Cited by 29Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychological Testing and AssessmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Diagnostic efficiency and validity of the DSM-oriented Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self-Report scales in a clinical sample of Swedish youth

Open access
Skarphedinsson, Gudmundur, Jarbin, Håkan, Andersson, Markus, Ivarsson, Tord·2021·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR) are widely used measures of psychiatric symptoms and lately also adapted to the DSM. The incremental validity of adding the scales to each other has not been studied. We validated the DSM subscales for affective, anxiety, attention deficit/hyperactivity (ADHD), oppositional defiant (ODD), conduct problems (CD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in consecutively referred child and adolescent psychiatric outpatients (n = 267) against LEAD DSM-IV diagnoses based on the K-SADS-PL and subsequent clinical work-up. Receiver operating characteristic analyses showed that the diagnostic efficiency for most scales were moderate with an area under the curve (AUC) between 0.70 and 0.90 except for CBCL CD, which had high accuracy (AUC>0.90) in line with previous studies showing the acceptable utility of the CBCL DSM scales and the YSR affective, anxiety, and CD scales, while YSR ODD and OCD had low accuracy (AUC<0.70). The findings mostly reveal incremental validity (using logistic regression analyses) for adding the adolescent to the parent version (or vice versa). Youth and parent ratings contributed equally to predict depression and anxiety disorders, while parent ratings were a stronger predictor for ADHD. However, the youth ADHD rating also contributed. Adding young people as informants for ODD and OCD or adding the parent for CD did not improve accuracy. The findings for depression, anxiety disorders, and ADHD support using more than one informant when conducting screening in a clinical context.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0254953

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • The CBCL's DSM-oriented scales for depression, anxiety disorders, ADHD, somatic symptoms, ODD, and conduct disorders can be used in clinical settings for screening for psychopathology based on the DSM classification system and enhancing diagnostic assessment.

    “Although the scores in the clinical range for specific DSM-oriented scales of the CBCL are not directly equivalent to the corresponding specific diagnosis [41, 42], the CBCL’s DSM-oriented scales for depression, anxiety disorders, ADHD, somatic symptoms, ODD, and conduct disorders can be used in clinical settings for screening for psychopathology based on the DSM classification system and”
  • Studies have demonstrated an acceptable correspondence between the CBCL DSM-oriented scales and DSM diagnoses.

    “Studies have demonstrated an acceptable correspondence between the DSM-oriented scales and DSM diagnoses [33–40].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Skarphedinsson, G., Jarbin, H., Andersson, M., & Ivarsson, T.
Affiliations
  • Lund University (SE)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2021-07-22
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
e0254953
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3185149730
Cited by
29
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Opin vísindi (Opin vísindi) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Opin vísindi (Opin vísindi) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Stiftelsen Kronprinsessan Margaretas Arbetsnämnd för Synskadade (2008-22893)
  • Development and Education (FoUU) within Region Halland, Sweden (MA, 110361)
  • Development and Education (FoU) within Region Skåne, Sweden (133821)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Child Behavior Checklist, Youth Self-Report, diagnostic validity, incremental validity, child and adolescent psychiatry, depression, anxiety disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, screening, Swedish youth
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Anxiety, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Child Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Sweden, Checklist, Self Report

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