Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and ...

chapter 7 Parent and Teacher Rating Scales177week test-retest studies are also generallysupportive (see Lachar & Gruber, 2001).Interrater reliability between mothers andfathers was generally very good, with coefficientsmostly 0.75 and higher for nonclinic-referredchildren. One exceptionwas the Somatic Complaints scale and itssubscales, with coefficients of 0.49 to 0.54(Lachar & Gruber, 2001).ValiditySeveral types of validity evidence arereported in the PIC-2 manual includingcriterion-related, differential diagnosis,and factorial validity. Factors correspondingto the Externalization, Internalization,Social Adjustment, and Total compositescores are described.The relations between PIC-2 scores andexternal indicators of adjustment are describedin detail in the manual (see Lachar & Gruber,2001). Some of the indicators include teacherSBS and child self-report PIY ratings. Unfortunately,such studies, by being limited tothe PIC “family” of measures, do not allowclinicians to determine the degree to whichPIC-2 results will differ from CBCL, BASC-2, MMPI-A, or other results. Evidence ofthis nature is important, as clinicians oftenuse multiple measures and frequently haveto describe their findings in comparison toprevious evaluation results. The extent ofPIC-2 criterion-related validity evidence tobe found in the manual is sometimes difficultto discern. Considerable reference is made toSBS and PIY validity studies.Children with diagnoses in the clinicalsamples were used to compare PIC-2results for several diagnostic groups usingMANOVAs. Many significant effects werefound. However, sensitivity, specificity, andother typical indices of diagnostic accuracyare not provided.As is the case with the PIY, independentevidence of validity is difficult to obtain atthis time. Several aspects of validity remainto be assessed in order to support clinicians’use of the scale. First priority for furthervalidation is to assess the criterion-relatedvalidity of the PIC-2 with widely used scales,such as the CBCL and BASC-2 PRS becausemany clinicians will be faced with having tointerpret PIC-2 results in tandem with thesemeasures.InterpretationChapter 3 of the PIC-2 manual providesconsiderable guidance to the user. In fact,the sheer amount of tabular informationpresented is potentially overwhelming. Thefrequency of item endorsements for varioussamples, for example, is presented foreach scale. The value of such informationis questionable because it is based on theassumption that an item response is a reliableand valid indicator of some construct,which is a dubious assumption. Nevertheless,the manual provides numerous useful casestudies and correlates of profiles. In addition,the meaning of various T-scores forthe individual scales is thoroughly describedin an additional set of tables. Clinicians willprobably find these descriptions of T-scoreoutcomes to be valuable for deriving scoremeaning.Otherwise, we reiterate our recommendedsequential approach to interpretation(i.e., checking validity scales, criticalitems, scale elevations, subscale elevations,relevant item endorsements, consideringprimary vs. secondary concerns, integrationwith other information).Strengths and WeaknessesPIC-2 strengths include:1. A thorough manual by Lachar and Gruber(2001) that summarizes importantstudies of scale development.2. A great variety of subscale scores thatmay be of value for specialized uses.3. The inclusion of valuable interpretiveguidance in the manual.