注意缺陷多动障碍儿童共患对立违抗性障碍与父母养育方式的相关性北大核心CSCD

目的探讨注意缺陷多动障碍(attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,ADHD)儿童共患对立违抗性障碍(oppositional defiant disorder,ODD)与父母养育方式的相关关系。方法采用病例对照研究方法纳入482例ADHD儿童作为研究对象,其中未共患ODD(单纯ADHD组)322例,ADHD共患ODD(ADHD共患ODD组)160例,收集两组患儿一般人口学资料和父母养育方式量表评估得分情况。采用多因素logistic回归分析法探究父母养育方式与ADHD患儿共患ODD的关系。结果单纯ADHD组和ADHD共患ODD组父母养育方式得分(含拒绝因子、情感温暖因子、过度保护因子和偏爱因子)和一般人口学资料差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在ADHD注意缺陷型患儿中,患儿年龄越大,父亲文化程度越低,共患ODD风险越大(P<0.05),而父母养育方式与共患ODD无显著关联(P>0.05)。结论ADHD患儿是否共患ODD与父母养育方式无明显相关性,临床工作中,应减少对ADHD共患ODD患儿父母都有养育方式不良的刻板印象,从多角度寻找共患ODD的原因,以提供合理的干预建议。     

不同亚型注意力缺陷多动障碍患儿的临床特征分析

目的：研究不同亚型注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)患儿的临床特征。方法：将符合美国《精神障碍诊断与统计手册(第4版)》ADHD诊断标准的175名患儿,分为注意缺陷型（ADHD-I,n=82）、多动-冲动型（ADHD-HI,n=24）和混合型（ADHD-C,n=69）,分别进行性别构成、危险因素、共患疾病、智力水平和Conners父母症状问卷的比较。结果：各亚型男女性别构成差异无统计学意义;ADHD-I组和ADHD-C组分娩异常的比率高于ADHD-HI组,ADHD-HI组和ADHD-C组家庭教育方式不当的比率高于ADHD-I组;3组言语智商、操作智商和总智商差异无统计学意义,ADHD-I组智力发展不平衡比率高于其他两组;ADHD-HI组和ADHD-C组对立违抗障碍、抽动障碍的共患率高于ADHD-I组,ADHD-I组和ADHD-C组学习困难的共患率高于ADHD-HI组;ADHD-HI组和ADHD-C组品行问题、冲动-多动、多动指数均高于ADHD-I组,而ADHD-I组学习问题最显著。结论：ADHD-C和ADHD-HI患儿对立违抗障碍和抽动障碍共患率较高,多动-冲动等破环性行为突出,ADHD-I患儿学习问题和智力发展不平衡显著。［中国当代儿科杂志,2010,12（9）：704-708］     

Differences between preschool children with ODD, ADHD, and ODD+ADHD symptoms

BACKGROUND: This study examines differences between children (ages 3 to 6 years) who have the symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) with or without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), ADHD alone, and a nonODD/ADHD comparison group. Parent (N=595) and teacher (N=538) ratings were obtained for children attending the same community early childhood programs and for youngsters evaluated in an outpatient clinic (N=224) using a DSM-IV-referenced rating scale. RESULTS: Differences between symptom groups varied depending on how they were configured (teacher versus parent ratings) and setting (clinic versus community). In general, the ODD+ADHD group received the highest (and the comparison group the lowest) ratings of severity for the symptoms of other disorders, difficulties with peers, and developmental deficits. Moreover, the clinical impact of comorbidity was largely additive. Differences between youngsters with ODD versus ADHD symptoms were most apparent for teacher-defined groups in the community sample and parent-defined groups in the clinic sample. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings provide preliminary evidence for the notion that ODD and ADHD may constitute distinct clinical entities in preschool-aged children and suggest that informant may be an important consideration in the formulation of diagnostic criteria.     

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with oppositional defiant disorder in Swedish children - an open study of collaborative problem solving

Aim: To evaluate collaborative problem solving (CPS) in Swedish 6–13‐year‐old children with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Methods: Seventeen families completed 6–10 sessions of CPS training. Primary outcome measures were SNAP‐IV [attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and ODD scores] and Clinical Global Impression‐Improvement (CGI‐I) scores at baseline, post‐intervention and 6 months later. Secondary outcome measures were the Conners’ 10‐item scale and the Family Burden of Illness Module (FBIM). Results: All 17 participants completed the intervention. The whole group had significant reductions in SNAP‐IV ODD, ADHD, total Conners’ and FBIM scores, both at post‐intervention and at 6‐month follow‐up. Eight of the children, although significantly improved on ODD scores and the Conners’ emotional lability subscale at post‐intervention, had almost no improvement in hyperactivity/impulsivity. Post‐intervention, this group received stimulant medication for their ADHD. CGI‐I scores of much improved or very much improved were reached by 53% (9/17) of all at post‐intervention, and by 81% (13/16) at 6‐month follow‐up. Conclusion: Collaborative problem solving significantly reduced ODD, ADHD and emotional lability symptoms. A subgroup improved in their ADHD symptoms only after adding stimulant medication.     

The Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI): 2. Usefulness in screening for child and adolescent psychopatholog

Background:  This study examines the use of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) to screen for childhood psychiatric disorder based on Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (DISC-IV) classifications of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), separation anxiety (SAD), generalized anxiety (GAD) and major depression (MDD).
Methods:  Data for analysis come from a sample of 399 children and adolescents aged 5–17 years old referred to child mental health outpatient services in three Ontario cities. Mothers were administered the BCFPI on three occasions: baseline, 2 and 13 months; and the DISC-IV on two occasions: 1 and 12 months.
Results:  Based on kappa, test–retest reliability for disorders classified by the BCFPI exceeded .50 for all conditions except MDD (.45). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, area-under-the-curve (AUC) estimates for BCFPI scale score associations with DISC-IV classifications of disorder exceeded .80 for CD, ODD, ADHD and SAD; and were lower for GAD (.76) and MDD (.75). In stratified analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in AUC estimates for boys versus girls and 5 to 11 versus 12 to 17-year-olds.
Conclusions:  Classifications of childhood disorder derived from the BCFPI provided a reasonable approximation to disorders classified by the DISC-IV administered by lay interviewers.     

ע��ȱ�ݶද�ϰ�����748�������͵��ٴ��ص�

目的比较美国《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第4版(DSM-Ⅳ)注意缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)中以注意障碍为主型(ADHD-I)、以多动/冲动为主型(ADHD-HI)和混合型(ADHD-C)的临床特点。方法将1999年9月至2004年4月北京大学精神卫生研究所门诊就诊的符合DSM-Ⅳ中的ADHD诊断标准者748例分为ADHD-I型398例,ADHD-C亚型307例和ADHD-HI亚型43例,比较3个亚型的共患疾病,以及Rutter和Conners儿童行为问卷(父母问卷)中的行为问题。结果ADHD-C亚型对立违抗性障碍、品行障碍、双相障碍-躁狂发作的共患率显著高于ADHD-I和ADHD-HI亚型(P<0·01);ADHD-I学习困难的共患率显著高于其它两组亚型(P<0·001)。Rutter儿童行为问卷中ADHD-C亚型伴有的总行为问题和A行为问题明显多于ADHD-I与ADHD-HI亚型;ADHD-I亚型伴有的M行为问题多于ADHD-C与ADHD-HI亚型(P≤0·001)。Conners儿童行为问卷中ADHD-C和ADHD-HI亚型出现品行问题、冲动和多动、多动指数问题的比例均高于ADHD-I亚型(P≤0·001)。结论ADHD-C亚型的破坏性行为问题突出,而ADHD-I亚型的学习困难问题明显。     

Which better predicts conduct problems? The relationship of trajectories of conduct problems with ODD and ADHD symptoms from childhood into adolescence

BACKGROUND: To assess the co-occurrence in deviant trajectories of parent-rated symptoms of conduct disorder (CD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from age 4 to 18 years old in a general population sample of Dutch children. METHODS: Developmental trajectories of CD, ODD, and ADHD were estimated in a sample of 1,016 males and 1,060 females. Children's disruptive problem behaviors were rated at 5 time-points. The co-occurrence patterns between the deviant CD trajectory, and the high ODD and high ADHD trajectory were studied for males and females separately. RESULTS: Four percent of males and 2% of females followed a deviant CD trajectory. Six percent of the sample followed a high ODD trajectory, and 5% a high ADHD trajectory. Engagement in the deviant CD trajectory was predicted by ODD and ADHD in females, but only by ODD in males. CONCLUSIONS: Although ADHD co-occurs with CD, the association between ADHD and CD is largely accounted for by accompanying ODD. Gender differences should be taken into account in understanding the onset of CD.     

Emotional lability in children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): clinical correlates and familial prevalence

Background: The goal of this study was to investigate the occurrence, severity and clinical correlates of emotional lability (EL) in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and to examine factors contributing to EL and familiality of EL in youth with ADHD. Methods: One thousand, one hundred and eighty‐six children with ADHD combined type and 1827 siblings (aged 6–18 years) were assessed for symptoms of EL, ADHD, associated psychopathology and comorbid psychiatric disorders with a structured diagnostic interview (PACS) as well as parent and teacher ratings of psychopathology (SDQ; CPRS‐R:L; CTRS‐R:L). Analyses of variance, regression analyses, χ²‐tests or loglinear models were applied. Results: Mean age and gender‐standardized ratings of EL in children with ADHD were >1.5 SD above the mean in normative samples. Severe EL (>75th percentile) was associated with more severe ADHD core symptoms, primarily hyperactive‐impulsive symptoms, and more comorbid oppositional defiant, affective and substance use disorders. Age, hyperactive‐impulsive, oppositional, and emotional symptoms accounted for 30% of EL variance; hyperactive‐impulsive symptoms did not account for EL variance when coexisting oppositional and emotional problems were taken into account, but oppositional symptoms explained 12% of EL variance specifically. Severity of EL in probands increased the severity of EL in siblings, but not the prevalence rates of ADHD or ODD. EL and ADHD does not co‐segregate within families. Conclusion: EL is a frequent clinical problem in children with ADHD. It is associated with increased severity of ADHD core symptoms, particularly hyperactivity‐impulsivity, and more symptoms of comorbid psychopathology, primarily symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), but also affective symptoms, and substance abuse. EL in ADHD seems to be more closely related to ODD than to ADHD core symptoms, and is only partly explainable by the severity of ADHD core symptoms and associated psychopathology. Although EL symptoms are transmitted within families, EL in children with ADHD does not increase the risk of ADHD and ODD in their siblings.     

Classes of disruptive behaviour in a sample of young elementary school children

BACKGROUND: The objectives were to (1) classify young children to groups differing in disruptive behaviour, (2) determine whether the patterns of disruptive behaviour in these groups are in accordance with the conceptualisation of disruptive disorders as described in DSM-IV, and (3) optimise the classification of children in groups. METHODS: Disruptive behaviour of 636 seven-year-old elementary schoolchildren was assessed with the CBCL/4-18. Using CBCL items rated as very consistent with DSM-IV categories Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, latent class analyses were applied to identify classes of children differing in patterns of disruptive behaviour. RESULTS: Three classes were identified: (1) high levels of oppositional defiant problems (ODD problems) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity problems (ADH problems) and intermediate levels of Conduct problems; (2) intermediate ODD problems and ADH problems and low levels of Conduct problems; (3) low levels on all disruptive behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: No classes were identified in which children had symptoms of only Conduct problems, only ODD problems or only ADH problems. Covariates (socio-economic status, gender, parenting stress) improved the classification of children. The findings are discussed in terms of implications for classification, identification of children at risk, prevention and treatment of disruptive behaviour in young children.     

Should there be separate parent and teacher‐based categories of ODD? Evidence from a general population

Objective:  To examine the occurrence of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) symptoms in a general population of boys and girls, as reported by parents and teachers, and to investigate differences in prevalence estimates, depending on how parents' and teachers' ratings were combined.
Method:  Data were collected from 7007 children (aged 7–9) who participated in The Bergen Child Study (BCS), an ongoing population-based study of children's development and mental health. ODD symptoms were measured by the SNAP-IV (Swanson, Nolan, & Pelham-IV) Oppositional Defiant Disorder sub-scale (SNAP-IV ODD) that was distributed to parents and teachers. Co-occurring symptoms of mental health problems were measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).
Results and Conclusion:  Prevalence-estimates of ODD varied considerably depending on how ratings from parents and teachers were combined. Specific ODD symptoms occurred at very different rates depending on the rater and on the gender of the child being rated. Parents and teachers co-identified very few children with ODD. ODD identified by only one informant was associated with high levels of comorbid mental health problems and impairment according to both informants. The results support an informant-specific conceptualization of childhood ODD.     

Poor utility of the age of onset criterion for DSM-IV attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: recommendations for DSM-V and ICD-11

Background:  To test whether the retrospective reporting of the age of onset impairment criterion for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) required in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – IV (DSM-IV) complicates identification of new and known child and adolescent cases later in life.
Methods:  A birth-records-based cohort of twins assessed at ages 7 to 19 years were blindly reassessed five years later using the MAGIC interview. Study outcome measures were differences in reported ages of onset for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD) and major depressive disorder (MDD).
Results:  For all age groups and respondents (parent on youth or youth self-report), later ages of ADHD onset were reported five years later. The same phenomenon was also present for the other diagnostic groups. Of the initial ADHD individuals who continued to meet all other ADHD criteria at follow-up, 46% failed the age of onset criterion five years later. When ignoring the age of onset criterion, late onsets of ages 7–16 years accounted for about 10% of all ADHD.
Conclusions:  Use of the DSM-IV age of onset criterion for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the assessment of adolescents and young adults results in under-identification of affected individuals. Consideration should be given to revising the current nomenclatures to reflect the reality of retrospective reporting errors in age of onset as well as the presence of late onset cases.     

Parent SNAP-IV rating of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: accuracy in a clinical sample of ADHD,validity, and reliability in a Brazilian sample

ObjectiveTo investigate the psychometric properties of the short or multimodal treatment study version of the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham, Version IV (SNAP-IV) scale, which measures attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder symptoms.MethodsParticipants were 765 parents of children from 4 to 16 years old (641 non-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and 124 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder children) from Belo Horizonte, Brazil, who reported sociodemographic characteristics and answered the SNAP-IV. Parents of the clinical sample also underwent the K-SADS-PL interview.ResultsAge was significantly associated with SNAP-IV hyperactivity-impulsivity problems (r = ?0.14), but not with inattention or oppositional defiant disorder. Sex was a significant influence on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder severity (all p < 0.001), with boys showing higher scores in the full sample, but not within the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder group. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supports a three-factor structure of the SNAP-IV scale. Moderate-to-strong correlations were found between SNAP-IV and K-SADS-PL measures. All SNAP-IV scales showed very high internal consistency coefficients (all above 0.91). SNAP-IV inattention scores were the most predictive of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis (AUC: 0.877 for the averaging rating method and the raw sum method, and 0.874 for the symptom presence/absence method).ConclusionThe parent SNAP-IV showed good psychometric properties in a Brazilian school and clinical sample.
     

The relationship between DSM-IV oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: findings from the Great Smoky Mountains Study

BACKGROUND: We examine models of the relationship between oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) in a community sample. Particular attention is paid to the generalisability of findings based on clinic-referred boys. METHODS: The analyses were based on four waves of data from the Great Smoky Mountains Study covering children in the community aged 9-16 years. Child and parent reports of DSM-IV symptoms, diagnoses, and a range of family and environmental adversities were collected using the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Assessment. RESULTS: Cross-sectional analyses indicated that CD and ODD largely shared similar correlates, although some aspects of parenting appeared more related to CD than ODD. This pattern was broadly similar in boys and girls. Longitudinal analyses confirmed that ODD was a strong risk factor for CD in boys and there was a suggestion that ODD was a stronger risk factor for CD than for other common disorders. Atypical family structure was an important factor in the transition between ODD and CD in boys. In girls ODD provided no increased risk for later CD but was associated with increased risk for continued ODD, depression, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: These results are more consistent with a developmental relationship between ODD and CD in boys than girls.     

父母的子女教育心理控制对伴或不伴对立违抗障碍的注意缺陷多动障碍患儿的影响

目的 从心理控制源的角度探讨父母教育对伴或不伴对立违抗障碍(ODD)的注意缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)患儿的影响.方法 对湖南省长沙、益阳、娄底、郴州、水州、怀化6个城市5～17岁中小学生采用分层、随机、整群的抽样方法 进行抽样调查,共抽样9 495例儿童.采用二阶段流行病学调查方法 .第一阶段筛查,即由凋查儿童的父母、教师或抚养者填写儿童精神障碍调查筛查表(自编),凡父母或教师所填的症状筛查表有一条为"是"或ADHD、ODD诊断量表中任一个达到该疾病的诊断条目数者为筛查阳性;第二阶段为临床诊断,调查者对筛查阳性的中小学生用半定式诊断检查表和<美国精神疾病诊断与统计手册>4版进行临床诊断.确定单纯ADHD组247例,ADHD加ODD组138例,健康对照组217例.凡符合诊断标准的ADHD儿童和随机抽取的健康对照组儿童由父母填写一般情况调查表和子女教育心理控制源量表(PLOC).结果1.健康对照组与单纯ADHD组比较,母亲教育方式和父母教养态度比较差异均具有统计学意义(Pa＜0.01).健康对照组与ADHD加ODD组比较,父母亲教育方式和父母教养态度,差异均具有统计学意义(Pa＜0.01).2.单纯ADHD组与健康对照组比较,教育成效与子女对父母生活的控制因子评分较高,而父母对命运或机遇信念因子评分较低,差异均具有统计学意义(Pa＜0.05).3.ADHD加ODD组与健康对照组比较,教育成效因子评分与父母对子女行为的控制因子评分较高,差异均具有统计学意义(Pa＜0.01).4.单纯ADHD组与ADHD加ODD组比较,父母对子女行为的控制因子评分较低,差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论父母负性心理控制源与伴或不伴ODD的ADHI)患儿的不良行为发生、发展有一定联系,应改变父母对孩子教育认知的偏差.     

Time to redefine the diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a common and difficult problem that is regularly seen in general paediatric practice. Although classified as an independent diagnosis, ODD very commonly coexists with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) but in contrast to the latter, there are few studies that deal specifically with ODD and there is a lack of formal management guidelines. However, if ODD was included as a subtype of ADHD, this exclusion would not be sustainable. This would make guidelines more helpful and relevant for Australian paediatricians who currently have little support beyond their own clinical experience in dealing with this often very disabling condition.     

Predictive validity of DSM‐IV oppositional defiant and conduct disorders in clinically referred preschoolers

Background: Diagnostic validity of oppositional defiant and conduct disorders (ODD and CD) for preschoolers has been questioned based on concerns regarding the ability to differentiate normative, transient disruptive behavior from clinical symptoms. Data on concurrent validity have accumulated, but predictive validity is limited. Predictive validity is critical to refuting the hypothesis that diagnosing ODD and CD in young children leads to pathologizing normal behavior. ODD and CD have emerged as gateway disorders to many forms of adult psychopathology. Establishing how early we can identify symptoms and disorders that herald poor prognosis is one of the most important goals for research on etiology and prevention. Methods: Subjects were 3–5‐year‐old consecutive referrals to a child psychiatry clinic (n = 123) and demographically matched children from a pediatric clinic (n = 100). A diagnostic interview was used to assess DSM‐IV ODD and CD in a prospective follow‐up design from preschool to school age. Stability of ODD and CD diagnoses and level of impairment were tested as a function of preschool diagnosis. Results: Over 80% of preschoolers diagnosed with ODD and approximately 60% of preschoolers diagnosed with CD met criteria for the same disorder during follow‐up. Impairment over time varied significantly as a function of stability of diagnosis across three years. Conclusions: These results provide the first evidence of the predictive validity of DSM‐IV ODD and CD in clinically referred preschool children. The findings challenge the assumption that symptoms of disruptive behavior disorders that occur during the preschool period tend to be transient.     

Perspectives on oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and psychopathic features

This paper presents a few perspectives on oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), and early forms of psychopathy. The developmental changes and stability of each, and the interrelationship between the three conditions are reviewed, and correlates and predictors are highlighted. The paper also examines effective interventions for each of the three conditions and makes recommendations for future research.     

儿童注意缺陷多动障碍共患病及功能损害研究

目的 评估注意缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)患儿共患病及功能损害发生情况,并探讨其与核心症状(注意缺陷、多动冲动)的相关性。方法 疑诊为ADHD 的319例儿童作为研究对象,由父母完成Vanderbilt父母评定量表(VADPRS),根据美国精神病学会制定的《精神障碍诊断和统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)进行诊断及分型,根据VADPRS进行共患病筛查及功能损害评估。同时对各型ADHD患儿共患病和功能损害情况进行比较,对其与核心症状的关系进行相关性分析。结果 319例儿童中,196例诊断为ADHD,其中注意缺陷型(ADHD-I)84例,多动冲动型(ADHD-HI)35例,混合型(ADHD-C)77例。123例不满足ADHD诊断标准。ADHD儿童共患病(对立违抗性障碍、品行障碍、情绪障碍)发生率显著高于非ADHD儿童(63.8% vs 37.4%, P<0.05)。ADHD-C组对立违抗和品行障碍发生率高于ADHD-I组(P<0.05)。对立违抗、品行障碍及情绪障碍的阳性条目数与两个核心症状群阳性条目数有弱相关性(P<0.01)。ADHD组总功能损害发生率显著高于非ADHD组(89.8% vs 74.8%, P<0.05)。ADHD-C组功能损害发生率显著高于ADHD-I组和ADHD-HI组(P<0.05)。注意缺陷阳性症状条目数与学习问题、同胞关系损害及组织活动问题有弱相关性(P<0.01),多动冲动阳性症状条目数仅与同胞关系损害有弱相关性(P<0.01)。结论 ADHD组儿童共患病及功能损害发生率高,以ADHD-C组最显著。ADHD核心症状严重程度可以影响共患病及功能损害的发生。未达到ADHD诊断标准的疑诊儿童也有较高的其他精神障碍和功能损害发生率,临床上也要重视对此类儿童的干预。     

Defining oppositional defiant disorder

BACKGROUND: ICD-10 and DSM-IV include similar criterial symptom lists for conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), but while DSM-IV treats each list separately, ICD-10 considers them jointly. One consequence is that ICD-10 identifies a group of children with ODD subtype who do not receive a diagnosis under DSM-IV. METHODS: We examined the characteristics of this group of children using the Great Smoky Mountains Study of children in the community aged 9-16. This study provided child and parent reports of symptoms and psychosocial impairment assessed with standardised diagnostic interviews. RESULTS: Children who received an ICD-10 diagnosis but not a DSM-IV diagnosis showed broadly similar levels of psychiatric comorbidity, delinquent activity and psychosocial impairment to those who met DSM-IV criteria in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that DSM-IV excludes from diagnosis children who receive an ICD-10 diagnosis of CD (ODD sub-type), and who are substantially disturbed. Methods of redressing this situation are considered.     

Predictive validity of DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria for ADHD and hyperkinetic disorder

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare the predictive validity of the two main diagnostic schemata for childhood hyperactivity - attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual- IV) and hyperkinetic disorder (HKD; International Classification of Diseases- 10th Edition). METHODS: Diagnostic criteria for ADHD and HKD were used to classify 419 children ages 6 to 16 years referred to a clinic for behavioral problems into one of four groups: HKD, ADHD combined subtype (ADHD-C), ADHD hyperactive-impulsive subtype (ADHD-HI), ADHD inattentive subtype (ADHD-IA). These groups were compared on clinical characteristics including total symptom severity, overall impairment, exposure to psychosocial and neuro-developmental risks, family history of ADHD in first-degree family members, rate and type of comorbidity, intelligence, academic achievement, and on laboratory tests of motor response inhibition and working memory with each other and with normal controls (47). RESULTS: Of the 419 cases, there were 46 HKD (11.0%), 200 ADHD-C (47.7%), 60 ADHD-HI (14.3%) and 113 ADHD-IA (27.0%) cases. The HKD group had more symptoms and was more impaired on teachers' ratings than were the other groups. The ADHD-C and HKD groups had poorer inhibitory control than the ADHD-IA, ADHD-HI and control groups, and all four clinic groups showed inhibition deficit compared to controls. Groups did not differ in working memory. Compared to controls, the HKD, ADHD-C, ADHD-HI and ADHD-IA groups had higher familial risk of ADHD, greater psychosocial risk exposure, lower intellectual level and poorer academic attainment. However, we observed no differences among the clinic groups in these characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Like earlier versions, ICD-10 and DSM-IV continue to delineate diagnostic entities with substantially different prevalence in clinic samples. However, HKD, ADHD-C, ADHD-IA and ADHD-HI groups overlap substantially in terms of important clinical characteristics, although HKD and ADHD-C may be somewhat more severe variants of the condition than ADHD-IA and ADHD-HI.