Achenbach System Of Empirically Based Assessments (ASEBA)

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessments (ASEBA) What is the evidence of

What is the evidence of the instruments' validity? Hawes et al. (2020) conducted validity assessments and discovered that the ASEBA has strong internal consistency when compared to the CBCL and DSM-oriented scale. When it comes to construct and content validity, Genzlinger (2020) has a decent set of metrics. The findings of Willems et al. (2017) study demonstrated a high degree of validity. This implies that the test's attributes may be established, scores can be assessed, and then the results can be applied to specific subjects.

What is the evidence of the instruments' reliability? In a one-week period, Hawes et al. (2020) analyzed the test-retest reliability. According to the correlation coefficient, it ranged between 0.80-0.90. Similarly, Genzlinger (2020) found a coefficient of 0.80 dependability in his investigation. ASEBA (2019) found that the dependability of preschoolers, school-aged children, adults, and older adults ranged from 0.76-0.93 to 0.80-0.90, excluding the cross-informant coefficient of 0.39 (aside from the cross-informant coefficient at 0.44).

Hence, ASEBA's test-retest reliability might be believed to be of excellent quality by looking at these data. This data reveals that the test is administered quite consistently, with just a little amount of variation. What is the cost of the instruments? - Today, a single user license costs $295. What are the main reasons you selected these particular assessment instruments over other alternatives? My choice of this specific assessment instrument is based on the fact that it enables for early detection of poor habits and is designed to be used for the rest of one's life to monitor for variations from baseline.

The forms that are utilized are another factor in this evaluation. The open-ended section of the forms allows for additional information from the intended client. The forms may be used to examine a broad spectrum of individuals since they alter depending on the stage of development the subject is in. Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) What is the evidence of the instruments' validity? The significant correlations between the DAST and other drug evaluation devices provide solid proof of its validity and reliability as a criterion (Kim & Hodgins, 2017).

In addition, it has strong construct validity and good discriminatory validity (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2018). Its strong face validity seems to be its principal psychometric constraint. It is possible to consider a high level of face validity as a desirable attribute, depending on the test taker's motives. What is the evidence of the instruments' reliability? The DAST has been tested on a wide variety of demographics, including people of different ethnicities, ages, and mental health diagnoses (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2018).

Definitely, the instrument's psychometric qualities are a big selling point." It is a very accurate measurement with a high coefficient x and great test-retest reliability. Also, it shows strong connections between items and totals (Kim & Hodgins, 2017). What is the cost of the instruments? - The test and the guidebook are free, but the training module costs $75. What are the main reasons you selected these particular assessment instruments over other alternatives ? Although there is some debate over whether this instrument is involved in the norming process, I chose this assessment instrument over others because of the better evidence of reliability and validity, as well as the fact that it is more psychometrically sound than the Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ).

It's important to keep in mind that the DAST is only a screening tool. Because of this, it should not be used as a stand-alone tool for diagnosing drug addiction disorders, but rather in conjunction with a more thorough evaluation of substance use. References Genzlinger, J. (2020). Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the School-age Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Hawes, D. J., Kimonis, E. R., Mendoza Diaz, A., Frick, P. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2020). The Clinical Assessment of Prosocial Emotions (CAPE 1.1): A multi-informant validation study. Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 348. Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol, cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Psychology of addictive behaviors, 31(1), 85. Mulvaney-Day, N., Marshall, T., Piscopo, K. D., Korsen, N., Lynch, S., Karnell, L. H., ... & Ghose, S. S. (2018). Screening for behavioral health conditions in primary care settings: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of general internal medicine, 33(3). Willems, Y. E., Dolan, C. V., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., de Zeeuw, E. L., Boomsma, D. I., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2017, November). The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Self-Control Scale (ASEBA-SCS): assessing self-control in youth. In VNOP-CAS-ISED Days.

Paper For Above instruction

The assessment instruments chosen for psychological and behavioral evaluation—specifically the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessments (ASEBA) and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST)—are supported by substantial psychometric evidence demonstrating their validity and reliability, essential for producing accurate and consistent results in clinical and research settings.

Starting with the ASEBA, its validity is well-established through numerous studies. Hawes et al. (2020) reported strong internal consistency of the ASEBA, comparing it favorably with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the DSM-oriented scales. These findings indicate that the ASEBA effectively measures its intended constructs, with high correlations suggesting the scale accurately captures behavioral and emotional problems (Hawes et al., 2020). Moreover, Genzlinger (2020) contributed further evidence with metrics supporting the construct and content validity of the ASEBA. Willems et al. (2017) also confirmed the instrument's validity, asserting that the psychometric properties of the ASEBA make it a credible assessment tool across diverse populations.

Reliability evidence for the ASEBA is equally compelling. Hawes et al. (2020) analyzed test-retest reliability over a one-week interval, producing correlation coefficients ranging from 0.80 to 0.90, indicative of high stability over time. Genzlinger (2020) reported similar reliability coefficients of 0.80, reinforcing the instrument’s consistency. The ASEBA’s reliability extends across different age groups, including preschoolers and adults, with reliability coefficients typically between 0.76 and 0.93, although some lower inter-informant coefficients (e.g., 0.39) suggest variation depending on the informant source (ASEBA, 2019). The consistent psychometric properties and high test-retest reliability make ASEBA a dependable instrument for longitudinal and cross-sectional assessment.

Cost-wise, the ASEBA requires a license fee of $295 per user, which is justified by its comprehensive coverage and broad applicability across developmental stages. The open-ended forms incorporated within the assessment enable clinicians to gather in-depth qualitative data, supplementing quantitative scores. These forms adapt to the developmental stage of the individual, facilitating nuanced understanding of behavioral issues over the lifespan. The choice of ASEBA over other assessments stems from its ability to detect early behavioral problems and monitor changes over time, thus aiding long-term intervention planning.

In contrast, the DAST is geared specifically towards substance use screening and has demonstrated solid psychometric properties. Kim & Hodgins (2017) found significant correlations between DAST scores and other drug assessment tools, confirming its criterion validity. Mulvaney-Day et al. (2018) highlighted the instrument's strong construct and discriminatory validity, indicating its effectiveness in distinguishing problematic substance use from non-issues. Its face validity, while high, is considered a psychometric limitation, but overall it remains a reliable screening tool.

The DAST has been validated across diverse populations, including different ethnicities and ages, with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Kim & Hodgins, 2017; Mulvaney-Day et al., 2018). Its high coefficient values and strong item-total correlations further underscore its psychometric robustness. The cost of the DAST includes free access to the test and manual, with a supplementary training module costing $75—making it accessible for clinics with limited budgets and ensuring that users are adequately trained to interpret results accurately.

My selection criteria for these instruments involve their strong empirical support, ease of administration, and broad applicability. The ASEBA’s ability to evaluate a wide spectrum of behavioral issues across age groups makes it an ideal comprehensive assessment tool, especially useful for early detection and ongoing monitoring. The DAST, despite its limitations as a screening instrument, provides reliable data on substance use risk, which can inform further diagnostic evaluation. Both tools are supported by peer-reviewed research, ensuring their relevance and credibility in clinical decision-making.

In conclusion, the choice of these assessment instruments is justified by their scientifically validated psychometric properties. The ASEBA offers a robust tool for comprehensive behavioral assessment with high reliability and validity, enabling clinicians to make informed decisions across a variety of populations. The DAST complements this by providing a reliable screening approach for substance use, which is crucial in diverse clinical contexts. Together, these instruments support accurate diagnosis, effective intervention planning, and continuous monitoring, thereby contributing significantly to improved psychological and behavioral health outcomes.

References

• Genzlinger, J. (2020). Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the School-age Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
• Hawes, D. J., Kimonis, E. R., Mendoza Diaz, A., Frick, P. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2020). The Clinical Assessment of Prosocial Emotions (CAPE 1.1): A multi-informant validation study. Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 348.
• Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol, cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31(1), 85.
• Mulvaney-Day, N., Marshall, T., Piscopo, K. D., Korsen, N., Lynch, S., Karnell, L. H., ... & Ghose, S. S. (2018). Screening for behavioral health conditions in primary care settings: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(3).
• Willems, Y. E., Dolan, C. V., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., de Zeeuw, E. L., Boomsma, D. I., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Self-Control Scale (ASEBA-SCS): assessing self-control in youth. In VNOP-CAS-ISED Days.