View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Selecting Assessment Instruments for Problem Behavior Outcome Research with Youth

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Selecting Assessment Instruments for Problem Behavior Outcome Research with Youth
Language: English
Authors: Erford, Bradley T., Bardhoshi, Gerta, Haecker, Paige, Shingari, Binish, Schleichter, Jennifer, Atalay, Zümra
Source: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2019 52(1):52-68.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Behavior Problems, Check Lists, Child Behavior, Measures (Individuals), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Rating Scales, Delinquency, Student Behavior, Behavior Disorders, Effect Size, Children, Adolescents
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Behavior Problem Checklist, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory, Conners Rating Scales, Child Behavior Checklist
DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2017.1358063
ISSN: 0748-1756
Abstract: Using effect sizes from Erford, Paul, Oncken, Kress, & Erford (2014) meta-analysis for treatments of oppositional defiant disorder and Erford, Bardhoshi, Ross, Gunther, & Duncan (2017) meta-analysis of conduct problems in school-aged youth, the 6 most commonly used disruptive behavior instruments were analyzed for practical and technical strengths and weaknesses, and best use recommendations for screening and counseling outcome research were provided. The instruments included the Achenbach System of Empirically-Based Assessment (ASEBA), Revised Behavior Problem Checklist, Self-Report Delinquency Checklist, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory/Sutter-Eyberg School Behavior Inventory, Conners--3 Rating Scale, and Parent Daily Report.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 45
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1204523
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFnOvUtv2g7Tk2AJH6mDBeUAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHHUNAfOflnPIgaNvAIBEICBm6HffyLNmi6r-NtKr4eLl9y0oTMAQ1oCtDu7uI37EqOqNdnUl3-y1Krens9koOlLJHI3ieNsZf-JPhFTnf8eabUnY1cBIegXiJBCrYMqFhnRiOZgyqPWFpRZLt3plHXL_z6Xk6e94te35YBmJxItHqWmJvo0iijVJgZ0IcsM2vJCwGz6u1gOC3NQ7j9GSGg0XH55R_yYkQzU_X1e
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0134456080;mev01jan.19;2019Feb05.08:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0134456080-1">Selecting Assessment Instruments for Problem Behavior Outcome Research With Youth </title> <p>Using effect sizes from Erford, Paul, Oncken, Kress, & Erford (2014) meta-analysis for treatments of oppositional defiant disorder and Erford, Bardhoshi, Ross, Gunther, & Duncan (2017) meta-analysis of conduct problems in school-aged youth, the 6 most commonly used disruptive behavior instruments were analyzed for practical and technical strengths and weaknesses, and best use recommendations for screening and counseling outcome research were provided. The instruments included the Achenbach System of Empirically-Based Assessment (ASEBA), Revised Behavior Problem Checklist, Self-Report Delinquency Checklist, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory/Sutter-Eyberg School Behavior Inventory, Conners-3 Rating Scale, and Parent Daily Report.</p> <p>Keywords: Behavioral assessment; conduct disorder; oppositional</p> <p>Addressing disruptive behaviors, such as those occurring in oppositional defiant and conduct disorders, is an important and time-consuming endeavor among educators and professional counselors who work with school-aged youth (Erford, Paul, Oncken, Kress, & Erford, 2014; Erford, Bardhoshi, Ross, Gunther, & Duncan, 2017). Marked by poor emotional and behavioral regulation, these problematic behaviors are common reasons children were referred for mental health and educational services, and carry substantial costs to organizations and families (Scott, Knapp, Henderson, & Maughan, 2001). Accurate and timely identification of disruptive behaviors is essential for informing interventions and evaluating treatments. Many instruments have been developed to assess childhood behavior problems, usually using a self-report, parent-report, or teacher-report format. A few batteries of instruments provide a combination or all of these formats to measure behavior problems, such as the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) and Conners-3 (Conners, 2008).</p> <p>As symptoms of emotional and behavioral disorders typically manifest during childhood and adolescence, early identification and treatment are critical for an improved trajectory. Counseling with parent training was considered a first-line treatment for children and adolescents with oppositional defiant or conduct disorder (Scotto Rosato et al., 2012). Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) conducted meta-analyses of counseling treatment of oppositional defiant and conduct disorders, respectively, in school-aged youth. These counseling outcome research studies included articles published in counseling, psychology, and medical journals that explored the effectiveness and staying power of interventions. In these two meta-analyses, 50 independent articles were identified involving 68 clinical trials across all comparison group types (i.e., waitlist, treatment as usual, placebo, single group), and 3,962 participants, supporting counseling as an effective treatment for youth with oppositional defiant and conduct disorders. A side benefit of these meta-analyses was the identification of the published outcome measures used most frequently, thus allowing comparisons between effect sizes derived from these clinical trials on various outcome measures. This information is extremely helpful to counseling practitioners, counselor educators, and counseling researchers who need to make screening, diagnostic, or research decisions using behavioral inventories, and who often have little evidence about how these instruments compare within school-aged participant samples.</p> <p>In those 50 independent articles, 32 different standardized outcome variables were used, with some used far more frequently than others to document behavioral outcomes of the clinical trial results. Indeed, of those 32 different outcome variables across 50 articles, only 6 were used more than twice. The six most frequently used instruments in clinical outcome studies of interventions for youth are enumerated in Table 1: (a) the ASEBA Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001, or earlier iterations), used in 52% (<emph>j</emph> = 26; where <emph>j</emph> equals the number of articles) of the 50 outcome studies; (b) the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory or Sutter-Eyberg School Behavior Inventory (ECBI, SESBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999), used in 26% (<emph>j</emph> = 13); (c) the Parent Daily Report (PDR; Chamberlain & Reid, 1987) used in 10% (<emph>j</emph> = 5); (d) the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC; Quay & Peterson, 1987), also used in 10% (<emph>j</emph> = 5); (e) the Self-Report Delinquency Checklist (SRDC; Elliott, Ageton, Huzinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1983) used in 6% (<emph>j</emph> = 3); and (f) the Conners-3 (Conners, 2008, or earlier iterations) also used in 6% (<emph>j</emph> = 3) of the articles. Not only were these instruments used most frequently in the outcome research literature, but two of the instruments (i.e., ASEBA, Conners-3) are among the 30 most frequently used by counseling practitioners (Peterson, Lomas, Neukrug, & Bonner, 2014), and 30 most frequently taught by counselor educators (Neukrug, Peterson, Bonner, & Lomas, 2013).</p> <p>Summary Table of Problem Behavior Inventories Used in Counseling Outcome Research.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="10"><tbody><tr><td align="left">Name, Acronym, and Reference</td><td align="center">Ages</td><td align="center">Report</td><td align="center">Time (Minutes to Administer)</td><td align="center">No. of Items</td><td align="center">Psychometrics</td><td align="center">Free Access</td><td align="center">Translations</td><td align="center">No. of Studies</td><td align="center">% of Studies</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left">ASEBA (Achenbach & Rescorla, <xref ref-type="ref" rid="ref1">2001</xref>)</td><td align="center">2-18</td><td align="left">Self, teacher, parent</td><td align="center">15-20</td><td align="center">113</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">No</td><td align="left">> 60 languages</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">52</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg School Behavior Inventory (Eyberg & Pincus, <xref ref-type="ref" rid="ref17">1999</xref>)</td><td align="center">2-16</td><td align="left">Teacher, parent</td><td align="center">5-10</td><td align="center">38, 36</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">No</td><td align="left">Spanish</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent Daily Report (Chamberlain & Reid, <xref ref-type="ref" rid="ref6">1987</xref>)</td><td align="center">6-18</td><td align="left">Parent</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="left">Spanish</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (Quay & Peterson, <xref ref-type="ref" rid="ref39">1987</xref>)</td><td align="center">5-18</td><td align="left">Teacher, parent</td><td align="center">20-30</td><td align="center">89</td><td align="left">Acceptable</td><td align="left">No</td><td align="left">8 languages</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self-Reported Delinquency Checklist (Elliott et al., <xref ref-type="ref" rid="ref11">1983</xref>)</td><td align="center">Teen</td><td align="left">Self</td><td align="center">5-10</td><td align="center">47</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="left">None</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conners-3 Rating Scale (Conners, <xref ref-type="ref" rid="ref7">2008</xref>)</td><td align="center">6-18</td><td align="left">Self, teacher, parent</td><td align="center">5-20</td><td align="center">39, 39, 43</td><td align="left">Good</td><td align="left">No</td><td align="left">Spanish</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> <emph>Note.</emph> ASEBA = Achenbach System of Empirically-Based Assessment. All instruments listed in the table are available in English. % = Percentage out of the 50 independent studies selected in the Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) meta-analyses. Some studies used more than one instrument as an outcome measure.</p> <p>To date, no systematic review, aggregation, or comparison of the effect sizes generated by these six instruments has been published. Thus, researchers and practitioners are unaware of the consequences of selecting and using one over the other in terms of generating, analyzing, and interpreting effect sizes in research and practice. The purpose of this article is to identify the instruments most frequently used as clinical and research outcome assessments with disruptive youth and review the practical and technical characteristics of each to better guide use by professional counselors, counselor educators, and counseling researchers. In addition, using effect size estimates from Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017), each instrument's capacity to measure treatment outcomes among school-aged youth was compared. Readers are referred to the Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) meta-analyses for detailed information about the studies, samples, settings, homogeneity, and publication bias. A brief summary of these meta-analyses indicated that no counseling treatment for disruptive behavior disorders appeared superior to any other, all analyses were homogeneous meaning no moderator variables influenced the average effect sizes, and publication bias was nominal. Beyond helping counseling practitioners and researchers use a more standardized approach to documenting clinical gains with clients, this study will also provide useful information regarding which instruments might overestimate or underestimate treatment outcomes, further aiding instrument selection in clinical practice and research.</p> <p>Effect sizes (Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) were computed for each instrument, weighted by sample size as these effects were averaged among studies, and then compared (see Table 2). Confidence intervals (95% CI) were computed around these weighted means and subjected to hypothesis testing. Significance was determined if the mean of one instrument fell outside the CI of the comparison instrument. For example, if the mean of one instrument was.45, 95% CI [.25,.65] and the mean of the comparison instrument was.75, a significant difference at α <.05 level of confidence was noted because the second mean of.75 falls outside the first mean's 95% CI. However if the comparison was.55, no significant difference was noted because the.55 falls within the 95% CI. Holding the formula and comparison conditions constant allows for meaningful comparisons, even though there are inherent challenges in averaging effect size comparisons from multiple studies (Erford, Savin-Murphy, & Butler, 2010; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Following review of the six instruments, we offer conclusions and suggestions, as well as implications for counseling practice and research.</p> <p>Effect Size (ES) Comparisons Aggregated from Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="8"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><italic>j</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>k</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">Scale 1</td><td align="center">ES [95% CI]</td><td align="center">Scale 2</td><td align="center">ES [95% CI]</td><td align="center">Comparison</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-Aggression</td><td align="center">.46 [.32,.60]</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Aggression</td><td align="center">.78 [.64,.92]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-Agg < CBCL-M-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-Aggression</td><td align="center">.46 [.32,.60]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.47 [.33,.61]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-Agg = ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-Aggression</td><td align="center">.46 [.32,.60]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.52 [.38,.66]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-Agg = ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">77</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-TPB</td><td align="center">.52 [.30,.74]</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.44 [.22,.66]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-TPB = CBCL-M-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-TPB</td><td align="center">.70 [.60-.80]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.91 [.81, 1.01]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-TPB < ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-TPB</td><td align="center">.70 [.60,.80]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.96 [.86, 1.06]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-TPB < ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Aggression</td><td align="center">.67 [.53,.81]</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-Aggression</td><td align="center">.46 [.32,.60]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Agg > CBCL-F-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Aggression</td><td align="center">.67 [.53,.81]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.47 [.33,.61]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Agg > ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Aggression</td><td align="center">.67 [.53,.81]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.52 [.38,.66]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Agg > ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Aggression</td><td align="center">.27 [-.13,.67]</td><td align="left">TRF-Aggression</td><td align="center">.18 [-.22,.58]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Agg = TRF-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Externalizing</td><td align="center">.36 [.00,.72]</td><td align="left">Conners Conduct Problems</td><td align="center">.12 [-.24,.48]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Ext = Conners Conduct</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">210</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Externalizing</td><td align="center">.71 [.57,.85]</td><td align="left">TRF-Externalizing</td><td align="center">.42 [.28,.56]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Ext > TRF-Ext</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">77</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.44 [.22,.66]</td><td align="left">CBCL-Father-TPB</td><td align="center">.52 [.30,.74]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB = CBCL-F-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.66 [.56,.76]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.91 [.81, 1.01]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB < ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.66 [.56,.76]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.96 [.86, 1.06]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB < ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB = IAB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.28 [1.08, 1.48]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB < PDR</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB = SRDC</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.53 [.33,.73]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB = TRF-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="left">Conners Conduct Problems</td><td align="center">.12 [-.24,.48]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Externalizing</td><td align="center">.36 [.00,.72]</td><td align="left">Conners Conduct Problems = CBCL-M-Ext</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.47 [.33,.61]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-Aggression</td><td align="center">.46 [.32,.60]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F = CBCL-F-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.91 [.81, 1.01]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-TPB</td><td align="center">.70 [.60,.80]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F > CBCL-F-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.42 [.28,.56]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Aggression</td><td align="center">.67 [.53,.81]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F < CBCL-M-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.91 [.81, 1.01]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB</td><td align="center">.66 [.56,.76]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F > CBCL-M-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">623</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.80 [.72,.88]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.82 [.74,.90]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F = ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F = PDR-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F < PDR-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F > PPCL-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27[.15,.39]</td><td align="left">ECBI-F > PPCL-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.52 [.38,.66]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-Agg</td><td align="center">.46 [.32,.60]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M = CBCL-F-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.96 [.86, 1.06]</td><td align="left">CBCL-F-TPB</td><td align="center">.70 [.60,.80]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M > CBCL-F-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.52 [.38,.66]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-Agg</td><td align="center">.67 [.53,.81]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M < CBCL-M-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">359</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.96 [.86, 1.06]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB</td><td align="center">.66 [.56,.76]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M > CBCL-M-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">623</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.82 [.74,.90]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.80 [.72,.88]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M = ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M > PDR-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M < PDR-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M > PPCL-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">ECBI-M > PPCL-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">IAB = CBCL-M-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.32 [1.12, 1.52]</td><td align="left">IAB < PDR</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.41 [.21,.61]</td><td align="left">IAB = SRDC</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">IAB = TRF-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">84</td><td align="left">Missouri Peer Relations</td><td align="center">.34 [.13,.55]</td><td align="left">RPBC</td><td align="center">-.08[-.29,.13]</td><td align="left">Missouri > RPBC</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">84</td><td align="left">Missouri Peer Relations</td><td align="center">.34 [.13,.55]</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.48 [.27,.69]</td><td align="left">Missouri = SRDC</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.28 [1.08, 1.48]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">PDR > CBCL-M-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PDR > ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.28 [1.08, 1.48]</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">PDR > IAB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.28 [1.08, 1.48]</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">PDR > SRDC</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.28 [1.08, 1.48]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.53 [.33,.73]</td><td align="left">PDR > TRF-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PDR-F = ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PDR-F < ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">PDR-F < PDR-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">PDR-F > PPCL-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">PDR-F > PPCL-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PDR-M > ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">PDR-M > PDR-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12[-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">PDR-M > PPCL-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">PDR-M > PPCL-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PPCL-F < ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PPCL-F < ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">PPCL-F < PDR-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">PPCL-F < PPCL-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Father</td><td align="center">.57 [.45,.69]</td><td align="left">PPCL-M < ECBI-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">ECBI-Mother</td><td align="center">.83 [.71,.95]</td><td align="left">PPCL-M < ECBI-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">PDR-Father</td><td align="center">.49 [.37,.61]</td><td align="left">PPCL-M < PPCL-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">PDR-Mother</td><td align="center">1.00 [.88, 1.12]</td><td align="left">PPCL-M < PDR-M</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">255</td><td align="left">PPCL-Mother</td><td align="center">.27 [.15,.39]</td><td align="left">PPCL-Father</td><td align="center">-.12 [-.24,.00]</td><td align="left">PPCL-M > PPCL-F</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">84</td><td align="left">RPBC</td><td align="center">-.08 [-.29,.13]</td><td align="left">Missouri Peer Relations</td><td align="center">.34 [.13,.55]</td><td align="left">RBPC < Missouri</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">224</td><td align="left">RPBC</td><td align="center">.14 [.01,.27]</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.36 [.23,.49]</td><td align="left">RBPC < SRDC</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">SRDC = CBCL-M-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">SRDC = IAB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">84</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.48 [.27,.69]</td><td align="left">Missouri Peer Relations</td><td align="center">.34 [.13,.55]</td><td align="left">SRDC = Missouri Peer</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.28 [1.08, 1.48]</td><td align="left">SRDC < PDR</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">224</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.36 [.23,.49]</td><td align="left">RBPC</td><td align="center">.14 [.01,.27]</td><td align="left">SRDC > RPBC</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">SRDC</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.53 [.33,.73]</td><td align="left">SRDC = TRF-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="left">TRF-Aggression</td><td align="center">.18 [-.22,.58]</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Aggression</td><td align="center">.27 [-.13,.67]</td><td align="left">TRF-Agg = CBCL-M-Agg</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">210</td><td align="left">TRF-Externalizing</td><td align="center">.42 [.28,.56]</td><td align="left">CBCL-Mother-Externalizing</td><td align="center">.71 [.57,.85]</td><td align="left">TRF-Ext < CBCL-M-Ext</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.53 [.33,.73]</td><td align="left">CBCL-M-TPB</td><td align="center">.54 [.34,.74]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB = CBCL-M-TPB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.53 [.33,.73]</td><td align="left">IAB</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB = IAB</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.53 [.33,.73]</td><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="center">1.28 [1.08, 1.48]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB < PDR</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB</td><td align="center">.53 [.33,.73]</td><td align="left">SRD</td><td align="center">.39 [.19,.59]</td><td align="left">TRF-TPB = SRD</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> <emph>Note.</emph> CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; F = Father; M = Mother; ECBI = Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; TRF = Teacher Rating Form; Agg = Aggression; TPB = Total Problem Behaviors; IAB = Interview of Antisocial Behavior; PDR = Parent Daily Report; SRDC = Self-Reported Delinquency Checklist; PPCL = Parent Problem Checklist; RBPC = Revised Behavior Problem Checklist.</p> <hd id="AN0134456080-2">Review and Analysis of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment</hd> <p>The ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles is an integrated system of multi-informant assessment for assessing problem behaviors, competencies, and adaptive functioning in school-aged youth (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The system is made up of three separate and objective measures written at the fifth-grade reading level: (a) the Child Behavior Checklist for ages 2-18 (CBCL/2-18), which includes 113 problem behavior items and is completed by the child's home caregivers; (b) the Youth Self-Report (YSR), which includes 113 nearly identical items as the CBCL completed by children 11 to 18 years old to describe their personal functioning; and (c) the Teacher Report Form (TRF), which includes 113 nearly identical items and scales as the CBCL and is completed by education professionals who interact with the child (ages 5-18) in a school environment. All versions are Level B instruments (Erford, 2013) usually administered and scored using paper and pencil (about $1.00 per respondent), although a computer scoring system is available. Respondents usually require 15 to 20 min to complete each version. Level A instruments require no specified education, training, or experience. Level B instruments require a master's degree in a counseling-related discipline and a graduate assessment course. Level C instruments require a doctoral degree in a counseling-related discipline or a state license that allows administration of Level C instruments.</p> <p>The responses from the various forms represent four areas of interest: competence, adaptive functioning, syndromes, and internalizing or externalizing groupings of syndromes. Of the items, 113 are rated on a scale ranging from 0 (<emph>not true</emph>), to 1 (<emph>somewhat/sometimes true</emph>), to 2 (<emph>very true/often true</emph>) and summed for subscale scores. Syndrome data comprise taxonomic constructs across a range of behavioral, emotional, and social problems and are broken down into the following nine categories: anxious/depressed, withdrawn/depressed, somatic complaints, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, rule-breaking behavior, aggressive behavior, and other problems (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). These data can also be conceptualized more broadly through the internalizing and externalizing grouping of syndromes scores. ASEBA form responses can also be scored on <emph>DSM</emph>-oriented scales (i.e., attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADH), anxiety, oppositional defiant, depressive, conduct, and somatic problems; Erford, 2013), so that a child's problems can be viewed from a formal diagnostic perspective that is consistent with <emph>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</emph> (5th ed. [<emph>DSM-5</emph>]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) categories. The ASEBA had a large standardization sample and was a well-constructed instrument. Raw scores are converted to <emph>T</emph> scores and percentile ranks using the profile forms. The ASEBA scales have been translated into 61 different languages. The standardization sample was a diverse mix of participants: CBCL = 60% White, 20% African American, 9% Latino, and 12% mixed or other; TRF = 60% White, 20% African American, 8% Latino, and 11% mixed or other; and YSR = 72% White, 14% African American, 7% Latino, and 7% mixed or other.</p> <p>The most frequently used scale for measurement of behavioral problems in school-aged youth was the Externalizing scale (Erford et al., 2014), which is an amalgamation of externalizing symptoms (e.g., rule-breaking behavior, aggressive behavior), so, unfortunately, it is an imprecise measure of oppositional behavior or conduct problems. Alternatively, researchers could use the empirically derived rule-breaking behavior or aggressive behavior subscales, although we recommend using the <emph>DSM</emph>-related subscales of oppositional defiant and conduct problems, as they more precisely measure <emph>DSM</emph>-related oppositional and conduct disorders. It should be noted that the empirically derived subscales contain fewer items, and slightly lower levels of score reliability than the <emph>DSM</emph>-oriented scales.</p> <p>Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from.60 to.95 for the empirically based subscales, and from.62 to.95 for the <emph>DSM</emph>-oriented subscales. Coefficients alpha were higher for the <emph>DSM</emph>-oriented subscales, and discriminant analyses revealed significant discrimination of scores between nonreferred and referred populations. Finally, criterion-related validity was demonstrated by substantial correlations between the ASEBA and other measures, including the Conners (2008) rating scales where coefficients between similar subscales ranged from.71 to.89 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). It should be noted that the CBCL is considered the premier measure for gathering parent data regarding the emotional and behavioral problems of their children.</p> <p>The ASEBA was the most commonly used outcome measure among the included 50 articles (see Table 1), appearing in 26 articles for a 52% frequency of use. The comparisons that follow specify use of the self-report (YSR), teacher report (TRF), and parent- (mother [-M] or father [-F] as indicated) report (CBCL) versions and can be located in Table 2. The CBCL results reflect both father and mother responses as appropriate. Mean effect size comparisons of the CBCL father responses to the Aggression subscale found no significant differences in effect sizes when compared with the ECBI mother responses and ECBI father responses. The CBCL father responses to the Total Problem Behavior (TPB) subscale were also equivalent to the mother responses to the same instrument. However, the CBCL father responses on the Aggression subscale were significantly lower than the CBCL mother responses to the Aggression scale (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-F-Agg</subs> =.46, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-Agg</subs> = 1.16; <emph>k</emph> = 2; <emph>n</emph> = 203), where <emph>k</emph> equals the number of studies compared. Likewise, CBCL father responses to the TPB subscale were significantly lower than both the ECBI father responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-F-TPB</subs> =.70, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.91; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359) and ECBI mother responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-F-TPB</subs> =.70, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.96; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359).</p> <p>Mother responses to the CBCL Aggression subscale were significantly higher than ECBI father responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-Agg</subs> =.67, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.47; <emph>k</emph> = 2; <emph>n</emph> = 203) and ECBI mother responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-Agg</subs> =.67, <emph>d<subs>ECBI-M</subs></emph> =.52; <emph>k</emph> = 2; <emph>n</emph> = 203), and equivalent to teacher responses on the TRF Aggression subscale. Mother responses to the CBCL Externalizing scale were equivalent to the Conners Conduct Problems subscale, but higher than the teacher responses to the TRF Externalizing scale (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-Ext</subs> =.71, <emph>d</emph><subs>TRF-Ext</subs> =.42; <emph>k</emph> = 4; <emph>n</emph> = 210). Mother responses to the CBCL TPB subscale were equivalent to the Interview for Antisocial Behavior (IAB), SRDC, and TRF TPB subscale. However, CBCL-M-TPB effect sizes were lower than ECBI father (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-TPB</subs> =.66, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.91; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359) and mother responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-TPB</subs> =.66, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.96; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359), and the PDR (<emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-TPB</subs> =.54, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.28; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 97). Teacher responses to the TRF Externalizing scale were actually lower than mother responses to the same questions on the CBCL Externalizing scale (<emph>d</emph><subs>TRF-Ext</subs> =.42, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-Ext</subs> =.71; <emph>k</emph> = 4; <emph>n</emph> = 210).</p> <p>Teacher responses to the TRF TPB scale were equivalent to the CBCL-M-TPB, IAB, and SRDC, but lower than the PDR (<emph>d</emph><subs>TRF-TPB</subs> =.53, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.28; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 97). So overall, the CBCL and TRF appear to yield more conservative effect sizes than the PDR and ECBI, and mostly equivalent estimates when compared to other measures. Also, in direct comparisons, mothers responding to the CBCL yielded larger average effect sizes than fathers responding to the CBCL or teachers responding to the TRF. These results should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of comparisons (<emph>k</emph>s of 1-7) and sample sizes (<emph>n</emph>s of 24-359)</p> <hd id="AN0134456080-3">Review and Analysis of the ECBI and SESBI-R</hd> <p>The ECBI and the Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised (SESBI-R) are observational assessment instruments of conduct-disordered behavior in children and adolescents in home and school settings, respectively (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The ECBI is designed for use by parents and consists of 36 items, whereas the SESBI-R is designed for use by teachers and consists of 38 items. Both tests, considered Level B instruments, are written on a sixth-grade reading level and can be completed in 5 to 10 min using only the assessment sheet and a pencil. Easily scored by hand in under 5 min, they are also relatively inexpensive (about $1 per administration). The introductory kit, which includes 50 copies of both the ECBI and the SESBI-R, costs $214 (Psychological Assessment Resources, 2015). Computer scoring is not available for this instrument. The Spanish version of the ECBI was standardized with a sample of children in Barcelona (Garcia-Tornel et al., 1998).</p> <p>Each instrument was comprised of two scales: the Intensity scale and the Problem scale. On the Intensity scale, the rater indicates how often the child exhibits a described behavior on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (<emph>never exhibited</emph>) to 7 (<emph>always exhibited</emph>). The rater then indicates the extent to which the described behavior is considered a problem by circling yes or no on the Problem scale. The ECBI was standardized on parents of children in 1980 and again on the parents of adolescents in 1983. Participants were drawn from a pediatric outpatient clinic of a large urban medical school in the northwestern United States and were mostly White and of lower to middle socioeconomic status (Eyberg & Robinson, 1983; Robinson, Eyberg, & Ross, 1980): ECBI = 77% White, 20% African American, and 3% Hispanic. In contrast, the SESBI oversampled African Americans and undersampled Hispanics: 50% White, 49% African American, and 1% Hispanic.</p> <p>The ECBI was sensitive to intervention effects (McNeil, Eyberg, Eisenstadt, Newcomb, & Funderburk, 1991) and differentiation of clinical and nonclinical classifications and theoretically distinct groups (i.e., children with autism or another behavioral diagnosis; Eyberg & Robinson, 1983; McNeil et al., 1991). Confirmatory factor analysis conducted by Gross et al. (2003) found the most suitable model for the ECBI to consist of three factors. Coefficients alpha of.79,.73, and.72, respectively, were reported for factors (a) oppositional defiant behavior toward adults; (b) inattentive behavior; and (c) conduct problem behavior (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2012). No studies have reported on the criterion validity for the ECBI. Acceptable test-retest reliability (Funderburk, Eyberg, Rich, & Behar, 2003), internal consistency (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999), and interrater reliability (Eisenstadt, McElreath, Eyberg, & Bodiford McNeil, 1994; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) were noted. Calzada, Eyberg, Rich, and Querido (2004) reported significant correlations between mother's and father's intensity scale scores (<emph>r</emph> =.64), but nonsignificant correlations between mother's and father's problem scale scores (<emph>r</emph> =.40).</p> <p>The items on the teacher report SESBI-R have demonstrated adequate construct validity (Rayfield, 1998). The original SESBI was sensitive to treatment (McNeil et al., 1991), but the sensitivity of the SESBI-R has yet to be examined. A study by Schuhmann (1999) found significant correlations between SESBI-R scores and the number of conduct-related discipline referrals and school or bus suspensions, showing the SESBI-R to have significant predictive validity. The items on the SESBI-R have strong coefficients of internal consistency for the whole sample and for the major demographic subgroups within the sample (Rayfield, 1998).</p> <p>The ECBI was the second most commonly used outcome measure from among the included 50 articles used by Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017), appearing in 13 articles for a 26% frequency of use. The teacher version of the SESBI was not used in any of these studies. Mean effect size comparisons of the ECBI father responses (see Table 2) found no significant differences in effect sizes when compared with mother responses to the ECBI, father responses to the CBCL Aggression subscale, and father responses to the PDR. However, average effect sizes for ECBI father responses were higher when compared with the CBCL TPB scale of fathers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.91, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-F-TPB</subs> =.70; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359) and mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.91, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-TPB</subs> =.66; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359), and the Parent Problem Checklist (PPCL) responses for fathers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.57, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-F</subs> = -.12; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255) and mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.57, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-M</subs> =.27; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255). In contrast, average effect sizes for ECBI father responses were significantly lower when compared with the CBCL Aggression subscale of mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.42, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-F-Agg</subs> =.67; <emph>k</emph> = 2; <emph>n</emph> = 203) and mother responses to the PDR (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.57, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-M</subs> = 1.00; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255). These were all reasonably robust findings given sample sizes greater than 200 participants for each comparison.</p> <p>Pertaining to mother responses to the ECBI, no significant differences in effect sizes were noted when it was compared with father responses to the ECBI, or father responses to the CBCL Aggression subscale. However, average effect sizes for ECBI mother responses were higher when compared with the CBCL TPB scale of fathers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.96, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-F-TPB</subs> =.70; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359) and mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.96, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-TPB</subs> =.66; <emph>k</emph> = 7; <emph>n</emph> = 359), father responses to the PDR (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.83, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-F</subs> =.49; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255), and the PPCL responses for fathers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.83, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-F</subs> = -.12; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255) and mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.83, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-M</subs> =.27; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255). In contrast, average effect sizes for ECBI mother responses were significantly lower when compared with the CBCL Aggression subscale of mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.52, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-F-Agg</subs> =.67; <emph>k</emph> = 2; <emph>n</emph> = 203) and mother responses to the PDR (<emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.83, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-M</subs> = 1.00; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255). Again, sample sizes greater than 200 participants for each comparison probably indicate these were all reasonably robust findings.</p> <hd id="AN0134456080-4">Review and Analysis of the Conners-3 Rating Scale</hd> <p>The Conners-3 Rating Scale (Conners, 2008) is a Level B, multi-informant system designed to identify problem behaviors in children by gathering observable data from self-report (starting at 8 years), parent-report, and teacher-report versions using full-length, short, or brief index forms. The Conners-3 is primarily used to assess attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder in children and adolescents ages 6 to 18 years, although other key areas include learning problems and family and peer relations. Global index forms assessing general psychopathology are also included for use with parents and teachers only, and the self-report and parent-report forms are available in Spanish. The multi-informant system attempts to capture all aspects of a child's life: The self-report portion acts as personal insight and awareness of functioning, whereas the parent and teacher reports reveal facets of home and school life.</p> <p>A stratified sample of 3,400 Conners-3 assessments were obtained to represent the U.S. population and construct norms. Pricing for the manual and kit is moderately expensive. The Conners-3 hand-scored kit costs $499. This kit includes the manual; 25 self-report, parent, and teacher full-length forms; and 25 self-report, parent, and teacher short forms, so administration of a single form is about $2.50 to a single respondent (Multi-Health Systems, 2015).</p> <p>Administration times for this instrument vary depending on the form. For example, the full-length parent version of the Conners-3 takes approximately 20 min to complete, whereas short forms and index forms usually take 10 and 5 min, respectively. All items are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (<emph>not true at all</emph>) to 3 (<emph>very much true</emph>), based on observations over the past month. The Conners-3 can be administered and scored using the paper-and-pencil format by hand, the Conners-3 software program score and report generator, or the Conners-3 online program. The Conners-3 provides separate scoring and interpretation guidelines for gender (male and female) in 1-year age intervals (6-18 years). Raw scores are converted to <emph>T</emph> scores (<emph>M</emph> = 50, <emph>SD</emph> = 10) or percentiles. Regarding racial diversity, the Conners-3 closely approximated the 2000 U.S. Census for the parent version (61% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% African American, 5% Asian, and 4% other), teacher version (58% White, 17% Hispanic, 16% African American, 6% Asian, and 3% other), and self-report version (61% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% African American, 5% Asian, and 4% other).</p> <p>Internal consistency reliability coefficients ranged from.77 to.97 for the total sample. Specifically, the total sample of self-report forms alphas ranged from.81 to.92, with the median at.88. The total sample alphas of parent-report forms ranged from.83 to.94, with the median at.91. The total sample alphas of teacher-report forms ranged from.77 to.97, with the median at.92. Test-retest reliability (given a 2-4-week time period interval) coefficients ranged from.71 to.98 for the total sample. Specifically, the total sample of self-report forms ranged from.75 to.83, with the median at.88, the total sample of parent-report forms ranged from.72 to.98, with the median at.85, and the total sample of teacher-report forms ranged from.78 to.90, with the median at.84. Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from.52 to.94, recording the consistency between parent and teacher report forms on a child. For interrater reliability, the total sample of parent-report forms ranged from.74 to.84, with the median at.81, and the total sample of teacher-report forms ranged from.52 to.82, with the median at.73.</p> <p>Conners (2008) used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to assess factorial validity, concluding that the general factor structure of the three forms is consistent across demographic groups and that the parent and teacher forms are satisfactory, with teacher ratings being slightly lower than parent ratings. To evaluate convergent and divergent validity, the Conners-3 is compared with the Behavior Assessment System for Children (2nd ed.; BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus [2004]), the ASEBA (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000). The correlation ranges for the BASC-2 were.41 to.91 (Hyperactivity subscale),.66 to.92 (Learning Problems subscale), and -.35 to -.57 (Social Skills subscale). The correlation ranges for the ASEBA were.72 to.96 (Attention Problem subscale) and.58 to.93 (Aggressive Behavior subscale). The correlation range for the BRIEF was.70 to.87 (Planning and Organization subscale). Covariance and discriminant function analyses were used to assess discriminative validity of 72.92% for self-report, 77.61% for parent report, and 75.59% for teacher report (Kao & Thomas, 2010).</p> <p>The Conners Rating Scales was tied for the fifth most commonly used outcome measure from among the included 50 articles from the Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) meta-analyses. It was used in three articles for a 6% frequency of use. Unfortunately, only one study (Kendall, Reber, McLeer, Epps, & Ronan, 1990) allowed comparison of the Conners to another instrument (the CBCL). However, because the article was published in 1990, that study used an older version of the Conners rather than the Conners-3 (Conners, 2008). That comparison indicated equivalent effect size estimates between the Conners Conduct Problems subscale and mother responses to the CBCL Externalizing factor (<emph>d</emph><subs>Conners</subs> =.12, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-Ext</subs> =.36; <emph>k</emph> = 1; <emph>n</emph> = 29).</p> <hd id="AN0134456080-5">Review and Analysis of the Parent Daily Report</hd> <p>The PDR is a Level A parent observation assessment checklist of behavior problems developed for use with children 4 to 10 years old (Chamberlain & Reid, 1987). It is a free access instrument that requires parents to indicate the absence or presence of a certain behavior observed in their child within the past 24 hr (Hurley, 2000). Behavior is recorded using a dichotomous scale of 0 and 1, where 0 indicates the behavior did occur and 1 indicates the behavior did not occur. Therefore, the PDR does not ask the parents to indicate frequency or intensity of a particular behavior, only occurrence. There are a total of 30 items depicting observable behavior problems, including aggressiveness, competitiveness, defiance, fearfulness, irritableness, negativism, hyperactiveness, and yelling, to name a few.</p> <p>The PDR is typically administered via telephone, with parents asked to identify which behaviors actually occurred in the past 24 hr. Administration can be repeated on —three to five separate occasions to provide a stable estimate of behaviors over a number of days without relying on rater aggregate recall (Chamberlain et al., 2006). The PDR yields two scores: the Total Behavior score and the Targeted Behavior score. The Total Behavior score is the sum of all occurrences on a given day. The Targeted Behavior score is the sum of all occurrences of previously identified problem behaviors indicated by the parents. To represent the population, the PDR was normed using a predominately White sample of 81 families. Of the sample families, 36% were headed by single mothers. The families were screened to make sure they had not sought psychological services within the past 12 months and to make sure the children were not enrolled in special education classes. Raw scores are used to interpret PDR results. No information related to the diversity of the standardization sample was available.</p> <p>Temporal stability over a span of 12 days was <emph>r</emph> =.82 (Chamberlain & Reid, 1987). Interrater reliability among parents was <emph>r</emph> =.89 for Targeted Behaviors and <emph>r</emph> =.02 for Total Behavior. This suggests that parents agree more on behaviors previously identified as problematic rather than on actual problem behaviors. A factor analysis was conducted to delineate the relationships among items. The score for each day (over a span of 12 days) was entered into the factor analysis. From there, the mean of the scores was calculated for each PDR behavior. Of the total 34 items, 33 items form four clusters with poor internal consistency (Aggression =.618-.759; Immature =.523-.748; Unsocialized =.294-.765; Retaliation =.455-.908). Criterion-related validity, specifically concurrent validity, was assessed alongside the Becker Adjective Checklist (BAC; Patterson & Fagot, 1967). The factors measuring aggression and behavioral problems in the BAC related to the PDR Total Behavior scores (aggression <emph>r</emph> =.49, conduct problems <emph>r</emph> =.41, less relaxed <emph>r</emph> =.36). The same factors measuring aggression and behavioral problems in the BAC also related to the PDR Targeted Behavior scores (aggression <emph>r</emph> =.55, conduct problems <emph>r</emph> =.48, less relaxed <emph>r</emph> =.35). Correlations were obtained for both the child's observed average rate per minute from the BAC total aversive behavior (TAB) and the PDR Targeted and Total Behavior scores. The correlation between the BAC TAB and the PDR Targeted Behavior scores was <emph>r</emph> =.48, and the correlation between the BAC TAB and the PDR Total Behavior scores was <emph>r</emph> =.19.</p> <p>The PDR was tied with the RBPC for the third most commonly used outcome measure from among the 50 independent articles included in Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017), used in five articles for a 10% frequency of use (see Table 1). In all comparisons, mother responses to the PDR had significantly higher effect sizes, even when compared to father responses on the PDR in the same studies (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-M</subs> = 1.00, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-F</subs> =.49; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255), meaning mother responses to the PDR likely inflate effect size estimates. Other significantly elevated comparisons with mother PDR responses include mother responses to the CBCL TPB scale (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.28, <emph>d</emph><subs>CBCL-M-TPB</subs> =.54; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 97); TRF-TPB (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.28, <emph>d</emph><subs>TRF-TPB</subs> =.53; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 97); ECBI mother responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.00, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.83; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255), and father responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-M</subs> = 1.00, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-F</subs> =.57; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255); the PPCL responses for fathers (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-M</subs> = 1.00, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-F</subs> = -.12; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255) and mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-M</subs> = 1.00, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-M</subs> =.27; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255); IAB (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.28, <emph>d</emph><subs>IAB</subs> =.39; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 97); and the SRDC (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.28, <emph>d</emph><subs>SRDC</subs> =.39; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 97).</p> <p>Pertaining to father responses to the PDR, no significant differences in effect sizes were noted when it was compared with father responses to the ECBI. However, average effect sizes for PDR father responses were higher when compared with the PPCL responses for fathers (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-F</subs> =.49, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-F</subs> = -.12; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255) and mothers (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-F</subs> =.49, <emph>d</emph><subs>PPCL-M</subs> =.27; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255). In contrast, average effect sizes for PDR father responses were significantly lower when compared with the PDR mother responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-F</subs> =.49, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-M</subs> = 1.00; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255) and mother responses to the ECBI (<emph>d</emph><subs>PDR-F</subs> =.49, <emph>d</emph><subs>ECBI-M</subs> =.83; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 255). Again, sample sizes greater than 250 participants for each comparison probably indicate these were all reasonably robust findings.</p> <hd id="AN0134456080-6">Review and Analysis of the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist</hd> <p>The RBPC (Quay & Peterson, 1987) assesses problem behavior for youth ages 5 to 18 and consists of six empirically derived scales: Conduct Disorder (CD), Socialized Aggression (SA), Attention Problems-Immaturity (AP), Anxiety-Withdrawal (AW), Psychotic Behavior (PB), and Motor Tension-Excess (ME). Separate norms are available by gender and either age or school grade. The RBPC was designed for use with adults who have extensive knowledge of the child (e.g., teacher, parent) and it is written at a sixth-grade reading level. The system includes the RBPC manual, the RBPC test booklet, and the RBPC profile sheet, which can be purchased as a kit for $244. This kit includes 50 copies of the test booklets and 50 copies of the profile sheets, so each administration costs about $2.00 per respondent.</p> <p>The test booklet consists of a total of 89 problem behavior items scaled from 0 to 2—0 (<emph>not a problem</emph>), 1 (<emph>mild problem</emph>), and 2 (<emph>severe problem</emph>)—although only 77 items are scored. The RBPC is available in paper-and-pencil format and takes about 20 min to administer and 10 min to score. It has been translated into eight languages, including Spanish. Administration and scoring is rather straightforward; however, interpretation requires qualified professionals (Level C) with a master's degree or greater who have knowledge of diagnosis, theories of personality development, psychopathology, and the appropriate uses and limitations of behavioral rating scales. Raw scores for the RBPC are converted into <emph>T</emph> scores. Racial diversity of the standardization sample was 90% White and 10% other.</p> <p>The RBPC reports acceptable reliability. The internal consistency (α) subscale averages were.94 for CD,.90 for SA,.90 for AP,.83 for AW,.73 for PB, and.76 for ME. The interrater reliability ranged from.52 to.85 for teachers and from.55 to.93 for parents (Lahey & Piacentini, 1985). The specific subscale averages were <emph>r</emph> =.85 for CD, <emph>r</emph> =.75 for SA, <emph>r</emph> =.53 for AP, <emph>r</emph> =.52 for AW, <emph>r</emph> =.58 for PB, and <emph>r</emph> =.58 for ME (Quay & Peterson, 1987). Test-retest reliability (over a span of 2-4 weeks) ranged from.49 to.83 across all subscales (Lahey & Piacentini, 1985). The specific subscale averages were <emph>r<subs>tt</subs></emph> =.63 for CD, <emph>r<subs>tt</subs></emph> =.49 for SA, <emph>r<subs>tt</subs></emph> =.83 for AP, <emph>r<subs>tt</subs></emph> =.79 for AW, <emph>r<subs>tt</subs></emph> =.61 for PB, and <emph>r<subs>tt</subs></emph> =.68 for ME (Quay & Peterson, 1987).</p> <p>A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to measure construct validity for the RBPC (Lahey & Piacentini, 1985). For this factor analysis, items were pooled from both the RBPC and the Behavior Problem Checklist (BPC) based on consistently loaded factors. Therefore, the results from the factor analysis showed high convergent and divergent validity with the BPC. The range for correlation on similar factors is.63 to.97 for samples of parent and teacher ratings provided for both normal and clinical populations. The Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI) was used to assess concurrent validity. Peer-rated aggression on the PEI was correlated with the RBPC subscales. A correlation of.72 was found for CD. A correlation range of.36 to.44 was found for PB. The researchers indicated that the PEI was also significantly correlated with the RBPC's SA and AP; however, exact correlation coefficients were not provided. It should be noted that the RBPC lacks national norms.</p> <p>The RBPC was also tied for the third most commonly used outcome measure from among the included 50 articles from the Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) meta-analyses, and was used in five articles for a 10% frequency of use. Only two comparisons for the RBPC emerged from the 50 articles and both indicated that the average effect sizes for RBPC responses were significantly lower when compared with SRDC responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>RBPC</subs> =.14, <emph>d</emph><subs>SRDC</subs> =.36; <emph>k</emph> = 2; <emph>n</emph> = 224) and the Missouri Peer Relations Scale (<emph>d</emph><subs>RBPC</subs> = -.08, <emph>d</emph><subs>Missouri</subs> =.34; <emph>k</emph> = 1; <emph>n</emph> = 84).</p> <hd id="AN0134456080-7">Review and Analysis of the Self-Reported Delinquency Checklist</hd> <p>The SRDC is a free access, Level A instrument measuring delinquent behaviors in adolescents 11 to 17 years old (Elliott et al., 1983). First developed for the National Youth Survey, it assesses the frequency of misbehavior occurrences in the past year that are illegal and often comorbid with conduct disorder. The SRDC is made up of 47 items that list and describe a wide range of illegal acts for which a youth could be arrested (e.g., stealing, being involved in fights, running away from home, damaging property, sexual assault, etc.). It yields a total delinquency score, as well as scores for each of the following subscales: predatory crimes against persons (e.g., assault), predatory crimes against property (e.g., vandalism), illegal service crimes (e.g., selling drugs), status crimes (e.g., running away), and hard drug use (e.g., heroin and cocaine).</p> <p>The SRDC is an established self-report instrument, with administration simply involving supplying the assessment and proctoring until the adolescent is finished. The national sample for the SRDC included 1,725 adolescents, and the SDRC is considered the best validated of the self-report delinquency scales (Henggeler, 1989). No information about the racial diversity of the standardization sample was available. Internal consistency and 4-week test-retest reliability were reported as adequate, although exact coefficients were not included in the original psychometric report. Elliott et al. (1983) provided evidence of content, external, and concurrent validity. Other studies supported the SDRC's discriminant and predictive validity with offenders (Dunford & Elliott, 1984; Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). Because both nonoffenders and offenders are included in the original standardization sample, the SRDC can be used in both normative and clinical decision making. Mean delinquency scores reported with the National Youth Survey sample were 26.8 (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.5). Unfortunately, no information regarding factor analysis and convergent validity is available.</p> <p>The SRDC was tied for the fifth most commonly used outcome measure from among the 50 independent articles included in Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017), being used in three articles for a 6% frequency of use (see Table 1). No significant differences in effect sizes were noted when the SRDC was compared with mother responses to the CBCL TPB scale, the TRF TPB scale, the IAB (Kazdin & Esveldt-Dawson, 1986), and the Missouri Peer Relations Inventory (Borduin, Blaske, Cone, Mann, & Hazelrigg, 1989). However, the average effect size for SRDC responses was higher when compared with the RBPC responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>SRDC</subs> =.36, <emph>d</emph><subs>RBPC</subs> =.14; <emph>k</emph> = 2; <emph>n</emph> = 224). In contrast, the average effect size for SRDC responses was significantly lower when compared with the PDR responses (<emph>d</emph><subs>SRDC</subs> =.39, <emph>d</emph><subs>PDR</subs> = 1.28; <emph>k</emph> = 3; <emph>n</emph> = 97). Of course, caution is warranted with smaller participant samples.</p> <hd id="AN0134456080-8">Limitations and Implications for Counseling Research and Practice</hd> <p>Several limitations for this study need to be taken into consideration before interpretation of the findings. First, although the authors employed comprehensive search strategies to identify quality studies published between 1990 and 2014 that examined counseling treatment outcomes for youth with oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorders using standardized instruments, only 50 peer-reviewed articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria for the Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) meta-analyses. The limited number of published studies examining the effectiveness of counseling treatment for youth with problem behaviors also meant that a small pool of studies provided adequate psychometric data on the reliability and validity of the outcome measures used, and an even smaller subset offered comparisons of multiple outcome measures within the same clinical trials. Thus, out of 32 different outcome variables used across the 50 articles, only 6 instruments were used more than twice, limiting comparisons between multiple problem behavior outcome measures. Therefore, the combination of small number of studies (<emph>ks</emph> of 1-11), relatively small combined samples (<emph>ns</emph> of 29-623), great variability of instruments used, and lack of adequate psychometric information on some of the instruments used, could have affected the effect size comparisons between outcome measures. For example, a researcher can have more confidence in the comparison of the CBCL-Mother-Externalizing factor's (.71 [.57,.85]) significantly higher effect size in comparison with the TRF-Externalizing factor (.42 [.28,.56]) than the CBCL-Mother-Aggression subscale's (.27 [-.13,.67]) equivalent effect size comparison with the TRF-Aggression subscale (.18 [-.22,.58]) because the former effect size comparison involved four studies and 210 participants, whereas the latter analysis reflected a single study and 24 participants. Thus, the former analysis was more powerful than the latter. Although our findings reflect a comprehensive and accurate depiction of the currently available data regarding problem behavior outcome measures used in studies examining counseling effectiveness with youth, the potential low power warrants caution in interpretation. Future counseling outcome research studies involving school-aged youth with problem behaviors that produce essential psychometric evidence on instruments used will increase the potential for more robust comparisons, bolstering confidence in interpretations.</p> <p>Our comprehensive review of the selected 50 articles for the Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) meta-analyses revealed that only 24 of 50 articles used more than one measure for evaluating problem behavior treatment outcomes in school-aged youth. Using more than one instrument is a best practice when evaluating treatment effectiveness, so this is an important implication for future counseling research. Using multiple high-quality measures would not only ensure that potential instrument sensitivity issues to treatment changes were being addressed, but it would also allow for triangulation of results through different problem behavior measures. Using these practices would have direct implications on the accurate and thorough documentation of treatment effects in school-aged youth with behavior problems, and would facilitate the comparison of treatment effects across various measures and studies. If these recommended practices were commonly used across outcome studies of problem behavior, they would have dramatically increased the power of the analyses in this study. For example, instead of the resulting <emph>k</emph> comparisons of 1 to 11 studies per instrument pairing reported here, there would have been many more study comparisons, in the range of <emph>k ∼</emph> 20. This range would have resulted in increased statistical power in the analysis, and more robust findings (Cornwell & Ladd, 1993).</p> <p>As comprehensive psychometric reviews of problem behavior measures such as this study become more available, counseling researchers can make informed decisions regarding instrument selection and utilization that match the specific purposes and populations of their study. As instruments vary in psychometric strength, selecting instruments with established score reliability and validity for a specific population facilitates accurate measurement of treatment effects. Table 1 provides a summary of instrument characteristics and psychometrics, ranging from acceptable to good. It should be noted that the ASEBA, considered the standard against which other instruments assessing child psychopathology are compared, was by far the most commonly used instrument in disruptive behavior outcome research.</p> <p>Despite the wide selection of problem behavior inventories for school-aged youth, few established instruments exist that offer parent- and teacher-report versions. Although self-report instruments of problem behavior can be helpful in counseling research and practice, testing effects or changes in content validity across different ages represent a measurement problem that can be circumvented through triangulation. Therefore, instruments such as the ASEBA and Conners-3, which include both self- and other-informant versions, and incorporate adults with knowledge of the child to assess their behavior, can be especially appealing to researchers measuring treatment outcomes with school-aged youth. Alternatively, the codeveloped ECBI and SESBI-R lack a self-report version, but elicit responses from both parents and teachers, respectively, allowing opportunity for triangulating results.</p> <p>Although our findings indicate that some instruments might be better suited to measure behavior problems in school-aged youth, there are also some practical considerations that might influence instrument selection by counseling researchers and practitioners (see Tables 1 & 3). Cost might be a prominent consideration for counseling researchers and practitioners in deciding whether to use free access versus purchased instruments. The PDR and SRDC are both free access instruments, although they are parent-report and self-report instruments, respectively, and lack multiple informant versions. They also provide only adequate degrees of score validity evidence and have restricted scales to interpret; the SRDC only yields a total score to interpret. The PDR also likely provides inflated effect size estimates. Balancing cost-effectiveness with adequate psychometrics, the ASEBA and the ECBI and SESBI-R instruments are relatively inexpensive options. However, considerations regarding ease of administration, scoring, and interpretation might also influence instrument selection. Although several instruments present advantages in this regard, the ECBI and SESBI-R are paper-and-pencil measures that can be quickly administered (5-10 min) and hand-scored in under 5 min. In contrast, the RBPC takes 20 to 30 min to administer, costs more than $4.00 per administration, and requires Level C psychometric training. An additional consideration is that the RPBC, PDR, and SRDC also had the least diverse standardization samples among the six reviewed instruments.</p> <p>Summary of Instrument Cost, Diversity of the Standardization Sample, Reliability, Validity, and Conceptual Content.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="9"><tbody><tr><td align="left">Name</td><td align="center">Version</td><td align="center">Cost</td><td align="center">Diversity of Standardization Sample</td><td align="center">Alphas</td><td align="center"><italic>r<sub>tt</sub></italic></td><td align="center">Construct Validity</td><td align="center">Concurrent Validity</td><td align="center">Conceptual Content</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left">ASEBA</td><td align="left">CBCL</td><td align="center">$1.20</td><td align="left">60% White, 9% Hispanic, 20% African American, 12% mixed or other</td><td align="center">.72-.97</td><td align="center">.80-.94<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate to excellent</td><td align="left">Internalizing, externalizing, empirically based, <italic>DSM</italic>-oriented</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">TRF</td><td align="center">$1.20</td><td align="left">60% White, 8% Hispanic, 20% African American, 11% mixed or other</td><td align="center">.72-.97</td><td align="center">.60-.96<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate to excellent</td><td align="left">Internalizing, externalizing, empirically based, <italic>DSM</italic>-oriented</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">YSR</td><td align="center">$1.20</td><td align="left">72% White, 9% Hispanic, 14% African American, 7% mixed or other</td><td align="center">.67-.95</td><td align="center">.67-.89<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate to excellent</td><td align="left">Internalizing, externalizing, empirically based, <italic>DSM</italic>-oriented</td></tr><tr><td align="left">ECBI</td><td align="left" /><td align="center">$1.80</td><td align="left">74% White, 3% Hispanic, 19% African American, 4% other</td><td align="center">.93-.95</td><td align="center">.75-.85<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn2"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Behavior problems and intensity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SESBI</td><td align="left" /><td align="center">$1.80</td><td align="left">50% White, 49% African American, 1% other</td><td align="center">.96-.98</td><td align="center">.87-.98<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn2"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Behavior problems and intensity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PDR</td><td align="left" /><td align="center">Free</td><td align="left">Predominantly White</td><td align="center">.46-.91</td><td align="center">.82<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Total behavior, aggression, conduct problems, less relaxed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">RPBC</td><td align="left" /><td align="center">$4.45</td><td align="left">90% White, 10% other</td><td align="center">.73-.94</td><td align="center">.63-.83</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Conduct disorder, socialized aggression, attention problems-immaturity, anxiety-withdrawal, psychotic behavior, motor tension-excess</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SRD</td><td align="left" /><td align="center">Free</td><td align="center">N/A</td><td align="center">N/A</td><td align="center">N/A</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Adequate</td><td align="left">Total score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conners-3<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn3"><sup>c</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Parent</td><td align="center">$2.60</td><td align="left">61% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% African American, 5% Asian, 4% other</td><td align="center">.83-.94</td><td align="center">.67-.95<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn2"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate to excellent</td><td align="left">ADHD, ODD, CD, inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, learning problems, aggression</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Teacher</td><td align="center">$2.60</td><td align="left">58% White, 17% Hispanic, 16% African American, 6% Asian, 3% other</td><td align="center">.77-.97</td><td align="center">.72-.83<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn2"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate to excellent</td><td align="left">ADHD, ODD, CD, inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, learning problems, aggression</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Self</td><td align="center">$2.60</td><td align="left">61% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% African American, 5% Asian, 4% mixed or other</td><td align="center">.81-.92</td><td align="center">.63-.81<xref ref-type="fn" rid="bfn2"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td align="left">Excellent</td><td align="left">Adequate to excellent</td><td align="left">ADHD, ODD, CD, inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, learning problems, aggression</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> <emph>Note.</emph> ASEBA = Achenbach System of Empirically-Based Assessment; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; <emph>DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders;</emph> TRF = Teacher Rating Form; YSR = Youth Self-Report; ECBI = Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; SESBI = Sutter-Eyberg School Behavior Inventory; PDR = Parent Daily Report; RBPC = Revised Behavior Problem Checklist; SRDC = Self-Reported Delinquency Checklist; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; ODD = oppositional defiant disorder; CD = conduct disorder; N/A = not available.</p> <p>1 1-2-week test-retest interval.</p> <ulist> <item>2 3-4-week test-retest interval.</item> <item>3 Has both long- and short-form versions.</item> </ulist> <p>The Conners-3 offers the greatest customization for administration and scoring, with full-length, short, and index forms that can take anywhere from 5 to 20 min to administer, as well as multiple modes of administration and scoring (hand, computer), although at $2.60 per administration it costs notably more than most other instruments. Considering all these factors, the ASEBA, ECBI, and SESBI-R instruments seem to combine several optimal factors, including adequate psychometrics, multiple informant versions, cost-effectiveness, and ease of administration, making them a good option for assessing problem behaviors in school-aged youth. However, we recommend use of the new ASEBA <emph>DSM</emph>-oriented ODD and CD subscales over the more nebulous Externalizing and TPB scales. However, for assessment of ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorders, the Conners-3 long versions are perhaps the best measures available because the parent, teacher, and self-report versions each contain the <emph>DSM-IV-TR</emph> diagnostic criteria, and provide both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced interpretive strategies for these important disruptive behavior scales. Although the Conners-3 is a popular scale with counseling practitioners (Peterson et al., 2014) and counselor educators (Neukrug et al., 2013), it and the SRDC were the least frequently used assessments in the youth problem behavior research. The Conners-3 is highly recommended for clinical and research purposes with school-aged youth. Likewise, the Conners-3 and ASEBA <emph>DSM</emph>-oriented subscales are highly recommended as good choices for outcome research-dependent variables: They are closely aligned with state-of-the-art diagnostic criteria and have adequate to excellent psychometric characteristics (see Table 3).</p> <p>Finally, an examination of the effect sizes comparisons conducted in this article suggests that ASEBA scales (CBCL and TRF) yield more conservative (lower) estimates than the ECBI and PDR, and mostly equivalent estimates when compared to other measures. Father and teacher ASEBA responses were generally more conservative than mother responses. This indicates that father and teacher responses to the ASEBA are unlikely to overestimate clinical effectiveness of problem behavior treatment. In comparing the ECBI and PDR mother responses, it appears that average effect sizes for ECBI mother responses were significantly lower, informing choice between these two instruments. Interestingly, the PDR mother responses had significantly higher effect sizes in all comparisons with other instruments, suggesting that PDR responses, in general, and mother responses to the PDR, specifically, likely inflate effect size estimates. Finally the SRDC emerged as mostly equivalent with other measures, and yielding more conservative estimates than the PDR. Limited comparisons among the Conners-3, RBPC, and other scales preclude extensive conclusions regarding the effect size estimates of these instruments.</p> <p>In conclusion, the availability of numerous instruments measuring problem behaviors in school-aged children for both clinical and research purposes invites careful consideration on behalf of counseling practitioners and researchers. Our review of these instruments is not intended to offer definitive solutions, but to facilitate the decision-making process along a continuum of factors and context-specific considerations. It is our recommendation that use of more than one instrument, and concomitant collection of multiple respondent perspectives, will aid in the documentation of client outcomes, and identification of instruments that are responsive to treatment change and promote problem behavior research and treatment in school-aged youth.</p> <p>Counseling researchers play a unique role in the advancement of counseling through the contribution of high-quality and clinically meaningful research (Lampropoulos, Spengler, Dixon, & Nicholas, 2002). It is interesting to note that of the 50 articles identified in the Erford et al. (2014) and Erford et al. (2017) meta-analyses that encompassed studies published from 1990 to 2014, only one study was published in an American Counseling Association family journal. Beyond the responsibility to contribute to evidence-based practice through conducting clinical trials evaluating counseling outcomes, counseling scholars are charged with sustaining the scientific foundation of the profession. Communicating counseling outcome research findings to other counselors can be maximized through dissemination of research in counseling journals, enhancing research impact and advancing the parity of the counseling field.</p> <ref id="AN0134456080-9"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. ( 2001 ). <emph>Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles</emph>. Burlington, VT : University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. ( 2013 ). <emph>Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders</emph> ( 5th ed.). Washington, DC : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Borduin, C. M., Blaske, D. M., Cone, L., Mann, B. J., & Hazelrigg, M. D. ( 1989 ). <emph>Development and validation of a measure of adolescent peer relations: The Missouri Peer Relations Inventory</emph>. Columbia, MO : Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Calzada, E. J., Eyberg, S. M., Rich, B., & Querido, J. G. ( 2004 ). Parenting disruptive preschoolers: Experiences of mothers and fathers. <emph>Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology</emph>, <emph>32</emph>, 203 - 213. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/B:JACP.0000019771.43161.1c</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chamberlain, P., Price, J. M., Reid, J. B., Landsverk, J., Fisher, P. A., & Stoolmiller, M. ( 2006 ). Who disrupts from placement in foster and kinship care? <emph>Child Abuse and Neglect</emph>, <emph>30</emph>, 409 - 424. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. ( 1987 ). Parent observation and report of child symptoms. <emph>Behavioral Assessment</emph>, <emph>9</emph>, 97 - 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Conners, C. K. ( 2008 ). <emph>Conners</emph> ( 3rd ed. ). North Tonawanda, NY : Multi-Health Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cornwell, J. M., & Ladd, R. T. ( 1993 ). Power and accuracy of the Schmidt and Hunter meta-analytic procedures. <emph>Educational & Psychological Measurement</emph>, <emph>53</emph>, 877 - 895.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dunford, F. W., & Elliott, D. S. ( 1984 ). Identifying career offenders using self-reported data. <emph>Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency</emph>, <emph>21</emph>, 57 - 86. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022427884021001004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenstadt, T. H., McElreath, L. H., Eyberg, S., & Bodiford McNeil, C. ( 1994 ). Interparent agreement on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. <emph>Child & Family Behavior Therapy</emph>, <emph>16</emph> ( 1 ), 21 - 27. https://doi.org/ 10.1300/J019v16n01_02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B. A., & Canter, R. J. ( 1983 ). The prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior: 1976-1980. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/128841NCJRS.pdf">www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/128841NCJRS.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. ( 1985 ). <emph>Explaining delinquency and drug use</emph>. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erford, B. T. ( 2013 ). <emph>Assessment for counselors</emph> (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA : Cengage Wadsworth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erford, B. T., Bardhoshi, G., Ross, M., Gunther, C., & Duncan, K. ( 2017 ). Meta-analysis of counseling outcomes for youth with conduct disorders. <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>, <emph>95</emph>, 35 - 44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erford, B. T., Paul, L. E., Oncken, C., Kress, V. E., & Erford, M. R. ( 2014 ). Counseling outcomes for youth with oppositional behavior: A meta-analysis. <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>, <emph>92</emph>, 13 - 24. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00125.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erford, B. T., Savin-Murphy, J. A., & Butler, C. ( 2010 ). Conducting a meta-analysis of counseling outcome research: Twelve steps and practical procedures. <emph>Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation</emph>, <emph>1</emph>, 19 - 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150137809356682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eyberg, S., & Pincus, D. ( 1999 ). <emph>Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory & Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised: Professional manual</emph>. Odessa, FL : Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eyberg, S., & Robinson, E. ( 1983 ). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of a behavior rating scale with adolescents. <emph>Journal of Clinical Child Psychology</emph>, <emph>12</emph>, 347 - 354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funderburk, B. W., Eyberg, S. M., Rich, B. A., & Behar, L. ( 2003 ). Further psychometric evaluation of the Eyberg and Behar rating scales for parents and teachers of preschoolers. <emph>Early Education and Development</emph>, <emph>14</emph> ( 1 ), 67 - 82. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15566935eed1401_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia-Tornel, S., Calzada, E. J., Eyberg, S. M., Alguacil, J. M., Serra, C. V., Mendoza, C. B., & Domenech, A. T. ( 1998 ). Inventario Eyberg del Comportamiento en Ninos: Normalizacion de la version espanola y su utilidad para el pediatra extrahospitalario [Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Standardization of the Spanish version and its utility in pediatric practice ]. <emph>Anales Espanoles de Pediatria</emph>, <emph>48</emph>, 475 - 482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. ( 2000 ). <emph>Manual for the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)</emph>. Odessa, FL : Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, D., Fogg, L., Webster-Stratton, C., Garvey, C., Julion, W., & Grady, J. ( 2003 ). Parent training of toddlers in day care in low-income urban communities. <emph>Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology</emph>, <emph>71</emph>, 261. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. ( 1985 ). <emph>Statistical methods for meta-analysis</emph>. Orlando, FL : Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henggeler, S. W. ( 1989 ). <emph>Delinquency in adolescence</emph>. Newbury Park, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurley, S. M. ( 2000 ). Parent Daily Report—Child behavior items. Technical report. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.fasttrackproject.org">http://www.fasttrackproject.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kao G. S., & Thomas H. M. ( 2010 ). Test review. <emph>Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment</emph>, <emph>28</emph>, 598 - 602. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0734282909360011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin, A. E., & Esveldt-Dawson, K. ( 1986 ). The Interview for Antisocial Behavior: Psychometric characteristics and concurrent validity with child psychiatric inpatients. <emph>Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment</emph>, <emph>8</emph>, 289 - 303. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00960727</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendall, P., Reber, M., McLeer, S., Epps, J., & Ronan, K. ( 1990 ). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of conduct disordered children. <emph>Cognitive Therapy and Research</emph>, <emph>14</emph>, 279 - 297. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF01183997</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lahey B. B., & Piacentini J. C. ( 1985 ). An evaluation of the Quay -P eterson Revised Behavior Problem Checklist. <emph>The Journal of School Psychology</emph>, <emph>23</emph>, 285 - 289. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0022-4405(85)90021-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lampropoulos, G. K., Spengler, P. M., Dixon, D. N., & Nicholas, D. R. ( 2002 ). How psychotherapy integration can complement the scientist-practitioner model. <emph>Journal of Clinical Psychology</emph>, <emph>58</emph>, 1227 - 1240. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jclp.10108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. ( 2001 ). <emph>Practical meta-analysis</emph>. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeil, C. B., Eyberg, S., Eisenstadt, T., Newcomb, K., & Funderburk, B. ( 1991 ). Parent-child interaction therapy with behavior problem children: Generalization of treatment effects to the school setting. <emph>Journal of Clinical Child Psychology</emph>, <emph>20</emph>, 140 - 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Multi-Health Systems. ( 2015 ). Conners (3rd ed.). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=edu&id=overview&prod=conners3">http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=edu&id=overview&prod=conners3</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Child Traumatic Stress Network. ( 2012 ). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/content/eyberg-child-behavior-inventory-0\</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neukrug, E., Peterson, C. H., Bonner, M., & Lomas, G. I. ( 2013 ). A national survey of assessment instruments taught by counselor educators. <emph>Counselor Education & Supervision</emph>, <emph>52</emph>, 207 - 221. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00038.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson, G. R., & Fagot, B. I.. ( 1967 ). Selective responsiveness to social reinforcers and deviant behaviors in children. <emph>The Psychological Record</emph>, <emph>17</emph>, 369 - 378.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, C. H., Lomas, G. I., Neukrug, E. S., & Bonner, M. W. ( 2014 ). Assessment use by counselors in the United States: Implications for policy and practice. <emph>Journal of Counseling & Development</emph>, <emph>92</emph>, 90 - 98. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00134.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Psychological Assessment Resources. ( 2015 ). Revised Behavior Problem Checklist and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=ECBI">http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=ECBI</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quay, C., & Peterson, C. ( 1987 ). <emph>Revised Behavior Checklist</emph> ( PAR ed. ). Lutz, FL : Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayfield, A. D. ( 1998 ). Concurrent validity of the Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory with grade school children. <emph>Dissertation Abstracts International</emph>, <emph>58</emph>, B3932.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. ( 2004 ). <emph>Manual for the Behavior Assessment System for Children, second edition (BASC-2)</emph>. San Antonio, TX : Pearson Clinical.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, E. A., Eyberg, S., & Ross, A. W. ( 1980 ). The standardization of an inventory of child conduct problem behaviors. <emph>Journal of Clinical Child Psychology</emph>, <emph>9</emph>, 22 - 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuhmann, E. M. ( 1999 ). <emph>Predictive validity of the Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised and the Teacher Report form</emph> ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation ). Gainesville, FL : University of Florida.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J., & Maughan, B. ( 2001 ). Financial cost of social exclusion: Follow up study of antisocial children into adulthood. <emph>BMJ</emph>, <emph>28</emph>, 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scotto Rosato, N., Correll, C. U., Pappadopulos, E., Chait, A., Crystal, S., & Jensen, P. S. ( 2012 ). Treatment of maladaptive aggression in youth: CERT guidelines II. Treatments and ongoing management. <emph>Pediatrics</emph>, <emph>129</emph>, 1577 - 1586. https://doi.org/ 10.1542/peds.2010-1361</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bradley T. Erford; Gerta Bardhoshi; Paige Haecker; Binish Shingari; Jennifer Schleichter and Zümra Atalay</p> <p></p> <p>Bradley T. Erford, PhD, is a professor in the Human Development Counseling Program of the Department of Human and Organizational Development at Peabody College at Vanderbilt University.</p> <p>Gerta Bardhoshi, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Rehabilitation in the School of Education at the University of Iowa.</p> <p>Paige Haecker is a graduate of the school counseling program of the Education Specialties Department in the School of Education at Loyola University Maryland.</p> <p>Binish Shingari is a graduate of the school counseling program of the Education Specialties Department in the School of Education at Loyola University Maryland.</p> <p>Jennifer Schleichter is a graduate of the school counseling program of the Education Specialties Department in the School of Education at Loyola University Maryland.</p> <p>Zümra Atalay, PhD, is an associate professor and Chair of the counseling program in the School of Education at MEF University, Istanbul, Turkey.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1204523
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Selecting Assessment Instruments for Problem Behavior Outcome Research with Youth
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erford%2C+Bradley+T%2E%22">Erford, Bradley T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bardhoshi%2C+Gerta%22">Bardhoshi, Gerta</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haecker%2C+Paige%22">Haecker, Paige</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shingari%2C+Binish%22">Shingari, Binish</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schleichter%2C+Jennifer%22">Schleichter, Jennifer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Atalay%2C+Zümra%22">Atalay, Zümra</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+and+Evaluation+in+Counseling+and+Development%22"><i>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</i></searchLink>. 2019 52(1):52-68.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Check+Lists%22">Check Lists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention+Deficit+Hyperactivity+Disorder%22">Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rating+Scales%22">Rating Scales</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delinquency%22">Delinquency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Disorders%22">Behavior Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Effect+Size%22">Effect Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Behavior+Problem+Checklist%22">Behavior Problem Checklist</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Eyberg+Child+Behavior+Inventory%22">Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Conners+Rating+Scales%22">Conners Rating Scales</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Child+Behavior+Checklist%22">Child Behavior Checklist</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07481756.2017.1358063
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-1756
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Using effect sizes from Erford, Paul, Oncken, Kress, & Erford (2014) meta-analysis for treatments of oppositional defiant disorder and Erford, Bardhoshi, Ross, Gunther, & Duncan (2017) meta-analysis of conduct problems in school-aged youth, the 6 most commonly used disruptive behavior instruments were analyzed for practical and technical strengths and weaknesses, and best use recommendations for screening and counseling outcome research were provided. The instruments included the Achenbach System of Empirically-Based Assessment (ASEBA), Revised Behavior Problem Checklist, Self-Report Delinquency Checklist, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory/Sutter-Eyberg School Behavior Inventory, Conners--3 Rating Scale, and Parent Daily Report.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 45
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1204523
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1204523
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07481756.2017.1358063
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 52
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Check Lists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rating Scales
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delinquency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Effect Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problem Checklist
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conners Rating Scales
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior Checklist
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Selecting Assessment Instruments for Problem Behavior Outcome Research with Youth
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erford, Bradley T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bardhoshi, Gerta
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haecker, Paige
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shingari, Binish
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schleichter, Jennifer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Atalay, Zümra
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-1756
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1