Psychometric Properties of the Dutch Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) in a Community Sample and a Multi-Ethnic Clinical Sample

Abstract

The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) is an established parent rating scale to measure disruptive behavior problems in children aged between 2 and 16 years. The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Dutch translation, including analysis on the one-dimensional structure of the ECBI scales using item response theory. Data from two samples from the Netherlands were used, a community sample (N = 326; 51 % boys) and a multi-ethnic clinical sample (N = 197; 62 % boys). The one-dimensional structure of the ECBI Intensity and Problem Scales were confirmed in both of these samples. The results also indicated good internal consistency, test-retest reliability (community sample), and good convergent and divergent validity. The ECBI Intensity Scale was able to differentiate between diagnostic groups (no diagnosis, ADHD, ODD, and CD symptoms), demonstrating good discriminative validity. Findings support the use of the ECBI as a reliable measure for child disruptive behavior problems in a Dutch population. Suggestions for the optimal use of the both ECBI scales for research and screening purposes are made. Also, cultural issues regarding the use of the ECBI are discussed and additional research into the validity of the ECBI is recommended.

Preliminary Validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with Taiwanese Clinic-Referred Children

“…As in previous research (e.g., Abrahamse et al 2015; Burns and Patterson 1991), one item (i.e., wets the bed ) did not load on any of the factors for the matched comparison sample. For the clinic-referred sample, the item wets the bed had a low loading (.32) on factor 6, Siblings teasing or fighting (see Table 2), but this loading did not have a clinically meaningful fit.…”

“…In a Korean population, Rhee and Rhee (2015) found an eight-factor, 36-item model using an exploratory factor analysis: (a) ADHD behavior, (b) disruptive behavior toward adults, (c) disruptive behavior expressed overtly, (d) problems of daily living–clothing and eating, (e) disruptive behavior toward peers and expressed passively, (f) problems of daily living–sleeping, (g) problems in sibling relationships, and (h) stigmatized behavior. The measure was also observed to have a unidimensional (i.e., 36-item) structure in a Dutch community and clinical sample (Abrahamse et al 2015). …”

“…In terms of the divergent validity of the ECBI in a sample of Korean children, the correlations for the ECBI Intensity and Problem scales and the CBCL Internalizing scale ( r = 0.50 and r = 0.35, respectively) were weaker than for the ECBI and the CBCL Externalizing scale ( r = 0.85 and r = 0.58, respectively; Rhee and Rhee 2015). Weak correlations also were observed for the ECBI Intensity and Problem scales and subscales of the SDQ not measuring externalizing behaviors (e.g., Emotional Symptoms, r s = 0.12 to 0.37; Peer Problems, r s = 0.03 to 0.14; and Prosocial Behavior, r s = −0.10 to −0.44; Abrahamse et al 2015). …”

“…Excellent internal consistency has been obtained for both the Intensity (alphas ranged from 0.90 to 0.98) and Problem (alphas ranged from 0.91 to 0.98) Scales in the various child and/or adolescent normative and clinical samples in which it has been used (Bagner and Eyberg 2007; Coffey et al 2015; Eyberg and Robinson1983; Gross et al 2007; Robinson et al 1980). The test-retest reliability of the Intensity and Problem scales for youth in South Korea were 0.92 and 0.97 (Rhee and Rhee 2015), 0.85 and 0.83 in Puerto Rico (Cumba, 2002), 0.84 and 0.60 in the Netherlands (Abrahamse et al 2015), and 0.88 and 0.67 in Sweden (Axberg et al 2008). The internal consistency for Albanian, Chinese, Dutch, Korean, Norwegian, Puerto Rican, and Swedish samples ranged from 0.91 to 0.95 on the Intensity scale and 0.88 to 0.94 on the Problem scale, indicating high internal consistency (Abrahamse et al 2015; Axberg et al 2008; Chen and Fortson 2015; Cumba et al 2002; Ismaili 2015; Leung et al 2003a, b; Reedtz et al 2008; Rhee and Rhee 2015).…”

“…For the non-US-based samples, Rhee and Rhee (2015) established the discriminative validity of the ECBI Intensity and Problem scales for Korean children who did/ did not receive mental health treatment at community counseling centers. The ECBI Intensity scale also was found to discriminate between children who did and did not meet diagnostic criteria for a disruptive behavior disorder in the Netherlands (Abrahamse et al 2015). …”