Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): Initial Reliability and Validity Data
01 Jul 1997-Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Elsevier Limited)-Vol. 36, Iss: 7, pp 980-988
TL;DR: Results suggest the K-SADS-PL generates reliable and valid child psychiatric diagnoses.
Abstract: Objective To describe the psychometric properties of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime version (K-SADS-PL) interview, which surveys additional disorders not assessed in prior K-SADS, contains improved probes and anchor points, includes diagnosis-specific impairment ratings, generates DSM-III-R and DSM-IV diagnoses, and divides symptoms surveyed into a screening interview and five diagnostic supplements. Method Subjects were 55 psychiatric outpatients and 11 normal controls (aged 7 through 17 years). Both parents and children were used as informants. Concurrent validity of the screen criteria and the K-SADS-PL diagnoses was assessed against standard self-report scales. Interrater ( n = 15) and test-retest ( n = 20) reliability data were also collected (mean retest interval: 18 days; range: 2 to 38 days). Results Rating scale data support the concurrent validity of screens and K-SADS-PL diagnoses. Interrater agreement in scoring screens and diagnoses was high (range: 93% to 100%). Test-retest reliability κ coefficients were in the excellent range for present and/or lifetime diagnoses of major depression, any bipolar, generalized anxiety, conduct, and oppositional defiant disorder (.77 to 1.00) and in the good range for present diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (.63 to .67). Conclusion Results suggest the K-SADS-PL generates reliable and valid child psychiatric diagnoses. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry , 1997, 36(7): 980–988.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This study presents the first prevalence estimates of the BPD spectrum in a probability sample of the United States, and finds subthreshold BPD is common, clinically significant, and underdetected in treatment settings.
Abstract: The estimated lifetime prevalence of bipolar disorder (BPD) in population surveys using structured diagnostic interviews and standardized criteria averages approximately 0.8% for BP-I and 1.1% for BP-II.1-8 Despite this comparatively low prevalence, BPD is a leading cause of premature mortality due to suicide and associated medical conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.9, 10 BPD also causes widespread role impairment.11, 12 The recurrent nature of manic and depressive episodes often leads to high direct as well as high indirect health care costs.13, 14
BPD might be even more burdensome from a societal perspective due to the fact that sub-threshold bipolar spectrum disorder has seldom been taken into consideration in examining the epidemiology of BPD. Bipolar spectrum disorder includes hypomania without major depression and hypomania of lesser severity or briefer duration than specified in the DSM and ICD criteria. Although the precise definitions are as yet unclear, recent studies suggest that bipolar spectrum disorder might affect as many as 6% of the general population.15, 16 However, bipolar spectrum disorder has not been studied previously in a nationally representative survey of the US. The purpose of the current report is to present the results of such a study based on analysis of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).17 We estimate prevalence and clinical features of sub-threshold BPD in comparison to BP-I and BP-II.
2,139 citations
TL;DR: Estimates of 12‐month and lifetime prevalence and of lifetime morbid risk (LMR) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM‐IV‐TR) anxiety and mood disorders are presented based on US epidemiological surveys among people aged 13+.
Abstract: Estimates of 12-month and lifetime prevalence and of lifetime morbid risk (LMR) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) anxiety and mood disorders are presented based on US epidemiological surveys among people aged 13+. The presentation is designed for use in the upcoming DSM-5 manual to provide more coherent estimates than would otherwise be available. Prevalence estimates are presented for the age groups proposed by DSM-5 workgroups as the most useful to consider for policy planning purposes. The LMR/12-month prevalence estimates ranked by frequency are as follows: major depressive episode: 29.9%/8.6%; specific phobia: 18.4/12.1%; social phobia: 13.0/7.4%; post-traumatic stress disorder: 10.1/3.7%; generalized anxiety disorder: 9.0/2.0%; separation anxiety disorder: 8.7/1.2%; panic disorder: 6.8%/2.4%; bipolar disorder: 4.1/1.8%; agoraphobia: 3.7/1.7%; obsessive-compulsive disorder: 2.7/1.2. Four broad patterns of results are most noteworthy: first, that the most common (lifetime prevalence/morbid risk) lifetime anxiety-mood disorders in the United States are major depression (16.6/29.9%), specific phobia (15.6/18.4%), and social phobia (10.7/13.0%) and the least common are agoraphobia (2.5/3.7%) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (2.3/2.7%); second, that the anxiety-mood disorders with the earlier median ages-of-onset are phobias and separation anxiety disorder (ages 15-17) and those with the latest are panic disorder, major depression, and generalized anxiety disorder (ages 23-30); third, that LMR is considerably higher than lifetime prevalence for most anxiety-mood disorders, although the magnitude of this difference is much higher for disorders with later than earlier ages-of-onset; and fourth, that the ratio of 12-month to lifetime prevalence, roughly characterizing persistence, varies meaningfully in ways consistent with independent evidence about differential persistence of these disorders.
2,081 citations
Cites methods from "Schedule for Affective Disorders an..."
...An NCS-A clinical reappraisal study documented good concordance between survey and clinical diagnoses based on the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS) Lifetime Version (Kaufman et al., 1997)....
[...]
TL;DR: The Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia was modified for use in children and adolescents with autism by developing additional screening questions and coding options that reflect the presentation of psychiatric disorders in autism spectrum disorders.
Abstract: The Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia was modified for use in children and adolescents with autism by developing additional screening questions and coding options that reflect the presentation of psychiatric disorders in autism spectrum disorders. The modified instrument, the Autism Comorbidity Interview-Present and Lifetime Version (ACI-PL), was piloted and frequently diagnosed disorders, depression, ADHD, and OCD, were tested for reliability and validity. The ACI-PL provides reliable DSM diagnoses that are valid based on clinical psychiatric diagnosis and treatment history. The sample demonstrated a high prevalence of specific phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, and ADHD. The rates of psychiatric disorder in autism are high and are associated with functional impairment.
1,536 citations
Cites methods from "Schedule for Affective Disorders an..."
...Our modification of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS; (Chambers et al., 1985; Kaufman et al., 1997; Ambrosini, 2000) for autism, which we call the Autism Comorbidity Interview-Present and Lifetime version (ACI-PL), was developed and piloted collaboratively in two samples by the investigators (SEF and HTF in Boston; JEL in Salt Lake City)....
[...]
...Sample Our modification of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS; (Chambers et al., 1985; Kaufman et al., 1997; Ambrosini, 2000) for autism, which we call the Autism Comorbidity Interview-Present and Lifetime version (ACI-PL), was developed and piloted collaboratively…...
[...]
TL;DR: The combination of fluoxetine with CBT offered the most favorable tradeoff between benefit and risk for adolescents with major depressive disorder.
Abstract: CONTEXT: Initial treatment of major depressive disorder in adolescents may include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). However, little is known about their relative or combined effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 4 treatments among adolescents with major depressive disorder. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial of a volunteer sample of 439 patients between the ages of 12 to 17 years with a primary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The trial was conducted at 13 US academic and community clinics between spring 2000 and summer 2003. INTERVENTIONS: Twelve weeks of (1) fluoxetine alone (10 to 40 mg/d), (2) CBT alone, (3) CBT with fluoxetine (10 to 40 mg/d), or (4) placebo (equivalent to 10 to 40 mg/d). Placebo and fluoxetine alone were administered double-blind; CBT alone and CBT with fluoxetine were administered unblinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised total score and, for responder analysis, a (dichotomized) Clinical Global Impressions improvement score. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the combination of fluoxetine with CBT was statistically significant (P =.001) on the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised. Compared with fluoxetine alone (P =.02) and CBT alone (P =.01), treatment of fluoxetine with CBT was superior. Fluoxetine alone is a superior treatment to CBT alone (P =.01). Rates of response for fluoxetine with CBT were 71.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-80%); fluoxetine alone, 60.6% (95% CI, 51%-70%); CBT alone, 43.2% (95% CI, 34%-52%); and placebo, 34.8% (95% CI, 26%-44%). On the Clinical Global Impressions improvement responder analysis, the 2 fluoxetine-containing conditions were statistically superior to CBT and to placebo. Clinically significant suicidal thinking, which was present in 29% of the sample at baseline, improved significantly in all 4 treatment groups. Fluoxetine with CBT showed the greatest reduction (P =.02). Seven (1.6%) of 439 patients attempted suicide; there were no completed suicides. CONCLUSION: The combination of fluoxetine with CBT offered the most favorable tradeoff between benefit and risk for adolescents with major depressive disorder. Language: en
1,472 citations
TL;DR: It is argued that remediation of cognitive impairment and alleviation of depressive symptoms each play an important role in improving outcome for patients with depression, and cognitive impairment represents a core feature of depression that cannot be considered an epiphenomenon that is entirely secondary to symptoms of low mood.
Abstract: Background. This review aimed to address the question of whether cognitive impairment should be considered a core feature of depression that may be a valuable target for treatment. Method. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive function, assessed with a single neuropsychological test battery, the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), in patients with depression during symptomatic and remitted states. Inclusion of studies comparing patients remitted from depression and controls enabled us to investigate whether cognitive impairment persists beyond episodes of low mood in depression. Results. Our meta-analysis revealed significant moderate cognitive deficits in executive function, memory and attention in patients with depression relative to controls (Cohen’s d effect sizes ranging from �0.34 to �0.65). Significant moderate deficits in executive function and attention (Cohen’s d ranging from �0.52 to �0.61) and non-significant small/moderate deficits in memory (Cohen’s d ranging from �0.22 to �0.54) were found to persist in patients whose depressive symptoms had remitted, indicating that cognitive impairment occurs separately from episodes of low mood in depression. Conclusions. Both low mood and cognitive impairment are associated with poor psychosocial functioning. Therefore, we argue that remediation of cognitive impairment and alleviation of depressive symptoms each play an important role in improving outcome for patients with depression. In conclusion, this systematic review and metaanalysis demonstrates that cognitive impairment represents a core feature of depression that cannot be considered an epiphenomenon that is entirely secondary to symptoms of low mood and that may be a valuable target for future interventions.
1,341 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies is presented and tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interob server agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics.
Abstract: This paper presents a general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies. The procedure essentially involves the construction of functions of the observed proportions which are directed at the extent to which the observers agree among themselves and the construction of test statistics for hypotheses involving these functions. Tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interobserver agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics. These procedures are illustrated with a clinical diagnosis example from the epidemiological literature.
64,109 citations
TL;DR: The difficulties inherent in obtaining consistent and adequate diagnoses for the purposes of research and therapy have been pointed out and a wide variety of psychiatric rating scales have been developed.
Abstract: The difficulties inherent in obtaining consistent and adequate diagnoses for the purposes of research and therapy have been pointed out by a number of authors. Pasamanick12in a recent article viewed the low interclinician agreement on diagnosis as an indictment of the present state of psychiatry and called for "the development of objective, measurable and verifiable criteria of classification based not on personal or parochial considerations, but on behavioral and other objectively measurable manifestations." Attempts by other investigators to subject clinical observations and judgments to objective measurement have resulted in a wide variety of psychiatric rating scales.4,15These have been well summarized in a review article by Lorr11on "Rating Scales and Check Lists for the Evaluation of Psychopathology." In the area of psychological testing, a variety of paper-and-pencil tests have been devised for the purpose of measuring specific
35,176 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a procedure for having two or more judges independently categorize a sample of units and determine the degree, significance, and significance of the units. But they do not discuss the extent to which these judgments are reproducible, i.e., reliable.
Abstract: CONSIDER Table 1. It represents in its formal characteristics a situation which arises in the clinical-social-personality areas of psychology, where it frequently occurs that the only useful level of measurement obtainable is nominal scaling (Stevens, 1951, pp. 2526), i.e. placement in a set of k unordered categories. Because the categorizing of the units is a consequence of some complex judgment process performed by a &dquo;two-legged meter&dquo; (Stevens, 1958), it becomes important to determine the extent to which these judgments are reproducible, i.e., reliable. The procedure which suggests itself is that of having two (or more) judges independently categorize a sample of units and determine the degree, significance, and
34,965 citations
"Schedule for Affective Disorders an..." refers methods in this paper
...Percent agreement was used to generate interrater reliability estimates, as there were an insufficient number of cases (n < 5) to justilY calculation of a J( statistic (Cohen, 1960) in most diagnostic categories....
[...]
TL;DR: Diagnostic criteria for 14 psychiatric illnesses along with the validating evidence for these diagnostic categories comes from workers outside the authors' group as well as from those within; it consists of studies of both outpatients and inpatients, of family studies, and of follow-up studies.
Abstract: Diagnostic criteria for 14 psychiatric illnesses (and for secondary depression) along with the validating evidence for these diagnostic categories comes from workers outside our group as well as from those within; it consists of studies of both outpatients and inpatients, of family studies, and of follow-up studies. These criteria are the most efficient currently available; however, it is expected that the criteria be tested and not be considered a final, closed system. It is expected that the criteria will change as various illnesses are studied by different groups. Such criteria provide a framework for comparison of data gathered in different centers, and serve to promote communication between investigators.
5,308 citations
TL;DR: Etude de la coherence entre differentes sources (269 echantillons utilisees dans 119 etudes) concernant les evaluations des problemes affectifs et comportementaux d'enfants et d'adolescents âges de 1 1/2 a 19 ans.
Abstract: Etude de la coherence entre differentes sources (269 echantillons utilisees dans 119 etudes) concernant les evaluations des problemes affectifs et comportementaux d'enfants et d'adolescents âges de 1 1/2 a 19 ans
5,254 citations
"Schedule for Affective Disorders an..." refers methods in this paper
...While the rating scale data provide preliminary support for the validity of the diagnoses generated with the K-SADS-PL, determination of diagnostic validity is a very complicated endeavor, as there is no "gold standard" against which to compare the K-SADS-PL diagnoses (Achenbach et al., 1987; Hodges, 1994)....
[...]