Caractéristiques des échelles d’évaluation (« rating scales ») (ASEBA et BASC-3) Profil socio-affectif (PSA) Flashcards
Échelles d’évaluation
The rating scale family of instruments is certainly one of the most widely used, both in research and in practice
Instruments that have several advantages
-Very simple to use: no need for complex training
-Short: most take a few minutes
-Inexpensive: some are free
-Allows for the collection of a lot of information on several dimensions of adaptation with the help of several informants
Échelles d’évaluation - STANDARDIZATION
Unlike the unstructured or semi-structured interview, the questions and response choices are the same for everyone, thus forcing informants to frame their “definition” and estimation of behaviors, emotions, etc.
-Standardization: uniformity of stimuli (instructions, questions and response choices) for all persons completing the scaleProvides scores that are generally as valid and reliable as information gathered through interviews or systematic observation (Sattler & Hoge, 2006)
According to Sattler and Hoge (2006), standardized assessment scales are used to
According to Sattler and Hoge (2006), standardized assessment scales are used to:
-quickly estimate the potential deficits and strengths of individuals being assessed in comparison to other individuals of the same age, sex/gender (or other groupings)
-facilitate evaluation of the progress or effects of an intervention
-facilitate comparison of behaviors in different natural (e.g., school, home) or intervention (e.g., in a rehabilitation center, inCPE, ETC
-facilitate the systematic comparison of information from different informants (e.g., parents, teachers, friends, spouses, practitioners, etc.)
-provide a systematic way of communicating standardized clinical information between practitioners in the same organization or between organizations working with individuals with difficulties
Validité et limites des échelles d’évaluation
There are several things to consider in determining the degree of validity of an assessment conducted with a rating scale (Sattler & Hoge, 2006; Whitcomb, 2017)
- (MOTIF) Reason for the assessment
Perceived need for assessment?
Prior importance attributed to the informant’s problems?
Informant’s perception of responsibility for the evaluee’s problems? (e.g., feels “responsible” for the problems?) - Antécédents de l’informateur
Background of the informant
Nature of relationship with the evaluee? How well does the informant know the evaluee? Presence of adjustment problems in the informant? - Quality of the relationship (alliance) established with the informant
Perception of the professionals of the intervention? Quality of the relationship with the person doing the assessment? Level of collaboration? - Understanding of instructions
Informant is in good faith, but has not fully understood what is expected
Always remember: this can be a complex cognitive task for some people, and should not be taken lightly – Always ensure that the informant being asked has understood what is being asked of them - Informant’s intention
The intention is false when the informant pursues a goal other than that of objectively evaluating the characteristics of the appraisee
e.g., to make things worse in order to get a TC rating in a school context
e.g., a mother makes a more favourable evaluation for fear of being blamed for her child’s problems - Informant response styles
A tendency to respond in a certain way that is not related to the target construct
Response styles already seen before: extremity, indecision, acquiescence, objection, social desirability, unfavorable impression management
We can add a response style, or bias, that is often associated with evaluation scales in particular: the halo effect - Effet d’interaction informateur-trait (see below )
Validité et limites échelles d’évaluation -«stéréotype de l’attirance physique» HALO EFFECT
In other words, the general perception of a person can sometimes underestimate the assessment of specific aspects of their adjustmente.g., a child is generally perceived as “cute” or as having a “nice personality”, which leads to an underestimation of the potential presence of behavioural, emotional or affective problems in an assessmentThe halo effect is also sometimes referred to as the “stereotype of physical attractiveness” or the “what is beautiful is good” principle in social psychology
Validité et limites échelles d’évaluation- 7. Effet d’interaction informateur-trait
Informant-Trait Interaction EffectThe informant allows his or her a priori beliefs to affect the evaluation of a particular behaviorObjective perception would be distorted by the informant’s implicit theory for a particular construct (or trait, or disorder)e.g., if hyperactivity is present, but not inattention, an informant may tend to still rate the presence of inattention because his or her implicit theory of ADHD includes hyperactivity and inattention
Échelles d’évaluation pour les parents
-The central theory in the QPPO Assessment Guidelines (2014) is a family one-Information from parents is crucial in psychoeducational assessment for a variety of reasons
1.First, children cannot self-assess (preschool and some elementary school)
2. Second, it is reasonable to assume that parents are the ones who know the child besthave observed them over a long period of time, very frequently, in a variety of settings
3. The parent’s perspective is necessary to profile the child’s adjustment, but also often to develop an IPmost developmental psychopathology theories postulate a family or parental rolethe most effective interventions all include a “family” or “parent” componentAll of these arguments suggest that for a psychoeducational assessment to have any ecological validity, the parent’s perspective must be obtained
Échelles d’évaluation parents -études prédictives
The parent’s perspective is necessary to profile the child’s adjustment, but also often to develop an IPmost developmental psychopathology theories postulate a family or parental rolethe most effective interventions all include a “family” or “parent” component
-All of these arguments suggest that for a psychoeducational assessment to have any ecological validity, the parent’s perspective must be obtained
Échelles d’évaluation pour les enseignants - qu’une source d’information parmi d’autres
Information from parents is crucial, but it is only one source of information
-Necessary but not sufficient source-Despite the central importance of information from parents in psychoeducation, other sources of information are also very important, and sometimes essential
-Among these other sources of information, teachers occupy a central place for the evaluation of children in particular, and adolescents to a lesser extent
Échelles d’évaluation enseignants
Information from teachers is very important for the psycho-educational evaluation
-School is an environment that children and adolescents must attend, at least from 5-6 to 16 years of age in —–
-QuebecYoung people spend several hours a day at school, most of the year, so it can have a significant impact on the child’s adaptation and development (Janosz et al., 1998)
-School imposes several constraints impose plusieurs contraintes on the child that are often not present in other contexts such as at homee.g., respect for classroom rules, impulse control, sustained attention, academic achievement, etc.
-Teachers are often considered the best source of information for specific problems (Witcomb, 2017)
-Attention and hyperactivity problems
teachers may observe children in demanding situations that require high levels of sustained attention, control of motor activity, and problem-solving systems
Échelles d’évaluation enseignants
- Comportements antisociaux
- Problèmes intériorisés
Teachers are considered a lesser source of information for other specific problems
Anti-social behaviours
-e.g., substance use, peer or animal abuse, drug use, vandalism, etc.
Internalized problems
-e.g., they tend to notice withdrawal, depressed mood or certain anxiety symptoms less easily
-because EXTs monopolize their attention more, but also possibly because of the high teacher-student ratio
Information from teachers may also be more or less important depending on the age of the child
-Children in elementary school are generally followed by the same teacher in several subjects, most of the day and all year long
-On the contrary, in high school, adolescents see a teacher once a day or even once a week for a specific subject
-Information from teachers becomes less useful as the child progresses through school and sees teachers on an on a one-off basis
Échelles d’évaluation enseig–type d’enseignant.e
-The relevance of the information may also depend on the type of teacher
–The evaluation of the regular teacher is sometimes considered more useful than that of special education teachers, who do not have the same perception and experience, nor the same level of tolerance
–Assessment of special education teachers (i.e., physical education, art, etc.) can be useful in understanding the child’s adjustment to different specific contexts in the school - in which the child’s motivation, the teacher’s tolerance, etc., may differAllows for a better assessment of intra-contextual variations
Échelles d’évaluation enseig –cadre de reference
Always consider the teacher’s frame of referenceDifferent types of training (less true today)Some have a lot of experience, have been working for many yearsprovides a basic cognitive schema, a broader “implicit standard” for comparing the child being assessed with other children of the same ageSome have more experience with special needs studentsthis may, in some cases, provide a “biased” cognitive schema that influences their assessment (more tolerance)
Échelles d’évaluation enseignants - systèmes d’évaluation intégratifs multi-informateurs
A comprehensive review reveals that although there are far fewer instruments for collecting teacher perspectives than there are for parents, there are nonetheless about 50 well-validated rating scalesWitcomb (2017) and Frick, Barry & Kamphaus (2020) present the best knownOverall, for both parents and teachers, the most interesting and practical instruments are the multi-informant integrative assessment systems
ASEBA = «Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment»
-Available in French (Thomson-Nelson Canada)
-One of the most widely used instruments in the world, both in research and clinical settings
-Part of an integrative assessment system
parents, teachers, self-report, semi-structured interview,
-observation system
