Investigating the Measurement Invariance and Method-Trait Effects of Parent and Teacher SNAP-IV Ratings of Preschool Children

Measurement invariance of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptom criteria as rated by parents and teachers in children and adolescents: A systematic review

This systematic review aimed to establish the extent to which each Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptom criterion is being assessed without being influenced (biased) by factors such as informant, sex/gender, and age. Measurement invariance (MI) testing using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is the prime statistical method to ascertain how these factors may affect the measurement and colour the perception or interpretation of symptom criteria. Such effects (non-invariance) can be operationalised in the form of altered association of a symptom criterion with the measured trait (expressed via variations in CFA loadings which represent the weight of each symptom criterion) due to the factor(s) and/or artificially alter the probability of endorsement of a particular symptom criterion (expressed via variations in the CFA threshold(s) representing how mild or severe a given symptom is). Based on a pre-registered protocol (CRD42022276105), we searched PubMed, Global Health, Embase and PsycInfo up to 21-02-23 for studies that included MI assessments on specific ADHD symptom criteria in individuals aged 0-18 years old, using parental and/or teacher report. Self-reports were excluded, given the poor reliability of self-report in ADHD. All included studies met specific COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results were synthesised in tabular form, grouping results by factors (e.g. informant) from 44 studies retained. Most comparisons indicated both metric (same loadings) and scalar invariance (same thresholds) with regard to informant, gender, age, temporal (repeated assessments) and co-morbidity. Therefore, the available evidence supports the current diagnostic criteria. However, findings could have been improved by systematic reporting of the direction of bias and its effect size. There appears to be a bias towards reporting MI instead of non-invariance. More studies in the literature are needed where the amalgamation of information provided by different informs and the association of specific symptoms with comorbidity are analysed.

Evidence-Based Assessment of DSM-5 Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders

The assessment of oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder-the Disruptive, Impulse Control and Conduct Disorders-can be affected by biases in clinical judgment, including overestimating concerns about distinguishing symptoms from normative behavior and stigma associated with diagnosing antisocial behavior. Recent nosological changes call for special attention during assessment to symptom dimensions of limited prosocial emotions and chronic irritability. The present review summarizes best practices for evidence-based assessment of these disorders and discusses tools to identify their symptoms. Despite the focus on disruptive behavior disorders, their high degree of overlap with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder can complicate assessment. Thus, the latter disorder is also included for discussion here. Good practice in the assessment of disruptive behavior disorders involves using several means of information gathering (e.g., clinical interview, standardized rating scales or checklists), ideally via multiple informants (e.g., parent-, teacher-, and self-report). A commitment to providing a full and accurate diagnostic assessment, with careful and attentive reference to diagnostic guidelines, will mitigate concerns regarding biases.

A Wearable Diagnostic Assessment System vs. SNAP-IV for the auxiliary diagnosis of ADHD: a diagnostic test

OBJECTIVE

We design a diagnostic test to evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of A non-intrusive Wearable Diagnostic Assessment System versus SNAP-IV for auxiliary diagnosis of children with ADHD.

METHODS

This study included 55 children aged 6-16 years who were clinically diagnosed with ADHD by DSM-5, and 55 healthy children (typically developing). Each subject completes 10 tasks on the WeDA system (Wearable Diagnostic Assessment System) and Parents of each subject complete the SNAP-IV scale. We will calculate the validity indexes, including sensitivity, specificity, Youden's index, likelihood ratio, and other indexes including predictive value, diagnostic odds ratio, diagnostic accuracy and area under the curve [AUC] to assess the effectiveness of the WeDA system as well as the SNAP-IV.

RESULTS

The sensitivity (94.55% vs. 76.36%) and the specificity (98.18% vs. 80.36%) of the WeDA system were significantly higher than the SNAP-IV. The AUC of the WeDA system (0.964) was higher than the SNAP-IV (0.907). There is non-statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.068), and both of them have high diagnostic accuracy. In addition, the diagnostic efficacy of the WeDA system was higher than that of SNAP-IV in terms of the Youden index, diagnostic accuracy, likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio and predictive value.

CONCLUSION

The advantages of the WeDA system in terms of diagnostic objectivity, scientific design and ease of operation make it a promising system for widespread use in clinical practice.