Beyond frequency: Evaluating the validity of assessing the context, duration, ability, and botherment of depression and anxiety symptoms in South Brazil.

Assessment tools for depression and anxiety usually inquire about the frequency of symptoms. However, evidence suggests that different question framings might trigger different responses. Our aim is to test if asking about symptom's context, ability, duration, and botherment adds validity to Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Patient-Related Outcome Measurement Information Systems depression and anxiety. Participants came from two cross-sectional convenience-sampled surveys (N = 1,871) of adults (66% females, aged 33.4 ± 13.2), weighted to approximate with the state-level population. We examined measurement invariance across the different question frames, estimated whether framing affected mean scores, and tested their independent validity using covariate-adjusted and sample-weighted structural equation models. Validity was tested using tools assessing general disability, alcohol use, loneliness, well-being, grit, and frequency-based questions from depression and anxiety questionnaires. A bifactor model was applied to test the internal consistency of the question frames under the presence of a general factor (i.e., depression or anxiety). Measurement invariance was supported across the different frames. Framing questions as ability (i.e., "How easily …") produced a higher score, compared with framing by context (i.e., "In which daily situations …"). Construct and criterion validity analysis demonstrate that variance explained using multiple question frames was similar to using only one. We detected a strong overarching factor for each instrument, with little variances left to be explained by the question frame. Therefore, it is unlikely that using different adverbial phrasings can help clinicians and researchers to improve their ability to detect depression or anxiety. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The interplay between ADHD and school shift on educational outcomes in children and adolescents: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis.

Many countries implement a double-shift schooling system, offering morning or afternoon shifts, driven by diverse factors. Young people with ADHD may face educational problems attending morning shifts compared to afternoon shifts. To investigate this, we used data from a Brazilian school-based cohort (n = 2.240, 6-14 years old, 45.6% female; 50.2% in the morning shift; 11.2% with ADHD). ADHD was determined by child psychiatrists using semi-structured interview. Educational outcomes were measured cross-sectionally and three years later (80% retention) and included reading and writing ability, performance in school subjects, and any negative school events (repetition, suspension, or dropout). Generalized regression models tested the interaction between ADHD and school shift and were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, intelligence, parental education, socioeconomic status, and site. Attrition was adjusted with inverse probability weights. We used two dimensional measures of attentional problems as sensitivity analysis. ADHD and morning shift were independently associated with lower reading and writing ability and with higher odds for negative school events cross sectionally. ADHD independently predicted lower performance in school subjects and higher negative school events at follow-up. Interaction was found only at the cross-sectional level in a way that those studying in the afternoon present better educational outcomes compared with those studying in the morning only if they have lower ADHD symptom. Thus, ADHD was not associated with poorer educational outcomes among those studying in the morning. However, participants studying in the afternoon with lower levels of attentional problems presented better educational, despite these associations fade away over time.