Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and ...

chapter 18 Assessment of Depression and anxiety419or some other standard is not known.However, it is apparent that at least someminority groups were underrepresented.ReliabilityThe reliability of the overall CDI score isgood with internal consistency coefficientstypically in the .80s. The coefficients forthe scales are modest at best, ranging from.59 (Interpersonal Problems) to .68 (NegativeSelf-esteem). Test-retest coefficientsfor the total score are adequate based ondata reported from a number of studiesemploying a range of time frames (i.e., 1week to 1 year; see Kovacs, 1992).ValidityInternal evidence of validity has beenassessed via numerous factor-analyticinvestigations. Kovacs (1991) suggestsusing a five-factor solution for conceptualizingsubscales. The presence of more thanone factor, however, does not necessarilysupport the validity of the CDI. The factorstudies do suggest dominance by a largefirst factor (Cooper, 1990).Criterion-related studies are generallysupportive of the CDI as a measure ofinternalizing symptomatology. The CDIcorrelates significantly with other measuresof anxiety and depression (see Myers& Winters, 2002 for review).Some of the validity evidence associatedwith the CDI has been described as“mixed.” Although, for example, the CDIhas shown some validity for differentiatingbetween nonclinical children and samplesof children with depression, several studieshave shown that the CDI cannot accuratelydistinguish between samples withdepression and other psychiatric groups(Myers & Winters; Silverman & Rabian,1999).Strengths and WeaknessesThe CDI continues to be a widely usedmeasure. Among the CDI’s strengths are:1. A long research history that has contributedto considerable trust by thepsychological re-search community2. Ease of administration and scoring3. Relatively low cost4. Evidence of concurrent validity withmeasures of internalizing symptomsThe CDI, however, has some noteworthyweaknesses that caution against overinterpretation.1. The wisdom of offering such rigid cutscores for screening or diagnostic purposesin the manual is questionable, asthese suggestions are often applied rigidlyby the user (Kamphaus, 2001).2. The scale scores of the CDI have fairlylow internal consistency for clinicalpurposes.3. The norm-referenced scores from theCDI should be interpreted cautiouslygiven their lack of representativeness.In fact, a crucial flaw such as this suggeststhat the CDI may be more usefulfor research purposes than for clinicalassessment and diagnostic decisions.The CDI, in fact, does have animpressive history of research utilityfor which norm-referenced scores areoften of little interest.4. The ability of the CDI to assist withdifferential diagnosis is questionable(Silverman & Rubian, 1999).Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale,2nd Edition (RADS-2; Reynolds, 2002)The Reynolds Adolescent DepressionScale, 2nd edition (RADS-2; Reynolds) isdesigned to assess symptomatology associatedwith depression via self-report in adolescentsages 11–20. The RADS-2 is closelybased on its predecessor (Reynolds, 1986),although it may be used with a slightlywider age range than was recommendedfor the original version. The RADS-2 isnot designed provide a diagnosis of a specificdepressive disorder. However, it isdesigned for use as a screening measure orfor research.