Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment
Gepubliceerd in:

11-04-2022

A Psychometric Investigation of the Ohio Scales, Short Form, Problem Severity Domain, Youth- and Caregiver-Report Versions

Auteurs: Tommie M. Laba, Charles W. Mueller, Brad J. Nakamura

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment | Uitgave 2/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

The current study examined the extent to which the Ohio Scales, Short Form, Problem Severity domain was able to perform as a reliable and valid measure within a large community mental health sample of multiethnic youth and families in Hawaiʻi. Using a sample of 1,125 youth participants, who were 59.1% male (n = 665), with a mean age of 12.96 (SD = 3.4), confirmatory factor analyses pointed to four factors (Externalizing, Delinquency, Anxiety, Depression), with subscale internal reliabilities varying slightly. The majority of convergence patterns between Problem Severity domain and related Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale subscales were significantly correlated in the expected directions. Problem Severity subscale scores were mostly able to discriminate between youth with and without pertinent mental health diagnoses. Youth- and caregiver-report Problem Severity domain subscale and total scores were significantly correlated in the predicted directions. Finally, significant youth improvement was evident at 3-month follow-up, and Problem Severity intake and 3-month follow-up scores were significantly and positively related to one another. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
vorige artikel A Threshold Task to Determine Help-Seeking for Deliberate Self-Injury: a Proof of Concept Study
volgende artikel The Role of Emotion Dysregulation in the Links Between Sibling Victimization and Internalizing Symptoms in Middle Childhood
Voetnoten
1
Although sharing the same name, it is important to note that the CBCL’s and YSR’s “Internalizing” and “Externalizing” broadband scales and the Problem Severity domain’s “Internalizing” and “Externalizing” potential factors were developed separately from one another, and thus contain items that differ in wording, content, and number.
 
2
Within the context of using total scale scores for overall correlational and paired sample t-test analyses, a one-factor model of the Short Form, Problem Severity domain was investigated. Results described separately by youth- and caregiver-report are presented in Table 2.
 
3
The Satorra-Bentler scaled difference chi-square statistic for nested models was utilized given that it has shown to be a reliable chi-square difference test when evaluating models composed of data deviating from normality (Curran et al., 1996).
 
4
Given that the competing four-factor model fit significantly better than the three-factor model (as the results below will indicate), study results from here on out focus solely on the four-factor model (Externalizing, Delinquency, Anxiety, and Depression).
 
5
Although correlations were deemed statistically significant if p values were equal to or less than .05, correlations approaching statistical significance are noted (i.e., p < .10 with ***) in Tables 3 and 4.
 
Literatuur
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.CrossRef
Carlston, D. L., & Ogles, B. M. (2006). The impact of items and anchors on parent-child reports of problem behavior. The Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23, 24–37.CrossRef
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conners, K. C., Sitarenios, G., Parker, J. D. A., & Epstein, J. N. (1998). The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(4), 257–268.CrossRef
Curran, P., West, S., & Finch, J. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.CrossRef
De Los Reyes, A. (2011). Introduction to the special section: More than measurement error: Discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 1–9.CrossRef
Dowell, K. A., & Ogles, B. M. (2008). The Ohio Scales Youth form: Expansion and validation of a self-report outcome measure for young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 291–305.CrossRef
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.CrossRef
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.CrossRef
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2013). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Hodges, K. (1995). CAFAS: Self-training manual. Ann Arbor, MI: Functional Assessment Systems.
Hodges, K. (2004). The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (3rd ed., Vol. 2) (pp. 405-441). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Hodges, K., & Wong, M. M. (1996). Psychometric characteristics of a multidimensional measure to assess impairment: The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 445–467.CrossRef
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuttoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef
Kotte, A., Hill, K. A., Mah, A. C., Korathu-Larson, P. A., Au, J. R., Izmirian, S., Keir, S. S., Nakamura, B. J., & Higa-McMillan, C. K. (2016). Facilitators and barriers of implementing a measurement feedback system in public youth mental health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(6), 861–878.CrossRef
Lee, M. Y., Greene, G. J., Hsu, K. S., Solovey, A., Grove, D., Fraser, J. S., Washburn, P., & Teater, B. (2009). Utilizing family strengths and resilience: Integrative family and systems treatment with children and adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral problems. Family Process, 48, 395–416.CrossRef
Lyon, A. R., Dorsey, S., Pullmann, M., Silbaugh-Cowdin, J., & Berliner, L. (2015). Clinician use of standardized assessments following a common elements psychotherapy training and consultation program. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(1), 47–60.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus (version 7.31) [computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nakamura, B. J., Daleiden, E. L., & Mueller, C. W. (2007). Validity of treatment target progress ratings as indicators of youth improvement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 729–741.CrossRef
Ogles, B. M., Carlston, D. L., Hatfield, D. R., Melendez, G., Dowell, K., & Fields, S. A. (2006). The role of fidelity and feedback in the wraparound approach. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 114–128.CrossRef
Ogles, B. M., Dowell, K., Hatfield, D., Melendez, G., & Carlston, D. (2004). The Ohio Scales. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (3rd ed., Vol. 2) (pp. 275-304). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Ogles, B. M., Melendez, G., Davis, D. C., & Lunnen, K. M. (1999). The Ohio Youth Problem, Functioning, and Satisfaction Scales (short form): User’s manual [Unpublished manual]. Ohio University.
Ogles, B. M., Melendez, G., Davis, D. C., & Lunnen, K. M. (2000). The Ohio Youth Problem, Functioning, and Satisfaction Scales: Technical manual [Unpublished manual]. Ohio University.
Painter, K., & Scannapieco, M. (2009). Part II: Multisystemic therapy: Addressing racial disparity and its effectiveness with families from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Journal of Family Social Work, 12, 197–210.CrossRef
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behavior assessment system for children. American Guidance Service.
Riley, S. E., Stromberg, A. J., & Clark, J. J. (2009). Relationship between caregiver hopefulness and satisfaction with their children’s mental health services. Community Mental Health Journal, 45, 307–315.CrossRef
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Sage Publications Inc.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611.CrossRef
Tossone, K., Kretschmar, J., Butcher, F., & Harris, L. (2016). Validating the Ohio Scales in a juvenile justice sample of youth with behavioral health issues. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(4), 1218–1228.CrossRef
Turchik, J., Karpenkov, V. V., & Ogles, B. M. (2007). Further evidence of the utility and validity of a measure of outcome for children and adolescents. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 119–128.CrossRef
Warnick, E. M., Weersing, V. R., Scahill, L., & Woolston, J. L. (2009). Selecting measures for use in child mental health services: A scorecard approach. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 36, 112–122.CrossRef
Weisz, J. R., Chorpita, B. F., Frye, A., Ng, M. Y., Lau, N., Bearman, S. K., Ugueto, A. M., Langer, D. A., Hoagwood, K. E., & The Research Network on Youth Mental Health. (2011). Youth top problems: Using idiographic, consumer-guided assessment to identify treatment needs and to track change during psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 369–380. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0023307
Metagegevens
Titel
A Psychometric Investigation of the Ohio Scales, Short Form, Problem Severity Domain, Youth- and Caregiver-Report Versions
Auteurs
Tommie M. Laba
Charles W. Mueller
Brad J. Nakamura
Publicatiedatum
11-04-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer US
Gepubliceerd in
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment / Uitgave 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-022-09970-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2022

Avoidance in Adolescence: The Balloon Risk Avoidance Task (BRAT)

Intolerance of Uncertainty and Anxiety Symptoms: Examining the Indirect Effect Through Anxiety Sensitivity Among Adults with Anxiety-Related Disorders

Why We Imagine Our Future: Introducing the Functions of Future Thinking Scale (FoFTS)

The Effect of Positive Rumination Training on Mental Health and Attentional Bias

Self-Imagery and Attentional Control Maintenance Factors of Social Anxiety: A Comparison of Trait and State Assessments

Longitudinal Associations Between the Five-Factor Model of Personality and The Bi-Factor Model of Psychopathology: Continuity, Pathoplasty and Complication Effects in Adolescents