Developmental
Psychopathology
The
conceptual framework for the ASEBA was outlined in relation
to the developmental study of psychopathology in the first
and second editions of the book Developmental Psychopathology
(Achenbach, 1974, 1982).
Based
on the framework presented in Developmental Psychopathology,
the first CBCL Manual was published in 1983 in collaboration
with Dr. Craig Edelbrock, who was then Associate Professor
of Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical
School and is now Professor at the University of Georgia.
The CBCL Manual was followed by Manuals for the Teacher’s
Report Form (TRF; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986) and
the Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach
& Edelbrock, 1987). The first Manual for a pre-school
version of the CBCL was published by Achenbach in 1992.
Cross-Informant
Challenges
When
parallel ASEBA instruments were used to obtain 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. Meta-analyses
of many studies using many different instruments revealed
a mean correlation of .60 between pairs of informants
who saw the children they rated in similar contexts (e.g.,
mothers and fathers; pairs of teachers; Achenbach, McConaughy,
& Howell, 1987). The meta-analyses revealed a mean
correlation of .28 between pairs of informants who saw
the children in different contexts (e.g., parents versus
teachers). And the meta-analyses revealed a mean correlation
of .22 between self-ratings and ratings by others, such
as parents and teachers. The findings of modest cross-informant
correlations in many studies using many different instruments
indicated that no one source of data can serve as a gold
standard. Instead, multiple sources are needed to capture
variations in children's functioning from one context
to another, as well as to allow for variations in perspectives
from one rater to another. The need for obtaining and
coordinating data from multiple informants poses challenges
for all assessment procedures.
Meta-analyses
have yielded a mean correlation of .45 between self-ratings
and informant-ratings of adult behavioral/emotional problems
(Achenbach, Krukowski, Dumenci, & Ivanova, 2005).
Coupled with findings of very low agreement between diagnoses
made from different sources of data (Meyer, 2002), this
indicates that multiple sources of data are needed for
comprehensive assessment of adults, as well as children.
Cross-Informant
Syndromes
To
meet the cross-informant challenges, major revisions of
the CBCL/4-18, TRF, and YSR syndrome scales were made
in 1991 (Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c, 1991d). Eight
cross-informant syndromes were derived from analyses of
all three instruments. The cross-informant syndromes reflect
patterns of problems that are common to ratings by the
different kinds of informants. Instrument-specific versions
of the syndromes comprise the specific sets of problem
items that operationally define each cross-informant syndrome
on each instrument.
Data
from nationally representative samples of children were
used to construct norms for the syndromes that were age-specific,
gender-specific, and instrument-specific. The 1991 editions
of the scoring profiles display a child's score on each
scale in relation to norms for the child's age and gender,
as scored from parent, teacher, or self-ratings.
Cross-Informant
Comparisons
In
addition to reflecting patterns of problems derived from
ratings by different kinds of informants, the cross-informant
syndromes facilitate comparisons between ratings of each
child by different kinds of informants. The modest cross-informant
correlations found in many studies (documented in the
meta-analyses by Achenbach et al., 1987; Achenbach et
al., 2005) show that no one source of assessment data
can substitute for all others. Comprehensive assessment
therefore requires comparisons of data from multiple sources.
ASEBA software introduced in 1991 produces side-by-side
comparisons of item scores and scale scores obtained from
parent, teacher, and self-ratings of each child. These
comparisons enable users to quickly see similarities and
differences between different raters’ item and scale
scores for the child.
To
help users evaluate the level of cross-informant agreement,
the software prints correlations between ratings by each
pair of informants, plus comparisons with correlations
between ratings by similar pairs of informants in large
reference samples. For example, the correlation between
ratings by a child’s mother and teacher are compared
with the correlation between ratings found in a large
reference sample of mothers and teachers. Cross-informant
comparisons were extended to the Child Behavior Checklist
for Ages 2-3 (CBCL/2-3) in 1992 (Achenbach, 1992) and
to the Caregiver-Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) in 1997 (Achenbach,
1997). The 21st-century ASEBA instruments provide cross-informant
comparisons of parallel forms completed by different informants
for ages 1½ to 90+.
Empirically
Based Assessment via Observations and Interviews
In
addition to data from informants, it is important to obtain
data from people who are trained to observe samples of
children's functioning.
The
Direct Observation Form (DOF). To obtain samples of children’s
functioning in group contexts such as classrooms, the
DOF enables observers to rate problems and on-task behavior
based on 10-minute observations (Achenbach, 1986; McConaughy,
Achenbach, & Gent, 1988; McConaughy & Achenbach,
2009). To take account of variations in children's behavior
from one occasion to another, the software for scoring
the DOF can average item and scale scores over as many
as six occasions for each child. To compare each child’s
functioning with the functioning of other children in
the same context, the DOF software also compares the child's
scores with scores averaged across those of other children
observed in the same context.
The
Semistructured Clinical Interview for Children and Adolescents
(SCICA). To apply empirically based assessment to interviews,
Dr. Stephanie McConaughy, who is a Research Professor
of Psychiatry at the University of Vermont, and Dr. Achenbach
developed the SCICA (McConaughy & Achenbach, 1990,
1994, 2001). The SCICA includes an interview protocol
of semistructured questions. The SCICA also includes rating
forms on which the interviewer rates (a) the problems
reported by the child and (b) the interviewer's observations
of the child during the interview. The interviewer's ratings
are scored on a profile that displays syndromes derived
empirically from statistical analyses of the SCICA items.
A second profile displays DSM-oriented scales scored from
SCICA items.
A
video for training interviewers to use the SCICA shows
samples of Dr. McConaughy’s interviews with children
who manifest various kinds of problems. To learn how to
rate children in interviews, trainees can watch the interview
excerpts, rate the children on the SCICA rating forms,
and enter their ratings in the SCICA software. The software
displays profiles, item scores, and correlations that
compare the trainees’ ratings with ratings by experienced
clinicians. Trainees can then identify areas of disagreement
and can view the taped interviews again to hone their
skills. Dr. McConaughy's (2005) book,
Clinical Interviews for Children and Adolescents: Assessment
to Intervention, provides extensive guidance and
illustrations for clinical interviewing.
