Sentences with phrase «problems subscale scores»

They also had higher Internalizing and Externalizing Scores and Aggressive Behavior and Somatic Problems subscale scores of the CBCL than children without sleep problems.

An unexpected finding from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was the significant improvement in the control group's Conduct Problems subscale score between pre - and post-intervention.

Not exact matches

Children also had higher scores on emotional, peer relationship and conduct problems SDQ subscales.

Fifty percent of children (mean score = 15.72) scored in the clinical range and scores on subscales were between 36 percent for hyperactivity to 44 percent for emotional symptoms and conduct problems.

aChild Behavior Checklist for 4 - 18 years; bChildren who are currently visiting their father who used to perpetrate intimate partner violence and already separated from their mothers; cInternalizing problems = Withdrawn + Somatic complaints + Anxious / depressed; dExternalizing problems = Delinquent behavior + Aggressive behavior; Total problems = the sum of the scores of all the nine subscales of the CBCL; eAdjusted odds ratios calculated by multivariable logistic regression analysis; fThe dependent variable: 0 = non - clinical, 1 = clinical; gp values calculated by multivariable logistic regression analysis; hStandardized regression coefficients calculated by multivariable regression analysis; ip values calculated by multivariable regression analysis; jVariance Inflation Factor; k0 = non-visiting, 1 = visiting; lThe score of the subscale (anxiety) of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; mThe score of the subscale (depression) of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; nThe number of years the child lived with the father in the past; oAdjusted R2 calculated by multivariable regression analysis.

The average scores for the following subscales of the CBCL among the children who visited their fathers were significantly higher than those who did not visit their fathers: withdrawn behavior (4.8 versus 1.5, p = 0.00); somatic complaints (4.1 versus 1.5, p = 0.03); anxious / depressed behavior (8.4 versus 3.8, p = 0.02), thought problems (2.1 versus 0.77, p = 0.02); attention problems (6.5 versus 3.4, p = 0.00); other problems (7.9 versus 4.9, p = 0.05); internalizing problems (17.4 versus 6.8, p = 0.00); and total problems (37.6 versus 19.1, p = 0.00).

A total difficulties score ranging from 0 to 40 was derived by summing all subscales excluding prosocial behaviours.16 Total difficulties scores are considered to provide an indicator of level of risk for emotional or behavioural problems.

Group differences in the Child Behavior Checklist scores showed that parents in the intervention group reported higher scores than those in the UC group on the aggressive behavior subscale (7.74 vs 6.80; adjusted β, 0.83 [95 % CI, 0.37 - 1.30]-RRB-, although neither group reached a subscale score of clinical significance (the cutoff for this age is 22 years)(Table 3).14 There were no group differences in reported sleep problems or problems with depression or anxiety.

#For the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire subscales, scores corresponding to the 80th percentile (ie, equating to the cut - off describing a «Borderline» rating) were: Emotional Symptoms = 5, Peer Relationship Problems = 3, Conduct Problems = 3, Hyperactivity - Inattention = 6, Prosocial Behaviour (20th percentile) = 7 and Total Difficulties = 16.

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

This pattern of change in means over the decade between the 2005 study and ours appears consistent with the small, but significant, increases observed between 2007 and 2012 in the self - report subscale means for Total Difficulties, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Relationship Problems and Hyperactivity - Inattention (but a decrease in Conduct Problems) in nationally representative New Zealand samples of children aged 12 — 15 years, 28 and with a similar increase in Emotional Symptoms and decrease in Conduct Problems between 2009 and 2014 in English community samples of children aged 11 — 13 years.29 The mean PLE score in the MCS sample aligned closely with that reported previously for a relatively deprived inner - city London, UK, community sample aged 9 — 12 years19 using these same nine items, although the overall prevalence of a «Certainly True» to at least one of the nine items in the MCS (52.2 %) was lower than that obtained in the London sample (66.0 %).8

However, almost half of the participants who met criteria for psychiatric cases also scored high on the depressive subscale of the DBC - A, therefore suggesting that depression is a significant problem in people who show emotional and behavioural disturbances.

The mean scores for mothers» responses to the 3 CBCL subscales were comparable to those for nonreferred children reported by Achenbach, 24 suggesting that levels of behavioral problems for the Healthy Steps children were similar to the levels for generally healthy children.

The 25 - item questionnaire generates five main subscale scores: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity / inattention, peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviour.

Results indicated pretest and posttest scores on the substance use and related problems showed slight improvements for both the SFBT and control groups based on the ASI - SR in all subscales, except for the family / relationship status subscale for control group which showed an increase in mean score and small effect size in the opposite desired direction.

Significant positive effects were found for narrowband scores for the Anxious / Depressed Attention Problems subscales; effect sizes ranged between 0.34 and 0.38.

The total difficulties score is a sum of four 5 - item subscales concerning emotional, conduct, hyperactivity / attentional and peer relationship problems.

The relative risk of being in the clinical or borderline range of the CBCL subscale scores emotionally reactive, anxious / depressed, sleep problems or attention problems, or of parent's having significant concern regarding the child's development in PEDS were non - significant.45

At 6 months, units using the Sanctuary Model scored significantly better on the total scale and on the subscales of Support, Spontaneity, Autonomy, Problem Orientation, and Safety.

Externalising scores were derived from attention problems and aggressive behaviour subscales of the CBCL.

Furthermore, we computed a composite score, which included the YSR and CBCL broadband behavioural problem scales, as well as the subscales of attention problems.

A cut - off score of 7 or above on the Emotional Problems subscale was used to identify an at risk group that would be assessed for incidence of, and recovery from, depressive, anxiety, and suicidal disorders (Goodman, 1999).

Scores on the BITSEA Problem scale were positively correlated to all CBCL and PSI - SF subscales, whereas negative correlations were found between BITSEA Competence scale and CBCL and PSI - SF subscales.

The SDQ Total Difficulties Score (TDS) was calculated by aggregating the scores for the emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity - inattention, and peer problems subscales (range 0 — 40).

Medication status and T - scores on the PBS ADHD, Conduct Problems, Anxiety, and Depression subscales were used to predict the Sleep Problems T - scores in children with ADHD.

Association of Mothers» and Fathers» Mental Health Symptoms With Children's Child Behavior Problem Index — Externalizing (BPI - EXT) and — Internalizing (BPI - INT) Subscale Scores by the Child's Sex, Multivariate Linear Regression

AVE scores for the preferred model C ranged from 0.34 (peer problems) to 0.60 (hyperactivity), with only hyperactivity achieving the 0.50 benchmark for satisfactory internal convergent validity.22 However, every subscale demonstrated adequate external discriminant validity, with AVE scores exceeding squared interfactor correlations.

The CBCL has nine behavioural problem subscales, and queries about the child's behaviour in the past six months.13, 14 The T - scores for each scale are calculated by a computer program.

The CBCL consists of 118 items and the YSR 112 items, both assessed with a three - point Likert scale, with eight subscales, two syndrome groups, and a total problem score each.

Second, we reported higher Cronbach's α reliability scores than most preschool and school - aged validation studies, 10,15 with only the preschool peer problems subscale failing to meet the α > 0.70 criteria for satisfactory internal reliability.

One of the items pertains to «Complains of loneliness», and in order to prevent problems of shared variance, this item was discarded when computing a total score for the Social Problems subscale of the CBCL problems of shared variance, this item was discarded when computing a total score for the Social Problems subscale of the CBCL Problems subscale of the CBCL and TRF.

Mental health problems were assessed using the self - report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a multi-informant wide - angle screening questionnaire.26, 27 The SDQ has been used in a large number of population - based studies in several countries.27 It is a 25 - item questionnaire with five subscales, each consisting of five items, generating scores for emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity — inattention, peer problems and prosocial behaviour.

Items can be summed into a total score, two broadband scales (internalizing and externalizing problems), and eight subscales (withdrawn / depression, somatic complaints, anxiety / depression, social problems, attention problems, thought problems, rule breaking behavior and aggressive behavior).

A total difficulties score (0 — 40) was computed by adding scores from the four problem subscales (conduct, hyperactivity, emotional, and peer problem domains)[27, 28, 29].

Children with current sleep problems were more likely still to be nursed to sleep by an adult and had slightly higher mean scores on Child Behavior Check List subscales for Aggressive Behavior (54 vs 52) and Somatic Problems (55problems were more likely still to be nursed to sleep by an adult and had slightly higher mean scores on Child Behavior Check List subscales for Aggressive Behavior (54 vs 52) and Somatic Problems (55Problems (55 vs 53).

Moreover, they had significantly lower scores in avoidance and emotional reactivity and significantly higher scores in cognitive restructuring and problem solving SCS subscales.

Each subscale consists of five items, and we combined the Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity subscales to produce an overall Externalising score, as has been done in prior research [55].

Although not reaching the clinically significant cutoff, children with sleep problems had significantly higher mean scores on Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior and the Aggressive Behavior and Somatic Problems subscales of the CBCL than children without sleep problems (Tproblems had significantly higher mean scores on Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior and the Aggressive Behavior and Somatic Problems subscales of the CBCL than children without sleep problems (TProblems subscales of the CBCL than children without sleep problems (Tproblems (Table 2).

We posited that youth externalizing problems [Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Subscale (CBCL) externalizing problem scores] would contribute to patterns of conflict with caregivers, subsequently interfering with adherence processes, thereby decreasing glycemic control (increased HbA1c).

For each subscale, all items across all ages were scored on a scale of 0 — 2 and summed together for a score ranging from 0 to 10, as described previously for conduct problem subscale.

The CBCL / 1.5 — 5 exists of seven subscales and also produces internalizing and externalizing problems score.