Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018 Mar 30;48(6):840–854. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2018.1437734

Table 3.

Diagnostic efficiency estimates at varying SCQ total score cutoff values

SCQ
Cutoff
Value
Full Sample
Sex/Gender Comparisons
Boys
Girls
Sens Spec PPV NPV DLR Sens Spec PPV NPV DLR Sens Spec PPV NPV DLR
9 .98 .14 .21 .97 1.13 .98 .09 .26 .92 1.07 1.00 .21 .09 1.00 1.26
10 .96 .26 .23 .97 1.30 .96 .24 .29 .94 1.26 1.00 .30 .10 1.00 1.42
11 .92 .38 .26 .95 1.49 .91 .37 .32 .92 1.44 1.00 .40 .12 1.00 1.66
12 .84 .48 .27 .93 1.62 .82 .46 .33 .88 1.51 1.00 .51 .14 1.00 2.04
13 .80 .54 .29 .92 1.74 .77 .52 .35 .87 1.61 1.00 .57 .16 1.00 2.31
14 .80 .61 .32 .93 2.07 .77 .61 .40 .89 1.98 1.00 .61 .17 1.00 2.59
15 .80 .68 .37 .94 2.50 .77 .66 .43 .90 2.29 1.00 .71 .21 1.00 3.39
16 .76 .73 .39 .93 2.82 .73 .72 .46 .89 2.62 1.00 .74 .23 1.00 3.83
17 .75 .78 .44 .93 3.43 .71 .77 .51 .89 3.12 1.00 .80 .28 1.00 4.88
18 .73 .81 .46 .93 3.73 .68 .80 .53 .88 3.36 1.00 .82 .30 1.00 5.49
19 .67 .87 .55 .92 5.26 .61 .86 .59 .87 4.29 1.00 .90 .44 1.00 9.80
20 .61 .91 .61 .91 6.72 .57 .90 .66 .86 5.81 .86 .92 .46 .99 1.78
21 .57 .94 .67 .90 8.98 .52 .92 .70 .85 6.95 .86 .95 .60 .99 18.86

Note. Estimates for the standard SCQ cutoff value are in bold. Sens = sensitivity, spec = specificity, PPV = positive predictive value, NPV = negative predictive value, DLR = diagnostic likelihood ratio.