Raw data for meta-analysis of discriminative validity of caregiver, youth, and teacher report for pediatric bipolar disorder -- all English publications through End of 2014

Resource Information

The work Raw data for meta-analysis of discriminative validity of caregiver, youth, and teacher report for pediatric bipolar disorder -- all English publications through End of 2014 represents a distinct intellectual or artistic creation found in Bowdoin College Library. This resource is a combination of several types including: Work, Language Material, Books.

Label

Raw data for meta-analysis of discriminative validity of caregiver, youth, and teacher report for pediatric bipolar disorder -- all English publications through End of 2014

Creator

• Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]
• Youngstrom, Eric A

Author

• Youngstrom, Eric A

Contributor

• Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]

Subject

• caregivers
• child health
• children
• mental health
• Children -- Health and hygiene
• psychological evaluation
• symptoms
• youths
• pediatrics
• Teenagers
• adolescents
• bipolar disorder

Summary

Objective: To meta-analyze the diagnostic efficiency of checklists for discriminating pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) from other conditions. Hypothesized moderators included (a) informant - we predicted caregiver report would produce larger effects than youth or teacher report; (b) scale content - scales that include manic symptoms should be more discriminating; and (c) sample design - samples that include healthy control cases or impose stringent exclusion criteria are likely to produce inflated effect sizes. Methods: Searches in PsycINFO, PubMed, and GoogleScholar generated 4094 hits. Inclusion criteria were (1) sufficient statistics to estimate a standardized effect size, (2) age 18 years or less, and (3) at least 10 cases (4) with diagnoses of PBD based on semi-structured diagnostic interview. Multivariate mixed regression models accounted for nesting of multiple effect sizes from different informants or scales within the same sample. Results: Data included 63 effect sizes from 8 rating scales across 27 separate samples (N=11,941 youths, 1,834 with PBD). The average effect size was g=1.05. Random effect variance components within study and between study were significant, ps<.00005. Informant, scale content, and sample design all explained significant unique variance, even after controlling for design and reporting quality. Discussion: Checklists have clinical utility for assessing PBD. Caregiver reports discriminated PBD significantly better than teacher and youth self report, although all three showed discriminative validity. Studies using "distilled" designs with healthy control comparison groups, or stringent exclusion criteria, produced significantly larger effect size estimates that could lead to inflated false positive rates if used as described in clinical practice