The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale

Abstract

In this article, two studies that investigate the convergent validity of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS) are reported. In both studies, special education teachers of students identified as seriously emotionally disturbed completed the BERS and a second measure of child functioning. In the first study, the five BERS subscales and overall strength quotient were correlated with the five subscales and total score from the Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment-Adolescent Version. Correlations were generally moderate to high. In the second study, the BERS was correlated to the five competence scales, the broad-band dimensions (i.e., Internalizing and Externalizing), and the Total Problem score of Achenbach's Teacher Report Form. Correlations were generally moderate to high for the competence scales and the externalizing dimension, but not for the internalizing dimension. Recommendations for use of the BERS are discussed.A primary goal of practitioners and researchers in the social sciences has been the development of assessment tools that provide reliable and valid indicators of various skills. In general, assessment instruments have been used to identify deficits or problems in an individual's or a group's performance for the purpose of screening, diagnosis, identification, or remediation. In the area of emotional and behavioral disorders, there are many formal assessments that possess strong psychometric properties and provide useful information to practitioners and researchers. The deficit-oriented focus of these measures may unnecessarily reduce the range of information collected on the behaviors of individuals with emotional and behavioral disorders, however, by limiting the focus of those who provide the data. Such a restricted focus may result in the failure to collect additional information about individuals that may be relevant to developing, implementing, and monitoring comprehensive service plans.

Convergent Validity with the BERS-2 Teacher Rating Scale and the Achenbach Teacher’s Report Form: A Replication and Extension

“…While the majority of correlations were statistically significant for both the present findings and for Harniss et al (1999), the proportion of statistically significant findings was smaller in the present research. Specifically, 77% of the high school correlations were significant (Harniss et al 1999).…”

“…Percentages in the present investigation were lower than in previous research, however. About 52% of correlations were considered moderate to large range in the present investigation compared to 77% reported in Harniss et al (1999). Differences in percentages may be explained by the fact that the present sample involved a broader range of teachers (i.e., elementary, middle, and high school) than in the previous studies.…”

“…Harniss et al (1999) reported moderate to high correlations (i.e., .30 or greater; Cohen 1988) for more than 75% of comparisons between the BERS and both the Teacher's Report Form (TRF; Achenbach 1991b) and the Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment-Adolescent Version (Walker and McConnell 1995) for teachers of high school students ages 13-19. Continued efforts to demonstrate the utility of behavior rating scales in assessment-and intervention-related functions for more targeted populations of students are warranted. That is, such efforts align with researcher and practitioner roles in ongoing test validation.…”

“…That is, the BERS-2 TRS was administered to participants, not the original BERS as has been administered in previous research (i.e., Harniss et al 1999). The TRS is one of three instruments that comprise the BERS-2 standardized strengthbased assessment system.…”

Strength‐based assessment in clinical practice

“…Thus, the strength-based assessment process, entirely independent from its outcome, can bring substantial benefits. Furthermore, attending to the whole individual can foster a different than usual therapeutic relationship that balances the power differential between the client and the clinician and positively impacts the therapeutic alliance (Harris, Epstein, Ryser, & Pearson, 1999). In turn, the client sees that the clinician is trying to understand him/her as a whole person, not just a bundle of problems.…”