Dataset Information

German Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Reliability, Validity, and Cross-Informant Agreement in a Clinical Sample.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The psychometric properties and cross-informant agreement of a German translation of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED) were assessed in a clinical sample

Methods

102 children and adolescents in outpatient psychotherapy and their parents filled out the SCARED and Youth Self Report/Child Behaviour Checklist (YSR/CBCL).

Results

The German SCARED showed good internal consistency for both parent and self-report version, and proved to be convergently and discriminantly valid when compared with YSR/CBCL scales. Cross-informant agreement was moderate with children reporting both a larger number as well as higher severity of anxiety symptoms than their parents.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the German SCARED is a valid and reliable anxiety scale and may be used in a clinical setting.

SUBMITTER: Weitkamp K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2912250 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

German Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Reliability, Validity, and Cross-Informant Agreement in a Clinical Sample.

Weitkamp Katharina K Romer Georg G Rosenthal Sandra S Wiegand-Grefe Silke S Daniels Judith J

Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health 20100630

<h4>Background</h4>The psychometric properties and cross-informant agreement of a German translation of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED) were assessed in a clinical sample<h4>Methods</h4>102 children and adolescents in outpatient psychotherapy and their parents filled out the SCARED and Youth Self Report/Child Behaviour Checklist (YSR/CBCL).<h4>Results</h4>The German SCARED showed good internal consistency for both parent and self-report version, and proved to be ...[more]

PMID: 20591137

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly detection of cognitive impairment is among the top research priorities aimed at reducing the global burden of dementia. Currently used screening tools have high sensitivity but lack specificity at their original cut-off, while decreasing the cut-off was repeatedly shown to improve specificity, but at the cost of lower sensitivity. In 2012, a new screening tool was introduced that aims to overcome these limitations - the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci). The original English Qmci has been rigorously validated and demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with both good sensitivity and specificity. We aimed to determine the optimal cut-off value for the German Qmci, and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from healthy older adults (HOA; n = 43) and individuals who have a clinical diagnosis of 'mild neurocognitive disorder' (mNCD; n = 37) with a biomarker supported characterization of the etiology of mNCD of three studies of the 'Brain-IT' project. Using Youden's Index, we calculated the optimal cut-off score to distinguish between HOA and mNCD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy based on the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Reliability (internal consistency) was analyzed by calculating Cronbach's α. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing convergent validity between Qmci-G subdomain scores and reference assessments measuring the same neurocognitive domain.ResultsThe optimal cut-off score for the Qmci-G was ≤ 67 (AUC = 0.96). This provided a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 90.7%. The PPV and NPV were 89.5% and 92.9%, respectively. Cronbach's α of the Qmci-G was 0.71 (CI95% [0.65 to 0.78]). The Qmci-G demonstrated good construct validity for subtests measuring learning and memory. Subtests that measure executive functioning and/or visuo-spatial skills showed mixed findings and/or did not correlate as strongly as expected with reference assessments.ConclusionOur findings corroborate the existing evidence of the Qmci's good diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity. Additionally, the Qmci shows potential in resolving the limitations of commonly used screening tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. To verify these findings for the Qmci-G, testing in clinical environments and/or primary health care and direct comparisons with standard screening tools utilized in these settings are warranted.

Project description:Introduction:Children with high dental anxiety display uncooperative behavior during dental procedures. Different self-assessment questionnaires are in use to estimate the prevalence of dental fear and anxiety (DFA) in children but they need to be tested for reliability and validity in different populations. Objectives:The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of two scales for the assessment of child dental fear and anxiety in a sample of Croatian children. Material and Methods:The sample comprised 202 pairs consisting of children and their mothers (97 boys and 105 girls) aged 5 - 12 years. Two scales were used to assess children's DFA: the Children's Fear Survey Schedule - Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) and the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale - face version (MCDAS-f). The Corah's Dental Anxiety Scale (CDAS) was used in the sample of children's mothers. The average scores of cooperative children and children with behavior management problem (BMP) were compared. Results:Cooperative children displayed significantly lower CFSS-DS scores than children with BMP (M = 28. 46 vs. M = 39. 36; P < 0.001). The average MCDAS-f score was significantly higher in children with BMP than in cooperative children (M = 28. 07 vs. 20. 01; P < 0.001). The CFSS-DS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's ? = 0. 90), while internal consistency of MCDAS-f was good (? = 0. 73). The maternal CDAS showed good internal consistency (? = 0, 89). The correlations with other self-report measurements of DFS show good validity of all scales. The correlations between CFSS-DS and MCDAS-f were highly significant (r = 0.482; P < 0. 01) as well as the correlations of CFSS-DS and MCDAS-f with CDAS scores (r = 0.223; P < 0. 01 and r = 0.198; P < 0. 01, respectively. Conclusion:The obtained results suggest that both the CFSS-DS scale and the MCDAS-f scale are reliable and valid scales for measuring dental fear and anxiety in children in a sample of Croatian children. The MCDAS-f scale has shown slightly lower internal consistency but it is suitable for use in young children. In addition, the MCDAS-f scale is simple to administer.

Dataset Information

German Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Reliability, Validity, and Cross-Informant Agreement in a Clinical Sample.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

German Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Reliability, Validity, and Cross-Informant Agreement in a Clinical Sample.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets