Childrens Depression Inventory 2 Cdi-2

CSP 636
Clinical Tool Critique:

Children's Depression Inventory 2
(CDI 2)
by Lahee An, Anwen Buu, Lucy Tran

Purpose of CDI 2
CDI 2 is a self-report assessment tool to measure presence and severity
of depressive symptoms in the last 2 weeks of youth aged 7-17 years.
NOT diagnostic of a depressive disorder.
Only serves to supplement data obtained through interviews and

discussions with child and informants to gain a comprehensive view.
Cannot serve as a substitute for direct clinical observation.
Provides valuable information that can be used for treatment and

intervention planning and measuring mental health outcomes.
Administration
2 versions: paper-and-pencil and computerized format
Full-length version (28 items)
Assesses a range of symptoms associated with MDD &
DD
Items reflect developmentally appropriate manifestations
of depressive symptoms
3 choices per item, simple sentence structure, low reading
level
reflects severity of target symptom
0 (none) to 2 (definite)
Parent (17 items) & Teacher (12 items) Forms
Measures observable aspects of depression
4-point Likert type scale
0 (not at all) - 3 (much or most of the time)
Short-version (12 items)
Things to Know When
Administering CDI 2
NOT recomended for use with some Recommended for

youth: administrators of CDI 2 to
read assessment items
those unwilling to respond to a aloud (while respondent is
questionnaire reading along) to ensure
those who are disoriented, comprehension for youth (7-
severely impaired, or not proficient 9 y.o.) and youth with poor
in English (or language of CDI 2 reading skills (regardless of
translation) age)
Main Uses for CDI 2
Assessing Screening Evaluating

Depressive Symptoms a Group of Youth an Intervention
Observe impact of an
Short ver. CDI 2 (12
Facilitates diagnostic intervention on
items) permits
decisions depressive symptoms
screening a group of of youth
Guide treatment
youth Results can be collected
planning
Select specific cutoff at several points during
Allows clinician to
based on goals and intervention to evaluate
compare the child to scope of screening effects
a normative group Sensitivity & specificity Helping in supporting
future decisions on an
intervention
Standardization
Self-Report Teacher-Rated Parent-Rated
Standardization
n= 1,100 boys and girls, 631 teacher 1,187 parent

aged 7 to 17 evaluations (339 boys evaluations (591 boys
Sample
Stratified to match age, and 292 girls) + 206 and 596 girls + 272
sex, race/ethnicity, and additional additional
geography of
population
n= 319 boys and girls, No new clinical cases No new clinical cases
aged 7 to 17 were collected were collected
Sample
Clinical
Included children with

various DSM-5
diagnoses (MDD,
ADHD, CD/ODD, GAD)
Scores and Scoring Algorithms
Total Score
TOTAL
SCALES
Emotional Problems Functional Problems

SUBSCALES
Negative Mood/ Negative Interpersonal

Ineffectiveness
Physical Symptoms Self-Esteem Problems
The Effects of Age and Sex
Self-Report Teacher-Rated Parent-Rated
No significant effect of sex was Sex significantly affected the Total No significant effects
observed in either full- or short- Score and Functional Problems on sex or age
length version scale score (decreasing

Age impacted several scores on symptomatic tendencies in boys
full- and short-length forms with age; the reverse for girls)
Teachers rated younger students
as more symptomatic than older
students on the Emotional Problem
scale
Reliability
Internal Test-Retest Standard Error of
Consistency Reliability Measurement
measures the consistency of
when all items measure how much measured
results when you repeat the
the same construct test scores are spread
same test on the same
around a "true" score
sample at a different point in
Cronbach's alpha value
time
Self-Report: .82 SEM = SD x √(1-⍺),
Full-Length SR: .91 where SD represents
assessed using a subgroup of
TR: .82-.89 79 children from the population
PR: .79-.88 standardization sample taken standard deviation and
twice with a 2-4 week time gap test's reliability
CDI 2:SR, CDI 2: SR(S), estimate
and CDI:P have
exceptional short-term
temporal stability and
acceptable long-term
temporal stability
Validity of CDI 2
Discriminative Validity Convergent Validity

Tests how well CDI 2 can Refers to the extent to which
distinguish children with a responses on a test scores
diagnosis of major depressive correlate from other relevant
disorder from children without a measures - depression
diagnosis of MDD
2 Approaches to Discriminative Validity
1st approach: 2nd approach:
Goal: Assess potential differences in the self-report Goal: Discriminant function analyses (DFA)
scores between different diagnostic group & control used to examine whether self- report CDI 2
cases scores could differentiate MDD cases from
Clinical sample: children with different DSM-IV matched controls and clinical cases with other
diagnoses (generalized anxiety, conduct/ oppositional diagnoses
defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Controlled variables: youth's demographic
Control cases: standardization sample (selected based characteristics, including age, sex, and race
on age, sex, and race/ ethnicity with diagnoses of MDD) Conclusion:
Conclusion: Utilizing univariate and multivariate Accuracy of classifying MDD and mach
analyses of covariates (ANCOVA & MANCOVA), MDD control cases: 78.3% for the full-length
group scored higher compared to all other groups total & 80.8% for the short total scores
EXCEPT for generalized anxiety groups Accuracy of classifying MDD from other
anxiety and depression has high level of occurrence diagnoses: 72.6% for the full-length total
and exhibit similar kinds of impairments score & 70.3% for the short total score
Convergent Validity
Results
Overall sample:
266 youths Scores were strong between CDI 2 scores and the
scores from the Connors Comprehensive Behavior
Rating Scales
both test utilizes the comprehensive coverage of
the symptoms of MDD
214 youths 52 youths Scores were moderate between CDI 2 scores and the
(standardization (clinical sample) Beck Youth Inventory
sample) Youth version of the BDI only has partial coverage
of the symptoms of major depression and
dysthymia
Conclusion and Recommendations
Pros Cons
Aids in the early Translations of CDI 2 present a
identification of depressive potential inequity issue
symptoms The samples were only
Features specific scales for selected within the United
States
Emotional and Functional
Does not accurately
problems along with sub-
represent other countries
scales
with different social and
Overall, good reliability and cultural backgrounds
validity Limitation of self-reported data
Thank You!

Childrens Depression Inventory 2 Cdi-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Childrens Depression Inventory 2 Cdi-2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Childrens Depression Inventory 2 Cdi-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSP 636

Clinical Tool Critique:

by Lahee An, Anwen Buu, Lucy Tran

NOT diagnostic of a depressive disorder.

Only serves to supplement data obtained through interviews and

Provides valuable information that can be used for treatment and

NOT recomended for use with some Recommended for

Assessing Screening Evaluating

n= 1,100 boys and girls, 631 teacher 1,187 parent

Included children with

Emotional Problems Functional Problems

Negative Mood/ Negative Interpersonal

length version scale score (decreasing

Discriminative Validity Convergent Validity

You might also like