Validity of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview by comparison with Longitudinal Expert All Data diagnoses in outpatients

Abstract

Background: The Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) is a standardized intake and follow-up interview used in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Although it has shown good validity compared with other measures using parent reports, it has not yet been compared with diagnoses derived from a Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) procedure, which includes information from separate diagnostic interviews with parent(s) and child. The aim was to compare the BCFPI evaluation in an outpatient child and adolescent psychiatry setting with an evaluation derived from a LEAD procedure. Methods: At four Swedish outpatient CAMHS, 267 patients were interviewed at intake with the BCFPI. Within six weeks, patients and parents were interviewed separately with the 2009 version of the semi-structured Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-age Children, Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL) and parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). LEAD diagnoses were subsequently determined by two senior clinicians based on 1.2 years of clinical records including the K-SADS-PL and ensuing information from further assessments, psychological tests, information from teachers and other informants as well as treatment outcome. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders subscales from the CBCL and the subscales from the BCFPI were compared with LEAD diagnoses. These measured symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, separation anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Results: The criterion validity for BCFPI versus LEAD diagnoses was fair for oppositional defiant disorder (area under curve, 0.73), generalized anxiety disorder (0.73) and major depressive disorder (0.78), good for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (0.81) and conduct disorder (0.83), and excellent for separation anxiety disorder (0.90). The screening properties of BCFPI and CBCL were similar. Conclusion: The BCFPI is a concise and valid tool, performed along with the larger and more established CBCL, in screening for major psychiatric disorders. It is well suited as an intake interview in CAMHS.

Screening efficiency of the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) and Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ) in Swedish help seeking outpatients

“…There were more boys (n = 102, 54.8%) than girls. The sample studied was compared to a concurrent and consecutive sample (n = 5641) of help-seeking CAP outpatients [22]. The sample was no different in proportions of children versus adolescents or boys versus girls but slightly more symptomatic in internalizing (d � 0.3, p< 0.001) and in externalizing symptoms (d � 0.5, p< 0.001).…”

“…Further, a lower AUC to discriminate mood disorder was noted in MFQ-parent from clinical as opposed to non-clinical studies [11]. Earlier studies have suggested cut-offs based on maximum separation of 27-29 (MFQ-child) and [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] (MFQ-parent) [11][12][13]16]. Suggested cut-offs favouring sensitivity were 26-28 (MFQ-child) and 22 (MFQ-parent) [14,15].…”

Evaluation of a new model for assessment and treatment of uncomplicated ADHD – effect, patient satisfaction and costs

“…The results are presented as a T-score for each subscale with standardized norms for age and gender. BCFPI also examines the child's overall functioning, family functioning, family distress, parental depression, neglect and abuse [26]. The parameter family situation consists of two subdomains, family comfort and family activity.…”

“…response given from the staff), methods for parenting, influence on decision, and benefit of the assessment. The BCFPI has shown overall good validity in different settings [26][27][28] and its broad approach has proven useful in evaluating mental health services [29][30][31][32].…”

“…Triaging patients correctly to the SC unit is a crucial step as high numbers of false positive cases arriving to the comprehensive assessment would reduce efficiency of the SC unit. Region Halland had already a structured triaging with BCFPI, which had shown good reliability for ADHD [26]. Forming the SC unit and utilizing residents for the diagnosis at first visit was possible as the diagnostic tradition and training at the clinic was more robust than the norm in the country.…”