Free accessResearch articleFirst published online 2009-9
Nature et gravité du trouble de l'opposition avec provocation et du trouble des conduites selon qu'ils surviennent ensemble ou séparément chez l'enfant
La cooccurrence des symptômes du trouble de l'opposition avec provocation et du trouble des conduites est particulièrement fréquente, une situation pouvant être liée à l'augmentation de la gravité (nombre et nature des symptômes) de chacun des troubles. L'objectif de notre étude est de déterminer si les symptômes du trouble oppositionnel et du trouble des conduites varient selon que ces troubles se présentent seuls ou ensemble chez les enfants.
Méthode:
Notre étude a été réalisée auprès de 406 enfants (6 à 13 ans) répartis en quatre groupes (trouble oppositionnel seul, trouble des conduites seul, trouble oppositionnel et trouble des conduites, témoin) ne se différenciant pas selon l'âge et le sexe. Des entrevues diagnostiques structurées, réalisées séparément auprès d'un parent et de l'enfant, ont permis d'évaluer le nombre moyen des symptômes de chaque trouble de même que la fréquence d'apparition de chacun des symptômes.
Résultats:
Lorsqu'ils surviennent ensemble, le trouble oppositionnel et le trouble des conduites se manifestent de manière plus grave que s'ils se présentent seuls, eu égard au nombre et à la nature des symptômes présentés. Aussi, les enfants ayant un trouble oppositionnel ou un trouble des conduites uniquement présentent également plus de symptômes de l'autre trouble et à des fréquences plus élevées que les enfants du groupe témoin.
Conclusion:
Les résultats de l'étude suggèrent de prendre en compte lors de l'évaluation, et possiblement de l'intervention, la présence des deux troubles à la fois.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4e éd., texte révisé. Washington (DC): APA; 2000.
2.
FergussonDMHorwoodLJ. Male and female offending trajectories. Dev Psychopathol. 2002;14:159–177.
3.
LaheyBBLoeberRBurkeJ, et coll. Predicting future antisocial personality disorder in males from a clinical assessment in childhood. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73:389–399.
4.
ChamberlainP.Residential care for children and adolescents with oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. Dans: QuayHogan, éditeurs. Handbook of disruptive behavior. New York (NY): Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 1999. p 495–506.
5.
CraigWMDigoutAR. Community-oriented interventions for conduct disorder: Theoretical progress needing empirical support. Dans: EssauCA, éditeur. Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders: Epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2003. p 223–256.
6.
DéryMLapalmeMYergeauÉ.Les services scolaires et sociaux offerts aux élèves du primaire présentant des troubles du comportement. Nouveaux Cahiers de la recherche en Éducation. 2005;8:35–44.
7.
GreenRWDoyleAE. Toward a transactional Conceptualization of Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Implications for Assessment and Treatment. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1999; 2:129–148.
8.
KazdinAEWassellG.Therapeutic changes in children, parents, and families resulting form treatment of children with conduct problems. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39:414–420.
9.
TremblayRELeMarquandDVitaroF.The prevention of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. Dans: et HoganQuary, éditeurs. Handbook of disruptive behavior. New York (NY): Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 1999. p 525–555.
10.
LoeberRBurkeJDLaheyBB, et coll. Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years, part I. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39:1468–1484.
11.
RoweRMaughanBPicklesA, et coll. The relationship between DSM-IV oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: Findings from the Great Smoky Mountains Study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Disciplines. 2002;43:365–373.
12.
MaughanBRoweRMesserJ, et coll. Conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder in a national sample: Developmental epidemiology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;45:609–621.
13.
KuhneMSchacharRTannockR.Impact of comorbid oppositional or conduct problems on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36:1715–1725.
14.
FaraoneSVBiedermanJJettonJG, et coll. Attention deficit disorder and conduct disorder: Longitudinal evidence for a familial subtype. Psychol Med. 1997;27:291–300.
15.
FrickPJLaheyBBLoeberR, et coll. Familial risk factors to oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: Parental psychopathology and maternal parenting. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;60:49–55.
16.
SpitzerRLDaviesMBarkleyR.The DSM-III-R field trials for the disruptive behaviour disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991;29:690–697.
17.
WalkerJLLaheyBBRussoMF, et coll. Anxiety, inhibition, and conduct disorder in children: I. relations to social impairment. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991;30:187–191.
18.
KingSWaschbuschDAFranklandBW, et coll. Taxonomic examination of ADHD and conduct problem comorbidity in elementary school children using cluster analyses. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2005;27:77–88.
19.
WaschbuschDA. A meta-analytic examination of comorbid hyperactive-impulsive-attention problems and conduct problems. Psychol Bull. 2002;128:118–150.
20.
BiedermanJMickEWozniakJ, et coll. Can a subtype of conduct disorder linked to bipolar disorder be identified? Integration of findings from the Massachusetts General Hospital Pediatric Psychopharmacology Research Program. Society Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53:952–960.
21.
LoeberRKeenanK.The interaction between conduct disorder and its comorbid conditions: Effects of age and gender. Clin Psychol Rev. 1994;14:497–523.
22.
JensenPS. Comorbidity and child psychopathology: Recommendations for the next decade. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2003;31:293–300.
23.
BurnsGLWalshJAOwenSM, et coll. Internal validity of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and overt conduct disorder symptoms in young children: Implications from teacher ratings for a dimensional approach to symptom validity. J Clin Child Psychol. 1997;26:266–275.
24.
BurnsGLWalshJAPattersonDR, et coll. Internal validity of the disruptive behaviour disorder symptoms: Implications from parent ratings for a dimensional approach to symptom validity. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1997;25:207–319.
25.
FrickPJLaheyBBApplegateB, et coll. DSM-IV field trials for the disruptive behaviour disorders: Symptom utility estimates. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1994;33:529–539.
26.
LoeberRKeenanKLaheyBB, et coll. Evidence for developmentally based diagnoses of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. J Abnorm Child Psychiatry. 1993;21:377–410.
27.
ReyJMMorris-YatesA.Are oppositional and conduct disorders of adolescents separate conditions?Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1993;27:281–287.
28.
RussoMFLoeberRLaheyBB, et coll. Oppositional defiant and conduct disorders: Validation of the DSM-III-R and an alternative diagnostic option. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1994;22:355–371.
29.
ShafferDGouldMSRutterM, et coll. Reliability and validity of a psychosocial axis in patients with child psychiatric disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991;30:109–115.
30.
BretonJJBergeronLVallaJP, et coll. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC 2.25) in Quebec. Reliability findings in the light of the MECA study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;37:1167–1174.
31.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3e éd., révisé. Washington (DC): APA; 1987.
32.
DéryMToupinJPauzéR, et coll. Frequency of mental health disorders in a sample of elementary school students receiving special educational services for behavioural difficulties. Can J Psychiatry. 2004;49:769–775.
33.
VallaJPBergeronLSt-GeorgesM, et coll. Le Dominique interactif: Présentation, cadre conceptuel, propriétés psychométriques, limites et utilisations. Rev Can Psycho-Éducation. 2000;29:327–347.
34.
VallaJPKovessVCheeC Chan, et coll. A French study of the Dominic Interactive. Social Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002; 37:441–448.
35.
VallaJPBergeronLBérubéH, et coll. A structured pictorial questionnaire to assess DSM-III-R-based diagnoses in children (6–11 years): Development, validity and reliability. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1994;22:403–423.
36.
VallaJPBergeronLSmollaN.The Dominic-R: A pictorial interview for 6- to 11-year-old children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000; 39:85–93.
37.
ScottTJ LinaresShortEJSingerLT, et coll. Psychometric properties of the Dominic Interactive Assessment, a computerized self-report for children. Assessment. 2006;13:16–26.
38.
AngoldACostelloEJ. Depressive comorbidity in children and adolescents: Empirical, theorical, and methodological issues. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150:1779–1791.
39.
CookTDCampbellDT. Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago (IL): Rand McNally College Publishing Company; 1979.
GoodmanSHLaheyBBFieldingB, et coll. Representativeness of clinical samples of youths with mental disorders: A preliminary population-based study. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997;106:3–14.
42.
RutterM.Comorbidity: Concepts, claims and choices. Crim Behav Ment Health. 1997;7:265–285.
43.
AchenbachTM. Diagnosis, assessment, and comorbidity in psychosocial treatment research. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1995;23:45–65.
44.
LilienfeldSO. Comorbidity between and within childhood externalizing and internalizing disorders: Reflections and directions. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2003;31:285–291.
