IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

INTRODUCTION

ChapterA.3

CLINICAL MODELS FOR
CHILD AND ADOLESCENTBEHAVIORAL, EMOTIONAL AND
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Thomas M Achenbach & David M NdeteiThomas M Achenbach PhD
Professor of Psychiatry andPsychology, University ofVermont, Burlington, Vermont,
US.
Conflict of interest: Presidentof the nonprofit ResearchCenter for Children, Youth,and Families, which publishes
the Achenbach System of
Empirically Based Assessment(ASEBA).

David M Ndetei MD
Professor of Psychiatry,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Conflict of interest: Directorof the nonprofit Africa Mental
Health Foundation, which
promotes mental healthservices, training, and researchin Africa.

This publication is intended for professionals training or practising in mental health and not for the general public. The opinions
expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Editor or IACAPAP. This publication seeks todescribe the best treatments and practices based on the scientific evidence available at the time of writing as evaluated by the authorsand may change as a result of new research. Readers need to apply this knowledge to patients in accordance with the guidelines andlaws of their country of practice. Some medications may not be available in some countries and readers should consult the specific drug
information since not all dosages and unwanted effects are mentioned. Organizations, publications and websites are cited or linked toillustrate issues or as a source of further information. This does not mean that authors, the Editor or IACAPAP endorse their content or
recommendations, which should be critically assessed by the reader. Websites may also change or cease to exist.
©IACAPAP 2012. This is an open-access publication under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License. Use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium are allowed without prior permission provided the original work is properly cited andthe use is non-commercial. Send comments about this book or chapter to jmreyATbigpond.net.au
Suggested citation: Achenbach TM, Ndetei DM. Clinical models for child and adolescent behavioral, emotional, and social problems.
In Rey JM (ed), IACAPAP e-Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Geneva: International Association for Child andAdolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions 2012.

Clinical models A.3

1

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental HealthT

his chapter presents models for distinguishing among various kinds of
behavioral, emotional, and social problems manifested by children. (Forbrevity, we use “child,” “children,” and “childhood” to include ages frombirth through 18 years.) We use the term “models” to include official nosologies(i.e., classifications of diseases) such as the World Health Organization’s (1992)
International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the American Psychiatric
Association’s (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
We also use “models” to include alternative nosologies, such as the Diagnostic
Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early
Childhood, Revised (DC:0-3R; Zero to Three, 2005), plus empirically based models
derived from data on large samples of children.
The term “model” has become widely used to designate systematic
representations of phenomena. It implies that particular phenomena can be
represented (i.e., modeled) in multiple ways. It also implies that different models
for particular phenomena can be evaluated in terms of their utility for particularpurposes, rather than requiring forced choices between one model as right versus
other models as wrong. Thus, for example, a DSM model may use different terms
and criteria than an ICD model for attention problems, but both may be useful fordifferent purposes and/or in different systems of care.
Some models are designed to represent relations among particular
phenomena without representing causes of the phenomena. Other models
are designed to represent the causes of phenomena. At their present stage ofdevelopment, the clinical models presented in this chapter do not include specificcauses of behavioral, emotional, or social problems. (This chapter does not address
mental retardation or disorders such as Down Syndrome, Prader Willi Syndrome,
Williams Syndrome, and phenylketonuria for which genetic or other physicalcausal factors are well documented – see Chapter C.1.) Although genetic and otherphysical factors are apt to affect many behavioral, emotional, and social problems,
the paucity of knowledge about specific causal pathways means that clinicalmodels must focus on phenotypic characteristics that practitioners can identify
and work with. To collaborate with practitioners in advancing our understandingof etiologies, treatment effects, and outcomes, researchers also need to use similar
phenotypic models to link their work to cases seen by practitioners.

ICD AND DSM
Because the ICD-11 and DSM-5 nosologies are still being developed, wecannot be specific about the formats, categories, or criteria for these nosologies.
Consequently, we must base our presentation on aspects of the existing ICD and
DSM models that may continue in the pending editions as well.
The ICD and DSM models are based on inputs from committees of experts
who negotiate the diagnostic categories to be used and the criteria to be specified
for determining whether individuals qualify for the diagnoses modeled by eachcategory. The experts span a broad range of clinical, administrative, public health,and research experience. Drafts of the proposed categories and criteria are widely
circulated for comment and are revised on the basis of the comments. Field trials may
be conducted to test the criteria. For the DSM-IV-TR child diagnostic categories
that are defined mainly in terms of behavioral, emotional, and social problems (e.g.,

Clinical models A.3

2

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926)
The putative father of psychiatric nosology
Emil Kraepelin is credited with constructing clinical models for psychopathology thatlaid the foundations for psychiatric nosologies. During his medical training at the Universityof Leipzig in the 1870s, Kraepelin became a disciple of Wilhelm Wundt, who is regarded as
the founder of experimental psychology. Using Wundt’s experimental methods to study thepsychological functioning of patients, he included psychological characteristics in his clinicalmodels, and he wrote his doctoral dissertation on the place of psychology in psychiatry.
Kraepelin initially believed that careful documentation of different psychopathologicalphenotypes would eventually guide discovery of a particular brain disease underlying eachphenotype. In 1883, Kraepelin published the very small first edition of his Compendium der
Psychiatrie, which was followed over the next 43 years by eight more editions of progressively
greater heft. Among other achievements, Kraepelin is credited with breaking what had beena single category of all psychoses into separate categories of manic-depressive disorders
and dementia praecox (early dementia), later re-named schizophrenia. In the later editions of
his Compendium, Kraepelin added psychogenic disorders, plus personality disorders that heconsidered to be on the border between illness and common idiosyncrasies.
As revealed in a cartoon drawn by Kraepelin, he did not take psychiatric diagnoses
too seriously. Reproduced below from the Bierzeitung (Beer Newspaper) of 1896, the cartoon
is captioned (in English translation) “Psychiatrists of Europe! Protect your most sacreddiagnoses!” Kraepelin thus warned against becoming overly awed by diagnoses.

Clinical models A.3

3

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Healthattention problems, conduct problems, oppositional defiant problems, anxiety,depression), the criteria include a list of symptoms and a diagnostic threshold forthe number of symptoms from the list that must be judged present to justify adiagnosis (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Additional criteria include theduration of symptoms, age of onset, and impairment. The criteria are similar forchildren of all ages and both genders. The criteria are also similar for information
obtained from different sources, such as parent, teacher, and child reports, tests,
and clinical observations. If there are inconsistencies or contradictions between
different sources (e.g., a teacher reports attention problems but the parent andchild do not), the practitioner must ultimately make a yes-versus-no judgment
about whether each diagnostic criterion is met. The practitioner must then make a
yes-versus-no judgment about whether the child qualifies for a diagnosis.
DSM dimensional diagnostic criteria
In preparation for DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association
appointed a task force to consider possibilities for “dimensional” (i.e., quantitative)
diagnostic criteria. The task force has published a great deal of support for
dimensionalizing criteria for many kinds of child and adult diagnoses (Helzer etal, 2008). However, it is not clear at this writing whether or how DSM-5 criteria
might be dimensionalized. One possibility appears to be that criteria for clinicaldiagnoses will retain the yes-versus-no format of DSM-IV-TR but that separate
research diagnostic criteria may include some kind of dimensionalization.
ICD-10 research diagnostic criteria
The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic
Criteria for Research (World Health Organization, 1993) added research criteria
to the criteria that were previously published for clinical diagnoses (World HealthOrganization, 1992). The ICD-10 research diagnostic criteria resemble DSM-IVTR criteria in that they specify symptoms and other features that must be judged
yes-versus-no. After users make yes-versus-no judgments of each criterion, theymust make a yes-versus-no judgment of whether a child qualifies for a particulardiagnosis.
Differences between ICD-10 and DSM clinical diagnostic criteria
The ICD-10 clinical diagnostic criteria (World Health Organization,1992) differ from DSM-IV-TR criteria in that they lack explicit statements ofspecific symptoms, other features, and decision rules for making yes-versus-no
judgments to decide whether a child qualifies for a particular diagnosis. The ICD10 and DSM-IV-TR also differ considerably in their descriptions of diagnostic
categories and in some of the categories themselves. For example, the ICD-10 has
diagnostic categories for sibling rivalry disorder, hyperkinetic conduct disorder,
and disinhibited attachment disorder that lack counterparts in the DSM-IV-TR.
The ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR additionally differ in their subdivisions ofcertain diagnostic categories. For example, DSM-IV-TR divides its category forattention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) into predominantly inattentive
type, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type, and combined type. By contrast,
the ICD-10 category most similar to ADHD is designated as hyperkinetic disorder,
which is not subdivided into categories like those of the DSM-IV-TR. On the other
hand, the ICD-10 subdivides conduct disorder into conduct disorder confined to
the family context, unsocialized conduct disorder, and socialized conduct disorder.
Clinical models A.3

ICD-10 differs from DSMIV in that ICD-10 lacks
explicit statements ofspecific symptoms, otherfeatures, and decisionrules for making yesversus-no judgments todecide whether a childqualifies for a particulardiagnosis.

4IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Although the DSM-IV-TR Appendix H lists ICD-10 code numbers for many
DSM diagnostic categories, practitioners should not expect much agreement
between particular DSM diagnoses and ICD diagnoses made for the same children,
even when the DSM and ICD diagnoses have the same code numbers.

DIAGNOSTIC CLASSIFICATION FOR INFANCYAND EARLY CHILDHOOD
The Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disordersof Infancy and Early Childhood (DC:0-3) was first published in 1994, followed bya revised edition (DC:0-3R) in 2005 (Zero to Three, 1994, 2005). A key purpose
was to respond “to the failure of the DSM system to include (1) sufficient coverageof syndromes of early childhood that needed clinical attention or (2) sufficientconsideration of developmental features of early disorders” (Zero to Three, 2005, p4). Like the DSM and ICD, the DC:0-3 was developed by having experts negotiate
diagnostic categories and criteria.

Click on the picture
to access the DSM-5
website that gives detailsof proposed changes tothe classification and theirrationale.

DC:0-3R Axes
The DC:0-3R includes the following five axes:
I. Clinical disorders
II. Relationship classification
III. Medical and developmental disorders and conditions
IV. Psychosocial stressors
V. Emotional and social functioning.
Some of the Axis I clinical disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorder,
separation anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, have counterparts in
DSM-IV-TR. However, as they are designed for ages 0-3, the DC:0-3R criteria arequite different from DSM-IV-TR criteria and are illustrated with clinical examples
for ages 0-3. Other DC:0-3R disorders do not have clear counterparts in DSMIV-TR. Examples include deprivation/maltreatment disorder, which “occurs in thecontext of deprivation or maltreatment” (p 17); prolonged bereavement/grief reaction;
mixed disorder of emotional expressiveness, “characterized by a child’s difficulty in
expressing a developmentally appropriate range and intensity of emotions overat least a 2-week period” (p 27); and hypersensitive, referring to hypersensitivity
to sensory stimuli. A diagnostic category designated as multisystem developmental
disorder is designed for children less than 2 years old who manifest problems likethose specified for pervasive developmental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR.
The DC:0-3R Axis II Relationship Classification has no counterpart in DSMIV-TR, but is considered to be especially important for young children. As a basis
for classifying relationships, the DC:0-3R provides the 100-point Parent-Infant
Relationship Global Assessment Scale (PIR-GAS), on which clinicians rate parentinfant relationships. PIR-GAS ratings of 81-100 indicate adapted relationships,
ratings of 41-80 indicate features of a disordered relationship, and ratings of 0-40
indicate a disordered relationship. The DC:0-3R also provides the Relationship
Problems Checklist for clinicians to rate the following qualities of parent-infant
relationships: overinvolved, underinvolved, anxious/tense, angry/hostile, verbally
abusive, physically abusive, and sexually abusive. For each of these qualities,
clinicians are to indicate whether there is no evidence, some evidence needing

Clinical models A.3

DC:0-3 was developed
to respond to the DSM
system not including
sufficient coverage of
syndromes of earlychildhood and of theirdevelopmental features.

5IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Healthfurther investigation, or substantial evidence, based on their judgments of the
behavioral quality of interaction, affective tone, and psychological involvement.
The DC:0-3R Axis V Emotional and Social Functioning might be consideredsomewhat analogous to the DSM-IV-TR Axis V Global Assessment of Functioning.
However, the DSM-IV-TR Axis V is assessed with a single 100-point scale forrating psychological, social, and occupational functioning. By contrast, the DC:03R Axis V comprises clinicians’ 6-point ratings of the following capacities foremotional and social functioning (p. 62):
• Attention and regulation• Forming relationships/mutual engagement• Intentional two-way communication• Complex gestures and problem solving• Use of symbols to express thoughts/feelings• Connecting symbols logically/abstract thinking
The DC:0-3R Axis III Medical and Developmental Disorders and Conditions
and Axis IV. Psychosocial Stressors are roughly analogous to the DSM-IV-TR Axis
III General Medical Conditions and Axis IV Psychosocial and Environmental
Problems, although the content and clinical examples for the DC:0-3R axes are
specific to ages 0-3.
For practitioners who work with infants and young children, the DC:0-3R
certainly touches on many more relevant aspects of functioning, problems, andissues than the ICD or DSM-IV-TR. However, proper use of the DC:0-3R’s fiveaxes requires extensive training of practitioners, as well as extensive interactions
with each child and its caregivers under multiple conditions. Further research isneeded to determine how to train practitioners to use the DC:0-3R with adequate
reliability, validity, and utility.

GAPS BETWEEN NOSOLOGICAL MODELS AND
CLINICAL ASSESSMENT
The ICD, DSM, and DC:0-3R nosologies are intended to embody conceptsof disorders distilled from inputs by many experts. Except for use of standardized
cognitive tests to determine whether children meet diagnostic criteria for mental
retardation or learning disorders, the nosologies do not specify clinical assessment
procedures on which to base judgments of each criterion for making diagnosesof particular disorders. As an example, the DSM-IV-TR criteria for ADHD list
nine symptoms of inattention (e.g., “is often forgetful in daily activities”) and nine
symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity (e.g., “often talks excessively”). For a childto meet the overall diagnostic criterion for ADHD, the practitioner must decidethat at least 6 of the 9 symptoms from at least one list “have persisted for at least
6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental
level.” The practitioner must also decide that some symptoms caused impairment
before the child was 7 years old, that the symptoms currently cause impairment
in at least two settings (e.g., home and school), and that there is clear evidence “ofclinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning”(American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pp92-93).
To diagnose children, practitioners must decide what information to obtainfor making yes-versus-no judgments of each criterion for all disorders that theClinical models A.3

6

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Uniformed letter carrier withchild in mailbag (c 1900)
This postman posed for a humorous
photograph with a young boy in his
mailbag. After parcel post service wasintroduced in the US in 1913, at least
two children were sent by the service.
With stamps attached to their clothing,
the children rode with railway andcity carriers to their destination. The
Postmaster General quickly issued
a regulation forbidding the sendingof children in the mail after hearingof those examples (National Postal
Museum, US)

children might have, how to obtain the information, and from whom. In mostcases, practitioners would want to interview the child and at least one parent
figure. However, interview time is precious and is seldom sufficient to assess all
potentially relevant symptom criteria. For each ADHD symptom that they reportto the practitioner, children and parents may not be able to accurately say whether
the symptom caused impairment before age 7 and whether it currently causes
impairment in at least two settings.
If a child attends school, the practitioner would typically want to obtain
information from the child’s teacher(s) to provide a picture of the child’sfunctioning in school. In fact, to judge whether the child meets criteria for ADHD,
the practitioner typically needs to know whether at least 6 of the 9 symptoms
from one or both lists cause impairment in the school setting. Because teachers
often instigate referrals for help and because many child problems interfere withfunctioning in school, teachers’ input can be valuable in multiple ways, in addition
to being needed to judge whether particular symptoms cause impairment inschool. Because practitioners are seldom able to interview teachers, other methods
are needed to obtain information from them.
Whatever the assessment methods, reports by parents, teachers, andchildren often differ with respect to criteria required for diagnoses (De Los
Reyes, 2011). Consequently, practitioners may find it hard to make yes-versusno diagnostic judgments on the basis of conflicting information from different
sources. Practitioners may also be handicapped by the failure of nosologies to

Clinical models A.3

7

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Healthspecify procedures for assessing behavioral, emotional, and social problems in
different settings and by gaps between what parents, teachers, and children areable to report versus the diagnostic requirements for yes-versus-no judgments.
Practitioners therefore need practical methods for assessing children’s problems in
multiple settings and for dealing with discrepancies between different sources of
information.
Standardized diagnostic interviews
Various standardized diagnostic interviews (SDIs) have been developed toobtain assessment data from informants in order to determine whether criteria fordiagnoses are met. Parallel versions of several SDIs are available for administration
to children and their parents, although agreement between diagnoses made fromchild and parent interviews is typically low.
Among the SDIs for diagnosing children, the Diagnostic Interview
Schedule for Children (DISC; Shaffer et al, 2000) is perhaps the most widely used.
The DISC is highly structured. This means that it comprises narrowly focusedquestions for obtaining yes-versus-no answers as to whether each DSM diagnostic
criterion is met. Because the respondent’s yes-versus-no answers are the basis
for determining whether each criterion is met, highly structured SDIs like the
DISC are called “respondent-based” interviews. Neither clinical skills nor clinicaljudgments are needed to administer the DISC. However, intensive training isneeded to learn how to ask the questions properly, to record the answers, andto respond flexibly when answers cannot be clearly coded as yes-versus-no. To
cover all the criteria for symptoms, impairment, occurrence in multiple settings,
duration, age of onset, etc. for all the DSM diagnoses relevant to children, the
DISC contains thousands of questions. There are “skip-out” options for skipping
questions for some diagnoses if it appears that a child will not meet criteria forthose diagnoses. However, administration of the DISC usually takes at least anhour for each informant (e.g., each parent and child) and may take several hours
for interviews regarding clinically referred children who have many problems.
In addition to respondent-based SDIs like the DISC, a second type of SDI
is known as “interviewer-based.” These SDIs must be administered by clinicallytrained interviewers who can phrase the SDI’s semistructured questions in waysthat are appropriate for each interviewee. The interviewers must also be trained tojudge the interviewee’s responses as indicating whether the child does or does notmeet each criterion for each diagnosis. The most widely used interviewer-based
SDI is the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS;
Kaufman et al, 1997).
A third type of SDI combines aspects of respondent-based andinterviewer-based SDIs. An example is the Development and Well-being Assessment(DAWBA; Goodman et al, 2000). The DAWBA includes structured interviews
for administration to parents and 11- to 16-year-olds. The DAWBA’s interviews
include some open-ended questions for following up on the interviewees’ responses
to the structured questions. A brief questionnaire is used to obtain data fromteachers. The data from parents, teachers, and youths are brought together by acomputer program that generates likely diagnoses. Experienced clinical raters thenview the computer output and decide whether to accept or overturn the computergenerated diagnoses.

Clinical models A.3

8

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Relations between standardized diagnostic interviews and clinical diagnoses
SDIs are now widely used in research on both child and adult disorders.
Consequently, many published findings about associations between diagnoses andother characteristics are based on diagnoses made with SDIs. However, owing to
the cost and time required to train interviewers and to administer SDIs, they are
seldom used in clinical practice. We must therefore ask, would children receiving
particular diagnoses from SDIs receive the same diagnoses from clinical evaluations?
To answer this question, a meta-analysis was performed on data from 38 studies
that reported agreement between diagnoses made from SDIs and from clinicalevaluations of the same patients (Rettew et al, 2009). Agreement was expressed interms of the percentage of cases that received the same diagnoses from SDIs andfrom clinical evaluations. The kappa statistic (Cohen, 1960) was used to correct
for chance agreement. The agreement between children’s SDI diagnoses and theirdiagnoses made from clinical evaluations averaged 39%, after correction for chance.
In other words, SDIs and clinical evaluations yielded the same diagnoses for 39%
of children but different diagnoses for 61% of children. The agreement percentages
varied considerably among diagnoses, with a low of 19% for generalized anxiety
disorder and a high of 86% for anorexia nervosa (to obtain large enough numbers,
data for children and adults were combined when computing these percentages).
For some disorders, such as anorexia nervosa, the high agreement indicates thatfindings with SDI diagnoses can be applied to clinical diagnoses. However, the low
agreement for other diagnoses, such as generalized anxiety disorder, indicates thatfindings with SDIs cannot be applied to clinical diagnoses.
Because various SDIs have been used to obtain the diagnoses reported inpublished studies, we also need to ask whether each child would receive the same
diagnoses from different SDIs. Surprisingly little research has been published on
this important question. In what may be the only published study of agreement
between child diagnoses made from the most widely used SDIs, only 3% of thediagnoses made from DISC interviews of children and their parents agreed withdiagnoses made from K-SADS interviews of the same children and their parents(Cohen et al, 1987). Thus, for many children, we cannot expect different SDIs toyield the same diagnoses nor can we expect SDIs to yield the same diagnoses as
clinical evaluations.
Instruments for rating children’s problems
To help practitioners obtain information from parents, teachers, andchildren, various standardized rating instruments have been developed. Many ofthese instruments are designed to be self-administered by people who can read,but they can also be administered by lay interviewers who read the items aloudand enter the respondent’s answers on a rating form or computer keyboard. If
a practitioner looks at the results of rating instruments completed by one ormore parent figures, the practitioner can then tailor precious interview time tofocus on problem areas revealed by the results and on issues not tapped by rating
instruments. By using instruments that provide parallel forms completed by parent
figures, teachers, and the child, the practitioner can compare results to identify
agreements and discrepancies. The practitioner can then use interviews and othermeans to investigate further. The use of parallel rating instruments completed byparents, teachers, and children enables practitioners to obtain and compare a great

Clinical models A.3

9IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Healthdeal of information from multiple informants at little cost in practitioner time.
Rating instruments are also available for completion by people who provide day
care for young children, observers who rate children’s behavior in group settings
such as classrooms, and practitioners who administer clinical interviews and/or
standardized ability tests (Achenbach, 2009).
The items of some rating instruments are intended to approximate thesymptom criteria embodied in official nosologies. An example is the ADHD
Rating Scale (DuPaul et al, 1998), which has 18 items approximating the nine
inattention and nine hyperactivity-impulsivity symptom criteria for DSM-IV-TR
ADHD. Unlike the DSM-IV-TR criteria, however, each ADHD Rating Scale
item is rated 0 = Never or rarely, 1 = Sometimes, 2 = Often, or 3 = Very often. The
ratings are summed to yield separate scores for scales comprising the inattention
and hyperactivity-impulsivity items. Clinical cutpoints have been established on
distributions of scale scores obtained from parents’ and teachers’ ratings of samplesof children in the US. Thus, although the items approximate the DSM-IV-TR
symptom criteria, the raters are not required to make yes-versus-no responses andpractitioners can see how scale scores compare with normative distributions ofscale scores and with cutpoints on those distributions of scale scores.
Other rating instruments also focus mainly on a particular diagnostic
category such as ADHD but include additional problems as well, e.g., the Conners
Rating Scales-Revised (CRS-R; Conners, 2001). Still other rating instruments
include more diverse items that are scored on scales constructed by a combinationof statistical analyses and the authors’ decisions about which items to assign toparticular scales. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman,1997), for example, has 25 items, which are scored on five scales constructed by
the author. The Behavior Assessment System for Children-2 (BASC-2; Reynolds &Kamphaus, 2004) is a much longer instrument that is scored on numerous scales
based on a combination of statistical analyses and the authors’ decisions about
which items to assign to particular scales. Instruments such as the ADHD Rating
Scale, CRS-R, SDQ, and BASC-2 are useful for obtaining informants’ ratingsof various kinds of problems, but they do not close the gaps between clinicalassessment and nosological models any more than SDIs do.

CLINICAL MODELS DERIVED FROM RATINGS OF
CHILDREN’S PROBLEMS
The nosological models have been constructed largely via “top-down”
procedures. In other words, construction of the nosological models has started“at the top” with diagnostic categories proposed by experts. For each category, theexperts have then proposed criteria for determining whether a child’s problems fit
the category. Although input from other experts and from field trials has been used
to adjust some criteria, the diagnostic categories and criteria have not been derived
from data on actual samples of children. Furthermore, the diagnostic criteria are
the same for boys and girls, all ages, all sources of information, and all societies.
Just as multiple nosological models may co-exist, so too, alternative kindsof models may co-exist with nosological models. One alternative has involved using“bottom-up” procedures to derive clinical models from ratings of many children.
This has been done by having parents, teachers, and children rate diverse problems

Clinical models A.3

10

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Healthas 0 = Not true, 1 = Somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = Very true or often true forthousands of children referred for mental health services and thousands of children
sampled from general populations (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000; 2001). The
items were iteratively selected and refined on the basis of input from practitioners
in fields related to mental health, from research on problems reported for childrenreferred for mental health services, and from analyses of ratings and suggestions
provided by parents, teachers, and children on successive pilot editions of therating instruments. Rather than being selected on the basis of experts’ diagnostic
concepts, the final sets of items have been selected on the basis of their ability todiscriminate significantly between children who were referred for mental health or
special education services versus demographically similar children who were notreferred for services. Important criteria for retention of problem items were that (a)they could be understood and rated by parents, teachers, and/or children, and (b)they were rated significantly higher for referred children than for demographicallysimilar non-referred children.
Although many of the items have counterparts among the nosologicalcriteria, other items were also found to discriminate between referred and nonreferred children even though they were not among the nosological criteria.
Equally important, the items were worded so that parents, teachers, and children
could rate them, rather than being worded in terms of nosological criteria thatparents, teachers, and children may not understand. The final versions of the rating
instruments can be completed in about 15 minutes and include assessments ofcompetencies as well as problems. The instruments include the Child Behavior
Checklist for ages 1½-5 and 6-18, the Caregiver-Teacher Report Form for ages 1½-5,
the Teacher’s Report Form for ages 6-18, and the Youth Self-Report for ages 11-18(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000; 2001).
Syndrome models
After the rating instruments were developed, ratings of thousands ofchildren were statistically analyzed to identify actual patterns (i.e., syndromes)of problems that tend to occur together. The syndromes were given names thatsummarize their constituent problems. For ages 6-18, the syndromes are designatedas Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints (without known
medical cause), Social Problems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, RuleBreaking Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior. Counterparts of several of these
syndromes were found for ages 1½-5, but syndromes designated as Emotionally
Reactive and Sleep Problems were also found. Children’s scores on each syndromeare computed by summing the 0-1-2 ratings of the syndrome’s items. To make iteasy for practitioners to compare a child to non-referred peers, the syndrome scoresare displayed on profiles in relation to norms for the child’s age and gender, thetype of informant (parent, teacher, self ), and the relevant society (explained later).
Additional statistical analyses have identified associations among subsetsof the syndromes that are designated as Internalizing (anxiety, depression, social
withdrawal, somatic complaints) and Externalizing (rule-breaking and aggressive
behavior). Scores for Internalizing and Externalizing are computed by summingthe 0-1-2 ratings of the items comprising these broad groupings. A Total Problems
score is also computed by summing the 0-1-2 ratings of all the problem items on aform. Scores for Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems are displayed on

Clinical models A.3

11

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Healthprofiles in relation to norms for the child’s age and gender, the type of informant,
and the relevant society.
DSM-oriented scales
The items of the rating instruments were selected through bottom-up
procedures that started with ratings of children rather than top-down proceduresthat started with diagnostic categories. Nevertheless, some of the problem items
have counterparts among diagnostic criteria and some of the statistically identified
syndromes comprise problems like those of certain diagnostic categories. For
example, the Attention Problems syndrome includes many problem items analogous
to the symptom criteria for ADHD. Furthermore, significant associations havebeen found between certain diagnoses and high scores on certain syndromes(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
In order to help practitioners see relations between diagnostic categories
and the data obtained with the rating instruments, expert psychiatrists andpsychologists from many cultures were asked to identify rating instrument items
that they considered to be very consistent with DSM-IV-TR diagnostic categories.
The items identified by large majorities of experts for particular diagnostic categories
were then grouped into DSM-oriented scales corresponding to the diagnostic
categories. For ages 6-18, the DSM-oriented scales are designated as Affective
Problems, Anxiety Problems, Somatic Problems, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Problems, Oppositional Defiant Problems, and Conduct Problems. For ages 1½-5, theexperts’ judgments yielded several DSM-oriented scales analogous to those for ages
6-18, but also a scale designated as Pervasive Developmental Problems (Achenbach &Rescorla, 2000). This scale has been found to identify children diagnosed as having
autism spectrum disorders (Muratori et al, 2011; Sikora et al, 2008). A child’sscore on each DSM-oriented scale is computed by summing the 0-1-2 ratings ofthe problem items comprising the scale. To enable practitioners to compare thechild’s scores with scores for non-referred peers, the scale scores are displayed on
profiles in relation to scores for the child’s age and gender, the type of informant,
and the relevant society, as illustrated in Figure A.3.1 for self-ratings by 16-yearold Richard (not his real name). The DSM-oriented scales, the syndrome scales,
and their respective profiles thus provide alternative models for understanding andusing informants’ ratings of children’s behavioral, emotional, and social problemson the same rating instruments.
Cross-informant comparisonsBecause parents, teachers, and children are aware of different aspectsof children’s functioning, discrepancies are often found between the problems
reported by different informants. When discrepancies are found, it is tempting toconclude that one informant is right while another is wrong. However, different
informants may provide useful information about differences in how a childfunctions in different contexts and with different people. Discrepancies between
informants’ reports may also reflect differences between the informants’ perceptions
and evaluations of children’s functioning. These differences need to be consideredwhen deciding whether a child needs mental health services, what kind of services,and how parents, teachers, and the child may participate in the services.

Clinical models A.3

12

Figure A.3.1
Richard’s
profileof DSMoriented YSR
scales (fromAchenbach& Rescorla,2007).

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Clinical models A.3

13

Figure A.3.2
Cross-informant comparisons of Richard’s scores on syndrome scales in relation to Society J norms for the CBCL and Society
K norms for the TRF and YSR (from Achenbach & Rescorla, 2007).

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Clinical models A.3

14

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

To make it easy for practitioners to detect similarities and discrepancies
between problems reported by parents, teachers, and children, the computer
software for using the rating instruments produces side-by-side displays of the
0-1-2 ratings of each problem item by any combination of up to eight informants.
The side-by-side displays of item ratings enable the practitioner to quickly identify
problems that are endorsed by all informants, problems that are not endorsedby any informants, and problems that are endorsed by some informants. As an
example, if certain problems are endorsed only by teachers, this would suggest thatthese problems are specific to the school context. On the other hand, if certain
problems are endorsed only by parents, this would suggest that these problems are
specific to the family context.
In addition to the side-by-side displays of problem ratings, the computer
software also displays bar graphs of syndromes and DSM-oriented scales scoredfrom each informant’s ratings. As an example, Figure A.3.2 shows the bar graphsof DSM-oriented scales scored from ratings of 16-year-old Richard by his mother,teacher, and Richard himself. By looking at the bar graphs, the practitioner canquickly see whether any scores are in the borderline clinical range (between the two
broken lines) or in the clinical range (above the top broken line). The practitioner
can also see whether there are important differences between scores obtained fromdifferent informants.
Multicultural applications
The ICD, DSM, and DC:0-3R models have not been extensively tested
outside a handful of societies. Consequently, much remains to be learned about
how well their symptom criteria, diagnostic thresholds (i.e., the number ofsymptoms required for diagnoses), and other features apply to children from themany societies where the nosological models have not been tested. As significant
changes are likely in ICD-11 and DSM-5, it is to be hoped that drafts of the newcriteria will be subjected to multicultural tests before the criteria are finalized.
Meanwhile, clinical models derived from data on problems rated for ages
1½-18 have been tested in 47 societies, and translations of the rating instruments
are available in the 86 languages listed in Table A.3.1. The syndrome models were
tested by statistically analyzing ratings of tens of thousands of children by theirparents, teachers, daycare providers, and—for ages 11-18—the children themselves(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2012). Nearly all of the analyses supported the syndromemodels that were originally derived from ratings of Anglophone children from
Australia, Jamaica, the UK, and the US. The findings mean that the patterns of cooccurring problems embodied in the syndromes scored from the parent, teacher,and self-rating instruments were also found in the other societies.

Click on the picture
to access the ASEBA
website.

To provide norms appropriate for children in the 47 societies, distributionsof Total Problems scores were compared for the samples of children from all thesocieties. Based on these comparisons, societies with relatively low, medium, or
high problem scores were identified. To enable practitioners to compare a child’sscores with scores obtained by peers in the appropriate society, norms have been
constructed for low-scoring, medium-scoring, and high-scoring societies. The
three sets of multicultural norms are available in computer-scoring software thatenables practitioners to display a child’s syndrome, DSM-oriented, Internalizing,

Clinical models A.3

15

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental HealthTranslations of the Achenbach System of Empirically
Table A.3.1
Based Assessment (ASEBA) formsa
Afaan Oromo (Ethiopia)

Georgian

Portuguese (Brazil)

Afrikaans

GermanPortuguese (Portugal)

Albanian (Albania, Kosovo)

Greek

Portuguese Creole

American Sign Language

Gujarati (India)

Punjabi (India)

Amharic (Ethiopia)

Haitian Creole

Romanian

ArabicHebrew

RussianArmenian

Hindi

SamoanAuslan (Australian Sign
Language)

Hungarian

Sepedi (Northern Sotho, South
Africa)Bahasa (Indonesia)

Icelandic

SerbianBahasa (Malaysia)

ItalianSesotho (Southern Sotho,
South Africa)

Bangla (Bangladesh)

Japanese

Sinhala (Sri Lanka)

BengaliKannada (India)

SlovakBosnian

Khmer (Cambodia)

SlovenianBrailleKiembu (Kenya)

Somali

British Sign Language

Kiswahili (Kenya)

Spanish (Castilian)

Bulgarian

KoreanSpanish (Latino)

Catalan (Spain)

LaotianSwedishChineseLatvianTagalog (Philippines)

Croatian

Lithuanian

Tamil (India)

Czech

Macedonian

Telugu (India)

Danish

Malay

Thai

Dutch (Netherlands, Flanders) Malayalam (India)

TibetanEstonian

MalteseTurkishFarsi (Persian, Iran)Marathi (India)

UkrainianFinnishNepalese

Urdu (India, Pakistan)

French (Belgian)

NorwegianVietnamese

French (Parisian)

Papiamentu (Curacao)

Visayan (Philippines)

French (Quebecois)

Pashto (Afghanistan, Pakistan)

Xhosa (SouthAfrica)

Ga (Ghana)

PolishZulu

aLanguages into which at least one ASEBA form has been translated (from Achenbach & Rescorla,2012).

Clinical models A.3

16

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Externalizing, and Total Problems scores in relation to norms for the appropriate
society, as well as for the child’s age and gender and the type of informant.

OVERVIEW OF CLINICAL MODELS
We have outlined several models for distinguishing among various kindsof behavioral, emotional, and social problems. At this stage of mental healthscience, no single model can be regarded as totally correct, with the others being
regarded as wrong. Instead, the different models may have different strengths andweaknesses for different purposes. Consequently, for the foreseeable future, it may
be helpful to think in terms of multiple models for guiding the collection and useof clinical data for evidence-based practice.
The ICD and DSM models for childhood behavioral, emotional, andsocial problems are components of nosologies that cover many kinds of problems
across the lifespan. Like the models for other age groups, the models for children’s
problems comprise diagnostic categories proposed by experts who then specify
criteria for determining which categories a child’s problems match. The criteria
require the same yes-versus-no judgments for children of both genders, different
ages, and different cultural backgrounds, as well as for data obtained fromdifferent sources. In evaluating DSM-IV and ICD-10, the world’s most famouschild psychiatrist, Sir Michael Rutter (2011), concluded that “there are far too
many diagnoses, and a ridiculously high rate of supposed comorbidity” (p. 647),
and that “the use of dimensions could reduce the extent of misleading supposed
comorbidity” (p. 655).

“There are far too
many diagnoses, and aridiculously high rate ofsupposed comorbidity.”“The use of dimensions
could reduce the extent
of misleading supposed
comorbidity.”
Sir Michael Rutter (2011,
p 655)

Like the ICD and DSM, the DC:0-3R is a nosology whose categories
were proposed by experts who then specified criteria for determining which
categories a child’s problems match. Unlike the ICD and DSM, however, theDC:0-3R was designed to provide better coverage of early childhood syndromes
and developmental features. Also unlike the ICD and the DSM, the DC:03R provides rating scales for parent-infant relationships, which are regarded as
especially important for understanding the problems of very young children.
The failure of the ICD and DSM to specify procedures for assessing
behavioral, emotional, and social problems has spurred the development of various
SDIs. In recognition of the need for data from parents as well as from the child,
SDIs designed for diagnosing children include interviews for parents. Some SDIs
also provide questionnaires for teachers. However, differences between parent,teacher, and child reports make it hard to draw yes-versus-no conclusions about
each diagnostic criterion.
As SDIs are widely used to make diagnoses for research purposes, many
publications report findings for diagnoses made with SDIs. However, the extensive
training and large blocks of time needed to administer SDIs limit their use in clinicalpractice. Consequently, it must be asked whether research findings for diagnoses
made from SDIs can be applied to diagnoses made from clinical evaluations. Metaanalyses indicate good agreement between certain diagnoses—such as anorexia
nervosa—made from SDIs and clinical evaluations, but poor agreement for someClinical models A.3

17

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Healthcommon diagnoses, such as generalized anxiety disorder. Across all diagnoses in
the meta-analyses, SDIs and clinical evaluations yielded the same diagnoses for
39% of the child patients but different diagnoses for 61%, after correction forchance.
In addition to SDIs that yield yes-versus-no judgments about diagnostic
criteria, various instruments have been developed for rating children’s problems.
Some rating instruments comprise items approximating the symptom criteria for
a particular diagnostic category, such as ADHD. Other instruments include morediverse items that may approximate certain diagnostic criteria but do not include
one-to-one counterparts of diagnostic categories.
Another approach to constructing clinical models is by working fromthe bottom-up by starting with informants’ ratings of diverse problem items
for thousands of children. The ratings are then analyzed statistically to identify
syndromes of co-occurring problems. For use in clinical evaluations, children’s
syndrome scores are computed by summing the ratings of the items comprisingeach syndrome. To enable practitioners to determine whether scores are in thenormal range, borderline clinical range, or clinical range, the syndrome scales are
displayed on profiles in relation to norms for the child’s age and gender, as well as
for the type of informant, such as parents, teachers, and children themselves. To
take account of differences between problems reported for children in different
societies, the practitioner can select norms based on multicultural data from manysocieties. And to help the practitioner make cross-informant comparisons, itemand scale scores from multiple informants can be displayed side-by-side. The scalescores from each informant are standardized for the child’s age and gender, the typeof informant, and the multicultural norm group selected by the practitioner.

Clinical models A.3

Pediatric clinic in Kenya

18

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

An 8-year-old Kenyan boy was brought to a local
medical clinic by his mother. About 2 years earlier, she had
noticed that he seemed very restless and that other children
refused to play with him. He was very distractible and had
to be supervised carefully. Home helpers employed by
the mother often quit because they could not put up withhim. He sustained a variety of injuries, including bruises,
fractures, and burns. His teachers complained that he wasvery careless, had poor handwriting, and did not complete
his work. He blurted out answers when it was not his turnand was very disruptive in class. Although he appearedbright, he was easily distracted and was quarrelsome during
playtime, wanting to be in the center of all the children’s
activities. He lost important school items, prompting his
mother to visit the school often in order to look for lost
property and to attend disciplinary meetings.
To provide model-based assessment data, themother was asked to complete the Conners Parent Rating
Scale (CPRS). Based on elevated scores on multiple CPRS
problem scales, the mother’s interview reports, and a brief
session with the boy, the clinic pediatrician recommended
that the boy be seen by a psychiatrist for a more extensive
evaluation than the local medical clinic could provide.
When the psychiatrist evaluated him, he noted thatthe boy was well-groomed but that he had multiple bruises
at different stages of healing. The bruises appeared to be
the results of falls and bumping into objects rather thanhaving been inflicted by other people, however, he said that
he was often punished at home because of his behavior
and asked the doctor to talk to his parents about thesepunishments. A mental status examination revealed he waswell-oriented in time and place, his memory was good, andthere was no evidence of perceptual disturbances. However,
he was easily distracted and made many inappropriate
noises. He could not sit still, walked around the room, andasked the doctor questions about pictures on the officewalls. His language skills were poorly developed, and he did
not express ideas clearly.
In reviewing the CPRS results forwarded by theboy’s pediatrician, the psychiatrist saw that scores were
elevated on multiple scales, with especially high scoreson the ADHD Index. Although the boy clearly needed
help in multiple areas, the psychiatrist concluded that thehigh scores for ADHD argued for a trial of medication to
see whether it would reduce problems of inattention andhyperactivity sufficiently to make the boy amenable to help
with other problems.
When discussing his conclusions with the boy’s
mother, the psychiatrist found that she had already learned
about ADHD from a friend whose child had similar problems.
Consequently, the mother was not surprised by thepsychiatrist’s conclusions and was willing to have a trial of
medication. With the mother’s permission, the psychiatrist
also communicated his conclusions and plan to the boy’s
teacher, who was also concerned about his behavior. The
psychiatrist prescribed 10 mg of methylphenidate twice daily
and asked mother and teacher to complete the CPRS atmonthly intervals to evaluate response to treatment and asa basis for deciding on possible further interventions. Motherwas also given information about ADHD and about more
appropriate disciplinary measures.

The statistically derived syndromes provide bottom-up models forunderstanding children’s problems. However, top-down models are also provided
for scoring the same rating instruments in terms of DSM-oriented scales based onclinical judgments by experts from many cultures.

THE NEED FOR MODEL-BASED ASSESSMENT IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIESThe needs for mental health services in developing or low income countries
are apt to be at least as great as in developed countries, but low income countries
have far fewer skilled mental health workers. The photo shows one of the authors
in a clinic in a low income country where children are waiting to be seen by anurse – who is overwhelmed by the sheer number of patients. There is thus anurgent need to use assessment instruments that may assist overworked health careproviders. These instruments should be able to obtain reliable information fromparents and – whenever possible – teachers and the children themselves. Such
instruments can serve, at least, the following purposes: (a) to increase awarenessof mental disorders in children; (b) to integrate data about these problems into
health information systems; and (c) to assist in identifying cases for referral tospecialists, if needed. The case vignette above illustrates a model-based assessment
in a developing country.

Clinical models A.3

19

IACAPAP Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

REFERENCES
Achenbach TM (2009). The Achenbach System of Empirically
Based Assessment (ASEBA): Development, Findings,
Theory, and Applications. Burlington, VT: Universityof Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, andFamilies.
Achenbach TM & Rescorla LA (2000). Manual for the ASEBA
Preschool Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: Universityof Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, andFamilies.
Achenbach TM & Rescorla LA (2001). Manual for the ASEBA
School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,
Youth, and Families.
Achenbach TM & Rescorla LA (2012). Multicultural Guide for
the ASEBA Forms & Profiles for Ages 1½-18 (2nd ed).
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, ResearchCenter for Children, Youth, & Families.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text
revision. Washington, DC: Author.
Cohen J (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20:37-46.
doi:10.1177/001316446002000104
Cohen P, O’Connor P, Lewis S et al (1987). Comparison of
DISC and K-SADS-P interviews of an epidemiologicalsample of children. Journal of the American Academyof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26:662-667.
doi:10.1097/00004583-198709000-00009
Conners CK (2001). Conners' Rating Scales-Revised Manual.
North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
De Los Reyes A (2011). More than measurement error:
Discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies
in clinical assessments of children and adolescents.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40:19. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.533405
DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD et al (1998). ADHD
Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and ClinicalInterpretation. New York: Guilford.
Goodman R (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire: A research note. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 38:581-586.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x
Goodman R, Ford T, Richards H et al (2000). The Development
and Well-Being Assessment: Description andinitial validation of an integrated assessment ofchild and adolescent psychopathology. Journalof Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41:645-655.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2000.tb02345.x
Helzer JE, Kraemer HC, Krueger RF et al (Eds) (2008).
Dimensional Approaches in Diagnostic Classification:
Refining the Research Agenda for DSM-V. Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Clinical models A.3

Kaufman J, Birmaher B, Brent D et al (1997). Schedule for
Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age
Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADSPL): initial reliability and validity data. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
36:980-988. doi:10.1097/00004583-19970700000021
Muratori F, Narzisi A, Tancredi R et al (2011). The CBCL 1.5-5
and the identification of preschoolers with autism in
Italy. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 20:329338. doi:10.1017/S204579601100045X
Rettew DC, Doyle A, Achenbach TM et al. (2009). Metaanalyses of agreement between diagnoses made fromclinical evaluations and standardized diagnostic
interviews. International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research, 18:169-184. doi:10.1002/
mpr.289
Reynolds CR & Kamphaus RW (2004). Behavior Assessment
System for Children (2nd ed). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Rutter M (2011). Child psychiatric diagnosis and classification:
concepts, findings, challenges and potential. Journalof Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52:647-660.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02367.x
Shaffer D, Fisher P, Lucas CP et al (2000). NIMH Diagnostic
Interview Schedule for Children version IV(NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences fromprevious versions, and reliability of some common
diagnoses. Journal of the American Academyof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39:28-38.
doi:10.1097/00004583-200001000-00014
Sikora DM, Hall TA, Hartley SL et al (2008). Does
parent report of behavior differ across ADOS-G
classifications: Analysis of scores from the CBCL and
GARS. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
38:440-448. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0407-z
World Health Organization (1992). Mental Disorders: Glossary
and Guide to their Classification in Accordance with
the Tenth Revision of the International Classificationof Diseases (10th ed). Geneva: World HealthOrganization.
World Health Organization (1993). The ICD-10 Classification of
Mental and Behavioral Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for
Research. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Zero to Three: National Center for Infants, Toddlers, andFamilies (1994; 2005). Diagnostic Classification
0-3. Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health andDevelopmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood(1st edition, revised edition). Washington, DC: Author.

20