<%BANNER%>

Diagnostic Validity of DSM Symptoms and Criteria for Preschoolers

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022570/00001

Material Information

Title: Diagnostic Validity of DSM Symptoms and Criteria for Preschoolers An Exploration of Disruptive Behavior and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms
Physical Description: 1 online resource (80 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chase, Rhea
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attention, conduct, defiant, deficit, diagnosis, disorder, dsm, hyperactivity, oppositional, preschool
Clinical and Health Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the disruptive behavior disorders of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) represent the most common child psychological disorders diagnosed today, and are increasingly being diagnosed in preschool-aged children. Developmental theory suggests that the criteria outlined in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) may be inappropriate for younger children, but very little research has examined the validity of these diagnostic categories and assessment measures for this age group. This study therefore explored the validity of current diagnostic standards and assessment measures of ADHD, ODD, and CD specifically in preschool-aged children. The sample consisted of 207 children aged three to six years referred for treatment of symptoms of ADHD and disruptive behavior. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare three possible symptom models of these diagnoses: (a) a four-factor model of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD currently implied by the DSM-IV; (b) a three-factor model that combined ADHD symptoms into one single factor, but included separate constructs of ODD and CD; and (c) a three-factor model allowing for separate ADHD-Inattentive and ADHD-Hyperactive factors but collapsed symptoms of ODD and CD into one disruptive behavior construct. Findings supported the four-factor model represented by the DSM-IV, which provided superior fit for the data as compared to both of the less differentiated models. The study also further explored current assessment strategies with this age group. We assessed and compared the validity of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV), the Young Child Version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (YC-DISC), and the fourth edition of the Early Childhood Inventory (ECI-4). All measures demonstrated similar correlations with other measures of child behavior, suggesting comparable validity across measures for this age group. Overall, results support the use of DSM-IV diagnostic categories with preschool-aged children and add to the limited research on the validity of current assessment methods for young children. These findings help promote accurate identification and subsequent treatment of psychopathology in preschoolers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rhea Chase.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Eyberg, Sheila M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022570:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022570/00001

Material Information

Title: Diagnostic Validity of DSM Symptoms and Criteria for Preschoolers An Exploration of Disruptive Behavior and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms
Physical Description: 1 online resource (80 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chase, Rhea
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attention, conduct, defiant, deficit, diagnosis, disorder, dsm, hyperactivity, oppositional, preschool
Clinical and Health Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the disruptive behavior disorders of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) represent the most common child psychological disorders diagnosed today, and are increasingly being diagnosed in preschool-aged children. Developmental theory suggests that the criteria outlined in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) may be inappropriate for younger children, but very little research has examined the validity of these diagnostic categories and assessment measures for this age group. This study therefore explored the validity of current diagnostic standards and assessment measures of ADHD, ODD, and CD specifically in preschool-aged children. The sample consisted of 207 children aged three to six years referred for treatment of symptoms of ADHD and disruptive behavior. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare three possible symptom models of these diagnoses: (a) a four-factor model of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD currently implied by the DSM-IV; (b) a three-factor model that combined ADHD symptoms into one single factor, but included separate constructs of ODD and CD; and (c) a three-factor model allowing for separate ADHD-Inattentive and ADHD-Hyperactive factors but collapsed symptoms of ODD and CD into one disruptive behavior construct. Findings supported the four-factor model represented by the DSM-IV, which provided superior fit for the data as compared to both of the less differentiated models. The study also further explored current assessment strategies with this age group. We assessed and compared the validity of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV), the Young Child Version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (YC-DISC), and the fourth edition of the Early Childhood Inventory (ECI-4). All measures demonstrated similar correlations with other measures of child behavior, suggesting comparable validity across measures for this age group. Overall, results support the use of DSM-IV diagnostic categories with preschool-aged children and add to the limited research on the validity of current assessment methods for young children. These findings help promote accurate identification and subsequent treatment of psychopathology in preschoolers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rhea Chase.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Eyberg, Sheila M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022570:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





DIAGNOSTIC VALIDITY OF DSM SYMPTOMS AND CRITERIA FOR PRESCHOOLERS:
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
SYMPTOMS

















By

RHEA MARISA CHASE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































2008 Rhea Marisa Chase



































In loving memory of my mother, Paula Joyce Chase. Her strength is my inspiration, her wisdom
a source of guidance, and her love a constant support.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my mentor and chair, Dr. Sheila Eyberg, for her unending enthusiasm and constant

encouragement. I am very appreciative to the members of my doctoral committee for their

guidance, and would like to thank Dr. Michael Marsiske for his statistical knowledge and the

amazing skill and patience with which he teaches others. I would also like to thank Dr.

Chongming Yang for introducing me to the MPlus program. I thank Drs. Kristen McCabe and

Christopher Lucas, as well as members of the Child Study Laboratory at the University of

Florida, for their contributions to the current research. This dissertation is the culmination of five

rewarding but challenging years. I am eternally grateful to the many friends and family members

who have supported me along the way. I especially acknowledge my father, Stephen Chase,

whose love and support has been critical to any success I have achieved in graduate school.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

ABSTRAC T ...........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ............................ ................................. 11

ADHD and the Disruptive Behavior Disorders...................................................................14
Validity of the D SM -IV N osology ...................................................................... 15
Issues in P reschool D iagnosis........................................................................ ...................18
Current A ssessm ent Strategies .................................................. .................. ............... 20
Developmental Modifications to Current DSM Standards.........................................23
R e search Q u e stio n s.................................................................................................... .. 2 4

2 M E T H O D S .............. ...............................................................................................................2 7

P articip an ts .........................................................................2 7
P roje ct G IF T ......................................................................................................2 7
P roje ct G A N A ......................................................................................................2 8
P roje ct S H A P E .....................................................................................................2 8
M e a su re s ................... ...................2...................9..........
Procedures .................................... ... .. .................. ...................... ......... 32
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Evaluation............................ 32

3 R E SU L T S .............. ... ................................................................36

P participant C characteristics ...............................................................36
Sym ptom and D diagnostic Patterns ..........................................................................................37
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of DSM Symptoms .......................................... 38
Validity of the Three Assessment Methods ..... ............................................... 39
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory ............................. 40
E exploration of A ge-G raded C criteria ................................................................................. 42

4 D IS C U S S IO N ........................................................................................................5 6

Validity of the DSM-IV for Preschoolers ................................ .................................56
Validity of Assessment Measures............................................. 60
Factor Analysis of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory ...................................................62
E exploration of A ge-G raded C riteria ................................................................................. 64









Study Lim itations........ ......... ...................................... ........ .. ... .....64
F utu re D direction s .................................................................67

APPENDIX: STATISTICAL ANALYSES NOT INCLUDED IN MAIN TEXT........................68

L IS T O F R E F E R E N C E S .................................................................................... .....................7 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................80















































6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Overview of relevant measures across datasets...........................................................35

3.1 P participant characteristics. ...................................................................... .....................45

3-2 Individual symptom percentages across the DISC-IV, YC-DISC, and ECI-4 ..................46

3-3 Percentage of diagnosis across assessment method.........................................................47

3-4 Absolute, relative, and component model fit for three DSM-IV CFA models..................48

3-5 Four-factor solution of D SM -IV sym ptom s ........................................... .....................49

3-6 C orrelations am ong D SM -IV factors ............................ .......................... .....................50

3-7 Pearson correlations between symptom counts and CBCL and ECBI scores ...................51

3-8 Absolute, relative, and component model fit for ECBI models......................................52

3-9 The CFA of the three-factor model of the ECBI ................... ........... ............... 53

3-10 O ne-factor C F A of the E C B I ............................ ...................................... .....................54

A-1 One-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR =. 10).............68

A-2 Two-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR= .08) ............69

A-3 Three-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR = .06) ..........70









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pe

3-1 Path diagram of four-factor solution of DSM-IV symptoms of ADHD-Inattentive,
AD H D -H yperactive, OD D and CD ...................................................... .....................55









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

DIAGNOSTIC VALIDITY OF DSM SYMPTOMS AND CRITERIA FOR PRESCHOOLERS:
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
SYMPTOMS

By

Rhea Marisa Chase

August 2008

Chair: Sheila M. Eyberg
Major: Psychology

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the disruptive behavior disorders of

Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) represent the most common

child psychological disorders diagnosed today, and are increasingly being diagnosed in

preschool-aged children. Developmental theory suggests that the criteria outlined in the fourth

edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) may be

inappropriate for younger children, but very little research has examined the validity of these

diagnostic categories and assessment measures for this age group. This study therefore explored

the validity of current diagnostic standards and assessment measures of ADHD, ODD, and CD

specifically in preschool-aged children. The sample consisted of 207 children aged three to six

years referred for treatment of symptoms of ADHD and disruptive behavior. Confirmatory factor

analysis was used to compare three possible symptom models of these diagnoses: (a) a four-

factor model of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD currently implied by the

DSM-IV; (b) a three-factor model that combined ADHD symptoms into one single factor, but

included separate constructs of ODD and CD; and (c) a three-factor model allowing for separate

ADHD-Inattentive and ADHD-Hyperactive factors but collapsed symptoms of ODD and CD









into one disruptive behavior construct. Findings supported the four-factor model represented by

the DSM-IV, which provided superior fit for the data as compared to both of the less

differentiated models. The study also further explored current assessment strategies with this age

group. We assessed and compared the validity of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic Interview

Schedule for Children (DISC-IV), the Young Child Version of the Diagnostic Interview

Schedule for Children (YC-DISC), and the fourth edition of the Early Childhood Inventory (ECI-

4). All measures demonstrated similar correlations with other measures of child behavior,

suggesting comparable validity across measures for this age group. Overall, results support the

use of DSM-IV diagnostic categories with preschool-aged children and add to the limited

research on the validity of current assessment methods for young children. These findings help

promote accurate identification and subsequent treatment of psychopathology in preschoolers.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) introduced its first catalogue of mental

disorders in 1952, largely in response to the increased prevalence and awareness of mental

disturbance following World War II (Silk et al., 2000). The original version of the Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I; APA, 1952) made no distinction between

child and adult disorders. A child could be given any adult diagnosis, with little consideration to

any developmental differences in classification or expression of a disorder (Silk et al., 2000).

The second edition of the DSM (DSM-II; APA, 1968) introduced a section entitled "Behavior

Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence," which included such diagnoses as "hyperkinetic

reaction of childhood" and "overanxious reaction of childhood." DSM-II therefore began to

consider the differences in the expression of psychopathology in children and adolescents as

compared to adults. However, the DSM-II emphasized that these categories should be used only

when no other classification was possible, as this nascent childhood disturbance most likely

represented a developing adult disorder. The nosology of DSM-II reflected the widespread belief

that psychopathology in adulthood could always be traced back to childhood and adolescence,

and child mental illness could be conceptualized as a slowly emerging disorder that would be

fully realized in adulthood (Silk et al., 2000). Thus, although the DSM-II recognized that the

developing child may differ from the adult in the symptomatic expression of psychological

disturbance, its theoretical framework suggested that the disorder was always present in the same

form, but may not have fully revealed itself in a young child.

The third edition of the DSM (DSM-III; APA, 1980) underwent major revisions in

diagnostic method and overall approach to classifying psychopathology. For the first time, the

DSM-III included detailed descriptions of mental disorders and specific criteria for each









category. The DSM-III rejected the psychoanalytic framework underlying its previous edition

and instead based diagnoses on empirically derived categories. The DSM-III also stipulated that

a "disorder" is characterized by functional impairment and subjective distress from the patient.

The multiaxial system was first introduced in the DSM-III, which required clinicians to assess

developmental disorders, personality disorders, medical conditions, and global functioning. The

DSM-III also provided information on clinical presentation of disorders, such as age of onset and

gender differences (APA, 1980). Inclusion of these factors demonstrated some acknowledgement

of the role of context and environment in the expression of psychopathology.

The number of specific childhood disorders significantly increased from the second to the

third edition of the DSM (Bemporad & Schwab, 1986). The DSM-II section of Behavior

Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence included short and somewhat vague descriptions of a

range of child problem behaviors, including "runaway reaction of childhood or adolescence" and

unsocializedd aggressive reaction of childhood or adolescence" (DSM-II; APA, 1968). The

DSM-III introduced the specific disruptive behavior disorders of Oppositional Defiant Disorder

(ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD). ODD is characterized by a pattern of child noncompliance

and disrespect for adult authority, while CD is characterized by a repetitive and persistent pattern

of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules

are violated (APA, 1980). The DSM-III also further developed the DSM-II diagnosis of

"hyperkinetic reaction of childhood" and introduced the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder

(ADD), which was viewed primarily as a disorder of inattention and could be diagnosed with or

without hyperactivity. The refinement of childhood disorders continued with the revised version

of the DSM-III, which included age-appropriate modifications to several symptoms in an attempt

to increase their developmental sensitivity (DSM-III-R; APA, 1987). Importantly, the DSM-III-









R was the first version to use research from DSM field trials to clarify and validate diagnoses,

and results from these trials were used to inform and refine diagnostic criteria for several child

disorders, including the former ADD category now classified as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD; DSM-III-R; APA, 1987).

The fourth edition of the DSM (DSM-IV; APA, 1994) continued to develop childhood

diagnoses and expand subtypes of certain child disorders. DSM-IV criteria for ODD require that

children meet four out of eight possible symptoms, such as: arguing with adults, actively defying

or refusing to comply with adults' requests or rules, and deliberately annoying others. CD criteria

have changed somewhat since the disorder's first appearance in the DSM-III, although the core

feature, involving blatant and persistent disregard for others or societal rules, has remained the

same. Current criteria necessitate three or more behaviors relating to aggression, destruction of

property, deceitfulness or theft, and major violations of societal norms or rules. The text of the

DSM-IV states that a diagnosis of CD should reflect internal psychological dysfunction and not a

reaction to a negative environment. However, this qualification is not included in DSM-IV

diagnostic criteria, leading some to question the clinical utility of this text comment (Wakefield,

Pottick, & Kirk, 2002).

The DSM-IV also revised the diagnostic categories related to ADHD, which now consist

of three subtypes: predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive, and combined type.

Children must meet six of nine possible inattentive symptoms, such as difficulty sustaining

attention and organizing tasks and activities, or six of nine hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms,

such as fidgeting or squirming and interrupting or intruding on others. To warrant a diagnosis of

ODD or ADHD, symptoms must have persisted for at least 6 months; in the case of CD, three or

more criterion symptoms must have been present within the last twelve months, with at least one









present in the previous six months. As with all DSM-IV categories, the symptoms must cause

significant impairment in everyday functioning to indicate a true disorder (DSM-IV; APA,

1994).

ADHD and the Disruptive Behavior Disorders

ADHD and the disruptive behavior disorders, ODD and CD, are the most common

childhood disorders diagnosed today. ODD and CD are estimated to occur in 2 to 16% of school-

age children, depending on the population sampled and the method of assessment (Loeber et al.,

2000). ODD prevalence tends to be highest in younger samples whereas the more severe

behaviors inherent in the diagnosis of CD become more prevalent at older ages. Additionally, the

CD diagnosis supersedes that of ODD if symptoms of both disorders are present; thus, the two

disorders are viewed on a spectrum of severity. ADHD is diagnosed in 1 to 5% of school-aged

children (APA, 1994) and 2% of preschool-aged children (Lavigne et al., 1998), although

community studies based on teacher report have included estimates as high as 16% (Nolan,

Gadow, & Sprafkin, 2001). ODD/CD and ADHD are linked with a myriad of detrimental effects

on a variety of psychosocial outcomes and are associated with higher levels of parenting stress

(Baker & Heller, 1996; DuPaul et al., 2001), greater social impairment (DuPaul et al., 2001;

Greene et al., 2002; Wilens et al., 2002), and increased risk for emotional problems (Thomas &

Guskin, 2001) when compared to controls. The disruptive behavior disorders and ADHD are

generally recognized as common childhood disorders that warrant early identification and

treatment (Abikoff & Klein, 1992; Ross, et al., 1998).

Complicating the clinical presentation of these common childhood disorders is the high

rate of overlap among them. As noted above, ODD and CD reflect similar patterns of

negativistic, defiant, and hostile behaviors, and CD is conceptualized as a more severe form of

ODD. In fact, some researchers have proposed the elimination of CD from the DSM, as









diagnostic criteria include a wide range of heterogeneous behaviors that generally reflect deviant

and defiant behaviors; Huffine (2002) argues that the diagnosis of CD has little clinical utility

and does not relate to any specific treatment program beyond those typically used to target

symptoms of ODD. Additionally, high rates of comorbid ODD/CD and ADHD are well

documented, particularly in school-aged samples, with estimates of co-occurrence ranging from

30 to 62% (Newcorn et al., 2001; Wilens et al., 2002). These findings call into question the

uniqueness of these disorders and have led to the proposal of an ODD/CD subtype of ADHD

(Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995; Christiansen et al., 2008).

Validity of the DSM-IV Nosology

Comorbidity in child psychopathology is common, with estimates as high as 75%

(Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995). One explanation for the high rates of comorbidity relates to the

idea that comorbid disorders could result from conceptual flaws in our current diagnostic system.

That is, comorbidity may reflect a methodological artifact: a failure of the DSM to represent

properly the constructs underlying psychological disorders. The high rates of comorbidity might

suggest that a more parsimonious nosology would be more accurate than that currently implied

by the DSM (Lilienfeld, Waldman, & Israel, 1994; Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998). This

argument is particularly salient when discussing child psychological disorders. It has been

proposed that due to their developmental level, children vulnerable to psychological problems

are more likely to demonstrate a range of psychological symptoms that cut across different

diagnostic categories (Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995). Indeed, the differentiation of child

psychological disorders is often difficult to establish; research involving the internalizing

disorders suggests that anxiety and depressive symptoms are frequently undifferentiated in

young children (Cole, Truglio, & Peeke, 1997). It has been argued that specific psychopathology

dimensions evolve with development (Craighead, 1991) and that a more general framework of









"externalizing" and "internalizing" disorders may be more relevant in diagnosing young children

(Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995).

The differentiation of DSM-IV disorders in child and adolescent samples has become an

increasing area of interest within the literature. Studies of this nature generally involve subjecting

DSM symptoms to confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether the underlying factor

structure implied by the DSM-IV provides the best fit for the data or whether a more

parsimonious model is more appropriate (Sterba, Egger, & Angold, 2007). In summarizing the

current literature on DSM syndrome differentiation, Lahey and colleagues (2004) conclude that

many areas of psychopathology are well-represented by the constructs implied by DSM-IV

criteria. However, results are more ambiguous in differentiating between Oppositional Defiant

Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) and between the two types of ADHD (Lahey et al.,

2004).

Several factor analytic studies support separate inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive

factors within the constellation of ADHD symptoms (Lahey et al., 2008; Glutting, Youngstrom,

& Watkins, 2005; Willoughby, Curran, Costello, & Angold, 2000). However, some research

suggests a unidimensional ADHD factor, particularly for younger children. One study found that

a unifactorial model of ADHD was most appropriate for 4 -5 year-old children, whereas a

bifactorial model was the best fit for 6 7 year-old children (Bauermeister, 1992).

Differentiation between ODD and CD has also been difficult to establish, primarily

because of the low occurrence of CD symptoms in both child and adolescent samples. Some

studies have combined ODD and CD symptoms and focused on its differentiation from ADHD

(Pillow, Pelham, Hoza, Molina, & Stultz, 1998), while others simply exclude CD symptoms

because of their low frequency and focus only on the differentiation between ODD and ADHD









(Burns, Boe, Walsh, Sommers-Flanagan, & Teegarden, 2001). When CD symptoms are allowed

to map onto their own latent construct, however, evidence supports its differentiation from ODD

(Lahey et al., 2008; Burns et al. 1997). Lahey and colleagues (2008) directly compared the

DSM-IV model, with separate ODD and CD factors, with a combined ODD/CD model inherent

in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 1993) and

found support for separate ODD and CD factors.

Notably, the majority of research validating the DSM structure of psychopathology

involves school-aged children and adolescents. To date, only three studies have employed

confirmatory factor analysis to validate DSM-IV disorders in preschool populations. Two of

these studies focused on anxiety disorders and found support for separate constructs of

separation anxiety, social anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, specific phobias, and

generalized anxiety disorder (Eley et al., 2003; Spence, Rapee, McDonald, & Ingram, 2001). A

recent study by Sterba, Egger, & Angold (2007) sought to confirm DSM categories across both

internalizing and externalizing disorders in a sample of 307 2- to 5-year-olds recruited from a

primary care clinic. DSM-IV symptoms of ADHD, ODD, and CD, as well as social phobia,

separation anxiety, and generalized anxiety disorder were assessed with the Preschool Age

Psychiatric Assessment (PAPA). Separate confirmatory models were run for the internalizing

versus externalizing disorders. Within the disruptive behavior disorder models, a 4-factor model

of ADHD-Inattentive ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD was compared with two 3-factor

models, one of which collapsed inattentive and hyperactive symptoms into a single ADHD

factor, while the other combined ODD and CD symptoms. Results supported the three-factor

model that included separate ADHD-Inattentive and ADHD-Hyperactive factors but combined

ODD and CD symptoms into one factor. The authors concluded that an undifferentiated









ODD/CD construct seems most relevant to preschoolers. However, further research examining

CD symptoms in preschoolers is necessary given the conflicting results surrounding the validity

of separate ODD and CD factors within child populations (Sterba, Egger, & Angold, 2007;

Burns et al., 1997). Indeed, further research specifically examining CD symptoms in clinical

preschool populations seems warranted. The disruptive behavior disorders and ADHD are

increasingly being diagnosed in preschool populations, highlighting the need for further

assessment of the validity of these disorders in this age group.

Issues in Preschool Diagnosis

Diagnosing psychopathology in preschool aged children raises important questions

regarding developmental considerations for this population. As discussed above, it was only

recently that the DSM began to consider differences between children and adults, and the current

diagnostic system reflected by the DSM-IV provides few modifications for very young children.

These may be important issues, as the rapid development characterizing early childhood makes it

difficult to assure that maladaptive symptoms are a sign of true psychopathology and not a

variation of normal child development. Additionally, the DSM provides little information on the

normative development of young children to guide diagnostic decisions in this age group

(Eyberg, Schuhmann, & Rey, 1998; Egger & Angold, 2004).

These issues in preschool diagnosis are particularly relevant in the diagnoses of ODD, CD,

and ADHD. Due to their cognitive and social development, and the struggle for independence

from their parents that commonly occurs in the second or third year, some level of aggression

and noncompliance is expected in preschool-aged children (Campbell, 2002). Thus, a certain

level of disruptive behavior symptoms may be present as part of normal child development.

Similarly, all preschool children are expected to display some level of inattention and

hyperactivity. A young child may have difficulty sitting still and sustaining attention, and









generally demonstrate certain ADHD behaviors as part of their natural development.

Consequently, the boundaries between normative and pathological may be particularly

challenging to establish when assessing for ODD, CD, or ADHD in young children. The

diagnosis of CD in preschoolers is particularly controversial, and the validity of this diagnosis in

very young children has been hotly debated (McClellan & Speltz, 2003; Wilens et al., 2003).

One study followed a sample of 92 preschoolers diagnosed with ODD over two years and found

very low rates of the CD diagnosis over time (Speltz, McClellan, DeKylen, & Jones, 1999). The

authors argued that most CD criteria are irrelevant to preschoolers due to their developmental

level and typical environment. In contrast, however, several studies have found support for the

diagnosis in clinical populations, with estimates ranging from 22 to 40% (Schuhmann, Foote,

Eyberg, Boggs, & Algina, 1998; Keenan & Wakschlag, 2000; Wilens et al., 2002).

Research does support the validity of these disorders in very early childhood in regards to

distress and interference in daily functioning. Preschoolers diagnosed with disruptive behavior

disorders demonstrate clinically significant levels of aggression, noncompliance, and destructive

behavior that lead to impairments in social, academic, and family functioning (Keenan &

Wakschlag, 2000; Keenan & Wakschlag, 2002). Similarly, preschoolers diagnosed with ADHD

demonstrate significant social and academic impairment relative to controls (Lahey et al., 1998),

and ADHD preschoolers display similar impairments in functioning when compared to their

school-aged counterparts (Wilens et al., 2002). Therefore, evidence supports the validity of

ODD/CD and ADHD in preschoolers, but questions remain regarding the applicability of the

current diagnostic standards to younger populations. Research is needed to determine whether

younger children are accurately classified according to the categories included in the DSM-IV.









Further study in this area is crucial to promote effective assessment and subsequent treatment in

this age group.

Current Assessment Strategies

Along with further efforts to validate ADHD and the disruptive behavior disorders in

young children is the need to improve our assessment of these diagnoses in the preschool

population. Relatively few measures have been specifically developed for preschoolers; more

commonly, assessment methods developed for older children are applied to younger children.

One important direction therefore includes further study of the validity and reliability of

commonly used assessment instruments for preschoolers. The Diagnostic Interview Schedulefor

Children (DISC-IV; Shaffer et al., 2000) is a structured diagnostic interview of child

psychopathology based on DSM-IV criteria. The DISC-IV is a highly structured diagnostic

interview that is commonly used to assess psychopathology in children, particularly in research

studies. A parent version (DISC-IV-P) exists for parents or caregivers of 6- to 17-year-olds, and

a child self-report (DISC-IV-C) is used for 9-to 17-year-olds. Some research studies have used

the DISC-P with parents of children as young as 4 (Speltz, McClellan, DeKlyen, & Jones, 1999),

but most research on this instrument involves older children and adolescents. A recent

modification of the DISC-IV was designed to increase its developmental sensitivity for

preschoolers (Young Child Version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children; (YC-

DISC; Lucas, Fisher, & Luby, 2000). The YC-DISC differs from the DISC-IV by modifying the

language of symptoms to be more appropriate for young children. The interview also modified

the time frame for each symptom. In the DISC-IV, parents are asked whether a symptom has

been present for the past month and then for the past year. The YC-DISC asks only whether a

symptom has been present for the past three months. This newly developed instrument has yet to

be studied empirically to determine its validity in this age group.









The Early Childhood Inventory, fourth edition (ECI-4) is a parent behavior rating scale

that screens for DSM-IV emotional and behavioral disorders and is specifically designed for

children between 3 and 6 years old (Gadow & Sprafkin, 2000). Parents are asked to rate the

frequency of specific behaviors that map onto DSM criteria for common child diagnoses.

However, certain symptoms deemed developmentally irrelevant are excluded, such as the

truancy item from the CD module. Additionally, the wording of certain items is altered to

increase their developmental sensitivity. The ECI-4 may be scored according to either the

categorical or dimensional approach.

Structured and semi-structured interviews based on DSM criteria represent the categorical

approach to diagnosis in which a disorder is rated as either present or absent. Behavior rating

scales, in which a child's behavior is rated along a continuum and then compared to a normative

sample, represent the dimensional approach. Both approaches include their own strengths and

weaknesses. Categorical approaches have been criticized for poor specificity; some research

suggests high false-positive rates across diagnostic categories. Categorical approaches have also

been criticized for failing to account for overlapping symptoms, subsequently inflating rates of

comorbidity (Achenbach, 1995). Dimensional scales are not without their own weaknesses, and

have been criticized for poor sensitivity and for failing to provide important information

regarding onset, duration, and severity of symptoms. Although the relative superiority of these

two approaches has been a popular area of debate, research does not clearly support one method

over the other. Jensen and colleagues (1996) directly compared these two approaches and found

little difference between them. Both the dimensional approach (i.e., Child Behavior Checklist;

CBCL) and the categorical approach (i.e., DISC, Version 2.1) demonstrated low to moderate

correlations with a variety of external validators, such as school impairment, service utilization,









and psychosocial and developmental risk factors. The authors concluded that, rather than

debating the superior assessment technique, efforts should instead be directed towards validating

diagnostic categories, because neither the categorical nor dimensional approach exhibited

particularly strong relations with the external validators (Jensen et al., 1996). Currently, the

"gold standard" of diagnosis involves a combination of categorical and dimensional approaches.

The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) is a widely used parent rating scale

measuring disruptive behavior disorders in children ages 2 to 16 (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The

validity and reliability of this measure is well-established (Boggs, Eyberg, & Reynolds, 1990;

Funderburk, Eyberg, Rich, & Behar, 2003). The ECBI has also been correlated with diagnostic

interview ratings specifically in a preschool sample (Doctoroff & Arnold, 2004). The ECBI was

originally designed as a unidimensional measure of disruptive behavior (Eyberg & Robinson,

1983), and some studies confirm that a one-factor model provides the best fit for the structure of

the ECBI (Eyberg, 1992; Colvin, Eyberg, & Adams, 1999; Gross et al., 2007). However, other

researchers have found evidence for three separate factors within the ECBI representing

oppositional defiant behavior, conduct problems, and attention difficulties (Bums & Patterson,

1991; Bums & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). If a three factor structure is

valid, then component scores may be useful in screening for the specific disorders. However,

current data are mixed, and more research is warranted before these three factors are used as

separate diagnostic indicators. Notably, the two recent studies that examined the factor structure

of the ECBI specifically in preschool samples found conflicting results. In their predominantly

Caucasian sample of 2 to 6-year-old children, Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl (2005) found support

for the three-factor structure, whereas a more ethnically diverse sample of 2 to 4-year-olds

resulted in a one factor model (Gross et al., 2007). Both of these studies involved community,









rather than clinical, samples. Future research examining the underlying factor structure of the

ECBI therefore should focus on clinic-referred preschool populations.

Developmental Modifications to Current DSM Standards

The field is increasing its focus on the expression of psychological disorders in

preschoolers. Along with recognition that certain behaviors listed in the DSM are, in fact, found

in normally developing children, comes the realization that a more appropriate approach to

diagnosis in children may involve developmentally modified criteria. Some researchers argue

that criteria should be less stringent for younger children because it would be unrealistic for

young children to demonstrate stable patterns of problem behaviors (Luby et al., 2002); others

argue for more stringent criteria, given that fleeting problem behaviors can characterize normal

development (Wakschlag, Leventhal, & Thomas, in press). Limited research has systematically

explored developmental modifications to DSM criteria, yet this research is increasingly

recognized as an important future direction to improve the developmental sensitivity of current

diagnostic tools (Wakschlag, Leventhal, & Thomas, in press; Egger & Angold, 2004; Eyberg,

Schuhmann, & Rey, 1998).

One mechanism that may increase developmental sensitivity involves the use of age-

graded criteria. According to the DSM-IV, a six-year-old and a fourteen-year-old must

demonstrate the same number of symptoms to warrant a diagnosis of ADHD. This standard

seems somewhat counterintuitive given that the six-year-old will naturally be more active and

less attentive than the fourteen-year-old. The young child is therefore more likely to receive the

diagnosis, even if the adolescent deviates more severely from age-appropriate behaviors (Silk et

al., 2000). The concept of age-graded criteria is particularly relevant in diagnosing preschool

ADHD; the high rates of ADHD-like behaviors in typically developing children has led to the

recommendation of longer symptom duration for very young children (Barkley, 2006). Thus, the









field is beginning to consider the possibility of different criteria for various developmental levels.

Although the DSM-IV advises its users to consider what is "developmentally appropriate" for a

child of a certain age, this is a vague recommendation, and it is unclear how much credence

clinicians give to this warning. A more formal age-graded system based on developmental norms

would concretize the importance of the child's developmental level in assigning diagnoses. This

concept is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Primary Care (DSM-PC;

Wolraich, Felice, & Drotar, 1996), developed to facilitate the identification of psychological

disorders in the primary care setting. The framework of the DSM-PC reflects the idea that

psychopathology occurs along a spectrum: the clinician can classify problematic child behaviors

as developmental variations, problems, and disorders, with each category denoting an increasing

level of problem severity. The category of "developmental variation" allows the clinician to

recognize that a child behavior viewed as problematic to the caregiver may reflect a normative

variation of child development. "Problems" include those behaviors that may be distressing or

causing some impairment in the child's overall functioning but do not warrant a formal DSM-IV

diagnoses. The final category of "disorders" reflects those categorized in the DSM-IV. The

DSM-PC also includes concrete examples of developmental variations, problems, and disorders

across different age groups. Thus, the DSM-PC recognizes that psychopathology occurs along a

continuum, and that the level at which a behavior is reflective of psychopathology is influenced

by child age (Wolraich, Felice, & Drotar, 1996).

Research Questions

This study was designed to examine the validity of DSM-IV symptoms for ODD, CD, and

ADHD in preschoolers and explore the validity of current diagnostic assessment measures for

this age group. The study also examined relations between DSM symptoms, symptom severity,









and child age, to serve as a preliminary examination of age-graded criteria for the disruptive

behavior disorders and ADHD.

The first aim of this study was to examine the validity of the DSM constructs of ODD, CD,

and ADHD in a clinical preschool sample. Specifically, we focused on the differentiation

between the different subtypes of ADHD, as well as separate factors of ODD and CD. The

majority of previous research supports two separate factors relating to the inattentive and

hyperactive domains within ADHD, even within a preschool sample. Additionally, a recent study

found support for collapsing ODD and CD symptoms into one single construct of disruptive

behavior. We therefore hypothesized that a three-factor model, with constructs representing

ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and ODD/CD would provide the best fit in a sample of

clinic-referred preschoolers.

The second specific aim further examined current assessment techniques with a preschool

sample. We compared the validity of three measures commonly used to assign DSM-IV

symptoms and diagnoses. Specifically, symptom counts from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule

for Children (DISC-IV; Schaffer et al., 2000), the Young-Child version of the DISC (YC-DISC;

Lucas, Fisher, & Luby, 2000), and the Early Childhood Inventory (ECI-4; Gadow & Sprafkin,

2000) were correlated with other measures of child disruptive behavior, including the Attention

Problems and Aggressive Behavior subscales from the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the

ECBI. We hypothesized that the three assessment methods would demonstrate similar

correlations with other measures of child behavior, suggesting similar validity across diagnostic

interview type. To examine further a commonly used dimensional measure of disruptive

behavior in preschoolers, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the ECBI to determine

whether a three factor model which maps onto the three externalizing behavior diagnoses can be









confirmed in a diverse clinical sample of preschoolers. In light of the range of literature that

supports a three-factor model of the ECBI, we hypothesized that the three factors would provide

good fit in a diverse sample of clinic-referred preschoolers.

The final set of specific aims was related to the idea that children of different ages may

vary in the number of symptoms required to warrant a clinical diagnosis. Specifically, we

examined whether number of symptoms would be a significant predictor of severity on the

relevant subscale of the CBCL and whether age would moderate that relationship. We

hypothesized that number of ADHD symptoms would predict attention problem scores on the

CBCL and that age would moderate the relationship such that the positive relationship between

ADHD symptom count and attention problems would be stronger for older children. We also

hypothesized that number of ODD symptoms would predict scores on the externalizing subscale

of the CBCL and that age would moderate the relationship such that the relationship between

ODD symptom count and externalizing behavior would be stronger for older children. Finally,

we hypothesized that number of CD symptoms would predict scores on the aggressive behavior

subscale of the CBCL and that age would moderate the relationship such that the relationship

between CD symptom count and aggressive behavior would be stronger for older children.









CHAPTER 2
METHODS

Participants

Participants were 207 children between the ages of 3 and 6, inclusive, who received a

diagnosis of ADHD, ODD, CD, or a combination of ADHD and ODD/CD. To increase sample

size and to allow adequate power for the type of statistical analyses proposed, participants were

drawn from several studies, each of which is described below. All children were involved in

research on the effectiveness of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). Exclusion criteria

included immediate crisis requiring hospitalization or out-of-home placement.

Project GIFT

A subset of participants was drawn from a study of PCIT and the maintenance of treatment

gains (Project GIFT). One hundred boys and girls between the ages of 3 and 6 were enrolled in

the study after being referred to a university psychology outpatient clinic for treatment of

behavior problems; data were available from 99 of the original 100 participants. Families were

referred for treatment by pediatricians, teachers, other mental health providers, or were self-

referred. Inclusion criteria for Project GIFT stated that the child must meet DSM-IV diagnostic

criteria for the diagnosis of ODD and must live with at least one parent able to participate in

treatment. Children were excluded from the study if they scored below a standard score of 70 or

if their parent scored below a standard score of 75 on cognitive screening measures, if they had a

major sensory impairment such as blindness, or if they had been diagnosed with a pervasive

developmental disorder. Children who were taking psychotropic medication were required to be

stabilized on this medication for at least one month prior to entering the study.









Project GANA

Another subset of participants was drawn from a study of the efficacy of PCIT with

Mexican American families (Project GANA). Participants were 58 Mexican American families

of 3- to 7-year-old children with clinically significant behavior problems seen for treatment at a

community mental health clinic; the three 7-year-old children were dropped from the current

study, leaving data from 55 participants. Families were referred from schools/teachers, hospitals

or other clinics, social workers, or were self-referred. Families were eligible if they met the

following criteria: (1) Parent identified the child as a Mexican American child between the ages

of 3 and 7, (2) Child received a score above the clinical cutpoint on the Intensity Scale of the

Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999), and (3) Neither parent nor

child were participating simultaneously in any other psychosocial treatment targeting the child's

behavior problems.

Project SHAPE

The final group of participants was drawn from an ongoing study on the efficacy of PCIT

in treating children with ADHD and comorbid ADHD + ODD (Project SHAPE). Data from 53

boys and girls between the ages of 4 and 6 were available for the current study. Families were

referred for treatment by pediatricians, teachers, other mental health providers, or were self-

referred. Inclusion criteria for Project SHAPE stated that the child must meet DSM-IV diagnostic

criteria for the diagnosis of ADHD, either hyperactive/impulsive or combined type. Due to the

need to establish the presence of ADHD symptoms across two or more settings (APA; 1994),

children were required to attend preschool or daycare for some part of each week. They were

also required to live with a female primary caregiver able to participate in treatment. Along with

a diagnosis of ADHD, some of the children additionally met criteria for ODD. Children were

excluded from the study if they scored below a standard score of 70 or if their parent scored









below a standard score of 75 on cognitive screening measures, if they had a major sensory or

mental impairment such as blindness, or if they had been diagnosed with a pervasive

developmental disorder. One of the specific aims of Project SHAPE involved the investigation of

the effectiveness of psychosocial, rather than pharmacological, treatment of ADHD. Therefore,

children using psychotropic medications were excluded from this particular study.

Measures

Demographic and Background questionnaire: Parent questionnaires were used to obtain

descriptive information about the child and family including sex, age, race/ethnicity, occupation,

education level, and medical history.

Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The ECBI is a 36-

item parent rating scale of disruptive behavior. The ECBI Intensity Scale measures the frequency

with which disruptive behavior occurs on a likert scale from 1 to 7, and the Problem Scale asks

whether the parent finds the behavior problematic for themselves on a yes-no scale. The Intensity

and Problem Scales of the ECBI yield internal consistency coefficients of .95 and .93 (Colvin,

Eyberg, & Adams, 1999), interrater (mother-father) reliability coefficients of .69 and .61

(Eisenstadt, McElreath, Eyberg, & McNeil, 1994), and test-retest reliability coefficients of .80

and .85 across 12 weeks and .75 and.75 across 10 months, respectively (Funderburk, Eyberg,

Rich, and Behar, 2003). Studies documenting convergent, discriminant, and discriminative

validity of the scales have been summarized in the test manual (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The

alpha coefficient for the ECBI in this study was .89.

Child Behavior Checklist: (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991; Achenbach, 1992; Achenbach &

Rescorla, 2000; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The CBCL is a commonly used measure of child

behavior. The CBCL has different forms according to child age and recently underwent a

revision. Therefore, analysis involved four different versions of the CBCL. In Project GIFT,









parents of children aged 4 through 6 completed the CBCL/4-18, which consists of 118 behavior-

problem items rated on a 3-point scale from (0) not true, to (2) very true or often true. The items

have been factor analyzed into two broadband scales of internalizing and externalizing behavior

problems, as well as narrow band scales assessing specific problem areas. Mean one-week test-

retest reliability has been reported at .93 for the Externalizing scale, .91 for the Aggressive

behaviors subscale, and .90 for the Attention Problems subscale (Achenbach, 1991). The

CBCL/2-3, administered to parents of 3-year-old children in Project GIFT, is similar in format to

the CBCL/4-18 but contains 99 items rated by the parent for frequency in the past 2 months on

the 3-point scale. Test-retest reliability of the CBCL/2-3 has been reported at .90 for the

externalizing scale and .91 for the Aggressive Behavior subscale over a three-week period (Koot

et al., 1997). Notably, the CBCL/2-3 did not include an Attention Problems subscale.

Both age forms of the CBCL underwent a recent revision; parents in Projects GANA and

SHAPE therefore completed the appropriate age form of the most recent version. The CBCL/6-

18 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) is a 120-item parent rating scale designed to measure the

frequency of children's behavior or emotional problems on a 3-point scale from (0) not true, to

(2) very true or often true. One-week test-retest reliabilities have been reported as .92 for the

Externalizing Scale, .90 for the Aggressive behavior subscale, and .92 for the Attention Problems

subscale (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The CBCL/1.5-5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) is

comprised of 99 items describing children's behavioral and emotional problems, which are rated

by parents on a 3-point scale from (0) not true, to (2) very true or often true. One week test-retest

reliabilities have been reported as .87 for the Externalizing scale, .87 for the Aggressive behavior

subscale, and .78 for the Attention Problems subscale (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000).









Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: (DISC-IV; Schaffer et al., 2000).The

DISC-IV is a structured diagnostic interview of child psychopathology based on Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association,

1994). Test-retest reliabilities have been reported at .54 for ODD, .54 for CD, and .79 for ADHD

on this instrument (Schaffer et al., 2000). The DISC-IV-P was administered to the child's

primary caregiver at pre-treatment by a trained graduate research assistant in Project GIFT.

Young-Child DISC. (Lucas, Fisher, & Luby, 2000). Project SHAPE involved the use of a

recent adaptation of the DISC interview for young children; the Young-Child DISC (YC-DISC).

The YC-DISC is highly similar to the DISC-IV in its format and administration. However, the

language has been modified to increase its sensitivity, and the time frame for each symptom has

been uniformly set at three months. The YC-DISC was administered to the child's primary

caregiver at pre-treatment by a trained graduate research assistant in Project SHAPE.

Early Childhood Inventory: (ECI-4; Gadow & Sprafkin, 2000). The ECI-4 is a parent

behavior rating scale that screens for DSM-IV emotional and behavioral disorders in children

between 3 and 6 years old. Parents are asked to rate the frequency of specific behaviors on a 4-

point scale from (0) never, (1) sometimes, (2) often, and (3) very often. Symptoms generally map

onto DSM-IV criteria; however, four symptoms of CD are not included: breaking and entering,

missing curfew, running away, and truancy. Additionally, the ECI-4 assesses for stealing

behaviors only, with no distinction between with and without confrontation. Thus, the CD

module on the ECI-4 includes 10 symptoms, compared to the 15 listed in the DSM-IV. The

wording of certain symptoms is altered to increase developmental sensitivity; for example, the

ECI-4 asks the parent to rate their preschoolers' preoccupation with sexual activity rather than

the DSM symptom of forcing sexual activity. A recent study reported internal consistency









coefficients of .91 for ADHD-Inattentive, .90 for ADHD-Hyperactive, .93 for ODD, and .87 for

CD. Study results also documented adequate convergent, discriminant, and discriminative

validity of the ECI-4, particularly for the ADHD and ODD scales (Sprafkin, Volpe, Gadow,

Nolan, & Kelly, 2002). According to the scoring guidelines in the ECI-4 manual, behaviors rated

as often or very often were included in the symptom count for this study to help ensure that the

behavior was truly reflective of a frequent and pervasive symptom (Gadow & Sprakfin 2000).

The ECI-4 was completed by the child's primary caregiver at the pre-treatment assessment in

Project GANA.

Procedures

Following the informed consent process, families in all studies completed a pre-treatment

assessment that included completion of the demographic questionnaire, ECBI, and CBCL. The

presence of ODD, CD, and ADHD symptoms was determined by the female primary caregiver's

responses on the DISC-IV interview in Project GIFT and the YC-DISC interview in Project

SHAPE. In Project GANA, the female primary caregiver completed the ECI-4 to assess child

symptoms of ODD, CD, and ADHD. Table 2-1 provides an overview of the assessment

measures across the three different studies.

To obtain access to data from all three datasets, the investigator first sought IRB approval

through the University of Florida Health Science Center. After receiving IRB approval, all data

were first de-identified and then transmitted through data-encrypted files.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Evaluation

This study examined the fit of the factor structure implied by the DSM-IV in a preschool

population. We therefore employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the current

diagnostic system. A review of the literature provides support for the different disorders

represented by the DSM-IV, particularly in school-aged and adolescent samples. However,









differentiation between the subtypes of ADHD and between the two disruptive behavior

disorders, ODD and CD, has been more difficult to establish. We ran a series of three models: (a)

The four-factor model inherent in the DSM-IV: ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD,

and CD; (b) A combined ADHD model that collapses symptoms across the inattentive and

hyperactive domains to create three factors of ADHD, ODD, and CD, and (c) A disruptive

behavior model that combines symptoms of ODD/CD into one factor, leaving three factors of:

ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and ODD/CD.

The observed indicators involved in this analysis are dichotomous and consequently

violate assumptions of multivariate normality. Maximum likelihood estimation, commonly used

in factor analysis, is therefore inappropriate in this study because it uses dichotomous indicators.

Analyses were run using the Mplus program (version 4.2; Muthen & Muthen, 2006). The

program addresses dichotomous variables through analysis of the tetrachoric correlation matrix,

using Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Variance Adjustment (WLSMV) to adjust for non-

normal data.

To evaluate the three models, we examined the absolute fit (chi-square statistic), relative fit

indices (Comparative Fit Index, CFI; Tucker-Lewis Index, TLI), the Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA), which estimates discrepancy between model-implied and population

covariance matrices, and the Weighted Root Mean Squared Residual (WRMR). Traditional

guidelines for establishing good fit have been criticized as somewhat arbitrary (Marsh & Hau,

1996).Yu and Muthen (2002) evaluated fit indices with different types of data (i.e., continuous,

nonnormal continuous, and dichotomous) in small, moderate, and large sample sizes to

determine the cutoff values that would minimize both Type I and Type II errors. For

dichotomous indicators and N> 250, their results indicated that least error would occur using the









following guidelines: CFI > .95, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .06, and WRMR < 1.0 (Yu & Muthen,

2002). The fit indices of each of the three models were held to these guidelines. Additionally,

adjusted 2 difference tests allowed direct comparison of the models. Specifically, the DSM-IV

model was compared to the combined ADHD model. The better-fitting of these two was then

compared to the disruptive behavior disorder model. A significant difference in the 2 suggested

that the more differentiated model fit the data better than the less differentiated (Sterba, Egger, &

Angold, 2007).









Table 2-1. Overview of relevant measures across datasets
Project GIFT Project SHAPE Project GANA
(N= 99) (N= 53) (N= 55)
Measure of DSM-IV Symptoms
DISC-IV-P X
YC-DISC X
ECI-4 X
CBCL
CBCL/2-3 and CBCL/4-18 X
CBCL/1.5-5 and CBCL/6-18 X X
ECBI X X X
Demographic Questionnaire X X X
Note. All measures are from the pre-treatment assessment.









CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Participant Characteristics

The 207 families who participated in the study included 147 boys (71%) and 60 girls

(29%) with a mean age of 4.48 years (SD = 1.01). Fifty six percent of children were Caucasian

(by parent report); 25% Hispanic, 7% African-American, 0.5% Asian, 0.5% Native American,

6% biracial, and 4% identified as "Other." Mean yearly income for the entire sample was $36,

278.83 (SD= $29,779.31); however, income varied significantly across the three studies.

Families enrolled in Project SHAPE reported significantly higher income than families in both

GIFT (t(142) = 3.68, p < .001) and GANA (t(105) = 5.60, p < .001). Additionally, families in

Project GIFT reported higher income than families in Project GANA (t(145) = 3.18, p < .001).

Full information on participants is presented in Table 3.1.

The clinical presentation of these three groups was also compared. Specifically, a between

factor MANOVA was conducted with three dependent variables: CBCL externalizing score,

CBCL internalizing score, and the ECBI intensity score. The GIFT sample was significantly

larger than the other two groups. Multicollinearity among the three dependent variables (CBCL

Externalizing score, CBCL Internalizing score, and the ECBI intensity score) was examined and

was within acceptable limits.

The Box-M test for the homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices produced a

significant result, F(12, 78260.34) = 5.33, p < .01. However, Levene's test for the Externalizing

score was the only significant result, F(2, 190) = 6.32, p < .01. Due to this violation of the

assumption of homogeneity of variance, the relatively conservative Pillai's trace was used in the

following MANOVA.









The overall MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for study source, F(6, 378) =

10.94, p < .01, 2 = .148. To further understand the model, univariate ANOVAs were conducted

for each dependent variable. The main effect of study source was significant for Externalizing

score, F(2, 190) = 7.32, p < .01, r2= .071, and ECBI intensity score, F(2,190) = 13.65, p < .001,

r2= .126. However, the three groups did not differ in Internalizing scores, F(2, 190) = 1.32, p =

.271. Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction were conducted to decompose further the

significant main effect of study source. Children enrolled in GIFT demonstrated higher

Externalizing scores than GANA participants (p < .01), but GIFT and SHAPE participants did

not differ in their Externalizing scores (p = .06). Additionally, GANA participants demonstrated

higher ECBI scores than both GIFT (p < .01) and SHAPE (p < .001) participants. GIFT

participants also exhibited higher ECBI scores as compared to SHAPE participants (p < .05).

Table 3-1 includes the means and standard deviations for the three studies on each of the

three dependent variables. Overall, the results suggest some differences in the clinical

presentation of participants across different studies. Children enrolled in GIFT demonstrated

higher rates of externalizing behaviors than children in GANA. However, GANA participants

demonstrated higher total ECBI scores than both the GANA and SHAPE participants. Thus, it

seems that GANA children cannot uniformly be characterized as less severe in their clinical

presentation and rates of overall disruptive behavior.

Symptom and Diagnostic Patterns

Participants were drawn from three different studies, and DSM symptoms were assessed

with a different assessment measure in each study. Symptom frequencies and rates of diagnosis

are therefore presented by assessment and study source (See Tables 3-2 and 3-3). Notably, six of

the fifteen DSM symptoms for CD occurred between zero and two percent of families in the









entire sample. These items were: (a)forcing sexual activity, (b)fire-setting, (c)breaking and

entering, (d)missing curfew, (e)running away, and (f)truancy. These six items were removed

from further analysis. The ECI-4 does not include breaking and entering, missing curfew,

running away, or truancy, and given the low frequency of these items when assessed in the

DISC-IV and DISC-YC, their exclusion seems warranted. Additionally, the ECI-4 assesses

stealing behaviors only, while the DISC-IV and DISC-YC adhere to DSM-IV criteria and

differentiate between stealing with and without confrontation. As can be seen in Table 3-2,

stealing with confrontation occurred at low frequencies in both the GIFT (5%) and SHAPE (2%)

samples. Further analysis therefore used a "stealing composite" symptom which included

stealing with and without confrontation.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses of DSM Symptoms

CFA was used to determine which of three models provided the best fit for the 35 DSM

symptoms of ADHD, ODD, and CD. The first model, referred to as the DSM-IV model, included

four separate factors representing ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD. The

second model, the combined ADHD model, collapsed the inattentive and hyperactive ADHD

symptoms and subsequently resulted in three factors of ADHD, ODD, and CD. The disruptive

behavior model also included three factors but combined ODD and CD symptoms, resulting in

the constructs of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and ODD/CD.

Fit indices for each of three models were compared and are presented in Table 3-4. All

three models resulted in a significant chi square; however, the ratio of the chi-square to the

degrees of freedom did not exceed the cutoff value of 2 for any of the three models. Therefore,

all three models provided an adequate fit for the data. However, as described above, the

conservative cutoff scores recommended for binary indicators and a small sample size are: CFI >

.95, TLI > .95, WRMR < 1.0, RMSEA < .06 (Yu & Muthen, 2002). Using these guidelines, the









DSM four-factor model provided better fit for the data than either the combined ADHD three-

factor model or the disruptive behavior three-factor model. Chi square difference testing

confirmed these results (Muthen & Muthen, 2005). Specifically, when the DSM model was

compared to the combined ADHD model, the DSM model provided significantly better fit, X2 (2,

N= 207) = 14.02, p < .001). Similarly, when the DSM model was compared to the disruptive

behavior model, the DSM model provided significantly better fit, X2 (2, N= 207) = 11.09, p <

.001). Thus, results fail to find support for collapsing the ADHD symptoms across inattentive

and hyperactive domains or for combining ODD and CD symptoms in this clinical sample of

preschoolers. Table 3-5 shows that the loadings of the individual items onto their factors were

generally high; the path diagram is shown in Figure 1. The two ADHD factors were highly

correlated, as were the ODD and CD factors. Correlations between the ADHD and ODD, as well

as ADHD and CD, demonstrated a moderate relationship. Correlations among the six factors are

included in Table 3-6.

The CFA results provide support for the four-factor structure currently implied with the

DSM-IV. The modification indices provide further evaluation of model fit, as they provide the

expected reduction in chi square if a parameter were freely estimated. Notably, no modification

indices were above the minimum value often (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2006).

Validity of the Three Assessment Methods

To provide some measure of validity of the three assessment measures included in this

study, ADHD, ODD, and CD symptom counts from the DISC-IV, DISC-YC, and ECI-4 were

correlated with the ECBI, CBCL Attention Problems and CBCL Aggressive Behavior subscales,

as well as the broadband Externalizing scale from the CBCL (See Table 3-7). Examination of the

correlation matrix revealed that symptom counts across different assessment methods correlated









most highly with their conceptual counterpart scale of the CBCL. Additionally, correlations

across the three different assessment measures tended to be of similar magnitude.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory

CFA was used to confirm the three-factor solution of the ECBI (Burns & Patterson, 1991;

Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). Although previous studies have all

reported factors reflecting oppositional behavior, conduct problems, and attention difficulties,

there are some differences in previous results regarding which items load onto the factors. The

current study will confirm the structure reported by Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl (2005) as theirs is

the only study that found support for a three-factor model in a sample of preschoolers, and they

sought to confirm the three-factor model previously supported in an older sample (Bums &

Patterson, 2000). The factor structure described in their study was highly similar to those

presented in other research supporting a three-factor model and required several ECBI items to

be dropped from the analysis, leaving 22 items in the model.

The observed indicators involved in this analysis are ordinal data. Due to the clinical

nature of the sample, ECBI items tended to be positively skewed. The MPlus program addresses

ordinal variables through analysis of the polychoric correlation matrix; the current analysis also

employed Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Variance Adjustment (WLSMV) to adjust for

non-normal data.

Results suggested that the three-factor solution was a relatively poor fit for the data. The

model resulted in a highly significant chi square and failed to meet the cut off scores proposed by

Yu and Muthen (2002) for any of the fit indices (see Table 3-8 for fit indices and Table 3-9 for

the factor structure). Examination of the modification indices suggested model improvement by

allowing several items to load onto all three factors. Additionally, results suggested that several

items from the oppositional behavior factor should be allowed to load onto the attention









difficulties factor. Overall, findings failed to provide strong evidence for a three-factor model,

and the modification indices were extensive and difficult to justify conceptually. Thus, an

exploratory factor analysis seemed the appropriate next step.

All 36 ECBI items were therefore subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Because other researchers found support for a three-factor model, we examined a one, two, and

three-factor EFA of the ECBI items. Results from all three of these analyses are included in the

Appendix. MPlus provides RMSR values for EFA analyses; significant decreases with increasing

number of factors suggest better fit of the more differentiated models. As can be seen in the

Appendix, the decrease in the RMSR from the one to two-factor model was small, and the

decrease from the RMSR from the two to three-factor was minimal. Perhaps more importantly,

the two and three-factor models did not conceptually match the factors of oppositional behavior,

attention difficulties, and conduct problems found in previous studies (Burs & Patterson, 1991;

Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). Indeed, it was difficult to interpret

the two- and three-factor models.

In the two factor model, the first factor included most of the items and seemed to reflect a

more general disruptive behavior factor that included a range of oppositional and attention-

seeking behaviors. The second factor resembled the conduct problems factor found in previous

studies, reflecting overt aggression and provocation. This second factor was comprised of five

items: (a) destroys toys and other objects, (b) teases or provokes other children, (c) verbally

fights with sisters and brothers, (d) physically fights with sisters and brothers, and (e) steals.

Thus, the two-factor EFA seemed to reflect a general disruptive behavior construct with a

smaller factor of severe conduct problems and aggressive behaviors. The three-factor EFA was

exceedingly difficult to understand conceptually. The first factor again included the majority of









the ECBI items, representing oppositional and attention-seeking behaviors. The only significant

loadings onto the second factor demonstrated a negative relationship with the underlying

construct. The third factor included five items seeming to reflect a lack of respect for rules, such

as having poor table manners and refusing to do chores when asked. None of the items

demonstrated particularly strong loadings onto the third factor.

The one-factor model was then subjected to CFA to examine the fit of the model. Items

with factor loadings below .4 on the EFA were dropped from the analysis. This included many

items that failed to demonstrate significant loadings onto any factors in previous studies, such as

whining and having poor table manners. The CFA also excluded several items that have

previously been included on the "conduct problems" factor in previous studies, as these items

seemed to be reflective of a more severe behavior than most other ECBI items. Thus, 25 items

were subjected to a one-factor CFA. All measures of model fit improved and the results

suggested good fit according to the TLI. The CFI value was marginal according to the guidelines

proposed by Yu and Muthen (2002), although comparable to the value reported in previous

studies (Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005), and the WRMR was also marginal. However, the

RMSEA continued to suggest poor fit (see Table 3-8). The factor structure of the one-factor CFA

is presented in Table 3-10.

Exploration of Age-Graded Criteria

As a preliminary examination of the possibility of age-graded criteria, a series of

hierarchical regressions were conducted in which scores on the corresponding scale of the CBCL

were regressed upon total number of symptoms, child age, and an interaction between those two

variables. To test the hypothesized moderator effects of age, we evaluated the significance of the

change in R2 after the addition of the interaction term.









The first model examined the predictive power of ADHD symptoms and child age in

inattention scores. Specifically, scores from the attention scale of the CBCL were regressed upon

total number of ADHD symptoms, child age, and an interaction term between ADHD symptoms

and child age to test the hypothesis that age would moderate the relationship between ADHD

symptom count and severity of inattention. Total number of ADHD symptoms was entered in the

first block and acted as a significant predictor, F(1, 169) = 81.28, p < .001, R2 = .325. Child age

was entered into the model and did not add to the predictive power of the model, R2 A = .001, nor

was the interaction term between number of symptoms and age significant, R2 A = .001. Thus,

number of ADHD symptoms was a significant predictor of attention scores on the CBCL.

However, the current analysis failed to support the hypothesis that age would moderate that

relationship between symptom count and severity of inattention.

The second model examined the predictive power of ODD symptoms and child age in

externalizing behavior scores. In this analysis, scores from the externalizing scale of the CBCL

were regressed upon total number of ODD symptoms, child age, and an interaction term between

ODD symptoms and child age to test the hypothesis that age would moderate the relationship

between ODD symptom count and severity of externalizing behavior. Total number of ODD

symptoms was entered in the first block and acted as a significant predictor, F(1, 198) = 63.04, p

< .001, R2 = .241. Child age was entered into the model and did not add to the predictive power

of the model, R2 A = .011, nor was the interaction term between number of symptoms and age

significant, R2 A = .001. Thus, number of ODD symptoms was a significant predictor of

externalizing scores on the CBCL. However, the analysis failed to support the hypothesis that

age would moderate the relationship between symptom count and severity of externalizing

behavior.









The third model examined the predictive power of CD symptoms and child age in rates of

aggressive behavior. In this analysis, scores from the aggression scale of the CBCL were

regressed upon total number of CD symptoms, child age, and an interaction term between CD

symptoms and child age to test the hypothesis that age would moderate the relationship between

CD symptom count and severity of externalizing behavior. Total number of CD symptoms was

entered in the first block and acted as a significant predictor, F(1, 199) = 51.51, p < .001, R2

.206. Child age was entered into the model and did not add to the predictive power of the model,

R A = .002, nor was the interaction term between number of symptoms and age significant, R2 A

= .001. Thus, number of CD symptoms was a significant predictor of aggression scores on the

CBCL. However, the analysis failed to support the hypothesis that age would moderate that

relationship between symptom count and severity of aggressive behavior.

In sum, this study failed to find support for the hypothesis that age would significantly

moderate the relationship between symptom count and the severity of problem behaviors.

However, it should be noted that the sample represented a limited age range, and thus it may

have been difficult to find differences by age.









Table 3.1. Participant characteristics.
Total Sample GIFT SHAPE GANA


Age (years)

Gender

Ethnicity


Caucasian

African American

Hispanic

Asian

Native American


M 4.48
SD = 1.01
71% male


56%

7%

25%

0.5%

0.5%


M= 4.38
SD= 1.09
69% male


76%


M= 4.85
SD = 0.75
74% male


76%

14%

1%

0%


Biracial/Other


Family yearly
income
CBCL Externalizing
T Score

CBCL Internalizing
T score


ECBI Intensity Raw
score


10%
M= 36,278.83
SD = 29,779.31
M= 70.57
SD = 8.95


M= 61.91
SD= 9.91


M 169.56
SD 28.41


12%
M= 34,308.52
SD = 25,302.84
M= 72.82
SD = 6.91


M= 62.54
SD= 9.58


M 168.34
SD 25.06


M= 54,251.54
SD = 39,681.04
M= 69.00
SD = 9.05


M= 59.83
SD = 9.95


M 154.08
SD 29.68


2%
M= 22,582.25
SD = 13,299.15
M= 67.49
SD = 11.07


M= 62.67
SD = 9.63


M 182.58
SD 26.95


M= 4.33
SD = 1.31
80% male


7%

0%

91%

0%










Table 3-2. Individual symptom percentages across the DISC-IV, YC-DISC, and ECI-4
Symptom DISC-IV YC-DISC ECI-4
(GIFT; n = 99) (SHAPE; n= 53) (GANA; n = 55)
ADHD-Inattentive
Careless mistakes 43 67 24
Short attention span 55 87 35
Doesn't listen 93 93 46
Fails to finish tasks 70 91 51
Disorganized 53 76 40
Avoids concentrating 52 82 27
Loses items 44 65 36
Distractible 70 89 64
Forgetful 41 72 33
ADHD-Hyperactive
Fidgets 74 91 66
Leaves Seat 81 85 66
Runs/Climbs 90 91 76
Too Loud 63 67 55
Driven by motor 77 85 66
Excessive talking 71 78 56
Blurts out answers 48 59 31
Difficulty waiting turn 78 85 58
Interrupts 90 94 49
ODD
Loses temper 95 74 36
Argues 96 80 51
Defiant 95 90 75
Annoys others 76 63 56
Blames others 51 56 49
Easily annoyed 75 59 47
Angry 84 70 40
Spiteful 61 39 43
CD
Bullying 42 22 11
Fighting 27 24 16
Use of weapon 26 15 4
Cruel to people 24 9 9
Cruel to animals 27 15 5
Stole with confrontation 5 2 **
Forced sex* 0 0 2
Firesetting* 1 0 2
Destruction of property 50 50 10
Breaking and entering* 0 0 **
Lying 23 33 15
Stole without confrontation 29 31 **
Missed curfew* 0 0 **
Runaway* 0 0 **
Truancy* 0 0 **
Stealing composite*** 29 31 2
*Dropped from further analyses due to low frequency: **Not asked on ECI-4; ***Combination of stealing with and
without confrontation









Table 3-3. Percentage of diagnosis across assessment method
* DISC-IV YC-DISC ECI
S (GIFT; N= (SHAPE; N= (GANA; N=
99) 53) 55)
* ADHD- 1 5 4
Inattentive

* ADHD- 24 11 32
Hyperactive

* ADHD- 46 76 22
Combined

* ODD 91 79 56

* CD 42 29 9









Table 3-4. Absolute, relative, and component model fit for three DSM-IV CFA models
Model 2 DF p CFI TLI RMSEA WRMR

DSM-IV 170.66 82 < .001 .95 .96 .06 1.0
(4 factor)
Combined ADHD 177.05 88 < .001 .93 .95 .07 1.1
(3 factor)
Disruptive behavior 174.90 89 < .001 .93 .95 .07 1.1
(3 factor)









Table 3-5. Four-factor solution of DSM-IV symptoms
ADHD-I ADHD-H ODD CD
Symptom
ADHD-I
Careless mistakes .74
Short attention span .90
Doesn't listen .89
Fails to finish tasks .86
Disorganized .73
Avoids concentrating .80
Loses items .74
Distractible .90
Forgetful .76
ADHD-H
Fidgets .81
Leaves Seat .88
Runs/Climbs .88
Too Loud .82
Driven by motor .90
Excessive talking .68
Blurts out answers .67
Difficulty waiting turn .69
Interrupts .72
ODD
Loses temper .67
Argues .84
Defiant .89
Annoys others .72
Blames others .71
Easily annoyed .68
Angry .74
Spiteful .65
CD
Bullying .79
Fighting .63
Use of weapon .77
Cruel to people .68
Cruel to animals .46
Destruction of property .71
Lying .73
Stealing composite .71









Table 3-6. Correlations among DSM-IV factors
ADHD- ADHD- ODD CD
Inattentive Hyperactive


ADHD-I 1.00

ADHD-H .81 1.00

ODD .49 .54 1.00

CD .35 .39 .74 1.00









Table 3-7. Pearson correlations between symptom counts and CBCL and ECBI scores
ADHD symptoms ODD symptoms CD symptoms


DISC- YC- ECI- DISC- YC- ECI- DISC- YC- ECI-
IV DISC 4 IV DISC 4 IV DISC 4
Attention Scale .49** .43** .52** .02 .09 .32* .08 .02 .26*

Aggression Scale .29** .20 .33* .37** .41** .49** .45** .46** .34*

Externalizing .31** .24 .43** .37** .41** .51** .41** .43** .35**
Scale
ECBI intensity .42** .47** .30* .27** .61** .19 .42** .51** .33*
score
*p< .05, **p<.01.









Table 3-8. Absolute, relative, and component model fit for ECBI models
Model 2 DF P CFI TLI RMSEA WRMR

Three-factor CFA 805.24 53 < .0001 .75 .86 .27 2.28

One-factor CFA 356.84 66 <.0001 .92 .97 .15 1.2









Table 3-9. The CFA of the three-factor model of the ECBI
ECBI item Factor One Factor Two Factor Three
12. Gets angry when doesn't get own way .94
10. Acts defiant when told to do something .93
8. Does not obey house rules on own .90
14. Sasses adults .82
9. Refuses to obey until threatened with .76
punishment
13. Has temper tantrums .50
11. Argues with parents about rules .41
5. Refuses to do chores when asked .47
7. Refuses to go to bed on time .45
17. Yells or screams .36

30. Is easily distracted .96
34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .90
32. Fails to finish task or projects .88
31. Has short attention span .56

24. Verbally fights with friends own age .87
22. Lies .85
26. Physically fights with friends own age .84
25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers .55
27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers .53
19. Destroys toys and other objects .21
23. Teases or provokes other children .15
21. Steals -.47









Table 3-10. One-factor CFA of the ECBI
ECBI item
10. Acts defiant when told to do something .89
8. Does not obey house rules on own .89
13. Has temper tantrums .89
32. Fails to finish task or projects .89
6. Slow in getting ready for bed .83
30. Is easily distracted .83
34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .83
36. Wets the bed .83
2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .80
22. Lies .79
4. Refuses to eat food presented .77
18. Hits parents .76
26. Physically fights with friends own age .75
9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment .74
28. Constantly seeks attention .73
24. Verbally fights with friends own age .72
20. Is careless with toys and other objects .61
31. Has short attention span .53
7. Refuses to go to bed on time .51
5. Refuses to do chores when asked .45
14. Sasses adults .44
16. Cries easily .41
12. Gets angry when doesn't get own way .36
35. Is overactive or restless .06
29. Interrupts .01











Fails to Disorganized Avoids
finish concentrating

.86 .73 .80


ages 111adeLLCHlVe
Bullying


aves Seat .81 .35 .79
.8 .6 Fighting
.63

imbs.88
Use of
.77 weapon
bs: 82 .88 AD H D 77
>o Loud .82
Hyperactive CD .68
Cruel to
.90 g\ people
/\~ / .\46 Cul
.68 /Cruel to
animals
ilkative .71
Y 67 /.54 .74
.73
.73 f Destroys
urts out property
------ / {1 \ < .7
Lying
fficulty .72 ODD
citing

terrupts Stealing




.67 .84 .89 .72 .71 .68 .74 .65
/ ,/ _. \ ^ \\ \ .
Loses Argues Defiant Annoys Blames Easily Angry Spiteful
temper others others annoyed


Figure 3-1. Path diagram of four-factor solution of DSM-IV symptoms of ADHD-Inattentive,
ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD.









CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

The present study provided important information regarding the validity of DSM-IV

symptoms of ODD, CD, and ADHD in a relatively diverse, clinical preschool sample. Findings

also provide support for the validity of current assessment measures for preschoolers. Results can

be used to inform future diagnostic methodology and assessment techniques in this population.

Ultimately, findings from the current study can support effective assessment and treatment of

psychopathology in preschoolers.

Validity of the DSM-IV for Preschoolers

Results suggest that the four constructs of ODD, CD, ADHD-Inattentive and ADHD-

Hyperactive implied by the DSM-IV are valid in younger children. Even when using the

relatively conservative standards outlined by Yu and Muthen (2002), indices suggested good fit.

The factor loadings of each symptom onto its corresponding underlying construct were generally

high. None fell beneath the commonly used level of .4 (Floyd & Widaman, 1995) and only one

symptom had a factor loading below .6. Results generally support the growing body of research

supporting the structure of the DSM-IV in older children (Lahey et al., 2004; Lahey et al., 2008)

and adds to the limited body of research examining the validity of DSM-IV nosology in

preschoolers.

The four-factor DSM-IV model provided the best fit in this sample of clinic-referred

preschoolers when compared to a three-factor model that combined the inattentive and

hyperactive domains into a single ADHD factor, with separate constructs of ODD and CD. The

DSM-IV model also proved superior when compared to a three-factor model of ADHD-

Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and a disruptive behavior factor that collapsed ODD and CD

symptoms. The two alternate models resulted in adequate fit according to certain fit indices;









however, inferential chi-square testing allowed direct comparison of the three models and found

support for the four-factor model. This is an important finding that adds to the limited research

on the validity of separate ODD and CD factors in younger children. Two previous studies found

similar results in large, nonclinical samples of school-aged children and adolescents (Lahey et

al., 2008; Burns et al., 1997). However, a recent study of DSM symptoms in 307 preschoolers

found support for collapsing ODD and CD symptoms into a single disruptive behavior factor

(Sterba, Egger, & Angold, 2007). Thus, the present study is the first to find support for the

differentiation of CD from ODD specifically in a preschool population. The clinical nature of the

sample may explain the discrepancy from the results by Sterba, Egger, and Angold (2007).

Given the extreme nature of many of the CD criteria, it may be difficult to establish a clear CD

factor in a community sample, particularly in younger children. Although more research is

needed, the present study adds to a small but growing body of literature that supports the validity

of CD in preschoolers (Schuhmann, Foote, Eyberg, Boggs, & Algina, 1998; Keenan &

Wakschlag, 2000; Wilens et al., 2002).

Although results of this study support a separate CD factor, it is notable that several CD

symptoms were dropped from analyses due to low frequency: forcing sexual activity, fire-setting,

breaking and entering, missing curfew, running away, and truancy. This is hardly surprising in

light of preschoolers' developmental abilities and limited exposure to these types of situations.

However, the current DSM-IV provides no developmental modifications to current CD criteria.

Amidst claims that the diagnosis of CD is irrelevant to preschoolers, it seems important to

increase the developmental sensitivity of CD criteria for this age group. The Task Force on

Research Diagnostic Criteria for Infancy and Preschool (RDC-PF; 2003) has dropped breaking

and entering, breaking curfew, running away, and truancy; thus, it seems likely that the DSM-V









will exclude these symptoms in the assessment of preschoolers. Further research is needed on

potential modifications to CD criteria to increase developmental sensitivity while also

maintaining the clinical essence of the symptoms (Egger & Angold, 2006).

Results also confirm the validity of two separate factors of inattention and hyperactivity

within the ADHD domain, specifically in a preschool sample. A substantial body of research

supports this distinction in older children and adolescents (Glutting, Youngstrom, & Watkins,

2005; Willoughby, Curran, Costello, & Angold, 2000). Some research has suggested that a single

ADHD factor is most appropriate for younger children (Bauermeister, 1992). Yet results from

our study replicate recent findings by Sterba, Egger, and Angold (2007) and add to the validity of

the DSM-IV model of ADHD in young children. Nevertheless, further study is needed. Given

the necessity of ADHD symptoms in the school setting for diagnosis, it will be particularly

important to validate the two domains of inattention and hyperactivity with teacher ratings. Data

from the Preschoolers with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Study (PATS)

found conflicting results between parent and teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms. Specifically,

the two-factor model of inattention and hyperactivity provided adequate fit when applied to

parent responses on a behavior rating scale of ADHD symptoms, but neither a one-factor nor

two-factor model provided adequate fit for teacher ratings (Hardy et al., 2007). The authors note

that the use of a behavior rating scale may not have provided the most accurate representation of

DSM symptoms; thus, the failure of the study to find support for the two-factor model may

reflect a methodological artifact. However, it also may be that the structure of ADHD symptoms

is different when applied to classroom behavior (Hardy et al., 2007).

This study focused on the validity of specific diagnostic categories in preschoolers. The

validation of psychopathology for preschoolers is an important step. However, more research is









needed to demonstrate the clinical utility of these specific disorders in young children. As noted

by Huffine (2002), treatment recommendations for CD are virtually identical to those for ODD,

leading some to question the utility of two separate disorders. This argument seems particularly

relevant to preschoolers because the more intensive, multimodal treatment programs sometimes

used to treat CD, such as Multisystemic Therapy (MST; Henggeler & Borduin, 1990) would be

inappropriate for preschoolers. A similar argument may be relevant when discussing the clinical

diagnosis of ADHD. Treatment recommendations for ADHD in school-aged children and

adolescents frequently involve a medication trial and more individualized behavioral

interventions, such as organizational skills training. Results from the Preschoolers with Attention

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder study (PATS) suggest that stimulant medications can be effective

in this age group (Greenhill et al., 2006; Vitiello et al., 2007). However, the efficacy of stimulant

medication tends to be less (Greenhill et al., 2006) and the side effects more severe when

compared to school aged children and adolescents (Wigal et al., 2006). Notably, no medication is

currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ADHD in

preschool aged children. A recent study examined maternal perceptions of mental health services

for their preschool-aged children. The majority of mothers surveyed expressed interest in

receiving assistance in managing their child's behavior problems; however, most also indicated

that they would not be interested in pursuing medication (Harwood, O'Brien, Carter, & Eyberg,

under review). Due to the controversy surrounding medication use in this age group, and parental

concerns regarding the safety of medication for young children, first line treatment

recommendations for preschoolers with ADHD often involve behavioral interventions such as

parent training and contingency management, the same treatments used for ODD/CD in young

children (dosReis, et al., 2003; Rushton, Fant, & Clark, 2004; Verduin, Abikoff, & Kurtz, 2008).









The efficacy of these types of behavioral interventions, and specifically parent training programs,

is well-established for the treatment of ODD/CD in young children (Eyberg, Nelson, & Boggs,

2008). The results of our study do not support the lesser differentiation in the presentation of

psychopathology in preschoolers. However, treatment of externalizing disorders, specifically for

this population, may involve many of the same components. Due to their developmental level

and the significance of the parent-child relationship at this young age, a range of presenting

problems in preschoolers may be improved with comprehensive parent training programs that

apply behavioral strategies to a broad spectrum of child problem behaviors (Chase & Eyberg,

2008).

Validity of Assessment Measures

Results also provided validity for the DISC-IV, YC-DISC, and ECI-4 in a clinical

preschool sample. Regardless of the diagnostic approach, symptoms across diagnostic categories

correlated most highly with their conceptual counterpart on the Child Behavior Checklist

(CBCL). These correlations tended to be of similar magnitude for each assessment method.

Additionally, symptom counts across the three studies generally demonstrated similar

correlations with the ECBI intensity score. Some variability was seen in the correlations between

the ECBI and ODD symptom counts. Specifically, ODD symptoms as assessed by the DISC-YC

demonstrated the highest correlation with the ECBI. ODD symptoms from the DISC-IV resulted

in a small but significant correlation with the ECBI, while ODD symptoms from the ECI-4 were

not significantly correlated with the ECBI intensity score. However, this result is likely related to

the restricted range of ODD symptoms in Project GIFT and ECBI scores in Project GANA. As

noted previously, the inclusion criteria for Project GIFT necessitated higher rates of ODD

symptoms and the inclusion criteria for Project GANA resulted in higher ECBI scores. Thus, the

weaker relationship between DISC-IV ODD symptoms and the ECBI and the lack of relationship









between ECI-4 ODD symptoms most likely reflects a methodological weakness of our study

rather than a comment on the validity of either the DISC-IV or ECI-4.

Overall, this study provided evidence of convergent validity for the DISC-IV, YC-DISC,

and ECI-4 in a preschool sample. This is among the first studies to assess the validity of the

DISC-IV specifically in this age group and the validity of the newly developed YC-DISC.

Results suggest the two interviews are highly similar in their relationships with other measures of

child behavior. Additionally, symptom counts from the ECI-4, although lower than both the

DISC-IV and YC-DISC, demonstrated significant correlations with the appropriate subscale of

the CBCL. The ECI-4 is a relatively new measure, and this study provides important information

regarding its validity as a measure of DSM-IV disorders. Future research on preschool diagnosis

should address additional indicators of validity. A particularly important direction is the study of

predictive validity of assessment measures for this age group. Although ADHD and the

disruptive behavior disorders diagnosed in early childhood have been shown to persist into later

childhood and adolescence, symptoms remit in approximately half of children diagnosed in the

preschool years (Campbell, 2002). Instruments specifically designed for this age group may

relate to improved predictive validity. For example, the YC-DISC has altered the time duration

of each symptom and asks about the presence of a behavior over a three-month time span.

Longitudinal research will determine whether modifications such as these allow better

identification of those children who will continue to exhibit symptoms into later childhood and

adolescence. Additionally, modifying the language of certain symptoms to increase

developmental sensitivity may improve face validity with this population, as well as overall

consumer satisfaction.









Factor Analysis of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory

Our study failed to support the three-factor structure of the ECBI reported in the literature

(Burns & Patterson, 1991; Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). The

model with factors of oppositional behavior, inattention, and conduct problems yielded a highly

significant chi square and did not indicate good fit according to any of the fit indices. Most ECBI

items demonstrated significant loadings onto one factor of child behavior problems, consistent

with previous studies reporting a one-factor structure of the ECBI (Eyberg, 1992; Colvin,

Adams, & Eyberg, 1999; Gross et al, 2007). Several different reasons may explain the failure to

replicate the three-factor model. Notably, this is the first study to factor analyze the ECBI with a

clinical sample of preschoolers. The two studies that have examined the factor structure of the

ECBI specifically with preschoolers both used a community sample, and those two studies led to

conflicting results (Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005; Gross et al., 2007).

Certainly, the use of a clinical sample limits the generalizability of the current results.

However, it seems particularly important to replicate the three-factor structure in clinic-referred

children. The importance of using a clinical sample is highlighted by suggestions in the literature

that component scores from the three ECBI factors could be used for diagnostic purposes (Burns

& Patterson, 1991; Bums & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). Weis, Lovejoy,

& Lundahl (2005) found support for the three-factor model in a community sample of preschool-

aged children. However, the component scores from the individual factors were largely unable to

differentiate among the three different disorders in a clinical sample of children aged 4 to 6

years. Specifically, the Oppositional Defiant component did not distinguish children with

oppositional behavior from children with attention problems, and the Inattentive component did

not differentiate inattentive children from oppositional children. Indeed, the authors found that

the full ECBI intensity scale was more useful in differentiating these disorders than the









individual component scores. They suggested that the failure of the component scores to

differentiate among the different disorders may reflect the lack of behavioral differentiation in

children's symptom expression (Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). However, our findings from

the DSM-IV confirmatory factor analysis argue against a lesser differentiation of symptom

presentation in younger children. Results from the current study suggest that the ECBI

component scores fail to represent the distinct disorders in the same way that they are

conceptualized in the DSM-IV.

Notably, the ECBI was developed prior to the development of the DSM-III and was

developed as a unidimensional measure of child disruptive behavior. Although several ECBI

items appear to map onto DSM-IV criteria, some may not be clear indicators of DSM symptoms,

particularly in a clinical preschool sample. For example, the ECBI item "has short attention

span" appears very similar to the DSM-IV ADHD inattentive symptom, "often has difficulty

sustaining attention in tasks or play activities." However, expectations for a preschooler's

attention span are generally lower as compared to school-aged children and adolescents (Silk et

al., 2000). A "short attention span" in a 4 year-old may be viewed as problematic by the child's

parent or caregiver; however, it also may be less indicative of pervasive attention difficulties in a

younger child. As a child matures and expectations for the ability to attend increase, "short

attention span" may be more likely to reflect a significant problem with attention, and thus a

stronger indicator of the construct of ADHD-Inattentive Type. The wording of DSM-IV items

may be particularly important when assessing for these specific symptoms in preschoolers.

Indeed, when discussing developmental modifications of current DSM-IV criteria for

preschoolers, researchers have highlighted the importance of developmentally appropriate

modifications that maintain the clinical meaning of a particular symptom (Egger & Angold,









2004). Differentiating components of the ECBI may be more relevant for older children, when

certain behaviors are inherently more problematic and more indicative of specific disorders.

Exploration of Age-Graded Criteria

Our study failed to find support for the use of age-graded criteria in assigning diagnoses

among 3- to 6-year-olds. Symptom counts of ADHD, ODD, and CD served as significant

predictors of behavior severity, as measured by the corresponding scale on the CBCL. However,

age failed to moderate that relationship. The failure to find support for our hypothesis is likely

related to the truncated age range of the sample. The study of age-related criteria would be more

appropriate across larger age ranges. In their comprehensive review of the presentation and

epidemiology of psychopathology in preschoolers, Egger and Angold (2006) systematically

evaluated the DSM qualification that behaviors included in ODD criteria must occur "often" in

order to represent a true symptom. ODD symptoms naturally occur at a higher frequency in

preschool populations as compared to school-aged children. Thus, applying the cutoff criteria

previously used for school-aged children (above the 90th percentile) for preschoolers would have

overestimated rates of ODD. This example highlights the importance of using established

developmental norms in determining the presence of a symptom (Egger & Angold, 2006), and

supports further study of the use of developmentally modified criteria for different age groups.

Study Limitations

In an effort to increase sample size and the demographic diversity of the study sample, this

study included participants from three different studies. Although all studies examined the

efficacy of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in the treatment of disruptive behavior

disorders and/or ADHD in preschoolers, each study varied in its inclusion criteria. Consequently,

participants differed in diagnostic presentation and demographic characteristics, introducing

variability that may have affected the results. Notably, to provide the sample size necessary,









symptoms entered into the factor analysis were assessed with different instruments. However, all

items mapped onto DSM-IV criteria. Indeed, the confirmation of the DSM-IV structure despite

the methodological difference may argue for the strength of the DSM-IV model. Also of note,

we found few differences in the convergent validity of the different measures, suggesting that

they may provide similarly accurate diagnostic information.

Drawing participants from different studies also introduced variability in the versions used

for study measures. Specifically, children from Project GIFT were assessed with an older version

of the CBCL (Achenbach; 1991; Achenbach, 1992) than children in Projects SHAPE and GANA

(Achenbach; 2000; Achenbach; 2001). Although these versions were highly similar, particularly

in the subscales of interest for this study, there were some differences across measures. Perhaps

most importantly, the 1992 version of the CBCL for 2 and 3-year-old children did not include an

Attention Problems subscale. Thus, 3 year-old children from Project GIFT were excluded from

the analyses involving this measure. However, this represented a relatively small group of

children relative to the entire sample, and it seems unlikely that their inclusion would have

significantly changed the results.

A relatively small sample size is another limitation of the current study. Our sample of 207

was enough to meet the recommendation of 5 cases per item when conducting factor analysis

(Floyd & Widaman, 1995). However, larger sample sizes are considered optimal for factor

analysis. The sample size also prevented cross-validation of either the DSM-IV or ECBI model

by age, race, or gender. Overall, previous research with older children and adolescents supports

the factors implied by the DSM-IV across age groups and gender (Lahey et al., 2008). However,

it will be important to confirm factor invariance in younger children.









The sample size may have affected the clarity of our results, particularly for the factor

analysis of the ECBI. Our findings resulted in an unclear factor structure, which was inconsistent

with some earlier research in this area (Burns & Patterson, 1991; Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis,

Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). However, it is notable that our results are more consistent with a

recent factor analytic study of the ECBI in a sample of 682 preschoolers (Gross et al., 2007).

Overall, results in this area of the literature are conflicted, highlighting the need for future studies

that examine the factor structure of the ECBI in larger samples.

Despite these limitations, findings provide valuable information on current diagnostic

standards and measures for the preschool population. The clinical nature of the sample is a

particular strength of the current study. Much of the literature examining issues of diagnostic

validity for this age group often involves community samples of non-referred children. Although

results from this study may not be generalized to non-clinical children, it seems particularly

important to focus on the children that exhibit the specific disorders. This may be particularly

important in examining diagnosis of CD in preschoolers, as our results found support for two

separate factors of ODD and CD in contrast to findings by Sterba, Egger, & Angold (2007).

Their sample of 307 preschoolers recruited from a primary care clinic may have been less

representative of children with externalizing disorders. The severity of the CD criteria may make

it difficult to establish a clear CD construct in non-clinical samples, particularly in younger

children, for whom certain behaviors are developmentally irrelevant to diagnosis. The

discrepancy of these results highlights the importance of future research that examines CD

symptoms in both clinical and nonclinical samples. Specifically, further study should involve a

broader range of clinical severity, perhaps including children from psychiatric inpatient units or

day treatment facilities.









Future Directions

This study adds to the limited literature on the validity of current diagnostic standards and

assessment methods for preschoolers. Overall, results suggest that DSM-IV categories and

common assessment measures are appropriate for this age group. Future research should

continue to examine the validity and reliability of preschool diagnosis. An important area of

research includes the predictive validity of preschool diagnosis. Although a growing body of

research supports DSM disorders in preschoolers, it is unknown which preschoolers will

continue to demonstrate symptoms into childhood and adolescence. Longitudinal research is

needed on long-term outcomes of children diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorders in early

childhood. Further research in this area will increase our understanding of the factors that

distinguish developmental variations from true psychopathology and promote the continuing

evolution of the DSM.









APPENDIX
STATISTICAL ANALYSES NOT INCLUDED IN MAIN TEXT

Table A-1. One-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR =.10)
ECBI item
12. Gets angry when doesn't get own way .89
8. Does not obey house rules on own .88
10. Acts defiant when told to do something .87
30. Is easily distracted .87
28. Constantly seeks attention .84
6. Slow in getting ready for bed .83
34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .82
32. Fails to finish task or projects .82
35. Is overactive or restless .80
14. Sasses adults .79
2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .79
20. Is careless with toys and other objects .79
16. Cries easily .78
4. Refuses to eat food presented .75
22. Lies .72
9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment .71
24. Verbally fights with friends own age .69
26. Physically fights with friends own age .67
18. Hits parents .63
36. Wets the bed .61
29. Interrupts .56
31. Has short attention span .46
13. Has temper tantrums .46
7. Refuses to go to bed on time .45
21. Steals -.44
5. Refuses to do chores when asked .42
15. Whines .40
17. Yells or screams .36
11. Argues with parents about rules .35
1. Dawdles in getting dressed .26
3. Has poor table manners .22
19. Destroys toys and other objects .12
23. Teases or provokes other children -.06
33. Has difficulty entertaining self alone .05
25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers .01
27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers .01









Table A-2. Two-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR= .08)
ECBI item Factor One Factor Two
12. Gets angry when doesn't get own way .93 .12
8. Does not obey house rules on own .89 .05
10. Acts defiant when told to do something .89 .08
30. Is easily distracted .88 .03
6. Slow in getting ready for bed .85 .08
2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .84 -.16
32. Fails to finish task or projects .83 .02
14. Sasses adults .81 .10
16. Cries easily .81 -.09
34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .80 .06
4. Refuses to eat food presented .78 .11
35. Is overactive or restless .77 .08
20. Is careless with toys and other objects .76 .12
9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment .70 .03
22. Lies .68 .13
24. Verbally fights with friends own age .67 .07
18. Hits parents .65 .08
36. Wets the bed .64 -.09
26. Physically fights with friends own age .63 .14
29. Interrupts .47 .32
28. Constantly seeks attention .46 .32
7. Refuses to go to bed on time .40 .19
31. Has short attention span .39 .28
13. Has temper tantrums .39 .25
5. Refuses to do chores when asked .35 .25
15. Whines .34 .17
11. Argues with parents about rules .30 .16
17. Yells or screams .28 .25
1. Dawdles in getting dressed .24 .08
3. Has poor table manners .11 .38
33. Has difficulty entertaining self alone .01 .15
19. Destroys toys and other objects -.07 .68
23. Teases or provokes other children -.20 .65
25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers -.18 .66
27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers -.17 .61
21. Steals -.61 .57









Table A-3. Three-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR= .06)
ECBI item Factor One Factor Two Factor Three
12. Gets angry when doesn't get own way .91 .05 .01
26. Physically fights with friends own age .84 -.31 -.23
28. Constantly seeks attention .83 .04 .05
24. Verbally fights with friends own age .81 -.20 -.15
30. Is easily distracted .78 .03 .17
14. Sasses adults .76 .06 .09
34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .74 -.07 .15
20. Is careless with toys and other objects .74 .14 .11
10. Acts defiant when told to do something .72 .12 .26
32. Fails to finish task or projects .72 .03 .20
22. Lies .72 -.19 .02
8. Does not obey house rules on own .71 .08 .28
35. Is overactive or restless .68 -.06 .21
18. Hits parents .67 .01 -.03
36. Wets the bed .66 .02 -.04
6. Slow in getting ready for bed .66 .13 .29
2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .61 .23 .33
16. Cries easily .60 .15 .31
4. Refuses to eat food presented .60 .15 .26
9. Refuses to obey until threatened with .45 .09 .42
punishment
29. Interrupts .34 -.22 .33
31. Has short attention span .28 -.20 .29
23. Teases or provokes other children .00 -.70 -.05
19. Destroys toys and other objects .02 -.65 .12
25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers -.06 -.64 .06
27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers -.01 -.62 .00
21. Steals -.59 -.46 .17
3. Has poor table manners -.19 -.16 .63
5. Refuses to do chores when asked .09 -.07 .52
7. Refuses to go to bed on time .14 -.02 .50
1. Dawdles in getting dressed -.05 .10 .49
15. Whines .09 -.02 .46
11. Argues with parents about rules .08 -.01 .43
17. Yells or screams .14 -.14 .34
13. Has temper tantrums .26 -.16 .31
33. Has difficulty entertaining self alone -.11 -.05 .24









LIST OF REFERENCES


Abikoff, H. & Klein, R. G. (1992). Attention-deficit hyperactivity and conduct disorder:
Comorbidity and implications for treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 60, 881-892.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and the 1991 profile.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 and 1992 profile.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T.M. (1995). Diagnosis, assessment, and comorbidity in psychosocial treatment
research. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 23, 45-65.

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manualfor ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, &
Families.

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, &
Families.

American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (3rd ed., Rev.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th
ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

Baker, B., & Heller, T. (1996). Preschool children with externalizing behaviors: Experience of
fathers and mothers. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 24, 513-532.

Barkley, R.A. (2006). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and
treatment (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Bauermeister, J. (1992). Factor analyses of teacher ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity and
oppositional defiant symptoms in children aged four through thirteen years. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 27-34.










Bemporad, J.R., & Schwab, M.E. (1986). The DSM-III and clinical child psychiatry. In T.
Million & G.L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions inpsychopathology: Toward
the DSM-IV(pp. 135-150). New York: Guilford Press.

Boggs, S.R., Eyberg, S., & Reynolds, L.A. (1990). Concurrent validity of the Eyberg Child
Behavior Inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 75-78.

Burns, G.L., Boe, B., Walsh, J.A., Sommers-Flangan, R., & Teegarden, L.A. (2001). A
confirmatory factor analysis on the DSM-IV ADHD and ODD symptoms: What is the
best model for the organization of these symptoms? Journal ofAbnormal Child
Psychology, 29, 339-349.

Burns, G.L., & Patterson, D.R. (1991). Factor structure of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory:
One-dimensional or multidimensional measure of disruptive behavior? Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 439-444.

Burns, G.L., & Patterson, D.R. (2000). Factor structure of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory:
A parent rating scale of oppositional defiant behavior towards adults, inattentive
behavior, and conduct problem behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 569-
577.

Burns, G., Walsh, J., Patterson, D., Holte, C., Sommers-Flanagan, R., & Parker, C. (1997).
Internal validity of the disruptive behavior disorder symptoms: Implications form parent
ratings for a dimensional approach to symptom validity. Journal ofAbnormal Child
Psychology, 25, 307-319.

Campbell, S. (2002). Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and developmental
issues (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.


Chase, R.M. & Eyberg, S.M. (2008). Clinical presentation and treatment outcome for children
with comorbid externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
22, 273-282.

Christiansen, H., Chen, W., Oades, R.D., Asherson, P., Taylor, E.A., Lasky-Su, J., Zhou, K.,
Banaschewski, T., Buschgens, C., Franke, B., Gabriels, I., Manor, I., Marco, R., Muller,
U.C., Mulligan, A., Psychogiou, L., Rommelse, N.N.J., Uebel, H., Buitelaar, J., Ebstein,
R.P., Eisenberg, J., Gill, M., Miranda, A., Mulas, F., Roeyers, H., Rothenberger, A.,
Sergeant, J.A., Sonuga-Barke, H.C., Steinhausen, M., Thompson, M., & Faraone, S.V.
(2008). Co-transmission of conduct problems with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder: Familial evidence for a distinct disorder. Journal ofNeural Transmission, 115,
163-175.









Cole, D., Truglio, R., & Peeke, L. (1997). Relation between symptoms of anxiety and depression
in children: A multitrait-multimethod-multigroup assessment. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 65, 110-119.

Colvin, A., Eyberg, S.M., & Adams, C. (1999). Standardization of the Eyberg Child Behavior
Inventory with chronically ill children. Gainesville: University of Florida, Child Study
Laboratory. Available on-line at http://www.pcit.org

Craighead, W.E. (1991). Cognitive factors and classification issues in adolescent depression.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 20, 311-326.

Doctoroff, G.L., & Arnold, D.H. (2004). Parent-rated externalizing behavior in preschoolers:
The predictive utility of structured interviews, teacher reports, and classroom
observations. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 813-818.

dosReis, S., Zito, S.M., Safer, D.J., Soeken, K.L., Mitchell, J.W., & Ellwood, L.C. (2003).
Parental perceptions and satisfaction with stimulant medication for attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Journal ofDevelopmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 24, 155-162.

DuPaul, G.J., McGoey, K.E., Eckert, T., & VanBrakle, J. (2001). Preschool children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Impairments in behavioral, social, and school
functioning. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40,
508-515.

Egger, H.L. & Angold, A. (2006). Common emotional and behavioral disorders in preschool
children: Presentation, nosology, and epidemiology. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 47, 313-337.

Egger, H.L. & Angold, A. (2004). The preschool age psychiatric assessment (PAPA): A
structured parent interview for diagnosing psychiatric disorders in preschool children. In
R. Delcarmen-Wiggens and A. Carter (Eds.) A Handbook of Infant and Toddler Mental
Health Assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Eisenstadt, T.H., McElreath, L.S., Eyberg, S.M., & McNeil, C.B. (1994). Interparent agreement
on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 16, 21-28.

Eley, T.C., Bolton, D., O'Connor, T.G., Perrin, S., Smith, P., & Plomin, R. (2003). A twin study
of anxiety-related behaviors in pre-school children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 44, 945-960.

Eyberg, S.M. (1992). Parent and teacher behavior inventories for the assessment of conduct
problem behaviors in children. In L. VandeCreek, S. Knapp, & T.L. Jackson (Eds).,
Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book (Vol. 12, pp.377-382). Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Exchange.









Eyberg, S.M., Nelson, M.M., & Boggs, S.R. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for
children and adolescents with disruptive behavior. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 37, 215-237.

Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg
Student Behavior Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.

Eyberg, S.M., & Robinson, E.A. (1983). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of a
behavior rating scale with adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11, 130-
137.

Eyberg, S. M., Schuhmann, E. M., & Rey, J. (1998). Child and adolescent psychotherapy
research: Developmental issues. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 26, 71-82.

Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of
clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299.

Funderburk, B.W., Eyberg, S.M., Rich, B.A., & Behar, L. (2003). Further psychometric
evaluation of the Eyberg and Behar rating scales for parents and teachers of preschoolers.
Early Education and Development, 14, 67-81.

Gadow, K.D. & Sprafkin, J. (2000). Early Childhood inventory -4 Screening Manual. Stony
Brook, NY: Checkmate Plus.

Glutting, J., Youngstrom, E., & Watkins, M. (2005). ADHD and college students: Exploratory
and confirmatory factor structures with student and parent data. Psychological
Assessment, 17, 44-55.

Greene, R. W., Biederman, J., Zerwas, S., Monuteaux, M., Goring, J. C., & Faraone, S. V.
(2002). Psychiatric comorbidity, family dysfunction, and social impairment in referred
youth with oppositional defiant disorder. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 159, 1214-
1224.

Greenhill, L., Kollins, S., Abikoff, H., McCracken, J., Riddle, M., Swanson, J., McGough, J.,
Wigal, S., Wigal, T., Vitiello, B., Skrobala, A., Posner, K., Ghuman, J., Cunningham, C.,
Davies, M., Chuang, S., & Cooper, T. (2006). Efficacy and safety of immediate-release
methylphenidate treatment for preschoolers with ADHD. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 1284-1293.

Gross, D., Fogg, L., Young, M., Ridge, A., Cowell, J., Sivan, A., & Richardson, R. (2007).
Reliability and validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with African-American
and Latino parents of young children. Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 213-223.

Hardy, K.K., Kollins, S.K., Murray, D.W., Riddle, M.A., Greenhill, L.,









Cunningham, C., Abikoff, H.A., McCracken, J.T., Benedetto, V., Davies, M., McGough, J.J.,
Posner, K., Skrobala, A.M., Swanson, J.M., Wigal, T., Wigal, S.B., Ghuman, J.K., &
Chuang, S.Z. (2007). Factor structure of parent- and teacher-rated Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms in the preschoolers with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder treatment study (PATS). Journal of Child andAdolescent
Psychopharmacology, 17, 621-634.

Harwood, M.D., O'Brien, K.A., Carter, C.G., & Eyberg, S.M. (under review). Mental health
services for preschool children in primary care: A survey of maternal attitudes and
beliefs. Journal ofPediatric Psychology.

Henggeler, S.W. & Borduin, C.M. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multisystemic
approach to treating the behavior problems of children and adolescents. Pacific Grove:
CA: Brookes and Cole.

Huffine, C.W. (2002). Conduct disorder should be eliminated from the diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders. In L. Flaherty (ed). Adolescent Psychiatry: The Annals of the
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 26, Hillsdale: NJ: The Analytic Press.

Jensen, P.S., Watanabe, H.K., Richters, J.E., Roper, M., Hibbs, E.D., Salzberg, A.D., & Liu, S.
(1996). Scales, diagnoses, and child psychopathology: II. Comparing the CBCL and the
DISC against external validators. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 24, 151-168.

Keenan, K. & Wakschlag, L. S. (2002). Can a valid diagnosis of disruptive behavior disorder be
made in preschool children? American Journal ofPsychiatry, 159, 351-358.

Keenan, K. & Wakschlag, L.S. (2000). More than the terrible twos: The nature and severity of
behavior problems in clinic-referred preschool children. Journal ofAbnormal Child
Psychology, 28, 33-46.

Koot, H. M, Van Den Oord, E. J. C. G., Verhulst, F. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (1997). Behavioral
and emotional problems in young preschoolers: Cross-cultural testing of the validity of
the child behavior checklist/2-3. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 25, 183-196.

Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1998). The structure and stability of
common mental disorders (DSM-III-R): A longitudinal-epidemiological study. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 107, 216-227.

Lahey, B.B., Rathouz, P.J., Van Hulle, C., Urbano, R.C., Krueger, R.F., Applegate, B., Garriock,
H.A., Chapman, D.A., & Waldman, I.D. (2008). Testing structural models of DSM-IV
symptoms of common forms of child and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 187-206.

Lahey, B., Applegate, B., Waldman, I., Loft, J., Hankin, B., & Rick, J. (2004). The structure of
child and adolescent psychopathology: Generating new hypotheses. Journal ofAbnormal
Psychology, 113, 358-385.










Lahey, B. B., Pelham, W.E., Stein, M A., Loney, J., Trapani, C., Nugent, K., Kipp, H., Schmidt,
E., Lee, S., Cale, M., Gold, E., Hartung, C.M., Willcutt, E., & Baumann, B. (1998).
Validity of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for younger children. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 695-702.

Lavigne, J. V., Arend, R., Rosenbaum, D., Binns, H. J., Christoffel, K K., & Gibbons, R. D.
(1998). Psychiatric disorders with onset in the preschool years, part 1: stability of
diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, 37,
1246-1254.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., & Israel, A. C. (1994). A critical examination of the use of the
term and concept of comorbidity in psychopathology research. Clinical Psychology
Science andPractice, 1, 71-83.

Loeber, R., Burke, J.D., Lahey, B.B., Winters, A., & Zera, M. (2000). Oppositional defiant
disorder and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years, part I. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1468-1484.

Luby, J.L., Heffelfinger, A.K., Mrakotsky, C., Hessler, M.J., Brown, K.M., & Hildebrand, T.
(2002). Preschool major depressive disorder: Preliminary validation for developmentally
modified DSM-IV criteria. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, 928-937.

Lucas, C.P., Fisher, P., Luby, J. (2000) The Young ChildDISC. New York: Columbia DISC
Development Group.

Marsh, H.W. & Hau, K.H. (1996) Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? The
Journal ofExperimental Education, 64, 364-390.

McClellan, J., & Speltz, M. (2003). Psychiatric diagnosis in preschool children. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 127-128.

Muthen, L. & Muthen B. (2005). Chi-square difference testing using the S-B scaled chi-square.
Note on Mplus website, www.statmodel.com.

Newcorn, J. H., Halperin, J. M., Jensen, P. S., Abikoff, H. B., Arnold, E., Cantwell, D. P.,
Conners, C. K., Elliott, G. R., Epstein, J. N., Greenhill, L. L., Hechtman, L., Hinshaw, S.
P., Hoza, B., Kraemer, H. C., Pelham, W. E., Severe, J. B., Swanson, J. M., Wells, K. G.,
Wigal, T., & Vitiello, B. (2001). Symptom profiles in children with ADHD: Effects of
comorbidity and gender. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, 137-146.

Nolan, E. E., Gadow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. (2001). Teacher reports ofDSM-IV ADHD, ODD,
and CD symptoms in schoolchildren. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 241-249.









Nottelmann, E. D. & Jensen, P. S. (1995). Comorbidity of disorders in children and adolescents:
Developmental perspectives. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in
Clinical Child Psychology: Vol. 17 (pp. 109-155). New York: Plenum Press.

Pillow, D.R., Pelham, W.E., Hoza, B., Molina, B.S.G., and Stultz, C.H. (1998). Confirmatory
factor analyses examining attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms and other
childhood disruptive behaviors. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 26, 293-309.

Ross, C.N., Blanc, H.M., McNeil, C.B., Eyberg, S.M., & Hembree-Kigin, T.L. (1998). Parenting
stress in mothers of young children with oppositional defiant disorder and other severe
behavior problems. Child Study Journal, 28, 93-110.

Rushton, J.L., Fant, K.E1, & Clark, S.J. (2004). Use of practice guidelines in the primary care of
children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics, 114, E23-E28.

Schuhmann, E., Foote, R., Eyberg, S.M., Boggs, S., & Algina, J. (1998). Parent-child interaction
therapy: Interim report of a randomized trial with short-term maintenance. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 34-45.

Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C. P., Dulcan, M. K., & Schwab-Stone, M. E. (2000). NIMH
diagnostic interview schedule for children version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description,
differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28-38.

Silk, J. S., Nath, S. R., Siegel, L. R., & Kendall, P.C. (2000). Conceptualizing mental disorders
in children: Where have we been and where are we going? Development and
Psychopathology, 12, 713-735.

Speltz, M., McClellan, J., DeKylen, M., & Jones, K. (1999). Preschool boys with Oppositional
Defiant Disorder: Clinical presentation and diagnostic change. Journal of the American
Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, 38, 838-845.

Spence, S., Rapee, R., McDonald, C., & Ingram, M. (2001). The structure of anxiety symptoms
among preschoolers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 39, 1293-1316.

Sprafkin, J., Volpe, R.J., Gadow, K.D., Nolan, E.E., & Kelly, K. (2002). A DSM-IV-referenced
screening instrument for preschool children: The early childhood inventory-4. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 604-612.

Sterba, S., Egger, H.L., & Angold, A. (2007). Diagnostic specificity and nonspecificity in the
dimensions of preschool psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry,
48, 1005-1013.

Task Force on Research Diagnostic Criteria: Infancy and Preschool. (2003). Research diagnostic
criteria for infants and preschool children: The process and empirical support. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1504-1512.









Thomas, J. & Guskin, K. (2001). Disruptive behavior in young children: What does it mean?
Journal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, 40, 44-51.

Verduin, T.L., Abikoff, H., & Kurtz, S.M.S. (2008). Evidence-based treatment of attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a preschool-age child: A case study. Journal of Clinical
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37, 477-485.

Vitiello, B., Abikoff, H.B., Chuang, S.Z., Kollins, S.H., McCracken, J.T., Riddle, M.A.,
Swanson, J.M., Wigal, T., McGough, J.J., Ghuman, J.K., Wigal, S.B., Skrobala, A.M.,
Davies, M., Posner, K., Cunningham, C., & Greenhill, L.L. (2007). Effectiveness of
methylphenidate in the 10-month continuation phase of the preschoolers with ADHD
treatment study (PATS). Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 17, 593-
603.

Wakefield, J.C., Pottick, K. J., & Kirk, S.A. (2002). Should the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for
conduct disorder consider social context? American Journal ofPsychiatry, 159, 380-386.

Wakschalg, L. S., Leventhal, M. D. & Thomas, M. D. Disruptive behavior disorders & ADHD in
preschool children: Characterizing heterotypic continuities for a developmentally-
informed nosology for DSM V. In D. Reiger, M. First & W. Narrow (Eds). Age and
gender considerations in psychiatric diagnosis: A research agenda for DSM-V.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc. (in press).

Weis, R., Lovejoy, M.C., & Lundahl, B.W. (2005). Factor structure and discriminative validity
of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with young children. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27, 269-278.

Wigal, T. Greenhill, L., Chuang, S., McCough, J., Vitiello, B., Skrobala, A., Swanson, J., Wigal,
S., Abikoff, H., Kollins, S., McCracken, J., Riddle, M., Posner, K., Ghuman, J., Davies,
M., Thorp, B., & Stehli, A. (2006). Safety and tolerability of methylphenidate in
preschool children with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 1294-1303.

Wilens, T., Biederman, J., Spencer, T., & Monuteaux, M. (2003). Psychiatric diagnosis in
preschool children: Reply. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 42, 128-129.

Wilens, T. E., Biederman, J., Brown, S., Tanguay, S., Monuteaux, M.C., Blake, C., & Spencer,
T. J. (2002). Psychiatric comorbidity and functioning in clinically referred preschool
children and school-age youths with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 262-268.

Willoughby, M., Curran, P., Costello, E., & Angold, A. (2000). Implications of early versus late
onset of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1512-1519.









Wolraich, M.L., Felice, M.E., & Drotar, D. (Eds). (1996). The classification of child and
adolescent mental diagnosis in primary care: Diagnosis and Statistical Manual for
Primary Care (DSM-PC) Child and Adolescent Version. Elk Gove, IL: American
Academy of Pediatrics.

World Health Organization (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioral
disorders: Diagnostic criteriafor research, 10th edition. Geneva: World Health
Organization.

Yu, C., & Muthen, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with
categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished Dissertation available online at:
www.statmodel.com.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Rhea Marisa Chase was born in Manchester, Connecticut on October 6, 1979. She

graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in psychology in 2001 from Bates College in Lewiston,

Maine. She then worked in clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston,

Massachusetts for two years. Her graduate work was done in the Department of Clinical and

Health Psychology at the University of Florida, and she completed her predoctoral internship at

Duke University Medical Center. Upon completion of her Ph.D. program, Rhea will begin a post

doctoral position through the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders at Boston University.





PAGE 1

1 DIAGNOSTIC VALIDITY OF DSM SYMPTOMS AND CRITERIA FOR PRESCHOOLERS: DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER SYMPTOMS By RHEA MARISA CHASE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Rhea Marisa Chase

PAGE 3

3 In loving memory of my mother, Paula Joyce Chas e. Her strength is my inspiration, her wisdom a source of guidance, and her love a constant support.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank m y mentor and chair, Dr. Sheila Eybe rg, for her unending enthusiasm and constant encouragement. I am very appreciative to th e members of my docto ral committee for their guidance, and would like to thank Dr. Michael Marsiske for his statis tical knowledge and the amazing skill and patience with which he teach es others. I would also like to thank Dr. Chongming Yang for introducing me to the MPlus program. I thank Drs. Kristen McCabe and Christopher Lucas, as well as members of the Child Study Laboratory at the University of Florida, for their contributions to the current rese arch. This dissertation is the culmination of five rewarding but challenging years. I am eternally gr ateful to the many friends and family members who have supported me along the way. I especia lly acknowledge my father, Stephen Chase, whose love and support has been critical to a ny success I have achieved in graduate school.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................11 ADHD and the Disruptive Behavior Disorders ...................................................................... 14 Validity of the DSM-IV Nosology.........................................................................................15 Issues in Preschool Diagnosis................................................................................................. 18 Current Assessment Strategies............................................................................................... 20 Developmental Modifications to Current DSM Standards .....................................................23 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....24 2 METHODS.............................................................................................................................27 Participants.............................................................................................................................27 Project GIFT....................................................................................................................27 Project GANA.................................................................................................................28 Project SHAPE................................................................................................................28 Measures.................................................................................................................................29 Procedures..................................................................................................................... ..........32 Confirmatory Factor Analys is and Model Evaluation ............................................................32 3 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................36 Participant Characteristics.................................................................................................... ..36 Symptom and Diagnostic Patterns.......................................................................................... 37 Confirmatory Factor Analyses of DSM Symptoms................................................................ 38 Validity of the Three Assessment Methods............................................................................ 39 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of th e Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory ............................... 40 Exploration of Age-Graded Criteria....................................................................................... 42 4 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................56 Validity of the DSM-IV for Preschoolers............................................................................... 56 Validity of Assessment Measures........................................................................................... 60 Factor Analysis of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory ......................................................62 Exploration of Age-Graded Criteria....................................................................................... 64

PAGE 6

6 Study Limitations.............................................................................................................. ......64 Future Directions....................................................................................................................67 APPENDIX: STATISTICAL ANALYSES NOT INCLUDED IN MAIN TEXT ........................ 68 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................71 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................80

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Overview of relevant measures across datasets.................................................................35 3.1 Participant characteristics................................................................................................ ..45 3-2 Individual symptom percentages acr oss the DIS C-IV, YC-DISC, and ECI-4..................46 3-3 Percentage of diagnosis across assessm ent method........................................................... 47 3-4 Absolute, relative, and component m odel fit for three DSM-IV CFA models .................. 48 3-5 Four-factor solution of DSM-IV symptoms...................................................................... 49 3-6 Correlations among DSM-IV factors................................................................................. 50 3-7 Pearson correlations between symptom counts and CBCL and ECBI scores...................51 3-8 Absolute, relative, and component model fit for ECBI m odels......................................... 52 3-9 The CFA of the three-factor model of the ECBI............................................................... 53 3-10 One-factor CFA of the ECBI............................................................................................. 54 A-1 One-factor EFA of the Eyberg Chil d Behavior Inventory(E CBI) (RMSR = .10)............. 68 A-2 Two-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(E CBI) (RMSR = .08)............ 69 A-3 Three-factor EFA of the Eyberg Chil d Behavior Inventory(E CBI) (RMSR = .06).......... 70

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Path diagram of four-factor solution of DSM-IV sym ptoms of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD.................................................................................. 55

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DIAGNOSTIC VALIDITY OF DSM SYMPTOMS AND CRITERIA FOR PRESCHOOLERS: DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER SYMPTOMS By Rhea Marisa Chase August 2008 Chair: Sheila M. Eyberg Major: Psychology Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the disruptive behavior disorders of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) represent the most common child psychological disorders diagnosed today, and are increasingly being diagnosed in preschool-aged children. Developmental theory s uggests that the criteria outlined in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Ma nual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) may be inappropriate for younger children, but very little research has examined the validity of these diagnostic categories and assessment measures fo r this age group. This study therefore explored the validity of current diagnos tic standards and assessment m easures of ADHD, ODD, and CD specifically in preschool-aged children. The sample consisted of 207 childr en aged three to six years referred for treatment of symptoms of AD HD and disruptive behavior. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare three possible sy mptom models of these diagnoses: (a) a fourfactor model of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD currently implied by the DSM-IV; (b) a three-factor model that combin ed ADHD symptoms into one single factor, but included separate constructs of ODD and CD; and (c) a three-factor model allowing for separate ADHD-Inattentive and ADHD-Hyperactive factors but collapsed symptoms of ODD and CD

PAGE 10

10 into one disruptive behavior construct. Finding s supported the four-factor model represented by the DSM-IV, which provided superior fit for the data as compared to both of the less differentiated models. The study also further explored current assess ment strategies with this age group. We assessed and compared the validity of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV), the Young Ch ild Version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (YC-DISC), and the fourth edition of the Early Childhood Inventory (ECI4). All measures demonstrated similar correla tions with other measures of child behavior, suggesting comparable validity across measures for this age group. Overal l, results support the use of DSM-IV diagnostic categories with pr eschool-aged children and add to the limited research on the validity of current assessmen t methods for young children. These findings help promote accurate identification and subsequent tr eatment of psychopathology in preschoolers.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Am erican Psychiatric Association (APA) introduced its first catalogue of mental disorders in 1952, largely in response to the in creased prevalence and awareness of mental disturbance following World War II (Silk et al., 2000). The origin al version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (D SM-I; APA, 1952) made no distinction between child and adult disorders. A child could be given any adult diagnosis, with little consideration to any developmental differences in classification or expression of a diso rder (Silk et al., 2000). The second edition of the DSM (DSM-II; APA, 1968) introduced a section entitled Behavior Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence, which included such diagnoses as hyperkinetic reaction of childhood and overa nxious reaction of childhood. DSM-II therefore began to consider the differences in the expression of psychopathology in childr en and adolescents as compared to adults. However, the DSM-II emphasi zed that these categorie s should be used only when no other classification was possible, as this nascent childhood disturbance most likely represented a developing adult disorder. The nos ology of DSM-II reflected the widespread belief that psychopathology in adulthood could always be traced back to childhood and adolescence, and child mental illness could be conceptualized as a slowly emerging di sorder that would be fully realized in adulthood (Silk et al., 2000). Thus, although the DSM-II recognized that the developing child may differ from the adult in the symptomatic expression of psychological disturbance, its theoretical framew ork suggested that the disorder was always present in the same form, but may not have fully re vealed itself in a young child. The third edition of the DS M (DSM-III; APA, 1980) underwent major revisions in diagnostic method and overall approach to clas sifying psychopathology. For the first time, the DSM-III included detailed descriptions of ment al disorders and specific criteria for each

PAGE 12

12 category. The DSM-III rejected the psychoanaly tic framework underlying its previous edition and instead based diagnoses on empirically derived categories. The DSM-III also stipulated that a disorder is characterized by functional impairment and subject ive distress from the patient. The multiaxial system was first introduced in the DSM-III, which required clinicians to assess developmental disorders, personality disorders, medical conditions, and global functioning. The DSM-III also provided information on clinical presen tation of disorders, such as age of onset and gender differences (APA, 1980). Inclusion of thes e factors demonstrated some acknowledgement of the role of context and environmen t in the expression of psychopathology. The number of specific childhood disorders signi ficantly increased from the second to the third edition of the DSM (Bemporad & Schw ab, 1986). The DSM-II section of Behavior Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence included s hort and somewhat vague descriptions of a range of child problem behaviors, including runa way reaction of childhood or adolescence and unsocialized aggressive reaction of chil dhood or adolescence (DSM-II; APA, 1968). The DSM-III introduced the specific disruptive behavior disorders of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD). ODD is charact erized by a pattern of child noncompliance and disrespect for adult authority, while CD is ch aracterized by a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic ri ghts of others or major age-appr opriate societal norms or rules are violated (APA, 1980). The DSM-III also further developed the DSM-II diagnosis of hyperkinetic reaction of childhood and introduced the diagnosis of Atten tion Deficit Disorder (ADD), which was viewed primarily as a disorder of inattention and could be diagnosed with or without hyperactivity. The refineme nt of childhood disorders conti nued with the revised version of the DSM-III, which included age-appropriate modi fications to several symptoms in an attempt to increase their developmental sensitivity (DSM-III-R; APA, 1987). Im portantly, the DSM-III-

PAGE 13

13 R was the first version to use research from DS M field trials to clarify and validate diagnoses, and results from these trials were used to inform and refine diagnostic cr iteria for several child disorders, including the former ADD category now classified as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; DSM-III-R; APA, 1987). The fourth edition of the DSM (DSM-IV; AP A, 1994) continued to develop childhood diagnoses and expand subtypes of certain child disorders. DSM-IV criteria for ODD require that children meet four out of eight possible symptoms, such as: arguing with adults, actively defying or refusing to comply with adults requests or ru les, and deliberately a nnoying others. CD criteria have changed somewhat since the disorders fi rst appearance in the DS M-III, although the core feature, involving blatant and persistent disregard for others or so cietal rules, has remained the same. Current criteria necessitate three or more behaviors relating to aggression, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft, and major violations of societal no rms or rules. The text of the DSM-IV states that a diagnosis of CD should re flect internal psychologi cal dysfunction and not a reaction to a negative environment. However, this qualification is not included in DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, leading some to question the clinical utility of this text comment (Wakefield, Pottick, & Kirk, 2002). The DSM-IV also revised the diagnostic cat egories related to ADHD, which now consist of three subtypes: predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive, and combined type. Children must meet six of nine possible inatte ntive symptoms, such as difficulty sustaining attention and organizing tasks a nd activities, or six of nine hype ractivity/impulsivity symptoms, such as fidgeting or squirming and interrupting or intruding on others. To warrant a diagnosis of ODD or ADHD, symptoms must have persisted for at least 6 months; in th e case of CD, three or more criterion symptoms must have been present w ithin the last twelve m onths, with at least one

PAGE 14

14 present in the previous six mont hs. As with all DSM-IV categor ies, the symptoms must cause significant impairment in everyday functioning to indicate a true di sorder (DSM-IV; APA, 1994). ADHD and the Disruptive Behavio r Disorders ADHD and the disruptive behavior disord ers, ODD and CD, are the most common childhood disorders diagnosed today. ODD and CD ar e estimated to occur in 2 to 16% of schoolage children, depending on the population sampled and the method of assessment (Loeber et al., 2000). ODD prevalence tends to be highest in younger samples whereas the more severe behaviors inherent in the diagnos is of CD become more prevalen t at older ages. Additionally, the CD diagnosis supersedes that of ODD if symptoms of both disorders are present; thus, the two disorders are viewed on a spectrum of severity. ADHD is diagnosed in 1 to 5% of school-aged children (APA, 1994) and 2% of preschool-a ged children (Lavigne et al., 1998), although community studies based on teacher report have included estimates as high as 16% (Nolan, Gadow, & Sprafkin, 2001). ODD/CD and ADHD are linke d with a myriad of detrimental effects on a variety of psychosocial outcom es and are associated with hi gher levels of parenting stress (Baker & Heller, 1996; DuPaul et al., 2001), gr eater social impairment (DuPaul et al., 2001; Greene et al., 2002; Wilens et al., 2002), and increased risk for emotional problems (Thomas & Guskin, 2001) when compared to controls. Th e disruptive behavior disorders and ADHD are generally recognized as common childhood disord ers that warrant early identification and treatment (Abikoff & Klein, 1992; Ross, et al., 1998). Complicating the clinical presentation of these common childhood disorders is the high rate of overlap among them. As noted above ODD and CD reflect similar patterns of negativistic, defiant, and hostile be haviors, and CD is conceptualiz ed as a more severe form of ODD. In fact, some researchers have proposed the elimination of CD from the DSM, as

PAGE 15

15 diagnostic criteria include a wide range of heter ogeneous behaviors that ge nerally reflect deviant and defiant behaviors; Huffine ( 2002) argues that the diagnosis of CD has little clinical utility and does not relate to any speci fic treatment program beyond those typically used to target symptoms of ODD. Additionally, high rates of comorbid ODD/CD and ADHD are well documented, particularly in school-aged samples, with estimates of co-occurrence ranging from 30 to 62% (Newcorn et al., 2001; Wilens et al., 2002). These findings call into question the uniqueness of these disorders and have led to the proposal of an ODD/CD subtype of ADHD (Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995; Christiansen et al., 2008). Validity of the DSM-IV Nosology Com orbidity in child psychopathology is common, with estimates as high as 75% (Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995). One explanation for the high rates of comorbidity relates to the idea that comorbid disorders could result from con ceptual flaws in our current diagnostic system. That is, comorbidity may reflect a methodological artifact: a failure of the DSM to represent properly the constructs underlyi ng psychological disorders. The hi gh rates of comorbidity might suggest that a more parsimonious nosology would be more accurate than that currently implied by the DSM (Lilienfeld, Waldman, & Israel, 1994; Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998). This argument is particularly salient when discussi ng child psychological disorders. It has been proposed that due to their deve lopmental level, children vulne rable to psychological problems are more likely to demonstrate a range of ps ychological symptoms that cut across different diagnostic categories (Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995). Indeed, the differentiation of child psychological disorders is often difficult to establish; resear ch involving the internalizing disorders suggests that anxiety and depressive symptoms are fr equently undifferentiated in young children (Cole, Truglio, & Peeke, 1997). It has been argued that specific psychopathology dimensions evolve with development (Craighead 1991) and that a more general framework of

PAGE 16

16 externalizing and internalizi ng disorders may be more rele vant in diagnosing young children (Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995). The differentiation of DSM-IV disorders in child and adolescent samples has become an increasing area of interest within the literature. St udies of this nature ge nerally involve subjecting DSM symptoms to confirmatory factor analys is to determine whether the underlying factor structure implied by the DSM-IV provides the best fit for th e data or whether a more parsimonious model is more appropriate (Sterb a, Egger, & Angold, 2007). In summarizing the current literature on DSM syndrome differentiati on, Lahey and colleagues (2004) conclude that many areas of psychopathology ar e well-represented by the c onstructs implied by DSM-IV criteria. However, results are more ambiguous in differentiating between Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disord er (CD) and between the two t ypes of ADHD (Lahey et al., 2004). Several factor analytic studies support separate inattentive a nd hyperactive-impulsive factors within the constellation of ADHD symp toms (Lahey et al., 2008; Glutting, Youngstrom, & Watkins, 2005; Willoughby, Curran, Costello, & Angold, 2000). However, some research suggests a unidimensional ADHD factor, particular ly for younger children. One study found that a unifactorial model of ADHD wa s most appropriate for 4 -5 year-old children, whereas a bifactorial model was the best fit for 6 7 year-old children (Bauermeister, 1992). Differentiation between ODD and CD has also been difficult to establish, primarily because of the low occurrence of CD symptoms in both child and adolescent samples. Some studies have combined ODD and CD symptoms and focused on its differentiation from ADHD (Pillow, Pelham, Hoza, Molina, & Stultz, 1998), while others simply exclude CD symptoms because of their low frequency and focus only on the differentiation between ODD and ADHD

PAGE 17

17 (Burns, Boe, Walsh, Sommers-Flanagan, & Teegar den, 2001). When CD symptoms are allowed to map onto their own latent construct, however evidence supports its di fferentiation from ODD (Lahey et al., 2008; Burns et al. 1997). Lahe y and colleagues (2008) directly compared the DSM-IV model, with separate ODD and CD factor s, with a combined ODD/CD model inherent in the International Cl assification of Diseases (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 1993) and found support for separate ODD and CD factors. Notably, the majority of research vali dating the DSM structure of psychopathology involves school-aged children and adolescents. To date, only three studies have employed confirmatory factor analysis to validate DSM-IV disorders in preschool populations. Two of these studies focused on anxiety disorders a nd found support for separa te constructs of separation anxiety, social anxiety, obsessive compulsive di sorder, specific phobias, and generalized anxiety disorder (Eley et al., 2003; Spence, Rapee, McDonald, & Ingram, 2001). A recent study by Sterba, Egger, & Angold (2007) sought to confirm DSM categories across both internalizing and externalizing di sorders in a sample of 307 2to 5-year-olds recruited from a primary care clinic. DSM-IV symptoms of AD HD, ODD, and CD, as well as social phobia, separation anxiety, and generali zed anxiety disorder were assessed with the Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment (PAPA). Separate confirma tory models were run for the internalizing versus externalizing disorders. Within the disruptive behavior disorder models, a 4-factor model of ADHD-Inattentive ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD was compared with two 3-factor models, one of which collapsed inattentive and hyperactive symptoms into a single ADHD factor, while the other combined ODD and CD symptoms. Results support ed the three-factor model that included separate ADHD-Inattentiv e and ADHD-Hyperactive factors but combined ODD and CD symptoms into one factor. The authors concluded that an undifferentiated

PAGE 18

18 ODD/CD construct seems most relevant to presch oolers. However, further research examining CD symptoms in preschoolers is necessary given the conflicti ng results surroundi ng the validity of separate ODD and CD factor s within child populations (S terba, Egger, & Angold, 2007; Burns et al., 1997). Indeed, further research speci fically examining CD symptoms in clinical preschool populations seems warranted. The disruptive behavior disorders and ADHD are increasingly being diagnosed in preschool populations, highlighting the need for further assessment of the validity of these disorders in this age group. Issues in Preschool Diagnosis Diagnosing psychopathology in preschool aged children raises im portant questions regarding developmental considerations for this population. As disc ussed above, it was only recently that the DSM began to consider differen ces between children and adults, and the current diagnostic system reflected by the DSM-IV prov ides few modifications for very young children. These may be important issues, as the rapid de velopment characterizing early childhood makes it difficult to assure that maladaptive symptoms are a sign of true psychopathology and not a variation of normal child development. Additiona lly, the DSM provides little information on the normative development of young children to guide diagnostic decisions in this age group (Eyberg, Schuhmann, & Rey, 1998; Egger & Angold, 2004). These issues in preschool diagnosis are partic ularly relevant in the diagnoses of ODD, CD, and ADHD. Due to their cognitive and social de velopment, and the struggle for independence from their parents that commonly occurs in the second or third year, some level of aggression and noncompliance is expected in preschool-a ged children (Campbell, 2002). Thus, a certain level of disruptive behavior symptoms may be present as part of nor mal child development. Similarly, all preschool children are expected to display some level of inattention and hyperactivity. A young child may have difficulty s itting still and sustaining attention, and

PAGE 19

19 generally demonstrate certain ADHD behaviors as part of their natural development. Consequently, the boundaries between normative and pathological may be particularly challenging to establish when assessing for ODD, CD, or ADHD in young children. The diagnosis of CD in preschoolers is particularly controversial, and th e validity of this diagnosis in very young children has been hotly debated (McC lellan & Speltz, 2003; Wilens et al., 2003). One study followed a sample of 92 preschooler s diagnosed with ODD over two years and found very low rates of the CD diagnosis over time (Speltz, McClellan, DeKylen, & Jones, 1999). The authors argued that most CD criteria are irreleva nt to preschoolers due to their developmental level and typical environment. In contrast, however, several st udies have found support for the diagnosis in clinical populati ons, with estimates ranging from 22 to 40% (Schuhmann, Foote, Eyberg, Boggs, & Algina, 1998; Keenan & Wakschlag, 2000; Wilens et al., 2002). Research does support th e validity of these disorders in ve ry early childhood in regards to distress and interference in daily functioning. Pr eschoolers diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorders demonstrate clinically significant levels of aggressi on, noncompliance, and destructive behavior that lead to impairments in soci al, academic, and family functioning (Keenan & Wakschlag, 2000; Keenan & Wakschlag, 2002). Si milarly, preschoolers diagnosed with ADHD demonstrate significant social and academic impair ment relative to contro ls (Lahey et al., 1998), and ADHD preschoolers display similar impairment s in functioning when compared to their school-aged counterparts (Wilens et al., 2002). Therefore, evid ence supports the validity of ODD/CD and ADHD in preschoolers, but questions remain regarding the applicability of the current diagnostic standards to younger populations Research is needed to determine whether younger children are accurately classified accordi ng to the categories included in the DSM-IV.

PAGE 20

20 Further study in this area is crucial to promote effective assessment and subsequent treatment in this age group. Current Assessment Strategies Along with further efforts to validate ADHD and the disruptive behavior disorders in young children is the need to im prove our assess ment of these diagnos es in the preschool population. Relatively few measures have been specifically deve loped for preschoolers; more commonly, assessment methods developed for ol der children are applied to younger children. One important direction therefore includes furt her study of the validity and reliability of commonly used assessment instruments for preschoolers. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV; Shaffer et al., 2000) is a structured diagnostic interview of child psychopathology based on DSM-IV criteria. The DISC-IV is a highly structured diagnostic interview that is commonly used to assess psychopathology in child ren, particularly in research studies. A parent version (DISC-IV-P) exists for parents or caregivers of 6to 17-year-olds, and a child self-report (DISC -IV-C) is used for 9-to 17-year-olds. Some research studies have used the DISC-P with parents of children as young as 4 (Speltz, McClellan, DeKlyen, & Jones, 1999), but most research on this instrument involve s older children and adolescents. A recent modification of the DISC-IV was designed to increase its developmental sensitivity for preschoolers (Young Child Version of the Dia gnostic Interview Schedule for Children; (YCDISC; Lucas, Fisher, & Luby, 2000). The YC-DISC differs from the DISC-IV by modifying the language of symptoms to be more appropriate for young children. The interview also modified the time frame for each symptom. In the DISC -IV, parents are asked whether a symptom has been present for the past month and then for the past year. The YC-DISC asks only whether a symptom has been present for the past three months This newly developed instrument has yet to be studied empirically to determine its validity in this age group.

PAGE 21

21 The Early Childhood Inventory, fourth edition (ECI-4) is a parent behavior rating scale that screens for DSM-IV emotional and behavioral disorders and is spec ifically designed for children between 3 and 6 years old (Gadow & Sp rafkin, 2000). Parents are asked to rate the frequency of specific behaviors that map onto DSM criteria for common child diagnoses. However, certain symptoms deemed developmen tally irrelevant are excluded, such as the truancy item from the CD module. Additionally, the wording of certain items is altered to increase their developmental sensitivity. The ECI-4 may be scored according to either the categorical or dimens ional approach. Structured and semi-structured interviews ba sed on DSM criteria represent the categorical approach to diagnosis in which a disorder is rated as either pr esent or absent. Behavior rating scales, in which a childs behavi or is rated along a continuum a nd then compared to a normative sample, represent the dimensional approach. Both approaches include their own strengths and weaknesses. Categorical approach es have been criticized for p oor specificity; some research suggests high false-positive rates across diagnostic categories. Cate gorical approaches have also been criticized for failing to account for overlappi ng symptoms, subsequently inflating rates of comorbidity (Achenbach, 1995). Dimensional scales are not without their own weaknesses, and have been criticized for poor sensitivity a nd for failing to provide important information regarding onset, duration, and severity of symp toms. Although the relative superiority of these two approaches has been a popular area of debate research does not clearly support one method over the other. Jensen and colleagues (1996) dire ctly compared these two approaches and found little difference between them. Both the dimens ional approach (i.e., Child Behavior Checklist; CBCL) and the categorical appro ach (i.e., DISC, Version 2.1) demonstrated low to moderate correlations with a variety of external validators, such as schoo l impairment, service utilization,

PAGE 22

22 and psychosocial and developmental risk factor s. The authors conclude d that, rather than debating the superior assessment te chnique, efforts should instead be directed towards validating diagnostic categories, because neither the cate gorical nor dimensional approach exhibited particularly strong relations with the external validators (Jensen et al., 1996). Currently, the gold standard of diagnosis involves a combina tion of categorical and dimensional approaches. The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECB I) is a widely used parent rating scale measuring disruptive behavior disorders in child ren ages 2 to 16 (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The validity and reliability of this measure is well-established (Boggs, Eyberg, & Reynolds, 1990; Funderburk, Eyberg, Rich, & Behar, 2003). The E CBI has also been correlated with diagnostic interview ratings specifically in a preschool sample (Doctoroff & Arnold, 2004). The ECBI was originally designed as a unidimensional measur e of disruptive behavior (Eyberg & Robinson, 1983), and some studies confirm that a one-factor model provides the best fit for the structure of the ECBI (Eyberg, 1992; Colvin, Eyberg, & Adam s, 1999; Gross et al., 2007). However, other researchers have found evidence for three sepa rate factors within the ECBI representing oppositional defiant behavior, conduct problems, and attention difficulties (Burns & Patterson, 1991; Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). If a three factor structure is valid, then component scores may be useful in screening for the specific disorders. However, current data are mixed, and more research is warranted before th ese three factors are used as separate diagnostic indicators. No tably, the two recent studies that examined the factor structure of the ECBI specifically in preschool samples fo und conflicting results. In their predominantly Caucasian sample of 2 to 6-year-old childre n, Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl (2005) found support for the three-factor structure, whereas a more ethnically diverse sample of 2 to 4-year-olds resulted in a one factor model (Gross et al., 2007). Both of these studies i nvolved community,

PAGE 23

23 rather than clinical, samples. Future research examining the underlying factor structure of the ECBI therefore should focus on clinic-referred preschool populations. Developmental Modifications to Current DSM Standards The field is increas ing its focus on the e xpression of psychological disorders in preschoolers. Along with recognition that certain behaviors listed in the DSM are, in fact, found in normally developing children, comes the reali zation that a more appr opriate approach to diagnosis in children may involve developmentally modified criteria. So me researchers argue that criteria should be less stringent for younger children because it would be unrealistic for young children to demonstrate stable patterns of problem behaviors (Luby et al., 2002); others argue for more stringent criteria, given that fleeting problem behavior s can characterize normal development (Wakschlag, Leventhal, & Thomas, in press). Limited research has systematically explored developmental modifications to DSM cr iteria, yet this research is increasingly recognized as an important future direction to improve the developmental sensitivity of current diagnostic tools (Wakschlag, Leventhal, & Th omas, in press; Egger & Angold, 2004; Eyberg, Schuhmann, & Rey, 1998). One mechanism that may increase developm ental sensitivity invol ves the use of agegraded criteria. According to the DSM-IV, a six-year-old and a fourteen-year-old must demonstrate the same number of symptoms to warrant a diagnosis of ADHD. This standard seems somewhat counterintuitive given that the six-year-old will natura lly be more active and less attentive than the fourteen-year-old. The young child is therefore more likely to receive the diagnosis, even if the adolescent deviates more se verely from age-appropriate behaviors (Silk et al., 2000). The concept of age-graded criteria is particularly relevant in diagnosing preschool ADHD; the high rates of ADHD-lik e behaviors in typically deve loping children has led to the recommendation of longer symptom duration for very young child ren (Barkley, 2006). Thus, the

PAGE 24

24 field is beginning to consider the possibility of di fferent criteria for vari ous developmental levels. Although the DSM-IV advises its us ers to consider what is developmentally appropriate for a child of a certain age, this is a vague reco mmendation, and it is unclear how much credence clinicians give to this warning. A more formal age-graded system based on developmental norms would concretize the importance of the childs developmental leve l in assigning diagnoses. This concept is included in the Di agnostic and Statistical Manual for Primary Care (DSM-PC; Wolraich, Felice, & Drotar, 1996), developed to facilitate the identification of psychological disorders in the primary care setting. The fram ework of the DSM-PC reflects the idea that psychopathology occurs along a spectrum: the clinician can classify problematic child behaviors as developmental variations, problems, and disord ers, with each category denoting an increasing level of problem severity. The category of devel opmental variation allows the clinician to recognize that a child behavior viewed as problematic to the caregiver may reflect a normative variation of child development. Problems include those behaviors that may be distressing or causing some impairment in the childs overall functioning but do not warrant a formal DSM-IV diagnoses. The final category of disorders reflects those ca tegorized in the DSM-IV. The DSM-PC also includes concrete examples of de velopmental variations, problems, and disorders across different age groups. Thus, the DSM-PC recognizes that psychopathology occurs along a continuum, and that the level at which a behavior is reflective of psychopathology is influenced by child age (Wolraich, Felice, & Drotar, 1996). Research Questions This study was designed to exam ine the valid ity of DSM-IV symptoms for ODD, CD, and ADHD in preschoolers and explor e the validity of current dia gnostic assessment measures for this age group. The study also examined relations between DSM symptoms, symptom severity,

PAGE 25

25 and child age, to serve as a preliminary examin ation of age-graded criteria for the disruptive behavior disorders and ADHD. The first aim of this study was to examine th e validity of the DSM constructs of ODD, CD, and ADHD in a clinical presc hool sample. Specifically, we focused on the differentiation between the different subtypes of ADHD, as well as separate factors of ODD and CD. The majority of previous research supports two separate factors relating to the inattentive and hyperactive domains within ADHD, even within a preschool sample. Add itionally, a recent study found support for collapsing ODD and CD symptoms into one single construct of disruptive behavior. We therefore hypothesi zed that a three-factor model, with constructs representing ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and ODD/CD w ould provide the best fit in a sample of clinic-referred preschoolers. The second specific aim further examined curre nt assessment techniques with a preschool sample. We compared the validity of three measures commonly used to assign DSM-IV symptoms and diagnoses. Specifically, symptom counts from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV; Schaffer et al., 2000), th e Young-Child version of the DISC (YC-DISC; Lucas, Fisher, & Luby, 2000), and the Early Ch ildhood Inventory (ECI-4; Gadow & Sprafkin, 2000) were correlated with other measures of ch ild disruptive behavior, including the Attention Problems and Aggressive Behavior subscales from the Child Beha vior Checklist (CBCL) and the ECBI. We hypothesized that the three assessment methods would demonstrate similar correlations with other measures of child behavior, suggesting similar validity across diagnostic interview type. To examine further a commonl y used dimensional measure of disruptive behavior in preschoolers, we c onducted a confirmatory factor anal ysis of the ECBI to determine whether a three factor model whic h maps onto the three externaliz ing behavior diagnoses can be

PAGE 26

26 confirmed in a diverse clinical sample of preschoolers. In light of the range of literature that supports a three-factor model of the ECBI, we hypothesized that the three factors would provide good fit in a diverse sample of clinic-referred preschoolers. The final set of specific aims was related to the idea that children of different ages may vary in the number of sympto ms required to warrant a clinic al diagnosis. Specifically, we examined whether number of symptoms would be a significant predictor of severity on the relevant subscale of the CBCL and whether age would moderate that relationship. We hypothesized that number of ADHD symptoms would predict attention problem scores on the CBCL and that age would moderate the relationshi p such that the positive relationship between ADHD symptom count and attention problems would be stronger for older children. We also hypothesized that number of ODD symptoms would predict scores on the externalizing subscale of the CBCL and that age would moderate the re lationship such that the relationship between ODD symptom count and externalizing behavior w ould be stronger for older children. Finally, we hypothesized that number of CD symptoms would predict scor es on the aggressive behavior subscale of the CBCL and that age would moderate the relationship such that the relationship between CD symptom count and aggressive beha vior would be stronger for older children.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 2 METHODS Participants Participants were 207 children between the ag es of 3 and 6, inclusive, who received a diagnosis of ADHD, ODD, CD, or a com binati on of ADHD and ODD/CD. To increase sample size and to allow adequate power for the type of statistical analyses propo sed, participants were drawn from several studies, each of which is described below. All children were involved in research on the effectiveness of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCI T). Exclusion criteria included immediate crisis requiring hospitaliz ation or out-of-home placement. Project GIFT A subset of participants was drawn from a st udy of PCIT and the maintenance of treatment gains (Project GIFT). One hundred boys and girls be tween the ages of 3 and 6 were enrolled in the study after being referred to a university psychology outpatient clinic for treatment of behavior problems; data were available from 99 of the original 100 participants. Families were referred for treatment by pediatricians, teachers, other mental health providers, or were selfreferred. Inclusion criteria for Pr oject GIFT stated that the child must meet DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of ODD and must live with at least one parent able to participate in treatment. Children were excluded from the study if they scored below a standard score of 70 or if their parent scored below a standard score of 75 on cognitive screening measures, if they had a major sensory impairment such as blindness, or if they had been diagnosed with a pervasive developmental disorder. Children who were taking psychotropic medication were required to be stabilized on this medication for at le ast one month prior to entering the study.

PAGE 28

28 Project GANA Another sub set of participants was drawn from a study of the efficacy of PCIT with Mexican American families (Project GANA). Participants were 58 Mexican American families of 3to 7-year-old children w ith clinically significant behavior problems seen for treatment at a community mental health clinic; the three 7-ye ar-old children were dropped from the current study, leaving data from 55 participants. Families were referred from schools/teachers, hospitals or other clinics, social workers, or were self-referred. Families were eligible if they met the following criteria: (1) Parent identified the child as a Mexican American child between the ages of 3 and 7, (2) Child received a score above the clinical cutpoint on the Intensity Scale of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999), and (3) Neither parent nor child were participating simultaneously in any ot her psychosocial treatment targeting the childs behavior problems. Project SHAPE The final group of participants was d rawn from an ongoing study on the efficacy of PCIT in treating children with ADHD and comorbid ADHD + ODD (Project SHAPE). Data from 53 boys and girls between the ages of 4 and 6 were available for the current study. Families were referred for treatment by pediatricians, teachers, other mental health providers, or were selfreferred. Inclusion criteria for Pr oject SHAPE stated that the child must meet DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of ADHD, either hyperactive/impulsive or combined type. Due to the need to establish the presence of ADHD sympto ms across two or more settings (APA; 1994), children were required to attend preschool or daycare for some part of each week. They were also required to live with a fema le primary caregiver able to participate in treatment. Along with a diagnosis of ADHD, some of the children a dditionally met criteria for ODD. Children were excluded from the study if they scored below a st andard score of 70 or if their parent scored

PAGE 29

29 below a standard score of 75 on cognitive screening measures, if they had a major sensory or mental impairment such as blindness, or if they had been diagnosed with a pervasive developmental disorder. One of the specific aims of Project SHAPE involved the investigation of the effectiveness of psychosocial, rather than pharmacological, treatment of ADHD. Therefore, children using psychotropic medications were excluded from this particular study. Measures Demographic and Background que stionnaire: Parent questionnaires were used to obtain descriptive information about the child and family including sex, age, race/ethnicity, occupation, education level, and medical history. Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The ECBI is a 36item parent rating scale of disrup tive behavior. The ECBI Intensity Scale measures the frequency with which disruptive behavior occurs on a likert scale from 1 to 7, and the Problem Scale asks whether the parent finds the beha vior problematic for themselves on a yes-no scale. The Intensity and Problem Scales of the ECBI yield internal consistency coefficients of .95 and .93 (Colvin, Eyberg, & Adams, 1999), interrater (mother-f ather) reliability coefficients of .69 and .61 (Eisenstadt, McElreath, Eyberg, & McNeil, 1994), and test-retest reliability coefficients of .80 and .85 across 12 weeks and .75 and.75 across 10 months, respectively (Funderburk, Eyberg, Rich, and Behar, 2003). Studies documenting co nvergent, discriminant, and discriminative validity of the scales have been summarized in the test manual (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The alpha coefficient for the E CBI in this study was .89. Child Behavior Checklist: (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991; Achenbach, 1992; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The CBCL is a commonly used measure of child behavior. The CBCL has different forms accord ing to child age and recently underwent a revision. Therefore, analysis invo lved four different versions of the CBCL. In Project GIFT,

PAGE 30

30 parents of children aged 4 through 6 completed the CBCL/4-18, which consists of 118 behaviorproblem items rated on a 3-point scale from (0) not true to (2) very true or often true. The items have been factor analyzed into two broadband scal es of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, as well as narrow band scales assessing specific problem areas Mean one-week testretest reliability has been reported at .93 for the Externalizing scale, .91 for the Aggressive behaviors subscale, and .90 for the Atten tion Problems subscale (Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL/2-3, administered to parents of 3-year-old ch ildren in Project GIFT, is similar in format to the CBCL/4-18 but contains 99 items rated by the pa rent for frequency in the past 2 months on the 3-point scale. Test-retest reliability of the CBCL/2-3 has been reported at .90 for the externalizing scale and .91 for the Aggressive Behavior subscale over a three-week period (Koot et al., 1997). Notably, the CBCL/2-3 did not include an Attention Problems subscale. Both age forms of the CBCL underwent a rece nt revision; parents in Projects GANA and SHAPE therefore completed the appropriate age form of the most recent version. The CBCL/618 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) is a 120-item pa rent rating scale designed to measure the frequency of childrens behavior or emo tional problems on a 3-point scale from (0) not true to (2) very true or often true One-week test-retest reliabilities have been reported as .92 for the Externalizing Scale, .90 for the Aggressive behavior subscale, and .92 for the Attention Problems subscale (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The CBCL/1.5-5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) is comprised of 99 items describing childrens behavi oral and emotional problems, which are rated by parents on a 3-point scale from (0) not true to (2) very true or often true. One week test-retest reliabilities have been reported as .87 for the Externalizing scale, .87 for the Aggressive behavior subscale, and .78 for the Attention Problems subscale (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000).

PAGE 31

31 Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: (DISC-IV; Schaffer et al., 2000).The DISC-IV is a structured diagnostic interview of child psychopathology based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Test-retest reliabilities have been repo rted at .54 for ODD, .54 for CD, and .79 for ADHD on this instrument (Schaffer et al., 2000). Th e DISC-IV-P was administered to the childs primary caregiver at pre-treatment by a trained gr aduate research assist ant in Project GIFT. Young-Child DISC. (Lucas, Fisher, & Luby, 2000) Project SHAPE involved the use of a recent adaptation of the DISC interview for young children; the Young-Child DISC (YC-DISC). The YC-DISC is highly similar to the DISC-IV in its format and administration. However, the language has been modified to increase its se nsitivity, and the time fr ame for each symptom has been uniformly set at three months. The YC-D ISC was administered to the childs primary caregiver at pre-treatment by a trained graduate research assistant in Project SHAPE. Early Childhood Inventory: (ECI-4; Gadow & Sprafkin, 2000). The ECI-4 is a parent behavior rating scale that screens for DSM-IV emotional and behavioral disorders in children between 3 and 6 years old. Parents are asked to rate the frequency of specific behaviors on a 4point scale from (0) never, (1) sometimes, (2) of ten, and (3) very often. Symptoms generally map onto DSM-IV criteria; however, four symptoms of CD are not included: breaking and entering, missing curfew, running away, and truancy. Add itionally, the ECI-4 assesses for stealing behaviors only, with no distinction between w ith and without confr ontation. Thus, the CD module on the ECI-4 includes 10 symptoms, comp ared to the 15 listed in the DSM-IV. The wording of certain symptoms is altered to incr ease developmental sensitivity; for example, the ECI-4 asks the parent to rate their preschoolers preoccupation with sexua l activity rather than the DSM symptom of forcing sexual activity. A recent study reported internal consistency

PAGE 32

32 coefficients of .91 for ADHD-Inattentive, .90 for ADHD-Hyperactive, .93 for ODD, and .87 for CD. Study results also documented adequate convergent, discriminant, and discriminative validity of the ECI-4, particularly for th e ADHD and ODD scales (Sprafkin, Volpe, Gadow, Nolan, & Kelly, 2002). According to the scoring guidelines in the ECI-4 manual, behaviors rated as often or very often were included in the symp tom count for this study to help ensure that the behavior was truly reflective of a frequent and pervasive sy mptom (Gadow & Sprakfin 2000). The ECI-4 was completed by the childs primary caregiver at the pre-treatment assessment in Project GANA. Procedures Following the inf ormed consent process, familie s in all studies completed a pre-treatment assessment that included completion of the de mographic questionnaire, ECBI, and CBCL. The presence of ODD, CD, and ADHD symptoms was determined by the female primary caregivers responses on the DISC-IV interview in Projec t GIFT and the YC-DISC interview in Project SHAPE. In Project GANA, the female primary car egiver completed the ECI-4 to assess child symptoms of ODD, CD, and ADHD. Table 2-1 provides an overview of the assessment measures across the three different studies. To obtain access to data from all three datase ts, the investigator first sought IRB approval through the University of Florida Health Science Center. After re ceiving IRB approval, all data were first de-identified and then transmitted through data-encrypted files. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Evaluation This study exam ined the fit of the factor structure implied by the DSM-IV in a preschool population. We therefore employed confirmatory f actor analysis (CFA) to test the current diagnostic system. A review of the literature provides support for the different disorders represented by the DSM-IV, partic ularly in school-aged and a dolescent samples. However,

PAGE 33

33 differentiation between the subtypes of ADHD and between the two disruptive behavior disorders, ODD and CD, has been more difficult to establish. We ran a series of three models: (a) The four-factor model inherent in the DS M-IV: ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD; (b) A combined ADHD model that colla pses symptoms across the inattentive and hyperactive domains to create three factors of ADHD, ODD, and CD, and (c) A disruptive behavior model that combines symptoms of ODD /CD into one factor, le aving three factors of: ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and ODD/CD. The observed indicators involved in this an alysis are dichotomous and consequently violate assumptions of multivariate normalit y. Maximum likelihood estimation, commonly used in factor analysis, is therefore inappropriate in this study because it uses dichotomous indicators. Analyses were run using the Mplus program (version 4.2; Muthn & Muthn, 2006). The program addresses dichotomous variables through analysis of the tetrac horic correlation matrix, using Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Va riance Adjustment (WLSMV) to adjust for nonnormal data. To evaluate the three models, we examined the absolute fit (chi-square statistic), relative fit indices (Comparative Fit Index, CFI; Tucker-Lewis Index, TLI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), which estimates discre pancy between model-implied and population covariance matrices, and the Weighted Root Mean Squared Residual (WRMR). Traditional guidelines for establishing good fit have been cr iticized as somewhat arbitrary (Marsh & Hau, 1996).Yu and Muthn (2002) evaluated fit indices w ith different types of data (i.e., continuous, nonnormal continuous, and dichotomous) in small, moderate, and large sample sizes to determine the cutoff values that would mi nimize both Type I and Type II errors. For dichotomous indicators and N > 250, their results indicated that least error would occur using the

PAGE 34

34 following guidelines: CFI > .95, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .06, and WRMR < 1.0 (Yu & Muthn, 2002). The fit indices of each of the three models were held to these guidelines. Additionally, adjusted 2 difference tests allowed direct comparison of the models. Specif ically, the DSM-IV model was compared to the combined ADHD mode l. The better-fitting of these two was then compared to the disruptive behavior disorder model. A significant difference in the 2 suggested that the more differentiated model fit the data bett er than the less different iated (Sterba, Egger, & Angold, 2007).

PAGE 35

35 Table 2-1. Overview of relevant measures across datasets Project GIFT ( N = 99) Project SHAPE ( N = 53) Project GANA ( N = 55) Measure of DSM-IV Symptoms DISC-IV-P X YC-DISC X ECI-4 X CBCL CBCL/2-3 and CBCL/4-18 X CBCL/1.5-5 and CBCL/6-18 X X ECBI X X X Demographic Questionnaire X X X Note. All measures are from the pre-treatment assessment.

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Participant Characteristics The 207 fa milies who participated in th e study included 147 boys (71%) and 60 girls (29%) with a mean age of 4.48 years ( SD = 1.01). Fifty six percent of children were Caucasian (by parent report); 25% Hispanic, 7% African-American, 0.5% Asian, 0.5% Native American, 6% biracial, and 4% identified as Other. Mean yearly inco me for the entire sample was $36, 278.83 ( SD = $29,779.31); however, income varied signifi cantly across the three studies. Families enrolled in Project SHAPE reported significantly higher income than families in both GIFT ( t (142) = 3.68, p < .001) and GANA ( t (105) = 5.60, p < .001). Additionally, families in Project GIFT reported higher income than families in Project GANA ( t (145) = 3.18, p < .001). Full information on participants is presented in Table 3.1. The clinical presentation of these three groups was also compared. Specifically, a between factor MANOVA was conducted with three depende nt variables: CBCL externalizing score, CBCL internalizing score, and the ECBI intens ity score. The GIFT sample was significantly larger than the other two groups Multicollinearity among the three dependent variables (CBCL Externalizing score, CBCL Internalizing score, a nd the ECBI intensity score) was examined and was within acceptable limits. The Box-M test for the homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices produced a significant result, F (12, 78260.34) = 5.33, p < .01. However, Levenes te st for the Externalizing score was the only significant result, F (2, 190) = 6.32, p < .01. Due to this violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance, the relativel y conservative Pillais trace was used in the following MANOVA.

PAGE 37

37 The overall MANOVA reveal ed a significant main effect for study source, F (6, 378) = 10.94, p < .01, 2 = .148. To further understand the m odel, univariate ANOVAs were conducted for each dependent variable. The main effect of study source was signifi cant for Externalizing score, F (2, 190) = 7.32, p < .01, 2 = .071, and ECBI intensity score, F (2,190) = 13.65, p < .001, 2 = .126. However, the three groups did not differ in Intern alizing scores, F (2, 190) = 1.32, p = .271. Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correc tion were conducted to decompose further the significant main effect of st udy source. Children enrolled in GIFT demonstrated higher Externalizing scores than GANA participants ( p < .01), but GIFT and S HAPE participants did not differ in their Externalizing scores ( p = .06). Additionally, GANA participants demonstrated higher ECBI scores than both GIFT ( p < .01) and SHAPE ( p < .001) participants. GIFT participants also exhibited higher ECBI scor es as compared to SHAPE participants ( p < .05). Table 3-1 includes the means and standard devi ations for the three studies on each of the three dependent variables. Overall, the results suggest some differences in the clinical presentation of participants across different st udies. Children enrolled in GIFT demonstrated higher rates of externalizing behaviors than children in GANA. However, GANA participants demonstrated higher total ECBI scores than both the GANA and SHAPE participants. Thus, it seems that GANA children cannot uniformly be char acterized as less severe in their clinical presentation and rates of overall disruptive behavior. Symptom and Diagnostic Patterns Participants were drawn from three different studies, and DSM symptoms were assessed with a different assessment measure in each stud y. Symptom frequencies a nd rates of diagnosis are therefore presented by assessment and study s ource (See Tables 3-2 and 3-3). Notably, six of the fifteen DSM symptoms for CD occurred be tween zero and two percent of families in the

PAGE 38

38 entire sample. These items were: (a)forcing se xual activity, (b)fire-se tting, (c)breaking and entering, (d)missing curfew, (e)r unning away, and (f)truancy. Th ese six items were removed from further analysis. The ECI-4 does not include breaking and en tering, missing curfew, running away, or truancy, and given the low fr equency of these items when assessed in the DISC-IV and DISC-YC, their exclusion seem s warranted. Additionally, the ECI-4 assesses stealing behaviors only, while the DISC-IV and DISC-YC adhe re to DSM-IV criteria and differentiate between stealing wi th and without confrontation. As can be seen in Table 3-2, stealing with confrontation occurred at low fr equencies in both the GIFT (5%) and SHAPE (2%) samples. Further analysis therefore used a stealing composite symptom which included stealing with and without confrontation. Confirmatory Factor Analyses of DSM Symptoms CFA was us ed to determine which of three models provided the best fit for the 35 DSM symptoms of ADHD, ODD, and CD. The first model, referred to as the DSM-IV model, included four separate factors representing ADHD-Ina ttentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD. The second model, the combined ADHD model, colla psed the inattentive and hyperactive ADHD symptoms and subsequently resulted in three factors of ADHD, ODD, and CD. The disruptive behavior model also included three factors bu t combined ODD and CD symptoms, resulting in the constructs of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and ODD/CD. Fit indices for each of three models were compared and are presented in Table 3-4. All three models resulted in a significant chi squa re; however, the ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom did not exceed the cutoff value of 2 for any of the three models. Therefore, all three models provided an adequate fit fo r the data. However, as described above, the conservative cutoff scores recommended for binary indicators and a small sample size are: CFI > .95, TLI > .95, WRMR < 1.0, RMSEA < .06 (Yu & Muthn, 2002). Using these guidelines, the

PAGE 39

39 DSM four-factor model provided better fit for th e data than either the combined ADHD threefactor model or the disruptive behavior three-factor model. Chi square difference testing confirmed these results (Muthn & Muthn, 2005). Specifically, when the DSM model was compared to the combined ADHD model, the DS M model provided signif icantly better fit, 2 (2, N = 207) = 14.02, p < .001). Similarly, when the DSM model was compared to the disruptive behavior model, the DSM model pr ovided significantly better fit, 2 (2, N = 207) = 11.09, p < .001). Thus, results fail to find support for collapsing the ADHD symptoms across inattentive and hyperactive domains or for combining ODD and CD symptoms in this clinical sample of preschoolers. Table 3-5 shows that the loadings of the individual items onto their factors were generally high; the path diag ram is shown in Figure 1. The two ADHD factors were highly correlated, as were the ODD and CD factors. Correlations between the ADHD and ODD, as well as ADHD and CD, demonstrated a moderate rela tionship. Correlations among the six factors are included in Table 3-6. The CFA results provide support for the four-f actor structure curren tly implied with the DSM-IV. The modification indices provide further evaluation of model fit, as they provide the expected reduction in chi square if a paramete r were freely estimated. Notably, no modification indices were above the minimum value of ten (Muthn & Muthn, 1998-2006). Validity of the Three Assessment Methods To provide som e measure of validity of the three assessment measures included in this study, ADHD, ODD, and CD symptom counts from the DISC-IV, DISC-YC, and ECI-4 were correlated with the ECBI, CBCL A ttention Problems and CBCL Aggr essive Behavior subscales, as well as the broadband Externalizing scale from the CBCL (See Table 3-7). Examination of the correlation matrix revealed that symptom count s across different assessment methods correlated

PAGE 40

40 most highly with their conceptual counterpar t scale of the CBCL. Additionally, correlations across the three different assessment measures tended to be of similar magnitude. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of th e Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory CFA was us ed to confirm the three-factor so lution of the ECBI (B urns & Patterson, 1991; Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundah l, 2005). Although previous studies have all reported factors reflecting oppositional behavior, conduct problems, and attention difficulties, there are some differences in previous results regarding which items load onto the factors. The current study will confirm the structure reported by Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl (2005) as theirs is the only study that found support for a three-factor model in a sample of preschoolers, and they sought to confirm the three-factor model previ ously supported in an older sample (Burns & Patterson, 2000). The factor structure described in their study was hi ghly similar to those presented in other research suppor ting a three-factor model and required several ECBI items to be dropped from the analysis, leaving 22 items in the model. The observed indicators involved in this anal ysis are ordinal data. Due to the clinical nature of the sample, ECBI items tended to be positively skewed. The MPlus program addresses ordinal variables through analysis of the polychoric correlation matrix; the current analysis also employed Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Variance Adjustment (WLSMV) to adjust for non-normal data. Results suggested that the th ree-factor solution was a relati vely poor fit for the data. The model resulted in a highly significant chi square and failed to meet the cut off scores proposed by Yu and Muthn (2002) for any of the fit indices (see Table 3-8 for fit indices and Table 3-9 for the factor structure). Examination of the modi fication indices suggested model improvement by allowing several items to load onto all three fact ors. Additionally, results suggested that several items from the oppositional behavior factor s hould be allowed to load onto the attention

PAGE 41

41 difficulties factor. Overall, findings failed to prov ide strong evidence for a three-factor model, and the modification indices were extensive a nd difficult to justify conceptually. Thus, an exploratory factor analysis seem ed the appropriate next step. All 36 ECBI items were therefore subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Because other researchers found support for a thre e-factor model, we examined a one, two, and three-factor EFA of the ECBI items. Results from all three of these analyses are included in the Appendix. MPlus provides RMSR values for EFA an alyses; significant decreases with increasing number of factors suggest better fit of the more differentiated models. As can be seen in the Appendix, the decrease in the RMSR from the one to two-factor model was small, and the decrease from the RMSR from the two to three -factor was minimal. Perhaps more importantly, the two and three-factor models did not concep tually match the factors of oppositional behavior, attention difficulties, and conduct problems found in previous studies (Burns & Patterson, 1991; Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). Indeed, it was difficult to interpret the twoand three-factor models. In the two factor model, the first factor incl uded most of the items and seemed to reflect a more general disruptive behavior factor that included a range of oppositional and attentionseeking behaviors. The second factor resemble d the conduct problems factor found in previous studies, reflecting overt aggressi on and provocation. This second factor was comprised of five items: (a) destroys toys and othe r objects, (b) teases or provokes other children, (c) verbally fights with sisters and brothers, (d) physically fights with sist ers and brothers, and (e) steals. Thus, the two-factor EFA seemed to reflect a general disruptive behavior construct with a smaller factor of severe conduct problems and a ggressive behaviors. The three-factor EFA was exceedingly difficult to understand conceptually. Th e first factor again included the majority of

PAGE 42

42 the ECBI items, representing oppos itional and attentionseeking behaviors. The only significant loadings onto the second factor demonstrat ed a negative relationship with the underlying construct. The third factor included five items seem ing to reflect a lack of respect for rules, such as having poor table manners and refusing to do chores when asked. None of the items demonstrated particularly strong loadings onto the third factor. The one-factor model was then subjected to CF A to examine the fit of the model. Items with factor loadings below .4 on the EFA were dropped from the analysis. This included many items that failed to demonstrate significant loadings onto any factors in previous studies, such as whining and having poor table manners. The CFA also excluded several items that have previously been included on the conduct problems fact or in previous studies, as these items seemed to be reflective of a more severe beha vior than most other ECBI items. Thus, 25 items were subjected to a one-factor CFA. All meas ures of model fit im proved and the results suggested good fit according to the TLI. The CFI va lue was marginal according to the guidelines proposed by Yu and Muthn (2002), although comp arable to the value reported in previous studies (Weis, Lovejoy, & Lunda hl, 2005), and the WRMR was also marginal. However, the RMSEA continued to suggest poor fit (see Table 3-8). The factor structure of the one-factor CFA is presented in Table 3-10. Exploration of Age-Graded Criteria As a prelim inary examination of the possibili ty of age-graded criteria, a series of hierarchical regressions were conducted in which scores on the corresponding scale of the CBCL were regressed upon total number of symptoms, child age, and an interact ion between those two variables. To test the hypothesized moderator effects of age, we evaluated the significance of the change in R2 after the addition of the interaction term.

PAGE 43

43 The first model examined the predictive power of ADHD symptoms and child age in inattention scores. Specifically, scores from th e attention scale of the CBCL were regressed upon total number of ADHD symptoms, child age, and an interaction term between ADHD symptoms and child age to test the hypothesis that age would modera te the relationship between ADHD symptom count and severity of inattention. Tota l number of ADHD symptoms was entered in the first block and acted as a significant predictor, F( 1, 169) = 81.28, p < .001, R2 = .325. Child age was entered into the model and did not a dd to the predictive power of the model, R2 = .001, nor was the interaction term between numb er of symptoms and age significant, R2 = .001. Thus, number of ADHD symptoms was a significant predictor of attention scores on the CBCL. However, the current analysis failed to support the hypothesis that age would moderate that relationship between symptom count and severity of inattention. The second model examined the predictive power of ODD symptoms and child age in externalizing behavior scores. In this analysis, scores from th e externalizing scale of the CBCL were regressed upon total number of ODD symptoms, child age, and an inte raction term between ODD symptoms and child age to test the hypothesi s that age would moderate the relationship between ODD symptom count and severity of externalizing behavior. Total number of ODD symptoms was entered in the first block and acted as a significant predictor, F( 1, 198) = 63.04, p < .001, R2 = .241. Child age was entered into the model and did not a dd to the predictive power of the model, R2 = .011, nor was the interaction term between number of symptoms and age significant, R2 = .001. Thus, number of ODD symptoms was a significan t predictor of externalizing scores on the CBCL. However, the analysis failed to support the hypothesis that age would moderate the relationship between sy mptom count and severi ty of externalizing behavior.

PAGE 44

44 The third model examined the predictive power of CD symptoms and child age in rates of aggressive behavior. In this analysis, scores from the aggr ession scale of the CBCL were regressed upon total number of CD symptoms, child age, and an interaction term between CD symptoms and child age to test the hypothesis th at age would moderate the relationship between CD symptom count and severity of externalizin g behavior. Total number of CD symptoms was entered in the first block and act ed as a significant predictor, F( 1, 199) = 51.51, p < .001, R2 = .206. Child age was entered into th e model and did not add to the predictive power of the model, R2 = .002, nor was the interaction term between number of symptoms and age significant, R2 = .001. Thus, number of CD symptoms was a signi ficant predictor of aggression scores on the CBCL. However, the analysis failed to support the hypothesis that age would moderate that relationship between symptom count and severity of aggressive behavior. In sum, this study failed to find support for the hypothesis that ag e would significantly moderate the relationship between symptom count and the severity of problem behaviors. However, it should be noted that the sample re presented a limited age ra nge, and thus it may have been difficult to find differences by age.

PAGE 45

45 Table 3.1. Participant characteristics. Total Sample GIFT SHAPE GANA Age (years) M = 4.48 SD = 1.01 M = 4.38 SD = 1.09 M = 4.85 SD = 0.75 M = 4.33 SD = 1.31 Gender 71% male 69% male 74% male 80% male Ethnicity Caucasian 56% 76% 76% 7% African American 7% 8% 14% 0% Hispanic 25% 3% 1% 91% Asian 0.5% 1% 0% 0% Native American 0.5% 0% 4% 0% Biracial/Other 10% 12% 5% 2% Family yearly income M = 36,278.83 SD = 29,779.31 M = 34,308.52 SD = 25,302.84 M = 54,251.54 SD = 39,681.04 M = 22,582.25 SD = 13,299.15 CBCL Externalizing T Score M = 70.57 SD = 8.95 M = 72.82 SD = 6.91 M = 69.00 SD = 9.05 M = 67.49 SD = 11.07 CBCL Internalizing T score M = 61.91 SD = 9.91 M = 62.54 SD = 9.58 M = 59.83 SD = 9.95 M = 62.67 SD = 9.63 ECBI Intensity Raw score M = 169.56 SD= 28.41 M = 168.34 SD= 25.06 M = 154.08 SD= 29.68 M= 182.58 SD= 26.95

PAGE 46

46 Table 3-2. Individual symptom percentages across the DISC-IV, YC-DISC, and ECI-4 Symptom DISC-IV (GIFT; n = 99) YC-DISC (SHAPE; n = 53) ECI-4 (GANA; n = 55) ADHD-Inattentive Careless mistakes 43 67 24 Short attention span 55 87 35 Doesnt listen 93 93 46 Fails to finish tasks 70 91 51 Disorganized 53 76 40 Avoids concentrating 52 82 27 Loses items 44 65 36 Distractible 70 89 64 Forgetful 41 72 33 ADHD-Hyperactive Fidgets 74 91 66 Leaves Seat 81 85 66 Runs/Climbs 90 91 76 Too Loud 63 67 55 Driven by motor 77 85 66 Excessive talking 71 78 56 Blurts out answers 48 59 31 Difficulty waiting turn 78 85 58 Interrupts 90 94 49 ODD Loses temper 95 74 36 Argues 96 80 51 Defiant 95 90 75 Annoys others 76 63 56 Blames others 51 56 49 Easily annoyed 75 59 47 Angry 84 70 40 Spiteful 61 39 43 CD Bullying 42 22 11 Fighting 27 24 16 Use of weapon 26 15 4 Cruel to people 24 9 9 Cruel to animals 27 15 5 Stole with confrontation 5 2 ** Forced sex* 0 0 2 Firesetting* 1 0 2 Destruction of property 50 50 10 Breaking and entering* 0 0 ** Lying 23 33 15 Stole without confrontation 29 31 ** Missed curfew* 0 0 ** Runaway* 0 0 ** Truancy* 0 0 ** Stealing composite*** 29 31 2 *Dropped from further analyses due to low frequency: **Not asked on ECI-4; ***Combination of stealing with and without confrontation

PAGE 47

47 Table 3-3. Percentage of diagnos is across assessment method DISC-IV (GIFT; N = 99) YC-DISC (SHAPE; N = 53) ECI (GANA; N = 55) ADHDInattentive 1 5 4 ADHDHyperactive 24 11 32 ADHDCombined 46 76 22 ODD 91 79 56 CD 42 29 9

PAGE 48

48 Table 3-4. Absolute, relative, and component model fit for three DSM-IV CFA models Model 2 DF p CFI TLI RMSEA WRMR DSM-IV (4 factor) 170.66 82 < .001 .95 .96 .06 1.0 Combined ADHD (3 factor) 177.05 88 < .001 .93 .95 .07 1.1 Disruptive behavior (3 factor) 174.90 89 < .001 .93 .95 .07 1.1

PAGE 49

49 Table 3-5. Four-factor solution of DSM-IV symptoms ADHD-I ADHD-H ODD CD Symptom ADHD-I Careless mistakes .74 Short attention span .90 Doesnt listen .89 Fails to finish tasks .86 Disorganized .73 Avoids concentrating .80 Loses items .74 Distractible .90 Forgetful .76 ADHD-H Fidgets .81 Leaves Seat .88 Runs/Climbs .88 Too Loud .82 Driven by motor .90 Excessive talking .68 Blurts out answers .67 Difficulty waiting turn .69 Interrupts .72 ODD Loses temper .67 Argues .84 Defiant .89 Annoys others .72 Blames others .71 Easily annoyed .68 Angry .74 Spiteful .65 C D Bullying .79 Fighting .63 Use of weapon .77 Cruel to people .68 Cruel to animals .46 Destruction of property .71 Lying .73 Stealing composite .71

PAGE 50

50 Table 3-6. Correlations among DSM-IV factors ADHDInattentive ADHDHyperactive ODD CD ADHD-I 1.00 ADHD-H .81 1.00 ODD .49 .54 1.00 CD .35 .39 .74 1.00

PAGE 51

51 Table 3-7. Pearson correlations between symptom counts and CBCL and ECBI scores ADHD symptoms ODD symptoms CD symptoms DISCIV YCDISC ECI4 DISCIV YCDISC ECI4 DISCIV YCDISC ECI4 Attention Scale .49** .43** .52** .02 .09 .32* .08 .02 .26* Aggression Scale .29** .20 .33* .37** .41** .49**.45** .46** .34* Externalizing Scale .31** .24 .43** .37** .41** .51**.41** .43** .35** ECBI intensity score .42** .47** .30* .27** .61** .19 .42** .51** .33* *p< .05, **p<.01.

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-8. Absolute, relative, and co mponent model fit for ECBI models Model 2 DF P CFI TLI RMSEA WRMR Three-factor CFA 805.24 53 < .0001 .75 .86 .27 2.28 One-factor CFA 356.84 66 <.0001 .92 .97 .15 1.2

PAGE 53

53 Table 3-9. The CFA of the thr ee-factor model of the ECBI ECBI item Factor One Factor Two Factor Three 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way .94 10. Acts defiant when told to do something .93 8. Does not obey house rules on own .90 14. Sasses adults .82 9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment .76 13. Has temper tantrums .50 11. Argues with parents about rules .41 5. Refuses to do chores when asked .47 7. Refuses to go to bed on time .45 17. Yells or screams .36 30. Is easily distracted .96 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .90 32. Fails to finish task or projects .88 31. Has short attention span .56 24. Verbally fights with friends own age .87 22. Lies .85 26. Physically fights with friends own age .84 25. Verbally fights with si sters and brothers .55 27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers .53 19. Destroys toys and other objects .21 23. Teases or provokes other children .15 21. Steals -.47

PAGE 54

54 Table 3-10. One-factor CFA of the ECBI ECBI item 10. Acts defiant when told to do something .89 8. Does not obey house rules on own .89 13. Has temper tantrums .89 32. Fails to finish task or projects .89 6. Slow in getting ready for bed .83 30. Is easily distracted .83 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .83 36. Wets the bed .83 2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .80 22. Lies .79 4. Refuses to eat food presented .77 18. Hits parents .76 26. Physically fights with friends own age .75 9. Refuses to obey until thre atened with punishment .74 28. Constantly seeks attention .73 24. Verbally fights with friends own age .72 20. Is careless with toys and other objects .61 31. Has short attention span .53 7. Refuses to go to bed on time .51 5. Refuses to do chores when asked .45 14. Sasses adults .44 16. Cries easily .41 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way .36 35. Is overactive or restless .06 29. Interrupts .01

PAGE 55

55 Figure 3-1. Path diagram of fou r-factor solution of DSM-IV sy mptoms of ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, ODD, and CD. ADHD Inattentive Careless mistakes Short attention Difficulty listening Fails to finish Avoids concentrating Loses items Distracted Disorganized Forgetful Too Loud Runs/ Climbs On the go Leaves Seat Talkative Difficulty waiting Interrupts Fidgets Blurts out ADHD Hyperactive .82 .68 .69 .67 .72 .90 .88 ODD Annoys others Defiant Argues Blames others Easily annoyed Spiteful Loses temper .67 .84 .89 .72 .71 CD .81 .54 Angry .68 .74 .65 .74 .46 .71 .73 .71 Stealing Fighting Lying Destroys property Cruel to animals Cruel to people Use of weapon Bullying .88 .81 .68 .77 .63 .79 .35 .76 .90 .74 .80 .73 .86 .89 .90 .74

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The present study provided im portant inform ation regarding the validity of DSM-IV symptoms of ODD, CD, and ADHD in a relatively diverse, clinical preschool sample. Findings also provide support for the validity of current assessment measures for preschoolers. Results can be used to inform future diagnostic methodol ogy and assessment techniques in this population. Ultimately, findings from the current study can support effective assessment and treatment of psychopathology in preschoolers. Validity of the DSM-IV for Preschoolers Results suggest that the four constructs of ODD, CD, ADHD -Inattentive and ADHDHyperactive implied by the DSM-IV are valid in younger children. Even when using the relatively conservative standards outlined by Yu and Muthn (2002), indices suggested good fit. The factor loadings of each symptom onto its corresponding underlying construct were generally high. None fell beneath the commonly used leve l of .4 (Floyd & Widaman, 1995) and only one symptom had a factor loading below .6. Results generally support the growing body of research supporting the structure of the DSM-IV in older children (Lahey et al., 2004; Lahey et al., 2008) and adds to the limited body of research ex amining the validity of DSM-IV nosology in preschoolers. The four-factor DSM-IV model provided the be st fit in this sample of clinic-referred preschoolers when compared to a three-factor model that combined the in attentive and hyperactive domains into a single ADHD factor, with separate constructs of ODD and CD. The DSM-IV model also proved superior when compared to a three-factor model of ADHDInattentive, ADHD-Hyperactive, and a disruptiv e behavior factor that collapsed ODD and CD symptoms. The two alternate models resulted in adequate fit according to certain fit indices;

PAGE 57

57 however, inferential chi-square testing allowed direct comparis on of the three models and found support for the four-factor model. This is an impo rtant finding that adds to the limited research on the validity of separate ODD and CD factors in younger children. Two previous studies found similar results in large, nonclin ical samples of school-aged childr en and adolescents (Lahey et al., 2008; Burns et al., 1997). However, a recent study of DSM symptoms in 307 preschoolers found support for collapsing ODD and CD symptoms into a single disruptive behavior factor (Sterba, Egger, & Angold, 2007). Thus, the present study is the first to find support for the differentiation of CD from ODD sp ecifically in a preschool populati on. The clinical nature of the sample may explain the discrepancy from th e results by Sterba, Egger, and Angold (2007). Given the extreme nature of many of the CD criteria, it may be di fficult to establish a clear CD factor in a community sample, particularly in younger children. Althoug h more research is needed, the present study adds to a small but gr owing body of literature that supports the validity of CD in preschoolers (Schuhmann, Foote, Eyberg, Boggs, & Algina, 1998; Keenan & Wakschlag, 2000; Wilens et al., 2002). Although results of this study s upport a separate CD factor, it is notable that several CD symptoms were dropped from analyses due to lo w frequency: forcing sexu al activity, fire-setting, breaking and entering, missing curf ew, running away, and truancy. Th is is hardly surprising in light of preschoolers developmental abilities an d limited exposure to these types of situations. However, the current DSM-IV provides no developm ental modifications to current CD criteria. Amidst claims that the diagnosis of CD is i rrelevant to preschoolers, it seems important to increase the developmental sensitivity of CD criteria for this age group. The Task Force on Research Diagnostic Criteria for Infancy and Preschool (RDC-PF; 2003) has dropped breaking and entering, breaking curfew, r unning away, and truancy; thus, it seems likely that the DSM-V

PAGE 58

58 will exclude these symptoms in the assessment of preschoolers. Further research is needed on potential modifications to CD criteria to in crease developmental sensitivity while also maintaining the clinical essence of the symptoms (Egger & Angold, 2006). Results also confirm the validity of two sepa rate factors of inatte ntion and hyperactivity within the ADHD domain, specifically in a preschool sample. A substantial body of research supports this distinction in older children a nd adolescents (Glutting, Youngstrom, & Watkins, 2005; Willoughby, Curran, Costello, & Angold, 2000). Some research has suggested that a single ADHD factor is most appropriate for younger child ren (Bauermeister, 1992). Yet results from our study replicate recent findings by Sterba, Egge r, and Angold (2007) and add to the validity of the DSM-IV model of ADHD in young children. Nevertheless, furt her study is needed. Given the necessity of ADHD symptoms in the school setting for diagnosis, it will be particularly important to validate the two domains of inattent ion and hyperactivity with teacher ratings. Data from the Preschoolers with Attention Deficit/H yperactivity Disorder Treatment Study (PATS) found conflicting results between parent and t eacher ratings of ADHD symptoms. Specifically, the two-factor model of inattention and hyperact ivity provided adequate fit when applied to parent responses on a behavior rating scale of ADHD symptoms, but neither a one-factor nor two-factor model provided adequate fit for teacher ratings (Hardy et al., 2007). The authors note that the use of a behavior rating scale may not have provided the most accurate representation of DSM symptoms; thus, the failure of the study to find support for the two-factor model may reflect a methodological artifact. However, it also may be that the structure of ADHD symptoms is different when applied to classr oom behavior (Hardy et al., 2007). This study focused on the validity of specifi c diagnostic categories in preschoolers. The validation of psychopathology for preschoolers is an important step. However, more research is

PAGE 59

59 needed to demonstrate the clinical utility of these specific disorders in young children. As noted by Huffine (2002), treatment recommendations for CD are virtually identic al to those for ODD, leading some to question the utility of two separa te disorders. This argument seems particularly relevant to preschoolers because the more inte nsive, multimodal treatment programs sometimes used to treat CD, such as Multisystemic Th erapy (MST; Henggeler & Borduin, 1990) would be inappropriate for preschoolers. A similar argument may be relevant when discussing the clinical diagnosis of ADHD. Treatme nt recommendations for ADHD in school-aged children and adolescents frequently involve a medication trial and more individualized behavioral interventions, such as organiza tional skills training. Results from the Preschoolers with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder study (PATS) suggest that stimulant medications can be effective in this age group (Greenhill et al., 2006; Vitiello et al., 2007). However, the efficacy of stimulant medication tends to be less (Gr eenhill et al., 2006) and the side effects more severe when compared to school aged children and adolescent s (Wigal et al., 2006). Notably, no medication is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administ ration (FDA) for the treatment of ADHD in preschool aged children. A recent study examined ma ternal perceptions of me ntal health services for their preschool-aged children. The majority of mothers surveyed expressed interest in receiving assistance in managing their childs be havior problems; however, most also indicated that they would not be intere sted in pursuing medication (Har wood, OBrien, Carter, & Eyberg, under review). Due to the controversy surrounding medication use in this age group, and parental concerns regarding the safety of medicati on for young children, first line treatment recommendations for preschoolers with ADHD ofte n involve behavioral interventions such as parent training and contingenc y management, the same treatments used for ODD/CD in young children (dosReis, et al., 2003; Rushton, Fant, & Clark, 2004; Verduin, Abikoff, & Kurtz, 2008).

PAGE 60

60 The efficacy of these types of be havioral interventions, and specifi cally parent training programs, is well-established for the tr eatment of ODD/CD in young ch ildren (Eyberg, Nelson, & Boggs, 2008). The results of our study do not support the lesser differentiation in the presentation of psychopathology in preschoolers. However, treatment of externalizing disorders, specifically for this population, may involve many of the same co mponents. Due to their developmental level and the significance of the parent-child relations hip at this young age, a range of presenting problems in preschoolers may be improved with comprehensive parent training programs that apply behavioral strategies to a broad spectru m of child problem behaviors (Chase & Eyberg, 2008). Validity of Assessment Measures Results also provided validity for the DI SC-IV, YC-DISC, and ECI-4 in a clinical preschool sample. Regardless of the diagnostic approach, sympto ms across diagnostic categories correlated most highly with their conceptual counterpart on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). These correlations tended to be of similar magnitude for each assessment method. Additionally, symptom counts across the three studies generally demonstrated similar correlations with the ECBI intensity score. Some variability was seen in the correlations between the ECBI and ODD symptom counts. Specifically, ODD symptoms as assessed by the DISC-YC demonstrated the highest correla tion with the ECBI. ODD symptoms from the DISC-IV resulted in a small but significant correl ation with the ECBI, while ODD sy mptoms from the ECI-4 were not significantly correlated with the ECBI intensity score. However, this result is likely related to the restricted range of ODD symptoms in Project GIFT and ECBI scores in Project GANA. As noted previously, the inclusion criteria for Project GIFT n ecessitated higher rates of ODD symptoms and the inclusion criteria for Projec t GANA resulted in higher ECBI scores. Thus, the weaker relationship between DISC-IV ODD symptoms and the ECBI and the lack of relationship

PAGE 61

61 between ECI-4 ODD symptoms most likely reflects a methodological weakness of our study rather than a comment on the validity of either the DISC-IV or ECI-4. Overall, this study provided evidence of c onvergent validity for the DISC-IV, YC-DISC, and ECI-4 in a preschool sample. This is among the first studies to assess the validity of the DISC-IV specifically in this age group and th e validity of the newly developed YC-DISC. Results suggest the two interviews are highly simila r in their relationships with other measures of child behavior. Additionally, symptom counts from the ECI-4, although lower than both the DISC-IV and YC-DISC, demonstrated significant co rrelations with the a ppropriate subscale of the CBCL. The ECI-4 is a relatively new measure, and this study provides important information regarding its validity as a measur e of DSM-IV disorders. Future research on preschool diagnosis should address additional indicators of validity. A particularly impor tant direction is the study of predictive validity of assessment measures for this age group. Although ADHD and the disruptive behavior disorders diagnosed in early childhood have been shown to persist into later childhood and adolescence, symptoms remit in approximately half of children diagnosed in the preschool years (Campbell, 2002). Instruments sp ecifically designed for this age group may relate to improved predictive validity. For exam ple, the YC-DISC has altered the time duration of each symptom and asks about the presence of a behavior over a three-month time span. Longitudinal research will dete rmine whether modifications such as these allow better identification of those children who will continue to exhibit symptoms into later childhood and adolescence. Additionally, modifying the la nguage of certain symptoms to increase developmental sensitivity may improve face valid ity with this population, as well as overall consumer satisfaction.

PAGE 62

62 Factor Analysis of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Our study failed to support the three-factor structure of the ECBI re ported in the literature (Burns & Patterson, 1991; Burn s & Patterson, 2000; Weis, L ovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). The model with factors of oppositional behavior, in attention, and conduct problems yielded a highly significant chi square and did not indicate good fit acco rding to any of the fit indices. Most ECBI items demonstrated significant lo adings onto one factor of child behavior problems, consistent with previous studies reporting a one-factor structure of the ECBI (Eyberg, 1992; Colvin, Adams, & Eyberg, 1999; Gross et al, 2007). Several different reasons may e xplain the failure to replicate the three-factor model. Notably, this is the first study to factor analyze the ECBI with a clinical sample of preschoolers. The two studies that have examin ed the factor structure of the ECBI specifically with preschoolers both used a community sample, and those two studies led to conflicting results (Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005; Gross et al., 2007). Certainly, the use of a clinical sample limits the generalizability of the current results. However, it seems particularly important to replic ate the three-factor stru cture in clinic-referred children. The importance of using a clinical sample is highlighted by suggestions in the literature that component scores from the three ECBI factor s could be used for diagnostic purposes (Burns & Patterson, 1991; Burns & Patterson, 2000; We is, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl (2005) found support for the three-factor model in a community sample of preschoolaged children. However, the component scores from the individual factors were largely unable to differentiate among the three differe nt disorders in a clinical sa mple of children aged 4 to 6 years. Specifically, the Oppos itional Defiant component did not distinguish children with oppositional behavior from children with attention problems, and the Inattentive component did not differentiate inattentive children from oppos itional children. Indeed, the authors found that the full ECBI intensity scale was more useful in differentiating these disorders than the

PAGE 63

63 individual component scores. They suggested that the failure of the component scores to differentiate among the different disorders may refl ect the lack of behavi oral differentiation in childrens symptom expression (W eis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). Ho wever, our findings from the DSM-IV confirmatory factor analysis ar gue against a lesser differentiation of symptom presentation in younger children. Results from the current study suggest that the ECBI component scores fail to repr esent the distinct disorders in the same way that they are conceptualized in the DSM-IV. Notably, the ECBI was developed prior to the development of the DSM-III and was developed as a unidimensional measure of ch ild disruptive behavior. Although several ECBI items appear to map onto DSM-IV criteria, some may not be clear indi cators of DSM symptoms, particularly in a clinical pres chool sample. For example, the ECBI item has short attention span appears very similar to the DSM-IV ADH D inattentive symptom, often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities. However, ex pectations for a preschoolers attention span are generally lowe r as compared to school-aged ch ildren and adolescents (Silk et al., 2000). A short attention span in a 4 year-old may be viewed as problematic by the childs parent or caregiver; however, it also may be less indicative of pervasive attention difficulties in a younger child. As a child matures and expectations for the ability to attend increase, short attention span may be more likely to reflect a significant problem with attention, and thus a stronger indicator of the constr uct of ADHD-Inattentive Type. The wording of DSM-IV items may be particularly important when assessing fo r these specific symptoms in preschoolers. Indeed, when discussing developmental modifications of current DSM-IV criteria for preschoolers, researchers have highlighted th e importance of developmentally appropriate modifications that maintain th e clinical meaning of a par ticular symptom (Egger & Angold,

PAGE 64

64 2004). Differentiating components of the ECBI may be more relevant for older children, when certain behaviors are inherently more problematic and more indicative of specific disorders. Exploration of Age-Graded Criteria Our study failed to find support for the use of ag e-graded criteria in assigning diagnoses am ong 3to 6-year-olds. Symp tom counts of ADHD, ODD, and CD served as significant predictors of behavior severity, as measured by the corresponding scale on the CBCL. However, age failed to moderate that re lationship. The failure to find su pport for our hypothesis is likely related to the truncated age range of the sample. The study of agerelated criteria would be more appropriate across larger age ra nges. In their comprehensive re view of the presentation and epidemiology of psychopathology in preschooler s, Egger and Angold (2006) systematically evaluated the DSM qualification th at behaviors included in ODD cr iteria must occur often in order to represent a true symptom. ODD sympto ms naturally occur at a higher frequency in preschool populations as compared to school-a ged children. Thus, applying the cutoff criteria previously used for school-aged children (above the 90th percentile) for pres choolers would have overestimated rates of ODD. This example highl ights the importance of using established developmental norms in determining the pres ence of a symptom (Egger & Angold, 2006), and supports further study of the use of developmentally modified criteria for different age groups. Study Limitations In an effort to increase sample size and the dem ographic diversity of the study sample, this study included participants from three differe nt studies. Although all studies examined the efficacy of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in the tr eatment of disruptive behavior disorders and/or ADHD in preschoole rs, each study varied in its in clusion criteria. Consequently, participants differed in diagnostic presentati on and demographic characteristics, introducing variability that may have affected the results. Notably, to provide th e sample size necessary,

PAGE 65

65 symptoms entered into the factor analysis were assessed with different instruments. However, all items mapped onto DSM-IV criteria. Indeed, the confirmation of the DSM-IV structure despite the methodological difference may argue for the stre ngth of the DSM-IV model. Also of note, we found few differences in the convergent valid ity of the different measures, suggesting that they may provide similarly accu rate diagnostic information. Drawing participants from differe nt studies also introduced vari ability in the versions used for study measures. Specifically, children from Proj ect GIFT were assessed with an older version of the CBCL (Achenbach; 1991; Achenbach, 1992) than children in Projects SHAPE and GANA (Achenbach; 2000; Achenbach; 2001). Although these ve rsions were highly similar, particularly in the subscales of interest for this study, ther e were some differences across measures. Perhaps most importantly, the 1992 version of the CBCL fo r 2 and 3-year-old children did not include an Attention Problems subscale. Thus, 3 year-old chil dren from Project GIFT were excluded from the analyses involving this measure. However, this represented a re latively small group of children relative to the entire sample, and it s eems unlikely that their inclusion would have significantly changed the results. A relatively small sample size is another lim itation of the current study. Our sample of 207 was enough to meet the recommendation of 5 cases per item when conducting factor analysis (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). However, larger sample sizes are considered optimal for factor analysis. The sample size also prevented crossvalidation of either the DSM-IV or ECBI model by age, race, or gender. Overall, previous research with older children and adolescents supports the factors implied by the DSM-IV across age groups and gender (Lahey et al., 2008). However, it will be important to confirm f actor invariance in younger children.

PAGE 66

66 The sample size may have affected the clarity of our results, particul arly for the factor analysis of the ECBI. Our findings resulted in an unclear factor structure, which was inconsistent with some earlier research in this area (Burns & Patterson, 1991; Burns & Patterson, 2000; Weis, Lovejoy, & Lundahl, 2005). However, it is notable that our result s are more consistent with a recent factor analytic study of the ECBI in a sample of 682 preschoolers (Gross et al., 2007). Overall, results in this area of the literature are conflicted, highlighting the need for future studies that examine the factor structure of the ECBI in larger samples. Despite these limitations, findings provide va luable information on current diagnostic standards and measures for the preschool population. The clinical nature of the sample is a particular strength of the current study. Much of the literature examini ng issues of diagnostic validity for this age group often involves comm unity samples of non-referred children. Although results from this study may not be generalized to non-clinical children, it seems particularly important to focus on the children that exhibit th e specific disorders. This may be particularly important in examining diagnosis of CD in pr eschoolers, as our resu lts found support for two separate factors of ODD and CD in contrast to findings by Sterba, Egger, & Angold (2007). Their sample of 307 preschoolers recruited from a primary care clinic may have been less representative of children with externalizing diso rders. The severity of the CD criteria may make it difficult to establish a clear CD construct in non-clinical samples, particularly in younger children, for whom certain behaviors are deve lopmentally irrelevant to diagnosis. The discrepancy of these results hi ghlights the importance of future research that examines CD symptoms in both clinical and nonclinical samples. Specifically, furthe r study should involve a broader range of clinical severi ty, perhaps including children from psychiatric inpatient units or day treatment facilities.

PAGE 67

67 Future Directions This study adds to the lim ited literature on the validity of current diagnostic standards and assessment methods for preschoolers. Overall, results suggest that DSM-IV categories and common assessment measures are appropriate for this age group. Future research should continue to examine the validity and reliability of preschool diagnosis. An important area of research includes the predictive validity of preschool diagnosis. A lthough a growing body of research supports DSM disorders in presc hoolers, it is unknown which preschoolers will continue to demonstrate sympto ms into childhood and adolescence. Longitudinal research is needed on long-term outcomes of children diagnose d with disruptive behavior disorders in early childhood. Further research in th is area will increase our unders tanding of the factors that distinguish developmental variations from true psychopathology and promote the continuing evolution of the DSM.

PAGE 68

68 APPENDIX STATISTICAL ANALYSES NOT INCLUDED IN MAIN TEXT Table A-1. One-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(E CBI) (RMSR = .10) ECBI item 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way .89 8. Does not obey house rules on own .88 10. Acts defiant when told to do something .87 30. Is easily distracted .87 28. Constantly seeks attention .84 6. Slow in getting ready for bed .83 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .82 32. Fails to finish task or projects .82 35. Is overactive or restless .80 14. Sasses adults .79 2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .79 20. Is careless with toys and other objects .79 16. Cries easily .78 4. Refuses to eat food presented .75 22. Lies .72 9. Refuses to obey until thre atened with punishment .71 24. Verbally fights with friends own age .69 26. Physically fights with friends own age .67 18. Hits parents .63 36. Wets the bed .61 29. Interrupts .56 31. Has short attention span .46 13. Has temper tantrums .46 7. Refuses to go to bed on time .45 21. Steals -.44 5. Refuses to do chores when asked .42 15. Whines .40 17. Yells or screams .36 11. Argues with parents about rules .35 1. Dawdles in getting dressed .26 3. Has poor table manners .22 19. Destroys toys and other objects .12 23. Teases or provokes other children -.06 33. Has difficulty entertaining self alone .05 25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers .01 27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers .01

PAGE 69

69 Table A-2. Two-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR = .08) ECBI item Factor One Factor Two 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way .93 .12 8. Does not obey house rules on own .89 .05 10. Acts defiant when told to do something .89 .08 30. Is easily distracted .88 .03 6. Slow in getting ready for bed .85 .08 2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .84 -.16 32. Fails to finish task or projects .83 .02 14. Sasses adults .81 .10 16. Cries easily .81 -.09 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .80 .06 4. Refuses to eat food presented .78 .11 35. Is overactive or restless .77 .08 20. Is careless with toys and other objects .76 .12 9. Refuses to obey until thre atened with punishment .70 .03 22. Lies .68 .13 24. Verbally fights with friends own age .67 .07 18. Hits parents .65 .08 36. Wets the bed .64 -.09 26. Physically fights with friends own age .63 .14 29. Interrupts .47 .32 28. Constantly seeks attention .46 .32 7. Refuses to go to bed on time .40 .19 31. Has short attention span .39 .28 13. Has temper tantrums .39 .25 5. Refuses to do chores when asked .35 .25 15. Whines .34 .17 11. Argues with parents about rules .30 .16 17. Yells or screams .28 .25 1. Dawdles in getting dressed .24 .08 3. Has poor table manners .11 .38 33. Has difficulty entertaining self alone .01 .15 19. Destroys toys and other objects -.07 .68 23. Teases or provokes other children -.20 .65 25. Verbally fights with si sters and brothers -.18 .66 27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers -.17 .61 21. Steals -.61 .57

PAGE 70

70 Table A-3. Three-factor EFA of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory(ECBI) (RMSR = .06) ECBI item Factor One Factor Two Factor Three 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way .91 .05 .01 26. Physically fights with friends own age .84 -.31 -.23 28. Constantly seeks attention .83 .04 .05 24. Verbally fights with friends own age .81 -.20 -.15 30. Is easily distracted .78 .03 .17 14. Sasses adults .76 .06 .09 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .74 -.07 .15 20. Is careless with toys and other objects .74 .14 .11 10. Acts defiant when told to do something .72 .12 .26 32. Fails to finish task or projects .72 .03 .20 22. Lies .72 -.19 .02 8. Does not obey house rules on own .71 .08 .28 35. Is overactive or restless .68 -.06 .21 18. Hits parents .67 .01 -.03 36. Wets the bed .66 .02 -.04 6. Slow in getting ready for bed .66 .13 .29 2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .61 .23 .33 16. Cries easily .60 .15 .31 4. Refuses to eat food presented .60 .15 .26 9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment .45 .09 .42 29. Interrupts .34 -.22 .33 31. Has short attention span .28 -.20 .29 23. Teases or provokes other children .00 -.70 -.05 19. Destroys toys and other objects .02 -.65 .12 25. Verbally fights with sist ers and brothers -.06 -.64 .06 27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers -.01 -.62 .00 21. Steals -.59 -.46 .17 3. Has poor table manners -.19 -.16 .63 5. Refuses to do chores when asked .09 -.07 .52 7. Refuses to go to bed on time .14 -.02 .50 1. Dawdles in getting dressed -.05 .10 .49 15. Whines .09 -.02 .46 11. Argues with parents about rules .08 -.01 .43 17. Yells or screams .14 -.14 .34 13. Has temper tantrums .26 -.16 .31 33. Has difficulty entertaining self alone -.11 -.05 .24

PAGE 71

71 LIST OF REFERENCES Abikoff, H. & Klein, R. G. (1992). Attenti on-deficit hyperactivity and conduct disorder: Com orbidity and implications for treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60 881-892. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Ch ecklist/4-18 and the 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Verm ont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 and 1992 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T.M. (1995). Diagnosis, assessment, and comorbidity in ps ychosocial treatment research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23 45-65. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., Rev.). Washington, D.C.: Author. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. Baker, B., & Heller, T. (1996). Pr eschool children with externaliz ing behaviors: Experience of fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24 513-532. Barkley, R.A. (2006). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Bauermeister, J. (1992). Factor analyses of teach er ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity and oppositional defiant symptoms in children aged four through thirteen years. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21 27-34.

PAGE 72

72 Bemporad, J.R., & Schwab, M.E. (1986). The DSM-III and clinical child psychiatry. In T. Millon & G.L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-IV (pp. 135-150). New York: Guilford Press. Boggs, S.R., Eyberg, S., & Reynolds, L.A. (1990). Concurrent validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19 75-78. Burns, G.L., Boe, B., Walsh, J.A., Sommer s-Flangan, R., & Teegarden, L.A. (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis on the DSM -IV ADHD and ODD symptoms: What is the best model for the organization of these symptoms? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 339-349. Burns, G.L., & Patterson, D.R. (1991). Factor stru cture of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: One-dimensional or multidimensional measure of disruptive behavior? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20 439-444. Burns, G.L., & Patterson, D.R. (2000). Factor stru cture of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: A parent rating scale of oppositional defian t behavior towards adults, inattentive behavior, and conduct problem behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29 569577. Burns, G., Walsh, J., Patterson, D., Holte, C., Sommers-Flanagan, R., & Parker, C. (1997). Internal validity of the disr uptive behavior disorder symptoms: Implications form parent ratings for a dimensional a pproach to symptom validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 307-319. Campbell, S. (2002). Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and developmental issues (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Chase, R.M. & Eyberg, S.M. (2008). Clinical presentation and treatmen t outcome for children with comorbid externalizing and internalizi ng symptoms. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 273-282. Christiansen, H., Chen, W., Oades, R.D., Ashe rson, P., Taylor, E.A., Lasky-Su, J., Zhou, K., Banaschewski, T., Buschgens, C., Franke, B., Gabriels, I., Manor, I., Marco, R., Muller, U.C., Mulligan, A., Psychogiou, L., Rommelse, N. N.J., Uebel, H., Buitelaar, J., Ebstein, R.P., Eisenberg, J., Gill, M., Miranda, A., Mulas, F., Roeyers, H., Rothenberger, A., Sergeant, J.A., Sonuga-Barke, H.C., Steinha usen, M., Thompson, M., & Faraone, S.V. (2008). Co-transmission of conduct problems with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Familial evidence for a distinct disorder. Journal of Neural Transmission, 115 163-175.

PAGE 73

73 Cole, D., Truglio, R., & Peeke, L. (1997). Relati on between symptoms of anxiety and depression in children: A multitrait-multimethod-multigroup assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65 110-119. Colvin, A., Eyberg, S.M., & Adams, C. (1999). St andardization of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with chronically ill children. Gaines ville: University of Florida, Child Study Laboratory. Available online at http://www.pcit.org Craighead, W.E. (1991). Cognitive factors and cl assification issues in adolescent depression. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 20 311-326. Doctoroff, G.L., & Arnold, D.H. (2004). Parent-ra ted externalizing behavior in preschoolers: The predictive utility of structured interviews, teacher reports, and classroom observations. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33 813-818. dosReis, S., Zito, S.M., Safer, D.J., Soeke n, K.L., Mitchell, J.W., & Ellwood, L.C. (2003). Parental perceptions and satisfaction with stimulant medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 24 155-162. DuPaul, G.J., McGoey, K.E., Eckert, T., & VanB rakle, J. (2001). Preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Impairments in be havioral, social, and school functioning. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40 508-515. Egger, H.L. & Angold, A. (2006). Common emoti onal and behavioral disorders in preschool children: Presentation, nosology, and epidemiology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 313-337. Egger, H.L. & Angold, A. (2004). The presc hool age psychiatric assessment (PAPA): A structured parent interview fo r diagnosing psychiatric disorder s in preschool children. In R. Delcarmen-Wiggens and A. Carter (Eds.) A Handbook of Infant and Toddler Mental Health Assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Eisenstadt, T.H., McElreath, L.S., Eyberg, S.M. & McNeil, C.B. (1994). Interparent agreement on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 16, 21-28. Eley, T.C., Bolton, D., OConnor, T.G., Perrin, S., Smith, P., & Plomin, R. (2003). A twin study of anxiety-related behaviors in pre-school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44 945-960. Eyberg, S.M. (1992). Parent and teacher behavi or inventories for the assessment of conduct problem behaviors in children. In L. Va ndeCreek, S. Knapp, & T.L. Jackson (Eds)., Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book (Vol. 12, pp.377-382). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

PAGE 74

74 Eyberg, S.M., Nelson, M.M., & Boggs, S.R. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents w ith disruptive behavior. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37 215-237. Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Invent ory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Eyberg, S.M., & Robinson, E.A. (1983). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of a behavior rating scale with adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11 130137. Eyberg, S. M., Schuhmann, E. M., & Rey, J. (1998). Child and adoles cent psychotherapy research: Developmental issues. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 26, 71-82. Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor anal ysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7 286-299. Funderburk, B.W., Eyberg, S.M., Rich, B.A., & Behar, L. (2003). Further psychometric evaluation of the Eyberg and Behar rating scal es for parents and teach ers of preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 14 67-81. Gadow, K.D. & Sprafkin, J. (2000). Early Childhood Inventory 4 Screening Manual. Stony Brook, NY: Checkmate Plus. Glutting, J., Youngstrom, E., & Watkins, M. ( 2005). ADHD and college students: Exploratory and confirmatory factor structures with student and parent data. Psychological Assessment, 17, 44-55. Greene, R. W., Biederman, J., Zerwas, S., Monuteaux, M., Goring, J. C., & Faraone, S. V. (2002). Psychiatric comorbidity, family dysfunction, and social impairment in referred youth with oppositional defiant disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159 12141224. Greenhill, L., Kollins, S., Abikoff, H., McCr acken, J., Riddle, M., Swanson, J., McGough, J., Wigal, S., Wigal, T., Vitiello, B., Skrobala, A., Posner, K., Ghuman, J., Cunningham, C., Davies, M., Chuang, S., & Cooper, T. (2006). Efficacy and safety of immediate-release methylphenidate treatment fo r preschoolers with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 1284-1293. Gross, D., Fogg, L., Young, M., Ridge, A., Co well, J., Sivan, A., & Richardson, R. (2007). Reliability and validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory w ith African-American and Latino parents of young children. Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 213-223. Hardy, K.K., Kollins, S.K., Murray, D. W., Riddle, M.A., Greenhill, L.,

PAGE 75

75 Cunningham, C., Abikoff, H.A., McCracken, J.T ., Benedetto, V., Davies, M., McGough, J.J., Posner, K., Skrobala, A.M., Swanson, J.M., Wigal, T., Wigal, S.B., Ghuman, J.K., & Chuang, S.Z. (2007). Factor structure of parentand teacher-rated AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms in the preschoolers with AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder treatment study (PATS). Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 17, 621-634. Harwood, M.D., OBrien, K.A., Carter, C.G., & Eyberg, S.M. (under review). Mental health services for preschool children in primary care: A survey of maternal attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Henggeler, S.W. & Borduin, C.M. (1990). Fa mily therapy and beyond: A multisystemic approach to treating the behavior problems of children and adolescents. Pacific Grove: CA: Brookes and Cole. Huffine, C.W. (2002). Conduct disorder should be eliminated from the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. In L. Flaherty (ed). Adolescent Psychiatry: The Annals of the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 26 Hillsdale: NJ: The Analytic Press. Jensen, P.S., Watanabe, H.K., Richters, J.E., Roper, M., Hibbs, E.D., Salzberg, A.D., & Liu, S. (1996). Scales, diagnoses, and child psychopa thology: II. Comparing the CBCL and the DISC against external validators. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24 151-168. Keenan, K. & Wakschlag, L. S. (2002). Can a valid diagnosis of disruptive behavior disorder be made in preschool children? American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 351-358. Keenan, K. & Wakschlag, L.S. (2000). More than th e terrible twos: The na ture and severity of behavior problems in clinic -referred preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 33-46. Koot, H. M, Van Den Oord, E. J. C. G., Verhulst F. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (1997). Behavioral and emotional problems in young preschoolers: Cross-cultural testing of the validity of the child behavior checklist/2-3. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 183-196. Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silv a, P. A. (1998). The structure and stability of common mental disorders (DSM-III-R): A longitudinal-epidemiological study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 216-227. Lahey, B.B., Rathouz, P.J., Van Hulle, C., Urbano, R. C., Krueger, R.F., Applegate, B., Garriock, H.A., Chapman, D.A., & Waldman, I.D. (2008) Testing structural models of DSM-IV symptoms of common forms of ch ild and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36 187-206. Lahey, B., Applegate, B., Waldma n, I., Loft, J., Hankin, B., & Rick, J. (2004). The structure of child and adolescent psychopathol ogy: Generating new hypotheses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113 358-385.

PAGE 76

76 Lahey, B. B., Pelham, W.E., Stein, M A., Loney, J ., Trapani, C., Nugent, K., Kipp, H., Schmidt, E., Lee, S., Cale, M., Gold, E., Hartung, C.M., Willcutt, E., & Baumann, B. (1998). Validity of DSM-IV attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder for younger children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 695-702. Lavigne, J. V., Arend, R., Rosenbaum, D., Binns, H. J., Christoffel, K K., & Gibbons, R. D. (1998). Psychiatric disorders w ith onset in the preschool ye ars, part 1: stability of diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 1246-1254. Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., & Israel, A. C. (1994). A critical examination of the use of the term and concept of comorbid ity in psychopath ology research. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 1 71-83. Loeber, R., Burke, J.D., Lahey, B.B., Winter s, A., & Zera, M. (2000). Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years, part I. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1468-1484. Luby, J.L., Heffelfinger, A.K., Mrakotsky, C., Hessler, M.J., Brown, K.M., & Hildebrand, T. (2002). Preschool major depressive disorder: Preliminary validation for developmentally modified DSM-IV criteria. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 928-937. Lucas, C.P., Fisher, P., Luby, J. (2000) The Young Child DISC New York: Columbia DISC Development Group. Marsh, H.W. & Hau, K.H. (1996) Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? The Journal of Experime ntal Education, 64, 364-390. McClellan, J., & Speltz, M. (2003). Psychi atric diagnosis in preschool children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42 127-128. Muthn L. & Muthn B. (2005). Chi-square di fference testing using the S-B scaled chi-square. Note on Mplus website, www.statmodel.com. Newcorn, J. H., Halperin, J. M., Jensen, P. S ., Abikoff, H. B., Arnol d, E., Cantwell, D. P., Conners, C. K., Elliott, G. R., Epstein, J. N., Greenhill, L. L., Hechtman, L., Hinshaw, S. P., Hoza, B., Kraemer, H. C., Pelham, W. E., Severe, J. B., Swanson, J. M., Wells, K. G., Wigal, T., & Vitiello, B. (2001). Symptom prof iles in children with ADHD: Effects of comorbidity and gender. Journal of the American Ac ademy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 137-146. Nolan, E. E., Gadow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. ( 2001). Teacher reports of DSM-IV ADHD, ODD, and CD symptoms in schoolchildren. Journa l of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 241-249.

PAGE 77

77 Nottelmann, E. D. & Jensen, P. S. (1995). Comorbid ity of disorders in ch ildren and adolescents: Developmental perspectives. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology: Vol. 17 (pp. 109-155). New York: Plenum Press. Pillow, D.R., Pelham, W.E., Hoza, B., Molina, B.S.G., and Stultz, C.H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analyses examining attention defic it hyperactivity disorder symptoms and other childhood disruptive behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 293-309. Ross, C.N., Blanc, H.M., McNeil, C.B., Eyberg, S.M., & Hembree-Kigin, T.L. (1998). Parenting stress in mothers of young children with opposi tional defiant disorder and other severe behavior problems. Child Study Journal, 28, 93-110. Rushton, J.L., Fant, K.El, & Clark, S.J. (2004). Us e of practice guidelines in the primary care of children with attention-defi cit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics, 114, E23-E28. Schuhmann, E., Foote, R., Eyberg, S.M., Boggs, S., & Algina, J. (1998). Parent-child interaction therapy: Interim report of a randomized trial with short-term maintenance. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 34-45. Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C. P., Dulca n, M. K., & Schwab-Stone, M. E. (2000). NIMH diagnostic interview schedule for children version IV (NIMH DISC -IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Ch ild & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28-38. Silk, J. S., Nath, S. R., Siegel, L. R., & Kenda ll, P.C. (2000). Conceptualizing mental disorders in children: Where have we been and where are we going? Development and Psychopathology, 12 713-735. Speltz, M., McClellan, J., DeKylen, M., & Jones, K. (1999). Preschool boys with Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Clinical pres entation and diagnostic change. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38 838-845. Spence, S., Rapee, R., McDonald, C., & Ingram, M. (2001). The structure of anxiety symptoms among preschoolers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 39, 1293-1316. Sprafkin, J., Volpe, R.J., Gadow, K.D., Nolan, E.E., & Kelly, K. (2002). A DSM-IV-referenced screening instrument for preschool ch ildren: The early childhood inventory-4. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41 604-612. Sterba, S., Egger, H.L., & Angold, A. (2007). Di agnostic specificity and nonspecificity in the dimensions of preschool psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1005-1013. Task Force on Research Diagnosti c Criteria: Infancy and Preschool. (2003). Research diagnostic criteria for infants and pr eschool children: The process and empirical support. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43 1504-1512.

PAGE 78

78 Thomas, J. & Guskin, K. (2001). Disruptive be havior in young children: What does it mean? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 44-51. Verduin, T.L., Abikoff, H., & Kurtz, S.M.S. (2008). Evidence-based treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a preschool-age child: A case study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37 477-485. Vitiello, B., Abikoff, H.B., Chuang, S.Z., Kollins, S.H., McCracken, J.T., Riddle, M.A., Swanson, J.M., Wigal, T., McGough, J.J., Ghum an, J.K., Wigal, S.B., Skrobala, A.M., Davies, M., Posner, K., Cunningham, C., & Greenhill, L.L. (2007). Effectiveness of methylphenidate in the 10-month continua tion phase of the preschoolers with ADHD treatment study (PATS). Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 17, 593603. Wakefield, J.C., Pottick, K. J., & Kirk, S.A. ( 2002). Should the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for conduct disorder consider social context? American Journal of Psychiatry, 159 380-386. Wakschalg, L. S., Leventhal, M. D. & Thomas, M. D. Disruptive behavior disorders & ADHD in preschool children: Characterizing hetero typic continuities for a developmentallyinformed nosology for DSM V. In D. Reig er, M. First & W. Narrow (Eds). Age and gender considerations in psychiatric di agnosis: A research agenda for DSM-V. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc. (in press). Weis, R., Lovejoy, M.C., & Lundahl, B.W. (2005). Factor structure and discriminative validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with young children. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27 269-278. Wigal, T. Greenhill, L., Chuang, S., McCough, J., V itiello, B., Skrobala, A., Swanson, J., Wigal, S., Abikoff, H., Kollins, S., McCracken, J., Riddle, M., Posner, K., Ghuman, J., Davies, M., Thorp, B., & Stehli, A. (2006). Safety and tolerability of methylphenidate in preschool children with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45 1294-1303. Wilens, T., Biederman, J., Spencer, T., & Monut eaux, M. (2003). Psychiatric diagnosis in preschool children: Reply. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42 128-129. Wilens, T. E., Biederman, J., Brown, S., Tanguay, S., Monuteaux, M.C., Blake, C., & Spencer, T. J. (2002). Psychiatric comorbidity and f unctioning in clinically referred preschool children and school-age youths with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41 262-268. Willoughby, M., Curran, P., Costello, E., & Angold, A. (2000). Implications of early versus late onset of attention-deficit/hype ractivity disorder symptoms. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39 1512-1519.

PAGE 79

79 Wolraich, M.L., Felice, M.E., & Drotar, D. (E ds). (1996). The classification of child and adolescent mental diagnosis in primary care: Diagnosis and Statistical Manual for Primary Care (DSM-PC) Child and Adolescent Version. Elk Gove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. World Health Organization (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research, 10th edition. Geneva: World Health Organization. Yu, C., & Muthn, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. U npublished Dissertation available online at: www.statmodel.com.

PAGE 80

80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rhea Marisa Chase was born in Manchest er, Connecticut on October 6, 1979. She graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in psychology in 2001 from Bates College in Lewiston, Maine. She then worked in clinical research at Massachusetts Gene ral Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts for two years. He r graduate work was done in th e Department of Clinical and Health Psychology at the University of Florida, and she completed her predoctoral internship at Duke University Medical Center. Upon completion of her Ph.D. program, Rhea will begin a post doctoral position through the Center for Anxiety and Related Disord ers at Boston University.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101107_AAAACO INGEST_TIME 2010-11-07T23:09:17Z PACKAGE UFE0022570_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 9379 DFID F20101107_AABUGV ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH chase_r_Page_76thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
f7dfd32bda68debe034adc74c544c3d2
SHA-1
d7b150323cb0f9d97da0defa98ebceb25ae7e392
300775 F20101107_AABUBY chase_r.pdf
b6a746bc73b7e9475f290c9e98519c30
891ef4b8cace8707d59cc919b7c07c06ea72880d
25271604 F20101107_AABTNF chase_r_Page_14.tif
432ff8aa25537dbdee0110bdf314bf2f
66dc63463e82248184393329eb64d5aaded71cac
2153 F20101107_AABTZX chase_r_Page_13.txt
d4ab0d74df6cac94fc8d93b8d81377d6
895947579ebde8c63ff7044a1a45b139da41bfce
1051942 F20101107_AABTSC chase_r_Page_16.jp2
407701b4e364372061b514a8083b59bf
163a2448ed0475e4fb5ab4094e2c9af288b380ba
40151 F20101107_AABUGW chase_r_Page_77.QC.jpg
03aff1ece28218c3ba5d8b347706634e
783a376426553235e3faeb082ed92d13a7350b31
46822 F20101107_AABTXA chase_r_Page_09.pro
849f881b06eb85437ab070f99bdf7abd
a75221c2caffd43202299b87155173505eb62461
2114 F20101107_AABTZY chase_r_Page_14.txt
a038ebe61886d6fe8b39ce1274e926ae
ebd89496a97104e0cce75598e0cf1a6447122c11
1051969 F20101107_AABTSD chase_r_Page_17.jp2
94cd20ebbc3177f65b0e8d512d898c31
d2fc1ffa923cbbada3a75288dd88ccef47211f27
9687 F20101107_AABUGX chase_r_Page_77thm.jpg
a4761a94aa7e52a4414d1a8cbbd48ae5
fcd503f472132cbc4d71e448fe6989d3c6e039ec
2320 F20101107_AABUBZ chase_r_Page_01thm.jpg
8a9ebc6e7877db4f060e8738deb87df9
05b8a049bd443e5fd8e643801c162f5e6ac62ef7
F20101107_AABTNG chase_r_Page_59.tif
b4ca30773446c08a90be526e0a3b7cd4
8b4ad005169a7dec670df22c03c1854553658bbf
26852 F20101107_AABTXB chase_r_Page_10.pro
f36711921f74651eaebb2488b1ac7ede
da3bafc3bbfeac8ef47a02c63e7ae65c697135be
2235 F20101107_AABTZZ chase_r_Page_15.txt
4633848cb5f6344840bf46b12e06622f
52f0ad82f05e8dc96a96f4660095e7f8ec44ab39
1051959 F20101107_AABTSE chase_r_Page_18.jp2
3c97c08400c867ead9ab242e64067171
f3d0ddcd776d207b28d8bedd966c62109e383166
38228 F20101107_AABUGY chase_r_Page_78.QC.jpg
c4f81e50be0fc059838e001caf249162
dbd6ffcb75800d1fa20e2b63076be42c562aa7a5
F20101107_AABTNH chase_r_Page_77.tif
a049a6eda5fbd7fb8fdd425b10d7fb94
c6fc33b44e08939d9509c621d3910083e49f199f
54872 F20101107_AABTXC chase_r_Page_13.pro
ff8873a707cf9a178d4a6cf464ee9c4c
291a36dd4f3ccccca89702f672b95da3687fed62
F20101107_AABTSF chase_r_Page_19.jp2
d284093cfae0049f1b4bb9628dd52ddb
1e744250977770f36ae376d75e6a70573eb08d8d
9352 F20101107_AABUGZ chase_r_Page_78thm.jpg
e2709b97e7fe5ea8e75ed3579d09601c
663e3bb2f8d7bd8180bece64838ceb1f71df48b4
2369 F20101107_AABUEA chase_r_Page_35thm.jpg
0aa594268e1d78d5cd49b21264249433
60fe714ce5be4acd5a39935e39c9a070132d277c
1051974 F20101107_AABTNI chase_r_Page_74.jp2
01365caa0d458b4abcb3278afade6bed
b55425eef853cabacdb114a311fdc7e06e25711f
53250 F20101107_AABTXD chase_r_Page_14.pro
8210e65889d50f5b399ad714d5567538
907e7d959b172a43e197b2ae236ce2de6418ca74
1051970 F20101107_AABTSG chase_r_Page_20.jp2
fc9aaa831413bcc57f8d219401acc572
22718d9acca6828f3975bd51a82f079c18700d86
30816 F20101107_AABUEB chase_r_Page_36.QC.jpg
a367819e5c8d0a82685b53b938158b2b
5b3414611cc6ec379bf448993d91aa239300050e
3197 F20101107_AABTNJ chase_r_Page_51thm.jpg
39b086a00a387c4fa85601c845faf6e7
c622348904692d6d19e8fd8d3173cd5b93c02f38
56463 F20101107_AABTXE chase_r_Page_15.pro
395a28b241765efa7280fab386fc5d2d
483fdd540b021a4cab7098cb555425d1141bfa22
1051933 F20101107_AABTSH chase_r_Page_21.jp2
61146f7f7f04959b0911992200d92276
8483564778c886a426775a7fbf150c09e8b4e7d6
7693 F20101107_AABUEC chase_r_Page_36thm.jpg
8ce9b9ad4e41043b4441f0af5f1697ba
8d2669821f3393926a0f05a3ad794978d20282e1
8501 F20101107_AABTNK chase_r_Page_35.QC.jpg
42a121a55598da107c1ea6830e8bf374
9e08575c97422065c9d411d90c30535dffcd6768
51218 F20101107_AABTXF chase_r_Page_16.pro
ab9aa6beacc553e057733c89eaddc0eb
e8b8875aa401a269037242a926f57534d3821641
1051967 F20101107_AABTSI chase_r_Page_22.jp2
3f03c7a50b049fc35fd461c4abb50aff
2091c839e4cee6d36f965e355f0dec4ecf63f589
8947 F20101107_AABUED chase_r_Page_37thm.jpg
07f927f0123eb1a571ce19215059d79f
5381e1b1fd45e0ce6e4ba67776697948d81e9a58
2155 F20101107_AABTNL chase_r_Page_38.txt
fa87f85fd764df9a8069e0f359eafc26
c9a7907d76543a7ab1cd60f78dc9c7c92266f3b3
53600 F20101107_AABTXG chase_r_Page_17.pro
074283e378c559f77b0e197f41679232
f30a4e65861bf3337aa8ff54fa6d87346a96142b
1051939 F20101107_AABTSJ chase_r_Page_23.jp2
8fbfc452612ac80ddec377dbab5529bb
8b9280dcbc91bc22a31c73516ae531abc6d4bc56
37698 F20101107_AABUEE chase_r_Page_38.QC.jpg
f30f24a49c1b58ad5bf6716e21ab94ad
539759956f179f00d6338692b6929bac2321c184
2052 F20101107_AABTNM chase_r_Page_33.txt
bc0b9f975e1bd6d5770def9371d0788b
6e583573f767d8b500539465e3dc2c8fc89f455c
55194 F20101107_AABTXH chase_r_Page_18.pro
f4aa1759498c743bdaa50eb2e609d33f
e6e3730dfdfef7d9c080ec633d20a310ba3162c8
1051915 F20101107_AABTSK chase_r_Page_24.jp2
00937d9ec8f2186afed63b915ff439aa
2d47d4c4ed53a5eb14c3fad6daa4edf029e6c548
9065 F20101107_AABUEF chase_r_Page_38thm.jpg
4c97284561c385e4492547efec7b0422
fb03a68462caabaa4e091fdd65c5daca9ca63062
2075 F20101107_AABTNN chase_r_Page_32.txt
ef49f96294b713144a4daf5829ea3d9a
a7b3ea382f6d294ee8d99343a4294853e43ab124
53332 F20101107_AABTXI chase_r_Page_19.pro
612eceff7be2b0820cedd6a56a3fe7ae
548e9e5093c703776df2cee73f712f21c533b5e3
36596 F20101107_AABUEG chase_r_Page_39.QC.jpg
008704e3b4a5639ac73bcead97c77a65
935fa33fed4118eeb7f2505cca75f035bb69e09c
53399 F20101107_AABTNO chase_r_Page_37.pro
f0835f6651ad0c719ef1893a6abe3843
126ee122d69064c464adad3c7ed789eaf828149d
54338 F20101107_AABTXJ chase_r_Page_20.pro
d45688061394dfcd30d8f4d667cfb2a4
72bb9b4d8b2bf9318b4d71a4e22c26d9577c4f78
1051931 F20101107_AABTSL chase_r_Page_25.jp2
c11550bdb73b62ba33f338b830248377
1d60edbd4fdb4deb5d218f7f8662c31f7db2292e
8745 F20101107_AABUEH chase_r_Page_39thm.jpg
e5d826c315e6c0df1cdd40cfb67fec20
551e6261ad39554ef848d14f2a0a241df232ade8
111411 F20101107_AABTNP chase_r_Page_13.jpg
a077be66a5cf1e4e0e6f16b7e99df88d
384e8e0436d7c423a8ee7f3a9004cf4a7a22612c
55274 F20101107_AABTXK chase_r_Page_21.pro
cf1ac9ae68a4a1d433a3412f5b23d637
bccfc21f250f71efd923e913235be946a49dc1fe
863838 F20101107_AABTSM chase_r_Page_26.jp2
e071b31cabe96c2e0945ec3faf136e65
9ff1bdfd2a49d8fbc6f0feecb1940e79f37cbf9f
37838 F20101107_AABUEI chase_r_Page_40.QC.jpg
4106f259ae4d262ee4994a19b4197ea1
5008b4b77d9da7884ecfd37670910b29ad80b42c
F20101107_AABTNQ chase_r_Page_32.tif
cd15cd8a319c342cc0a144712bde8731
6aa2b80f9a42be840d18f623ddebaf00362ac2fd
57055 F20101107_AABTXL chase_r_Page_22.pro
bfe8caf4097ff164f5ded8dce4704f2e
03e46ee998320ef5a38c3b6a936beb6054cc23b8
1015645 F20101107_AABTSN chase_r_Page_27.jp2
74e6fc766ea8fa46301ebbc03c31d260
c5658c7fd1abe7e83c5755669b7310119579ec34
8976 F20101107_AABUEJ chase_r_Page_40thm.jpg
c2088a1ca828e8a7c05a7e97e6804072
528b9504c062579ecbf8cc5c9c48ac54725beb18
F20101107_AABTNR chase_r_Page_40.tif
a837e8d66517cd02d2eddc1af01e1496
e2e8bee174fd4d3dfb8476f90c0b95cc20fc76c5
55777 F20101107_AABTXM chase_r_Page_23.pro
a92cffae90119cc9025a41183cc2e783
1a051b64f5c20d960a5a00cabb9480e2dfb3c1b6
1051981 F20101107_AABTSO chase_r_Page_28.jp2
3f42a2557abbed0b5d209b07b17d8cb4
3cace491f88a221e8e32d789ca3d6f48ac5fce92
36090 F20101107_AABUEK chase_r_Page_41.QC.jpg
dda7e29881b58433297fe33ae087d7fc
a2a8d88adac602f7f8fca369e965ea9c5c55c3e5
F20101107_AABTNS chase_r_Page_45.tif
a9ff9ce9ee78e0b2d824bc26bbb91519
12a54704642c27a8d2419e66345b43b7ceb8d906
53832 F20101107_AABTXN chase_r_Page_24.pro
cc18814af56f30a3c043c56e8e358c98
ebb64beec152415d548257c4aeb467092dc1fac0
1051977 F20101107_AABTSP chase_r_Page_29.jp2
71815c53688e57e555c509032e9234e8
4100751c640574ea3fb2c3cbf98f091a7a946bb3
9005 F20101107_AABUEL chase_r_Page_41thm.jpg
a39a7dce92ef4fc5ec99f050d334ffb6
c2844817d642b924737ac31274a5c13e3854bffe
52374 F20101107_AABTXO chase_r_Page_25.pro
422d1c0c158eafb93c529d59ee2fdda9
34b4aa8c254c50bbd64922d775f3281aa90c79d2
1051973 F20101107_AABTSQ chase_r_Page_30.jp2
73cc56f5c71d89b9339bb09739ce5a37
cc465fe7f50e41c7a6906015eef72192d614fb90
F20101107_AABTNT chase_r_Page_48.tif
560a3fa15ef22d5023997493c62bb643
b12d94d77cafe13280e1b6647e0c694af1670af6
34608 F20101107_AABUEM chase_r_Page_42.QC.jpg
2039276690bd052505f1f7f5f2d0e29d
1c2b7af15a35bcbb93330fe842a870ec0f5bb061
44996 F20101107_AABTXP chase_r_Page_27.pro
5bd107daac14507c5922658db74a9028
ab7e54dbc1b5f84abff053eee987d53cdfb9680c
F20101107_AABTSR chase_r_Page_31.jp2
5060822cbba4014caef5d4dd895825c5
257b824497817f67a99c25ccc913b34a1b51ee8f
F20101107_AABTNU chase_r_Page_69.tif
2095c4ebd31a256b23c728f021d06bff
01da972cdfa67c3af56da197291e46a0e1a62add
8804 F20101107_AABUEN chase_r_Page_42thm.jpg
dabda12e6ee42ec15c14aa2ed1fc030d
31f03dc01ae471cf27c015ce77d7e6626dbe5efa
1051960 F20101107_AABTSS chase_r_Page_32.jp2
fa377e8fd38e9b86098935377d85ade2
55f16b702ef1a879a04422081f09698f97da6369
2194 F20101107_AABTNV chase_r_Page_18.txt
f2bdaa6d38ada369f5dd3ffa7d6d4829
ed5b7d06e4d1c8fa4fdb4f316fb63340b7577440
35326 F20101107_AABUEO chase_r_Page_43.QC.jpg
8a48d1181841b42640094fb4c00dda5a
28d23982e2fd9f2bb49f3bada5ffc57e053a1ff2
53579 F20101107_AABTXQ chase_r_Page_28.pro
c58039b109e07f7056f472fe9a15a0bc
531591e34c75b53024edccc3c333afd9fb98ac6c
1051976 F20101107_AABTST chase_r_Page_33.jp2
cc50c9e6dd531e13454a81437b1ceb87
5cda62f11a2f9ac6db87d1f76477655fab5c8014
53728 F20101107_AABTNW chase_r_Page_11.pro
3e1f96f0c30a2d98d5d5b09533128d40
d8a541d4cca968e581cd9078a85a4dc7742cb0f9
8765 F20101107_AABUEP chase_r_Page_43thm.jpg
dee5a1c9ba5dc85491ac785451988860
fbc7423d92fc362e530ebbcf9c83d7820c24a67a
53648 F20101107_AABTXR chase_r_Page_29.pro
c9178ce5b211683d1cf0fee778131d8d
6d78f3981839f613edb4b33017e2e3ffcca69d56
360635 F20101107_AABTSU chase_r_Page_34.jp2
25ccd73f2df3b67e4e0af327b6cdb8e5
31ef0957a0e60b8feba2bf15b93e43296d3653ce
191159 F20101107_AABTNX chase_r_Page_47.jp2
da70e41d4255d2249380b48b16e8f7a8
2bdca828239aa8c3bb473c8f46218ea711c9e421
5926 F20101107_AABUEQ chase_r_Page_44thm.jpg
10e612499f773d2f6d4f63cf81532918
9a9902a899622c907e54b3211d9565532909d7af
54640 F20101107_AABTXS chase_r_Page_30.pro
1d87bfda4739fe05b954904fa6790fe9
33b34af50ae30d772ed67a033117b980ddfa06fe
247080 F20101107_AABTSV chase_r_Page_35.jp2
8d24ce29140aeeb9c4a207f4a557c61e
4b08c12868c74d62a6ae6e7967267806517f9cd1
F20101107_AABTNY chase_r_Page_01.tif
adcde951841c26c14d5dac93165702f3
0282ac76d92e4464120279fc04ac211b4f6d8e96
17338 F20101107_AABUER chase_r_Page_45.QC.jpg
588c4c2a62e1b1e3d2c8408e8e30e0f9
61b2b79aaf3e58f3f6ed8e6b58d7a9addb25484f
55686 F20101107_AABTXT chase_r_Page_31.pro
1c24a7832eb36aaa749f57bf059b9234
00bd30faa9b5a92c37735424fa692df4d5473940
1034878 F20101107_AABTSW chase_r_Page_36.jp2
46627135a14b468d60954b898c10ac4e
44f3ddb270023a57551e9d1691ca28c951baf458
114477 F20101107_AABTNZ chase_r_Page_64.jpg
84be79d763e3af2dfaea0006dac49d7d
e8206f778c0e1495b2fca01388d37ab996e3de54
5573 F20101107_AABUES chase_r_Page_45thm.jpg
321fb23fb91242a3b3d1afcec4e7c91d
b53a298445ac53d4de5ac71143a24fcdc7569afc
52241 F20101107_AABTXU chase_r_Page_33.pro
bc755998f083238be3c2768e02362a82
32e6f10f70418810a3c3ee67784263443018e97a
1051924 F20101107_AABTSX chase_r_Page_37.jp2
b5a7d9bb49909d0c03daa08cb9351885
ab1dd2f85ac357e544ba994bfd687ac7bb7f9d1c
21833 F20101107_AABUET chase_r_Page_46.QC.jpg
e58a0d017078129e3ae1c72702fa9b76
5d199f4ae1529046ef799c5b1b776d50e3387d63
15380 F20101107_AABTXV chase_r_Page_34.pro
630d95b1ee04818d1ccd1fef82a16c7c
3e218273b33cc2a5b4028de923dbb5f0abdee3bc
111643 F20101107_AABTQA chase_r_Page_30.jpg
2a9fefd6b1ca513eb2b0f8e9848d8f3d
f9833e215d291f3fd3231c5dc71abca6a52c5391
1051961 F20101107_AABTSY chase_r_Page_38.jp2
7d57cb4086b29fb0baddfefdaf54e2f3
1a166a579aceb442ad62e0e5bee78620d996162f
6228 F20101107_AABUEU chase_r_Page_46thm.jpg
4b41003877c2c42540614323e23b20e1
e8569a78883780209e52ec51a7c7403d7fb9f56f
13890 F20101107_AABTXW chase_r_Page_35.pro
c474bb215481b8f1c17f9c7c12eaab8d
ec6d22d8c55d674fab5ee65313371754ab7c15c6
115706 F20101107_AABTQB chase_r_Page_31.jpg
b6d0fbdb0f16bf6714066f5605b7c28a
6db57a9e0b1e7cfeabd662b9346bdad56f519e90
F20101107_AABTSZ chase_r_Page_39.jp2
7f41c94159e72615a8a097043bed26e2
e0edc8bbf31d0589cc4aae6d55030c8bd24ca632
9291 F20101107_AABUEV chase_r_Page_47.QC.jpg
8b04252ba4a09d7e3947f9c4994ca24c
25895e7a7116a70f76d2f34eac7906f862bd6aec
45369 F20101107_AABTXX chase_r_Page_36.pro
1da4819e09bc7937c85a0084864ab26a
94ef253b8093784510f70506a4401675004e39c7
110142 F20101107_AABTQC chase_r_Page_33.jpg
34c5069ecd7e445acbecf6b1aeaf608e
6c463fc8d9f06f074fd985b9daa440223f1e8faf
2836 F20101107_AABUEW chase_r_Page_47thm.jpg
3775e48fecc92fd81f10ad37e5b11f5a
779f58382c30283ea190683617fd57aaf43bc060
54532 F20101107_AABTXY chase_r_Page_38.pro
570d34f5a012f8d0623dd4e1ca394f68
c406c77bff5ffddc2658de85245ff3b9870e55a4
35289 F20101107_AABTQD chase_r_Page_34.jpg
1ff9cedb83e44278563fbdcccc13e011
a0827ff02aae74252205d1903cb44c7c0377e8ba
F20101107_AABTVA chase_r_Page_24.tif
16b9f1376ae51f169c7d4bcd2c7c3cb3
fcb22dfa7c79af0b9c8b19c8ae0cbe992e47cc23
2265 F20101107_AABUEX chase_r_Page_48thm.jpg
07138a08b7766330664c9f767fca2379
0d4f52b0f022b2e8b5e3d3010d31dadb915a3ea0
52158 F20101107_AABTXZ chase_r_Page_39.pro
58d785f733ee73c8ff3ac96e971aef9d
2e86c5af2dd781813f0ec37f32abd5d2984e896b
26252 F20101107_AABTQE chase_r_Page_35.jpg
4b33a1fc47d7e8777c54d1d1afce6acf
7e153b78b2953b08a902750c7a95fe7e0221dddc
F20101107_AABTVB chase_r_Page_25.tif
63a27f84034f9ccf356213e6e145cb04
6f98b353d84afbf5d74f86dcd1cc52830bdd676d
16162 F20101107_AABUEY chase_r_Page_49.QC.jpg
7a4506125df6082769a2d869bd677334
0a5bb6ddbdd4deaf3dfd5f21ebd996177c231251
115661 F20101107_AABTQF chase_r_Page_38.jpg
06b974be3440c4c5a76c2337f77df2c0
3281bef4e1b8594f78c4f3236b865f2dd8d9d1d9
F20101107_AABTVC chase_r_Page_26.tif
091e31ce203022ee196063424f839dbe
d058f6518da7712faf6f7e725d6b27e286a489d6
4540 F20101107_AABUEZ chase_r_Page_49thm.jpg
bda369e4d2bb93da3f1894ef5629b89f
7078ce9817a05a144ba33dd34b274fd6a154907f
9727 F20101107_AABUCA chase_r_Page_01.QC.jpg
19531872f97e4382805fa57b614bad2a
a801d12fde811b125aef3b97fa19900dba0e3d4f
109335 F20101107_AABTQG chase_r_Page_39.jpg
417c90d8fe1fe10994013f14d1cda156
84e564a73c0dcdd81f087dc42bf88d04736857fd
F20101107_AABTVD chase_r_Page_27.tif
26abd8d7e461dc7ce36c0fb4f234a5f5
80c8debc69b0194a60c260375b7228a760942109
1206 F20101107_AABUCB chase_r_Page_02.QC.jpg
cf411b3054e6a6b362575dbd831cbb05
8616fbe451704e8be998c66827d2a1f375e87dce
114113 F20101107_AABTQH chase_r_Page_40.jpg
47ccf9c6867408ec2759b0fc22b3bd59
a04a8cab673e10529a1230002c0b77f2de402260
F20101107_AABTVE chase_r_Page_28.tif
3e364b42ec180980306150f1c7af6f1f
a08dfe308c7565df810170aec5e133a08b72bc7b
2895 F20101107_AABUCC chase_r_Page_03.QC.jpg
8f84eddac342b455cb1ed1534015185a
17f2b741aa808972c4775212ca275bccf395e2a5
110813 F20101107_AABTQI chase_r_Page_41.jpg
508cee222671fdfd9322f09025bb688b
e95c93480074df9773cbab2479683e5261e6f997
8730 F20101107_AABTLK chase_r_Page_16thm.jpg
98d05868cd1c99e4c2b14e13e9083135
e4721f946aebe4d01bffe78d779f937ff64a83b6
F20101107_AABTVF chase_r_Page_29.tif
52ba88660d9301c90b76205573c8c997
71f3614b3120d2bd4fb166b4b7cec9119bfb2383
11115 F20101107_AABUHA chase_r_Page_79.QC.jpg
8b5e3934dd3c9ee697bcaffaa7cd68b3
9de81ec7a664754b8f88cf93013939f42701e9a4
950 F20101107_AABUCD chase_r_Page_03thm.jpg
d4b40fa469c063181d08be4cb954b0b4
1106f553cb21dda89977c1aea8193680ceca5142
721 F20101107_AABTLL chase_r_Page_79.txt
c1113f83535aca927c3c7dddb81c7067
48ca06e81b0f0fc9a4f44c3c5fe8c8bc854f045e
F20101107_AABTVG chase_r_Page_30.tif
1f0c61fd519746d97d09eb4963b9f84a
abe4bbdb8d16e0828ae00eed4067f15e8c55bf93
12765 F20101107_AABUHB chase_r_Page_80.QC.jpg
02b0afa492126e31515e7b77128d3631
dd2646675d990e56050b9016eaaf94ddbc1814a6
17800 F20101107_AABUCE chase_r_Page_04.QC.jpg
a777a658cf7900d4e929bbf58fdf9f7e
b67c51c09f472fd745768479a43842a8fd6444d8
104322 F20101107_AABTQJ chase_r_Page_42.jpg
846a4136cfaae8ba93c77d9094ba054d
85ddde2878218287c05fe7681555265ff1f9b9c4
F20101107_AABTLM chase_r_Page_75.tif
b71b86ecbc356ce5f3566c24a3e8b5b7
2aae3f08d32ce268726bad85b2a9343f7de59438
F20101107_AABTVH chase_r_Page_31.tif
2a36420b34a7b16ad761573d23efbb1f
3d14678b465aedebbc55eb65edce7b78b0fc4d57
93741 F20101107_AABUHC UFE0022570_00001.mets FULL
0f9ce699fd8609687e77e7caec981f9a
4149b2d3ae13b3cb5eea66a1dac29ec2155f312c
4222 F20101107_AABUCF chase_r_Page_04thm.jpg
0d68e3302a6ab39ad24010acd4966d14
ea09f0250fc4d1e2a14583f22157ab83df855bbc
108946 F20101107_AABTQK chase_r_Page_43.jpg
5aa359bca234a2e2e27ba2f38863dc8a
40da12761325e36d7ee3652b53f3a226271fcab8
18451 F20101107_AABTLN chase_r_Page_52.jpg
37db53de6c29816754968de7ddab2d1e
724d89c0daaccd248f2459ddc9b13da8f6cb0c90
F20101107_AABTVI chase_r_Page_34.tif
f4da11b098ccf4c7b4f89a7947078f4d
373b527896c6fb7c2b54cbef6f3a180edbe9477d
25644 F20101107_AABUCG chase_r_Page_05.QC.jpg
f1b30e6395b90f313c42e118eb27a12e
8a6c22322eedce6d15d7c2ba7b06a768024e699b
72599 F20101107_AABTQL chase_r_Page_44.jpg
10b13756220cc776617e302fd8fb8577
1e0863ee1f116d6ffc3d5603cc4fd3267245207e
F20101107_AABTLO chase_r_Page_76.jp2
b1a64d1d7f1fbdb930e26f3269a8017f
9cc312cf7426c73a878b8af7548d4cdf14cfef39
F20101107_AABTVJ chase_r_Page_35.tif
4c2d5b31e0e0179d03bc7d61353aee41
941a2629cfaad2f3b45e7a2da9e44ec15ea29aa5
6497 F20101107_AABUCH chase_r_Page_05thm.jpg
d7971e1fd036bc196f22c6e3b554512b
ea0f50ad9b300f94ac138af8d571e660f56cd171
54999 F20101107_AABTQM chase_r_Page_45.jpg
a122ed49077a14443c28e0d9a7e55b61
16b720f2aeea60d991ba326c1de3f8249f8a0864
1013 F20101107_AABTLP chase_r_Page_04.txt
d804900724f90fa1ec017a3aedb1e142
f8457e988daa73a54de025e01392b4e75c3b0278
F20101107_AABTVK chase_r_Page_36.tif
6674a89e9687ea51cd0aaeaecc267b99
4a0476e59e73794a3568fe9c825239234f76c59e
6479 F20101107_AABUCI chase_r_Page_06.QC.jpg
c7f70100ea797178169cb8e738a92720
ed7a40527d2fb0f7188ac971cd1ace06dd2fa677
69347 F20101107_AABTQN chase_r_Page_46.jpg
9ba7647f7467360b411ab7ae33f875d6
ceafe8a3892c02c12f06fd971a323c743de66da2
36410 F20101107_AABTLQ chase_r_Page_21.QC.jpg
d291a3ad93492eeb499921ffd4ca0803
79f112ed059e64e00f18178756fe794f7f77f66e
F20101107_AABTVL chase_r_Page_37.tif
7c4828a1df399d8336f88fbed55e539f
3853ca24286fbe06d0927a300832216d2ace07a0
1949 F20101107_AABUCJ chase_r_Page_06thm.jpg
3ec2bcfd0860c85e301b9a8fe8fc1c1f
9591496cc950566f246d32ee8149aea8d6e2f836
22639 F20101107_AABTQO chase_r_Page_47.jpg
1c4e17247c281d083c3ace92b5a4c56a
4d8b157bd506051687e22372fd95d8cb8884cb73
12296 F20101107_AABTLR chase_r_Page_34.QC.jpg
6405e0721aeedc318a1d96a104b05acb
6234d273c4ed7dd8b11307368852e8969198c47f
F20101107_AABTVM chase_r_Page_38.tif
a99a45dcdbae0527046d3d032baf7f18
97d25875221153097bc0f41a65d576a7b4499f04
23441 F20101107_AABUCK chase_r_Page_07.QC.jpg
0c34f4f2ae275b9dd0c987bf08d8539c
96a58292e784d3c6e1d0a4fa39e9bfe41fff7f5d
41790 F20101107_AABTLS chase_r_Page_07.pro
a7d0624a5850a7b931d80aed43a08a96
4aa8e37a92a4dcb0ffd20b2a0278bdf74898b65c
F20101107_AABTVN chase_r_Page_39.tif
0618ab224317bf0e51b89d00206d4e74
338a81634f62445ad8849ad4caa899985d064539
22943 F20101107_AABTQP chase_r_Page_48.jpg
7cf0933915fb14ad08f41f827970da6b
310c816b2276f9ffb3e5dd162bfe3c1dd724397f
5747 F20101107_AABUCL chase_r_Page_07thm.jpg
8fb020a93a6d3a7a9e7b48c8969361ac
97d8bcb0f405b30f7affc310c75cbd7c9139574e
116998 F20101107_AABTLT chase_r_Page_05.jpg
96a71cf4c1c797bb2b5accb9219f3413
e03fe211629bd7a145436461e5ee943c709c3636
51919 F20101107_AABTQQ chase_r_Page_49.jpg
04ef57c2207b76e963fe230de12810c2
1f6b0fe7e7fe91e688519b73b3a6eae215bfab02
1672 F20101107_AABUCM chase_r_Page_08thm.jpg
5d6d9f4acdeb00bd053135ce04b70362
3c05d775868ef752f2e7b2beceb0832ad9356fff
1491 F20101107_AABTLU chase_r_Page_26.txt
428bfc966c32731b529f2e3bf80af198
4a5b6df9faa7c9fa76a1324e3c9e909c859d5324
F20101107_AABTVO chase_r_Page_41.tif
77055b93c291a3d7289381b3bb4b93bf
6fe46297cfbb5e1ff5db6a3e8e0d9f72af441143
16021 F20101107_AABTQR chase_r_Page_50.jpg
3b609b7179be31b0342d934e18cc838a
abcc0f24bf4e71fd09bb84d3686667eac9b100b1
7744 F20101107_AABUCN chase_r_Page_09thm.jpg
e2ba85e247d3638aa8a75e8a6b275ffc
62454787dcb06269656c79bdaccfa8ff86766015
36990 F20101107_AABTLV chase_r_Page_20.QC.jpg
d2a9913db60e5cf1c65b1b2e8646dd52
6d8fec642bf44fcf2fea659b92eda2d208cb5ef9
F20101107_AABTVP chase_r_Page_42.tif
676a36071bebeba76e01e6ff3f034203
6a2c5bff0805175d67063a7137c5e8b3df95eb47
32455 F20101107_AABTQS chase_r_Page_51.jpg
71553f238297a28b247922ac631ea933
91708a0204bf8aca139f28f9a7a9184aa9495f06
4663 F20101107_AABUCO chase_r_Page_10thm.jpg
eb90dfd93e53beba8613f2903dad5882
aa2ad78a842f6417a52d0de6ab91537af5821b14
2189 F20101107_AABTLW chase_r_Page_11.txt
c99b0cb9302dfdf84792d0e9a1489e22
e8104b52f1349148961b3bee6c4468dffad87d4b
F20101107_AABTVQ chase_r_Page_43.tif
1fa1126d2327f0cb057ae1c691caeb4c
d873ee6131664bdf7c7eb8c18085c746d07b9ec3
53592 F20101107_AABTQT chase_r_Page_53.jpg
b0ede9e909220278ac3773afc0297f56
a56502510412afccdee140ca841043e4ee4c433e
36179 F20101107_AABUCP chase_r_Page_11.QC.jpg
f971a655685822877704ba9fadf8d39f
f39695aebe1dc6b5a46393f3f22de167f5ba5f2b
37509 F20101107_AABTLX chase_r_Page_26.pro
87484643dc668e159283fa4379e47693
ccac8be27c4baed077b0cc86f48e0afa96b5ac0c
F20101107_AABTVR chase_r_Page_44.tif
773f129628e0973c687b85d0f3e2cdfe
13d3aadd2cc248a1a48567ffe0932a65d423ea4b
52874 F20101107_AABTQU chase_r_Page_54.jpg
843f9dadabf10a51259aac162e553b8c
cf5e66de1361b2056e72c2f45cd922fd5c16f295
8727 F20101107_AABUCQ chase_r_Page_11thm.jpg
ce45e9e9975ccee8677e10239e5fec02
72fb00349a22033242b01b4d388b4072754b10c1
128526 F20101107_AABTLY chase_r_Page_74.jpg
17961e93dcf9de57f8a9da13fcdac5de
419e08b2ee157647d39ac1ed901d3926861046ee
F20101107_AABTVS chase_r_Page_46.tif
d990b7249ba36c961e99826468494e84
c7c3e46357fb39667f659c49b90e977e3262a3c5
78264 F20101107_AABTQV chase_r_Page_55.jpg
1c2b4b03850ded9369461457ebfe6f3c
8990fac65c6eb59f6b2946ad5ed104e0a905ca1c
9247 F20101107_AABUCR chase_r_Page_12thm.jpg
685dcf8b6af1394623f41c5a798a6ba8
d76bcab44fe6a800386c2d3b72f81a112b229f82
8843 F20101107_AABTLZ chase_r_Page_18thm.jpg
720651a1fb82c3182037bf4cdaeb5f52
6e0797541d3fc86f5cdfd3d82ea1f0a8eb674ff6
F20101107_AABTVT chase_r_Page_47.tif
33cd99b6a4583eaaebd2e3ef044db117
0ab1e2f6aec275b3274a78e450149bee9fe9feb2
102345 F20101107_AABTQW chase_r_Page_56.jpg
7d2f70cf4d76846bf7abf3743c2ded35
784ebbd5463405e8ed3ff1d5ac1d1060c0f1f567
36428 F20101107_AABUCS chase_r_Page_13.QC.jpg
bd8960b55e025e7cf3cdaf68d098e2a6
2da3696c98b0c6d1ce8f279ea194808ab391c8f5
F20101107_AABTVU chase_r_Page_49.tif
8a8596f46df145bd7b7e597be0f6c813
414462112da2e67cf390d76081621780801ff6a2
114484 F20101107_AABTQX chase_r_Page_57.jpg
3b7f9169597af10c9f303e6b364895c5
851e3f203a20a31fd43b708ebce6d65cf678cdf7
9248 F20101107_AABUCT chase_r_Page_13thm.jpg
d754cc565139f7832145fc8543bdff2e
946bb07cbb74b88a2052c6272bb41c2713d312bc
F20101107_AABTVV chase_r_Page_50.tif
d16ff740bd71d6ddeb59b2bbe5615671
d16bdf6ca95d4d2a4dea0d062895a06bb8a634cc
110584 F20101107_AABTOA chase_r_Page_63.jpg
dd058001531e4adae8dc225ad7f2a0a3
c3f7f02819af9413d4d339871335a53172e06a33
114229 F20101107_AABTQY chase_r_Page_58.jpg
b5b999ad5020b2a92b6035d8c150d359
9dcd89b8cffb7856746bdd5c1af096d7c8c8707e
37484 F20101107_AABUCU chase_r_Page_14.QC.jpg
46df8cf775a07c628c934a3fc441209f
6414583f40f0c28d707b25177f0dad995509639a
F20101107_AABTVW chase_r_Page_51.tif
7ffb340d3fb3145869ae387a0a98a067
289c83fb4c4a5b8969336c50bfdb8dea8401be5c
1877 F20101107_AABTOB chase_r_Page_50thm.jpg
4ee3940cd6b7955c28fcfa2ffc5faf95
1bbdab52cb96df60acd69dc537fede338d582343
117960 F20101107_AABTQZ chase_r_Page_59.jpg
bfa9b4716155c1ed48b55cb0c2e937c8
13955a38ec176971d2cec4e56a0cb6e83dfbffa6
8887 F20101107_AABUCV chase_r_Page_14thm.jpg
6e7d22ec434e20e6168d3c6b871c0b62
7e52a4fb3615a201bfdc99a221ceca0ad17e7bac
F20101107_AABTVX chase_r_Page_52.tif
9ac6f7ed3e8ff71528ba7f19dca8d1f8
0980238e8ad7ffb3734f356a366ba21938bf3ec0
111634 F20101107_AABTOC chase_r_Page_37.jpg
69e74cc2b5ff227c4d92b9f4a2e7d860
87ff3b1fdecd4fe4184cfbfa6f2f039eaf902503
38538 F20101107_AABUCW chase_r_Page_15.QC.jpg
6c37e8b36b83661913f9280f7c12b5e2
62a2bd0792dc87bbe329aa1601ef3918288bdac6
F20101107_AABTTA chase_r_Page_40.jp2
b2604df790050dca634a9fe1a1b131a4
d0ef8cf137369179ee6113f45c9f3dba278372d3
F20101107_AABTVY chase_r_Page_53.tif
30f216894880be70c09d4465f9de7955
7c1e9f289e10769500e695b4f18774d6b7e0ef38
95549 F20101107_AABTOD chase_r_Page_36.jpg
862d385d3c59d186984b012506fac2c6
915ca468732cd81c79029586707c0d6ecc634693
8996 F20101107_AABUCX chase_r_Page_15thm.jpg
5ccdb56c7175a717d2efacb411a6540a
9468a8aefcb52f8daba5f3289ca701829e4ce84f
1051926 F20101107_AABTTB chase_r_Page_42.jp2
ef1e9448b78af62c10f19fb856f46a89
fbbf2758694926d136c1330386b01fb4fa1e5db4
F20101107_AABTVZ chase_r_Page_54.tif
da726ba25028088be1b8c41e3a6110c4
5d398016c13e081f9196fcd521b76cc62463748d
36110 F20101107_AABTOE chase_r_Page_37.QC.jpg
056741c1c99461b56251d94fca8c8b2b
62f85ae5a564113fe53e1a39179ceefd09b4302b
34713 F20101107_AABUCY chase_r_Page_16.QC.jpg
aaba22cd13cb28d326311ed0a7ef59a0
e376dd714998c73bc016cb6cfb6416e735667d2f
1051982 F20101107_AABTTC chase_r_Page_43.jp2
1da6b817dca4db16dc106a2b7d879d86
5f8a0f0146ed1dfe4fe95527d4c70172ca843fe7
36960 F20101107_AABTOF chase_r_Page_17.QC.jpg
c402319831262296e4c3e114a7d256bc
84712f54f3cf0ec563056791b2fd494e3b7e7220
8870 F20101107_AABUCZ chase_r_Page_17thm.jpg
76d1fe09e4d05659e83e917309beae9f
fadf3dde06d2961c9d0c4c59ca50e6c1e6be8b43
553913 F20101107_AABTTD chase_r_Page_45.jp2
d268ee96b827bfaaf5ae8e992586f6e5
f5d37599bd163726119b51d9c99082a771ef9297
37644 F20101107_AABTOG chase_r_Page_60.QC.jpg
d8df12f40ca6ba65b2ab995fb4037fbe
8d0ca891ff7a1011c3464f5afb1a806bc02131df
56272 F20101107_AABTYA chase_r_Page_40.pro
7f6b05592c0ac73a573aff78e6a8d287
bf9e1e99d3718cc14686c93425ed27948abd4748
2021 F20101107_AABUAA chase_r_Page_16.txt
0cb556007898ae50500fea8f241e4dd6
9612cfe1fbb6af30728d7322b725d635e0674910
719825 F20101107_AABTTE chase_r_Page_46.jp2
d578e5edf7a8756c30af34e1412e735c
b7e99977d627d88aeeb3210e331dcf5ba53f38d0
55031 F20101107_AABTYB chase_r_Page_41.pro
ed4274b97e5a27031352ed5bada40bd1
7521713215e1d06d6549aec43fc210181921c5e9
2100 F20101107_AABUAB chase_r_Page_17.txt
d72bdbd1f75760de362ef10079647946
31f966974fb6cbf5b31b09ecf54109cd444b5de6
199144 F20101107_AABTTF chase_r_Page_48.jp2
1f9f716fbb0f5472a6cdf9972c863fca
3098d1000b9fc37b592c1df3badf0f29cfe0f587
19632 F20101107_AABTOH chase_r_Page_10.QC.jpg
ab605af4786c3f05801d9b8e5f6e1985
1078a929d19e2789eb5487e174e83eb4e57830b2
51471 F20101107_AABTYC chase_r_Page_42.pro
63a5bcb90119fbb3ee677b037fda3ed0
af526d990672d5b496f6716a4967ec456016b379
2094 F20101107_AABUAC chase_r_Page_19.txt
487e0ffa5d128f8392d506a84f5261e4
51870ea4526c263310dd902e4b1714929a7deb1e
5832 F20101107_AABUFA chase_r_Page_50.QC.jpg
c0e5636f5fb3b4d031b4509153be77ba
004c3c1a5a48d57d9aa9a5b6e37abae8899aec79
481162 F20101107_AABTTG chase_r_Page_49.jp2
22f36693a98327d3770657b765756523
dc4f49c498115dd1950d859e8e61fcc963083b81
8523 F20101107_AABTOI chase_r_Page_32thm.jpg
c5741e00ea5bd8ae13ab2c691f04c202
5b9b545edf780520ac85eff8035e005f41700983
52885 F20101107_AABTYD chase_r_Page_43.pro
376783b55d1084254579314a81f66f4e
95564ab64f6d2e5b15f661d8fd7c1da979bf1768
F20101107_AABUAD chase_r_Page_20.txt
4435e179ac18bd4127651a0d71b440cb
2350c4c7769d015bd6198c6713c6f2da74cd6efa
11979 F20101107_AABUFB chase_r_Page_51.QC.jpg
9fd82f97e42e54143745a1cec48c3e83
465c67c1ba8bde4cb53cb9fa28e8a4b2ad044b0f
120980 F20101107_AABTTH chase_r_Page_50.jp2
b530d9f195b1cfcc1dd3faccbae4e5d4
cc2963e658d69fb2e879b1cb300c42f11fe05fb5
565 F20101107_AABTOJ chase_r_Page_02thm.jpg
cde4f3b0143174a3d0fa20db4cc40ecc
9d6865f0392f2083a350ea1ea768eabe48b518cd
34530 F20101107_AABTYE chase_r_Page_44.pro
8472260e056f7ab5f03bde8bc15ff74a
9e4910e704278756fd41ff5a556fb07d8a19d77c
2169 F20101107_AABUAE chase_r_Page_21.txt
fea946dc9bcfa89cbcae43a85a3d0bf9
ab1a163817906f3923f92dc9f2c9d876572cb4a7
6665 F20101107_AABUFC chase_r_Page_52.QC.jpg
c67c4d71b4a8af3136c0cec51e09f81e
227d1f3a981bdf19fdc7b847c7f6a06434a97aa6
310132 F20101107_AABTTI chase_r_Page_51.jp2
34706fd1b17431ce3ff386dd141a88be
9867f30bc2266a3e9be334a8a109338337510a29
F20101107_AABTOK chase_r_Page_33.tif
7cba7a8177a4dc9de37bcbec36f25565
acde2feb2b763000119c890d1d0ec2910ca9583e
23436 F20101107_AABTYF chase_r_Page_45.pro
6fcac4ce8b26c1024a4aa7b21d7d443e
e10d43cc2ff0866625e7cbc39e3f60b4de815600
2232 F20101107_AABUAF chase_r_Page_22.txt
d51631ad05e8db4d4ed9d02c4d7dfcef
efba707122e851137e846f5d1ec06ce1fa68c73c
1896 F20101107_AABUFD chase_r_Page_52thm.jpg
d3f255ef3889fd3e806ac2f0bd500918
20a25c3d2013091e2f09ba961dffb4ed55a04e36
153696 F20101107_AABTTJ chase_r_Page_52.jp2
7992133079bfc3476498f3a55b334099
a239efcedd9534564d9864a5def0bfc7458d0042
1901 F20101107_AABTOL chase_r_Page_27.txt
788ab6693811cb6cb16041918fea3775
55b931bae96be68bc1e55af099f47a499799e8e1
66889 F20101107_AABTYG chase_r_Page_46.pro
a4670cb4456edbab871b80025ad78f9d
0bd1ce461e6beaaaa76c874509cd5f72266e9cf2
2201 F20101107_AABUAG chase_r_Page_23.txt
14255b33aea6e0ca01b895dd8c1af96d
800152fc1dbbbdb33a077c137624125916dadf6a
15536 F20101107_AABUFE chase_r_Page_53.QC.jpg
76c577ec158821b67dec5b9512cf2c53
8b76376ca11df64ac39e36b4ed2e2aaed4b0edd4
543062 F20101107_AABTTK chase_r_Page_53.jp2
dbdd762058b0630b24a374d71f086f15
56249327856b48af562df22390182e321f40fe7f
F20101107_AABTOM chase_r_Page_15.jp2
adf9cfd022d760bfee5aa95fdfe2e525
f89697e2f0ad94fe21d523ab818b1b3cad688ef5
12363 F20101107_AABTYH chase_r_Page_47.pro
c541b36e0d8b6a527fbc7215e9826f05
3216fa347206cb91160b5292edb66b642f0adb1b
2149 F20101107_AABUAH chase_r_Page_24.txt
b99680826c7de148ba33a52b048d7af4
39324b33f82ebe728316857bad2c0d123b6d7996
3761 F20101107_AABUFF chase_r_Page_53thm.jpg
3965e2de6561ff93b56d786cb8d833c9
20aecad2eabc52bb307d9576060f3142992adf54
539009 F20101107_AABTTL chase_r_Page_54.jp2
7d8fb8c4ebe78d2f2fe21974d74621fe
940d235cf524594eb4b4cb93a636042e75fd6b9e
F20101107_AABTON chase_r_Page_06.tif
1f89e750149f4b66bf5c4345c9f76b29
811c64cda1a656e54ecc6d3103810f5970f24f1f
9714 F20101107_AABTYI chase_r_Page_48.pro
bfc79fcdc3378f43013ccfe6052f026e
9021431297aa6d31d536459ca859c4d30516022e
F20101107_AABUAI chase_r_Page_29.txt
e038e0cf26ddde4130585c6504998663
3d9e5c43adeae969dae47a50aecde95459f0a487
14596 F20101107_AABUFG chase_r_Page_54.QC.jpg
f918234d1f6c12ea9fe85c4e8aef2707
e2c782087fc1d0b75065ec9c8c7f6b8251e3f106
412047 F20101107_AABTOO chase_r_Page_80.jp2
1dbe7531639090d145bfdd36f55a8b77
9a08cd470876a58649bfebf4ce1c266cfa3ff814
36285 F20101107_AABTYJ chase_r_Page_49.pro
c7bf653597616a498b3adea1ab12d2a7
7045f6e227a139647d1674576deeb1f6e095c6fd
2143 F20101107_AABUAJ chase_r_Page_30.txt
7972efc301eb0f0b13e72c949560d396
55f7fd0d79b3f515acba024b553d989c994c93ee
3688 F20101107_AABUFH chase_r_Page_54thm.jpg
197e107bd26eb88502c4914b15e325ae
dd3d47e1d670da6f653100739ad1d2c206cd219c
2166 F20101107_AABTOP chase_r_Page_66.txt
902a83c62404c48da54f36d042322c56
1516a3446ed5a094416e9a18ea50219469547f50
6693 F20101107_AABTYK chase_r_Page_50.pro
964c5110df86fb9c05426acaf10e5766
1631b66f8987f3835766eac3010805f9bce0a99d
2193 F20101107_AABUAK chase_r_Page_31.txt
6d474a6fd58ef1e0d35b0d3b0bb46fe9
365400381fbbc7e0406a311a2844670461f08abb
706185 F20101107_AABTTM chase_r_Page_55.jp2
ef214c6bf15c7897db1b64e67d4218a6
963adc4a8ca7078f2cd2135a667e3ca9dc86898f
29682 F20101107_AABUFI chase_r_Page_55.QC.jpg
b3e6501ef8784edf6e922da868271ee2
c446b0930c08f367521496119b1438b287350e83
1051929 F20101107_AABTOQ chase_r_Page_41.jp2
7f936fb16cc5e02a0cc17c36855b12fe
12030956284e48583ce83ef227aef5e52338fd29
14747 F20101107_AABTYL chase_r_Page_51.pro
ed4a3484353dc5ba39fd8ec71176042b
1aa7b25ed639242e9e4d3c5d5a9ff7b325d35341
614 F20101107_AABUAL chase_r_Page_34.txt
232fb453135321a2d15c6be59eb680ea
59d2ebef2704472d7175e694d974cdd84f319f2c
1051983 F20101107_AABTTN chase_r_Page_56.jp2
8dfee99ede8156ade2eb104d61fa37c6
2e515f77243d195d41a89f7f92b58633820dc105
8613 F20101107_AABUFJ chase_r_Page_55thm.jpg
703968739dc8e8c360f18a93cacc4fd4
16dd3196336ac2ed71b8e489a9bdc3758fc2247a
114872 F20101107_AABTOR chase_r_Page_60.jpg
e8d2c8678bfb9c9eff5f773d250ebfb8
3ae14c2f39328d549cd0739aede0c2fcb01951f3
6905 F20101107_AABTYM chase_r_Page_52.pro
9478582b395825c5b25621dff00fc4a0
176ec9952af02f16dde57a069e828bf75bd07213
745 F20101107_AABUAM chase_r_Page_35.txt
7f1ec89e363507aa9925dcb9530f186d
7133d94c6d24bbfb92f46345eb7287df177859d0
1051943 F20101107_AABTTO chase_r_Page_57.jp2
67ad31bb5aa68e380c66ba44cf740161
a66d8c4463082c998172d752abeb38288e9cc36e
33457 F20101107_AABUFK chase_r_Page_56.QC.jpg
57c5fd2b4ae812bc2b84a67badd50490
bb59e4ee8561cdffc305639c026b3b3fadf23d10
F20101107_AABTOS chase_r_Page_05.jp2
421c6a1c6ec39f54c65d9efc8c63237d
a97f63a6b1c40420de55ccc0f047a8f41ffaae81
33410 F20101107_AABTYN chase_r_Page_53.pro
bef0762f7d82e530c540a8c6c72a90fa
0d886d5b2b84ab1a63603eacb3fd5e5498797c9b
1911 F20101107_AABUAN chase_r_Page_36.txt
b889813ddb75dceb21a2db1922adab6f
d8f81e1d803943c3f53f3894266aeede3b716c57
F20101107_AABTTP chase_r_Page_59.jp2
846268be82082ee8172ed0884d04126e
173050ffcffe27945634b120f1d11b3cd98290df
8380 F20101107_AABUFL chase_r_Page_56thm.jpg
301b03fc263a9b2fee0febb553c0e8fd
7a600d001937c5df351b5cd6a0d8f42f3fd517be
7916 F20101107_AABTOT chase_r_Page_48.QC.jpg
c6e4ad3087a4607e133cb63463f38597
3e1dddd76b7425e3c8a0f661d83dd3a2ed144c54
32068 F20101107_AABTYO chase_r_Page_54.pro
d6084d3036fdca958d05aedb341d552c
b52632cd93d654afd473968c28c26f572d6fb9d9
2130 F20101107_AABUAO chase_r_Page_37.txt
454f1bb5e4ad88a09d2f4b68b619719c
3e2b64f217d573955f71d0b49af2fb6f437a8b11
1051986 F20101107_AABTTQ chase_r_Page_60.jp2
bde2b98b8a95e2c4b227247e0823b40c
6f51fa0e9dad05a7bb4f9c4275e0f024b5a3d205
37240 F20101107_AABUFM chase_r_Page_57.QC.jpg
59058e27a94e11f4536027687f4b59f3
59ecde64a98d55696bab62f7a36dfac70b126750
2220 F20101107_AABTOU chase_r_Page_40.txt
f88803decce443a779d452beade2ed48
62ccfae8a4ef80bd5c5141d2ab51e02d68b47acd
33777 F20101107_AABTYP chase_r_Page_55.pro
dd7b92234a2c6db53fdc5840f7c75537
021ade869c4acf6ea547c4ed1e7c2ea087baf9d1
2072 F20101107_AABUAP chase_r_Page_39.txt
536b8408cb646f8c8f7350737a4b7696
c3d472efde5815485e36ff6fa5ce7bd2fe384150
1051980 F20101107_AABTTR chase_r_Page_61.jp2
356fd9a7bf763f345da2dc18a9cc8acb
c5517635a37c519da816a464511434991fd67768
37351 F20101107_AABUFN chase_r_Page_58.QC.jpg
b7526a72a844b4b5a1df87e5405eb33c
5f197e42510b8bf5fe271afe3b52dfae19317c5b
381 F20101107_AABTOV chase_r_Page_50.txt
f38a7e13e3012579347c8f4ef8956759
e89345fb19c6cbea879455ca2aae0beab50462e5
48612 F20101107_AABTYQ chase_r_Page_56.pro
9a5b08cfd84117478d8286fd1ccb6f4c
e8b798f86985132c6e5542aea358510c2b7110ab
2160 F20101107_AABUAQ chase_r_Page_41.txt
cccc44f4a7078f23f6f6dd297e7db843
b285bd37b67e137cf7c9bd32e98698aecf7a064b
F20101107_AABTTS chase_r_Page_62.jp2
b976400a8caa8c0b4d47e6d29d47a233
5e77b0995aeef46dc453a5d02896aad3ec5ca750
9123 F20101107_AABUFO chase_r_Page_58thm.jpg
7d3b4ce7c1210c30f0f3560950c31897
de1fbd6477a8619477a16432bb83a68c5db459ed
3316 F20101107_AABTOW chase_r_Page_80thm.jpg
eadbe460d5353f75c4f8d07e0c76f257
410779881b4562fd89da10dcd334fe2256c6dfba
2053 F20101107_AABUAR chase_r_Page_42.txt
f188874335c821ccd7baabca2194f595
ddd0ea493332cd520bf014aa8a359ab7793af4a2
F20101107_AABTTT chase_r_Page_63.jp2
1d3227fbd65387238a8645b16f7de755
41906336bdd6fb5fd627e6f95410dbb34cc70c0d
38144 F20101107_AABUFP chase_r_Page_59.QC.jpg
ba4eec63d69bc84fc5f1955f5b7eaecf
6c9c9698bb63f2eac7080fee84da7553347206c6
F20101107_AABTOX chase_r_Page_58.txt
a01493e775c6c3dcd5b5f166d9058fbf
5680c655fd91ea465758e49f9336fef935df0406
55857 F20101107_AABTYR chase_r_Page_57.pro
e2cff43df121d60ec9762b65e6ee2a3d
0fd96b3e7f16cdea9ede60e724c853b78b341d58
2084 F20101107_AABUAS chase_r_Page_43.txt
4bda487bb0a602b27eb191668538b66a
f4b510319d8259535b8eee58aae9e3a403cb52bf
1051985 F20101107_AABTTU chase_r_Page_65.jp2
9cd4a36181dedc7da212e77cb2ab234a
9664b4483fdba20b5be0055060d412588f3cb39e
9258 F20101107_AABUFQ chase_r_Page_59thm.jpg
0710e69e0f7b1bfc6df4e40ad7864036
77a0b295ba9e4fe336369de605d40ee2ac312200
35505 F20101107_AABTOY chase_r_Page_66.QC.jpg
472ce151a95b17ef39a5c387998c4bd3
9ae9df373a8382b61c703711c2f189f805d5eb05
55816 F20101107_AABTYS chase_r_Page_58.pro
4d1307b6c2c1ff10051db3ccdec415e6
168a9da054e1266d63eb60ce24f9c4ece2f68b52
1380 F20101107_AABUAT chase_r_Page_44.txt
79b3abae2fb65741c14bfe0b846a2117
33ca7408e2c87f16d70b11a80996db96e4afbd4c
1051938 F20101107_AABTTV chase_r_Page_66.jp2
cd0fb63c22882542b400ce4a18c71e9c
0096d23072174c78b98ee04892cd386fcd96ec0d
2424 F20101107_AABTMA chase_r_Page_71.txt
663a4ca1d087db20f3b3ee2f296e2951
ba3b7c8e973410c1c09ba438bc31e0fffbcac135
9044 F20101107_AABUFR chase_r_Page_60thm.jpg
c40073b9f141f24d742e69406512485c
c7e5e5200a371ea40c00b7c0e87a5b6bc36840c6
120904 F20101107_AABTOZ UFE0022570_00001.xml
bf70b24d3c74e8f06165e9e663f1bb46
4fc31da960c5cce1dd9acd9af87d445f44b3f2db
57065 F20101107_AABTYT chase_r_Page_59.pro
ad3adb1291a710098dfcc14d85779fd3
8cfd41e395f0827f52178008a70ad9328a056147
1059 F20101107_AABUAU chase_r_Page_45.txt
907d345951ede0c5dbabf1d4a84f0c02
8c9f650a45e85e7689e4e9416ec6806050848be8
579736 F20101107_AABTTW chase_r_Page_67.jp2
c86b9f5f259bfadc0cde4b48a17573f0
7957c92366ffe846179b52ac16425f039c8c3ca0
8440 F20101107_AABTMB chase_r_Page_28thm.jpg
a53093934cf1f7a452629425be198293
c61b6c7f94c1a31ad09ce5f9e2ce074b878510cf
34454 F20101107_AABUFS chase_r_Page_61.QC.jpg
0526a849d87ad4cfef2a85c9bde4cf1a
0f592b0106233508ef59d50b674ccd6a9eb1b904
55283 F20101107_AABTYU chase_r_Page_60.pro
c0bcc4e37192e6539ea7a4be2c7608ef
577fee8ea92159e68c95851761bad285a2aa19a7
4024 F20101107_AABUAV chase_r_Page_46.txt
04a5b6583d86bbbfffbb0f7a988370d3
0e76f9796ea2d5b5fa9e1b97abf616213a67ee75
828698 F20101107_AABTTX chase_r_Page_68.jp2
4139b2d4c298d9ed9391f3d7ac034557
c5df4454f5d46055a5d336cf0e1ad050f6d6a1da
16372 F20101107_AABTMC chase_r_Page_08.jpg
d7723b4c9e053badad93cfa1cd9c6b72
4c579928415229a30dcddcd2e01b831cd4cfb90a
8399 F20101107_AABUFT chase_r_Page_61thm.jpg
4f396c5bbbc9cae3fbc75b52be706793
4872bc5169d1ba3be3f43f2e3d13b1baed5d24bd
655 F20101107_AABUAW chase_r_Page_47.txt
84e55f5aea6f45e03c85a45d087da403
549ba2afb8380fb190aa6066b55809b204d0ceaf
51133 F20101107_AABTYV chase_r_Page_61.pro
d27fd82f3915710165a39bff2e8ec2f3
5df106523db4f5bc932b15348f7ba64568440ecf
106017 F20101107_AABTRA chase_r_Page_61.jpg
6ee971168d5c6d8488c08f27c7536768
8b1546bc70aee845ad967fc98d4f74a7c018f015
941197 F20101107_AABTTY chase_r_Page_70.jp2
519193302b1b29cd4a6f602a0ba67182
e4f95a6dbda3b50fb3e216b0253850d20e651c48
2058 F20101107_AABTMD chase_r_Page_25.txt
78bf77c950d6d03e5cc5f5438a04db54
54f9371b7980daae371a3fb9a5728dc8a33d75ed
39344 F20101107_AABUFU chase_r_Page_62.QC.jpg
42940c6077214b10d6292a82e74d58b7
61af33a3cddfa32f14cc983e8dc9edbc89949614
447 F20101107_AABUAX chase_r_Page_48.txt
0a1b6063118a17ea14000f523bb379e8
8dd733e242b940cf6e9338eeba96be0882f7c85d
59108 F20101107_AABTYW chase_r_Page_62.pro
09dc46a89e931235efb86eb29511c113
0db6b39a7c51ef554889a815d2b2982f114d8f04
119454 F20101107_AABTRB chase_r_Page_62.jpg
40e94b59e2ce6d36a8ab27fe9c7a732c
0dbf0044549756bf56e7110283b56951cc2167a8
1051948 F20101107_AABTTZ chase_r_Page_71.jp2
99181a3d3bc77de6ed9825c1a52a958f
5a80d194dffb54f0c66e38c7db73fbaaf2084b73
866540 F20101107_AABTME chase_r_Page_69.jp2
7dab7447c9e6082310e7b1ea3bb6c2ca
2afe188b274acf895261393e83d089f88bfcf5cf
9194 F20101107_AABUFV chase_r_Page_62thm.jpg
86559933a66800431e973b1a20ba3de8
5016e159c964fb33e0bbcf236801e10a47db58ea
54190 F20101107_AABTYX chase_r_Page_63.pro
7ba778f1568cfc7c21ffec6eb1429cb0
6304380dce239a040ee3d6c1e4d48921b07bc8b6
106255 F20101107_AABTRC chase_r_Page_65.jpg
060db32d20c48d4c5ac03d2fc083a55b
f8bc1bd16ded6df38514e9dd04a8b8bf544743a4
35829 F20101107_AABUFW chase_r_Page_63.QC.jpg
cc2e1a37a77f9763b41e61b0435f781d
c01b16df30acc8b5379e0be788eba80661b0aa40
2190 F20101107_AABUAY chase_r_Page_49.txt
588d2531403f5571013b08eeeb51be22
aab2db4302f5448775e38fe2b322996fc3bb15a8
F20101107_AABTWA chase_r_Page_55.tif
8d5beaa14169ab7fa53c8269a5873f55
3ff8b4107b5d7dae2b0ba7784175cbf5b7dafcbd
55927 F20101107_AABTYY chase_r_Page_64.pro
99bad030b1ce47fdd44fa0766c26b81d
65757caa595e7ef33d2d207087e16034fd6fa69e
110314 F20101107_AABTRD chase_r_Page_66.jpg
0ad8a5b4cf4c1f145c95769d58d7af3e
73797243f6063eafb1336ae57cc5682015137f0d
4505 F20101107_AABTMF chase_r_Page_08.QC.jpg
3c670878d07a7c340ad96c588a1ad68c
89848a8825a183812c40c8c6da49a91965cd7267
F20101107_AABUFX chase_r_Page_63thm.jpg
d5456619a4979b59449be7980836cf5c
91bfd048af5b1ddc138a972a4014fa5e26ae4b93
713 F20101107_AABUAZ chase_r_Page_51.txt
317a8f5eadd2a198483e3c6e7717a9d0
de8936ad6daeb796ae2f14d729ad704620ecfcf1
F20101107_AABTWB chase_r_Page_56.tif
6874ddeefff557d3c18a5a7ba8b7601d
acb4114af930abe5cb712bd76c3bb67dc7c2354c
51519 F20101107_AABTYZ chase_r_Page_65.pro
93058a2476369847fde12697240b4bc6
b44ecd3d6a3f3ae4a8ba1fb63d396fc114181435
53876 F20101107_AABTRE chase_r_Page_67.jpg
ae609cc20b6e69188a81222799f362ac
8963c67914584e157d2df1dd4faa29a441e594ef
145403 F20101107_AABTMG chase_r_Page_77.jpg
44e194b99e1d04cc741593ee9a7e7711
7dc0551b949006d7c144a43659342d6423e623d0
37611 F20101107_AABUFY chase_r_Page_64.QC.jpg
2e87260b7d3fa4e7acf7b039e0c33ae6
6f3b2104ca41374c221460f95a3f58fc8c908495
F20101107_AABTWC chase_r_Page_57.tif
a31ff0cc50c7c6d1fa1661408e8cd4ed
e2755d5030a10504585d199f6d962ed7422c3a59
78263 F20101107_AABTRF chase_r_Page_68.jpg
b5d3792fd1f7891c3da87913c17423e7
cc7600f71f972e694281f5b5fd9f014df0a34d8c
F20101107_AABTMH chase_r_Page_58.jp2
c852f954a67926766e7a95c4ae99fd2c
41cf5211c88e5a961607a319f22da0f1a6a022c7
9057 F20101107_AABUFZ chase_r_Page_64thm.jpg
f305d7fc4113f49cdcf62e4d7df45f73
5e44605075fb7df7d235cd238983b79dbee92ac8
38081 F20101107_AABUDA chase_r_Page_18.QC.jpg
92de5dde74a23bcc599268545859b8cd
4ed45dfa47b0d4600da41a01825d0f890eca351f
F20101107_AABTWD chase_r_Page_58.tif
a9c397bdadf3bb5a79def22e9035ecf7
07a99bc88f388d8b1e1fc04d250a5c54850438cf
82749 F20101107_AABTRG chase_r_Page_69.jpg
020cc05c5ca0831fed4a64ef760e62f3
fe3c0e340151135fe763e326714b55a3d63c7b65
F20101107_AABTMI chase_r_Page_74.tif
c4e1b792469b82b0bfe484d06a4be905
ade0e3acb4a8b65139ce27f7c62b9502e5d1e100
8732 F20101107_AABUDB chase_r_Page_19thm.jpg
9c6151b982740e6d292485bb7bd66160
e389d6f10b60afabc45798ea0f51675642935049
F20101107_AABTWE chase_r_Page_60.tif
16e834526a5afc7c9bd6a40b1ea04a87
9455996b8d5318e43c9a0039803da8fc188ba4fa
89964 F20101107_AABTRH chase_r_Page_70.jpg
6f34ec2a664216e6e7493549f2b71857
e02d4c035f81b9d70a1908df3bd79473f340474a
51139 F20101107_AABTMJ chase_r_Page_32.pro
85f9fd34d1ae5b3a9edc1801ee317551
ed9cdaabb6f311d3b85d9c583195d2e13d450834
8898 F20101107_AABUDC chase_r_Page_20thm.jpg
dc5b6bb7e5c69043c9237113fc7e7b0b
6b7c32663c3445ec8119c7070a8cd84f78b9fd76
F20101107_AABTWF chase_r_Page_61.tif
61c8dbd719e0bfd2e1cf9ab50d42928c
2a069ba747c231d66526cc4cc8166035f53b4a45
116050 F20101107_AABTRI chase_r_Page_71.jpg
445bc13644fc04ac213ff026e89b7916
608197ec0b25bb93ea426c66c320f57552d84cb9
2749 F20101107_AABTMK chase_r_Page_79thm.jpg
4d34a2c369ffcf40f5c1f4d4f80a76db
a30334015b4d2f087c1c091c227ac3f6c9395eb0
8878 F20101107_AABUDD chase_r_Page_21thm.jpg
c981c9b4ee4c914b651edeb1da72cfa0
08bc899df9ac41dd10a9da6d39d3bf8a166fed19
F20101107_AABTWG chase_r_Page_62.tif
c3c478141b9b2752a3b3ec3032997483
e3c31037edc53ea515fb7a883680e70e12819f96
126624 F20101107_AABTRJ chase_r_Page_72.jpg
b033338fdce9a59ab6c37674425d28f3
4f4d08b878f0234af47bcb93e0d5bab42d857b54
38581 F20101107_AABTML chase_r_Page_12.QC.jpg
bce767689a02f870fc2f2cfd2641f8ee
4219dac354b4d3d9b9c9ff1cb6389c39caddfe21
37557 F20101107_AABUDE chase_r_Page_22.QC.jpg
eefd840ecef5d7ec22abe1f5a5af3421
ce7700ed27f4f80e2b13fc63f93d4fb223f3a640
F20101107_AABTWH chase_r_Page_63.tif
385ec8b609cb691279403d4a1ea898e1
f1e2d66ec758eb020a46587f892d061d42dc9b2b
F20101107_AABTMM chase_r_Page_64.jp2
86035e868a79aca1a6dfd86312ba97b0
825ad27f07f118a05c897bdbec8e56197d291fac
9246 F20101107_AABUDF chase_r_Page_22thm.jpg
e3648f8b1358a0e991b5afc162577bd9
7a1d93f37854de441eb12383e10b0a0c24edb54a
133571 F20101107_AABTRK chase_r_Page_73.jpg
0be67929b5f70a408a72469a341290c3
622e11104f6c54729065b36083afc649513f5d56
2987 F20101107_AABTMN chase_r_Page_75.txt
6cb23e449a8e7bf56b2dc87ab1b8f06f
e3787210506d27c6a0b2669fe6db6e70aa1d9ebd
F20101107_AABTWI chase_r_Page_64.tif
69d8381f790d2a95c820b0cc518dd8a6
fa2b4ab3766935d5434814f0792ad174b7b62b96
37335 F20101107_AABUDG chase_r_Page_23.QC.jpg
2059975e90e9877df13f3f24bd85dc44
c966f512a7a19b1593f942ffb9e5953b30af23f4
139008 F20101107_AABTRL chase_r_Page_75.jpg
912ddce4cf094b402f207d22f116e115
242936378e4b2b29886c56dd67ec654e1ebc8ef3
F20101107_AABTMO chase_r_Page_79.tif
9e8487d138ccc7fdc62b1135957de080
9b6813f61cb953a2807c146f57a58ee44357d6a0
F20101107_AABTWJ chase_r_Page_65.tif
9646607735fc7f1661d2a424bdb0928c
f1e12f9451ef891b909200cd5947c56d945227f7
8892 F20101107_AABUDH chase_r_Page_23thm.jpg
40853be42aa2ff095570c962dbbe6a73
28fa08f750d152cac6878af40ce393ad0fa054b3
132257 F20101107_AABTRM chase_r_Page_76.jpg
2603bca93a4d154d3f73d61f3652481c
06399712aa427039af27ca0739cada5f0afc1652
142967 F20101107_AABTMP chase_r_Page_78.jpg
d3fda89e41cf28ad047566c6bb153645
17f1054b74d274571cb0cbfa045a5d4d12e60a96
F20101107_AABTWK chase_r_Page_66.tif
e15e0737502b00a465a1a0c3eaef4b7c
6c23c66e4206b5f950419f587d1701beb86038b3
35851 F20101107_AABUDI chase_r_Page_24.QC.jpg
8f7e2cf5f1e37df8a3c19cff175a576f
301465826b36a68d823268495571591f67a596ea
40163 F20101107_AABTRN chase_r_Page_79.jpg
64ca8b28d5ca36ad34cc7e9622ce2dd0
8eaab183d5f129dc7968655cc0633b0e1f9b80c2
117477 F20101107_AABTMQ chase_r_Page_12.jpg
b62bb15c9d8c1be05f01d31bc9471b91
acf6c904f8a57a51a355f3aa0d5dadd838c81005
F20101107_AABTWL chase_r_Page_68.tif
6ba7142e2a6467afe30b7d84c5c7664b
6682e5e1934f47cfe8bd04938727a191ed7f9a08
8879 F20101107_AABUDJ chase_r_Page_24thm.jpg
41a5edf4c4581ffebe04a8e0f938579b
1574f9be7413c1038fa394e9e950331306214a64
40677 F20101107_AABTRO chase_r_Page_80.jpg
efe02894470bbe0aeb48cf093f747ac0
fe2871d6cca86a6d4729718f25ad3778f93ba2e6
35865 F20101107_AABTMR chase_r_Page_19.QC.jpg
270cb4aca50af7347c566fb12b443d47
31f0cfe0c8fc98b338bd5e94ad91ede41c25237c
F20101107_AABTWM chase_r_Page_70.tif
e71eaa75ef37afb85e0e426af83c2766
655fcc69a604974f8b12432077099d9504ea7c20
34904 F20101107_AABUDK chase_r_Page_25.QC.jpg
210d8d800dd434e86aae02a7ae2efc4d
60e8fdf49eb6a849b629cc0c13d785110e63472b
300435 F20101107_AABTRP chase_r_Page_01.jp2
c497d05f1d4de10d69a9b12a0449a81e
e049f238bde73a9f288a20001cde3278cc095ba9
56798 F20101107_AABTMS chase_r_Page_12.pro
e5a7c821e586294414f8eca0f466221e
24f3cafc7ccc3c131b0af3716404e7b93be2b1cf
F20101107_AABTWN chase_r_Page_71.tif
ddfb8bbf7330700770448b24de4cb84f
0e4802a6a87c190f658285ee5944414cb0adeb37
8924 F20101107_AABUDL chase_r_Page_25thm.jpg
d4916c6fb2bc9a6e273331e3c4502f82
e65b30dd350c4e39a860c475f430122ac27c520a
28400 F20101107_AABTRQ chase_r_Page_02.jp2
8e0fa1b5559cc6d327bf3c6494121f9c
26a983bc12bfb43e68bdd8698bc7f59fe6efbc2d
32739 F20101107_AABTMT chase_r_Page_09.QC.jpg
2f50327cad36332798971f7688668f24
32a7b5aab5ba259dcf6cbdb77e5253e5c1a14f24
F20101107_AABTWO chase_r_Page_72.tif
e24cb2285a8e97fbdab15d6762270a1b
77af20f5373df43d6b5884ce79bced473cb3a867
26755 F20101107_AABUDM chase_r_Page_26.QC.jpg
503340f245f55b4d7c7b2ee61f45a75a
5366db7581b2aa653b8817c5be852c8e4c20ec20
97870 F20101107_AABTRR chase_r_Page_03.jp2
c87dc8464307cd7c05248e36e5b32034
ba4e8375a09d42cc41ce55b5fa9f2d8453745bdb
2102 F20101107_AABTMU chase_r_Page_28.txt
7d7fdc1995a18e4f8a3b823a361ec290
be784b9a42cf7c10dcf63db90afe544de9e2495b
6509 F20101107_AABUDN chase_r_Page_26thm.jpg
abc6b5d5f0b0168a49d805d89894f54b
500c9a903a9967dc390ac3bc7ee9518cc88d7d6a
566753 F20101107_AABTRS chase_r_Page_04.jp2
520a579cab7b66e6c5e39f57dd9e3428
98335ae4761503fe127eb41dba51dcf807d38f17
9043 F20101107_AABTMV chase_r_Page_57thm.jpg
3abb67f5519d47049f6f895c4f575e06
94441247aada0cc664376fec1e9da31ef8c3028a
F20101107_AABTWP chase_r_Page_73.tif
d06fe393073bccc212524419383d2531
d22f2cce7b33cf8546a23d58c1e1b0a3e275e757
7259 F20101107_AABUDO chase_r_Page_27thm.jpg
b9d96b57e07708124be339cce02c2142
8e997e52258bc6b923008c991e229eef4b838666
403833 F20101107_AABTRT chase_r_Page_06.jp2
8b3ea2515832a091a9c8dac743e181c2
a16e4f2bc263f4dd0f988536adfe679d89166782
29492 F20101107_AABTMW chase_r_Page_27.QC.jpg
a2b813a8ac7d7654cc87e6de74124eb2
70e30fb8885e4af9c41b079dcfe5625c0bda6786
F20101107_AABTWQ chase_r_Page_76.tif
2c0b8d57153ca71aa514f5d47aabb3a2
c88f4bc6a4031289ed6e2563f48b9b12cb00be2e
36354 F20101107_AABUDP chase_r_Page_28.QC.jpg
11dcbef2f42b7e5ad9043bc70b95c252
5dd182c9a475aa754eb70e4fc5bf5eb665c2ad5e
F20101107_AABTRU chase_r_Page_07.jp2
b37e8102761cf7958dc6d1b0f556bbf4
baf4177acc4adb29b4afcaa6ae4cb0b3ebe89b2a
67987 F20101107_AABTMX chase_r_Page_73.pro
b5868040cdc922e40717f30c315552df
1e49f88dcce92c1611f7cb317c630622c556da27
F20101107_AABTWR chase_r_Page_78.tif
72e4fff02641868df922d1a45ecb2710
12bc339b2b62f8438ecc90d6fc60e6374a382a5b
36046 F20101107_AABUDQ chase_r_Page_29.QC.jpg
4437dea39956c9d10a2f06804e484b77
0296180ef0d02483f7e7644d7b6f382aaa67c57e
224051 F20101107_AABTRV chase_r_Page_08.jp2
0b94f2e41ba6198aa506ba5eed6f0fb0
632af2dadceeae1783188b114c5fe878d3ca8fee
1689 F20101107_AABTMY chase_r_Page_07.txt
1cc5e4ca7fe30448511897456ff56b63
330f005139998d94ee0c9d53844b0959fe7c4fda
F20101107_AABTWS chase_r_Page_80.tif
5daabf38a18616e1d81323ce305b8d44
fcbd4a335a41117c1549b965975dcc831f3ce8d2
8813 F20101107_AABUDR chase_r_Page_29thm.jpg
bc011c1b8adb031fdd37fdb88f0be0d9
e4f7bc070be4e8116e46b82fca654a58d77beb66
1051947 F20101107_AABTRW chase_r_Page_09.jp2
4534b2e4a85abe641b917d225b47a255
86582723c603843c0632abeb70098c7ed5fe364a
789234 F20101107_AABTMZ chase_r_Page_44.jp2
9c84553b2134ab13751ba16fcd72e0ca
f3631e32facdfdb64d3fa7ff0dfe9600a40e406f
9894 F20101107_AABTWT chase_r_Page_01.pro
e5d06195700c8729a9795c0166d1a83a
062ce594e5b7243f4cdcd7643009b8c7ed1295a6
36363 F20101107_AABUDS chase_r_Page_30.QC.jpg
bc999345b241c0b176e13e564b550ead
2860705ef3d275e2e6e8fb06083cd24a5bec4c75
620603 F20101107_AABTRX chase_r_Page_10.jp2
da388057f84feb8201e80cefe596973c
2ab61868188cecda963867b06adfafc624210ce3
911 F20101107_AABTWU chase_r_Page_02.pro
acfbd877771bf1559cac964afc3257b6
a7dd5c4e6a1461871b134de840cc543df72d6fe4
8964 F20101107_AABUDT chase_r_Page_30thm.jpg
63b690c89d44bac06c835ae554d5d7f9
f4c112dd5f31d70fdf2a0a6c4bafe23d4e839bf4
1051928 F20101107_AABTRY chase_r_Page_11.jp2
ca454e7bcd190440604881c38f2144a6
0570fcc299c1432b7818f47c87fda7905dea9344
4122 F20101107_AABTWV chase_r_Page_03.pro
836b11c3fd578036e40126b9a8888da1
ca1a412b68bcd1b162a89529cc69a85794f4b21d
37825 F20101107_AABUDU chase_r_Page_31.QC.jpg
6d679d61cc22523d61f53e03ff58d9ce
015931faf5634c72a681ce52cd6473ad99382505
1051965 F20101107_AABTRZ chase_r_Page_12.jp2
7974024b39fa67a34572d11d9d40276e
248685bdc9782af365145f6fa43a143c5d00085e
24590 F20101107_AABTWW chase_r_Page_04.pro
c9900f93e6ef459a1b2258ac9dec1513
9ff9efd52ae7cd1e3c321d4c934f15fa882a4bfc
9214 F20101107_AABUDV chase_r_Page_31thm.jpg
9b21775c83b6f98b8bd64453069daefa
604f8ec4283beb037114294d2cb70dffecb2c365
93923 F20101107_AABTWX chase_r_Page_05.pro
56ccea5e0523ed0460d204561abd34d0
d23ba1d3b60477989a1820af9d9b630e892931c1
31556 F20101107_AABTPC chase_r_Page_01.jpg
e3fa5b14c4a28e15acc526bee4f7cbfd
f09456f8747c38d1a7be7395e1902ad858550119
36373 F20101107_AABUDW chase_r_Page_32.QC.jpg
ec6335fdabb6afa4420fc5d3c4414168
74a5f2e8df30813c4e116f34531f5075684840d8
F20101107_AABTUA chase_r_Page_72.jp2
d710498a9c7015bbc480f8d731593171
5c70917ba8303059a4be6e08b4519e123bbebf36
14855 F20101107_AABTWY chase_r_Page_06.pro
10dcc7692f3c5370cb337627165ec81f
1915dbe66ec429d65c1fc28cf9d0de0d6549a7c9
4136 F20101107_AABTPD chase_r_Page_02.jpg
cde0dd5fac89bcc13e79905d51fb3ac6
05487685e0855a25d9ea08a4600ae0c79fdfb108
35435 F20101107_AABUDX chase_r_Page_33.QC.jpg
ddd4e975e1ed4e05934ce29874d53ebc
dbdd06b342d15f2540a8eb261a2150910a1e3cac
F20101107_AABTUB chase_r_Page_73.jp2
258b805f9c9cff0a071dce5c9df82a2f
8895ce36156507f6e7fab3484049ae2cfb39afaf
7381 F20101107_AABTWZ chase_r_Page_08.pro
fc013f56cde284a924122de938895fc3
5ddadbdf077a18f77e0a6d5a9e6251110942d589
11822 F20101107_AABTPE chase_r_Page_03.jpg
a2d7f8ecd0c21b78364e8207886674a4
bc903890af6645d07ca06884d404c706c9c8eb53
8641 F20101107_AABUDY chase_r_Page_33thm.jpg
2722ae6a4cdfb4c5e6cb473091853177
68eb27f7289c2babe806678e0e52138adb0b5465
F20101107_AABTUC chase_r_Page_75.jp2
529b2113cfed77f410ebbe294b1b1f8c
429a30f5a7b4fb24691d49acaedfecb3fd0c9bc3
53285 F20101107_AABTPF chase_r_Page_04.jpg
e6340298acede927a85f98885717ecf4
db05b65b0c3960570b79408551615d1134a28214
2933 F20101107_AABUDZ chase_r_Page_34thm.jpg
88264abd2e2de3e386705d59c019d53d
ac9f28f66c94d2b4501575b1924880c20a775214
318 F20101107_AABUBA chase_r_Page_52.txt
fcca9630ee66d980b5996b37cb9e45cc
677de478d674e2f42fe74093b57ef19227e5fa24
55064 F20101107_AABTZA chase_r_Page_66.pro
bdcfa57d76768d887999097f98ac22df
a089ee69e5324482e1d838361f3efe6e734cb318
F20101107_AABTUD chase_r_Page_77.jp2
ca2ba77e3beff76dd66b484923703abd
0a34e77b40a1a368a8bdec3b780207df3d853f83
25696 F20101107_AABTPG chase_r_Page_06.jpg
0bb3e34869c9109f2bc485938c193101
b0d8cdc9245e39a22e2e33456407da42676436aa
1617 F20101107_AABUBB chase_r_Page_53.txt
f25165ffa23388fed6c60cd8659f396c
510a4d0dd379b9000cfa4d1c4354f2a8212b8131
25151 F20101107_AABTZB chase_r_Page_67.pro
bdd773be19678fc64c75410c70f8b246
cd262843386241ff264d1a3689fad1452c275ae5
F20101107_AABTUE chase_r_Page_78.jp2
13085a6d3f319378a4097c56b6a8125f
724d3e2ecb0aaced22f2ff27f5bef3bebf1bff1b
77809 F20101107_AABTPH chase_r_Page_07.jpg
cde0d28caf1cb9ed5a3d7da116011a73
f8c0deb7b15bd254b04be7f5672bd0bfe587e6c9
1541 F20101107_AABUBC chase_r_Page_54.txt
9e022d41001248706eb149f051e21bc3
36907d144b35a077cefb67ab87eab91d34580d05
47112 F20101107_AABTZC chase_r_Page_68.pro
24d53eb10c063899d33935d455aeda87
1d118796092b079ef3575780f8709e96a0d4a3de
397159 F20101107_AABTUF chase_r_Page_79.jp2
c6a88d946f5cd263a554c0d681bfecbf
abad31109eb95a415dadb799bf30f7825a943de4
34147 F20101107_AABUGA chase_r_Page_65.QC.jpg
22d92a450cf3690595b114992a31e7b4
3c43038723e70b72bb04683ae5a4dbb855e4508d
3049 F20101107_AABUBD chase_r_Page_55.txt
51748efa479e1c464bf969d2ad6b6c38
bb462869ff4d167f0eef647ed9544bf44cfeed80
59941 F20101107_AABTZD chase_r_Page_69.pro
d07bf104a7cdd5bcea03363c29c16e6a
34b8f0271f2036c3ae7011f535ec0d2fdf59ad6b
F20101107_AABTUG chase_r_Page_02.tif
8ca9ec2e211cb9112d8674a804c5e1c6
2c719c7837d81ea9e26a837b63d1c12d71a1f8ff
103583 F20101107_AABTPI chase_r_Page_09.jpg
e4c98820aaef7e47f305292f5be75eab
22f0d8b4573c5f2af029d19d035be6db89c5356d
8553 F20101107_AABUGB chase_r_Page_65thm.jpg
6a1c14593f1a5d258a4bccad9a76acfb
d18fc97476146e21565a812de943fc76177f1378
2023 F20101107_AABUBE chase_r_Page_56.txt
b5f0d2d70e291e4d2572358316e0986c
395be8110c5478fee2da513685258db98e64f1b9
F20101107_AABTUH chase_r_Page_03.tif
7b0854117e30a821e56f967352cf945d
80df5e97b2872fe4e7a017ecdab2c819dc9e6b89
58627 F20101107_AABTPJ chase_r_Page_10.jpg
fcca54a0e065b5c0ee48449f0cabf575
0b37021b2c03d9f948d0e0aa6ace96f88dc9b23b
63095 F20101107_AABTZE chase_r_Page_70.pro
ae480067835191f0273645192695348f
d42762f5cd27956bc56e1e0f153d05830a94807f
8696 F20101107_AABUGC chase_r_Page_66thm.jpg
b8d547350d042aa2780a9935d394e62a
f4f69c0ea53361d9b71799f99cdc9b559f1a928d
2187 F20101107_AABUBF chase_r_Page_57.txt
4ee2a16cb3a22c65af81e0866758fe72
a4abb6f1ccf5b4fa50e28901a7ce86df09dc80f3
F20101107_AABTUI chase_r_Page_04.tif
f30de53a784533d3295f4a6076a62607
2ee02bd4a30d621cf5fcbbe6906658ea6b394fe4
111238 F20101107_AABTPK chase_r_Page_11.jpg
494f230856f9ec91a0fc5c8dd908ac93
59c1ed47ecfa8265af40a95afc506899b3c2accd
59751 F20101107_AABTZF chase_r_Page_71.pro
c5e093b953439637a63cf613c729dec4
297902757dd6d00eb45613bff143cbe4d7076cff
17812 F20101107_AABUGD chase_r_Page_67.QC.jpg
1272ef070dcc6626b9fea5346855fab2
9add7f3097df3ac61fd0e67a3fc9ecab3e98f68b
2227 F20101107_AABUBG chase_r_Page_59.txt
92ca130ee256983a63fb67e9411c4912
8e4c23fac376daf68953323fa6f51094e2341b90
F20101107_AABTUJ chase_r_Page_05.tif
797ef0feaf5f7814edec7c0cd9ba209e
4e3b9f073ce4ce7fa09822083143eb7d30ab532c
116328 F20101107_AABTPL chase_r_Page_15.jpg
ada6eb79d3dd40335e5b73f0d3c7a0bd
a35641fc72eef5edcf694d670aec630b39dedd91
62719 F20101107_AABTZG chase_r_Page_72.pro
d6dfa2e5d369889868b659de3a994d9d
bb62ab327f4192ff7654870c6e38c1fadf52e4cd
4189 F20101107_AABUGE chase_r_Page_67thm.jpg
06e3e6bdcf86c1e440e99a53a6a408c9
cc2a62f771ac532582f85e8f989f4eee9a321a94
F20101107_AABUBH chase_r_Page_60.txt
ff17f291260b666ff0ec68005e0b0e48
68c66a72d2dbbf1472b055bc3dd1cc367a1e2e2f
F20101107_AABTUK chase_r_Page_07.tif
04a3589c36f93c3c004ad72b48c4face
477b08517cac87b38ae6eb3359db16c7d81cf33f
107471 F20101107_AABTPM chase_r_Page_16.jpg
6c0b363312ef3fd69b825b6175db4030
90f1ab56ea954e4ac49796d5fe3447fa3c1afd26
64580 F20101107_AABTZH chase_r_Page_74.pro
1d71f5566c67da9240f95c0557301d5c
2709302f1fe777490def5eeb9399505329c5c039
5280 F20101107_AABUGF chase_r_Page_68thm.jpg
93d96b0bcaee22d1f8872213b302b0e4
84e2cf92c84534284d07ea9094d44885eda2dc3a
2015 F20101107_AABUBI chase_r_Page_61.txt
c15dad8cb9e0c35c7f41b9a8610d83bc
b3d400f5e45b28f8e8890890722f9d7717127851
F20101107_AABTUL chase_r_Page_08.tif
a3331fb52c3d29e485f5c964b04e640c
c8d34c6fef1068421725db3bb208abb96a30dccd
113436 F20101107_AABTPN chase_r_Page_17.jpg
936ca9632ba3d18370675f9ba7be8c92
1f77283aa437a6443c15534c06a5261ff6182bbb
73030 F20101107_AABTZI chase_r_Page_75.pro
10d46e1eb91dfd16cee4586b87d890f2
07409b78db3992d2c3dd299236e077926e31c2e3
23113 F20101107_AABUGG chase_r_Page_69.QC.jpg
173056388278c06d1fd46df9a20381dc
22548afffa4cd4ddae95d69164397ff7400d39d7
2332 F20101107_AABUBJ chase_r_Page_62.txt
8b828e2a12ae487a0737662148c98b7e
2498b84670aecf3f6f530de2d357fc98b28bdb58
F20101107_AABTUM chase_r_Page_09.tif
a5a8ad2cc0723a8dc0ac958e5cb056d1
25a32e86bfe25c641fc882d2e67ab1dca841c5b4
112815 F20101107_AABTPO chase_r_Page_18.jpg
be665ff078bf6ed7caf66f2cae1f508b
d5e2e53ff9b1a437c0cea5d68dbbbaca85622089
68454 F20101107_AABTZJ chase_r_Page_76.pro
7342d09c5745bc062d239fafb01daffb
85a798a22fba83a4224701df28762418f9749ecd
5512 F20101107_AABUGH chase_r_Page_69thm.jpg
ce8133de16b160e6935a3f5e1235bc0e
4ec0f816982ac8742d8cd6417a4be70f1ed90d4c
2123 F20101107_AABUBK chase_r_Page_63.txt
26d33ae417208c9598f5374e3ef8d598
999a0460c0b08898eb327ddccc0c596d5eddd042
111858 F20101107_AABTPP chase_r_Page_19.jpg
150144b6e25bd549016090745b177587
0c68b989f25db8e08f219e7b637ade45f63d4106
73721 F20101107_AABTZK chase_r_Page_77.pro
9b3b714519d2f97937ff456dddfcb5d3
487dffbc13d36cb931ba471bfb4ad3fbc5ffd14c
26434 F20101107_AABUGI chase_r_Page_70.QC.jpg
c7bf3e88c2e7df2b8aebdd3a875bca41
e8dba9c06591c77595bf16f277169289a84e8887
2257 F20101107_AABUBL chase_r_Page_64.txt
a47057ad4cc49a65617c0c236d0c4607
c1dd868f5704db5bece398c59fe284532567486f
F20101107_AABTUN chase_r_Page_10.tif
9d91ef1e26166f9fb90255177b24ea54
91e9576dcecc474a61aa9964a96327f129cfd264
110789 F20101107_AABTPQ chase_r_Page_20.jpg
2dc9b83870444ed85c9d1425b699eebe
568afdaa11cd3a9e98f92d400eb8044136ad3897
72972 F20101107_AABTZL chase_r_Page_78.pro
d53fda9a1c1f9421100600374bfcdbcb
fa91873b6ebfa1854bce0ab37266d4cd85e1c24c
6066 F20101107_AABUGJ chase_r_Page_70thm.jpg
ff55702afe20217039f7a86bb3b849de
ddbf2249e7f00e9417f4103a590e6f624f4207a3
2031 F20101107_AABUBM chase_r_Page_65.txt
3d31d75caea7ccedb459324ba7e91043
a4f06d396f76329ca1a8050e701be0b6b12b21d4
F20101107_AABTUO chase_r_Page_11.tif
fd57d07ef771314c56d063ab382724e5
71d720ba193214fadfe4f1ef6c1448942304f622
111804 F20101107_AABTPR chase_r_Page_21.jpg
1e8bfb17d71b2eb1510cb1160d75f69d
3807e56080dd0e31f210590331b974f72927ec49
17112 F20101107_AABTZM chase_r_Page_79.pro
b493221afe03a2f1c7b8ee1c86603c60
513d9facfec6cde81f3f1253df5b1af6f92f46da
34334 F20101107_AABUGK chase_r_Page_71.QC.jpg
86402dfde49d9412d026eaeb4b76d101
69e72a2da815cb147c8f8c3adbb3729ea9a0125f
1043 F20101107_AABUBN chase_r_Page_67.txt
83f2f00bb50559695894e5bef779445d
e213dd34ca22aa9a5b4d52ccc7737b2f4fd66031
F20101107_AABTUP chase_r_Page_12.tif
1876dc7d045f0ce299ab48d84843d268
51ab471dece6a8e27f0ad03f1e96d11cc4bcf130
115493 F20101107_AABTPS chase_r_Page_22.jpg
f98fd5ce06cebe58744f2e2619339f1e
8fa8289eea3301445ba88901f196848953bf6571
17290 F20101107_AABTZN chase_r_Page_80.pro
d7fb527b6bcd663261c4b8ce7859e535
d72fd1c4944a5425384e4ec2c5c7be9201227659
8790 F20101107_AABUGL chase_r_Page_71thm.jpg
d050613ba3e927ece2071905940d25c3
99fcdcd87df7b820d8d0d52cdb710e3399d2058a
2286 F20101107_AABUBO chase_r_Page_68.txt
c8bae8ab0b310ff8f83b471a6f01d09f
e743f763870d4f9559d60a4fbe3c5b877426782b
F20101107_AABTUQ chase_r_Page_13.tif
ced7e30058c2c0a2dccffd1ee0f810c0
ee9f51f1ec8aaa6d9eb8e963fc1d2d846902e927
113442 F20101107_AABTPT chase_r_Page_23.jpg
276ce388ae25aac874c993df17bdf6e7
12fe42058331855178c33d5f96287ebcf2362442
551 F20101107_AABTZO chase_r_Page_01.txt
36a87bb842a65a91ce3c8ec6882ddfca
bf14564c51f661698dd96d1d6022a996f7b824aa
33389 F20101107_AABUGM chase_r_Page_72.QC.jpg
fdd76b1bb819ba8d71139db3b89fa06e
7b4b562e4d1cead02bdb9da85986c95684f35f58
3065 F20101107_AABUBP chase_r_Page_69.txt
da0a74efd08bd7fc90db164066925a1a
0ad2ce8f06a01ce0f38212d83c0b14f6d31feade
F20101107_AABTUR chase_r_Page_15.tif
5076c2ce0a146cf11a295cd34063e8e3
3ac28186e1cef3c6556852b01048d636b14d77b2
110807 F20101107_AABTPU chase_r_Page_24.jpg
2670325416c13fa0ad23e3ab8cbdbeb1
dfcd1957daa29f2375a13f9113fcd2a920de14ea
93 F20101107_AABTZP chase_r_Page_02.txt
6d9599ceaa0af10ae271156f1b2d5dc2
75acf42b8363520fd69d71f12aaf89aaa2dfb659
8332 F20101107_AABUGN chase_r_Page_72thm.jpg
bfe92d8ed42d0548db914891d0834635
ffb03a1b57d9b915cdef6cd29c6c9f541e8dfc51
3087 F20101107_AABUBQ chase_r_Page_70.txt
10ad4d0825558debd33b4bc9a04d9dc8
7024b55106856ed95ea1c72f73abd31792ba8b9e
F20101107_AABTUS chase_r_Page_16.tif
d2c3d24087bd34f0b1f1fed08ee73262
a418a8d10a9bdb444f88b8f31ee4ad032d76b783
109012 F20101107_AABTPV chase_r_Page_25.jpg
a04a05d4965f93248d4e661e9767d58b
f70d830daff794335490d2108c6b9c6107707122
236 F20101107_AABTZQ chase_r_Page_03.txt
e7dc917d05a52c3045ca40c296c3e3cc
c59edccd99cea3696ea02747130ea4f9676605f1
36749 F20101107_AABUGO chase_r_Page_73.QC.jpg
63b891fc523c1d6a99c23aafb74c0ce7
45b9cbe9173cace0b229471336ef7ab8fbb2065e
2593 F20101107_AABUBR chase_r_Page_72.txt
070c478fb25cda0ce82eed7f0583e4a8
eefef92cdf75b1800e99bdf1f9e3a012ac537c82
F20101107_AABTUT chase_r_Page_17.tif
32dad256807b418ec9f3f731e5077cde
8614bb159b504892fa7ca450c04bcb500833f2cc
78764 F20101107_AABTPW chase_r_Page_26.jpg
0ef10146dc80eafe3d58baffd9adb1b1
a52f2202858ea31756932d43f5541763ee8e3023
3808 F20101107_AABTZR chase_r_Page_05.txt
a668d8ec09cc450069e711bd5fa03b10
1a2a1796fffb797daeb4211115afa59115a237d7
8915 F20101107_AABUGP chase_r_Page_73thm.jpg
ed747f11ab4afc2aafdb37d9c33d62b0
e8562ef9f6788fdbc771b7cf200c86b8598378a3
2792 F20101107_AABUBS chase_r_Page_73.txt
5cc94adfc9e1b55ed170232602d6c73c
c72bd879a31c46b3d3d5de6acddf85eaebde5bfa
F20101107_AABTUU chase_r_Page_18.tif
b920445cfd735c60323a80ac9c157b00
36eec9cedc0f7cac60991e263c0f4a13efaa655b
92854 F20101107_AABTPX chase_r_Page_27.jpg
2af74200bcc21786bcdb1fcd7f707873
23f7ea12391add6bea89414ad5416d3cd1901d72
35690 F20101107_AABUGQ chase_r_Page_74.QC.jpg
cfe5eed380e587df7601ba77068b6cff
8a372382a91e8832b153c141fb3dd9bd41000622
2651 F20101107_AABUBT chase_r_Page_74.txt
1bb8b0014081483dc07b45647a1b8c15
10ef04566e72982e7de56d7dcde40b61f44b59b6
F20101107_AABTUV chase_r_Page_19.tif
e6599e64644e65248bf27fa1db9f5be3
76011abf8c56cb3d9c418df1cc0180bf6d773f55
21795 F20101107_AABTNA chase_r_Page_68.QC.jpg
591137870177db215f9a213d73cc01f2
59004ecb046099b21094201290bb79ee6b749bcd
109130 F20101107_AABTPY chase_r_Page_28.jpg
34d0176b4f464f1fb7d7d923ff81c23d
ac8a1fd566c1b117a9449ca3f4eba7b1d46d1c34
728 F20101107_AABTZS chase_r_Page_06.txt
89387e2278992dd49e927f18f0b2b950
bcd6853adb5b05e33c3518bc697db05799795099
9177 F20101107_AABUGR chase_r_Page_74thm.jpg
b8c1d4caec390943c92fe8441de4b068
a5358afd45853edcb657c982356a58550650d418
2808 F20101107_AABUBU chase_r_Page_76.txt
bed6a72fda526d4161060a14a18b3d3b
972c7ca69e56e8376ebbae318d6339aba92fe913
F20101107_AABTUW chase_r_Page_20.tif
b689f5aa7bd1e73ba3cd8fe0d5683675
bbd6f21fc0631a278611bdaa8c721973085ceb30
F20101107_AABTNB chase_r_Page_67.tif
1b098ba0d59d9baf5faac738adbf30ae
74ae56b4838f7aca4c0528adc463861238e1bbaa
110521 F20101107_AABTPZ chase_r_Page_29.jpg
2c9cf5a80322659a129ca567aec82f88
2ecbc8cca7e2643b55c7f74ddca126e021a99582
328 F20101107_AABTZT chase_r_Page_08.txt
acaaf73f71f72378515f982e03bac76a
ed6998616daa88e891748c5343083f3f86268e70
38639 F20101107_AABUGS chase_r_Page_75.QC.jpg
3398433001f407ae8a8a92c0561c3f29
d1c202b7c472be2625a502e9df26e64819f0c2d2
3004 F20101107_AABUBV chase_r_Page_77.txt
aec53dc369645b86033d87f722025ef4
e2eeff62ceb0066ad4b8657476ad12f8ec669138
F20101107_AABTUX chase_r_Page_21.tif
e59bfa91f9d3dfb01b1a34df6a8c1d45
025c9f5002772d6bdbca84d17acfb825b8a89290
24059 F20101107_AABTNC chase_r_Page_44.QC.jpg
42cb2462dbeb846590ca1881bd4ed5d9
26113df8716931643f7cf2c8a72f5900e068fa93
2039 F20101107_AABTZU chase_r_Page_09.txt
080cd8c61684f811fd0e972c66b29a1e
5d77756f7573cb677c8ef951c8d209f2c5b52189
9535 F20101107_AABUGT chase_r_Page_75thm.jpg
ea2bfba79926ec36fa1b3e5c92e836ce
6bdc3c45954a79282ab3a5c694de438f6c3ffb40
2994 F20101107_AABUBW chase_r_Page_78.txt
c1c7c7091f7b250e390759ee8f326ae9
fef7c1ac563e036e85ae70b99a3f3c4288e2e934
F20101107_AABTUY chase_r_Page_22.tif
0216367d913bce3efaa7a5de8fc7d3e0
413120d8ece82c03998aab394e574571cc2728ab
111778 F20101107_AABTND chase_r_Page_14.jpg
34d4790bd36b428074e6d52548d6dcd1
f9f6bdac4fb363b3ff47ba328d2b9d1937d199d2
1063 F20101107_AABTZV chase_r_Page_10.txt
6784c97a39f02ffe0b12cc9712b04d63
89ae03b4ff7104230cb143b7f9dcfa36a9efe277
1051968 F20101107_AABTSA chase_r_Page_13.jp2
4a67a89e77a2427908d9785cab0e4445
7432615807b1751a3be5ee106f0d36638abe2451
37468 F20101107_AABUGU chase_r_Page_76.QC.jpg
45901851837c5252c1ac3ea0b619fa81
bcbbfcc33c4a47f811a2f34d98c72d011bd1af3d
723 F20101107_AABUBX chase_r_Page_80.txt
79c6c0123acef508d035ff329c248164
31e53acbeaef8e5a7aa9d34ec1a3754bff2fb2d3
F20101107_AABTUZ chase_r_Page_23.tif
739dcc2ac81b626bbd4e06dacd7010f7
d1d3f0060d5e472e879614709934922caea4101d
106356 F20101107_AABTNE chase_r_Page_32.jpg
476bf81b6e48232428e09635867f03ce
0c6c8327871a127412fd5e832a80f4c28f00b87b
2222 F20101107_AABTZW chase_r_Page_12.txt
86166848ad5b20ab3fa20b60cbef83bd
658e7ca4fe2c00557b7a48c90c49ffb76557d109
1051934 F20101107_AABTSB chase_r_Page_14.jp2
3fbac22cba5d3c5eddca28fecc6705ab
9ee705eb9dfd1792c7a4a65f4b3a58a35efc6f31