The Parent Interview for Child Symptoms: A Situation-Specific Clinical Research Interview for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity and Related Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe the properties of a semistructured research interview of parents designed to evaluate attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related psychopathology. Method: We examined interrater reliability in 48 videotaped interviews randomly selected from a large clinic sample. We examined convergence of the Parent Interview for Child Symptoms (PICS) and Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) scores in 594 clinic-referred cases and 26 control subjects, comparing the groups generated by cross-tabulation on measures of intelligence, academic achievement, and inhibitory control. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients for symptom scores of ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder (CD) were excellent. We found good reliability for diagnoses of ADHD (κ = 0.73) and CD (κ = 0.73) and excellent reliability for the diagnosis of ODD (κ = 0.80). Two-thirds of cases were classified similarly on the PICS and the CPRS. Greater impairment in inhibitory control was observed in cases identified as ADHD by the PICS, compared with those identified by the CPRS-ADHD index. Conclusions: The PICS displays good reliability and validity, indicating that a balance between clinical applicability and reliability can be achieved in the development of clinical research instruments. Résumé: L'entrevue des parents pour les symptômes des enfants (PICS): une entrevue de recherche clinique particulière à une situation pour le THADA et troubles connexes Objectif: Décrire les propriétés d'une entrevue de recherche semi-structurée des parents destinée à évaluer le trouble d'hyperactivité avec déficit de l'attention (THADA) et la psychopathologie connexe. Méthode: Nous avons examiné la fiabilité inter-juges de 48 entrevues enregistrées sur vidéo sélectionnées au hasard dans un vaste échantillon clinique. Nous avons examiné la convergence des scores à l'entrevue des parents pour les symptômes des enfants (PICS) et à l'échelle de cotation des parents de Conners (CPRS) chez 594 sujets adressés en clinique et 26 sujets témoins, en comparant les groupes produits par tabulation recoupée en ce qui concerne les mesures de l'intelligence, le niveau de scolarité, et le contrôle inhibiteur. Résultats: Les coefficients de corrélation intraclasse pour les scores des symptômes du THADA, du trouble oppositionnel avec provocation (TOP) et du trouble des conduites (TC) étaient excellents. Nous avons observé une bonne fiabilité pour les diagnostics de THADA (κ = 0,73) et du TC (κ = 0,73) et une excellente fiabilité pour le diagnostic du TOP (κ = 0,80). Deux tiers des sujets étaient classés de façon semblable à la PICS et à la CPRS. Une déficience plus grande du contrôle inhibiteur a été observée chez les sujets identifiés souffrir du THADA par la PICS, comparativement à ceux identifiés par l'index CPRS-THADA. Conclusions: La PICS démontre une bonne fiabilité et validité, indiquant qu'un équilibre entre l'applicabilité clinique et la fiabilité peut être atteint dans la mise au point d'instruments de recherche clinique.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".