Clinician-rated mental health in outpatient child and adolescent mental health services: associations with parent, teacher and adolescent ratings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinician-rated measures are used extensively in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) is a short clinician-rated measure developed for ordinary clinical practice, with increasing use internationally. Several studies have investigated its psychometric properties, but there are few data on its correspondence with other methods, rated by other informants. We compared the HoNOSCA with the well-established Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) questionnaires: the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), the Teacher's Report Form (TRF), and the Youth Self-Report (YSR).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data on 153 patients aged 6-17 years at seven outpatient CAMHS clinics in Norway were analysed. Clinicians completed the HoNOSCA, whereas parents, teachers, and adolescents filled in the ASEBA forms. HoNOSCA <it>total score </it>and nine of its scales were compared with similar ASEBA scales. With a multiple regression model, we investigated how the ASEBA ratings predicted the clinician-rated HoNOSCA and whether the different informants' scores made any unique contribution to the prediction of the HoNOSCA scales.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found moderate correlations between the total problems rated by the clinicians (HoNOSCA) and by the other informants (ASEBA) and good correspondence between eight of the nine HoNOSCA scales and the similar ASEBA scales. The exception was HoNOSCA scale 8 <it>psychosomatic symptoms </it>compared with the ASEBA s<it>omatic problems </it>scale. In the regression analyses, the CBCL and TRF <it>total problems </it>scores together explained 27% of the variance in the HoNOSCA <it>total scores </it>(23% for the age group 11-17 years, also including the YSR). The CBCL provided unique information for the prediction of the HoNOSCA <it>total score</it>, HoNOSCA scale 1 <it>aggressive behaviour</it>, HoNOSCA scale 2 <it>overactivity or attention problems</it>, HoNOSCA scale 9 <it>emotional symptoms</it>, and HoNOSCA scale 10 <it>peer problems; </it>the TRF for all these except HoNOSCA scale 9 <it>emotional symptoms; </it>and the YSR for HoNOSCA scale 9 <it>emotional symptoms </it>only.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study supports the concurrent validity of the HoNOSCA. It also demonstrates that parents, teachers and adolescents all contribute unique information in relation to the clinician-rated HoNOSCA, indicating that the HoNOSCA ratings reflect unique perspectives from multiple informants.</p

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): properties and frontier of current knowledge

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is well known internationally and widely used for scoring the severity of illness in psychiatry. Problems with GAF show a need for its further development (for example validity and reliability problems). The aim of the present study was to identify gaps in current knowledge about properties of GAF that are of interest for further development. Properties of GAF are defined as characteristic traits or attributes that serve to define GAF (or may have a role to define a future updated GAF). METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted. RESULTS: A number of gaps in knowledge about the properties of GAF were identified: for example, the current GAF has a continuous scale, but is a continuous or categorical scale better? Scoring is not performed by setting a mark directly on a visual scale, but could this improve scoring? Would new anchor points, including key words and examples, improve GAF (anchor points for symptoms, functioning, positive mental health, prognosis, improvement of generic properties, exclusion criteria for scoring in 10-point intervals, and anchor points at the endpoints of the scale)? Is a change in the number of anchor points and their distribution over the total scale important? Could better instructions for scoring within 10-point intervals improve scoring? Internationally, both single and dual scales for GAF are used, but what is the advantage of having separate symptom and functioning scales? Symptom (GAF-S) and functioning (GAF-F) scales should score different dimensions and still be correlated, but what is the best combination of definitions for GAF-S and GAF-F? For GAF with more than two scales there is limited empirical testing, but what is gained or lost by using more than two scales? CONCLUSIONS: In the history of GAF, its basic properties have undergone limited changes. Problems with GAF may, in part, be due to lack of a research programme testing the effects of different changes in basic properties. Given the widespread use, research-based development of GAF has not been especially strong. Further research could improve GAF

Fluid Intelligence and Psychosocial Outcome: From Logical Problem Solving to Social Adaptation

While fluid intelligence has proved to be central to executive functioning, logical reasoning and other frontal functions, the role of this ability in psychosocial adaptation has not been well characterized.Lower fluid intelligence scores were associated with physical violence, both in the role of victim and victimizer. Drug intake, especially cannabis, cocaine and inhalants and lower self-esteem were also associated with lower fluid intelligence. Finally, scores on the perceived mental health assessment were better when fluid intelligence scores were higher.Our results show evidence of a strong association between psychosocial adaptation and fluid intelligence, suggesting that the latter is not only central to executive functioning but also forms part of a more general capacity for adaptation to social contexts

Narrative matters for sustainability: the transformative role of storytelling in realizing 1.5°C futures

© 2017 Elsevier B.V. Narratives structure human comprehension, and shape our ability to imagine and achieve transformed futures within the 1.5 degree threshold. Examining tensions between narrative as a communication technique and as a spatial-temporal cognitive structure, this paper brings these different understandings together in a conversation for transformative global change. We suggest that filling the ‘information deficit’ with improved communication of a single, unifying and global narrative about Earth systems is necessary but insufficient: filling the ‘narrative deficit’ requires engagement with the protagonists, timelines, and places that provide situated agency in identifying and navigating uncertainty and risk. Transformations to sustainability will require recognizing and engaging multiple, diverse experiences of agency, a process that attention to narrative can help facilitate