Validity of Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome with Mother and Father Ratings of Brazilian Children: Replication of Northern Hemisphere Findings in South America.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Child Psychiatry & Human Development Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1007/s10578-024-01789-w
Gabriel Belinati, Marcela Moura, Stephen P Becker, G Leonard Burns
{"title":"Validity of Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome with Mother and Father Ratings of Brazilian Children: Replication of Northern Hemisphere Findings in South America.","authors":"Gabriel Belinati, Marcela Moura, Stephen P Becker, G Leonard Burns","doi":"10.1007/s10578-024-01789-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI) cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) scale has demonstrated validity relative to the CABI attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-inattention (ADHD-IN) scale with parent ratings of youth from North America, Europe, East Asia, and Central Asia, no study has evaluated the validity of the 15 symptom CDS scale with children from South America. Our purpose was to examine for the first time the validity of the CABI CDS scale with Brazilian children. Latent variable modeling procedures were used to examine the validity of CDS scores. Mothers and fathers completed measures of CDS, ADHD-IN, ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity (HI), anxiety, depression, and academic impairment on 366 Brazilian children (M<sub>age</sub> = 8.64, SD<sub>age</sub> = 1.39, 53.3% females). First, the CDS symptoms showed strong internal validity with the ADHD-IN symptoms. Second, within and across sources, ADHD-IN showed stronger first-order and unique associations than CDS with ADHD-HI, whereas CDS, especially across sources, showed stronger first-order and unique associations than ADHD-IN with anxiety and depression. CDS and ADHD-IN were similarly associated with academic impairment. This study is the first to support the validity of CABI CDS scores with Brazilian children, thus replicating the findings in North America, Europe, East Asia, and the Central Asia in South America.</p>","PeriodicalId":10024,"journal":{"name":"Child Psychiatry & Human Development","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Psychiatry & Human Development","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-024-01789-w","RegionNum":3,"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

Although the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI) cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) scale has demonstrated validity relative to the CABI attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-inattention (ADHD-IN) scale with parent ratings of youth from North America, Europe, East Asia, and Central Asia, no study has evaluated the validity of the 15 symptom CDS scale with children from South America. Our purpose was to examine for the first time the validity of the CABI CDS scale with Brazilian children. Latent variable modeling procedures were used to examine the validity of CDS scores. Mothers and fathers completed measures of CDS, ADHD-IN, ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity (HI), anxiety, depression, and academic impairment on 366 Brazilian children (Mage = 8.64, SDage = 1.39, 53.3% females). First, the CDS symptoms showed strong internal validity with the ADHD-IN symptoms. Second, within and across sources, ADHD-IN showed stronger first-order and unique associations than CDS with ADHD-HI, whereas CDS, especially across sources, showed stronger first-order and unique associations than ADHD-IN with anxiety and depression. CDS and ADHD-IN were similarly associated with academic impairment. This study is the first to support the validity of CABI CDS scores with Brazilian children, thus replicating the findings in North America, Europe, East Asia, and the Central Asia in South America.

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
认知脱离综合症与巴西儿童母亲和父亲评分的有效性:南美洲北半球研究结果的复制。
虽然儿童和青少年行为量表(CABI)认知脱离综合症(CDS)量表在北美、欧洲、东亚和中亚青少年的父母评分中已经证明了相对于CABI注意缺陷/多动障碍-注意力不集中(adhd)量表的有效性,但没有研究评估了15种症状CDS量表在南美儿童中的有效性。我们的目的是首次检验CABI CDS量表在巴西儿童中的有效性。使用潜在变量建模程序来检验CDS评分的有效性。母亲和父亲完成了366名巴西儿童的CDS、ADHD-IN、adhd -多动/冲动(HI)、焦虑、抑郁和学业障碍的测量(Mage = 8.64, SDage = 1.39, 53.3%的女性)。首先,CDS症状与adhd症状表现出很强的内在有效性。其次,在来源内部和跨来源,ADHD-IN比cd与ADHD-HI表现出更强的一阶和独特的关联,而cd,特别是跨来源,比ADHD-IN与焦虑和抑郁表现出更强的一阶和独特的关联。cd和adhd与学业障碍的关系相似。这项研究首次支持CABI CDS评分在巴西儿童中的有效性,从而复制了北美、欧洲、东亚和南美洲中亚的研究结果。
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
0.50
自引率
3.40%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: Child Psychiatry & Human Development is an interdisciplinary international journal serving the groups represented by child and adolescent psychiatry, clinical child/pediatric/family psychology, pediatrics, social science, and human development. The journal publishes research on diagnosis, assessment, treatment, epidemiology, development, advocacy, training, cultural factors, ethics, policy, and professional issues as related to clinical disorders in children, adolescents, and families. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original empirical research in addition to substantive and theoretical reviews.
期刊最新文献
The Predictive Value of Preadolescent Suicidal Ideation Reporter Discrepancies in the ABCD Study. Expert Rater Agreement for Symptoms and Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in Youth. Heterogeneity in Developmental Trajectories of Internalizing and Externalizing Symptomatology: Associations with Risk and Protective Factors. Impact of Positive Childhood Experiences (PCEs): A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies. Training Community Clinicians in Implementing CBT-ERP for Youth with OCD: A Pilot Study in Australian Community Mental Health Services.
×
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