To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool–Craniofacial Version (PAT-CV), a screening instrument for psychosocial risk in families of children with craniofacial conditions, and to examine risk classification of patients in a craniofacial population.
Interdisciplinary cleft lip and palate/craniofacial center at a US children’s hospital.
Participants:
Parents/caregivers (n = 242) of 217 children ages 1 month to 17 years being treated for a congenital syndromic or nonsyndromic craniofacial condition completed the PAT-CV and validating measures from July 2015 to July 2016. The PAT-CV was completed by 121 caregivers a second time to assess test-retest reliability.
Main Outcome Measures:
PAT-CV, Child Behavior Checklist, Adult Self-Report, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Craniofacial Experiences Questionnaire, and Family Environment Scale.
Results:
Construct validity of the PAT-CV was supported by significant correlations (P < .001) between PAT-CV total and subscale scores and the validated measures. PAT-CV total scores categorized 59.9% of families within the universal risk group, 32.3% within the targeted risk group, and 7.8% within the clinical range. Good criterion validity was indicated by significantly higher scores (P < .0001) obtained on the validated measures for those in the targeted and clinical risk groups. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) and test-retest reliability for the PAT-CV total score (r = 0.77, P < .0001) were acceptable.
Conclusions:
The PAT-CV appears to be a reliable and valid screening instrument for psychosocial risk. Accurate identification of risk and implementation of appropriate interventions may contribute to improvements in medical and psychosocial outcomes.
AbbottMMKokorowskiPJMearaJG. Timeliness of surgical care in children with special health care needs: delayed palate repair for publicly insured and minority children with cleft palate. J Pediatr Surg. 2011;46(7):1319–1324.
2.
AchenbachTMRescorlaLA. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families; 2001.
3.
AchenbachTMRescorlaLA. Manual for the ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families; 2003.
4.
AlderferMMougianisIBarakatLPBeeleDDiTarantoSHwangWTReillyATKazakAE. Family psychosocial risk, distress and service utilization in pediatric cancer: predictive validity of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT). Cancer. 2009;115:4339–4349.
5.
American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association. Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies-revision. 2009. http://www.acpa-cpf.org/uploads/site/Parameters_Rev_2009.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2017.
6.
BarreraMHancockKRokeachACataudellaDAtenafuEJohnstonDPunnettANathanPCBartelsUSilvaM. External validity and reliability of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) among Canadian parents of children newly diagnosed with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014;61(1):165–170.
7.
BergerZEDaltonLJ. Coping with a cleft: psychosocial adjustment of adolescents with a cleft lip and palate and their parents. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(4):435–443.
8.
BroderHLWilson-GendersonMSischoL. Health disparities among children with cleft. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(5):828–830.
9.
CassellCHStrasslePMendezDD. Barriers to care for children with orofacial clefts in North Carolina. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2014;100(11):837–847.
10.
ChapmanKL. The relationship between early reading skills and speech and language performance in young children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):301–311.
11.
CrerandCEConradALAlbertMCrilly BellucciCHeppnerCESheikhFWoodardSKapp-SimonKA. The Americleft Psychosocial Outcomes Project: a multicenter approach to advancing psychosocial outcomes for youth with cleft lip and palate. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2017;5(1):65–76.
12.
EndrigaMCKapp-SimonKA. Psychological issues in craniofacial care: state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(1):3–11.
13.
FeragenKBStockNMRumseyN. Toward a reconsideration of inclusion and exclusion criteria in cleft lip and palate: implications for the psychological research. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(5):569–578.
14.
FloresGTomany-KormanSC. Racial and ethnic disparities in medical and dental health, access to care, and use of services in U.S. children. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):e286–e298.
15.
GillelandJReed-KnightBGriffinAWasilewski-MaskerKMeachamLMertensA. Assessment of family psychosocial functioning in survivors of pediatric cancer using the PAT2.0. Psychooncology. 2013;22(9):2133–2139.
16.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeRPayneJGonzalezNCondeJG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381.
17.
HoodMMCradockMMVander WalJS. A survey of psychological assessment on interdisciplinary craniofacial teams. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(4):425–444.
18.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPJohnstonC. The psychosocial effects of cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(3):274–285.
19.
KarlsonCWLeist-HaynesSSmithMFaithMAElkinTDMegasonG. Examination of risk and resiliency in a pediatric sickle cell disease population using the Psychosocial Assessment Tool 2.0. J Pediatr Psychol. 2012;37(9):1031–1040.
20.
KazakAE. Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health Model (PPPHM): research, practice, and collaboration in pediatric family systems medicine. Fam Syst Health. 2006;24:381–395.
21.
KazakAEBrierMAlderferMAReillyAParkerSFRogerwickSDitarantoSBarakatLP. Screening for psychosocial risk in pediatric cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59(5):822–827.
22.
McCarthyMCHearpsSJCMuscaraFAndersonVABurkeKHearpsSJKazakAE. Family psychosocial risk screening in infants and older children in the acute pediatric hospital setting using the Psychosocial Assessment Tool. J Pediatr Psychol. 2016;41(7):820–829.
23.
MoosRHMoosBS. Family Environment Scale Manual. 3rd ed. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.; 2002.
24.
NelsonPGlennyAMKirkSCaressAL. Parents’ experiences of caring for a child with a cleft lip and/or palate: a review of the literature. Child Care Hlth Dev. 2012;38(1):6–20.
25.
NideyNMoreno UribeLMMarazitaMMWehbyGL. Psychosocial well-being of parents of children with oral clefts. Child Care Hlth Dev. 2016;42(1):42–50.
26.
NischalKK. Visual surveillance in craniosynostosis. Am Orthopt J. 2014;64:24–31.
27.
NunnallyJC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
28.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
29.
PaiALPatino-FernandezAMMcSherryMBeeleDAlderferMAReillyATHwangWTKazakAE. The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT2.0): psychometric properties of a screener for psychosocial distress in families of children newly-diagnosed with cancer. J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33:50–62.
30.
PaiALTackettAHenteEAErnstMMDensonLAHommelKA. Assessing psychosocial risk in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: validation of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool 2.0_General. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2014;58:51–56.
31.
PaiALTackettAIttenbachRFGoebelJ. Psychosocial Assessment Tool 2.0_General: validity of a psychosocial risk screener in a pediatric kidney transplant sample. Pediatr Transplant. 2012;16:92–98.
32.
PharesVLopezEFieldsSDimitra KarnboukosMADuhigAM. Are fathers involved in pediatric psychology research and treatment?J Pediatr Psychol. 2005;30:631–643.
33.
PopeAWTillmanKSnyderHT. Parenting stress in infancy and psychosocial adjustment in toddlerhood: a longitudinal study of children with craniofacial abnormalities. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(5):556–559.
34.
RichmanLMcCoyTEConradALNopoulosPC. Neuropsychological, behavioral, and academic sequelae of cleft: early developmental, school age, and adolescent/young adult outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(4):387–396.
35.
RobertsRMShuteR. Living with a craniofacial condition: development of the Craniofacial Experiences Questionnaire (CFEQ) for adolescents and their parents. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(6):727–735.
36.
RumseyNHarcourtD. Visible difference amongst children and adolescents: issues and interventions. Dev Neurorehabil. 2007;10(2):113–123.
37.
StockNMFeragenKB. Psychological adjustment to cleft lip and/or palate: a narrative review of the literature. Psychol Health. 2016;31(7):777–813.
38.
StraussRPRamseyBLEdwardsTCTopolskiTDKapp-SimonKAThomasCRFensonCPatrickDL. Stigma experiences in youth with facial differences: a multi-site study of adolescents and their mothers. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007;10(2):96–103.
39.
SzaboCLangevinKSchoemSMabryK. Treatment of persistent middle ear effusion in cleft palate patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74(8):874–877.
40.
VarniJWSeidMKurtinPS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care. 2001;39(8):800–812.
41.
WoodsKOstrowski-DelahantyS. Psychometric properties of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool–Chronic Pain Version in families of children with headache. J Child Neurol. 2017;32(8):766–773.
