Evidence based assessment/Oppositional defiant disorder (disorder portfolio)

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Medical disclaimer: This page is for educational and informational purposes only and may not be construed as medical advice. The information is not intended to replace medical advice offered by physicians. Please refer to the full text of the Wikiversity medical disclaimer.


Overview of multistage strategy for evidence-based assessment of conduct problems[1][2][edit]

*** Consider adding background, perhaps paragraph style, like CD section in portfolio (Maybe make similar look and feel, coordinate esp. with CD)

Stage 1:[edit]

  • Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessments (ASEBA): Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Teacher Report Form (TRF), Youth Self-Report (YSR)
    • Used to broadly identify behaviors relevant to Oppositional Defiant Disorder
  • Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI)
    • Helps screen for overt and covert conduct problems
  • Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory (CADBI)
    • This measure was used in validation studies in youth 3- 18 years old. It can be used as a screening and diagnostic tool. It has 25 items and 3 subscales: Opposition directed towards adults (items 1-8) and towards peers (items 9-16), and hyperactivity/impulsivity (items 7-25).
    • Identifies externalizing behavior of ODD.

Stage 2:[edit]

  • Structured Diagnostic Interview
    • Available online: KSADS
    • Helps to assess potential comorbidity.
  • Standardized intelligence test (e.g., WASI, WISC****) and academic achievement screener (e.g., WRAT, WIAT, WJ cog****)
  • Developmental and medical history obtained through clinical interview
  • Observational analogues, including parent-child interactions – examples:
    • Child’s Game: child directed play
    • Parent’s Game: parent directed play
    • Clean Up: clean up task in which parent instructs child to clean up specific toys
  • Parent observation measures
    • E.g., Parent Daily Report
  • Level of functional impairment or adaptive disability determined through interviews or ratings
    • E.g., Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale
  • Age of onset of conduct problems established through clinical or structured interviews with parent or youth
    • Helps determine developmental pathway, which has implications for the “three P’s”.[3]
    • Helps determine temporal ordering of potential comorbid disorders (e.g., did anxiety problems precede conduct problems, or vice-versa?), which also has implications for “three P’s”

Stage 3:[edit]

  • Broader social and environmental context should be assessed.
    • E.g., Neighborhood Questionnaire, Community Interaction Checklist, Things I Have Seen and Heard
  • Assessment of social informational processing could yield important information relevant to the “three P’s”
    • E.g., Intention-Cue Detection Task
  • Parental/personal adjustment assessment to assess for familial risk factors
    • E.g., Antisocial Behavior Checklist
  • Further assessments specific to the symptomatology of the child or adolescent should be conducted
    • E.g., assessments specific to fire-setting behaviors

Additional notes:

  • Covert conduct problem behaviors are difficult to assess, and the clinical utility of some innovative observational paradigms needs to be demonstrated.
  • McMahon & Frick (2005) point to the “recent proliferation of research concerning girls and CP (p. 496) and suggest that this emerging research “should facilitate the development of evidence-based guidelines that are applicable to girls in the near future.” For the time being, they recommend following the same guidelines for girls as for boys, with the addition of a measure of relational aggression in girls.[1]

Demographic information[edit]

Base rates of ODD in different clinical settings and populations[edit]

This section describes the demographic setting of the population(s) sampled, base rates of diagnosis, country/region sampled and the diagnostic method that was used. Using this information, clinicians will be able to anchor the rate of ODD that they are likely to see in their clinical practice.

Setting (Reference) Base Rate Demography Diagnostic Method Best Recommended For
Nationally representative large-scale study (N = 3,119) – adult

retrospective report[4]

10.2% overall

11.2%males

9.2% females

All of the U.S. CIDIr
Preschool-aged children (2-5 y.o.)-Recruited from pediatric

practices (N = 306)[5]

6.6% overall Semi-Rural North

Carolina (Durham and surrounding areas)

PAPAp
The Great Smoky Mountains Study - longitudinal, population-based study of community sample[6] 2.33% overall:

3.16% males, 2.75% females

Western North Carolina CAPA p,y
Preschool-aged children (4 y.o.) - Recruited from inner city schools and pediatric practices (N = 796)[7] 8.3% overall Urban- Chicago DISC-YC p
Meta-analysis of 38 studies- cited in the DSM-5[8] 3.3% overall Various locations across

USA

Varied

p Parent interviewed as part of diagnostic assessment; y youth interviewed as part of diagnostic assessment, r adult interviewed for retrospective report as part of diagnostic assessment

Note: CIDI = World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview; PAPA = Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment; CAPA = Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Assessment; DISC-YC = Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children–Parent Scale–Young Child Version.

Mash and Barkley note that prevalence rates of ODD must be qualified, because the definition of ODD has changed at a fast rate, the rates adolescents meeting criteria in any cross-sectional evaluation may be misleading because of the developmental progressions with and between ODD and Conduct Disorder, and categorical definitions of aggressive patterns may reflect arbitrary numbers of constituent estimates. These factors may lead to misleading prevalence rates. In addition, few studies have investigated the prevalence of ODD in preschool-aged children, and early onset of these behaviors is associated with more severe and stable impairment.[9]

Diagnosis[edit]

*** Recommend adding DSM-5 criteria (and ICD specifiers?)

Diagnostic criteria for oppositional defiant disorder[edit]

Click here for ODD diagnostic criteria

ICD-10 Diagnostic Criteria

  • A. The general criteria for conduct disorder (F91) must be met.
  • B. Four or more of the symptoms for F91 criterion G1 must be present, but with no more than two symptoms from items (9)-(23).
  • C. The symptoms in criterion B must be maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level.
  • D. At least four of the symptoms must have been present for at least 6 months.

Recommended diagnostic interviews[edit]

"The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children″ (MINI-Kids)-available and ″the Kiddie-Sads-Present and Lifetime Version" KSADS-PL DSM-5 November 2016: Supplemental #4: Neurodevelopmental, Disruptive, and Conduct Disorders Supplement.

Screening instruments[edit]

The following table provides diagnostic efficiency information for the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991; hardcopy and scoring system available at the Finley Clinic); the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire[10]; see http://www.sdqinfo.com/ to access the questionnaire and scoring information; and the Eyberg Child Behavior Index (ECBI)[11]. Appendix 2 includes a copy of the Eyberg Child Behavior Checklist[11].

Psychometric properties of screening measures for ODD[edit]

Screening Measure (Primary Preference) AUC LR+ (Score) LR- (Score) Citation
MINI-Kids .81[12] 3.00[12] .65[12]
Children and Adolescents (6 to 18 years)
CBCL Aggression T-score[13] .803 (N=370)[14] 4.18 (55+)[14] .35 (<55)[14]
.71 (N=475)[15] ------- -------
CBCL DSM-Oriented Scales[13] .71 (N=475)[15] ------- -------
------- 2.46 (60+ to 70+)*[16] .54 (<60 to <70)*[16]
Children and Adolescents (4 to 12 years)
SDQ- Conduct Problems Scale[10] ------- 8.33 (Not specified)*[16] .27 (Not specified)*[16]
Children and Adolescents (2 to 16 years)
ECBI- Intensity Scale[11] ------- 6.92 (131+)[17] .11 (<131)[17]

Note: “LR+” refers to the change in likelihood ratio associated with a positive test score, and “LR-” is the likelihood ratio for a low score. Likelihood ratios of 1 indicate that the test result did not change impressions at all. LRs larger than 10 or smaller than .10 are frequently clinically decisive; 5 or .20 are helpful, and between 2.0 and .5 are small enough that they rarely result in clinically meaningful changes of formulation[18].

Searches (specified below) did not yield any data about sensitivity, specificity, AUC, or ROC for the Externalizing scale of the CBCL. Searches also did not yield data about TRF or YSR scales for Aggression or Externalizing: Achenbach and Rescorla (2001) provide data about clinically referred vs. non-referred samples but not about samples with oppositional disorder specifically; thus, only AUC and LRs for the Aggression scale are reported. In addition, searches did not yield any information on the AUC for Oppositional Defiant Disorder, however, there are studies looking at the AUC for the SDQ at differentiating clinical from non-clinical samples. Also, there was no information on the Problem Scale of the ECBI, and no information on the AUC for the ECBI.

Treatment[edit]

Behavioral parent training[edit]

Behavioral Parent Training is considered the most effective treatment for childhood disruptive behavior disorders (e.g., Oppositional Defiant Disorder), especially for younger children (i.e., 3-8 year-olds). See http://effectivechildtherapy.org/concerns-symptoms-disorders/disorders/rule-breaking-defiance-and-acting-out/ a website sponsored by The Society for Child and Adolescent Psychology (APA, Division 53) and the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT), for current summary of evidence-based treatments.

Overview of recommendations for assessment and treatment[edit]

See the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Practice Guidelines for Childhood Conduct Disorders, for an overview of recommendations for both assessment and treatment of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

Process and outcome measures[edit]

Severity and outcome[edit]

Clinically significant change benchmarks with common instruments[edit]

Measure Subscale Cut-off scores Critical Change
(unstandardized scores)
Benchmarks Based on Published Norms
A B C 95% 90% SEdifference
CBCL T-scores
(2001 Norms)
Externalizing 49 70 58 7 6 3.4
CBCL Benchmarks Based on Oppositional Defiant Disorder Samples Were Not Found in Searches*
ECBI Scaled Scores
(1983 Norms)
Intensity 80.1 169.5 112.9 9.5 8 4.8
ECBI Scaled Scores
(1983 Norms)
Problem 3.9 17.7 11.5 2.1 1.8 1.1

Note: “A” = Away from the clinical range, “B” = Back into the nonclinical range, “C” = Closer to the nonclinical than clinical mean.

Search terms: (1) “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire,” (2) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire AND benchmarks, searches previously mentioned.

Process measures[edit]

See Section 1.1 for overview of evidence-based measures to use depending on etiology and symptomatology of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

External Links[edit]

References[edit]

Click here for references
  1. 1.0 1.1 McMahon, Robert J.; Frick, Paul J. (2005-9). "Evidence-based assessment of conduct problems in children and adolescents". Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology: The Official Journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53 34 (3): 477–505. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_6. ISSN 1537-4416. PMID 16026215. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16026215. 
  2. McMahon, R. J. & Frick, P. J. (2007). Conduct and oppositional disorders. In E.J. Mash & R.A. Barkley (Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (4th ed., p. 132-183). New York: The Guilford Press.
  3. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
  4. Nock, M. K., Kazdin, A. E., Hiripi, E., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). Lifetime prevalence, correlates, and persistence of oppositional defiant disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(7), 703-713.
  5. Egger, H.L., & Angold, A. (2006). Common emotional and behavioral disorders in preschool children: Presentation, nosology, and epidemiology. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 47, 313–337.
  6. Costello, E. J., Mustillo, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., & Angold, A. (2003) Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in adolescence. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 60, 837-844.
  7. Lavigne, J. V., LeBailly, S. A., Hopkins, J., Gouze, K. R., & Binns, H. J. (2009). The prevalence of ADHD, ODD, depression, and anxiety in a community sample of 4-year-olds. Journal Of Clinical Child And Adolescent Psychology, 38(3), 315-328. doi:10.1080/15374410902851382
  8. Canino G, Polanczyk G, Bauermeister JJ, et al. (2010) Does the prevalence of CD and ODD vary across cultures? Social Psychiatry Epidemiology, 45(7):695–704.
  9. Mash, E., & Barkley, R. (Eds.). (2003). Child Psychopathology. 2nd Edition. New York: Guilford Press.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Eyberg, S. M., & Robinson, E. A. (1983). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of a behavioral rating scale with adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12 (3), 347-354.
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 Sheehan, D. V., Sheehan, K. H., Shytle, R. D., Janavs, J., Bannon, Y., Rogers, J. E., ... & Wilkinson, B. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for children and adolescents (MINI-KID). The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 71(3), 313-326.
  13. 13.0 13.1 Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington , VT : University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 Hudziak, J. J., Copeland, W., Stanger, C. (2004). Screening for DSM-IV externalizing disorders with the Child Behavior Checklist: a receiver-operator characteristic analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1299-1307.
  15. 15.0 15.1 Ebesutani, C., Bernstein, A., Nakamura, B. J., Chorpita, B. F., Higa-McMillan, C. K., & Weisz, J. R. (2010). Concurrent validity of the child behavior checklist DSM-oriented scales: Correspondence with DSM diagnoses and comparison to syndrome scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32(3), 373-384.
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Warnick, E. M., Bracken, M. B., & Kasl, S. (2008). Screening efficiency of the Child Behavior Checklist and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 13(3), 140-147.
  17. 17.0 17.1 Rich, B. A., & Eyberg, S. M. (2001). Accuracy of assessment: the discriminative and predictive power of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Ambulatory Child Health, 7(3‐ 4), 249-257.
  18. Sackett D, Strauss S, Richardson W, et al. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM.2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone; Edinburgh: 2000.