Reliability and Validity of the Child and Adolescent Functioning Impairment Scale in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to develop reliable and valid parent and teacher scales for measurement of functional impairment in children and adolescents in order to assist the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Seventy-two children with ADHD fulfilling the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, 4th Edition criteria and forty-two normal controls were enrolled in this study. Parents and teachers of the subjects completed the parent and teacher form of the preliminary items of Child and Adolescent Functioning Impairment Scale (CAFIS) made up by the authors. Based on the reliability and factor analysis, the final parent (CAFIS-parent form) and teacher version (CAFIS-teacher form) were constructed. Scales were analyzed for reliability and validity. Relative operating characteristics curve was drawn to calculate the cutoff scores of these scales for children with ADHD. RESULTS: The CAFIS-parent and CAFIS-teacher forms consist of four and three factors, respectively. Internal consistency and test-retest correlation of the scales were satisfactory. The CAFIS and Children's Global Assessment Scale were significantly correlated. All scores of subscales of CAFIS in ADHD group were significantly higher than those of control group. The sensitivity and specificity of the subscales were mostly at an appropriate level. CONCLUSION: The CAFIS is a brief layperson-administered scale to assess functional impairment of children and adolescents. It can be a useful tool for parents and teachers to objectively measure the functions of children at home and in school. This scale was found to be reliable and valid, and it appears to be a valuable instrument in Korean language.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".