{"title":"尼泊尔儿童心理健康评估Tej情绪与行为问题量表的信效度证据。","authors":"Suraj Shakya, Sabitri Sthapit, Mita Rana, Arun Raj Kunwar, Shital Bhandary","doi":"10.31729/jnma.8785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Tej Emotional and Behavioral Problem Checklist (TEJ-CL) was developed in Nepalese context to aid assessment of childhood emotional and problems of children. This study aimed to evaluate TEJ-CL's factor structure, reliability, and validity evidences as an add-on and symptom monitoring test.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional validation study included guardians of 320 children (age 5-17 years) from tertiary mental health centers in Kathmandu as referred group, along with 601 children from two schools (private and community) in Kathmandu as non-referred group. IRC was obtained ethical approval (ref: 183 (6-11-E)2/073/074 and ref: 776). TEJ-CL, an 89-item parent-reported questionnaire, served as the index test, while referral status acted as the reference standard. Factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest/cross-informant correlations and criterion validity evidence was assessed using principal component analysis, coefficient alpha, spearman's rank correlation and linear regression models, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis was done using 179 referred and 412 non-referred individuals based on non-missing data. Principal component analysis in referred sample reduced the number of items of questionnaire to 65 from 89 and indicated six factors: externalizing behavioral issues, anxiety/worries, upset/sadness, somatic concern, miscellaneous syndrome, and severe issues with coefficient alpha ranging from .62 to .95. As criterion validity evidence, referred children showed significantly higher scores than non-referred children across composite and factor scores, except for anxiety/worries factor. Similarly, regression analyses within the referred group demonstrated significant associations between factor scores and specific diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reliability and validity estimate of questionnaire is comparable to similar empirically based scales. Future research should focus on assessing the tool's generalizability and improving discriminatory indexes.</p>","PeriodicalId":520657,"journal":{"name":"JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association","volume":"62 278","pages":"646-654"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619552/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and Validity Evidences of Tej Emotional and Behavioral Problem Checklist (TEJ-CL) for Child Mental Health Assessment in Nepal.\",\"authors\":\"Suraj Shakya, Sabitri Sthapit, Mita Rana, Arun Raj Kunwar, Shital Bhandary\",\"doi\":\"10.31729/jnma.8785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Tej Emotional and Behavioral Problem Checklist (TEJ-CL) was developed in Nepalese context to aid assessment of childhood emotional and problems of children. This study aimed to evaluate TEJ-CL's factor structure, reliability, and validity evidences as an add-on and symptom monitoring test.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional validation study included guardians of 320 children (age 5-17 years) from tertiary mental health centers in Kathmandu as referred group, along with 601 children from two schools (private and community) in Kathmandu as non-referred group. IRC was obtained ethical approval (ref: 183 (6-11-E)2/073/074 and ref: 776). TEJ-CL, an 89-item parent-reported questionnaire, served as the index test, while referral status acted as the reference standard. Factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest/cross-informant correlations and criterion validity evidence was assessed using principal component analysis, coefficient alpha, spearman's rank correlation and linear regression models, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis was done using 179 referred and 412 non-referred individuals based on non-missing data. Principal component analysis in referred sample reduced the number of items of questionnaire to 65 from 89 and indicated six factors: externalizing behavioral issues, anxiety/worries, upset/sadness, somatic concern, miscellaneous syndrome, and severe issues with coefficient alpha ranging from .62 to .95. As criterion validity evidence, referred children showed significantly higher scores than non-referred children across composite and factor scores, except for anxiety/worries factor. Similarly, regression analyses within the referred group demonstrated significant associations between factor scores and specific diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reliability and validity estimate of questionnaire is comparable to similar empirically based scales. Future research should focus on assessing the tool's generalizability and improving discriminatory indexes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association\",\"volume\":\"62 278\",\"pages\":\"646-654\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619552/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.8785\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.8785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reliability and Validity Evidences of Tej Emotional and Behavioral Problem Checklist (TEJ-CL) for Child Mental Health Assessment in Nepal.
Introduction: The Tej Emotional and Behavioral Problem Checklist (TEJ-CL) was developed in Nepalese context to aid assessment of childhood emotional and problems of children. This study aimed to evaluate TEJ-CL's factor structure, reliability, and validity evidences as an add-on and symptom monitoring test.
Methods: This cross-sectional validation study included guardians of 320 children (age 5-17 years) from tertiary mental health centers in Kathmandu as referred group, along with 601 children from two schools (private and community) in Kathmandu as non-referred group. IRC was obtained ethical approval (ref: 183 (6-11-E)2/073/074 and ref: 776). TEJ-CL, an 89-item parent-reported questionnaire, served as the index test, while referral status acted as the reference standard. Factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest/cross-informant correlations and criterion validity evidence was assessed using principal component analysis, coefficient alpha, spearman's rank correlation and linear regression models, respectively.
Results: Analysis was done using 179 referred and 412 non-referred individuals based on non-missing data. Principal component analysis in referred sample reduced the number of items of questionnaire to 65 from 89 and indicated six factors: externalizing behavioral issues, anxiety/worries, upset/sadness, somatic concern, miscellaneous syndrome, and severe issues with coefficient alpha ranging from .62 to .95. As criterion validity evidence, referred children showed significantly higher scores than non-referred children across composite and factor scores, except for anxiety/worries factor. Similarly, regression analyses within the referred group demonstrated significant associations between factor scores and specific diagnoses.
Conclusions: Reliability and validity estimate of questionnaire is comparable to similar empirically based scales. Future research should focus on assessing the tool's generalizability and improving discriminatory indexes.