Factor Structure of the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Short Form in a Low-Income Preschool Sample

Abstract

The Conners' Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS) is among the most commonly used rating scales for the evaluation of childhood behavior disorders. This study examined the structural characteristics of the CTRS in a sample of 235 low-income, primarily African American, preschool children. Children were rated on the CTRS by an assessment research assistant, an intervention research assistant, and a classroom teacher. Multiple exploratory factor analyses converged on the same basic three-factor solution. The three factors could be labeled Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Inattention, and Oppositional Behavior. This three-factor solution did not correspond to the published factor structure of the CTRS. Instead, it more closely paralleled consensus ratings of experts in the field of child psychology and the criteria for behavior disorders according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

Relations between response trajectories on the continuous performance test and teacher-rated problem behaviors in preschoolers.

“…This scale contains items assessing three problem-behavior constructs: inattention, H/I, and conduct problems. The 44-item version of the CTRS based on the factor structure outlined by Gerhardstein, Lonigan, Cukrowicz, and McGuffey (2003) was utilized for this study. All three subscales (inattention, H/I, ODB; αs = .90 - .96) had high internal consistency in this sample.…”

Conners' Teacher Rating Scale for Preschool Children: A Revised, Brief, Age-Specific Measure

“…The hybrid version was constructed by combining the 28 items from the CTRS-R:S with the non-overlapping items from the original CTRS short-form (for a more detailed description of the formation of this version, see Gerhardstein, et al, 2003). For preschool children, the hybrid CTRS yields a three-factor model of behavior: Inattention, Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, and Opposition.…”

“…Teachers rated how often a child exhibited the behavior indexed by each item on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 3 (frequently). Three items on this measure (Items 29, 34, and 41) are related to academic performance (“poor in spelling”, “not reading up to par”, and “poor in arithmetic”) and do not load on any of the three factors (Gerhardstein et al, 2003). These three items were not included in any data analysis.…”

“…Other dimensions of model fit were not assessed because much of the data used in this study also were used in Gerhardstein et al (2003) in which the three-factor model was found to be the best-fitting model. Item parameters for the 41 CTRS items were calculated using Mplus version 4.1 (Muthen, & Muthen, 2005).…”

“…Several of the items on the inattention scales of the CTRS-R:L and CTRS-R:S, are measures of academic competence that may be related to inattention in children at older ages. Specifically, three of these items (“poor in spelling,” “not reading up to par,” and “poor in arithmetic”) are not appropriate measures of any behavioral problems in a preschool population (Gerhardstein, et al, 2003) and lack face validity as measures of inattention. Thus, the CTRS-R:L and the CTRS-R:S inattention scales lack validity for use with preschool children.…”