Situational specificity makes the difference in assessment of youth behavior disorders

Abstract

In this article we examine the ability of contextual information to enhance assessment of behavior problems in schools. Capitalizing on the multisituational structure of the Adjustment Scales for Children and Adolescents, exploratory and confirmatory analyses with a representative national sample (N ϭ 1,400, ages 5-17 years) revealed three unique and reliable behavioral situtypes (problems in Peer Contexts, Academic Contexts, and Teacher Contexts). The situtypes were found internally consistent and structurally generalizable across age, sex, and ethnicity. Multiple logistic and discriminant analyses confirmed the ability of the situtypes to identify accurately those youth independently diagnosed as emotionally disturbed, as well as distinguish those diagnosed as learning disabled. Information gleaned from the situtypes was substantially better able than conventional psychopathology syndromes (attention-deficit hyperactivity, oppositional defiance, etc.) to forecast later academic achievement. Implications for informing motivation and intervention are discussed. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.In 1999, the Surgeon General released a statement on the status of mental health in the United States. The report, Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999), highlights the need to improve both the diagnosis and treatment of children with emotional and behavioral problems. The report further calls for the use of contextually relevant assessment as a means to improve diagnosis and treatment. As the term implies, contextual assessment attempts to understand children's behavior within the context(s) in which it occurs. It may best be understood in comparison to more traditional assessment procedures, specifically symptom checklists. Symptom checklists, such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1999) and Conners' Parent Rating Scales-Revised (Conners, 1997), are standardized behavioral measures designed to infer psychopathology based solely on the number and frequency or intensity of related symptoms. There are several problems with this approach to assessment. First, it produces ambiguous measures of behavior pathology without regard to contextual circumstances. Second, it does not provide information regarding whether the problematic behavior is isolated to specific situations or, alternatively, is pervasive across situations. Third, it increases the threat of bias and error inasmuch as raters must interpret global items in terms of children's motivation or the causes of that behavior (Mordell, 2001). Contextually based assessment methods address these problems by examining specific phenomena that occur within a particular situation or across many situations and by requiring respondents to report similar behaviors across multiple situations.The Adjustment Scales for Children and Adolescents (ASCA; McDermott, 1993) was developed as a contextually based assessment tool. The Adjustment Scales for Children and Adolescents is intended to define psych...

Parent versus Teacher Ratings of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms in the Preschoolers with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Study (PATS)

“…To evaluate this criterion, practice guidelines recommend collecting information from both parents and teachers about the behavior of the child in different settings (American Psychiatric Association 1994;AACAP 1997;AAP 2000;McDermott et al 2005). However, the utility of this pervasiveness criterion has been questioned (e.g., Biederman et al 1990), especially with respect to the benefits of multiple informants for diagnostic validity relative to the burden of collecting such data.…”

An investigation of classroom situational dimensions of emotional and behavioral adjustment and cognitive and social outcomes for Head Start children.

“…Based on prior research by McDermott (2005), it was hypothesized that situational dimensions would contribute unique variance to the prediction of social and learning outcomes and that the combined contribution of both situational and behavioral influences would be greater than either set alone.…”

“…This first step was needed to accomplish the larger study purpose of investigating the relationship between classroom situational dimensions and readiness outcomes. Based on prior research conducted by McDermott (2005), it was hypothesized that reliable and unique underlying dimensions would capture distinct types of common, routine classroom situational demands associated with preschool behavior problems.…”

“…(The word "situtype" was derived from the Latin meaning: type of situation or circumstance). McDermott, Steinberg, & Angelo (2005) demonstrated both the unique and combined contribution of behavioral and situational dimensions to academic and social outcomes in elementary school.…”

“…Six core behavioral types or syndromes (phenotypic dimensions) were identified: Attention-Deficit Hyperactive, Solitary Aggressive-Provocative, Solitary Aggressive-Impulsive, OppositionalDefiant, Diffident, and Avoidant (McDermott, 1993). In addition, McDermott, Steinberg, & Angelo (2005) identified three classroom situational dimensions where behavior problems occurred: Peer, Academic, and Teacher Problem Situations. The three underlying situational dimensions more parsimoniously described common demand characteristics shared among the ASCA's 29 classroom situations (Comrey, 1988;Gorsuch, 1983).…”