Diagnosis and Measurement of Anxiety Disorder in Adolescents: A Review of Commonly Used Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a comprehensive review of clinical research tools used in adolescent psychiatric disorders, a survey of 200 recent studies of adolescent anxiety (publication dates of December 1994 to May 2001) identified 70 different diagnostic and symptom measurement instruments. The design features and psychometric properties of the 15 most commonly used instruments were reviewed, and their strengths and weaknesses were evaluated. The conclusions arising from this review are: (1) too many different instruments are being used by investigators; (2) more than 20% of studies did not report the use of developmentally appropriate (i.e., child/adolescent-specific) diagnostic instruments; (3) another 15% of these studies relied on diagnostic instruments that demonstrate substantial weaknesses in reliability and validity; (4) the concordance between anxiety disorder diagnoses from different interview schedules is unknown; (5) the relative validity of diagnoses and ratings of anxiety severity based on information yielded by parents versus information yielded by adolescents is unclear; (6) clinician-rated symptom severity scales specific to anxiety disorder are rarely utilized; (7) the most commonly used self-report measures discriminate poorly between anxiety and depression, and their items are not indexed to specific anxiety disorders; and (8) some newer self-report anxiety instruments discriminate well between anxiety and depression and have diagnostic validity for specific anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".