interpreting scores and sequential strategies

Question 1

what is:
Interpreting scores from multiple informants or sources

Answer 1

Interpreting scores from multiple informants or sources
A sequential strategy to integrate information from different informants
Interprétation des scores provenant d’informateurs ou de sources multiples: scenario

Question 2

multi-informant assessment

Answer 2

Emotional and behavioural problems can vary from one context to another, sometimes significantly (Frick, Barry, & Kamphaus, 2010)
Different evaluators vary in their ability to observe emotions and behaviors both within and across contexts.
Assessors use multi-informant assessment

Question 3

intra-context que inter-context l’évaluation multi-informateur scores contractictoire

Answer 3

terms used to describe the relationship between elements within or across contexts.
Intra-context refers to the relationship between elements within the same context. A context is a set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event or situation. Intra-contextual relationships are therefore relationships between elements that share the same context.
Inter-context, on the other hand, refers to the relationship between elements across different contexts.
Inter-contextual relationships are therefore relationships between elements that do not share the same context.

Question 4

autoévaluations

Answer 4

Clinical assessment of adolescents and adults is generally based largely on self-assessment, whether through interviews or questionnairesSelf-assessments are often essential, but not sufficient.
evaluations par informants provides validité incremental (prédictive)

Question 5

A comprehensive model of psychoeducational assessment recommends the use of?

Answer 5

Meta-analyses suggest that informant assessments provide significant incremental (predictive) validity beyond self-assessments in predicting various criteria such as work engagement and performance (e.g., Oh et al., 2011), various adjustment problems (De Los Reyes et al., 2015), personality disorders (Peselow et al 1994), etc.
ASWER: multiple assessment methods and multiple informantsInterprétation des scores provenant de sources multiples- validité incrémentielle (predictive)

Question 6

Interprétation des scores provenant de sources multiples- l’intégration de toutes les informations cliniques

Answer 6

Calculating standardized scores and qualifying them according to a norm for different informants is the easy step
The most complex thing is the integration of all the clinical information
(different dimensions,
different contexts,
different informants’ perceptions) in order to answer the reference motive, to make a clinical judgment and to propose intervention paths
We have seen that inter-rater agreement is generally low with behavioral and emotional rating scales

Question 7

Comment utiliser l’information provenant de plusieurs informateurs- Deux schémas

Answer 7

Two schemes (or methods, or algorithms) for establishing a clinical status or diagnosis:

Complex scheme: Different informants are given different weighte.g., giving more weight to teachers for attention problems, to parents for externalizing problems, and more weight to youth themselves for internalizing problems

Simple scheme: Information from different informants is given equal weight (e.g., the “either/or” rule)A result is considered significant (a status or diagnosis is assigned) if the criterion is obtained by any informant

Question 8

Comment utiliser l’information provenant de plusieurs informateurs-
les schémas simples sont généralement préférés

Answer 8

Currently, despite the paucity of rigorous studies, simple schemes are generally preferred for status or diagnosis because complex schemes provide LIMITED ADDED VALUE (it does not offer any significant advantage over existing products or services, and thus its value is limited).
If the clinician does not have an excellent knowledge of the scientific literature, complex schemes also become more influenced by implicit theory and clinical experience
can be good … but can be very negative

Question 9

with the simple schemes, it is assumed that
-faux positifs
- faux négatifs
MEAN WHAT?

Answer 9

However, false positives (i.e., a diagnosis given by an informant when there is no disorder in reality) are less damaging than false negatives (i.e., a result of no diagnosis when there is a disorder in reality)

Caution: false positives mean offering unnecessary interventions, but false negatives may mean not offering an intervention to someone who needs it

Question 10

Pourquoi accord inter-juges faible :Trois facteurs clés: problèmes de comportements observables (extériorisés) que pour problèmes plus épisodiques (intériorisés) ou difficiles à observer (e.g., pensées suicidaires)

Answer 10

1. Observation context: different expectations lead to different behaviors
2. Type of problems assessed
   Usually better agreement for observable (externalized) behavioural problems than for more episodic (internalized) or difficult to observe problems (e.g., suicidal thoughts)

Adults report more externalizing problems than children/adolescents, while children report more internalizing problems than adults

Question 11

review: Pourquoi accord inter-juges faible :Trois facteurs clés

Answer 11

1. Observation context: different expectations lead to different behaviors
2. Type of problems assessedUsually better agreement for observable (externalized) behavioural problems than for more episodic (internalized) or difficult to observe problems (e.g., suicidal thoughts
   self assessments:personality traits are less
   observabilité
   informats: traits of high desirability
3. Age of individuals assessed
   Level of agreement between informants’ ratings decreases with increasing age of youth assessed (Frick et al., 2009)
   On the contrary, the reliability of youth self-assessments increases with increasing age
   This means that the higher inter-rater agreement at younger ages may be partly “contaminated”
   by the lower reliability, at least when the youth is involved.

Question 12

Un modèle pour interpreter les convergences / divergences entre informateurs. L’évaluateur.trice doit se poser successivement les quatre questions suivantes

Answer 12

1. Are there actual variations in behavior due to different contexts?
   Is it conceptually/theoretically possible and explainable that the context causes different behaviors (e.g., environmental pressure for high attention at school)
   Should ideally be confirmed using different assessment methods
2. Variation in clinical severity?The more convergence there is between informants, the more it suggests the present severity of the problem
3. Informant specifics?May include several elements, especially :His/her perception of the client’s problemHis/her motivationsHis/her implicit theories about the problemHis/her socio-cultural biasesHer/his response stylesHis/her coping problems/psychopathologies.
4. Measurement errors ?
   Random errors associated with the measurement instrument
   Systematic errors / biases documented by research
   Other errors related to administration conditions (e.g., inadequate physical environment, client fatigue due to lengthy interview, disregarded instructions, assessor characteristics, etc.)

Question 13

Une stratégie séquentielle pour intégrer les informations de différents informateurs
not on exam

Answer 13

step 1: Identify (a) normative and (b) problematic outcomes for all informants and evaluation methods
Step 2: Identify convergent and divergent findingsEven if some differences are not apparent at the scale level, differences in item responses can be examinede.g., for a given scale, are there scores on a few items that are really different from other items within the same scale? If so, are they all related to a specific aspect?
Step 3: Attempt to explain discrepancies
Familiarity/different knowledge about the child?
Different demands from different contexts?
Different motivations of informants?
Personality (or response style) of informants differ greatly?
Differences in assessment methods?
Actual differences in the child’s behavior?
Step 4: Develop a hierarchical profile of the individual’s problems and strengthsFor intervention paths, it is important to try to build on the individual’s strengths or skills“Hierarchical” means prioritizing information (based on the principle of urgency)If there are multiple issues, what is more problematic or urgent clinically or in terms of intervention? If multiple strengths, which ones are more relevant to employ in an IAP?
Step 5: Determine what information to include in the reportIn a comprehensive evaluation, some of the information collected will, in retrospect, be less relevant to answer the referral reason or to support our clinical and prognostic hypotheses and justify our recommendationsGiving a lot of unhelpful information gives a poor perception of the report and possibly limits its comprehensibility; therefore, avoid reporting more information than