These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Criterion validity of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version 2.3 (DISC-2.3).
    Author: Schwab-Stone ME, Shaffer D, Dulcan MK, Jensen PS, Fisher P, Bird HR, Goodman SH, Lahey BB, Lichtman JH, Canino G, Rubio-Stipec M, Rae DS.
    Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry; 1996 Jul; 35(7):878-88. PubMed ID: 8768347.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To examine the criterion validity of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) Version 2.3 in the NIMH Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study, using a design that permitted several comparisons of DISC-generated diagnoses with diagnoses based on clinician symptom ratings. METHOD: Two hundred forty-seven youths were selected from the 1,285 parent-youth pairs that constituted the four-site MECA sample. Subjects who screened positive for any of the five diagnostic areas under investigation in the validity study (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, depressive disorder, and the major anxiety disorders) were recruited, as well as a comparable number of screen negatives. Clinicians reinterviewed separately both the youth and the primary caregiver using the DISC followed by a clinical-style interview, and then they rated the presence of symptoms and impairment. Computer algorithms combined this information into diagnoses using comparable rules for both DISC and clinical rating diagnoses. RESULTS: In general, the DISC showed moderate to good validity across a number of diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest some specific diagnostic areas in which further revision of the DISC is warranted. Three main sources of variability in DISC-clinician diagnostic agreement were evident over and above that due to the instrument itself, including (1) the informant used, (2) the algorithm applied in synthesizing symptom reports, and (3) the design of the validity comparison.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]