Validity and reliability of the kiddie schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia present and lifetime version DSM-5 (K-SADS-PL-5) Spanish version

Abstract

BackgroundThere are various language adaptations of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Age Children Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL). In order to comply with the changes in DSM classification, the Spanish edition of the interview was in need of update and evaluation.MethodsK-SADS-PL was adapted to correspond to DSM-5 categories. All clinicians received training, and a 90% agreement was reached. Patients and their parents or guardians were interviewed and videotaped, and the videos were exchanged between raters. Factor analysis was performed and inter-rater reliability was calculated only in the case of diagnoses in which there were more than five patients.ResultsA total of 74 subjects were included. The Factor Analysis yielded six factors (Depressive, Stress Hyperarousal, Disruptive Behavioral, Irritable Explosive, Obsessive Repetitive and Encopresis), representing 72% of the variance. Kappa values for inter-rater agreement were larger than 0.7 for over half of the disorders.ConclusionsThe factor structure of diagnoses, made with the instrument was found to correspond to the DSM-5 disorder organization. The instrument showed good construct validity and inter-rater reliability, which makes it a useful tool for clinical research studies in children and adolescents.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1773-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Toward a Dimensional Assessment of Externalizing Disorders in Children: Reliability and Validity of a Semi-Structured Parent Interview

“…As a newly developed clinical interview with a semi-structured format, it is particularly essential to compare diagnostic interrater agreement of the ILF-EXTERNAL with that from other semistructured interviews. The degree of agreement on any ADHD diagnosis was comparable with other findings in clinical samples using the K-SADS (0.42 ≤ κ ≤ 0.92; Kim et al, 2004;Ghanizadeh et al, 2006;Ulloa et al, 2006;de la Peña et al, 2018;Nishiyama et al, 2020). Furthermore, our results regarding diagnostic agreement on ADHD subtypes were also relatable to previous literature.…”

“…With regard to comorbid externalizing disorders, the degree of diagnostic agreement was comparable with other findings in clinical samples using the K-SADS for ODD (0.69 ≤ κ ≤ 0.80; Ghanizadeh et al, 2006 ; de la Peña et al, 2018 ) DMDD (κ = 0.53; de la Peña et al, 2018 ), and CD (0.78 ≤ κ ≤ 1.0; Ghanizadeh et al, 2006 ; Ulloa et al, 2006 ; de la Peña et al, 2018 ). Although our results concerning CD should be interpreted with caution due to its low base rate in the subsample ( n = 6), these results were also in line with previous studies reporting the highest agreement on this diagnosis ( Ghanizadeh et al, 2006 ; Ulloa et al, 2006 ).…”

“…For example, if at least four items from the ODD Symptoms scale were scored with 2 or higher, these scores were considered to fulfill the diagnosis of ODD. Following common research practice, other exclusion criteria (such as not making the diagnosis of ODD in the presence of DMDD or such as only specifying limited prosocial emotions in the presence of CD) were ignored (Angold and Costello, 1995;de la Peña et al, 2018). Fleiss' kappa was calculated between the interviewers and two raters.…”

“…Different editions of the K-SADS exist and the instrument has been evaluated in a variety of populations, with overall good psychometric evidence. Available diagnostic interrater agreement on DSM-IV or DSM-5 externalizing disorders ranges from moderate to almost perfect agreement for several cross-cultural K-SADS adaptations with generally higher agreement in clinical samples ( Kim et al, 2004 ; Ghanizadeh et al, 2006 ; Ulloa et al, 2006 ; de la Peña et al, 2018 ; Nishiyama et al, 2020 ) than in the community population ( Birmaher et al, 2009 ; Chen et al, 2017 ). Kariuki et al (2018) evaluated the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) module of the K-SADS in a large community sample and obtained moderate to substantial intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients for the subdimensions of ADHD.…”

Test-retest reliability of the computer-assisted DIA-X-5 interview for mental disorders

“…This test-retest study has limitations: First, the number of subjects assessed is at the lower bound for a testretest reliability study, which principally affects the reliability estimates for conditions less frequently diagnosed in the sample. However, previous studies on retest reliability of structured clinical interviews included samples of comparable and even lower size with a range of to 43 participants for the M-CIDI [4], the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 disorders (DSM-5 SCID [25]) and the Spanish version of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia present and lifetime version DSM-5 (K-SADS-PL-5 [26]). Second, the test-retest interval varies between one and 36 days.…”