Testing

Please see the attached documents, required resources for evaluation, instructions, and related questions. 

Testing and Assessment

This assignment will allow you to
use available resources for evaluating and comparing different test instruments and to directly apply your learning about test construction, reliability, and validity to choose a particular test.

Prompt: Imagine that you have been put in charge of choosing a child behavior rating test for your agency, a center offering psychological treatment and consultation to parents for a variety of behavioral and educational issues commonly seen in school-aged children. You will analyze the
BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System and
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment behavior-rating tests. Using the
ASEBA Catalog (

ASEBA Overview – ASEBA

), the
Pearson Clinical Catalog (

BASC-3 Behavior Assessment System for Children 3rd Ed (pearsonassessments.com)

, and
Mental Measurements Yearbook (

Mental Measurements Yearbook | Buros Center for Testing | Nebraska

), determine which of these two tests you would choose for the agency to buy: the Behavior Rating Assessment for Children (BASC3) or Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). State your choice and explain your decision. Be sure to justify and support your recommendation with research.

In your short paper, the following critical elements must be addressed:

· A thorough and detailed
comparison of the BASC3 and ASEBA tests

· A thorough and detailed explanation of the
differences between the BASC3 and ASEBA tests

· A statement and clear
explanation of which test you are recommending your agency purchase

· A well-supported
justification using relevant research of why you are recommending your choice.

Guidelines for Submission: Your paper must be submitted as a one- to two-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

eview of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment by ROSEMARY FLANAGAN, Assistant Professor/Director, Masters Program in School Psychology, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY:
DESCRIPTION. The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) available in two versions for children (ages 1.5-5 and 6-18), is a multiple-rater system used to assess the behavior and personality of youth. Compared to the previous editions (Achenbach, 1991; Achenbach, 1992), the beginning age for the preschool version has been extended downward, and the beginning age for the school-age form has increased. Parents complete the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/1 1/2-5, CBCL/6-18), those working in school or care settings complete the Teacher Report Form (TRF/6-18) or the Caregiver-Teacher Report (C-TRF), and youngsters aged 11-18 complete the Youth Self-Report (YSR). The version for school age youth contains 113 items and the version for preschoolers contains 100 items. Subscales for the YSR and CBCL/6-18 are subsumed under groupings called Competence, Syndrome, and DSM-Oriented, the latter of which is based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The TRF/6-18 yields 20 scales categorized as Adaptive, Syndrome, and DSM-Oriented. The CBCL/1 1/2-5 and C-TRF yields 8 Syndrome and 6 DSM-Oriented scales. The Language Development Survey (LDS; Rescorla, 1989) is part of the CBCL/1 1/2-5; it is composed of questions about the child’s birth history, ear infections, and speech problems within the family. Parents are also asked to report the child’s best multiword phrases and indicate whether their child knows words commonly known by preschoolers. Although not a substitute for a more established speech-language screening, it is helpful given the comorbidity of delays in language development with psychopathology.
Practical applications for these forms are in an array of settings serving children that include schools, mental health settings, medical settings, forensic settings, and child and family service settings. The manual provides case studies to illustrate the application and interpretation of the data. Summary manuals are available to guide professionals who are consumers of the data (but not necessarily direct test users) in several settings as to the nature of the scales and their usage.

The authors recommend using the computer-scoring program, but scoring can also be accomplished by hand, by laboriously transferring item ratings to a profile sheet that groups the items by scales; clerical errors seem likely. Cross-informant comparisons can be made readily with the computer-scoring program only.
DEVELOPMENT. The revision of the scales includes an updating of the norms and refinement of the scales; the procedures used to accomplish this were thorough. Competence scales were derived by comparing the responses of referred versus nonreferred youth, with items having been retained from the CBCL/4-18, TRF, and YSR; some refinement in scoring has been incorporated. Extensive procedures were followed to scientifically obtain a nationally representative nonreferred/nontreated sample. The norming samples contain 1,753, 1,057, and 2,319 individuals for the CBCL/6-18, YSR, and TRF, respectively. The sample for the TRF initially derived from the norming sample for the CBCL/6-18 was small. Given that the 1989 sample did not score differently from the 2001 sample, the data from the two cohorts were combined to have a larger normative sample. Normalized T-scores were assigned to the raw scores for each gender at two age levels: 6-11 and 12-18 years. Particular attention was given to areas of the score distribution that were skewed, as it was thought desirable to make these more sensitive to differences in functioning.

The Syndrome scales were developed to produce information about patterns of problems. In addition to the sample used to norm the Competence scales, additional children who received inpatient and outpatient treatment were included. This resulted in sample sizes for the CBCL/6-18, TRF, and YSR of 4,994, 4,437, and 2,551, respectively. Sample sizes for the CBCL/1 1/2-5 and the C-TRF are 1,728 and 1,113 youth, respectively. Some items from the 1991 versions of the CBCL, TRF, and YSR were eliminated because these were endorsed by considerably less than 5% of the respondents; the net result was that six items were replaced in the CBCL/6-18 and YSR; three items were replaced in the TRF. Similarly, two items were replaced in the CBCL/1 1/2-5 and C-TRF. Principal components analysis yielded an eight-factor solution, for the CBCL/6-18 and the YSR, which also proved to demonstrate the best fit upon confirmatory factor analysis. A seven-factor solution was realized for the TRF. A subsequent factor analysis grouped the Syndromes according to Total Problems, Internalizing Problems, and Externalizing Problems. The names of two Syndrome scales were changed from the 1991 versions; Withdrawn is now Withdrawn/Depressed, and Delinquent Behavior is Rule Breaking Behavior. Factor analysis of the TRF scales indicates that the Attention Problems Scale is composed of items that may be categorized as Inattentive and Hyperactive-Impulsive, parallel to DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Normalizing the data at points on the distributions that were skewed was done to derive T-scores. Segments of scales that correspond to those individuals making an appropriate adjustment were truncated. Thus, the statistical treatment focuses on the portions of the scales that potentially yield the greatest amount of diagnostic and classification data. To limit false negatives, the borderline clinical range was extended downward, now beginning at T = 65, which is consistent with other commonly used rating forms. T-scores of 70 and above are clearly in the clinical range. The Syndrome scales for the CBCL/1 1/2-5 were similarly developed, using a norming sample of 700 individuals. Norms for the LDS are based on the mean length of utterance and vocabulary development by 5-month intervals.
The DSM-Oriented scales for the CBCL/1 1/2-5 and the CBCL/6-18 were developed by psychologists and psychiatrists indicating the degree of consistency of each item with nine DSM categories. Only items that were rated as very consistent with a particular diagnosis were retained.

TECHNICAL. Psychometric properties are generally strong. For the CBCL/6-18, internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) ranged from .55-.90 for Competence and Adaptive scales, from .71-.97 for the Syndrome scales, and from .67-.94 for the DSM-Oriented scales. Mean stability for the CBCL/6-18 at 12 months is .65, .51 for the YSR at 7 months, and .65 for the TRF at 2 months. Mean test-retest reliability ranged from .88-.90, .79-.88, and .85-.90 for 8- or 16-day intervals for CBCL/6-18, YSR, and TRF, respectively. The CBCL/1 1/2-5 similarly demonstrates strong internal consistency, with coefficient alpha ranging from .66-.96 for the Syndrome scales, and .from .63-.93 for the DSM-Oriented scales. Test-retest reliability for an 8-day interval ranged from .68-.92 for the Syndrome scales and from .57-.87 for the DSM-Oriented scales. The mean stability for the CBCL/1 1/2-5 at a 12-month interval is .61, and is .59 for the C-TRF at a 3-month interval.
Mean cross-informant agreement for the CBCL/1 1/2-5 and the C-TRF are .61 and .65, respectively. For the Competence and Adaptive scales of the CBCL/6-18 and the TRF, the mean cross-informant agreement values are .69 and .49, respectively. For the Syndrome scales, these values are .76 and .60 for the CBCL/6-18 and the TRF, respectively. For the DSM-Oriented scales, the mean cross-informant agreement for the CBCL/6-18 is .73, for the TRF it is .58. These values are substantial.
Validity evidence is extensive, with analysis of the scores on scales as well as items that document the successfulness of the scale in youth scoring differently, based on referral status. For some scales and items at shorter item intervals, the test-retest score relationship may be attenuated. Evidence substantiating content validity is based on prior research with the scales. Items that failed to differentiate between referred and nonreferred children were excluded from the scales. Evidence of criterion-related validity of the CBCL/6-18, YSR, and TRF is based on multiple regression analyses and indicates that 2-33% of the variance on individual scales is accounted for by referral status. Additional evidence is based on classification accuracy by referral status using discriminant analysis procedures (79-85%). Information is in the manual that will assist practitioners interpreting the data for youth who are not clearly in the clinical range, but may be exhibiting behavior or affect of concern; this is of considerable importance to school-based practitioners. Construct validity was evaluated on the basis of correlations with similar instruments, in particular the BASC (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992), the Conners’ Rating Scales-Revised (Conners, 1997), and the DSM-IV Checklist (Hudziak, 1998). Correlations with the Conners’ Rating Scales and the DSM-IV Checklist are moderate; correlations with the BASC are more substantial.

Similarly, the content validity for the CBCL/1 1/2-5 was examined based on prior research with the scales. Content validity of the LDS was evaluated by repeated correlational studies using other measures of language development. Evidence of criterion-related validity is based on multiple regression analyses of the CBCL/1 1/2-5 and C-TRF that yielded percentages of explained variance accounted for by referral status ranging from 2-25% for the individual scales. Moreover, classification accuracy according to referral status was documented using discriminant analysis at 84.2%. Criterion validity of the LDS is demonstrated through a series of studies that report correlations with cognitive and language measures; these correlations range from .56-.87, with most values exceeding .70. Evidence of construct validity of the CBCL/1 1/2-5 and C-TRF is based on correlations with measures not common to clinical practice. The correlations for series of studies range from .46-.72. Construct validity evidence for scores from the LDS includes correlations that predict language scores at age 13, ranging from .38-.55.
COMMENTARY. Compared to the previous editions, the new ASEBA is improved and refined. The manuals are clear, providing technical information in a format understandable to practitioners. Extensive covariance analyses are reported in the manuals, substantiating that each item retained on the scales effectively differentiates youth based on referral status. The computer-scoring program is more effective. Important to practitioners, in particular, is that the borderline clinical range was made broader to limit the false negatives and aid in the identification of youth who might need attention. The Competence scales were made more sensitive, having expanded the possible score range. These features bring the ASEBA more in line with its main competitor, the BASC. A companion semistructured clinical interview and a direct observation form are available. The LDS of the ASEBA is an important feature that does not appear on the BASC. Nevertheless, the BASC continues to be easier to score and interpretation is less complicated. The CBCL/1 1/2-5 and CBCL/6-18 scales are substantially correlated across age levels. Thus, the manner in which the components of these assessment systems are related differs. The BASC forms may be easier for respondents to complete, as the items are in one format. One reason to use the ASEBA over the BASC for researchers is to take advantage of the lengthier research history as compared to the BASC.
SUMMARY. The new ASEBA (CBCL/1 1/2-5, C-TRF, CBCL/6-18, TRF, YSR) is composed of multiple-respondent rating forms and companion scales that may be used in any combination to rate the behavior and affect of youth aged 1 1/2-5, or 6-18. Procedures to develop the scales and examine their psychometric properties are exemplary. Although the psychometric properties are stronger for the school-aged versions than for the preschool versions, this may reflect the inherent variability of preschoolers. The scales are supported by a solid research base and are technically sound, both from test development and psychometric perspectives. Applicability in various settings serving children is apparent. Practitioners and researchers alike should expect the new versions to be useful as were their predecessors.
REVIEWER’S REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 4-18. 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.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). Washington, DC: Author.
Conners, C. K. (1990). Manual for the Conners’ Rating Scales. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Hudziak, J. J. (1998). DSM-IV Checklist for Childhood Disorders. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth.
Rescorla, L. (1989). The Language Development Survey: A screening tool for delayed language in toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 587-599.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). The Behavior Assessment System for Children. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Assessment (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Review of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment by T. STEUART WATSON, Professor and Chair of Educational Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) is a revision of the popular Achenbach scales of 1991 and 1992. The ASEBA is a set of integrated instruments designed to assess children’s problems and competencies and includes the Child Behavior Checklist for ages 1 1/2-5 and 6-18 (CBCL), the Teacher Report Form (TRF) for Ages 6-18, the Youth Self Report (YSR) for Ages 11-18, and the Semistructured Clinical Interview for Children and Adolescents (SCICA). The ASEBA is designed for assessment, intervention planning, and outcome evaluation in a number of settings and is one of the most widely researched and used behavioral rating scales.
The 21st Century edition of the CBCL for ages 6-18 is a revision of the 1991 version for children ages 4-18 (Parent Report Form; PRF) and ages 5-18 (TRF). The CBCL 1 1/2-5 is a revision of the CBCL/2-3. Although there is a high degree of consistency between the previous and current versions of the CBCL, some items have been removed or reworded in order to more accurately discriminate between referred and nonreferred children. There is also a Language Development Survey (LDS) that is part of the CBCL 1 1/2-5. It is intended for parents of all children under the age of 3 and children over the age of 3 who are suspected of having language delays. After answering some basic questions on the front page, parents are instructed to circle any of 310 words that their child spontaneously emits. Two percentile rank scores are provided-one based on the child’s age and number of words circled and another based on the average length of phrases emitted by the child. Scores below the 15th and 20th percentiles, respectively, are considered delayed. The LDS is a valuable addition to the ASEBA and allows the clinician to assess the impact of language on other problems noted by parents and teachers.
The parent and teacher versions of the CBCL can be completed in about 15-20 minutes. The parent version may be completed by a parent, caregiver, or anyone else who has experience with the child in a residential setting. The teacher version may be completed by any of the children’s teachers or school personnel who are familiar with the child. The first two pages ask for demographic information, children’s competencies at home or school, and either activities or academic information. As with previous editions, this information is more descriptive of incompetence than competence and is not particularly useful for intervention planning or diagnostic purposes. The remaining two pages contain 120 items that are rated: 0 = not true (as far as you know); 1 = somewhat or sometimes true; or 2 = very true or often true. Although the authors contend that a wider gradient of ratings would add little in the way of increased discriminative power, some respondents may find it difficult to accurately rate behaviors that have differing rates of occurrence that meet the descriptors of the numerical scale. For instance, Item 57 “Physically attacks people” may require only 1 or 2 instances in the past 6 months to warrant a 2 whereas Item 109 “Whining” may require several incidents per day over 6 months to warrant a rating of 2.

There are separate scoring profiles for boys and girls ages 6 to 11 and 12 to 18. Raw scores, T scores, and percentiles for Total Competence, three Competence scales (Activities, Social, and School), eight Syndrome scales, six DSM-Oriented scales, Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems, and Total Problems are provided. The Syndrome scales include Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior. The DSM-Oriented scales include Affective Problems, Anxiety Problems, Somatic Problems, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems, Oppositional Defiant Problems, and Conduct Problems. The Internalizing scale is the sum of scores for the Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, and Somatic Complaints syndromes. The Externalizing scale is the sum of scores from the Rule-Breaking Behavior and Aggressive Behavior syndromes. The Total Problem score is the sum of scores on all 120 items. The Syndrome and DSM-Oriented scales are similar across the PRF, TRF, and YSR.
A number of different scores are available to assist in the interpretation of the CBCL. T scores and percentile rank scores allow for comparisons to the normative sample to determine if a child’s competencies and problems differ from what is considered typical of a child that age and gender. On the Activities, Social, and School scales, T scores of 31 to 35 are in the borderline range and T scores below 31 fall in the clinical range. On Total Competence, T scores of 37 to 40 are borderline range, whereas T scores below 37 are considered to fall in the clinical range. T scores of 65-69 on the Syndrome and DSM-Oriented scales are considered borderline whereas T scores above 69 are in the clinical range. T scores of 60 to 63 on the Total Problems, Internalizing, and Externalizing scales are borderline and T scores above 63 fall within the clinical range.
The scoring profile for the CBCL/6-18 was normed on a sample of 1,753 children ages 6 to 18 who had not been referred for professional help for behavioral or emotional problems within the preceding 12 months. All 48 contiguous states were represented in the sample and were stratified by socioeconomic status, ethnicity, region, and urban-suburban-rural residence. Separate norms are provided for boys and girls ages 6 to 11 and 12 to 18.

The YSR is for children ages 11 to 18 and is very similar to the 1991 edition. Four pages in length, it requires fifth grade reading skills to accurately complete the form, which takes about 20 minutes. For children with reading difficulties, items may be read aloud and respondents indicate the score orally. It is similar in format to the CBCL, thus there is a high degree of consistency among the items. As with the CBCL, most users will probably find the first two pages of information to be useless. The real meat of the instrument is the two pages with problem items. Each item is rated for how true it is for them in the past 6 months: 0 = not true (as far as you know); 1 = somewhat or sometimes true; 2 = very true or often true. Scores and scales on the YSR are identical to those on the CBCL. Rule-Breaking Behavior is on this edition, which replaces the Delinquent Behavior Scale from the 1991 version.
The YSR scoring profile was normed on a sample of 1,057 children ages 11 to 18 from the contiguous 48 states and was stratified by ethnicity, geographic region, and SES. Separate norms are provided for boys and girls. The T scores and percentile ranks allow the clinician to compare a child’s score with children of the same age and gender to determine if they are exhibiting more problems than is typical for someone of similar age and gender.
Although responses on the CBCL, YSR, and TRF may be hand scored, which takes experienced examiners about 15 minutes per instrument, computerized scoring is much simpler, is far less likely to result in errors than the hand-scoring option, and yields several different types of reports. The computer scoring is in a Windows format called the Assessment Data Manager (ADM).
One type of report generated by the ADM is cross-informant comparisons. This printout allows comparisons for up to eight informants for the 93 items that are similar across the YSR, TRF, and PRF Syndrome scales and the 45 items that are similar on the DSM-Oriented scales. Other comparisons include the T scores for the eight Syndrome scales, the six DSM-Oriented scales, and the three Problems scales (Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total). This is a particularly useful feature, especially when there are multiple informants and the clinician is attempting to identify patterns within an individual. An additional feature based on cross-informant data is Q correlations that indicate whether the agreement between pairs of informants is average, above average, or below average. Having agreement information readily available is particularly helpful in clinical situations by providing areas for probing regarding disagreements.

A second type of report compiled by the ADM is a narrative report. This report summarizes results for the Competence and Problems scales. A noted improvement over earlier versions of the Achenbach is the recognition of critical items from the PRF, TRF, and YSR that are important for further assessment and intervention. The narrative report also lists the scores for each of these items.
SEMISTRUCTURED CLINICAL INTERVIEW FOR CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS (SCICA). The SCICA is a standardized interview for children ages 6 to 18 and includes interview questions, tasks, and standardized rating forms for scoring observations and self-reported problems. Only experienced clinicians should use the SCICA, which takes about 60-90 minutes. Nine areas are covered by the SCICA and include Activities, Friends, Family Relations, Fantasies, Self-Perception, Parent/Teacher Reported Problems, Achievement tests (optional), for ages 6-11, a screen for fine and gross motor problems (optional), and for ages 12-18, somatic complaints, alcohol, drugs, and legal trouble. Children aged 6-11 are also asked to make a drawing of their family doing something, which can provide information for further questioning. The protocol is extremely user-friendly as it contains instructions, open-ended questions, and interviewing tasks. There is also ample space to record and make notations regarding the child’s behavior during the interview.
For children ages 6 to 11, interviewers may administer other tests in order to gather a more complete picture of the child’s functioning. Suggestions for additional testing include brief forms of standardized achievement tests, writing samples, and assessing gross motor functioning. For children ages 12 to 18, the SCICA includes more structured questions to assess somatic complaints, alcohol and drug use, and legal difficulties. After completing the SCICA, the interviewer scores both the SCICA Observation and Self-Report Forms. The Observation Form contains 96 problem items, many of which are similar to the problem items from the YSR, TRF, and PRF. The Self-Report Form contains 114 items for ages 6 to 18 and several additional items for ages 13 to 18. As with the observation form, many of the items on the SCICA self-report are similar to those on the CBCL/6-18 PRF and TRF. All items from the SCICA observation and self-report forms are scored on a 4-point scale: 0 = no occurrence; 1 = very slight or ambiguous occurrence; 2 = definite occurrence with mild to moderate intensity and less than 3 minutes duration; 3 = definite occurrence with severe intensity or 3 or more minutes duration. For the additional self-report items for ages 12 to 18, a 4-point scale is used with varying time lines for reports of somatic complaints, alcohol and drug use, and legal trouble.

The current version of the SCICA provides separate scores for children ages 6 to 11 and 12 to 18. This represents an improvement over the 1994 version, which only provided scores for children ages 6 to 12. Raw scores, T scores, and percentile ranks are provided for Total Observation, Total Self-Report, Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, the eight Syndrome scales, and the six DSM scales. Of the eight Syndrome scales, five are derived based on interview observations (Anxious, Withdrawn/Depressed, Language/Motor Problems, Attention Problems, and Self-Control Problems) and three are derived from the child’s self-report during the interview (Anxious/Depressed, Aggressive/Rule-Breaking, and Somatic Complaints). The Somatic Complaints scale is scored only for children ages 12-18. For children ages 12 to 18, items on the Aggressive/Rule-Breaking syndrome are scored on separate Aggressive and Rule-Breaking scales.
DEVELOPMENT. The Syndrome scales for the PRF were derived by analyzing data from 4,994 children referred for mental health services whose parents completed the CBCL. The Syndrome scales for the TRF were developed by statistically analyzing data from TRFs completed by teachers from 4,437 children referred for mental health or special education services. The DSM-Oriented scales for the PRF, TRF, and YSR were derived from the ratings of psychiatrists and psychologists who rated items from the three versions of the CBCL. The items were rated as being not consistent, somewhat consistent, or very consistent with the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). To be included on the DSM scale, items had to be rated as very consistent with diagnostic criteria by at least 14 of the 22 raters. High scores on the DSM-Oriented scales can assist clinicians in determining whether a DSM-IV diagnosis is appropriate for a particular child. As is true with any assessment situation, clinicians should not rely solely on the results of the CBCL to make a diagnosis.
The Syndrome scales of the SCICA were developed by statistically analyzing interviewers’ ratings of 381 children ages 6 to 11 and 305 children ages 12 to 18. All of the children in the samples had been referred for either mental health or special education services. Items endorsed for fewer than 5% of the samples in each age group were excluded from further analysis.

TECHNICAL. The ASEBA is a well-researched instrument with exceptionally strong reliability and validity data. The scales from the parent version of the CBCL/1 1/2-5 with the lowest test-retest reliabilities are Anxious/Depressed and ADHD Problems. Those from the Caregiver-Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) were the Anxiety Problems and Anxious/Depressed. This is not surprising given the difficult nature of identifying these types of behaviors in young children. In fact, one may reasonably question the clinical validity of attempting to identify ADHD behaviors in such a young sample. Internal consistency coefficients were acceptable with the possible exceptions of Anxiety Problems and Somatic Problems from the DSM-Oriented scales. Cross-informant correlations ranged from extremely low to extremely high. As might be expected, correlations between the YSR and TRF were uniformly low whereas mother and father correlations on the PRF were the highest.
Given the purposes of the ASEBA, perhaps the most important psychometric aspect is criterion-related validity. In this case, do the scores on the instrument(s) differentiate referred from nonreferred children? Without going into undue detail, it is accurate to say that all 120 items from the PRF, YSR, and TRF significantly discriminated at p<.01. A number of other computations are provided in the manual that demonstrate criterion-related and other types of validity of scores from the ASEBA. Overall, the ASEBA is a psychometrically sound instrument with weaknesses on some of the scales, particularly at the younger age ranges and with some of the more ubiquitous scales (e.g., Anxiety, Thought Problems). MANUALS. A number of manuals and guides are included as part of the ASEBA package: (a) Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles including the CBCL for ages 1 1/2-5, Language Development Survey, and Caregiver-Teacher Report Form; (b) Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles including the CBCL for Ages 6-18, Teacher's Report Form, and Youth Self-Report Form; (c) Mental Health Practitioner's Guide for the ASEBA; (d) School-Based Practitioner's Guide for the ASEBA; (e) Child and Family Service Worker's Guide for the ASEBA; and (f) Medical Practitioner's Guide for the ASEBA. The first two are comprehensive in scope and contain far more information than the average practitioner requires to use the scales. The guides are clearly directed at practitioners who will find them more useful than the technical manuals. Although there are four separate guides, the distinction between them is minor but is an excellent marketing strategy to reach a wider audience of users. Although it may simply be a matter of personal preference, this reviewer would find it helpful to have a "Users Manual" for all the instruments and a "Technical Manual" for all the instruments. Dividing the manuals in such a manner would make it easier for both practitioners and researchers to easily access desired information without having to wade through two information-dense manuals. SUMMARY. Overall, the ASEBA is a well-researched, empirically derived battery of instruments that allows a clinician to assess a wide range of behaviors across a variety of settings and informants. There are some minor drawbacks, but none that render the ASEBA unusable or seriously questioned. The standardization and psychometric qualities are more than adequate and the manuals contain far more information than is required by most test consumers. There are some components that are not particularly useful, such as the first two pages of the PRF, TRF, and YSR, but these do not interfere with the quality of information obtained on other parts of the instruments. REVIEWER'S REFERENCE American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

*** Copyright © 2022. The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and the Buros Center for Testing. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Buros Center for Testing, Buros Institute, Mental Measurements Yearbook, and Tests in Print are all trademarks of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and may not be used without express written consent.

BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System

Review of the BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System by THOMAS P. HOGAN, Professor of Psychology and Distinguished University Fellow, University of Scranton, Scranton, PA:
DESCRIPTION. The BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-3 BESS), as suggested by its title, is designed to provide a quick screen for problems among children in the age range 3-18 years. It is essentially a short form of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3).
The test consists of five components: teacher and parent forms for preschool (ages 3-5) and child/adolescent (Grades K-12) and a student form for Grades 3-12. Each form is a single two-sided sheet with identification information and instructions on the front and test items on the back. Each form has a corresponding hand-scoring worksheet where responses may be transcribed, scored, and tallied into index scores (subscores) and a total score. Alternatively, the user may employ the test publisher’s Q-global system, which entails digital administration and scoring. For teacher and parent versions, the preschool form contains 20 and 29 items, respectively, as does the child/adolescent form. The student self-report form has 28 items. All forms are available in English; parent and student forms are available in both English and Spanish.
Most items consist of brief descriptions of potential problems, for example (not actual items but indicative), “seems nervous” or “pokes other children.” A few items indicate positive behaviors or dispositions, for example (indicative only), “cooperates with others” or “seems happy.” The student form incorporates self-referencing in the statements: “I …” All responses are on a 4-point scale: N = never, S = sometimes, O = often, A = almost always. Instructions for completing the forms are simple and clear. The forms themselves are laid out cleanly, although considering the amount of blank space on both sides of each form, using a larger font size would make sense.

Each form yields a total score called the Behavioral and Emotional Risk Index (BERI). Each parent and teacher form includes the following subscores: Externalizing Risk Index, Internalizing Risk Index, Adaptive Skills Risk Index, and the F Index, the first three of which sum to the BERI along with several additional items that contribute to the total BERI but not to any of the subscores. The F Index draws on items from the other index categories. The student form has the total BERI and subscores for Internalizing Risk Index, Self-Regulation Index, and Personal Adjustment Risk Index; once again the F Index uses items from the other categories. Subscores contain 5-10 items.
The F Index provides a measure of the tendency for the respondent to view the child in an excessively negative manner. It derives from extreme (N or A) marks for selected items. Two other validity indexes are provided only when using the Q-global scoring system. These are the Consistency Index, based on inconsistent responses to pairs of similar items, and the Response Pattern Index, based on analysis of pattern-marking of responses. High scores on any of the validity indexes lead to cautionary notes about interpreting other scores.
The BASC-3 BESS manual notes that any of the components can be used singly or in combination. For example, a school might use the teacher, parent, and student forms for all students in a grade, or only the teacher form, or perhaps the teacher and student forms. The test manual recommends use in the three-tier screening system widely referenced by school psychologists: an initial, quick screen to spot potential problems, followed by a more thorough assessment (e.g., with the full BASC-3), and finally, a complete, highly individualized evaluation, with each of the second and third steps implemented as warranted by results from earlier steps. The test manual describes how such a tiered system might work.
The test manual contains useful suggestions for administering the forms in various settings, what appear to this reviewer to be reasonable estimates of administration and scoring times, and practical advice on dealing with the thorny issue of securing parental permission.

DEVELOPMENT. BASC-3 BESS items consist of a selection of items from the full BASC-3. A table in the test manual conveniently cross-references BASC-3 BESS items to the corresponding BASC-3 scales. Selection of items depended primarily on results of principal components analysis of the BASC-3 item pool, complemented by examination of consistency of results across forms. Previously, the BASC-3 item pool had been subjected to bias analyses, described in the BASC-3 manual but not in the BASC-3 BESS manual. Following the item selection process, the final forms were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with the total BERI score as a second order factor and the main subscores as primary factors. The test manual notes that CFA fit indices were generally marginal, a surprising result in light of how the items were selected.
TECHNICAL. Norms for both the teacher and parent forms are given for the following age groups: 3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-11, 12-14, and 15-18, with the latter three groupings also used for the student form. Both gender-separate and gender-combined norms appear for each age group. Total BERI scores convert to T scores and percentile ranks. Subscores use a three-category classification based on raw scores (no normative conversions): normal risk, elevated risk, and extremely elevated risk. The same classification system applies to the total BERI score but based on T scores, with scores below 61, 61-70, and 71+ corresponding to the category labels. Validity indexes also use raw score categories resulting in labels of acceptable, caution, and extreme caution, generally corresponding to the extreme 1-2% of response distributions for these indexes. Standardization samples used for determining norms included 1,618 cases for the teacher form; 1,659 for the parent form; and 899 for the student form, all derived from a stratified sampling plan based on groupings by age, gender, parent education, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. Cases were obtained by trained recruiters and independent examiners from daycare, school, and clinic settings to fill the sampling strata, essentially in a quota-sampling manner.

The test manual reports internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater reliability coefficients for the total BERI and subscores, except for the validity indexes, for all forms. Internal consistency data are reported separately by age and gender groups used to develop norms, based on the full norming sample. Test-retest data are reported for the full forms (not separately by age groups or gender) for samples ranging in size from 53 to 212, with time intervals averaging about 3 weeks. Interrater reliability coefficients are reported for the parent and teacher forms using samples drawn from the same pool used for the test-retest studies; for these data, both parents completed a form on a child, and two different teachers completed a form for a child, respectively. Standard errors of measurement are given in T score units for the total BERI score and in raw score units for subscores based on the internal consistency coefficients (Spearman-Brown corrected split-half) for the total BERI ranged from .91 to .96, with a median of .95; alpha coefficients for subscores ranged from .72 to .93, with medians of .88 for parent and teacher forms and .84 for the student form. In both parent and teacher forms, internal consistency coefficients run about .05 lower for the Internalizing Risk Index than for the other subscores. For all forms, the total BERI score test-retest reliability coefficients (adjusted for variability) ranged from .87 to .93, with a median of .91. Subscore test-retest adjusted coefficients ranged from .76 to .92, with a median of .87. For the parent and teacher forms, interrater reliability coefficients for the total BERI score ranged from .67 to .83, with a median of .77, and subscore coefficients ranged from .52 to .85, with a median of .72.
Validity evidence consists primarily of correlations between BASC-3 BESS scores and a host of other measures, including the BASC-3, the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), the Conners 3, the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (ASRS), the Children’s Depression Inventory 2, and the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale: Second Edition. Sample sizes for these studies ranged from 39 to 173, with a median of 68. The test manual also reports accuracy of classification rates in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power, and negative predictive power for BASC-3 BESS versus BASC-3 scores, based on contrasting a combination of the two elevated categories in each instrument with the nonelevated categories. Finally, the test manual presents average BERI T scores for children identified by parents in the standardization program as having been classified with a behavioral, emotional, or learning problem.

COMMENTARY. For the most part, the array of technical information reported for the BASC-3 BESS is exemplary in terms of completeness of design, clarity of presentation, and interpretive commentary. The test authors are to be commended for their forthright presentation and analysis of data, admitting, for example, when results are (just) adequate when that is the case, rather than sugar-coating outcomes, as often happens in test manuals. In general, reliability is strong, especially for the total BERI score. Understandably, subscore reliabilities are lower but, for the most part, still quite respectable. Special caution is required when interpreting the Internalizing Risk Index, which for some reason rather consistently underperforms other scales. Interrater reliability coefficients are clearly lower than for the other reliability coefficients, but the interrater context here is rather different from that in many other contexts. Mother and father are unlikely to have the same experiential base for viewing a child; two different teachers are unlikely to have the same degree and type of familiarity with a child. One weak spot in the array of reliability data is the absence of any data for the validity indexes (F, Consistency, and Response Pattern). The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014) explicitly state in Standards 2.0 and 2.3 that reliability data should be provided for any scores reported. The test manual contains no such data although the validity indexes are, arguably, scores to be interpreted. Presumably the raw data are available in the files for the test-retest and interrater reliability studies.
The norming process, numbers of cases, and methods of analyzing and presenting data represent solid professional practice. Of course, the quota-sampling method employed leaves us with the vagaries of not knowing who did not participate and for what reasons. But that problem is virtually unavoidable for these types of norming projects.
In general, the correlational studies presented as validity evidence reflect favorably on the BASC-3 BESS, both in terms of the total BERI score and the subscores. Correlations with a host of relevant measures are generally strong and in the expected directions. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis, reported in the test manual under item selection rather than validity, are curious. Why would a better fit not have emerged? The test manual does not speculate about that result, but it is worth pursuing. The presentation on accuracy of classifications (sensitivity, etc.) is promising but needs additional attention. The test manual (p. 55) concludes that “… a comprehensive review of the statistics associated with this table … is beyond the scope of this manual …” Not really: Such a review is quite relevant.
Finally, the BASC-3 BESS manual, with the exceptions already noted, is quite complete, covering description of the instrument, possible uses, and technical matters. The manual could note the presence of webinars on the publisher’s website with one of the test authors describing the instrument and its use in a comprehensive three-tier assessment process. It also would be helpful for the test manual to include sample reports for individuals and groups, a practice followed in many test manuals.
SUMMARY. The BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System provides an effective instrument for a quick, initial screen for emotional and behavioral problems among children in the target age range. It can be recommended for such usage, provided the user acknowledges that it is a preliminary—not a final—assessment. The forms are simple and easy to use and score. Technical documentation is quite complete. Follow-up assessment is clearly warranted for children scoring in the elevated ranges. Emphasis should focus on the total BERI score. Subscores should be used cautiously.

REVIEWER’S REFERENCE
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Review of the BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System by CHRISTOPHER A. SINK, Professor and Batten Chair, Counseling and Human Services, Old Dominion University, and KRISTY L. CARLISLE, Doctoral Candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Counseling and Human Services, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA:
DESCRIPTION. The BASC-3 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-3 BESS) is a brief instrument for use in schools, mental health clinics, pediatric clinics, and community health and research settings to screen behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses in children from preschool through high school. Though not a comprehensive diagnostic assessment, it is a tool used to assess children’s risk level for behavioral and emotional problems requiring intervention. The BASC-3 Behavior Intervention Guide links a child’s BASC-3 BESS score to evidence-based interventions. The BASC-3 BESS consists of three multi-informant screening measures to be completed by teachers, parents, and students. The measure includes two 20-item teacher forms: one for preschool (ages 3 through 5) and one for children and adolescents (Grades K through 12). Two parent/caregiver rating forms (29 items) are available in English and Spanish to assess preschool and child/adolescent behaviors. Teacher and parent forms each require about 5 minutes to complete. The English and Spanish versions of the 28-item student form (Grades 3 to 12) take 15 minutes or less to group-administer. Each form employs the same 4-point frequency response scale (never, sometimes, often, and almost always) to describe how often children may act, think, or feel. All forms can be administered traditionally with paper and pencil; digital options for administration and scoring also are available from the test publisher’s Q-global platform.

Although the most comprehensive perspective is obtained using the parent, teacher, and student measures, examiners can use the forms individually or in various combinations depending on their settings and the needs of their students/clients. Completed forms yield an overall score–the Behavioral and Emotional Risk Index (BERI)–in addition to subindexes. The teacher and parent forms provide the Externalizing Risk Index (ERI), the Internalizing Risk Index (IRI), and the Adaptive Skills Risk Index (ARI). Examples of behaviors from the ERI include hyperactivity, aggression, and conduct problems. The IRI measures behaviors associated with anxiety, depression, and somatization. The ARI assesses behaviors related to adaptability, social skills, and study skills. The student form generates these outcomes: the Internalizing Risk Index (IRI), the Self-Regulation Risk Index (SRI), and the Personal Adjustment Risk Index (PRI). Behaviors on the SRI are associated with self-control, and the PRI identifies problems with interpersonal relationship skills, self-esteem, and self-reliance. In addition to individual reports, group-level reports are available for all indexes.
The test authors suggest a multistage model for screening, assessment, intervention, and monitoring of behavioral and emotional problems as part of a comprehensive program. The BASC-3 BESS, though limited to screening for risk status, can lead to more advanced assessment practices like diagnosis and prognosis, as well as early intervention, treatment, and prevention practices. Those who are identified as being at an elevated risk for behavioral and emotional problems may need further professional assessment to inform intervention, diagnosis, and treatment.
Examiners need not be testing experts to administer the BASC-3 BESS; the accompanying materials include detailed instructions for administration, scoring, and interpretation. They also clearly describe which children to appraise, which forms to use, how often to assess the target population, and methods of choosing suitable raters. Useful examiner instructions and suggestions are provided to assist informants with the rating process and procedures. Effective ways to communicate testing outcomes to parents/guardians also are included. Detailed instructions are provided for using the hand-scoring worksheet. Should test administrators desire immediate scoring and reporting, they can use computer software (Q-global).
To inform accuracy of score interpretation, the test includes several relevant indexes. First, the F Index is a validation metric to identify respondents with tendencies to rate a child’s behaviors in an overly negative way. Second, the Consistency Index assists in identifying respondents who provide differing responses to items typically answered similarly. Third, the Response Pattern Index can be used to recognize invalid rater forms, particularly those that may have responded in an inattentive or patterned way. Consistency and Response Pattern Indexes are available only by using the Q-global software.

Other pertinent indexes are well explained, and the manner by which examiners interpret them can be found in the test manual. For instance, the overall BERI score and the interpretation of the subindex scores on each form are explicated in a relatively uncomplicated manner. BERI scores correspond to one of three levels of risk: T scores no more than 1 standard deviation above the mean of 50 (i.e., 60 or lower) reflect a normal level of risk; T scores 1 to 2 standard deviations above the mean (i.e., 61-70) indicate an elevated risk level; and T scores 2 standard deviations above the mean (i.e., 71+) suggest an extremely elevated level of risk. It should be noted that BERI T scores are not normalized; however, combined-gender norm and separate-gender norm options are available.
Subindex scores are not interpreted using T scores or percentile ranks, but with raw scores. These latter values fall into ranges representing less than 1 standard deviation above (for nonadaptive subindex scores) or below (for adaptive subindex scores) the mean (normal risk); 1 to 2 standard deviations above or below the mean (elevated risk); and more than 2 standard deviations above or below the mean (extremely elevated risk). Subindex scores may be useful for specifying areas of dysfunction when an overall BERI score is elevated.
DEVELOPMENT. The BASC-3 BESS was developed to assess a wide variety of behaviors and emotions, focusing on both strengths and weaknesses of children and adolescents from preschool through Grade 12. Ratings are gathered from teachers, parents, and students using brief forms that can be administered to individuals or groups. The measure was developed alongside the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3), Teacher Rating Scales (TRS), Parent Rating Scales (PRS), and Self-Report of Personality (SRP). The steps of the development process would be clearer if the test authors had included more information about the TRS, PRS, and SRP and explained how they differ from the teacher, parent, and student forms in the BASC-3 BESS. The test authors indicate BASC-3 BESS item selection started with items that had been retained following bias analyses on the BASC-3 standardization project items, and the BASC-3 BESS manual refers readers to the BASC-3 manual for details. Item selection for the BASC-3 BESS was focused on the goal of producing a single total score from each teacher, parent, and student form. This total score was designed to identify the presence or absence of behavioral and emotional problems. Composite scores would detect specific areas of dysfunction once an elevated total score was observed.

A series of principal components analyses (PCA) were implemented on the items from each composite scale of each BASC-3 form (i.e., externalizing problems, internalizing problems). The type of rotation was not reported. Items were selected based on the following criteria: (a) generated the highest loadings on each composite scale, (b) provided unique content, and (c) maintained similar psychometric properties across forms and levels. Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the reliability and factorial validity of the initial item selections. This analysis led to the inclusion of the overall BERI score in the teacher and parent forms, along with the ERI, IRI, and ARI subindices. For the student form, the CFA supported the inclusion of the overall BERI score, as well as the IRI, SRI, and PRI subindexes. The test authors report many items on the BASC-3 BESS forms also appear on the BASC-3 forms, but the overlapping items and the unique items are not identified in the BASC-3 BESS manual. The standardization forms included items are not identified in the BASC-3 BESS manual. The standardization forms included more than 775 potential BASC-3 and BASC-3 BESS items.
TECHNICAL. The test authors reported that the BASC-3 standardization sample was representative of the U.S. population in terms of gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and special-education/gifted status. Between April 2013 and November 2014, more than 9,000 forms were collected for the standardization project from 311 expert examiners in 44 states. Norms were subsequently developed using a sample that included approximately equal numbers of males and females in each age group: 3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-11, 12-14, and 15-18. The sample was stratified by age according to parent education level, race/ethnicity, and geographic region to match the 2013 U.S. Census figures. Sample sizes for each form were as follows: 1,618 for the teacher forms; 1,659 for the parent forms; and 899 for the student form. For the total BERI score, normative comparisons for each age group and form can be made using separate-gender or combined-gender tables in the test manual. Norms for subindexes on each form were derived from the combined-gender group.

Internal consistency, stability, and interrater reliability analyses are clearly summarized in the technical manual. Internal consistency was assessed using split-half reliability for the BERI scores and alpha coefficients for the subindex scores. Reliability coefficients for the BERI on all teacher, parent, and student forms were excellent, ranging from .91 to .96. Alpha coefficients for the subindex scores on the teacher and parent forms were good to excellent, ranging from .76 to .93, but lower on the student form, ranging from .72 to .90. Test-retest reliability studies were conducted using diverse samples of 53 to 212 participants with time intervals of 1 to 10 weeks, with an average interval of 3 weeks. Coefficients were adjusted for biasing effect resulting from sampling differences in variability of scale or subindex scores. Adjusted coefficients for the total BERI scores on all forms were good to excellent and ranged from .87 to .93. Adjusted coefficients for the subindices were adequate to excellent, ranging from .76 to .92, with most in the upper .80s or above. Interrater reliability studies were conducted by examining ratings of the same child by each parent completing separate parent forms or by two teachers completing separate teacher forms. The studies used a diverse sample of 58 to 231 participants with time intervals of 1 to 2 weeks. Results indicated moderate to high agreement across raters on all forms with adjusted coefficients ranging from .52 to .85 and most values in the .60s to .80s.
Construct validity was carefully examined. Correlations between the BERI and the subindex scores for all forms ranged from .68 to .88. Next, convergent evidence for construct validity was provided. Strong correlations between the BASC-3 BESS total BERI score and the BASC-3 Behavioral Symptoms Index (teacher and parents) and Emotional Symptoms Index (self-report) ranged from .90 to .92. Correlations between BASC-3 BESS subindex scores and BASC-3 composite scale scores ranged from .86 to .92. Moderately high correlation coefficients were reported between the BASC-3 BESS and the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Total Problems composite scales, with most values ranging from upper .50s to .70s. The test authors also reported moderate correlation coefficients with the Conners 3 rating scales used to assess ADHD, with most correlations ranging from the .40s to .60s. Moderate correlation coefficients were also reported between the BASC-3 BESS and the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, ranging from .23 to .58. Correlation coefficients were slightly higher for the Children’s Depression Inventory 2 with most values in the .50s and .60s. Lower coefficients were observed between the BASC-3 BESS and the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale: Second Edition with correlations in the upper .30s to lower .50s. Finally, correlations between the BASC-3 BESS BERI and the BASC-2 BESS total scores were extremely high (.95 to .98), providing strong evidence to generalize research conducted on the BASC-2 BESS to the BASC-3 BESS. The test authors describe how to compare BASC-3 scores to BASC-2 scores for longitudinal purposes.

In terms of predictive validity, when comparing average teacher, parent, and student BERI scores to reports of classification or diagnosis of ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), emotional/behavioral disturbance (EBD), hearing impairment, specific learning disorder, and speech or language disorder, the ASD and EBD groups generated total BERI scores that fell into the elevated risk classification range. All other groups scored in the normal risk range.
COMMENTARY. The BASC-3 BESS is a psychometrically sound screening instrument for assessing behavioral and emotional issues in children and adolescents from preschool through Grade 12. It assesses both risk factors and adaptive skills to produce an overall score indicating risk level for behavioral and emotional issues, while also specifying subindex scores to indicate particular areas of strength or weakness. It is a brief and efficient way to gain information from multiple informants (in English and Spanish) and can be used in a variety of settings. Teacher, parent, and student forms are user-friendly and can be scored easily by hand or by using Q-global software. Items on the three forms were carefully chosen using factor analysis, and both positively and negatively worded items appear to minimize response bias. Validity indexes further inform accuracy and quality of responses. Construct evidence was evaluated by showing convergence with six other instruments. In addition, predictive validity evidence was demonstrated with examinees with diagnoses of autism and behavioral/emotional disturbance, in particular. The test authors noted that although no specialized training is required to administer the BASC-3 BESS, decisions about intervention and treatment require professional input. Furthermore, BASC-3 BESS results can be an integral part of a multistage model of intervention, but as an instrument designed to screen for risk, it may be most appropriate at the early stages of such a model. More information would be helpful to better understand the theoretical orientation driving the item selection and the conceptualization of the subindexes.
SUMMARY. The BASC-3 BESS is a quality screening instrument that estimates children’s and adolescents’ risk levels for behavioral and emotional problems. The instrument is brief and flexible in its applicability, and it can be readily administered in school, clinical, and research settings. Information may be gathered using teacher and parent forms for younger and older age groups, as well as from a self-report student form. Test authors provide ample evidence for the measure’s reliability and validity. It is used widely in school settings and may be useful for multistage screening as a beginning tool to indicate risk and inform when intervention may be required.

*** Copyright © 2022. The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and the Buros Center for Testing. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Buros Center for Testing, Buros Institute, Mental Measurements Yearbook, and Tests in Print are all trademarks of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and may not be used without express written consent.