Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 31.
Published in final edited form as: Evid Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2023 Mar 31;8(2):1–11. doi: 10.1080/23794925.2023.2191354

Table 3.

Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and Accuracy for the 6-item Motor tic, Obsession and compulsion, and Vocal tic Evaluation Survey (MOVES-6) compared with expert clinical assessment by cutoffs

Cutoff Sensitivity Specificity Youden Index TP FP FN TN Accuracy
0 100% 0% 0.00 144 73 0 0 66%
1 98% 52% 0.50 141 35 38 3 82%
2 94% 77% 0.71 136 17 56 8 88%
3* 88% 86% 0.74 127 10 63 17 88%
4 79% 95% 0.74 114 4 69 30 84%
5 71% 96% 0.67 102 3 70 42 79%
6 61% 100% 0.61 88 0 73 56 74%
7 51% 100% 0.51 74 0 73 70 68%
8 43% 100% 0.43 62 0 73 82 62%
9 39% 100% 0.39 56 0 73 88 59%
10 28% 100% 0.28 41 0 73 103 53%
15 3% 100% 0.03 4 0 73 140 35%
18 1% 100% 0.01 1 0 73 143 34%

TP=true positives; FP=false positives; FN=false negatives; TN=true negatives

*

We identified a cutoff as 3 as optimal for balancing sensitivity and specificity; Other cutoffs may be chosen based on the intended use of the screener.