User:Rkang101/sandbox

Executive Summary

If, based on the evidence I collected, I had to choose one parent report, one teacher report, and one diagnostic interview upon which to base a diagnosis of child or adolescent ADHD, I would choose the following: Parent Report Form: CBCL, specifically the CBCL Attention Problems Scale Teacher Report Form: Conners Teacher Rating Scale Revised-Long Form (CTRSR-L), though it should be noted that there is not a lot of evidence that any teacher rating scale is really very effective in informing one's diagnosis of ADHD, and teacher report adds questionable incremental validity in terms of ADHD diagnosis over and above parent-report (Pelham, Fabiano, & Massetti, 2005; Shemmassian & Lee, 2011) Diagnostic Interview: MINI-KID, though others are also acceptable.

Recommended Diagnostic Interviews: MINI-KID : MINI-KID has good to excellent AUC values for most individual disorders, and good AUC values for ADHD diagnosis. MINI-KID also provides both positive and negative likelihood ratios that are helpful in determining changes in probability that clients has the disorder. Finally, the MINI-KID takes 68% less time (33 minutes versus 103 minutes) than the K-SADS-PL (Sheehan et. al, 2009).

Other recommended structured diagnostic interviews: Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (DISC-IV; Jensen et al., 1996): Moderate to high test-retest reliability for the parent version (.79), adequate interrater reliability (0.70), demonstrated that children classified using the DISC had higher risk on indexes of child impairment, sensitive to behavioral and pharmacological treatment effects (Pelham et. al, 2005). Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents-Revised (DICA-R; Boyle et. al, 1993): High reliability scores for the parent version, parent assessment of ADHD tended to be more reliable for older children, stability of diagnosis demonstrated over 1 to 3 years. Good sensitivity and specificity of assessment and diagnosis reported (Pelham et al., 2005).

Other recommended semi-structured diagnostic interviews: Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS; Biederman et al., 1993): Interrater reliability of К = .56, but demonstrated excellent convergence with CBCL Attention Problems Scale, used as the "gold-standard" against which numerous ADHD screening instruments and diagnostic interviews are compared (Pelham et al., 2005).

Recommended Screening Measures: Parent Report: CBCL Attention Problems Scale: The CBCL Attention Problems Subscale was the parent-reported subscale that had been analyzed using ROC methodology in multiple studies, resulting in AUC values ranging from 0.84-0.90. Those AUC values were the highest observed in my search of the literature. Additionally, in different studies the CBCL Attention Problems Scale produced LR+ values that ranged 6.92 to 47, which means they ranged from helpful to clinically decisive, though LR- ratios produced by the scale were less helpful (the lowest negative likelihood ratio value found was 0.19 and LR- values ranged from 0.19 to 0.66). Other Recommended Measures: Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale-Parent Report : Very similar results to CBCL. Slightly smaller AUC, (AUC = .78), and LR+ value (5.06), but more useful LR- value (0.20). Teacher Report: Conners Teacher Rating Scale Revised-Long Form (CTRS-R-L): There were no AUC values reported for the CTRS-R-L but the CTRS-R-L was the only scale to demonstrate a LR+ value (8.66) and a LR- value (0.24) that were both in the range of values that were clinically helpful. Other (very tenatively) Recommended Measures: TRF Attention Problems Subscale: No AUC value reported, somewhat clinically helpful LR+ value (LR+ = 3.66), not a clinically helpful LR- value (=0.73)

Setting	Reference	Base Rate (Female)	Basic Rate (Male)	Demography	Diagnostic Method
Military	Antczak & Brininger, 2008	.04% (combined)	.04% (combined)	US Military	ICD codes from electronic records
Non-clinical; Military	Beekley et al., 2009	.02% (7 years)	0.0% (7 years)	US Military Academy cadets	EAT-26
Non-clinical; Military	McNulty, 1997	1.1% (current & past)	N/A	US Navy female nurses	DSM-III
Non-clinical; Military	Striegel et al., 2008	.04%	.005%	US veterans	ICD-9-CM
Non-clinical; Military	McNulty & Fisher, 1997	N/A	2.5%	Active duty males in US Navy	N/A
Clinical; Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA)	Schuckit et al., 1996	1.41% (lifetime)	.00% (lifetime)	US alcohol-dependent adults from San Diego, St. Lois, Iowa City, Farmington, New York, & Indianapolis	SSAGA
Non-clinical; healthcare members	Striegel-Moore et al., 2008	.0269% (current)	Members of a large US healthcare organization in Portland, Oregon	Healthcare provider records
Non-clinical; high school students	Lewinsohn et al., 1993	. 00% (point), .45% (lifetime)	.00% (point), .00% (lifetime)	US high school students in west central Oregon	DSM-III-R4
Clinical; substance users	Ross et al., 1988	.4% (lifetime), .3% (current)	.4% (lifetime), .3% (current)	Canadian treatment-seeking substance users	DIS9
Europe
Non-clinical; adolescents	Lahortiga et al., 2005	.3%	--	Adolescent females residing in Navarra, Spain	EAT-403
Non-clinical; adolescents	Kjelsås et al., 2004	.7% (lifetime)	.2% (lifetime)	Adolescents in secondary schools in Sør-Trøndelag, County in Norway	SEDs10
Non-clinical; adolescents	Isomaa et al., 2009	.7% (point; age 15), 1.8% (lifetime, age 15), .00% (point, age 18), 2.6% (lifetime, age 18), .9% (3 years)	.00% (point & lifetime)	Adolescents in a comprehensive school in Ostrobothnia district in Finland	RAB-T11 & RAB-R12
Australia
Non-clinical; adolescents	Patton et al., 2003	.00% (full), 1.8% (partial)	--	Adolescent females residing in Victoria, Australia	BET13
Central & South America
Non-clinical; college students	Mancilla-Diaz et al., (2007)	.00%	--	Mexican first & second year college females	EAT-403
East Asia
Clinical; eating disorder patients	Nadaoka et al., 1996	.53%	--	Adolescent and adult Japanese patients at a university hospital	DSM-III-R4
Non-clinical; Korean Epidemiologic Catchment Area (KECA) Study	Je Cho et al., (2007)	.1% (lifetime), .1% (12 months)	.2% (lifetime), .00% (12 months)	Korean adults	K-CIDI15 2.1
Centers participating in the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism in San Diego; St. Louis; Iowa City; Farmington, CN; New York; & Indianapolis	Schuckit et al., 1996	1.41%	N/A	Alcohol-dependent adults	Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism; criteria based on DSM-III-R

₁World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview

₂International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems

₃Eating Attitudes Test

₄Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

₅Eating Disorder Inventory

₆Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism

₇Eating Disorders Diagnostic Interview

₈Questionnaire for Eating Disorder Diagnoses

₉National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule

₁₀Modified Survey for Eating Disorders

₁₁Interview Rating of Anorexia and Bulimia - Teenager Version

₁₂Interview Rating of Anorexia and Bulimia - Revised Version

₁₃Branched Eating Disorders Test

₁₄Eating Disorder Examination

₁₅Korean Version of Composite International Diagnostic Interview

₁₆Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders

Search terms: [Anorexia Nervosa OR anorexia OR eating disorder OR disordered eating] AND [prevalence OR base rate OR epidemiology] in Google Scholar