4.2 Article

The reliability and validity of Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version-Korean version (K-SADS-PL-K)

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 81-89

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2004.45.1.81

关键词

K-SADS-PL-K; validity; reliability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to develop a structured and objective diagnostic instrument, authors completed: (1) the translation and back translation of the Korean version of the Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia - Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL) and (2) the examination of its validity and reliability of the K-SADS-PL-Korean version (K-SADS-PL) when used with Korean children. A total of 91 study subjects were recruited from child and adolescent psychiatry outpatient clinics. Clinical diagnoses were used as a gold standard for the examination of validity of K-SADS-PL-K. Consensual validity of threshold and sub-threshold diagnoses were good to excellent for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), fair for tic and oppositional defiant disorders, and poor to fair for anxiety and depressive disorders. Inter-rater and test-retest reliabilities were fair to excellent for ADHD and tic disorder. The significant correlations between the K-SADS-PL-K and Korean Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL) were found, which provided additional support for the concurrent validity of the K-SADS-PL-K. Sensitivities varied according to the diagnostic categories, but specificities remained high over all diagnoses, suggesting that the K-SADS-PL-K is a desirable confirmatory diagnostic tool. The results of this study suggest that the K-SADS-PL-K is an effective instrument for diagnosing major child psychiatric disorders, including ADHD, behavioral disorders and tic disorders in Korean children. Future studies will examine the validity and reliability of the K-SADS-PL-K in larger samples, including adolescents and community samples on a variety of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据