Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Convergent and divergent validity

Suneeta Monga, Boris Birmaher, Laurel Chiappetta, David Brent, Joan Kaufman, Jeff Bridge, Marlane Cully

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

98 Scopus citations


The purpose of this study was to examine the Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Emotional Disorders' (SCARED) divergent and convergent validity and its ability to identify anxious children. The SCARED, the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) were administered to children, adolescents (n = 295), and their parents attending an outpatient mood and anxiety disorders clinic. DSM-IIIR/IV diagnoses were made using a semistructured interview (n = 130) or a symptom checklist (n = 165). The Multi-Trait Multi-Method Matrix was used to assess construct validity, and Receiver Operating Curve analysis was used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the SCARED, CBCL, and STAIC. The SCARED correlated significantly better with the CBCL's internalizing factors than with the externalizing factors. In addition, parent and child forms of the SCARED correlated significantly with the trait and state subscales of the STAIC. Children with an anxiety disorder scored significantly higher on the SCARED than children with depression only or disruptive disorders only (P < 0.05), thus demonstrating the discriminant validity of the SCARED. The SCARED is a reliable and valid screening tool for clinically referred children and adolescents with anxiety disorders. (C) 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)85-91
Number of pages7
JournalDepression and anxiety
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes


  • Adolescents
  • Anxiety disorders
  • Children
  • Rating scales

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health


Dive into the research topics of 'Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Convergent and divergent validity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this