Cited by 466Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Multiple Informant Agreement and the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for Parents and Children

Open access
GRILLS, AMIE E., OLLENDICK, THOMAS H.·2003·Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To examine concordance of child, parent, and consensus agreement on the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule, Child and Parent versions (ADIS-C/P), for an outpatient sample of children and adolescents and to explore moderators of those relations. Child characteristics (age, gender, social desirability), a family environment variable (conflict), and type of diagnoses (internalizing, externalizing) were systematically examined.Method These relations were examined in 165 children and adolescents referred to a psychological clinic by family practitioners, pediatricians, schools, and mental health professionals. Participants were individually administered the ADIS-C or ADIS-P by separate clinicians, and consensus diagnoses were determined in a clinical conference. Agreements between child-parent, child-consensus, and parent-consensus were determined.Results Poor levels of agreement were found among our informants, especially between child and parent and to some extent between child and consensus. Agreement was higher between parent and consensus, suggesting that our clinicians tended to favor parent input over child input. Although the effects were complex, characteristics of the child, family, and type of diagnosis moderated or qualified these findings.Conclusions Although discrepancies exist among our informants, our overall findings suggest important information is obtained from each informant and, when combined with certain modifying characteristics, may lead to diagnostic and treatment decisions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004583-200301000-00008

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is currently a paucity of research examining the efficacy of ACT in children and adolescents with anxiety.

    “there is currently a paucity of research examining the efficacy of ACT in children and adolescents with anxiety.”

    From Acceptance and commitment therapy for anxious children and adolescents: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. (2013) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Abstract discusses a paucity of studies on parent–child agreement using the ADIS, not the efficacy of ACT. A search of our full-text copy for ACT and treatment efficacy found no passage addressing research on ACT for anxious children or adolescents. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A literature search produced only one published study of ACT in children and adolescents with anxiety, a case study.

    “A literature search produced only one published study, that being a case study [19].”

    From Acceptance and commitment therapy for anxious children and adolescents: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. (2013) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Abstract discusses one known study of parent–child agreement on the ADIS, not a literature search on ACT. Searches for ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy, and a published case study found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Moos RH, Moos BS (1981), Manual for the Family Environment Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GRILLS, A. E., & OLLENDICK, T. H.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
  • GRILLS, AMIE E.
  • OLLENDICK, THOMAS H.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
30-40
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969315389
Cited by
466
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 34
FWCI
17.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
parent-child agreement, diagnostic agreement, family conflict, internalizing disorders, externalizing disorders, social desirability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Anxiety Disorders, Child, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Parents, Sex Factors, Social Desirability, Virginia, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Consensus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review