Screening Accuracy of the Parent-Report Preschool Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the screening test accuracy and reliability of the parent-report preschool Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (P-SDQ) in primary care settings. METHODS: Children 24 to 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 were invited to a semistructured diagnostic phone interview, the Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment (PAPA). Criterion validity between baseline P-SDQ scores (Total Difficulties Score [TDS], internalizing and externalizing subscale) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition diagnoses on PAPA was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC) and calculating screening test properties (sensitivity and specificity). Test-retest reliability at baseline and 2 weeks was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 183 children were enrolled, mean age 39.3 (SD 7.4) months, 46.4% male, 120 (66%) completed P-SDQ at 2 weeks, 107 (58%) completed PAPA at 12 weeks. Of those with a PAPA, 26 (24%) had any psychiatric diagnosis, 17 (16%) had internalizing disorders and 4 (4%) had externalizing disorders. TDS identified any diagnosis with AUC = 0.67 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.55, 0.79); internalizing subscale identified internalizing disorders with AUC = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.74); externalizing subscale identified externalizing disorders with AUC = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.94). Sensitivity and specificity, and test-retest reliability were satisfactory for TDS and externalizing subscale, and less satisfactory for the internalizing subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The externalizing subscale has sufficient accuracy and reliability to identify children aged 2 to 4 years at risk for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and disruptive behavior disorders in primary care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".