Cited by 169Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents: An Initial Psychometric Investigation

MASIA-WARNER, CARRIE, STORCH, ERIC A., PINCUS, DONNA B., KLEIN, RACHEL G., HEIMBERG, RICHARD G., LIEBOWITZ, MICHAEL R.·2003·Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To examine the psychometric properties of a newly developed clinician rating scale, the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents (LSAS-CA). Method A total of 154 children and adolescents participated in an assessment consisting of a diagnostic interview, the LSAS-CA, and other measures of psychopathology and impairment. Sixty-one of these children also participated in a second LSAS-CA administration, by a different rater blind to diagnosis, within 7 days of the initial assessment. Results High internal consistency (alpha =.90-.97 for full sample and.83-.95 for social phobia group) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89-0.94) were obtained for LSAS-CA total and subscale scores. LSAS-CA scores had stronger associations with measures of social anxiety and general impairment than with a measure of depression. Subjects with social anxiety disorder had significantly higher LSAS-CA scores than subjects with other anxiety disorders and healthy controls. A LSAS-CA cutoff score of 22.5 represented the best balance of sensitivity and specificity when distinguishing between individuals with social phobia and normal controls, whereas a cutoff of 29.5 was optimal for distinguishing social phobia from other anxiety disorders. Conclusion Initial findings suggest that the LSAS-CA is a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of social anxiety disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.chi.0000070249.24125.89

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MASIA-WARNER, C., STORCH, E. A., PINCUS, D. B., KLEIN, R. G., HEIMBERG, R. G., & LIEBOWITZ, M. R.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-09
Volume
42
Issue
9
Pages
1076-1084
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092074358
Cited by
169
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, children and adolescents, psychometric properties, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, diagnostic thresholds, sensitivity and specificity, anxiety disorders
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Phobic Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation

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