Validation of Arabic versions of the child psychosocial distress screener and pediatric symptom checklist for young adolescents living in vulnerable communities in Lebanon.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY International Journal of Mental Health Systems Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1186/s13033-024-00640-y
Felicity L Brown, Frederik Steen, Karine Taha, Gabriela V Koppenol-Gonzalez, May Aoun, Richard Bryant, Mark J D Jordans
{"title":"Validation of Arabic versions of the child psychosocial distress screener and pediatric symptom checklist for young adolescents living in vulnerable communities in Lebanon.","authors":"Felicity L Brown, Frederik Steen, Karine Taha, Gabriela V Koppenol-Gonzalez, May Aoun, Richard Bryant, Mark J D Jordans","doi":"10.1186/s13033-024-00640-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In humanitarian settings, brief screening instruments for child psychological distress have potential to assist in assessing prevalence, monitoring outcomes, and identifying children and adolescents in most need of scarce resources, given few mental health professionals for diagnostic services. Yet, there are few validated screening tools available, particularly in Arabic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We translated and adapted the Child Psychosocial Distress Screener (CPDS) and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) and conducted a validation study with 85 adolescents (aged 10-15) in Lebanon. We assessed internal consistency; test-retest reliability; convergent validity between adolescent- and caregiver-report and between the two measures; ability to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical samples; and concurrent validity against psychiatrist interview using the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The translated and adapted child-reported PSC-17 and PSC-35, and caregiver-reported PSC-35 all showed adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability and high concurrent validity with psychiatrist interview and were able to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical samples. However, the caregiver-reported PSC-17 did not demonstrate adequate performance in this setting. Child-reported versions of the PSC outperformed caregiver-reported versions and the 35-item PSC scales showed stronger performance than 17-item scales. The CPDS showed adequate convergent validity with the PSC, ability to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical samples, and concurrent validity with psychiatrist interview. Internal consistency was low for the CPDS, likely due to the nature of the brief risk-screening tool. There were discrepancies between caregiver and child-reports, worthy of future investigation. For indication of any diagnosis requiring treatment, we recommend cut-offs of 5 for CPDS, 12 for child-reported PSC-17, 21 for child-reported PSC-35, and 26 for caregiver-reported PSC-35.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Arabic PSC and CPDS are reliable and valid instruments for use as primary screening tools in Lebanon. Further research is needed to understand discrepancies between adolescent and caregiver reports, and optimal methods of using multiple informants.</p>","PeriodicalId":47752,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","volume":"18 1","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11137983/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-024-00640-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In humanitarian settings, brief screening instruments for child psychological distress have potential to assist in assessing prevalence, monitoring outcomes, and identifying children and adolescents in most need of scarce resources, given few mental health professionals for diagnostic services. Yet, there are few validated screening tools available, particularly in Arabic.

Methods: We translated and adapted the Child Psychosocial Distress Screener (CPDS) and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) and conducted a validation study with 85 adolescents (aged 10-15) in Lebanon. We assessed internal consistency; test-retest reliability; convergent validity between adolescent- and caregiver-report and between the two measures; ability to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical samples; and concurrent validity against psychiatrist interview using the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia.

Results: The translated and adapted child-reported PSC-17 and PSC-35, and caregiver-reported PSC-35 all showed adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability and high concurrent validity with psychiatrist interview and were able to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical samples. However, the caregiver-reported PSC-17 did not demonstrate adequate performance in this setting. Child-reported versions of the PSC outperformed caregiver-reported versions and the 35-item PSC scales showed stronger performance than 17-item scales. The CPDS showed adequate convergent validity with the PSC, ability to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical samples, and concurrent validity with psychiatrist interview. Internal consistency was low for the CPDS, likely due to the nature of the brief risk-screening tool. There were discrepancies between caregiver and child-reports, worthy of future investigation. For indication of any diagnosis requiring treatment, we recommend cut-offs of 5 for CPDS, 12 for child-reported PSC-17, 21 for child-reported PSC-35, and 26 for caregiver-reported PSC-35.

Conclusions: The Arabic PSC and CPDS are reliable and valid instruments for use as primary screening tools in Lebanon. Further research is needed to understand discrepancies between adolescent and caregiver reports, and optimal methods of using multiple informants.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为生活在黎巴嫩弱势社区的青少年验证阿拉伯语版本的儿童心理社会困扰筛选器和儿科症状清单。
背景:在人道主义环境中,儿童心理困扰的简易筛查工具有可能有助于评估患病率、监测结果,以及识别最需要稀缺资源的儿童和青少年,因为用于诊断服务的心理健康专业人员很少。然而,经过验证的筛查工具却很少,尤其是阿拉伯语的筛查工具:我们翻译并改编了儿童心理社会压力筛查工具(CPDS)和儿科症状清单(PSC),并对黎巴嫩的 85 名青少年(10-15 岁)进行了验证研究。我们评估了内部一致性、重测可靠性、青少年和照顾者报告之间以及两种测量之间的趋同效度、区分临床和非临床样本的能力,以及与使用情感障碍和精神分裂症儿童时间表进行的精神科医生访谈的并发效度:结果:经过翻译和改编的儿童报告的PSC-17和PSC-35,以及照料者报告的PSC-35均显示出足够的内部一致性和重测信度,与精神科医生访谈的同期效度较高,并且能够区分临床和非临床样本。然而,由照顾者报告的 PSC-17 在这种情况下并没有表现出足够的效能。儿童报告的 PSC 版本优于护理人员报告的版本,35 个项目的 PSC 量表比 17 个项目的量表表现更佳。CPDS 与 PSC 具有充分的收敛效度,能够区分临床和非临床样本,并与精神科医生访谈具有并发效度。CPDS 的内部一致性较低,这可能与简短风险筛查工具的性质有关。照料者和儿童的报告之间存在差异,值得今后进行调查。对于任何需要治疗的诊断指示,我们建议 CPDS 临界值为 5,儿童报告的 PSC-17 临界值为 12,儿童报告的 PSC-35 临界值为 21,照顾者报告的 PSC-35 临界值为 26:阿拉伯语 PSC 和 CPDS 是可靠有效的工具,可用作黎巴嫩的初级筛查工具。需要进一步开展研究,以了解青少年报告与护理人员报告之间的差异,以及使用多个信息提供者的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reducing stigma and improving access to care for people with mental health conditions in the community: protocol for a multi-site feasibility intervention study (Indigo-Local). Reach, uptake, and psychological outcomes of two publicly funded internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy programs in Ontario, Canada: an observational study. Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities. Evaluating Pakistan's mental healthcare system using World Health Organization's assessment instrument for mental health system (WHO-AIMS). A process study of early achievements and challenges in countries engaged with the WHO Special Initiative for Mental Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1