메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
Han Nah Cho (Sookmyung Women’s University) Eun Hye Ha (Sookmyung Women’s University)
저널정보
대한소아청소년정신의학회 소아청소년정신의학 소아청소년정신의학 제30권 제1호
발행연도
2019.1
수록면
9 - 16 (8page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the discriminant validity and the clinical cut off scores of the Child Behavior Checklist 1.5-5 (CBCL 1.5-5) in the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and non-ASD.
Methods: In total, 104 ASD and 441 non-ASD infants were included in the study. T-test, discriminant analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and odds ratio analysis were performed on the data.
Results: The discriminant validity was confirmed by mean differences and discriminant analysis on the subscales of Emotionally reactive, Somatic complaints, Withdrawn, Sleep problems, Attention problems, Aggressive behavior, Internalizing problems, Externalizing problems, and Total problems, along with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-oriented scales between the two groups. ROC analysis showed that the following subscales significantly separated ASD from normal infants: Emotionally reactive, Somatic complaints, Withdrawn, Sleep problems, Attention problems, Aggressive behavior, Internalizing problems, Externalizing problems, Total problems, and DSM pervasive developmental problems. Moreover, the clinical cut off score criteria adopted in the Korean-CBCL 1.5-5 were shown to be valid for the subscales Withdrawn, Internalizing problems, Externalizing problems, Total problems, and DSM pervasive developmental problems.
Conclusion: The subscales of Withdrawn, Internalizing problems, Externalizing problems, Total problems, and DSM pervasive developmental problems significantly discriminated infants with ASD.

목차

INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

참고문헌 (20)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-516-000443472