Psy 335 Which Would You Buy Short Paper Guidelines And Rubri ✓ Solved

Psy 335 Which Would You Buy Short Paper Guidelines And Rubric Thi

This assignment involves evaluating and comparing two child behavior rating tests: the BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System and the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). You are to analyze these tests using resources such as the ASEBA Catalog, Pearson Clinical Catalog, and Mental Measurements Yearbook. The core task is to determine which test your agency should purchase and to justify your choice with research evidence.

In your short paper, you must include a thorough comparison of the BASC-2 and ASEBA tests, highlighting their similarities and differences with detailed explanations supported by real-world examples. You should clearly state which test you recommend for your agency and provide a well-supported justification grounded in relevant scholarly research. Your paper should be one to two pages long, double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font, and include at least three APA-cited sources.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Choosing the appropriate behavioral assessment tool for a child-centered agency is a critical decision that influences diagnosis, intervention, and overall treatment effectiveness. The two leading instruments for behavioral and emotional screening in children—the BASC-2 (Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition) and the ASEBA (Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment)—are widely utilized in clinical, educational, and research settings. This paper provides a comprehensive comparison and contrast of these tools, evaluates their suitability for a typical psychological agency, and recommends the most appropriate assessment based on evidence and practical considerations.

Comparison of the BASC-2 and ASEBA

The BASC-2, developed by Reynolds and Kamphaus (2004), is a multidimensional tool designed to provide a comprehensive overview of a child's behavioral and emotional functioning. It includes scales that measure aggression, anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, and adaptive skills, making it well-suited for diverse clinical settings. The assessment incorporates multiple rating forms, including parent, teacher, and self-report versions, enabling a multi-informant perspective that is crucial for accurate diagnosis (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004).

In contrast, the ASEBA, established by Achenbach (2001), emphasizes empirically derived syndromes through its comprehensive questionnaire system, including the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Youth Self-Report (YSR), and Teacher's Report Form (TRF). These instruments are grounded in extensive normative data and focus on identifying broad behavioral patterns and emotional problems across different populations. The ASEBA's strength lies in its detailed norm-referenced scoring system and its capacity to compare individual scores with large normative samples (Achenbach, 2001).

Differences Between the BASC-2 and ASEBA

One primary difference between the two assessments is their theoretical foundation. The BASC-2 is based on a multidimensional model that views behavioral issues as distinct but related constructs, facilitating targeted intervention planning. Conversely, the ASEBA employs a syndromic approach, emphasizing underlying behavioral syndromes that may suggest specific psychopathologies.

Regarding practicality, the BASC-2 offers a broader array of scales and forms, which can provide a detailed behavioral profile. However, this complexity might require more training for practitioners and longer administration time. The ASEBA, with its streamlined format and extensive normative data, is often favored for epidemiological or large-scale screening purposes where quick, reliable results are needed (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2015).

Recommendation and Justification

Considering the typical needs of a psychological treatment and consultation agency dealing with school-aged children, I recommend the BASC-2 as the more suitable assessment tool. Its multi-informant approach and comprehensive profile enable practitioners to obtain nuanced insights into the child's emotional and behavioral functioning, which is essential for individualized treatment planning (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004).

The detailed scales and broader scope of the BASC-2 make it particularly beneficial for clinical settings where understanding specific behavioral issues is crucial. Furthermore, its established reliability and validity, supported by numerous studies, affirm its appropriateness for diverse populations and a variety of behavioral concerns (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004; Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2015).

Supporting Research

Research indicates that the BASC-2 demonstrates high internal consistency and test-retest reliability across different populations, making it a robust choice for clinical evaluation (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). Its diverse scales allow clinicians to identify co-occurring issues effectively, which is vital for comprehensive treatment strategies (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2015). Additionally, the multi-informant design aligns with best practices in behavioral assessment, ensuring that diverse perspectives inform diagnosis and intervention (Martel et al., 2014).

While the ASEBA's strong normative data and efficiency are significant advantages, it may not capture the nuanced behavioral profiles needed in a clinical treatment context. Its primary utility in large-scale or research settings complements but does not replace the detailed information required for individual case management (Achenbach, 2001). Therefore, for a clinical agency prioritizing detailed profile development and multi-informant insights, the BASC-2 is preferable.

Conclusion

In summary, both the BASC-2 and ASEBA are valid, reliable, and widely respected behavioral assessment tools. However, given the specific needs of a child-focused psychological agency, the BASC-2 offers a more comprehensive and nuanced profile of emotional and behavioral functioning, supported by extensive research. This makes it the recommended choice for agencies seeking an effective instrument that informs tailored intervention strategies.

References

• Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
• Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2015). Clinical assessment of children: Behavioral, emotional, and cognitive aspects (4th ed.). Springer.
• Martel, M. M., Nikolas, M., & Nigg, J. T. (2014). Childhood ADHD and its comorbidities: The importance of gene-environment interplay. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(2), 115-126.
• Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior assessment system for children (2nd ed.). Pearson.