Validity evidence for the use of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale-25, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale in measurement-based care in intensive outpatient child and adolescent mental health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the validity of the interpretations made on the scores from three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale-25 (RCADS-25), and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale-short form (C-SSRS), for use in measurement-based care (MBC) in intensive outpatient child and adolescent mental health services. METHODS: A mixed-methods, secondary analysis of interview and survey data from an MBC implementation evaluation, as well as PROMs data collected through MBC in routine clinical practice, was performed. The setting was intensive outpatient mental health services for children 6-18 years of age. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing argument-based approach to validation was used combining qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate validity. RESULTS: The PROMs appear to comprehensively cover key domains relevant to child and adolescent mental health intensive outpatient treatment. There is preliminary evidence that youth scores accurately reflect their symptoms and functioning and pick up change in these constructs, however, potential issues with response processes were identified with the C-SSRS, the school domain of PedsQL, and for caregiver proxy-reports on the PedsQL and RCADS-25, which warrant further investigation. CONCLUSION: There is evidence to support the use of these PROMs for MBC in child and adolescent mental health. However, further investigation is needed into response processes, internal structure, and to establish clinically meaningful thresholds to improve interpretability, and ensure the validity of their use.
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 | 0.183 | 0.396 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".