Cargando…

Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are common in children and adolescents, which can be detected via self-report questionnaires in non-clinical settings like the school environment. Two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (i.e., RCADS-25 and RCADS-20) seem to be feasible...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Klaufus, Leonie, Verlinden, Eva, van der Wal, Marcel, Kösters, Mia, Cuijpers, Pim, Chinapaw, Mai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7003441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32024481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2444-5
_version_ 1783494536969846784
author Klaufus, Leonie
Verlinden, Eva
van der Wal, Marcel
Kösters, Mia
Cuijpers, Pim
Chinapaw, Mai
author_facet Klaufus, Leonie
Verlinden, Eva
van der Wal, Marcel
Kösters, Mia
Cuijpers, Pim
Chinapaw, Mai
author_sort Klaufus, Leonie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are common in children and adolescents, which can be detected via self-report questionnaires in non-clinical settings like the school environment. Two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (i.e., RCADS-25 and RCADS-20) seem to be feasible for administering at schools. The present study evaluated the psychometric properties of the RCADS-25 and RCADS-20 used as screening instruments for anxiety and depression in a general population of schoolchildren and adolescents. METHODS: The RCADS-25 was completed by 69,487 schoolchildren and adolescents aged 8 to 18. The RCADS-25 and RCADS-20 broad anxiety scales are equal (15 items), but there are two versions of the major depressive disorder (MDD) scale: the RCADS-25 MDD scale (10 items) and the RCADS-20 MDD scale (5 items). The three scales were assessed on structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and hypotheses for construct validity. RESULTS: The RCADS-25/RCADS-20 broad anxiety scale demonstrated a sufficient structural validity (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.03), internal consistency (alpha = 0.82), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.73), criterion validity (AUC = 0.79), and all four hypotheses concerning construct validity were confirmed. The RCADS-25 MDD scale demonstrated a sufficient test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.70) and three out of four hypotheses concerning construct validity were confirmed, but its structural validity was suspect (CFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.06). The RCADS-20 MDD scale demonstrated a sufficient structural validity (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04) and internal consistency (alpha = 0.72). Two out of four hypotheses concerning construct validity were confirmed. The test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.60) was insufficient. Since both MDD scales showed shortcomings, the shortening of the RCADS-25 MDD scale was re-examined post hoc by principal component and reliability analyses. The result was an MDD scale with seven items. CONCLUSIONS: The RCADS-25/RCADS-20 broad anxiety scale is valid and reliable for screening schoolchildren and adolescents, but the RCADS-25 and RCADS-20 MDD scales showed shortcomings. An MDD scale of seven items showed acceptable psychometric properties.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7003441
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70034412020-02-10 Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale Klaufus, Leonie Verlinden, Eva van der Wal, Marcel Kösters, Mia Cuijpers, Pim Chinapaw, Mai BMC Psychiatry Research Article BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are common in children and adolescents, which can be detected via self-report questionnaires in non-clinical settings like the school environment. Two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (i.e., RCADS-25 and RCADS-20) seem to be feasible for administering at schools. The present study evaluated the psychometric properties of the RCADS-25 and RCADS-20 used as screening instruments for anxiety and depression in a general population of schoolchildren and adolescents. METHODS: The RCADS-25 was completed by 69,487 schoolchildren and adolescents aged 8 to 18. The RCADS-25 and RCADS-20 broad anxiety scales are equal (15 items), but there are two versions of the major depressive disorder (MDD) scale: the RCADS-25 MDD scale (10 items) and the RCADS-20 MDD scale (5 items). The three scales were assessed on structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and hypotheses for construct validity. RESULTS: The RCADS-25/RCADS-20 broad anxiety scale demonstrated a sufficient structural validity (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.03), internal consistency (alpha = 0.82), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.73), criterion validity (AUC = 0.79), and all four hypotheses concerning construct validity were confirmed. The RCADS-25 MDD scale demonstrated a sufficient test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.70) and three out of four hypotheses concerning construct validity were confirmed, but its structural validity was suspect (CFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.06). The RCADS-20 MDD scale demonstrated a sufficient structural validity (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04) and internal consistency (alpha = 0.72). Two out of four hypotheses concerning construct validity were confirmed. The test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.60) was insufficient. Since both MDD scales showed shortcomings, the shortening of the RCADS-25 MDD scale was re-examined post hoc by principal component and reliability analyses. The result was an MDD scale with seven items. CONCLUSIONS: The RCADS-25/RCADS-20 broad anxiety scale is valid and reliable for screening schoolchildren and adolescents, but the RCADS-25 and RCADS-20 MDD scales showed shortcomings. An MDD scale of seven items showed acceptable psychometric properties. BioMed Central 2020-02-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7003441/ /pubmed/32024481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2444-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Klaufus, Leonie
Verlinden, Eva
van der Wal, Marcel
Kösters, Mia
Cuijpers, Pim
Chinapaw, Mai
Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale
title Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale
title_full Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale
title_fullStr Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale
title_full_unstemmed Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale
title_short Psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale
title_sort psychometric evaluation of two short versions of the revised child anxiety and depression scale
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7003441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32024481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2444-5
work_keys_str_mv AT klaufusleonie psychometricevaluationoftwoshortversionsoftherevisedchildanxietyanddepressionscale
AT verlindeneva psychometricevaluationoftwoshortversionsoftherevisedchildanxietyanddepressionscale
AT vanderwalmarcel psychometricevaluationoftwoshortversionsoftherevisedchildanxietyanddepressionscale
AT kostersmia psychometricevaluationoftwoshortversionsoftherevisedchildanxietyanddepressionscale
AT cuijperspim psychometricevaluationoftwoshortversionsoftherevisedchildanxietyanddepressionscale
AT chinapawmai psychometricevaluationoftwoshortversionsoftherevisedchildanxietyanddepressionscale