90 Screening Test Accuracy and Reliability of the Parent-Report Preschool Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (P-SDQ) in Primary Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction/Background Previous research shows that mental health disorders can be identified in preschoolers. Detecting disorders early in life is key for early intervention and prevention of life-long behavioural and emotional issues. Individuals who experience mental health issues before the age of 14 years are at increased risk of a mental health disorder in adulthood, contrary to the idea that issues seen in young children are transient. Although the rate of mental health disorders in preschoolers is similar to the rate in older children, there is no agreed upon standard of care for routine screening or case identification of psychiatric problems in young children. Improving mental health and long-term outcomes for children requires early identification and monitoring of children at risk, including a screening tool that can be used in primary care settings. Objectives To evaluate the criterion validity (screening test accuracy) and test-retest reliability of the parent-report preschool Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (P-SDQ) in primary care settings for a sample of 2-4 year olds. Specifically, we were interested in evaluating the screening test accuracy of the P-SDQ for presence of DSM-5 diagnoses. Design/Methods Children 24-48 months were recruited at scheduled primary care visits in Toronto, Canada. Parents completed the P-SDQ at baseline, 2 and 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, parents participated in the Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment (PAPA). We assessed the criterion validity of the baseline P-SDQ using three different criterion measures. We compared the Total Difficulties Score (TDS) with presence of any DSM-5 diagnoses on the PAPA. For the internalizing subscale score, the criterion was presence of any internalizing disorder. For the externalizing subscale score, the criterion was presence of any externalizing disorder. Criterion validity was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC) and calculating screening test properties for a range of threshold values of the TDS and two subscale scores. Optimal thresholds were selected based on the maximal value of both sensitivity and specificity. Test-retest reliability at baseline and 2 weeks was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results 183 children were enrolled, mean age 39.3 (SD 7.4) months, 46.4% male, 120 (66%) completed the P-SDQ at 2 weeks, 107 (58%) completed the PAPA at 12 weeks. Of those with a PAPA, 26 (24%) had any psychiatric diagnosis, 22 (21%) had an internalizing disorder, 9 (8%) had an externalizing disorder, and 5 (5%) had both. TDS identified any diagnosis with AUC = 0.67 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.79); the internalizing subscale identified internalizing disorders with AUC = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.74); the externalizing subscale identified externalizing disorders with AUC = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.94). Sensitivity and specificity for TDS were 50% and 78%; for internalizing subscale were 18% and 99%; for externalizing subscale were 78% and 71%. Test-retest reliability (ICC) for the TDS was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.80); internalizing subscale was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.71); externalizing subscale was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.86). Conclusion The parent report P-SDQ externalizing subscale has sufficient accuracy and reliability for identifying externalizing disorders in primary care. The TDS and internalizing subscale perform less well. Table 3: Screening test properties of the P-SDQ compared with the PAPA (n=107)
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".