Summary of the practice parameter for the use of stimulant medications in the treatment of children, adolescents, and adults.

This practice parameter describes treatment with stimulant medication. It uses an evidence-based medicine approach derived from a detailed literature review and expert consultation. Stimulant medications in clinical use include methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, mixed salts of amphetamine, and pemoline. They carry U.S. Food and Drug Administration indications for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The DISC Predictive Scales (DPS): efficiently screening for diagnoses.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and test a series of brief diagnosis-specific scales to identify subjects who are at high probability of meeting diagnostic criteria and those who may safely be spared more extensive diagnostic inquiry. METHOD: Secondary data analysis of a large epidemiological data set (n = 1,286) produced a series of gate and contingent items for each diagnosis. Findings were replicated in a second retrospective analysis from a residential care sample (n = 884). The DISC Predictive Scales (DPS) were then used prospectively as a self-report questionnaire in two studies, in which parents (n = 128) and/or adolescents (n = 208) had subsequent diagnostic interviewing with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children or the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children. RESULTS: All analyses showed that gate item selection was valid and that any missed cases were due solely to inconsistent reports on the same questions. Screening performance of the full scales was shown to be good, and substantial reductions in scale length were not associated with significant changes in discriminatory power. CONCLUSIONS: The DPS can accurately determine subjects who can safely be spared further diagnostic inquiry in any diagnostic area. This has the potential to speed up structured diagnostic interviewing considerably. The full DPS can be used to screen accurately for cases of specific DSM-III-R disorders.

How specific is specific impairment?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the usefulness of impairment items placed at the end of each diagnostic section of a structured instrument (the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version 2.3) in an attempt to link impairment to specific diagnoses. METHOD: Data from 3 sites of the Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders Study were used to assess the reliability of the specific impairment measures by diagnosis, the extent to which global and specific measures of impairment impact on prevalence rates, the concordance between global and specific impairment, and the degree to which there may be a "halo effect" among specific impairment ratings. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was better for parent than youth ratings. Fewer children were rated as impaired on well-validated global scales than on specific impairment ratings, suggesting that the threshold for specific ratings needs to be reevaluated. Agreement between specific and global ratings was poor. Most subjects with 2 or more diagnoses for which impairment was attributed to one diagnosis also had impairment attributed to other diagnoses for which they met symptom criteria, suggesting a halo effect in these ratings of specific impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Impairment measures are important in diagnostic assessments to distinguish those individuals whose psychopathology is of clinical significance. Specific impairment ratings used in structured instruments could be improved by including parameters of impairment that are diagnosis-specific.

NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV) and how it differs from earlier versions of the interview. The NIMH DISC-IV is a highly structured diagnostic interview, designed to assess more than 30 psychiatric disorders occurring in children and adolescents, and can be administered by "lay" interviewers after a minimal training period. The interview is available in both English and Spanish versions. METHOD: An editorial board was established in 1992 to guide DISC development and ensure that a standard version of the instrument is maintained. Preliminary reliability and acceptability results of the NIMH DISC-IV in a clinical sample of 84 parents and 82 children (aged 9-17 years) drawn from outpatient child and adolescent psychiatric clinics at 3 sites are presented. Results of the previous version in a community sample are reviewed. RESULTS: Despite its greater length and complexity, the NIMH DISC-IV compares favorably with earlier versions. Alternative versions of the interview are in development (the Present State DISC, the Teacher DISC, the Quick DISC, the Voice DISC). CONCLUSIONS: The NIMH DISC is an acceptable, inexpensive, and convenient instrument for ascertaining a comprehensive range of child and adolescent diagnoses.

Parent and child contributions to diagnosis of mental disorder: are both informants always necessary?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the unique cases contributed by parent and child informants to diagnostic classification, with the goal of identifying those diagnoses for which either or both informants are needed. METHOD: The authors examined survey data from the Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study, a 4-community epidemiology survey of 9- to 17-year-old children and their parents. Parent-child dyads (1,285 pairs) were independently interviewed by lay persons with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children; a subset of these pairs (n = 247) were also interviewed by clinicians. Agreement between parents and children was examined with respect to levels of impairment, need for/use of services, and clinicians' diagnoses. RESULTS: Parents and children rarely agreed on the presence of diagnostic conditions, regardless of diagnostic type. Nonetheless, most child-only- and parent-only-identified diagnoses were similarly related to impairment and clinical validation, with 2 exceptions: child-only-identified attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). CONCLUSIONS: Overall findings suggest that most "discrepant" diagnoses (those reported by one but not the other informant) reflect meaningful clinical conditions. In some instances, however, diagnoses reported by one but not the other informant should be treated with caution, as they may not reflect the full diagnostic condition (e.g., possibly child-only-identified ADHD or ODD). Further research is needed to determine the salience of child-only- or parent-only-reported cases.

Depressive and disruptive disorders and mental health service utilization in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship of depressive and disruptive disorders with patterns of mental health services utilization in a community sample of children and adolescents. METHOD: Data were from the NIMH Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study. The sample consisted of 1,285 child (ages 9-17 years) and parent/guardian pairs. Data included child psychopathology (assessed by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children), impairment, child need and use of mental health services, and family socioeconomic status. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounding factors, disruptive disorder was significantly associated with children's use of mental health services, but depressive disorder was not. For school-based services, no difference was found between the 2 types of disorders. Parents perceived greater need for mental health services for children with disruptive disorders than for those with depression. Conversely, depression was more related to children's perception of mental health service need than was disruptive disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need for more effective ways to identify and refer depressed children to mental health professionals, the importance of improving school-based services to meet children's needs, and the necessity to better educate parents and teachers regarding the identification of psychiatric disorders, especially depression.

Are stimulants overprescribed? Treatment of ADHD in four U.S. communities.

OBJECTIVE: To address rising concerns about the possible overdiagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and overtreatment with stimulants. To date, almost no studies have examined ADHD in unbiased community-based studies, ascertaining both the prevalence of the diagnosis within nonreferred populations and the extent to which various treatments (i.e., stimulant medication, mental health treatments, and educational interventions) are used. METHOD: As a part of the Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study, the authors examined epidemiological survey data obtained from 1,285 children and their parents across 4 U.S. communities. Analyses examined the frequency of children's ADHD diagnosis, the extent to which medications were prescribed, as well as the provision of other services (e.g., psychosocial treatments, school-based educational interventions). RESULTS: Findings indicated that 5.1% of children met full DSM-III-RADHD criteria across the pooled sample. Only 12.5% of children meeting ADHD criteria had been treated with stimulants during the previous 12 months. Some children who had been prescribed stimulants did not meet full ADHD diagnostic criteria, but these children manifested high levels of ADHD symptoms, suggesting that the medication had been appropriately prescribed. Children with ADHD were generally more likely to receive mental health counseling and/or school-based interventions than medication. CONCLUSIONS: Medication treatments are often not used in treating ADHD children identified in the community, suggesting the need for better education of parents, physicians, and mental health professionals about the effectiveness of these treatments. On the basis of these data it cannot be concluded that substantial "overtreatment" with stimulants is occurring across communities in general.

Measurement of risk for mental disorders and competence in a psychiatric epidemiologic community survey: the National Institute of Mental Health Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study.

This paper describes the implementation of the National Institute of Mental Health Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) study's goals of measuring risk factors and competence. The emphasis is on the development and testing of the measures. Relevant constructs for measurement of risk and competence in relation to psychopathology were selected and pilot tested prior to the field trials. A structured interview was developed and field tested using lay interviewers. Using the full sample from the field trials (n = 1285 caretaker-youth pairs), sample means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, parent-youth agreement, and associations with childhood disorder were computed. Descriptive statistics reveal a range of scores and means consistent with norming samples, when available, Internal consistencies were moderate to high. Parent-youth agreement on factual items was excellent and on scales was consistent with the literature. Several strong associations were found between risk factors and disorder, although most were related to disorder in general and not specific to a diagnostic category. This instrument provides a means of obtaining data that will be useful to researchers conducting epidemiologic and clinical studies designed to contribute to the understanding of mental disorders in children and adolescents, including nosology, risk factors, context, adaptive functioning, and treatment.

Validity of DSM-IV subtypes of conduct disorder based on age of onset.

OBJECTIVE: To present data from the DSM-IV field trials that led to the distinction between subtypes of conduct disorder (CD) that emerge in childhood or adolescence. In addition, data from a household sample were used to attempt to cross-validate these findings. METHOD: Differences between youths who met criteria for the two subtypes of CD were examined in the field trials sample of 440 youths aged 4 through 17 years and in a household sample of 1,285 youths aged 9 through 17 years. RESULTS: In both samples, there was a steep decline in aggression occurring around an age of onset of 10 years, but the number of nonaggressive behaviors was unrelated to the age of onset of CD. In the field trials sample, youths who met criteria for the adolescent-onset type were more likely to be girls, less likely to meet criteria for oppositional defiant disorder, and less likely to have a family history of antisocial behavior than the childhood-onset type, but these latter findings were not confirmed in the household sample. CONCLUSIONS: The DSM-IV approach to subtyping CD distinguishes subgroups that differ markedly in level of physical aggression. The advantages of a developmental approach to subtyping are discussed.

AACAP Official Action. Summary of the practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children, adolescents, and adults with ADHD.

This summary of the practice parameters describes the assessment, differential diagnosis, and treatment of children, adolescents, and adults who present with symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The rationales for specific recommendations are based on a review of the scientific literature and clinical consensus which is contained in the complete document. Assessment includes clinical interviews with the child and parents and standardized rating scales from parent and teachers. Testing of intelligence and academic achievement is usually required. Comorbidity is common. The cornerstones of treatment are support and education of parents, appropriate school placement, and psychopharmacology. The primary medications are psychostimulants, but antidepressants and alpha-adrenergic agonists are used in special circumstances. Other treatments such as behavior modification, school consultation, family therapy, and group therapy address remaining symptoms.

The NIMH Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study: background and methodology.

OBJECTIVE: A collaborative study was conducted to develop methods for surveys of mental disorder and service utilization in unscreened population-based samples of children and adolescents. METHOD: Probability household samples of youths 9 through 17 years of age were selected at four sites and interviews were conducted with a total of 1,285 pairs of youths and their adult caretakers in their homes. Lay interviewers administered a computer-assisted version of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version 2.3 and structured interviews to assess demographic variables, functional impairment, risk factors, service utilization, and barriers to service utilization. RESULTS: More than 7,500 households were enumerated at four sites, with enumeration response rates above 99%. Across sites, 84% of eligible youth-caretaker pairs were interviewed for about 2 hours each. Ninety-five percent of both youths and caretakers found the interview to be acceptable enough to recommend to a friend. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that large-scale epidemiological surveys of mental disorders and mental health service use involving lengthy interviews in the homes of unscreened population-based samples of youths and their adult caretakers are acceptable to the community and can achieve good response rates. The other reports in this Special Section address the reliability and validity of the various survey instruments and other key findings.

The NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version 2.3 (DISC-2.3): description, acceptability, prevalence rates, and performance in the MECA Study. Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) Version 2.3 and to provide data on its performance characteristics in the Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study. METHOD: Data were collected on the DISC-2.3 at four sites on 1,285 randomly selected children, aged 9 through 17 years, and their parents. Two hundred forty-seven of these child-parent pairs were reassessed on the DISC-2.3 by a clinician interviewer, 1 to 3 weeks later. RESULTS: Administration time was approximately 1 hour and the interview was acceptable to more than 90% of subjects. The reliability of questions to parents assessing impairment and age of onset was generally good to acceptable for most diagnoses but was less satisfactory for the child interview. Using information from parent and child, the prevalence for any diagnosis ranged from 50.6 if no impairment criteria were required to 5.4 if a Global Assessment Scale score of 50 or less was necessary. The prevalence of anxiety disorders and enuresis was markedly reduced by requiring attributable impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The DISC-2 is a reliable and economical tool for assessing child psychopathology. Reliability of the DISC-P-2.3 is superior to that of the child DISC for most diagnoses but is least good for anxiety disorders. The 2.3 version of the instrument provides a significant improvement over earlier versions.

Criterion validity of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version 2.3 (DISC-2.3).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the criterion validity of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) Version 2.3 in the NIMH Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study, using a design that permitted several comparisons of DISC-generated diagnoses with diagnoses based on clinician symptom ratings. METHOD: Two hundred forty-seven youths were selected from the 1,285 parent-youth pairs that constituted the four-site MECA sample. Subjects who screened positive for any of the five diagnostic areas under investigation in the validity study (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, depressive disorder, and the major anxiety disorders) were recruited, as well as a comparable number of screen negatives. Clinicians reinterviewed separately both the youth and the primary caregiver using the DISC followed by a clinical-style interview, and then they rated the presence of symptoms and impairment. Computer algorithms combined this information into diagnoses using comparable rules for both DISC and clinical rating diagnoses. RESULTS: In general, the DISC showed moderate to good validity across a number of diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest some specific diagnostic areas in which further revision of the DISC is warranted. Three main sources of variability in DISC-clinician diagnostic agreement were evident over and above that due to the instrument itself, including (1) the informant used, (2) the algorithm applied in synthesizing symptom reports, and (3) the design of the validity comparison.

A checklist of hospitalization criteria for use with children.

Each year in the U.S. more than 130,000 children are hospitalized for psychiatric reasons. The decision to hospitalize a child is based on a complex set of factors. In this study, a 12-item checklist of criteria for hospitalization adapted by the authors was tested for its ability to predict hospitalization in a cohort of 389 children between the ages of two and 12 who were evaluated for either inpatient or outpatient treatment. Eighty-seven (22 percent) of the children were subsequently hospitalized. In 95 percent of the cases, the checklist was able to correctly predict whether the patient was hospitalized. A shorter checklist of six items was also able to predict the subsequent form of treatment in 95 percent of the cases. Although such checklists cannot take the place of informed clinical decisions, they can serve as a guide to decision making, especially for inexperienced mental health workers, and as a tool for utilization review when treatment decisions are questioned.

Integration of a token economy into a child and adolescent psychiatry training clinic.

We developed a token economy pilot program in which reinforcers were provided by a university outpatient child and adolescent psychiatry clinic to address two problems common to psychiatry training programs: 1) psychiatric residents have insufficient opportunity to learn to use behavior modification techniques with outpatients, and 2) many patients and their parents seen in training clinics are poorly motivated and noncompliant with treatment, which leads to psychiatry resident discouragement and frustration. The rationale for the program is presented from the perspective of both the resident and the patient. The implementation of the program with 25 cases is described, including potential and actual difficulties. One case treated by a psychiatry resident is presented in more detail.