Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and ...

chapter 7 Parent and Teacher Rating Scales155on three types of reliability: internal consistency,test-retest reliability, and interraterreliability. With very few exceptions,the scales of the BASC-2-TRS proved tobe quite reliable in the normative sample.More specifically, internal consistency coefficientstended to average well above 0.80across all age groups, and all were 0.75 orhigher. Similarly, test-retest reliability overone to nine weeks was high, with the exceptionof the Anxiety scale, with coefficientsranging from 0.64 for the adolescent versionto 0.77 for the adolescent version. Still,these coefficients are adequate. Finally, theconsistency of ratings between two teacherswas tested in samples of preschool-agechildren (n = 74), school-age children (n =38), and adolescents (n = 58), with moderatereliability estimates emerging acrossage group samples (median coefficients of0.69, 0.60, and 0.52, respectively). Correlationcoefficients tend to be somewhathigher for externalizing than for internalizingproblems consistent with pastresearch (Achenbach, McConaughy, &Howell, 1987). It is also worth noting thatthe coefficients tended to be lower foradolescents, which may be associated withthe limited contact an individual teachermay have with students of that age group.Interrater agreement for Somatization(r = 0.25), Withdrawal (r = 0.24), and Atypicality(r = 0.31) was particularly low forteacher ratings of adolescents.ValidityThe TRS is closely, but not exactly, alignedwith the item content of the PRS. However,the TRS has additional scales (i.e., StudySkills, Learning Problems) that seem particularlyvalid for use with a teacher ratingscale. The BASC-2 manual provides factoranalytic support for the construct validityof the scales and composites of the TRS.In addition, initial research on the TRSshows generally high correlations withanalogous scales from other teacher ratingscales. However, the correspondenceto analogous scales is somewhat lower forinternalizing types of problems than forthe indices of externalizing problems (seeReynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). One notablefinding was the lack of a correlation (i.e.,r = .03) between the TRS Somatizationscale and the Somatic Complaints scale ofthe Achenbach Teacher Report Form. Asignificant limitation of the latest versionof the TRS is the very limited research onits validity and utility outside of what wasconducted by the developers.InterpretationThe BASC-2-TRS includes validity scalesthat provide a useful and efficient firstpoint of interpretation. More specifically,it contains a “fake bad” index (F), whichhelps to assess the possibility that a teacherrated a child in an overly negative pattern.Therefore, interpretation of this scale, inparticular, should be the first step in theinterpretative process, keeping in mind that ahigh score on the F index may actually indicatesignificantly problematic functioning.Therefore, this validity index shouldbe interpreted in the context of otherassessment data. The Consistency Indexand the Response Pattern Index availablefor the TRS (as are available for the PRSand SRP) provide another initial point ofinterpretation. Critical items should bereviewed promptly, because these itemstend to be clinically important indicatorsthat deserve careful follow-up assessment.The reliability estimates at the scalelevel of the TRS are good; therefore, weagain recommend focusing interpretationmainly at the scale, rather than composite,level since more specific information isavailable through the TRS scales. Interpretationsat the item level must be made quitecautiously because of the low reliability ofindividual items. It is often informative tosee which items led to a child’s or adolescent’selevation on a given clinical scales.For example, it may be informative for achild with an elevation on the Adaptabil-