In this systematic review, we assessed available evidence for cross-cultural measurement invariance of assessment scales for child and adolescent psychopathology as an indicator of cross-cultural validity. A literature search was conducted using the Medline, PsychInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Cross-cultural measurement invariance data was available for 26 scales. Based on the aggregation of the evidence from the studies under review, none of the evaluated scales have strong evidence for cross-cultural validity and suitability for cross-cultural comparison. A few of the studies showed a moderate level of measurement invariance for some scales (such as the Fear Survey Schedule for Children-Revised, Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale, Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale, Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, and Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale), which may make them suitable in cross-cultural comparative studies. The remainder of the scales either showed weak or outright lack of measurement invariance. This review showed only limited testing for measurement invariance across cultural groups of scales for pediatric psychopathology, with evidence of cross-cultural validity for only a few scales. This study also revealed a need to improve practices of statistical analysis reporting in testing measurement invariance. Implications for future research are discussed.

Background. In order to compare estimates by one assessment scale across various cultures/ethnic groups, an important aspect that needs to be demonstrated is that its construct across these groups is invariant when measured using a similar and simultaneous approach (i.e., demonstrated cross-cultural measurement invariance). One of the methods for evaluating measurement invariance is testing for differential item functioning (DIF), which assesses whether different groups respond differently to particular items. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS) in societies with different socioeconomic, cultural, and religious backgrounds.Methods. The study was organised by the International Child Mental Health Study Group. Self-reported data were collected from adolescents residing in 11 countries: Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Indonesia, Montenegro, Nigeria, Palestinian Territories, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania and Serbia. The multiple-indicators multiple-causes model was used to test the RCADS items for DIF across the countries.Results. Ten items exhibited DIF considering all cross-country comparisons. Only one or two items were flagged with DIF in the head-to-head comparisons, while there were three to five items flagged with DIF, when one country was compared with the others. Even with all cross-culturally non-invariant items removed from nine language versions tested, the original factor model representing six anxiety and depressive symptoms subscales was not significantly violated.Conclusions. There is clear evidence that relatively small number of the RCADS items is non-invariant, especially when comparing two different cultural/ethnic groups, which indicates on its sound cross-cultural validity and suitability for cross-cultural comparisons in adolescent anxiety and depressive symptoms.

PurposeThe Early Symptomatic Syndromes Eliciting Neurodevelopmental Clinical Examinations – Questionnaire (ESSENCE-Q) was developed as a brief screener to identify children with developmental concerns who might have neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). This study aimed to translate the ESSENCE-Q into south Slavic languages, namely, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Serbian, and Slovenian, and to evaluate its psychometric properties for screening purposes in clinical settings.Patients and methodsIn the study, the ESSENCE-Q was completed for 251 “typically developing” children and 200 children with 1 or more diagnosed NDDs, all aged 1–6 years. Internal consistency and construct validity were tested first, followed by generating receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve. Optimal cutoff values were then explored.ResultsThe Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.91, 0.88, and 0.86 for ESSENCE-Q parent-completed form, and the telephone and direct interview forms administered by trained nurse or specialist, respectively. The 3 versions produced area under the curve values (95% confidence interval): 0.96 (0.93–0.99), 0.91 (0.86–0.95), and 0.91 (0.86–0.97), respectively. An optimal cutoff for ESSENCE-Q parent-completed form was found to be ≥3 points, while for the telephone and direct interviews, it was ≥5 points.ConclusionWe found adequate measurement properties of the south Slavic languages versions of the ESSENCE-Q as a screener for NDDs in clinical settings. This study provided additional data supporting sound psychometric properties of the ESSENCE-Q.

No abstract

ObjectiveYoung people moving from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to adult mental health services (AMHS) are faced with significant challenges. To improve this state of affairs, there needs to be a recognition of the problem and initiatives and an urgent requirement for appropriate tools for measuring readiness and outcomes at the transfer boundary (16–18 years of age in Europe). The objective of this study was to develop and validate the Transition Readiness and Appropriateness Measure (TRAM) for assessing a young person’s readiness for transition, and their outcomes at the transfer boundary.DesignMILESTONE prospective study.SettingEight European Union (EU) countries participating in the EU-funded MILESTONE study.ParticipantsThe first phase (MILESTONE validation study) involved 100 adolescents (pre-transition), young adults (post-transition), parents/carers and both CAMHS and AMHS clinicians. The second phase (MILESTONE cohort study and nested cluster randomised trial) involved over 1000 young people.ResultsThe development of the TRAM began with a literature review on transitioning and a review of important items regarding transition by a panel of 34 mental health experts. A list of 64 items of potential importance were identified, which together comprised the TRAM. The psychometric properties of the different versions of the TRAM were evaluated and showed that the TRAM had good reliability for all versions and low-to-moderate correlations when compared with other established instruments and a well-defined factor structure. The main results of the cohort study with the nested cluster randomised trial are not reported.ConclusionThe TRAM is a reliable instrument for assessing transition readiness and appropriateness. It highlighted the barriers to a successful transition and informed clinicians, identifying areas which clinicians on both sides of the transfer boundary can work on to ease the transition for the young person.Trial registration numberISRCTN83240263 (Registered 23 July 2015), NCT03013595 (Registered 6 January 2017); Pre-results.