Plück Julia, Nawab Laurence, Kamenetzka Elena, Döpfner Manfred
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne.
School for Child and Adolescent Cognitive Behavior Therapy (AKiP), University Hospital Cologne.
Scand J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Psychol. 2025 May 5;13(1):30-43. doi: 10.2478/sjcapp-2025-0004. eCollection 2025 Jan.
Based on Achenbach's school-age questionnaires, research groups have investigated supplementary scales for stress problems, obsessive-compulsive problems, sluggish cognitive tempo, positive qualities, dysregulation, autism spectrum disorders, and mania in 6-18-year-olds partly only in some of the three perspectives the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) provides.
We aimed to evaluate these dimensions for the German-language forms and, if possible, to extend their use to further rating perspectives.
The internal consistencies of the supplementary scales were examined for three types of informants (parents, adolescents, and teachers) and different samples (community sample, clinical sample, and disorder-specific subsamples). Age-and gender-specific effects are displayed as well as cross-informant correlations. Additionally, different aspects of validity were analyzed: (a) convergent/divergent validity via correlations with traditional ASEBA scales (problem scales as well as the scales oriented to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition); (b) discriminative validity via differences between clinical vs. community-based sample as well as disorder-specific subgroup vs. clinical sample.
Most of the supplementary scales showed at least acceptable internal consistency. For some scales, we found significant but rather small and informant-dependent gender and age differences. Convergent validity of the supplementary scales differed across informants. Mean differences between the supplementary scales in the clinical and the community sample as well as the diagnosis-specific subsamples were mostly significant, with predominantly large effect sizes.
Overall, the validity and reliability of the supplementary scales differed depending on informants and subgroups. While further research is necessary before the supplementary scales are implemented in clinical practice, initial recommendations for their use are derived.
This project was carried out as a reanalysis of the datasets upon which the German norms for the school-age versions are based (1). Therefore, the trial was not registered.
基于阿肯巴克学龄儿童问卷,研究团队部分地仅从阿肯巴克实证评估系统(ASEBA)提供的三个视角中的某些视角,对6至18岁儿童的压力问题、强迫问题、认知迟缓、积极品质、失调、自闭症谱系障碍和躁狂等补充量表进行了调查。
我们旨在评估这些维度在德语版本中的情况,并在可能的情况下将其应用扩展到更多的评分视角。
针对三种类型的信息提供者(父母、青少年和教师)以及不同样本(社区样本、临床样本和特定障碍子样本),检查补充量表的内部一致性。展示了年龄和性别特异性效应以及不同信息提供者之间的相关性。此外,还分析了效度的不同方面:(a)通过与传统ASEBA量表(问题量表以及面向《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版的量表)的相关性来分析收敛/发散效度;(b)通过临床样本与社区样本之间以及特定障碍亚组与临床样本之间的差异来分析区分效度。
大多数补充量表显示出至少可接受的内部一致性。对于某些量表,我们发现存在显著但相当小且依赖信息提供者的性别和年龄差异。补充量表的收敛效度在不同信息提供者之间存在差异。临床样本与社区样本以及特定诊断子样本中补充量表之间的平均差异大多显著,且效应大小主要较大。
总体而言,补充量表的效度和信度因信息提供者和亚组而异。虽然在临床实践中实施补充量表之前还需要进一步研究,但已得出其使用的初步建议。
本项目是对学龄儿童版本德语常模所基于的数据集进行的重新分析(1)。因此,该试验未进行注册。