Objective:

This study examined the agreement between diagnoses and severity ratings assigned by clinicians using a structured web-based interview within a child and adolescent mental health outpatient setting.

Method:

Information on 100 youths was obtained from multiple informants through a web-based Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA). Based on this information, four experienced clinicians independently diagnosed (according to the International Classification of Diseases Revision 10) and rated the severity of mental health problems according to the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) and the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (C-GAS).

Results:

Agreement for diagnosis was κ=0.69-0.82. Intra-class correlation for single measures was 0.78 for HoNOSCA and 0.74 for C-GAS, and 0.93 and 0.92, respectively for average measures.

Conclusions:

Agreement was good to excellent for all diagnostic categories. Agreement for severity was moderate, but improved to substantial when the average of the ratings given by all clinicians was considered. Therefore, we conclude that experienced clinicians can assign reliable diagnoses and assess severity based on DAWBA data collected online.

Purpose

To examine whether the widely used Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) can validly be used to compare the prevalence of child mental health problems cross nationally.

Methods

We used data on 29,225 5- to 16-year olds in eight population-based studies from seven countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Britain, India, Norway, Russia and Yemen. Parents completed the SDQ in all eight studies, teachers in seven studies and youth in five studies. We used these SDQ data to calculate three different sorts of “caseness indicators” based on (1) SDQ symptoms, (2) SDQ symptoms plus impact and (3) an overall respondent judgement of ‘definite’ or ‘severe’ difficulties. Respondents also completed structured diagnostic interviews including extensive open-ended questions (the Development and Well-Being Assessment, DAWBA). Diagnostic ratings were all carried out or supervised by the DAWBA’s creator, working in conjunction with experienced local professionals.

Results

As judged by the DAWBA, the prevalence of any mental disorder ranged from 2.2% in India to 17.1% in Russia. The nine SDQ caseness indicators (three indicators times three informants) explained 8–56% of the cross-national variation in disorder prevalence. This was insufficient to make meaningful prevalence estimates since populations with a similar measured prevalence of disorder on the DAWBA showed large variations across the various SDQ caseness indicators.

Conclusions

The relationship between SDQ caseness indicators and disorder rates varies substantially between populations: cross-national differences in SDQ indicators do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder rates. More generally, considerable caution is required when interpreting cross-cultural comparisons of mental health, particularly when these rely on brief questionnaires.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00127-011-0440-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background

The use of screening instruments can reduce waiting lists and increase treatment capacity. The aim of this study was to examine the usefulness of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) with the original UK scoring algorithms, when used as a screening instrument to detect mental health disorders among patients in the Norwegian Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) North Study.

Methods

A total of 286 outpatients, aged 5 to 18 years, from the CAMHS North Study were assigned diagnoses based on a Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA). The main diagnostic groups (emotional, hyperactivity, conduct and other disorders) were then compared to the SDQ scoring algorithms using two dichotomisation levels: 'possible' and 'probable' levels. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (ORD) were calculated.

Results

Sensitivity for the diagnostic categories included was 0.47-0.85 ('probable' dichotomisation level) and 0.81-1.00 ('possible' dichotomisation level). Specificity was 0.52-0.87 ('probable' level) and 0.24-0.58 ('possible' level). The discriminative ability, as measured by ORD, was in the interval for potentially useful tests for hyperactivity disorders and conduct disorders when dichotomised on the 'possible' level.

Conclusions

The usefulness of the SDQ UK-based scoring algorithms in detecting mental health disorders among patients in the CAMHS North Study is only partly supported in the present study. They seem best suited to identify children and adolescents who do not require further psychiatric evaluation, although this as well is problematic from a clinical point of view.

Purpose

To estimate the prevalence of the ADHD phenotype based on parent and teacher reports in a general population sample of 7- to 9-year-old Norwegian children and evaluate the effect of parent attrition, gender and informant on the prevalence estimate.

Methods

The population consisted of all children (N = 9,430) attending 2nd–4th grade in the City of Bergen, Norway. The 18 symptoms of ADHD corresponding to the SNAP-IV and DSM-IV were included in the Bergen Child Study questionnaire to teachers and parents. Teacher information was available for 9,137 children (97%) and information from both informants was available for the 6,237 children (66%) whose parents agreed to participate in the study.

Results

The prevalence of the ADHD phenotype based on the combination of parent and teacher reports was 5.2% among participants. Teacher ratings of non-participants had a doubled rate of ADHD high scorers with an OR of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.9–2.4). The non-participant ADHD high scorers had more inattentive and fewer hyperactive/impulsive symptoms as compared to participating ADHD high scorers. Teachers reported high scores of hyperactivity/impulsivity and the combined symptom constellation much more frequently in boys than girls, while the difference between genders was less marked according to parent reports.

Conclusions

The ADHD phenotype was twice as prevalent among non-participants as among participants. Reported prevalences in population studies are therefore likely to be underestimates, if such attrition bias is not accounted for. Choice of informant, criteria for symptom count, definitions of subtypes and gender differences influence the prevalence estimates of the ADHD phenotype.