Article

Defining oppositional defiant disorder

MRC Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 5.67). 01/2006; 46(12):1309-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01420.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT ICD-10 and DSM-IV include similar criterial symptom lists for conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), but while DSM-IV treats each list separately, ICD-10 considers them jointly. One consequence is that ICD-10 identifies a group of children with ODD subtype who do not receive a diagnosis under DSM-IV.
We examined the characteristics of this group of children using the Great Smoky Mountains Study of children in the community aged 9-16. This study provided child and parent reports of symptoms and psychosocial impairment assessed with standardised diagnostic interviews.
Children who received an ICD-10 diagnosis but not a DSM-IV diagnosis showed broadly similar levels of psychiatric comorbidity, delinquent activity and psychosocial impairment to those who met DSM-IV criteria in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.
These results indicate that DSM-IV excludes from diagnosis children who receive an ICD-10 diagnosis of CD (ODD sub-type), and who are substantially disturbed. Methods of redressing this situation are considered.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Barbara Maughan, Jul 09, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
119 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) has been identified as an evidence-based practice in the treatment of externalizing behavior among preschool-aged youth. Although considerable research has established its efficacy, little is known about the effectiveness of PCIT when delivered in a community mental health setting with underserved youth. The current pilot study investigated an implementation of PCIT with primarily low-socioeconomic status, urban, ethnic minority youth and families. The families of 14 clinically referred children aged 2-7 years and demonstrating externalizing behavior completed PCIT initial assessment, and 12 began treatment. Using standard PCIT completion criteria, 4 families completed treatment; and these families demonstrated clinically significant change on observational and self-report measures of parent behavior, parenting stress, and child functioning. Although treatment dropouts demonstrated more attenuated changes, observational data and parent-reported problems across sessions indicated some improvements with lower doses of intervention. Attendance and adherence data, referral source, barriers to treatment participation, and treatment satisfaction across completers and dropouts are discussed to highlight differences between the current sample and prior PCIT research. The findings suggest that PCIT can be delivered successfully in an underserved community sample when families remain in treatment, but that premature dropout limits treatment effectiveness. The findings suggest potential directions for research to improve uptake of PCIT in a community service setting.
    Journal of Child and Family Studies 10/2010; 19(5):654-668. DOI:10.1007/s10826-010-9353-z · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A large amount of research has been done on Disruptive Behavior Disorders in general and on Oppositional Defiant Disorder in particular. Although research has examined many facets of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, many questions remain. Further, inconsistencies in terminology and methodological concerns across research studies have made it difficult to think consistently about Oppositional Defiant Disorder. As a result, before examining research concerning the etiology of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, concerns in identifying cases of this disorder are discussed. Risk factors for and potential courses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder are examined in the context of possible varying etiologies. Finally, theories about the etiology of and future directions for research related to Oppositional Defiant Disorder and other behavioral problems are examined.
    01/2007; 3(3):349-371. DOI:10.1037/h0100811
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Graduation date: 2010 Although perceived-risk curriculum, that is, where the learner experiences effects of eustress (positive stress), has been used in Arts or outdoor activities, it has not been used in school classrooms. Milkman’s 1996 studies of after-school Project Self Discovery demonstrated that at-risk students lessened their adverse risky behaviors, such as substance abuse and increased their pro-social behaviors, such as turning to the arts instead of drug abuse. Therefore, a study of perceived-risk curriculum in the secondary classroom was carried out. In this mixed-method study, the researcher sought to determine if at-risk students who were instructed using "perceived-risk" methods (such as student showcases and galleries) performed better in school (better being defined in this study to include increased pro-social behaviors, higher GPA, more Carnegie Units, and improved scores in unit pre and post-tests). To understand the phenomenon of perceived-risk curriculum, the researcher further asked students and teachers about their experiences with the at-risk curriculum through activity surveys, interviews, researcher field notes and a senior project. The study was conducted at a district-sponsored charter school for at-risk adolescents. Throughout the term of intervention in spring 2009, teachers employed perceived-risk methods. Results were compared to control activities. Quantitative results were mixed: students made gains on unit pre and post-tests, slight gains in the credits earned and a decrease in GPA. Students made modest gains in pro-social behavior and stronger gains in their resistance to deviant-risk behavior after the term of curricular intervention. Students reported enjoying the perceived-risk curriculum and being engaged at rates significantly higher than control activities, though most students did not report that the perceived-risk curriculum evoked feelings of risk. Researcher field notes suggested that students experienced a higher level of risk than they admitted to. It may be that assessing a perception of risk should be done immediately prior to the risky activity. This study was handicapped by the paucity of academic information relevant to at-risk curriculum and by the small size of the studied population. Further research over a more extended period of time, with a larger population, and with a more perceived-risk weighted curriculum is encouraged.