Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
. 2021 Nov 1;30(4):264–272.

Parent-Child Agreement on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID)

Erica McDonald 1, Sydney Whitney 1, Laurie Horricks 2, Ellen L Lipman 2,3, Mark A Ferro 1,✉
PMCID: PMC8561856  PMID: 34777509

Abstract

Objective

Multiple informants are often used in the assessment of child psychopathology; however, parent-child agreement is low in child psychiatry. The objective of this exploratory study was to assess informant agreement on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID) in a clinical sample of children with mental disorders and their parents, and to examine health and demographic factors associated with agreement.

Method

MINI-KID results were analyzed for 88 parent-child dyads. Children were between 8–17 years old and were receiving in- or outpatient services for at least one mental disorder at a pediatric hospital. Kappas were calculated to assess parent-child agreement and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with agreement.

Results

Agreement was low to moderate (κ=0.19–0.41) across the MINI-KID modules. Household income was associated with agreement for major depression, generalized anxiety, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Recruitment setting and parent psychological distress were associated with agreement for generalized anxiety and separation anxiety, respectively. Age, sex, and child disability/impairment were not associated with agreement.

Conclusions

Parent-child agreement on the MINI-KID was low to moderate, and few factors were associated with agreement. These initial findings reaffirm the need for multiple informants when assessing psychopathology in children and can be used by health professionals to facilitate parent-child discussions in clinical settings in child psychiatry.

Keywords: child, agreement, parent, psychiatric disorder, reliability

Mots clés: entente parent-enfant, trouble psychiatrique, fiabilité

Multiple informants are often used in the assessment of child psychopathology to maximize the amount and quality of information collected (De Los Reyes et al., 2015; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005), and inform decision-making (Dudley et al., 2015). While family-centered approaches to care advocate for multi-informant perspectives, challenges arise when discrepancies are observed. Evidence from child psychiatry suggests that parent-child agreement is low-to-moderate (Becker et al., 2016; Hamblin et al., 2016; Landis & Koch, 1977). Population studies have reported kappa (κ) agreement ranging from κ=0.14–0.63 (Berman et al., 2016; Jensen et al., 1999; Van Roy et al., 2010). Similarly, findings from clinical samples have reported agreement ranging from κ=0.18–0.35 (Choudhury et al., 2003; Comer & Kendall, 2004; Van Der Meer et al., 2008). Because symptoms of externalizing disorders are more easily observable, parent-child agreement tends to be higher compared to internalizing disorders (Edelbrock et al., 1986; Martin et al., 2004; Salbach-Andrae et al., 2009); however, this finding is not always consistent (Hamblin et al., 2016).

Agreement is typically stronger for adolescents (vs. children) (Becker et al., 2016; Duncan et al., 2018; Edelbrock et al., 1986; Grills & Ollendick, 2002; Jensen et al., 1999), females (Kolko & Kazdin, 1993; Van Roy et al., 2010), individuals with more severe symptoms (Duncan et al., 2018), and families with higher household incomes (Van Roy et al., 2010). Parent psychopathology is associated with lower parent-child agreement; however, this finding may be disorder-dependent (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2015; Becker et al., 2016; Popp et al., 2017). Literature is inconsistent, as many studies find these factors are not associated with agreement (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2015; Becker et al., 2016; Choudhury et al., 2003; Klein, 1991; Popp et al., 2017). Notably increased parent-child discrepancy for psychopathology has been shown to predict a poorer prognosis for children, including referral to mental health services, need for professional help, and increased behavioural or emotional problems (Ferdinand et al., 2004). To ensure the best possible outcomes for children, there is an impetus to investigate the magnitude of and factors associated with (dis)agreement.

The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID) is a brief, diagnostic interview designed to identify mental disorders in children (Sheehan et al., 2010). It includes parent and child versions, has a low cost, and short administration time, making it an appealing tool for clinicians and researchers (Duncan et al., 2018; Leffler et al., 2015). Previous studies on the MINI-KID have shown mixed results with respect to parent-child agreement. While one study found good concordance between parent and child assessments (κ=0.46–0.94) (Sheehan et al., 2010), others found agreement to be low (κ=0.15–0.20) (Butler et al., 2018; Duncan et al., 2018). However, no studies have assessed parent-child agreement on the MINI-KID in a clinical sample of children with mental disorder. The aims of this exploratory study were to: (1)examine parent-child agreement on the MINI-KID, and (2)explore which demographic and health factors are associated with agreement in a clinical sample of children with mental disorders and their parents. It was hypothesized that parent-child agreement will be low-to-moderate, with externalizing disorders having more agreement compared to internalizing disorders. Additionally, we hypothesized that agreement would be positively associated with child age, female children, and household income, and negatively associated with parent psychopathology.

Method

Data Source

Data come from a cross-sectional study of children receiving mental health services at an academic pediatric hospital (Ferro et al., 2019). Children were eligible for the study if they were aged 4–17 years; classified as having a mental disorder; currently receiving mental health services; and both informants had sufficient command of the English language. A total of 259 eligible children were identified. Of these, 144 (56%) provided consent, and 100 (39%) participated.

Eligible children and parents were contacted and provided information about the study. Interview and questionnaire responses were collected electronically. All interviews were conducted by a single trained interviewer. For inpatients, interviews for children and parents were typically conducted on the same day, and all were conducted within two days. For outpatients, interviews were conducted during a single research study visit. Informed consent was obtained for all participants.

Measures

Child Psychopathology

The MINI-KID was completed by parents and children. The MINI-KID is a structured, diagnostic interview used to assess DSM-5 and ICD-10 disorders in children aged 6–17 years (Sheehan et al., 2010). Responses to the MINI-KID are binary (yes/no), indicating the presence or absence of the disorder. The MINI-KID has previously demonstrated strong psychometric properties in clinical and general populations (Boyle et al., 2017; Duncan et al., 2018; Sheehan et al., 2010).

Child Disability/impairment

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 is a 36-item self-report measure of 30-day disability/impairment (Üstün et al., 2010). Parents responded to each item using a five-point scale ranging from ‘1’ (none) to ‘5’ (extreme/cannot do), higher scores indicate higher functional impairment. The WHODAS 2.0 has shown robust psychometric properties including, confirmed factor structure, measurement invariance, test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC=0.93–0.96), and internal consistency (α=0.91–0.94) in child populations, including those with mental disorders (Kimber et al., 2015; Tompke et al., 2019; Üstün et al., 2010).

Parent Psychological Distress

Parent psychological distress was measured by computing the sum of responses on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983) scales. Both scales have strong psychometric properties, including replicated factor structures, measurement invariance, construct validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency in various adult populations (Dol et al., 2020; Ferro & Speechley, 2012; Julian, 2011; Okun et al., 1996). The CES-D is a 20-item self-report measure that asks parents how often they felt symptoms using a 4-point likert scale from ‘0’ (rarely) to ‘3’ (most of the time) (Radloff, 1977). The STAI includes 20-items focused on ‘trait anxiety’ scored from ‘1’ (almost never) to ‘4’ (almost always) (Spielberger, 1983). Higher scores on each scale indicate greater impairment.

Sociodemographic Factors

Relevant sociodemographic factors such as child and parent age and sex, household income, and care setting were collected. Parent-reported household income was coded as gross annual household income above or below $75,000, the Canadian median household income (Statistics Canada, 2017).

Data Analysis

The outcome of interest was parent-child agreement. Agreement was defined as the parent and child both endorsing the presence or absence of a given disorder on the MINI-KID, while disagreement was defined as either the parent or child endorsing the disorder, while the other did not. Kappa was used to estimate level of agreement, such that κ≤0 (poor), κ=0.01–0.20 (slight), κ=0.21–0.40 (fair), κ=0.41–0.60 (moderate), κ=0.61–0.80 (substantial), and κ≥0.81 (almost perfect) (Landis & Koch, 1977). Dyads (with vs. without agreement) were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables (child age, parent age, parent psychosocial distress, parent report WHODAS 2.0) and Fisher’s Exact test for binary variables (child/parent sex, household income, recruitment site). Backwards-elimination logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with parent-child agreement in a final, adjusted model. Based on the exploratory nature and limited sample size of this study, the threshold for variable retention and significance level for all hypothesis tests was set at p<0.10, a more liberal α compared to commonly accepted significance levels (Bursac et al., 2008; Dunkler et al., 2014).

Results

Sample Characteristics

Twelve parent-child dyads were excluded due to missing data; thus, 88 dyads were analyzed. Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. Participating children had a mean age of 14.5 (SD 2.2) years and were 71.6% female. Most parents were female (84.1%) and had a mean age of 45.8 (SD 6.7) years. Approximately half (51.1%) of participants reported an annual household income <$75,000. Major depressive disorder and phobia were the most common disorders endorsed by both parents and children, 60.2% and 52.3%, respectively (Table 2).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the study sample

Mean (SD)
Child age, years 14.5 (2.2)
Child disability/impairment, WHODAS 2.0 2.40 (0.66)
Parent age, years 45.8 (6.7)
Parent psychosocial distress 65.3 (16.7)
n (%)
Female child 63 (71.6)
Female parent 74 (84.1)
Household income <$75,000 45 (51.1)
Inpatient 35 (39.8)
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Dyad responses on the MINI-KID

Agreement Count (%) Disagreement Count (%)
Parent: Yes
Child: Yes		 Parent: No
Child: No		 Parent: No
Child: Yes		 Parent: Yes
Child: No
Major depressive disorder 53 (60.2) 13 (14.8) 9 (10.2) 13 (14.8)
Generalized anxiety 41 (46.6) 14 (15.9) 10 (11.4) 23 (26.1)
Separation anxiety 13 (14.8) 48 (54.5) 11 (12.5) 16 (18.2)
Phobia 46 (52.3) 16 (18.2) 16 (18.2) 10 (11.4)
ADHD 16 (18.2) 41 (46.6) 16 (18.2) 15 (17.0)
Oppositional defiant/conduct disorder 25 (28.4) 37 (42.0) 8 (9.1) 18 (20.5)
Open in a new tab

Parent-Child Agreement

Table 3 shows the estimates of agreement between parents and children on the MINI-KID. Agreement was moderate for oppositional defiant/conduct disorder [κ=0.41 (0.22, 0.59)], but fair for major depressive disorder [κ=0.37 (0.16,0.59)], attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [κ=0.23 (0.02, 0.44)], phobia [κ=0.33 (0.13, 0.54)], and separation anxiety [κ=0.27 (0.06, 0.49)], and slight for generalized anxiety [κ=0.19 (−0.01, 0.39)].

Table 3.

Parent-child MINI-KID agreement across mental disorders

Kappa 90% Confidence interval
Lower limit Upper limit
Major depressive disorder 0.37 0.16 0.59
Generalized anxiety 0.19 −0.01 0.39
Separation anxiety 0.27 0.06 0.49
Phobia 0.33 0.13 0.54
ADHD 0.23 0.02 0.44
Oppositional defiant/conduct disorder 0.41 0.22 0.59
Open in a new tab

Disagreement type was evaluated to determine if parents or children were more frequently endorsing disorders (Table 2). In general, when disagreement existed it was more common for parents to endorse presence of a disorder. Exceptions existed for ADHD, where approximately equal numbers of parents and children endorsed the disorder, and for phobia where children more commonly provided endorsement.

Factors Associated with Parent-Child Agreement

Unadjusted analyses comparing factors between dyads with vs. without agreement generally did not reveal significant differences between groups (Table 4). Results of the adjusted analyses are shown in Table 5. The only factor retained in more than one model was household income, which was associated with parent-child agreement for major depressive disorder [OR=0.29 (0.12, 0.71)], generalized anxiety [OR=0.44 (0.21, 0.95)], and ADHD [OR=2.18 (1.03, 4.61)]. Receiving inpatient services was associated with agreement on generalized anxiety [OR=2.38 (1.08, 5.28)], and parent psychological distress for separation anxiety [OR=0.97 (0.95, 0.99)]. Child and parent age and sex, and WHODAS 2.0 score were not retained in any model. No associations were found for oppositional defiant/conduct disorder or phobia.

Table 4.

Unadjusted associations of parent-child agreement

Major depressive disorder Generalized anxiety Separation anxiety Phobia ADHD Oppositional defiant/conduct disorder
Disagree (n=22) Agree (n=66) Disagree (n=33) Agree (n=55) Disagree (n=27) Agree (n=61) Disagree (n=26) Agree (n=62) Disagree (n=31) Agree (n=57) Disagree (n=26) Agree (n=62)
Mean (SD)
Child age, years 14.0 (2.6) 14.7 (2.1) 14.0 (2.2) 14.8 (2.2) 14.1 (2.9) 14.7 (1.8) 14.4 (2.2) 14.6 (2.3) 14.7 (2.2) 14.4 (2.2) 14.6 (2.4) 14.5 (2.2)
Child disability/impairment, WHODAS 2.0 82.5 (21.3) 87.7 (24.5) 84.8 (26.6) 87.3 (22.0) 87.9 (26.3) 85.7 (22.7) 82.3 (23.3) 88.1 (23.9) 85.4 (23.9) 86.9 (23.8) 86.7 (24.0) 86.2 (23.8)
Parent age, years 44.4 (8.2) 46.3 (6.1) 45.2 (7.8) 46.2 (6.0) 45.1 (8.3) 46.2 (5.9) 45.7 (7.0) 45.9 (6.6) 45.1 (7.4) 46.2 (6.3) 47.0 (6.3) 45.3 (6.8)
Parent psychosocial distress 63.1 (16.5) 66.1 (16.8) 65.1 (16.5) 65.5 (17.0) 71.1 (18.7) 62.8 (15.2) 68.7 (19.4) 63.9 (15.3) 66.5 (19.8) 64.7 (14.9) 64.7 (19.1) 65.6 (15.8)
Frequencies (%)
Female child 15 (68.2) 48 (72.7) 25 (75.8) 38 (69.1) 19 (70.4) 44 (72.1) 20 (76.9) 43 (69.4) 22 (71.0) 41 (71.9) 16 (61.5) 47 (75.8)
Female parent 19 (86.4) 55 (83.3) 27 (81.8) 47 (85.5) 21 (77.8) 53 (86.9) 22 (84.6) 52 (83.9) 24 (77.4) 50 (87.7) 21 (80.8) 53 (85.5)
Household income <$75,000 16 (72.7) 29 (43.9) 21 (63.6) 24 (43.6) 17 (63.0) 28 (45.9) 14 (53.9) 31 (50.0) 12 (38.7) 33 (57.9) 12 (46.2) 33 (53.2)
Inpatient 7 (31.8) 28 (42.4) 9 (27.3) 26 (47.3) 11 (40.7) 24 (39.3) 13 (50.0) 22 (35.5) 14 (45.2) 21 (36.8) 10 (38.5) 25 (40.3)
Open in a new tab

Results in bold were statistically significant (p<0.10).

Table 5.

Adjusted associations of parent-child agreement

Major depressive disorder
OR (90%CI)		 Generalized anxiety
OR (90%CI		 Separation anxiety
OR (90%CI		 Phobia
OR (90%CI		 ADHD
OR (90%CI		 Oppositional defiant/conduct disorder
OR (90%CI
Child age, years 1.09 (0.89, 1.32) 1.13 (0.94, 1.36) 1.19 (0.99, 1.43) 1.08 (0.89, 1.31) 0.96 (0.79, 1.18) 1.01 (0.83, 1.23)
Child disability/impairment, WHODAS 2.0 1.01 (0.50, 2.06) 0.94 (0.49, 1.83) 0.82 (0.42, 1.61) 1.85 (0.94, 3.62) 1.25 (0.65, 2.41) 0.98 (0.51, 1.91)
Parent age, years 1.04 (0.98, 1.11) 0.99 (0.93, 1.06) 1.01 (0.94, 1.07) 0.99 (0.93, 1.06) 1.04 (0.98, 1.11) 0.96 (0.91, 1.02)
Parent psychosocial distress 1.02 (0.99, 1.04) 1.00 (0.97, 1.02) 0.97 (0.95, 0.99) 0.98 (0.96, 1.01) 0.99 (0.97, 1.02) 1.00 (0.97, 1.03)
Female child 1.05 (0.40, 2.74) 0.54 (0.22, 1.29) 1.10 (0.44, 2.78) 0.66 (0.26, 1.69) 1.29 (0.54, 3.09) 1.96 (0.86, 4.46)
Female parent 1.08 (0.31, 3.74) 1.91 (0.67, 5.51) 2.56 (0.90, 7.28) 0.82 (0.26, 2.60) 1.86 (0.69, 5.01) 1.28 (0.44, 3.74)
Household income <$75,000 0.29 (0.12, 0.71) 0.44 (0.21, 0.95) 0.51 (0.22, 1.19) 1.09 (0.47, 2.52) 2.18 (1.03, 4.61) 1.35 (0.61, 2.97)
Inpatient 1.07 (0.39, 2.90) 2.38 (1.08, 5.28) 1.20 (0.47, 3.11) 0.59 (0.26, 1.38) 0.67 (0.30, 1.47) 1.07 (0.46, 2.48)
Open in a new tab

Those in bold are statistically significant (p<0.10). Parent-child disagreement is the reference category.

Discussion

This study was the first to examine parent-child agreement on the MINI-KID in a clinical sample of children with mental disorders. In line with our hypotheses, agreement was low-to-moderate across all disorders, and some agreements were associated with household income, parent psychosocial distress, and receiving inpatient services. Externalizing disorders did not show a greater degree of agreement compared to internalizing disorders and no association was observed between parent-child agreement and age, sex, or child disability/impairment.

The finding of low-to-moderate agreement aligns with previous reports of parent-child discrepancies when using the MINI-KID in other settings (Butler et al., 2018; Duncan et al., 2018), and suggests that this association also extends to clinical samples. This finding is consistent with previous reports of low parent-child agreement in clinical samples when using other measures of child psychopathology (Choudhury et al., 2003; Comer & Kendall, 2004; Van Der Meer et al., 2008). It has been suggested that low agreement in population samples may be a reflection of less stable or severe symptoms and low prevalence of mental disorders (Boyle et al., 2017). However, in our clinical sample, prevalence of disorders was higher than the general population and symptoms warranted mental health services, yet agreement was no better than moderate. It is likely that factors beyond the presence and severity of mental disorder may influence agreement, including family functioning, ethnicity, or social desirability (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005).

Although literature suggests that parent-child agreement is typically higher for externalizing disorders (Edelbrock et al., 1986; Martin et al., 2004; Salbach-Andrae et al., 2009), our findings did not support this association. Instead, we showed that oppositional defiant/conduct disorder had similar agreement to major depressive disorder and ADHD had the second-lowest agreement. While unexpected overall, this finding is consistent with other investigations using the MINI-KID, which showed similar agreement for internalizing and externalizing disorders (Duncan et al., 2018).

When there was disagreement between parents and children, it was more common that parents reported disorders. This finding is consistent with previous literature suggesting that parents overreport psychopathology, relative to their children, particularly in clinical populations (Grills & Ollendick, 2002; MacLeod et al., 1999; Martin et al., 2004; Smith, 2007). Because parents often initiate accessing mental health services for their children, based on their own threshold for determining need, it was expected that within this clinical sample, parents more frequently endorsed the presence of mental disorders (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005).

Household income was the only covariate associated with parent-child agreement for more than one disorder. Interestingly, lower income was associated with agreement for internalizing disorders, while higher income was associated with agreement for externalizing disorders. Few studies have examined the association of income on parent-child agreement; however, one report found that household income and agreement are positively associated (Van Roy et al., 2010). However, this study examined the influence of parent-child agreement on a composite measure (Van Roy et al., 2010), which could explain the discrepant findings with internalizing disorders in our sample. While there may be increased barriers to service access for low-income households, our sample is composed of children who were receiving mental health services. The process of overcoming barriers/accessing mental health services may improve awareness of differing perspectives among parents and children, thereby increasing agreement. However, this is speculative and the association between household income and agreement across internalizing and externalizing disorders warrants further study in different service settings with larger and more socioeconomically diverse samples.

Parent psychosocial distress and receiving inpatient services were found to be associated with separation anxiety and generalized anxiety, respectively. Our finding that parent psychosocial distress was associated with poorer agreement for separation anxiety aligns with most previous literature (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2015; Becker et al., 2016; Popp et al., 2017). Studies have suggested that this association may be disorder-dependent, and that the effect is strongest when assessing separation anxiety (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2015; Becker et al., 2016). Receiving inpatient services showed the strongest association with agreement for generalized anxiety. Receiving inpatient mental health services could be contextualized as a proxy for severity, which may condition parents to be more attuned to the mental health of their children, resulting in better agreement. Further study is needed to understand the nature of these associations, including whether factors such as parental mental health and disorder severity/impairment moderate parent-child agreement.

Associations were not found for age, sex, or child disability/impairment. Although some previous studies have reported higher parent-child agreement with female children and increased child age (Becker et al., 2016; Duncan et al., 2018; Edelbrock et al., 1986; Grills & Ollendick, 2002; Jensen et al., 1999; Kolko & Kazdin, 1993; Van Roy et al., 2010), our findings align with studies reporting no such effect (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2015; Becker et al., 2016; Choudhury et al., 2003; Klein, 1991; Popp et al., 2017). Such inconsistent findings may be a function of differing methodologies and sample compositions. The majority of our sample were adolescents with little variability in age and nearly three-quarters were female; thus, limiting our ability identify potential age or sex effects.

The findings of this study should be considered in the context of the following limitations. First, as an exploratory study, our sample size was small, and participants were recruited from a single site. Thus, the study may have been underpowered to detect significant associations between sociodemographic and health factors and parent-child agreement, and findings may not generalize to broader populations. Second, many families declined participation. While reasons for non-participation was not explored, the low participation rate may increase the possibility of selection bias. Third, we were unable to corroborate parent and child responses on the MINI-KID with physician diagnoses of child mental disorders.

Conclusion

Our initial findings support literature suggesting that parent-child agreement is low to moderate in a clinical sample of children with mental disorders and that few factors predict agreement. Findings emphasize the need to collect information from multiple informants when assessing mental disorder in children. While future research should continue to investigate informant discrepancies in larger and more diverse samples, and in different settings, such as non-academic hospitals and residential care, health professionals should be aware of informant discrepancies among clinical samples of children with mental disorder.

Acknowledgements

Data used in this manuscript come from a study funded by Hamilton Health Sciences (NIF-14363). Dr. Ferro holds the Canada Research Chair in Youth Mental Health and is supported by an Early Researcher Award from the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no financial relationships to disclose.

References

  1. Affrunti NW, Woodruff-Borden J. The effect of maternal psychopathology on parent-child agreement of child anxiety symptoms: A hierarchical linear modeling approach. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2015;32:56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Becker EM, Jensen-Doss A, Kendall PC, Birmaher B, Ginsburg GS. All anxiety is not created equal: Correlates of parent/youth agreement vary across subtypes of anxiety. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2016;38(4):528–537. doi: 10.1007/s10862-016-9544-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berman AH, Liu B, Ullman S, Jadbäck I, Engström K. Children’s quality of life based on the KIDSCREEN-27: Child self-report, parent ratings and child-parent agreement in a Swedish random population sample. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3):e0150545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyle MH, Duncan L, Georgiades K, Bennett K, Gonzalez A, Van Lieshout RJ, …Janus M. Classifying child and adolescent psychiatric disorder by problem checklists and standardized interviews. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2017;26(4):e1544. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code for Biology and Medicine. 2008;3:1–8. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Butler A, Van Lieshout RJ, Lipman EL, Macmillan HL, Gonzalez A, Gorter JW, …Ferro MA. Mental disorder in children with physical conditions: A pilot study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e019011. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Choudhury MS, Pimentel SS, Kendall PC. Childhood anxiety disorders: Parent-child (dis)agreement using a structured interview for the DSM-IV. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003;42(8):957–964. doi: 10.1097/01.CHI.0000046898.27264.A2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Comer JS, Kendall PC. A symptom-level examination of parent-child agreement in the diagnosis of anxious youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2004;43(7):878–886. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000125092.35109.c5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. De Los Reyes A, Augenstein TM, Wang M, Thomas SA, Drabick DAG, Burgers DE, Rabinowitz J. The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin. 2015;141(4):858–900. doi: 10.1037/a0038498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. De Los Reyes A, Kazdin AE. Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin. 2005;131(4):483–509. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dol M, McDonald E, Ferro MA. Psychometric properties of the CESD, STAI-T, and PSS among parents of children with mental illness. Journal of Family Studies. 2020 doi: 10.1080/13229400.2020.1837208. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dudley N, Ackerman A, Brown KM, Snow SK. Patient-and family-centered care of children in the emergency department. Pediatrics. 2015;135(1):e255–e272. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-3424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Duncan L, Georgiades K, Wang L, Van Lieshout RJ, MacMillan HL, Ferro MA, …Boyle MH. Psychometric evaluation of the mini international neuropsychiatric interview for children and adolescents (MINI-KID) Psychological Assessment. 2018;30(7):916–928. doi: 10.1037/pas0000541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunkler D, Plischke M, Leffondré K, Heinze G. Augmented backward elimination: A pragmatic and purposeful way to develop statistical models. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Edelbrock C, Costello AJ, Dulcan MK, Conover NC, Kala R. Parent-child agreement on child psychiatric symptoms assessed via structured interview. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1986;27(2):181–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1986.tb02282.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ferdinand RF, Van Der Ende J, Verhulst FC. Parent-adolescent disagreement regarding psychopathology in adolescents from the general population as a risk factor for adverse outcome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2004;113(2):198–206. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.113.2.198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferro MA, Lipman EL, Van Lieshout RJ, Boyle MH, Gorter JW, MacMillan HL, …Georgiades K. Mental–physical multimorbidity in youth: Associations with individual, family, and health service use outcomes. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 2019;50(3):400–410. doi: 10.1007/s10578-018-0848-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferro MA, Speechley KN. What about dads? An exploratory analysis of depressive symptoms in paternal primary caregivers of children with epilepsy. Epilepsy and Behavior. 2012;23(1):90–91. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Grills AE, Ollendick TH. Issues in parent-child agreement: The case of structured diagnostic interviews. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2002;5(1):57–83. doi: 10.1023/A:1014573708569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamblin RJ, Salloum A, Andel R, Nadeau JM, McBride NM, Lewin AB, Storch EA. Predictors of parent-child agreement on child anxiety diagnoses on the ADIS-IV-C/P. Psychiatry Research. 2016;245:303–310. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.07.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jensen PS, Rubio-Stipec M, Canino G, Bird HR, Dulcan MK, Schwab-Stone ME, Lahey BB. Parent and child contributions to diagnosis of mental disorder: Are both informants always necessary? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1999;38(12):1569–1579. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199912000-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Julian LJ. Measures of anxiety: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) Arthritis Care and Research. 2011;63(S11):S467–S472. doi: 10.1002/acr.20561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kimber M, Rehm J, Ferro MA. Measurement invariance of the WHODAS 2.0 in a population-based sample of youth. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(11):e0142385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Klein RG. Parent-child agreement in clinical assessment of anxiety and other psychopathology: A review. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 1991;5(2):187–198. doi: 10.1016/0887-6185(91)90028-R. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kolko DJ, Kazdin AE. Emotional/behavioral problems in clinic and nonclinic children: Correspondence among child, parent and teacher reports. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1993;34(6):991–1006. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993.tb01103.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Leffler JM, Riebel J, Hughes HM. A review of child and adolescent diagnostic interviews for clinical practitioners. Assessment. 2015;22(6):690–703. doi: 10.1177/1073191114561253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. MacLeod RJ, McNamee JE, Boyle MH, Offord DR, Friedrich M. Identification of childhood psychiatric disorder by informant: Comparisons of clinic and community samples. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;44(2):144–150. doi: 10.1177/070674379904400204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Martin JL, Ford CB, Dyer-Friedman J, Tang J, Huffman LC. Patterns of agreement between parent and child ratings of emotional and behavioral problems in an outpatient clinical setting. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 2004;25(3):150–155. doi: 10.1097/00004703-200406000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Okun A, Stein REK, Bauman LJ, Silver EJ. Content validity of the psychiatric symptom index, CES-depression scale, and state-trait anxiety inventory from the perspective of DSM-IV. Psychological Reports. 1996;79(3):1059–1069. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1996.79.3.1059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Popp L, Neuschwander M, Mannstadt S, In-Albon T, Schneider S. Parent-child diagnostic agreement on anxiety symptoms with a structured diagnostic interview for mental disorders in children. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8:404. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1977;1(3):385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Salbach-Andrae H, Klinkowski N, Lenz K, Lehmkuhl U. Agreement between youth-reported and parent-reported psychopathology in a referred sample. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2009;18(3):136–143. doi: 10.1007/s00787-008-0710-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sheehan DV, Sheehan KH, Shytle RD, Janavs J, Bannon Y, Rogers JE, …Wilkinson B. Reliability and validity of the mini international neuropsychiatric interview for children and adolescents (MINI-KID) Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2010;71(3):313–326. doi: 10.4088/JCP.09m05305whi. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith SR. Making sense of multiple informants in child and adolescent psychopathology: A guide for clinicians. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2007;25(2):139–149. doi: 10.1177/0734282906296233. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Spielberger CD. State-trait anxiety inventory for adults. Mind Garden, Inc; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  37. Statistics Canada. Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census. 2017. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170913/dq170913a-eng.htm.
  38. Tompke BK, Tang J, Oltean II, Buchan MC, Reaume SV, Ferro MA. Measurement invariance of the WHODAS 2.0 Across youth with and without physical or mental conditions. Assessment. 2019;27(7):1490–1501. doi: 10.1177/1073191118816435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 20. World Health Organization; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Der Meer M, Dixon A, Rose D. Parent and child agreement on reports of problem behaviour obtained from a screening questionnaire, the SDQ. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008;17(8):491–497. doi: 10.1007/s00787-008-0691-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Roy B, Groholt B, Heyerdahl S, Clench-Aas J. Understanding discrepancies in parent-child reporting of emotional and behavioural problems: Effects of relational and socio-demographic factors. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10:56. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-10-56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

RESOURCES