Development and Initial Validation of the Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder Questionnaire Among Adolescents From Clinic Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) is a new DSM-5 diagnosis. It is observed in youths and is characterized by chronic irritability and temper outbursts. This study aimed (i) to develop a brief questionnaire administered during a semi-structured interview and (ii) to assess its psychometric properties with adolescents 12-15 years old by estimating its internal consistency and its concurrent association with measures of depressive symptoms and borderline personality traits. METHODS: A 10-item questionnaire was developed based on the DSM-5 criteria and input from mental health professionals. The questionnaire was administered to 192 adolescents from youth centres, inpatient units and specialized outpatient clinics in Montreal, as were the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Aged Children (K-SADS-PL), the Abbreviated version of the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines revised (Ab-DIB), and the Dominic Interactive for Adolescents-Revised (DIA-R). RESULTS: A DMDD Questionnaire among adolescents from clinic settings is obtained. The content of the instrument's items was initially developed based on DSM-5 criteria and expert judgment to ensure that this new instrument covered the theoretical concepts of DMDD in English and French. Twelve participants (6.3%) met nine or more criteria and 11 youths (5.7%) met the three main criteria of DMDD (A, C, and D), which suggested the likely presence of DMDD. The total Cronbach's alpha was 0.90. In addition, the DMDD Questionnaire was significantly associated with depressive symptoms and borderline personality traits. CONCLUSION: The reliability and concurrent validity indices suggest that the questionnaire as a decision-support tool may be used with adolescents in clinical settings. It highlights that the DSM-5 DMDD criteria seem associated with depressive symptoms and borderline personality traits. Finally, future studies will be necessary to establish more robust calculations in relation to the validity and reliability of this questionnaire.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".