Sentences with phrase «problem scale score»

The sum of all items forms the Total problem scale score.

The BITSEA produces two scores, a Problem Scale score a Competence Scale score, with higher scores representing greater problems and greater competence, respectively.

Differences between conditions at follow - up displayed precisely the same pattern of results noted here, with the following exceptions: (1) change in ECBI Intensity Scale score from baseline to the 6 - month follow - up was statistically significant between WL and PTG, but the ECBI Problem Scale score was not, and (2) change in the DPICS - CII child disruptive behavior at posttreament was significant in the NR - PTG condition.

The rule - breaking (12 items) and aggressive scales (17 items) were combined by taking the average of the items to form an externalizing problems scale score at each wave.

Not exact matches

After adjusting for maternal IQ and education, characteristics of the home environment, school district, and number of siblings, the children who were exposed to greater than 5 parts arsenic per billion of household well water (WAs ≥ 5 μg / L) showed reductions in Full Scale, Working Memory, Perceptual Reasoning and Verbal Comprehension scores, losses of 5 - 6 points, considered a significant decline, that may translate to problems in school, according to Gail Wasserman, PhD, professor of Medical Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia, and the study's first author.

Hope Scale scores correlate positively with measures of optimism, problem - solving ability, and self - esteem.

The first situation is customers having a poor experience (overall scores below 600 on a 1,000 - point scale), which includes an above - average incidence of problems, lack of communication and unmet promises.

Mothers were eligible to participate if they did not require the use of an interpreter, and reported one or more of the following risk factors for poor maternal or child outcomes in their responses to routine standardised psychosocial and domestic violence screening conducted by midwives for every mother booking in to the local hospital for confinement: maternal age under 19 years; current probable distress (assessed as an Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS) 17 score of 10 or more)(as a lower cut - off score was used than the antenatal validated cut - off score for depression, the term «distress» is used rather than «depression»; use of this cut - off to indicate those distressed approximated the subgroups labelled in other trials as «psychologically vulnerable» or as having «low psychological resources» 14); lack of emotional and practical support; late antenatal care (after 20 weeks gestation); major stressors in the past 12 months; current substance misuse; current or history of mental health problem or disorder; history of abuse in mother's own childhood; and history of domestic violence.

Mean T scores on the ECBI ranged from 60.1 to 62.8 on the Problem Scale and from 58.3 to 59.2 on the Intensity Scale.

Change in score on 12 primary measures: Clinician - Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS 2) total of 3 clusters and severity, Impact of Events Scale (IES)(self rated), Beck Depression Inventory (self rated), Global Improvement scale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor raScale (CAPS 2) total of 3 clusters and severity, Impact of Events Scale (IES)(self rated), Beck Depression Inventory (self rated), Global Improvement scale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor raScale (IES)(self rated), Beck Depression Inventory (self rated), Global Improvement scale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor rascale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor rascale (self and assessor rated).

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.

Findings from the paired t test revealed that parents in the IG scored their children significantly better (compared with baseline) 2 months after the intervention in 2 competence scales (social and school) with respect to the internalizing and externalizing problems and in the total problem score (Table 2).

As a check on our own measure of bullying, we performed the same analysis using the short - form Behavior Problems Index, which includes a validated antisocial score for each child.31 (We revised the Antisocial scale by subtracting the values of the answers to the bullying question, which would otherwise contribute to the Antisocial scale.)

The SESBI - R and ECBI have been shown to have high internal consistency for both Intensity (α = 0.98, α = 0.95) and Problem scales (α = 0.96, α = 0.93).54 Reliability coefficients at 12 - week intervals for SESBI - R and ECBI Intensity (r = 0.94 and r = 0.80) and Problem scales (r = 0.98 and r = 0.85) are also high.54 A reduction in score indicates fewer and / or less problematic disruptive behaviours.

Organic and depressive symptoms (automatic geriatric examination for computer assisted taxonomy [AGECAT], score range 1 and 2 = subclinical to 5 = most severe), behavioural problems (Crichton Royal behavioural rating scale, score range 0 = no problems to 38 = severe problems), and physical disability (Barthel activity of daily living index, score range 0 = dependent to 20 = independent but not necessarily normal).

Mean scores for the PSC, CBCL Total, as well as the CBCL Internalizing and Externalizing scales, were within the normal range for child behavioral problems.

The lifetime conduct problems scale was created by summing the scores for the three conduct disorder scales and dividing by three.

For this analysis, we excluded children with congenital diseases (eg, blindness, cleft lip and palate, spina bifida; n = 50), twins (n = 1650), or with developmental delay (Bayley Scales of Infant Development Mental [n = 450] or Motor score [n = 400] < 1.5 SDs below the sample mean), as these children might have self - regulation problems that are significantly different from the general population.

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 impulsiscales 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 impulsiscales], (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 impulsiScales - 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 impulsiscales 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 impulsiscales 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).

Grouped t tests were used to compare the mean change in scores in the control and intervention groups where the differences were normally distributed (ECBI intensity score, SDQ total score, PSI parent child interaction, and parent domains), and Mann - Whitney U tests for the mean change in scores in the two groups where the differences were not normally distributed (ECBI problem score, SDQ conduct, hyperactivity, emotional, peer and prosocial scales, GHQ somatic anxiety, social, depression and total scores, PSI difficult child domain and total score, and SES).

At the beginning of the study, all of the children scored similarly on a scale that measures the severity of behavior problems between 0 and 36 and the frequency of those problems between 36 and 252.

Scale scores were means across items, with higher scores indicating more problems.

Data from over 900 participants indicates that individuals higher on these dimensions were better at conflict management and resolution, were more dedicated to the relationship, had more self - control, had more positive interactions, and were more satisfied.2 That is, individuals who score higher on this scale should be able to control their impulses (i.e., avoid kissing random people behind their partner's back), they should pick up on signs of relationship problems earlier, and should more carefully weigh the pros and cons of starting a long - term relationship, or deciding to move in together.

Moreover, among the 9 narrow - band dimensions of problem behaviors measured by the Child Behavior Checklist, the Withdrawn scale (possible scores, 0 - 16; mean ± SD, 3.02 ± 2.81; range, 0 - 11) was the only one to correlate significantly with the shyness - BI index.

To be accepted into the trial, patients had to meet the following criteria: 18 to 65 years old; meeting diagnostic criteria for PTSD as determined by the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM - IV), 13 with PTSD being the main problem; scoring 20 or higher on the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS), 14 indicating moderate to severe symptom severity; and intervention starting within 6 months after the accident.

Higher scores on the Open Communication Scale indicate higher levels of perceived effective communication in the family, and higher scores on the Problem Communication Scale indicates perceptions of more problems in family communication.

Children with of - concern scores on the problem scale of the Brief Infant - Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment were at increased risk for parent - reported subclinical / clinical levels of problems and for psychiatric disorders.

The allelic variant, RS3 334, is associated in men, but not women, with a lower bonding quality with the partner (characterized by lower scores on the partner bonding scale and a greater likelihood of reporting martial problems)(Walum et al., 2008).

Regarding broad - band rating scales, information obtained may include scores that sum across all types of child behavior problems (ie, total global scale scores), scores that sum across types of internalizing problems such as depression and anxiety (ie, internalizing scale scores), and scores that sum across types of externalizing problems such as aggression and conduct problems (ie, externalizing scale scores).

Women carrying one or two A-alleles score lower on the partner bonding scale and the relationship quality survey as well as are more likely to report martial problems than woman carrying two G alleles (Walum et al., 2012).

Mean (95 % confidence interval) scores on hospital anxiety and depression scale and sleep problem questionnaire at baseline and follow up at three, six, and 12 months

This well validated semistructured interview uses investigator based criteria to assess the frequency and severity of antisocial behaviours such as fighting, destruction, and disobedience; scores are strongly predictive of later psychosocial outcome.16 The κ inter-rater reliability statistic on 20 randomly selected interviews was 0.84 for the conduct problems scale, 0.81 for the hyperactivity scale, and 0.76 for the emotional problems scale.

score on the Delinquency scale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) of 70 or greater (indicating behavior problems more serious than 98 percent of peers of the same age and sex).

The majority of children fell into clusters where behaviour was generally non-problematic; 62 % are in either cluster 2 or 5 where scores on the problem scales were all or mostly low and pro-social scores high.

Children in cluster 4 also have higher scores on the problem scales, but with particularly high emotional symptoms scores.

In order to calculate the consistency of the measurement of maternal mental health problems between the scales, Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for the raw scores at each sweep.

In relation to the peer problems scale for example, 15 % of children who experienced this social interaction fortnightly or more often scored in the borderline or abnormal range compared with 23 % of children who experienced it less often or never.

For example, 40 % of children whose parents used both smacking and shouting had scores in the borderline or abnormal range of the conduct problems scale compared with 19 % of children who parents used neither.

Delays in language development at age 2 were also statistically significant, being associated with greater difficulties in hyperactivity and peer problems as well as a high score on the total difficulties scale.

Delays in language development at age 2 were associated with greater difficulties in hyperactivity and peer problems as well as a high score on the total difficulties scale.

Amongst the difficulty scales, on all but conduct problems, over 80 % of children return scores within the accepted normal range, that is the range in which most children would be expected to score.

The SDQ also includes an impact scale to score to what extent the child has a problem with emotions, concentration, or with how to get on with other people.

Children reporting conduct or emotional problems had a threefold increased odds of reporting LBP, and those scoring higher on the hyperactivity and peer problems scales had a 50 % increased odds of reporting LBP.

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.

The CBCL / 1.5 — 5 consists of 100 items that are rated by parents on a 3 - point - scale, and the Total Problems raw score serves as a measure for child psychopathology.

The SDQ consists of five scales of five items each, generating scores for conduct problems (e.g., «Steals from home, school or elsewhere»), hyperactivity - inattention (e.g., «Restless, overactive, can not stay still for long»), emotional symptoms (e.g., «Many worries, often seems worried»), peer problems (e.g., «Rather solitary, tends to play alone»), and prosocial behavior (e.g., «Helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill»).

Interest in attending a parenting group was associated with the eldest child in the family being aged under 4 years, and with the presence of a child in the family who scored in the clinical range on either the intensity or problem scales of the behaviour inventory.

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

The mean score on the problem scale was 5.6 with a standard deviation of 6.4.

Each of the five items was rated on a nine - point scale ranging from 0 (not at all a problem) to 8 (severely impaired) so that the total scores range between 0 and 40.22 The psychometric properties have been validated in large patient with CFS cohorts confirming that WSAS is a reliable assessment tool for disability.