Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACTObjective This study examines Child Behavior Checklist 1.5-5 (CBCL) validity for externalizing, internalizing, and total problems T-scores when screening for clinically significant behavioral problems in a Navajo (Diné) sample, that was not included in CBCL norming. Method Mothers were recruited during pregnancy through the Navajo Birth Cohort Study/Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (NBCS/ECHO). Families completed in-person, clinical assessments when children were 42 to 72 months-old. Caregivers completed the CBCL and provided histories. Best estimate clinical diagnoses were established by experienced clinician-researchers using records, along with comprehensive neuropsychological, psychiatric, and physical examinations. Results Caregivers completed CBCLs for 192 children (98 boys, 51.0%; mean age 4.0±0.61, range 3 to 6 years). 125 children (65.1%) received at least one diagnosis, with language disorder being the most common, followed by speech sound disorder. Every group with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) diagnosis had T-scores within the normal range when they were derived according to the CBCL manual. T-scores obtained by normalization within our study population yielded higher scores for the diagnosed group; however, Area Under Curve (AUC) values still ranged from 0.6 to 0.7, displaying poor CBCL discriminative power. Externalizing problems T-scores for those with any DSM-5 diagnosis were most discriminative (AUC = 0.70). Conclusion The CBCL was an ineffective single screening tool in the Diné population compared to in-person clinician evaluations, possibly because the Diné were not included in the CBCL validation or cross-cultural adaptations. Our findings may be relevant to other minority populations not included in norming.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Yoon Jae Cho
Bennett L. Leventhal
Brandon Rennie
JAACAP Open
University of Chicago
University of California, San Francisco
The University of Texas at Austin
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Cho et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0809bea487c87a6a40b95f — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaacop.2026.05.001
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: