Psychometric properties of a teacher semi-structured interview for childhood externalizing disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current practice guidelines for the assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) recommend direct evidence from teachers and parents. Although interviews are considered the gold standard in clinical practice, few teacher interviews exist and existing ones are rarely used. The objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a novel semi-structured clinical interview for teachers. The Teacher Telephone Interview for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Related Disorders: DSM-IV Version (TTI-IV) was designed to quantify symptoms of ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder (CD) in the school setting. It also screens academic performance, aggression, anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric symptoms pertinent to the differential diagnosis of ADHD. The TTI-IV applies a unique approach involving (1) a context-driven framework; (2) operational definitions and probes; (3) avoidance of direct DSM terminology; and (4) use of clinician-based rather than teacher-based ratings of behaviour. An exploratory factor analysis study with 321 participants, aged 6- to 13-years-old (239 males, 82 females), was conducted to identify the TTI-IV's underlying structure. Principal axis factoring with oblique rotation revealed six factors accounting for 56% of the variance: Sustained Attention, Executive Control, Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Peer Related Oppositional Problems, Adult Related Oppositional Problems, and Conduct Disorder. Preliminary analyses indicated these factors were separable dimensions. The same sample was used in a second study investigating the TTI-IV's reliability and validity. Partial correlational and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between the TTI-IV and established teaching rating scales and cognitive, academic, language, and affective measures. Results indicated good convergent and discriminant validity. Reliability analyses for a subset of the sample (30 males, 12 females) revealed excellent inter-scorer and test-retest reliability. Inter-scorer reliability intraclass correlations of the continuous scoring scale were .98 and .97 for ADHD and ODD respectively. Kappas were .85 and .84 respectively for ADHD and ODD diagnostic agreement. Test-retest reliability of 8 children (4 males, 4 females) for continuous and dichotomous scoring, respectively, was .88 and .60 for ADHD and .95 and 1.00 for ODD. Results indicate that the TTI-IV is a reliable and valid approach for evaluating and quantifying psychopathological symptoms in the school setting, when used by trained clinicians.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".