Objective and subjective indicators: Effects of scale discordance on interrelationships

Researchers in the social indicator movement are increasingly aware of the value of obtaining both subjective and objective measures. At the same time there is a recognition of the need to understand relationships between the types of measures. Studies utilizing both subjective and objective measures indicate that while relationships between them exist, relationships are often not strong. This paper suggests several explanations for such imperfect relationships. One is scale discordance, a term used to recognize that the territorial base of an individual's subjective evaluation may not coincide with the boundaries of the unites used for the collection of objective data. Using data from a metropolitan area study, relationships between objective measures of crime and respondents' feelings of safety are examined for people whose perceptions of neighborhoods vary in size. The hypothesis that the relationship between the objective and subjective measures is stronger among individuals whose view of neighborhood size is in line with the relatively large territorial base for objective crime statistics is tested and found to be correct. Implications of the findings for research and policy making are discussed.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43701/1/11205_2004_Article_BF00364601.pd

A rapid screening tool for psychological distress in children 3--6years old: results of a validation study.

International audienceABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The mental health needs of young children in humanitarian contexts often remain unaddressed. The lack of a validated, rapid and simple tool for screening combined with few mental health professionals able to accurately diagnose and provide appropriate care mean that young children remain without care. Here, we present the results of the principle cross-cultural validation of the "Psychological Screening for Young Children aged 3 to 6" (PSYCAa3-6). The PSYCa 3--6 is a simple scale for children 3 to 6 years old administered by non-specialists, to screen young children in crises and thereby refer them to care if needed. METHODS: This study was conducted in Maradi, Niger. The scale was translated into Hausa, using corroboration of independent translations. A cross-cultural validation was implemented using quantitative and qualitative methods. A random sample of 580 mothers or caregivers of children 3 to 6 years old were included. The tool was psychometrically examined and diagnostic properties were assessed comparing the PSYCa 3--6 against a clinical interview as the gold standard. RESULTS: The PSYCa 3--6 Hausa version demonstrated good concurrent validity, as scores correlated with the gold standard and the Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale (CGI-S) [rho = 0.41, p-value = 0.00]. A reduction procedure was used to reduce the scale from 40 to 22 items. The test-retest reliability of the PSYCa 3--6 was found to be high (ICC 0.81, CI95% [0.68; 0.89]). In our sample, although not the purpose of this study, approximately 54 of 580 children required subsequent follow-up with a psychologist. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first validation of a screening scale for children 3 to 6 years old with a cross-cultural validation component, for use in humanitarian contexts. The Hausa version of the PSYCa 3--6 is a reliable and a valuable screening tool for psychological distress. Further studies to replicate our findings and additional validations of the PSYCa 3--6 in other populations may help improve the delivery of mental health care to children