Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of the Children’s Saving Inventory

Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, 800 6th Street South 4th Floor, St, Petersburg, FL 33701, USA.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development (Impact Factor: 1.93). 10/2010; 42(2):166-82. DOI: 10.1007/s10578-010-0207-0
Source: PubMed


This study reports on the development and initial psychometric properties of the Children's Saving Inventory (CSI), a parent-rated measure designed to assess child hoarding behaviors. Subjects included 123 children and adolescents diagnosed with primary Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and their parents. Trained clinicians administered the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), items assessing Family Accommodation and the Clinical Global Impressions--Severity index. Parents completed the CSI, Child Obsessive-Compulsive Impact Scale (COIS)--Parent Version and Child Behavior Checklist. Youth completed the COIS--Child Version, Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory Child Version (OCI-CV), Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, and Children's Depression Inventory--Short Form. A four factor solution was identified; factors were named Discarding, Clutter, Acquisition, and Distress/Impairment. Internal consistency for the CSI Total and factor scores were good. One-week test-retest reliability (n = 31) from a random subsample was excellent. Known groups validity was supported vis-à-vis higher CSI scores for those endorsing hoarding on the CY-BOCS Symptom Checklist. Convergent and discriminant validity was evidenced by weak relationships with OCI-CV Checking and Contamination factors but strong relationships with the OCI-CV Hoarding factor and with hoarding obsession/compulsions on the CY-BOCS. These findings provide initial support for the reliability and validity of the CSI for the assessment of hoarding behaviors among youth with OCD. Future studies are needed to extend these findings to non-OCD samples of youth.

34 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The assessment of varied psychiatric disorders, including obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), is shifting towards the use of evidence-based assessments (EBAs). This shift has fostered the development, validation and adaptation of several measures to rate obsessive–compulsive symptoms and other related problematic areas such as functional impairment or family attitudes among others. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic review of psychometric studies on pediatric OCD-specific measures to classify these according to assessment evidence-based criteria. Selection criteria that determined which studies were included in the review were: (1) analyzing an OCD measure and (2) including participants’ age being 18 years or younger. The literature search procedure was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ERIC, Cochrane Library, and Scholar Google databases and enabled us to locate 42 studies which analyzed psychometric properties of 14 OCD measures studied in children and adolescents. Instruments were grouped into the following assessment areas: symptom presence and severity, functional impairment, family functioning and cognitive dimensions of OCD. Psychometric data regarding internal structure, internal consistency, reliability, validity and diagnostic precision were also reported. Further, measures were classified as well-established, approaching well-established and promising assessments in terms of reliability and validity. We concluded that the assessment of OCD in pediatric populations is a growing field that in a short-medium term could provide a wide variety of EBAs for the evaluation obsessive–compulsive symptoms and other OCD-related dimensions. The paper concludes by highlighting directions for future research.
    Journal of Child and Family Studies 11/2014; 23(8). DOI:10.1007/s10826-013-9801-7 · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our objective was to describe the prevalence, comorbidity, and neuropsychological profiles of children with hoarding and learning disabilities. From 61 children with learning disabilities, 16.4% exhibited hoarding as a major clinical issue. Although children with learning disabilities and hoarding displayed greater rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (30%) as compared to those with learning disabilities without hoarding (5.9%), the majority of patients belonging to the former group did not display obsessive-compulsive disorder diagnosis. When learning disability patients with hoarding were compared to age-, sex-, and IQ-matched learning disability subjects without hoarding, hoarders exhibited a slower learning curve on word list-learning task. In conclusion, salient hoarding behaviors were found to be relatively common in a sample of children with learning disabilities and not necessarily associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, supporting its nosological independence. It is unclear whether underlying cognitive features may play a major role in the development of hoarding behaviors in children with learning disabilities.
    Journal of child neurology 02/2011; 26(5):574-9. DOI:10.1177/0883073810387139 · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The acquisition and saving of a large number of possessions that interfere with the use of living areas in the home are remarkably common behaviors that can pose serious threats to the health and safety of the affected person and those living nearby. Recent research on hoarding has led the DSM-5 Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Post-traumatic, and Dissociative Disorders Work Group to propose the addition of hoarding disorder to the list of disorders in the upcoming revision of the diagnostic manual. This review examines the research related to the diagnosis and assessment of hoarding and hoarding disorder. The proposed criteria appear to accurately define the disorder, and preliminary studies suggest they are reliable. Recent assessment strategies for hoarding have improved our understanding of the nature of this behavior. Areas in need of further research have been highlighted.
    Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 04/2011; 8(1):219-42. DOI:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143116 · 12.67 Impact Factor
Show more