Discriminant validity Sample Clauses

Discriminant validity. One-way ANOVAs tested whether child- and parent-report scores on Total, GA, and SA subscales differed across diagnostic groups (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD). Discriminant validity will be confirmed if: 1) each anxious group (GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) has higher Total, GA, and SA scores than the HC group; 2) the GAD and SAD groups differ such that GAD have higher GA scores than SAD, and SAD have higher SA scores than GAD; and 3) the GAD+SAD group has higher GA scores than the SAD group, and SA scores than the GAD group. Significant group differences were interrogated with Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. Because six comparisons were conducted for each scale, the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons for each scale (critical p-value = 0.05/6 = .008). When Xxxxxxx-Xxxx tests identified non- normally distributed data (see Table 2), results were confirmed with Kruskal-Wallis tests. Xxxxx-Xxxxxxxx tests revealed unequal variance for Total, GA, and SA scores across groups in both studies. However, Xxxxxxx’x T3 post-hoc tests largely confirmed findings (see supplementary materials for further details).
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Discriminant validity. The majority of analyses suggest adequate discriminant validity between HC’s and patients for Total, GA, and SA subscales of the SCARED. For the treatment-seeking sample, both child and parent reports of anxiety were significantly lower for HCs than anxious participants. This is consistent with prior studies that utilize diagnostic interviews to test the SCARED in treatment-seeking anxious patients and youth without psychopathology (Xxxxxx et al., 2009) and those with non-anxiety-related disorders (Xxxxxxxx et al., 1999; Author Manuscript Xxxxx et al., 2013; Xxxxx et al., 2000; Xxxxx et al., 2004). However, results for child-report in the non-treatment-seeking sample were less compelling. Specifically, child-reports of anxiety did not discriminate between HCs and SAD or GAD on the Total scale and GA subscale, nor between HCs and comorbid GAD+SAD on the SA subscale. Author Manuscript Few studies have assessed discriminant validity in anxious patients diagnosed with the disorders measured by the SCARED’s specific subscales, or among patients with comorbid anxiety diagnoses. Across all analyses and scales, and largely irrespective of informant, youth comorbid for GAD+SAD had more anxiety symptoms than other patients—as indexed by higher Total, GA, and SA scores (Figs 1–2, purple lines). Thus, youth with comorbid diagnoses had more severe levels of anxiety than individuals with a single diagnosis. This replicates prior work in patients tested with clinical interviews where severity was measured with questionnaires (Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxxx et al., 2012). Support for discriminant validity between patient subtypes was also obtained across the majority of analyses among the treatment-seeking sample. GA scores were higher for GAD and GAD+SAD than SAD alone, while SA scores were higher for SAD and GAD+SAD than GAD alone. A similar pattern emerged for parent-report among the community sample. However, little evidence for discriminant validity was obtained for child-report in the community sample. Taken together, this suggests that in a treatment-seeking sample, the SCARED is able to discriminate between children with anxiety disorders and those free of any psychopathology, and between sub-types of anxious patients based on the subscale that is utilized. Author Manuscript Author Manuscript In a sample drawn from the community, child-report on the SCARED may be more heterogeneous and reflect a continuum of anxiety symptoms rather than the categorical expression of clinical ch...
Discriminant validity. (Table 2, Figure 2)—Discriminant validity for the SCARED was largely supported for parent-, but not child-report data. One-way ANOVAs showed groups (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) differed for Total child (F(3, 330) = 3.70, p Author Manuscript < .05, η2 = .033) and parent (F(3, 330) = 72.98, p < .001, η2 = .402) scores, GA parent (F(3, 330) = 444850, p < .001, η2 = .309) scores, and SA child (F(3, 330) = 4.95, p < .01, η2 = . 043) and parent (F(3, 330) = 37.75, p < .001, η2 = .258) scores, but not GA child scores (F(3, 330) = 2.35, p > .05, η2 = .021). Results from post-hoc pair-wise comparisons between group scores on each subscale are depicted in Figure 2 (Figure 1; see Table S2 for mean difference scores and corresponding p-values for Bonferroni pairwise comparisons). For parent-report, HCs scored consistently below all three anxious groups on the Total scale. XXX+SAD scored above GAD and SAD on the Total scale; GAD+SAD and GAD scored above SAD on the GA subscale; and GAD+SAD and SAD scored above GAD on the SA subscale. For child-report, HCs from the full or matched sample scored below SAD on the SA subscale (see supplementary materials for further details). Author Manuscript

Related to Discriminant validity

  • Discrimination and Harassment 3.01 The Company shall not discriminate against an employee because of membership in the Union or because of activities authorized herein on behalf of the Union.

  • DISCRIMINATION / HARASSMENT 22.01 The parties agree to comply with their obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

  • NO DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT 6.01 The Company and the Union agree that there shall be no discrimination, interference, restriction or coercion exercised or practised with respect to any employee by reason of age, marital status, sex, race, creed, colour, national origin, political or religious affiliation, handicap, sexual orientation nor by reason of Union membership or position in the Union. Prohibited grounds shall be interpreted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code.

  • Discrimination Prohibited No employee in the bargaining unit shall be appointed, reduced, removed, or in any way favored or unlawfully discriminated against because of his/her political opinions or affiliations, or because of race, national origin, religion, or marital status and, to the extent prohibited by law, no person shall be unlawfully discriminated against because of age, sex or physical handicap.

  • NO DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT (a) There shall be no discrimination, interference, restriction, coercion, harassment, intimidation or any disciplinary action exercised or practiced with respect to an employee by reason of age, race, creed, color, national origin, religious affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, marital status, family status, mental or physical disability, conviction for which a pardon has been granted or membership or activity in the Professional Institute.

  • NON-DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT 3.01 Both the Company and the Union are committed to providing a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. Employees must not engage in discrimination or harassment because of prohibited ground contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). Prohibited grounds are race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offenses, marital status, family status or handicap, as defined in the Code. This provision shall be interpreted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Code. Employees shall not be discriminated against on the basis of union affiliation.

  • ANTI DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI HARASSMENT Contractor and/or any subcontractor shall not unlawfully discriminate against or harass any individual including, but not limited to, any employee or volunteer of the County of Marin based on race, color, religion, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, age or condition of disability. Contractor and/or any subcontractor understands and agrees that Contractor and/or any subcontractor is bound by and will comply with the anti discrimination and anti harassment mandates of all Federal, State and local statutes, regulations and ordinances including, but not limited to, County of Marin Personnel Management Regulation (PMR) 21.

  • NO DISCRIMINATION/NO HARASSMENT 6.01 The Employer, Union and Employees are committed to supporting an abuse and harassment free work environment that promotes a culture of trust, dignity and respect. Harassment includes but is not limited to bullying, sexual harassment and workplace violence.

  • Discrimination Clause The contractor agrees to abide by the requirements of the following as applicable: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Federal Executive Order 11246 as amended, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Vietnam Era Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as amended, and contractor agrees to abide by the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Contractor agrees not to discriminate in its employment practices, and will render services under this contract without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, veteran status, political affiliation, or disabilities. Any act of discrimination committed by Contractor, or failure to comply with these statutory obligations when applicable shall be grounds for termination of this contract.

  • D3 Discrimination D3.1 The Contractor shall not unlawfully discriminate either directly or indirectly on such grounds as race, colour, ethnic or national origin, disability, sex or sexual orientation, religion or belief, or age and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the Contractor shall not unlawfully discriminate within the meaning and scope of the Sex Discrimination Xxx 0000, the Race Relations Xxx 0000, the Equal Pay Xxx 0000, the Disability Discrimination Xxx 0000, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, the Equality Xxx 0000, all as amended or replaced by the Equality Xxx 0000 (when in force) and the Human Rights Xxx 0000 or other relevant or equivalent legislation, or any statutory modification or re- enactment thereof.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.