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.

Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): Initial Reliability and Validity Data

In the context of the development of prototypic assessment instruments in the areas of cognition, personality, and adaptive functioning, the issues of standardization, norming procedures, and the important psychometrics of test reliability and validity are evaluated critically. Criteria, guidelines, and simple rules of thumb are provided to assist the clinician faced with the challenge of choosing an appropriate test instrument for a given psychological assessment. Clinicians are often faced with the critical challenge of choosing the most appropriate available test instrument for a given psychological assessment of a child, adolescent, or adult of a particular age, gender, and class of disability. It is the purpose of this report to provide some criteria, guidelines, or simple rules of thumb to aid in this complex scientific decision. As such, it draws upon my experience with issues of test development, standardization, norming procedures, and important psychometrics, namely, test reliability and validity. As I and my colleagues noted in an earlier publication, the major areas of psychological functioning, in the normal development of infants, children, adolescents, adults, and elderly people, include cognitive, academic, personality, and adaptive behaviors (Sparrow, Fletcher, & Cicchetti, 1985). As such, the major examples or applications discussed in this article derive primarily, although not exclusively, from these several areas of human functioning.

/pdf/guidelines-criteria-and-rules-of-thumb-for-evaluating-normed-ceb0hwge3w.pdf

Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features: appropriate for assessing both randomised and non-randomised studies; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power, but also for external validity. DESIGN: A pilot version was first developed, based on epidemiological principles, reviews, and existing checklists for randomised studies. Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced reviewers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 randomised and 10 non-randomised studies. Using different raters, the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20), test-retest and inter-rater reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test; kappa statistics), criterion validity, and respondent burden. MAIN RESULTS: The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version. The Quality Index had high internal consistency (KR-20: 0.89) as did the subscales apart from external validity (KR-20: 0.54). Test-retest (r 0.88) and inter-rater (r 0.75) reliability of the Quality Index were good. Reliability of the subscales varied from good (bias) to poor (external validity). The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing, established instrument for assessing randomised studies (r 0.90). There was little difference between its performance with non-randomised and with randomised studies. Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper (range 10 to 45 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the methodological quality not only of randomised controlled trials but also non-randomised studies. It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper, alerting reviewers to its particular methodological strengths and weaknesses. Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/52/6/377.full.pdf

The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.

The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G) is a semistructured, standardized assessment of social interaction, communication, play, and imaginative use of materials for individuals suspected of having autism spectrum disorders. The observational schedule consists of four 30-minute modules, each designed to be administered to different individuals according to their level of expressive language. Psychometric data are presented for 223 children and adults with Autistic Disorder (autism), Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDDNOS) or nonspectrum diagnoses. Within each module, diagnostic groups were equivalent on expressive language level. Results indicate substantial interrater and test-retest reliability for individual items, excellent interrater reliability within domains and excellent internal consistency. Comparisons of means indicated consistent differentiation of autism and PDDNOS from nonspectrum individuals, with some, but less consistent, differentiation of autism from PDDNOS. A priori operationalization of DSM-IV/ICD-10 criteria, factor analyses, and ROC curves were used to generate diagnostic algorithms with thresholds set for autism and broader autism spectrum/PDD. Algorithm sensitivities and specificities for autism and PDDNOS relative to nonspectrum disorders were excellent, with moderate differentiation of autism from PDDNOS.

/pdf/the-autism-diagnostic-observation-schedule-generic-a-o50oqma4kk.pdf

The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism.

Items such as physical exam findings, radiographic interpretations, or other diagnostic tests often rely on some degree of subjective interpretation by observers. Studies that measure the agreement between two or more observers should include a statistic that takes into account the fact that observers will sometimes agree or disagree simply by chance. The kappa statistic (or kappa coefficient) is the most commonly used statistic for this purpose. A kappa of 1 indicates perfect agreement, whereas a kappa of 0 indicates agreement equivalent to chance. A limitation of kappa is that it is affected by the prevalence of the finding under observation. Methods to overcome this limitation have been described.

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~julia/courses/CS6998/Interrater_agreement.Kappa_statistic.pdf

Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

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.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2529310.pdf

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

J. R. Landis

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data