Person:

Weisz, John

The Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale—Parent Version (RCADS-P) is a 47-item parent-report questionnaire of youth anxiety and depression, with scales corresponding to the DSM-IV categories of Separation Anxiety Disorder, Social Phobia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Panic Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The RCADS-P is currently the only parent-report questionnaire that concurrently assesses youth symptomatology of individual anxiety disorders as well as depression in accordance with DSM-IV nosology. The present study examined the psychometric properties of the RCADS-P in a large (N = 490), clinic-referred sample of youths. The RCADS-P demonstrated favorable psychometric properties, including high internal consistency, convergent/divergent validity, as well as strong discriminant validity—evidencing an ability to discriminate between anxiety and depressive disorders, as well as between the targeted anxiety disorders. Support for the DSM-related six-factor RCADS-P structure was also evidenced. This structure demonstrated superior fit to a recently suggested alternative to the DSM-IV classification of anxiety and affective disorders—namely, the MDD/GAD “distress” factor.

Objective: To support ongoing monitoring of child response during treatment, we sought to develop a brief, easily administered, clinically relevant, and psychometrically sound measure. Method: We first developed child and caregiver forms of a 12-item Brief Problem Checklist (BPC) interview by applying item response theory and factor analysis to Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL;Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) data for a sample of 2,332 youths. These interviews were then administered weekly via telephone to an ethnically diverse clinical sample of 184 boys and girls 7–13 years of age and their caregivers participating in outpatient treatment, to examine psychometric properties and feasibility. Results: Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were excellent, and factor analysis yielded 1 internalizing and 1 externalizing factor. Validity tests showed large and significant correlations with corresponding scales on paper-and-pencil administrations of the CBCL and YSR as well as with diagnoses obtained from a structured diagnostic interview. Discriminant validity of the BPC interviews was supported by low correlations with divergent criteria. Longitudinal data for the initial 6 months of treatment demonstrated that the BPC significantly predicted change on related measures of child symptoms. Estimates obtained from random coefficient growth models showed generally higher slope reliabilities for the BPC given weekly relative to the CBCL and YSR given every 3 months. Conclusions: Given their combination of brevity and psychometric strength, the child and caregiver BPC interviews appear to be a promising strategy for efficient, ongoing assessment of clinical progress during the course of treatment.

Current evidence-based assessment methods, such as structured interviews and lengthy assessment batteries, often require hours to administer, score, and interpret and thus are infrequently used in real-world practice. As evidence-based assessment tools are developed for implementation in real-world youth mental health settings, the transportability properties of assessment procedures (including administration and interpretation burden) need to be considered and improved. In the present study, we thus conducted an initial feasibility study using a clinical sample of community-based youths (N = 306) to develop an assessment protocol based on 2 child and 2 parent self-report questionnaires (thus low on administration burden). Using decision-tree analysis, we identified a series of cutoff scores across these scales that may be used to inform treatment need related to anxiety, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and disruptive behavior problems. This algorithm-based approach to interpreting assessment information provided clear and simple guidelines (thus low on interpretation burden) that matched the best estimate treatment determinations derived by trained assessors, supervisors, and expert consultants who integrated information provided by child and parent structured interviews and self-report scales. The present study demonstrated the feasibility of developing an assessment protocol to inform various treatment allocation decisions in a way that imposes little assessment administration and interpretation burden yet maintains adequate classification accuracy. These characteristics make the proposed protocol promising with regard to its transportability and suitability for adoption and implementation in real-world mental health settings.

CONTEXT: Decades of randomized controlled trials have produced separate evidence-based treatments for depression, anxiety, and conduct problems in youth, but these treatments are not often used in clinical practice, and they produce mixed results in trials with the comorbid, complex youths seen in practice. An integrative, modular redesign may help. OBJECTIVE: Standard/separate and modular/integrated arrangements of evidence-based treatments for depression, anxiety, and conduct problems in youth were compared with usual care treatment, with the modular design permitting a multidisorder focus and a flexible application of treatment procedures. DESIGN: Randomized effectiveness trial. SETTING: Ten outpatient clinical service organizations in Massachusetts and Hawaii. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 84 community clinicians were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions for the treatment of 174 clinically referred youths who were 7 to 13 years of age (70% of these youths were boys, and 45% were white). The study was conducted during the period from January 12, 2005 to May 8, 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Standard manual treatment (59 youths [34% of the sample]; cognitive behavioral therapy for depression, cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety, and behavioral parent training for conduct problems), modular treatment (62 youths [36%]; integrating the procedures of the 3 separate treatments), and usual care (53 youths [30%]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed using weekly youth and parent assessments. These assessments relied on a standardized Brief Problem Checklist and a patient-generated Top Problems Assessment (ie, the severity ratings on the problems that the youths and parents had identified as most important). We also conducted a standardized diagnostic assessment before and after treatment. RESULTS: Mixed effects regression analyses showed that modular treatment produced significantly steeper trajectories of improvement than usual care and standard treatment on multiple Brief Problem Checklist and Top Problems Assessment measures. Youths receiving modular treatment also had significantly fewer diagnoses than youths receiving usual care after treatment. In contrast, outcomes of standard manual treatment did not differ significantly from outcomes of usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The modular approach outperformed usual care and standard evidence-based treatments on multiple clinical outcome measures. The modular approach may be a promising way to build on the strengths of evidence-based treatments, improving their utility and effectiveness with referred youths in clinical practice settings. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01178554.

This study used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology and discriminative analyses to examine the correspondence of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) rationally-derived DSM-oriented scales and empirically-derived syndrome scales with clinical diagnoses in a clinic-referred sample of children and adolescents (N = 476). Although results demonstrated that the CBCL Anxiety, Affective, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity, Oppositional and Conduct Problems DSM-oriented scales corresponded significantly with related clinical diagnoses derived from parent-based structured interviews, these DSM-oriented scales did not evidence significantly greater correspondence with clinical diagnoses than the syndrome scales in all cases but one. The DSM-oriented Anxiety Problems scale was the only scale that evidenced significantly greater correspondence with diagnoses above its syndrome scale counterpart —the Anxious/Depressed scale. The recently developed and rationally-derived DSM-oriented scales thus generally do not add incremental clinical utility above that already afforded by the syndrome scales with respect to corresponding with diagnoses. Implications of these findings are discussed.

This study examined patterns of evidence-based treatment (EBT) implementation within community settings by evaluating integrity along separate dimensions of practice content (PC; a session included the prescribed procedure) and practice sequencing (a session occurred in the prescribed sequence) within a recent randomized effectiveness trial. We measured whether sessions showed integrity to PC and to flexible or linear practice sequences. Findings revealed that providers tended to incorporate content from the EBT protocol in most treatment sessions, but that the sequencing of the sessions was often modified, suggesting that providers are amenable to evidence-based procedures, but not necessarily their prescribed arrangement.

Using a school-based (N = 1,060) and clinic-referred (N = 303) youth sample, the authors developed a 25-item shortened version of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS) using Schmid-Leiman exploratory bifactor analysis to reduce client burden and administration time and thus improve the transportability characteristics of this youth anxiety and depression measure. Results revealed that all anxiety items primarily reflected a single “broad anxiety” dimension, which informed the development of a reduced 15-item Anxiety Total scale. Although specific DSM-oriented anxiety subscales were not included in this version, the items comprising the Anxiety Total scale were evenly pulled from the 5 anxiety-related content domains from the original RCADS. The resultant 15-item Anxiety Total scale evidenced significant correspondence with anxiety diagnostic groups based on structured clinical interviews. The scores from the 10-item Depression Total scale (retained from the original version) were also associated with acceptable reliability in the clinic-referred and school-based samples (α = .80 and .79, respectively); this is in contrast to the alternate 5-item shortened RCADS Depression Total scale previously developed by Muris, Meesters, and Schouten (2002), which evidenced depression scores of unacceptable reliability (α = .63). The shortened RCADS developed in the present study thus balances efficiency, breadth, and scale score reliability in a way that is potentially useful for repeated measurement in clinical settings as well as wide-scale screenings that assess anxiety and depressive problems. These future applications are discussed, as are recommendations for continued use of exploratory bifactor modeling in scale development.

The Youth Self Report (YSR) is a widely used measure of youth emotional and behavioral problems. Although the YSR was designed for youths ages 11 to 18, no studies have systematically evaluated whether youths younger than age 11 can make valid reports on this measure. This study thus examined the reliability and validity of the YSR scales scores for younger (ages 7–10; n = 184) and older (ages 11–14; n = 147) youths. Results demonstrated that younger youths were able to provide reliable reports on the YSR broad band (Internalizing, Externalizing) scales, though less so on the narrow band scales. Across all scales, the externalizing scales performed more favorably than the internalizing scales among both younger and older youth. Younger youths’ DSM-oriented scales corresponded significantly with DSM diagnoses.

Objective: To complement standardized measurement of symptoms, we developed and tested an efficient strategy for identifying (before treatment) and repeatedly assessing (during treatment) the problems identified as most important by caregivers and youths in psychotherapy. Method: A total of 178 outpatient-referred youths, 7–13 years of age, and their caregivers separately identified the 3 problems of greatest concern to them at pretreatment and then rated the severity of those problems weekly during treatment. The Top Problems measure thus formed was evaluated for (a) whether it added to the information obtained through empirically derived standardized measures (e.g., the Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001] and the Youth Self-Report [YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001]) and (b) whether it met conventional psychometric standards. Results: The problems identified were significant and clinically relevant; most matched CBCL/YSR items while adding specificity. The top problems also complemented the information yield of the CBCL/YSR; for example, for 41% of caregivers and 79% of youths, the identified top problems did not correspond to any items of any narrowband scales in the clinical range. Evidence on test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, sensitivity to change, slope reliability, and the association of Top Problems slopes with standardized measure slopes supported the psychometric strength of the measure. Conclusions: The Top Problems measure appears to be a psychometrically sound, client-guided approach that complements empirically derived standardized assessment; the approach can help focus attention and treatment planning on the problems that youths and caregivers consider most important and can generate evidence on trajectories of change in those problems during treatment.