examination of the psychometric properties of the scales. Inventories with demonstrated reliability and validity will provide the clinician with a much more useful profile of a patient's symptoms than will instruments with undocumented or poor psychometric properties. A major concern for all structured interviews is the relative lack of detailed reliability or validity studies. In addition, there are important caveats for such research. A high internal reliability may only demonstrate that one narrow aspect of depression has been measured or a high test-retest reliability may indicate that the interview is measuring a stable trait rather than a current state. Research on the validity and efficiency of the interviews requires careful consideration and consensus regarding acceptable comparison standards. At this time, variants of the "best estimate diagnosis" methodology appear to have gained widest acceptance. In general, there remains much work to be done before the distinct capabilities of the structured interviews are established. It should be noted that in all cases these interviews are evolving instruments and continue to undergo revision and refinement. However, one difference has evolved and may be relevant to the choice of instrument in specific studies. The highly structured interviews, such as the DICA and the DISC, are amenable to epidemiologic screening. They cover a wide range of disorders and have a relatively low threshold for disorder or high sensitivity. In application, these instruments will tend to overdiagnose. It will be necessary to use good clinical judgment in ruling out those disorders that do not apply. In contrast the semistructured interviews, such as the K-SADS and the ISC, have a relatively high diagnostic threshold or relatively high specificity for a few disorders. These instruments are probably best used for the purpose for which they were designed; that is, the selection of depressed and or anxious subjects for research studies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS) |
