Cross-informant Correlations Research Articles

Reliability and Validity Evidences of Tej Emotional and Behavioral Problem Checklist (TEJ-CL) for Child Mental Health Assessment in Nepal

Introduction: The Tej Emotional and Behavioral Problem Checklist (TEJ-CL) was developed in Nepalese context to aid assessment of childhood emotional and problems of children. This study aimed to evaluate TEJ-CL's factor structure, reliability, and validity evidences as an add-on and symptom monitoring test.Methods: This cross-sectional validation study included guardians of 320 children (age 5 – 17 years) from tertiary mental health centers in Kathmandu as referred group, along with 601 children from two schools (private and community) in Kathmandu as non-referred group.Study was conducted after obtaining ethical approval (ref: 183 (6-11-E)2/073/074 and ref: 776). TEJ-CL, an 89-item parent-reported questionnaire, served as the index test, while referral status acted as the reference standard. Factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest/ cross-informant correlations and criterion validity evidence was assessed using principal component analysis, coefficient alpha, spearman's rank correlation and linear regression models, respectively.Results: Analysis was done using 179 referred and 412 non-referred individuals based on non-missing data. Principal component analysis in referred sample reduced the number of items of questionnaire to 65 from 89 and indicated six factors: externalizing behavioral issues, anxiety/worries, upset/sadness, somatic concern, miscellaneous syndrome, and severe issues with coefficient alpha ranging from .62 to .95. As criterion validity evidence, referred children showed significantly higher scores than non-referred children across composite and factor scores, except for anxiety/worries factor. Similarly, regression analyses within the referred group demonstrated significant associations between factor scores and specific diagnoses.Conclusions: Reliability and validity estimate of questionnaire is comparable to similar empirically based scales. Future research should focus on assessing the tool's generalizability and improving discriminatory indexes.

P-Factor(s) for Youth Psychopathology Across Informants and Models in 24 Societies

ABSTRACT Objective Although the significance of the general factor of psychopathology (p) is being increasingly recognized, it remains unclear how to best operationalize and measure p. To test variations in the operationalizations of p and make practical recommendations for its assessment, we compared p-factor scores derived from four models. Methods We compared p scores derived from principal axis (Model 1), hierarchical factor (Model 2), and bifactor (Model 3) analyses, plus a Total Problem score (sum of unit-weighted ratings of all problem items; Model 4) for parent- and self-rated youth psychopathology from 24 societies. Separately for each sample, we fitted the models to parent-ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6–18 (CBCL/6–18) and self-ratings on the Youth Self-Report (YSR) for 25,643 11–18-year-olds. Separately for each sample, we computed correlations between p-scores obtained for each pair of models, cross-informant correlations between p-scores for each model, and Q-correlations between mean item x p-score correlations for each pair of models. Results Results were similar for all models, as indicated by correlations of .973–.994 between p-scores for Models 1–4, plus similar cross-informant correlations between CBCL/6–18 and YSR Model 1–4 p-scores. Item x p correlations had similar rank orders between Models 1–4, as indicated by Q correlations of .957–.993. Conclusions The similar results obtained for Models 1–4 argue for using the simplest model – the unit-weighted Total Problem score – to measure p for clinical and research assessment of youth psychopathology. Practical methods for measuring p may advance the field toward transdiagnostic patterns of problems.

Multi-informant Assessment of Organizational Skills: Psychometric Characteristics of the Children’s Organizational Skills Scale (COSS)

Organization, time management, and planning (OTMP) skills are behavioral manifestations of executive functioning linked to academic outcomes. Interventions to improve OTMP skills have shown favorable outcomes. The Children’s Organizational Skills Scale parent and teacher forms (COSS-P, COSS-T) are widely used for assessing OTMP skills, but there is limited research on this scale. This study examined the factor structure and construct validity of the COSS in a non-clinical and clinical sample of students in grades 2–8 (Study 1; n = 1138 COSS-T; 1155 COSS-P), and teacher-referred students with OTMP deficits in grades 3–5 (Study 2; n = 184). In Study 1, a bifactor model with a general factor and three subfactors demonstrated good fit for the COSS-P (RMSEA = .057) and COSS-T (RMSEA = .052). This model was replicated in Study 2. The general factor on both versions demonstrated an acceptable to high level of internal reliability. An acceptable degree of reliability was also identified for subfactor 1 (Task Planning). The COSS was shown to be effective in differentiating children with ADHD from a comparison group drawn primarily from the non-clinical sample (AUC = .84 COSS-P; .85 COSS-T). Sex differences of medium magnitude were identified on the total score of both COSS versions. Correlations between the COSS-P and COSS-T were variable across samples. The findings provide strong evidence for using the total score on the COSS-P and COSS-T as an index of overall OTMP skills deficits. Given variable cross-informant correlations on the COSS, multi-informant assessment of OTMP skills is strongly indicated.

Psychometric properties and cross-cultural comparison of the Arabic version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Youth Self Report (YSR), and Teacher’s Report Form (TRF) in a sample of Egyptian children

BackgroundThe Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) forms are among the most studied instruments for assessing behavioral, emotional, social, and thought problems in children and adolescents worldwide. Although ASEBA instruments have been translated into Arabic, fewer studies have investigated their psychometric properties and norms in Arabic speaking societies than in other societies.MethodsRevisions were made to the Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) translations of the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6–18 (CBCL/6–18), the Teacher’s Report Form (TRF), and the Youth Self-Report (YSR). Parents of 6–18-year-olds who came to the general pediatric clinic in Tanta University Hospital during a 2-year period for routine check-ups were invited to fill out the CBCL/6–18 (N = 595), while 11–18-year-olds were invited to fill out the YSR (N = 409). TRFs were filled out by teachers (N = 329).ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses supported the previously reported eight-factor syndrome structure of the forms with good psychometric properties and moderate cross-informant correlations. The mean CBCL/6–18 and YSR Total Problem scores qualified for the previously established ASEBA Multicultural Norm Group 2, while the mean TRF Total Problem score qualified for group 3.ConclusionsThe good psychometric properties and the identification of Multicultural Norm Groups for scores obtained with the Arabic translations of ASEBA forms in Egyptian society support use of the ASEBA for assessment and outcome evaluations of behavioral, emotional, social, and thought problems among Egyptian youth.

Whose Outcomes Come Out? Patterns of Caregiver- and Youth-reported Outcomes Based on Caregiver-youth Baseline Discrepancies

ABSTRACT Objective Discrepancies between caregiver and youth reports of emotional and behavioral symptoms are well-documented, with cross-informant correlations often falling in the low to moderate range. Studies have shown that caregiver-youth (dis)agreement in reporting of youth symptoms is related to treatment outcomes. However, commonly used methods for exploring reporter discrepancies (e.g., difference scores) are limited by their inability to assess discrepancies across multiple symptom domains simultaneously, and thus these previous findings do not explore multiple patterns of (dis)agreement. Method We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroups of clinically referred youths based on patterns of caregiver- and youth-reported internalizing and externalizing symptoms for 174 caregiver-youth dyads. Longitudinal multilevel models were used to examine changes in weekly caregiver- and youth-reported internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and top problems for identified subgroups. Results The LPA identified four latent subgroups: (a) Caregiver Internalizing (9%), (b) Caregiver Internalizing-Externalizing (45%), (c) Youth Internalizing (7%), and (d) Caregiver-Youth Internalizing-Externalizing (39%). Clinical outcomes varied across informants and subgroups. Significant improvements in caregiver- and youth-reported outcome measures were documented within the Caregiver Internalizing, Caregiver Internalizing-Externalizing, and Caregiver-Youth Internalizing-Externalizing subgroups. However, only youth-reported improvements were detected in the Youth Internalizing subgroup. The results show differences in treatment outcomes across caregiver-youth informant subgroups. Conclusions These findings suggest how youth and caregiver baseline data could provide guidance for clinicians in interpreting discrepant reporting and its relevance to change during treatment.

Older adult psychopathology: international comparisons of self-reports, collateral reports, and cross-informant agreement.

To conduct international comparisons of self-reports, collateral reports, and cross-informant agreement regarding older adult psychopathology. We compared self-ratings of problems (e.g. I cry a lot) and personal strengths (e.g. I like to help others) for 10,686 adults aged 60-102 years from 19 societies and collateral ratings for 7,065 of these adults from 12 societies. Data were obtained via the Older Adult Self-Report (OASR) and the Older Adult Behavior Checklist (OABCL; Achenbach et al., ). Cronbach's alphas were .76 (OASR) and .80 (OABCL) averaged across societies. Across societies, 27 of the 30 problem items with the highest mean ratings and 28 of the 30 items with the lowest mean ratings were the same on the OASR and the OABCL. Q correlations between the means of the 0-1-2 ratings for the 113 problem items averaged across all pairs of societies yielded means of .77 (OASR) and .78 (OABCL). For the OASR and OABCL, respectively, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) yielded effect sizes (ESs) for society of 15% and 18% for Total Problems and 42% and 31% for Personal Strengths, respectively. For 5,584 cross-informant dyads in 12 societies, cross-informant correlations averaged across societies were .68 for Total Problems and .58 for Personal Strengths. Mixed-model ANOVAs yielded large effects for society on both Total Problems (ES = 17%) and Personal Strengths (ES = 36%). The OASR and OABCL are efficient, low-cost, easily administered mental health assessments that can be used internationally to screen for many problems and strengths.

Psychopathic Traits in Early Childhood: Further Multi-informant Validation of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI)

The present study aimed to further test the teacher- and parent-versions of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI) in Spain, with a special focus on gender differences. Data were collected in a sample of 2467 preschool children (48.1% girls) aged three to six (mean age = 4.25; SD = 0.91). Results supported the proposed three-factor structure of the CPTI (Grandiose-deceitful, GD; Callous-unemotional, CU; and Impulsive-need of stimulation, INS), being invariant across gender, and with good-to-excellent internal consistency values. CPTI scores showed the expected associations with fearlessness, conduct problems, reactive and proactive aggression, hyperactivity and prosocial behavior, thereby supporting the external validity of the CPTI scores. This pattern of associations also held when cross-informant correlations were explored, although correlation values were lower in magnitude. Some different patterns of correlations were also found across gender groups. Overall, the CPTI reveals as a promising, psychometrically sound measure for assessing psychopathic traits in very young children using both parents’ and teachers’ reports.

Parent–Adolescent Cross-Informant Agreement in Clinically Referred Samples: Findings From Seven Societies

To conduct international comparisons of parent–adolescent cross-informant agreement in clinical samples, we analyzed ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR) for 6,762 clinically referred adolescents ages 11–18 from 7 societies (M = 14.5 years, SD = 2.0 years; 51% boys). Using CBCL and YSR data, we asked the following questions: (a) Do parents report more problems for their adolescent children than the adolescents report about themselves? (b) How do cross-informant correlations (rs) for scale scores differ by problem type and by society? (c) How well do parents and adolescents, on average, agree regarding which problems they rate as low, medium, or high? (d) How does within-dyad item agreement vary within and between societies? (e) How do societies vary in dichotomous cross-informant agreement with respect to the deviance status of the adolescents? CBCL and YSR scores were quite similar, with small and inconsistent informant effects across societies. Cross-informant rs averaged .47 across scales and societies. On average, parents and adolescents agreed well regarding which problem items received low, medium, or high ratings (M r = .87). Mean within-dyad item agreement was moderate across all societies, but dyadic agreement varied widely within every society. In most societies, adolescent noncorroboration of parent-reported deviance was more common than parental noncorroboration of adolescent-reported deviance. Overall, somewhat better parent–adolescent agreement and more consistency in agreement patterns across diverse societies were found in these seven clinical samples than in population samples studied using the same methods.

In the Same Ballpark or a Whole New Ball Game? Staff as Raters of Youth Behavior

There is a lack of psychometrically sound tools for measuring youth outcomes in out-of-school time (OST) settings. Consequently, behavior ratings completed by OST staff are being scored as though the raters were teachers, even though cross-informant correlations are notoriously low (meta-analysis r = .27). Across 26 schools, 227 students were assessed by both teachers and OST staff using the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) to measure Social Emotional Competence. These 4th and 5th grade students were 50% male; 53% 5th graders; and 51% Latino, 20% Mixed/Other, 11% Black, 11% Asian, and 7% White. In the full sample, OST staff rated children’s behavior more harshly than teachers (p < .001; d = .32), although the scores were associated (r = .31, p < .001). Among the ratings completed within the same week, teacher and staff distributions were not statistically different. Teacher and staff ratings had a “medium” correlation (r = .42; p = .01) and a classification consistency (88%) that exceeded chance by a “moderate” amount (κ = .43). Few, if any, studies have previously compared the ratings of the same children by teachers and OST providers. Cross-informant inter-rater reliability between teachers and OST staff was higher than expected on the DESSA.

Collateral Reports and Cross-Informant Agreement about Adult Psychopathology in 14 Societies

To advance international mental health assessment, instruments that have been internationally validated are needed. To this end, we analyzed ratings from 14 societies on the Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL), a collateral-report form parallel to the Adult Self-Report (ASR; Achenbach and Rescorla 2003) for ages 18 to 59. Both the ABCL and the ASR assess problems, personal strengths, and adaptive functioning. For a sample of 8322 see note below collaterals, we found strong consistency across societies regarding which ABCL problem items tended to obtain relatively low, medium, or high ratings. Most societal effect sizes (ESs) for problem scale scores were small to medium (< 13.9 %), but the ES for the ABCL Personal Strengths scale was 25 %. For most of the same participants (N = 8,302), we analyzed cross-informant agreement between self-reports on the ASR and collateral reports on the ABCL. Cross-informant correlations for problem scale scores averaged .47, with considerable societal variation. Problem score means were higher on the ASR than the ABCL in every society, but the size of the difference varied across societies. Mean item ratings on the ABCL and ASR were highly correlated within every society (mean r = .92), but within-dyad item rating agreement varied widely in every society (mean r = .39). In all societies, non-corroboration of self-reported deviance and of collateral-reported deviance was common. Overall findings indicated considerable similarity but also some important differences in collateral-reported problems and adaptive functioning across 14 societies.

Assessment of preschool psychopathology in Serbia

The utility of the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5–5 (CBCL/1.5–5) and the Caregiver-Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) to the Serbian children is largely unknown and has not been studied. An aim of this study was to examine rates and distribution of emotional and behavioral problems among 4 to 6-year-old children in the Serbia. Country differences between our Serbian sample and the original U.S. sample, gender differences, and cross-informant agreement between teachers and parents were also to be examined. The CBCL/1.5–5 and the C-TRF was completed by parents and teachers respectively on 512 preschoolers in the city of Novi Sad, Serbia. Internal consistency of the scales was analyzed using Cronbach alpha (α). The comparison of behavioral/emotional syndromes raw scores was performed by t test. CBCL/1.5–5 prevalence rate of the Total Problems score in the clinical range was 13.4%, while the C-TRF prevalence rate for girls was 9.8% and for boys 8.8%. Our findings revealed that parent reported more problems than teachers on almost all scales across gender with the mean cross-informant correlation of 0.24. This study documents gender differences, with boys scoring significantly higher than girls on all externalizing related problem scales on both questionnaires, but with no gender differences on internalizing problems on either questionnaire. Results support the applicability of the Serbian version of the CBCL/1.5–5 and C-TRF and can be recommended for use in clinical and research settings.

Positive attributes in children and reduced risk of future psychopathology.

BackgroundThere is little research on children’s positive attributes and their association with psychiatric outcomes.AimsTo examine the hypothesis that children’s positive attributes are associated with a reduced risk of developing psychopathology in future.MethodPositive attributes, measured with the Youth Strengths Inventory (YSI) and psychiatric outcomes were assessed on two occasions over 3 years in a large epidemiological sample of British children and adolescents (n = 5325).ResultsThe YSI showed high to moderate cross-informant correlations and longitudinal stability. Children scoring high on positive attributes at baseline had fewer psychiatric symptoms and disorders at follow-up, adjusting for symptoms at baseline, disorder at baseline and child and family factors. Analyses with propensity score matching also suggested that positive attributes decrease the likelihood of psychiatric morbidity.ConclusionsChildren’s positive attributes are associated with significantly less psychopathology across time and may be a target for intervention.

Parent–Teacher Agreement on Children's Problems in 21 Societies

Parent–teacher cross-informant agreement, although usually modest, may provide important clinical information. Using data for 27,962 children from 21 societies, we asked the following: (a) Do parents report more problems than teachers, and does this vary by society, age, gender, or type of problem? (b) Does parent–teacher agreement vary across different problem scales or across societies? (c) How well do parents and teachers in different societies agree on problem item ratings? (d) How much do parent–teacher dyads in different societies vary in within-dyad agreement on problem items? (e) How well do parents and teachers in 21 societies agree on whether the child's problem level exceeds a deviance threshold? We used five methods to test agreement for Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Teacher's Report Form (TRF) ratings. CBCL scores were higher than TRF scores on most scales, but the informant differences varied in magnitude across the societies studied. Cross-informant correlations for problem scale scores varied moderately across societies studied and were significantly higher for Externalizing than Internalizing problems. Parents and teachers tended to rate the same items as low, medium, or high, but within-dyad item agreement varied widely in every society studied. In all societies studied, both parental noncorroboration of teacher-reported deviance and teacher noncorroboration of parent-reported deviance were common. Our findings underscore the importance of obtaining information from parents and teachers when evaluating and treating children, highlight the need to use multiple methods of quantifying cross-informant agreement, and provide comprehensive baselines for patterns of parent–teacher agreement across 21 societies.

Cross-Informant Agreement and Stability of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Among Finnish Mainstream and Special Education Students

This study investigated the cross-informant agreement among student self-report, teacher report, and parent report on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire translated into Finnish (SDQ-Fin) and estimated mean convergent and divergent correlations with a sample of fifth-grade Finnish students (N = 588) and the cross-informant agreement among student-teacher-parent informants separately for those with and without special education support. In addition, the study estimated the within-rater stabilities of SDQ subscales for students with and without special education support between two measurements at a one year interval. The cross-informant agreement on SDQ-Fin subscales was moderate with cross-informant correlations ranging from .12 to .42. The cross-informant agreement between teachers and students was in general higher for students with special education (SE) support than students without special education (NSE) support. The mean convergent correlations were higher than the mean divergent correlations across raters. The rater stabilities of SDQ subscales for NSE students and SE students between fifth and sixth grade as indicated by stability correlations were all statistically significant. Our findings provide additional evidence of the usefulness of the SDQ in school environments, and underline the importance of a multi-informant approach to the evaluation of emotional and behavioral problems.

Reliability, Validity, and Clinical Use of the Dominic Interactive: A DSM-Based, Self-Report Screen for School-Aged Children

As no single informant can be considered the gold standard of child psychopathology, interviewing of children regarding their own symptoms is necessary. Our study focused on the reliability, validity, and clinical use of the Dominic Interactive (DI), a multimedia self-report screen to assess symptoms for the most frequent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, mental disorders in school-aged children. A sample of 585 children aged 6 to 11 years from the community and psychiatric clinics was used to analyze the internal consistency, the test-retest estimate of reliability, and the criterion-related validity of the DI against the referral status. In addition, cross-informant correlation coefficients between this instrument (child report) and the Child Symptom Inventory (parent report) were explored in a subsample of 292 participants. For the total sample, Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.91. Test-retest kappas varied from 0.42 to 0.62 for categories based on cut-off points, except for specific phobias. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.81 for symptom scales. The DI discriminated between referred and non-referred children in psychiatric clinics for all symptom scales. Significant cross-informant correlation coefficients were higher for the externalizing symptoms (0.35 to 0.48) than the internalizing symptoms (0.14 to 0.27). Findings of our study reasonably support adequate psychometric properties of the DI. This instrument offers a developmentally sensitive screening method to obtain unique information from young children about their mental health problems in front-line services, psychiatric clinics, and research settings.

The Value of Measuring Impact Alongside Symptoms in Children and Adolescents: A Longitudinal Assessment in a Community Sample

The impact that psychiatric symptoms have on the lives of young people is central to clinical practice and classification. However, there is relatively little research on impact and its association with symptoms. This paper examines how well impact can be measured and how it relates to psychiatric outcomes. On four separate occasions over 3 years, symptoms and impact were assessed in a UK epidemiological sample (n = 4,479; 51.5 % boys) using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) as reported by parents, youths and teachers. Disorders were ascertained using the Development and Well-Being Assessment. An impact scale made of items about distress and impairment demonstrated considerable internal consistency, cross-informant correlations, and longitudinal stability by all reporting sources. Impact at baseline was a strong predictor of psychiatric disorder 3 years later after accounting for psychiatric disorders and symptoms measured at baseline: odds ratio OR = 2.10, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) [1.50, 2.94] according to parent-rated impact and OR = 1.71, CI [1.08, 2.72] according to teacher-rated impact. Changes in impact over time were predicted, but not fully accounted for, by symptoms measured at baseline. Impact can be reliably and easily measured across time, and it may be clinically useful as an independent predictor of future symptoms and psychiatric disorders. More studies are needed to understand inter-individual variation in the impact caused by equivalent symptoms.

Cross-Informant Agreement Between Parent-Reported and Adolescent Self-Reported Problems in 25 Societies

We used population sample data from 25 societies to answer the following questions: (a) How consistently across societies do adolescents report more problems than their parents report about them? (b) Do levels of parent–adolescent agreement vary among societies for different kinds of problems? (c) How well do parents and adolescents in different societies agree on problem item ratings? (d) How much do parent–adolescent dyads within each society vary in agreement on item ratings? (e) How well do parent–adolescent dyads within each society agree on the adolescent's deviance status? We used five methods to test cross-informant agreement for ratings obtained from 27,861 adolescents ages 11 to 18 and their parents. Youth Self-Report (YSR) mean scores were significantly higher than Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) mean scores for all problem scales in almost all societies, but the magnitude of the YSR–CBCL discrepancy varied across societies. Cross-informant correlations for problem scale scores varied more across societies than across types of problems. Across societies, parents and adolescents tended to rate the same items as low, medium, or high, but within-dyad parent–adolescent item agreement varied widely in every society. In all societies, both parental noncorroboration of self-reported deviance and adolescent noncorroboration of parent-reported deviance were common. Results indicated many multicultural consistencies but also some important differences in parent–adolescent cross-informant agreement. Our findings provide valuable normative baselines against which to compare multicultural findings for clinical samples.

What contributes to patient and parent satisfaction with medication in the treatment of children with ADHD? A report on the development of a new rating scale

Satisfaction with medication is important in the evaluation of overall treatment outcome. There is a lack of consistent and validated rating scales for satisfaction with medication in ADHD, therefore comparison across studies is difficult. Here, we analyse the psychometric properties of the satisfaction with medication scale (SAMS), a new item-based questionnaire that assesses satisfaction with ADHD medication. Furthermore, we evaluate the predictive effect of ADHD symptoms and quality of life (QoL) on satisfaction. Data on satisfaction with Equasym XL® (methylphenidate) were collected in the OBSEER study using the parent (SAMS-P, n = 589) and patient (SAMS-S, n = 552) versions of the SAMS questionnaire. Internal consistency, item-total and cross-informant correlations, and the stability of satisfaction ratings over time were assessed. Satisfaction with medication scores were then correlated with ratings of ADHD symptoms and QoL. Rates of overall satisfaction with Equasym XL® among parents and children were high (>70%), as was internal consistency for both SAMS-P and SAMS-S (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.9). Similarly, item-total correlations were high (r = 0.71–0.90) for SAMS-P and medium–high (r = 0.57–0.77) for SAMS-S. Cross-informant correlations and the stability of satisfaction ratings were moderate (r = 0.54–0.59 and 0.48–0.60, respectively). ADHD symptom and QoL ratings were significantly negative and positive predictors of satisfaction, explaining 36–52% of satisfaction variance at the final visit. The results show that parent and patient satisfaction was high and could be assessed reliably with the new SAMS questionnaire. Parent and patient ratings were moderately correlated, and symptom severity, functional impairment and QoL were the most significant predictors of satisfaction.

Parent, Teacher and Student Cross Informant Agreement of Behavioral and Emotional Strengths: Students With and Without Special Education Support

Information from multiple sources is recommended when assessing students’ emotions and behaviors. Relatively few studies about cross informant agreement of behavioral and emotional strengths exist, especially for students with special education needs. The purpose of this study was to extend the cross informant agreement research of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS-2) with a sample of Finnish parents, teachers and students. First, we studied the cross informant agreement of students’ behavioral and emotional strengths between informants. Second, we explored the agreement separately for students with and without special education needs. Finally, we studied the convergent and divergent (discriminant) correlations of the Finnish BERS-2. The results show that the cross informant agreement of students’ behavioral and emotional strengths were small to large with correlation coefficients ranging from .11 to .58 between different informants. The cross informant correlations, however, were higher in magnitude for students who receive special education support (r = .29 to .78) than for those students who do not receive support (r = −.02 to .45). Mean convergent correlations were higher than mean divergent correlations. The results suggest that the Finnish BERS-2 is a reliable measure in assessing student strengths across informants. The limitations, future research directions, and implications are discussed.

The psychometric properties of the Lithuanian version of ASEBA adult forms

ASEBA Adult Forms are designed to obtain information about the adaptive and maladaptive functioning of 18–59-aged adults and to facilitate comparisons between people’s perceptions of their own functioning and other people’s perceptions of their functioning. This article presents the major psychometric properties of Syndrome scales of the Lithuanian version of ASEBA Adult forms developed to evaluate behavioral and emotional problems. ASRs (Adult Self-Report) were administered to 18–59-aged adults comprising a random sample drawn from the whole Lithuania (N = 600). ABCL (Adult Behavior Checklist) forms were completed by people nominated by the participants (spouses, partners, friends etc.). After excluding ASRs and ABCLs of participants who reported mental health and substance use problems or did not respond to more than 8 items, the remaining 510 forms were used in data analysis. Four issues were examined: 1) the internal consistency of the forms, 2) item–total correlations, 3) cross-informant agreement, and 4) correlations between scales. Data analysis showed adequate psychometric properties of Syndrome scales. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.62 to 0.95 for different ASR and ABCL scales. The Anxious / Depressed and Aggressive Behavior scales had the highest level of internal consistency, and the Thought Problems scale had the lowest alpha in both forms. The cross-informant correlations ranged from 0.36 for the Thought Problems to 0.61 for the Anxious / Depressed scale. The mean of the Q correlations between 0–1–2 scores on the problem items of ASRs and on the counterpart items of ABCLs was 0.51, indicating the moderate level of agreement between different informants. Correlations between scales confirmed the proposed structure of both forms and derivative scales (Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems). Differences between Lithuanian and USA samples were most strongly expressed among 18–35-aged females and 36–59-aged males. The majority of scale scores in the Lithuanian sample were higher than in the USA sample. The effect size of the differences between Lithuanian and American samples was moderate for most of the scales. Future research is needed to improve the psychometric properties of the Lithuanian version of ASEBA Adult forms.