ASEBA Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

1. Simon ferber Gabrielle ponaman ASEBAAchenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

2. Overview ASEBA represents a comprehensive evidence-based approach to assessing adaptive and maladaptive functioning ASEBA provides professionals with user-friendly tools through the development of research and practical experience to identify actual patterns of functioning Instruments clearly document clients functioning in terms of both qualitative scores and individualized descriptions in respondents� own words The individualized descriptive data, plus competence, adaptive, and problem scores, facilitate comprehensive, in-depth assessment. 3rd Bullet: Descriptions include what concerns respondents most about the clients, the best things about clients, and details of competencies and problems that are not captured by quantitative scores alone. 4th Bullet: Numerous studies demonstrate significant associations between ASEBA scores and both diagnostic and special-education classifications 3rd Bullet: Descriptions include what concerns respondents most about the clients, the best things about clients, and details of competencies and problems that are not captured by quantitative scores alone. 4th Bullet: Numerous studies demonstrate significant associations between ASEBA scores and both diagnostic and special-education classifications

3. History and Development Originated in the 1960�s with Dr. Achenback�s efforts to develop a more differentiated picture of child and adolescent psychopathology Numerous studies demonstrate significant associations between ASEBA scores and both diagnostic and special education categories ASEBA approach involved 1. Recording the problems reported for large samples of children, adolescents, and adults 2. Performing multivariate statistical analyses of correlations among the problems to identify syndromes of problems that tend to co-occur 3. Using reports of skills and involvement in activities, social relations, school, and work to assess competencies and adaptive functioning 4. Constructing profiles of scales on which to display individuals� scores in relation to norms for their age and gender The first scientific report of ASEBA findings was presented at the Society for Research in Child Development (Achenback, 1965) and the first scientific publication was a monograph in the American Psychological Association�s Psychological series (Achenback, 1966)

4. Later Developments Late 1960s & 1970s, Dr. Achenback collaborated with Dr. Melvin Luis of the Yale Child Study Center In 1971, they applied the empirically based approach in new research and laid the groundwork for the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Framework was outlined in relation to the developmental study of psychopathology in the first and second editions of the book Developmental Psychopathology First CBCL manual was published in 1983 and the Teacher�s Report Form and Youth Self-report followed. Preschool version of CBCL was published in 1992Preschool version of CBCL was published in 1992

5. Later Developments cont. When parallel ASEBA instruments were used to obtain different data from different informants, it was found that agreement among informants was usually modest, even though the ratings by each type of informant were reliable and valid As a result, major revisions of the CBCL/4-18, TRF, and YSR syndrome scales were made in 1991. Eight cross-informant syndromes were derived from analysis of all three instruments Data from nationally representative samples of children were used to construct norms for the syndromes that were age-specific, gender-specific, and instrument-specific.

6. 21st Century Advances ASEBA can now be scored on Windows software called the Assessment Data Manager In 2010, the Module for ages 1 � to 5 with Multicultural Options and New Stress Problems Scale In 2000, a revised edition of the CBCL/2-3 and the C-TRF that now spans ages 1 � to 5 years. Also added the Language Development Survey (LDS) to the CBCL/1 � to 5 and published the Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. In 2001, the CBCL/6-18, TRF/6-18, and YSR/11-18 was released. Also released SCICA/6-18

7. 21st Century Advances cont In 2004, they released the Test Observation Form for ages 2-18 In 2007, they released the module for ages 6-18 with Multicultural Options and 2007 scales In 2003, they released new forms and profiles that expanded the adult assessment age range from 18-30 to 18-59 In 2004, they released the Older Adult Self Report (Ages 60-90+) and Older Adult Behavior Checklist which are scored in relation to normative data from a national sample.

8. Uses To assess competencies, adaptive functioning, and behavioral, emotional, and social problems from ages 1 � to over 90 years You can relate ASEBA directly to DSM-IV diagnostic categories by using the DSM-oriented scales for scoring ASEBA forms Sets the standard for integrated multi-informant assessment Offers culturally diverse worldwide applications; translations in 85+ languages

9. Uses cont Provides multi-informant assessment for ages 1 � to 90+ Provides multicultural scoring for ages 1 � to 18 Is widely used in mental health services, schools, medical settings, child and family services, HMO�s, public health agencies, child guidance, and training programs Offers comparable scales across wide age ranges

10. Uses cont Is used in national surveys to track development and predict competencies and problems Is supported by extensive research on service needs and outcomes, diagnosis, prevalence of problems, medical conditions, treatment efficacy, genetic and environmental effects, and epidemiology

11. Child Behavior Checklist For Ages 6-16 (CBCL/6-18) To be completed by parents, parent-surrogates, and others who see children in a family-like manner One or more ASEBA forms are available in 61 other languages The first page of the CBCL requests demographic information about the child and asks to indicate their name and relationship to the child (i.e. mother, father, foster parents, etc)

12. CBCL Next information is asked regarding the parents�/caregivers occupation. This is used to determine SES. The respondent then completes the competence items on pages 1 and 2. These questions ask things like: List the sports your child most likes to take part in List hobbies List organizations/clubs/teams child belongs to Chores he/she does How many friends Academic performance

13. CBCL On the second half of page 2 are open-ended items for describing the child�s illnesses and disabilities, what concerns the respondent most about the child, and the best things about the child. Pages 3 and 4 request ratings of behavioral, emotional, and social problems. The respondent rates each problem item as 0=not true, 1=somewhat or sometimes true, 2= very true or often true, based on the last 6 months. For reassessments respondents can be asked to base their ratings on shorter periods. Space for very short answers, with the prompt �describe:__�

14. CBCL For respondents who cannot write, or may have other limitations, the interviewer will hand the respondent a copy of the CBCL and say �I�ll read you the questions on this form and I�ll write down your answers.� If the respondent can read well enough, they will usually give verbal answers without waiting for the interviewer to read the question.

15. Youth Self-Report

16. Youth Self-Report (YSR) Normed for kids aged 11-18. Completed by youths to describe their own functioning. If youth cannot complete it independently, it can be read to the youth. Page 1 requests demographic information, plus responses to competence items similar to those on the CBCL. Page 2 also has items similar to those of the CBCL, except worded in 1st person. The YSR includes 14 social desirability items not included on the CBCL.

17. Teacher�s Report Form (TRF) Normed for ages 6-18. Completed by teachers and other school personnel who are familiar with children�s functioning in school, such as TAs, counselors, administrators, and special educators. Can be obtained from different teachers and from other people who see the child in school First page asks demographic information about the student.

18. TRF Respondents are asked to indicate their role at the school, how long they have known the student, how much time the student spends in their class or service, and what kind of class or service it is. Then asked whether the student has ever been referred for special class placement, services, or tutoring, and whether the student has repeated any grades. Then asked to rate performance in academic subjects and the following adaptive characteristics: How hard is he/she working? How appropriately is he/she behaving? How much is he/she learning? How happy is he/she?

19. TRF Then respondents are asked to provide scores from achievement and ability tests, followed by information about the student�s illnesses, disabilities, what concerns the respondent most about the student, the best things about the student, and additional comments. Pages 3 and 4 of the TRF request respondents to rate behavioral, emotional, and social problems as 0,1, or 2. This time, respondents are asked to base their ratings on a 2-month period, rather than a 6-month period. This takes into account the fact that teachers often need to assess students on the basis of relatively short contacts and need to reassess students periodically within relatively short periods during the academic year. Like the CBCL, the TRF requests descriptions of several problem items and requests respondents to report additional physical problems and any other problems that were not previously listed.

21. Scoring

22. Scoring The ASEBA can be hand scored Or can be scored using Web-Link An advantage of Web-Link is that up to 8 CBCL YSR and TRF forms can be scored and compared for each child Web-Link provides a much more thorough printout

23. Interpretation Something to keep in mind: Scores in borderline and clinical ranges significantly differentiate between children who are referred for mental health or special education services for behavioral/emotional problems and demographically similar children who are not referred

24. CBCL Competence Scale Percentiles enable you to compare a child�s raw score on each competence scale with percentiles for normative samples of non-referred children of the child�s gender and age T-scores provide a metric that is similar for all scales Normal Range: T-score greater than 35 or above the 7th percentile Borderline Clinical Range: T-score less than 31 or below the 2nd percentile Clinical Range: T-Score less than 31 or below the 2nd percentile Read exampleRead example

25. CBCL Total Competence Score Normal Range: T-score greater than 40 or greater than the 16th percentile Borderline Clinical Range: T-score of 37 to 40 or the 10th to the 16th percentile Clinical Range: T-score less than 37 or less than the 10th percentile Why are the cutpoints on the Total Competence score higher than on the Activities, Social, and School scales? Because each of these scales comprises fewer items that span less diverse aspects of functioning than the Total Competence score

26. YSR Competence Profile Normal Range: T-score greater than 35 or above the 7th percentile Borderline Clinical Range: T-scores 31 to 35 or between the 2nd and 7th percentile Clinical Range: T-score less than 31 or below the 2nd percentile Interpret same as CBCL Competence Profile except: No score in terms of a school scale Total Competence Scale ranges from 0 to 32 because the youth�s self ratings of academic performance is averaged to provide a score for a single item that is added to the Activities and Social scale scores YSR percentiles and T-scores are based on YSR�s completed by our national normative sample of non-referred youths

27. TRF Adaptive Functioning Profile Percentiles and T-scores differ from those on the CBCL and YSR Competence Profiles in the following ways: Percentiles on TRF Adaptive Functioning Profile range from 7 to 93 T-scores range from 35 to 65 Normal Range: T-scores greater than 40 and percentiles greater than 16 Borderline Clinical Range: T-scores from 37 to 40 and percentiles from 10 to 16 Clinical Range: T-scores less than 37 and percentiles less than 10

28. Syndrome Profiles High scores on the syndrome scales indicate clinically important deviance, because they reflect numerous problems The broken lines demarcate a borderline clinical range spanning from the 93rd to the 97th percentile of the normative sample of non-referred children Scores in the borderline range are high enough to be of concern, but are not so clearly deviant as scores that are above the top broken line Scores above the broken line (i.e., above the 97th percentile) indicate that the person who completed the CBCL reported enough problems to be of clinical concern Scores below the bottom broken line are in the normal range

29. Profiles Scored from Different Informants Able to see at a glance whether other family members differed much in how they score the child on any of the syndromes

30. Internalizing & Externalizing Groupings of Syndromes T-scores indicate how elevated the child�s internalizing and externalizing scores are in terms of T scores By looking at a child�s T scores for Internalizing and Externalizing, you can obtain a global picture of whether the child�s problems tend to be concentrated in either, both, or neither of these broad areas Normal Range: T scores below 60 Borderline Clinical Range: T scores of 60 to 63 (84th percentile to 90th percentile) Clinical Range: T scores above 63 Why are the borderline and clinical cutpoints on the Internalizing and Externalizing scores lower than on the syndrome scales? Because each syndrome scale comprises fewer items that span less diverse aspects of functioning than the Internalizing and Externalizing scores

31. Total Problem Score Normal Range: T-scores below 60 Borderline Clinical Range: T scores from 60 to 63 (84th to 90th percentile) Clinical Range: Above T score of 63

32. Reliability Inter-Interviewer reliability of item scores .93 for competence items .96 for specific problem items Test-Retest Reliability 72 non-referenced children were rated at 1-week intervals ICC- 1.00 for 20 competence items and .95 for specific problem items

33. Reliability Internal Consistency of Scaled Scores split-half reliability Cronbach�s alpha .63 to .79 for CBCL and .55-.75 for the YSR Most coefficients in the .7-.8 range This is high considering these scales have as few as four items, and each item was designed to tap a variety of competencies with items that differ in format Some items within a scale were designed to measure different elements Test-Retest Reliability Correlations between CBCL YSR and TRF ratings Pearson�s correlations around .8-.9

34. Validity Items created to discriminate significantly between the referred and non-referred children. Revisions made to items with terms like asthma and allergy that were non-discriminatory All items on CBCL YSR and TRF discriminate significantly between referred and non-referred children Odd Ratios Used in epidemiological research to match the outcome rates to the risk factor Correlations with BASC Scales .38� depression mother rater .88- conduct problems

35. Validity Four decades of research, consultation, feedback, and revision All items discriminated significantly between demographically matched referred children and n0nreferred children The criterion-related validity of the 3 scales were supported by multiple regressions, odds rations, and discriminant analyses all showed significant discrimination between referred and non-referred children Construct validity has been supported by analogous scales, DSM criteria, and long-term outcomes

36. Youth Self Report PROS Provides DSM-IV diagnostic information Ability to obtain cross informant information from caretakers and teachers if administered in conjunction with the CBC and TRF Separate Norms for boys and girls Inexpensive to purchase Clinician-friendly feedback, especially with the information from graphs and narrative provided by computer software Able to export data to SPSS using computer utility

37. Youth Self Report CONS Can be time consuming due to the large number of questions Potential for self-report bias due to face validity No validity scales are included with the profiles

38. Teacher Report Form (TRF) PROS Well researched & widely used Newly revised measure DSM-IV oriented Provides information on strengths of child Inexpensive to administer and score Computer-generated reports are available with clinician-friendly feedback Parallel form available. Can use up to 8 various parallel forms per child A computer utility called �A2S� is available from ASEBA to easily export data to SPSS

39. Teacher Report Form (TRF) CONS Can be time-consuming measure to complete Potential for self-report bias No assessment of profile validity

40. Child Behavior Checklist (Age 6-18) PROS Well researched & widely used Newly revised measure DSM-IV oriented Provides information on strengths of child Inexpensive to administer and score Computer-generated reports are available with clinician-friendly feedback Parallel form available. Can use up to 8 various parallel forms per child A computer utility called �A2S� is available from ASEBA to easily export data to SPSS

41. Child Behavior Checklist (Age 6-18) CONS Can be time-consuming measure to complete Potential for self-report bias No assessment of profile validity Spanish speakers sometimes report having problems understanding measure