Teacher s Report Form Achenbach, T. 1991

Transcription

1 Teacher s Report Form Achenbach, T Description of Measure Purpose To obtain teacher s perception of child s academic performance, adaptive functioning and problem behavior in a standardized format. Conceptual Organization The first section of the Teacher Report Form (TRF) requests background information (6 items), ratings of academic performance (1 item), and ratings of four aspects of adaptive functioning (1 item each). The remaining 112 items comprise a problem behavior checklist. The problem behavior items measure three broad-band scales and eight syndrome scales that are identical to those in the CBCL. Please see Achenbach, 1991, for additional information. Item Origin/Selection Process The author reports that problem items were derived from research, consultation with professionals and parents, and successive revisions based on findings from numerous pilot studies. The crossinformant measures of behavioral syndromes (CBCL, TRF, YSR) were obtained from evaluation of multiple principal components analyses using the 89 items common to all three forms. For a complete description of item derivation for the TRF, see the Manual for the Teacher s Report Form and 1991 Profile (Achenbach, 1991). Materials Copyrighted forms and scoring manuals are available from the publisher. Time Required 10 minutes Administration Method Designed for self-administration by teachers. Training None Scoring Score Types Individual problem behavior items are scored as follows: not true (0), somewhat or sometimes true (1), or very true or often true 2). All problem behavior items use a timeframe of the last two months. Total Raw and T scores are available for Academic Performance, Adaptive Functioning, Total Behavior, Internalizing Behavior, and Externalizing Behavior, and each of the 8 syndrome

2 scales. Global indexes of adaptive functioning and current school performance may also be calculated. A computer program available from the publisher converts raw scores to T scores. For more information, see Achenbach, 1991) Score Interpretation Lower scores indicate lower functioning on the Academic Performance and Adaptive Functioning scales (Achenbach 1991). Higher scores indicate higher levels of maladaptive behavior on the Syndrome, Total, Externalizing and Internalizing Scales (Achenbach, 1991). All users of the TRF should consult the Manual for the Teacher s Report Form and 1991 Profile (Achenbach, 1991). Norms and/or Comparative Data Norms and comparative data are presented in the Manual for the Teacher Report Form and 1991 Profile (Achenbach, 1991). Psychometric Support Reliability The test-retest reliability was found to be high over a mean interval of 15 days with a mean correlation of.90 for Academic Performance and Adaptive Functioning scores and.92 for the Total score (Achenbach, 1991). Inter-rater reliability was good for teachers seeing children under different conditions; specifically, r =.55 (Academic Performance and Adaptive Functioning), r =.53 (Total ). Cronbach s alpha coefficients for the scales ranged from r =.63 (Thought, 5-11 year old girls) to r =.97 (Aggressive Behavior, year old girls) (Achenbach, 1991). Achenbach has argued the Cronbach's Alpha is not an appropriate measure for the internal consistency of the TRF, YSR, or CBCL forms, because they are broad screeners, designed to pick up many different behaviors, thus individual items would not be expected to predict the total instrument score (David Jacobowitz, personal communication). Similarly, a particular syndrome might be indicated by different "symptoms" for different children. Thus, a low Alpha may not indicate a poor instrument, only that there may be more than one way to measure the same underlying problem syndrome (David Jacobowitz, personal communication). Validity The TRF manual (Achenbach, 1991) presents several kinds of evidence for the validity of the TRF showing that the item scores, the syndrome scores, and the clinical cut points all significantly discriminate between demographically matched students referred for services and non-referred students. LONGSCAN Use Data Points Ages 6, 8, 10 (optional), 12, and 14 Respondent Teacher

3 Mnemonics and Versions TRFM (includes all ages) Rationale To obtain a complete and reliable assessment of the child s adaptive and problem behavior, it is important to have multiple informants. The TRF is perhaps the most widely used teacher report measure of these constructs. The existence of a comparable parent report (CBCL) and Youth Self- Report (YSR) allows us to look at the child s behavior from different viewpoints using a similar measure. Administration and Scoring Notes After obtaining parental consent, all teacher respondent forms were sent by mail to the subject child s teacher with specific instructions for completion and remittance. Incentives for participation and the response rate differed by study site. Site differences in response rates can be attributed in part to school size and teacher familiarity with the study. For example, at the MW site, which has the most large inner city schools among the LONGSCAN sites, teachers may not have known the subject child well enough to complete the form or there may have been a greater perceived burden on the teachers' time for completing the form. At the SO site, child interviews are conducted at school and therefore school personnel may have been more likely to participate as a result of greater familiarity with the purpose of the study as explained to school personnel and with the interviewers. At some sites more than one teacher may have completed a form, but for descriptive purposes in the results section below, data is only shown for the first teacher. Results Descriptive Statistics For descriptive statistics of the age 6-8 Teacher Report Form, please refer to the 2 nd volume of the measures manuals (Hunter et al., 2003). Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for some of the TRF scales from the Age 12 interview, by child s gender and study site. Fourteen percent of the sample was considered to be borderline/clinical on the aggression and delinquency subscales. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Age 12 Teacher Report Form T scores by Demographics Aggression Attention Anxiety/ Depression Delinquency Social N % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) Overall (9.3) (7.8) (5.7) (7.1) (6.9) Male (9.4) (7.3) (6.0) (6.8) (6.5) Female (9.3) (8.3) (5.4) (7.5) (7.3) EA (9.5) (8.2) (4.2) (6.1) (5.8) MW (10.0) (8.1) (5.5) (7.7) (7.1) SO (8.6) (6.8) (5.0) (7.2) (6.5) SW (8.7) (8.6) (6.4) (7.4) (7.0) NW (10.2) (7.4) (6.1) (6.8) (7.7) % represents youth who had a T score that is borderline/clinical (>= 67) at age 12.

4 Table 2 displays descriptive statistics for the TRF total scales from the Age 12 interview, by child s gender and study site. As seen in Table 2 below, overall T scores are highest on the externalizing problems scale (41% were considered borderline/clinical). Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Age 12 Teacher Report Form T scores by Demographics Internalizing Externalizing Total N % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) Overall (9.2) (10.3) (9.8) Male (9.3) (10.2) (9.5) Female (9.1) (10.5) (10.0) EA (8.5) (9.5) (9.3) MW (9.8) (10.6) (9.3) SO (8.4) (10.4) (8.8) SW (9.3) (10.1) (9.8) NW (9.9) (10.8) (10.7) % represents youth who had a T score that is borderline/clinical (>= 63) at age 12. Table 3 displays descriptive statistics for some of the TRF subscales from the Age 14 interview, by child s gender and study site. 14 to 15% of the sample was considered to be borderline/ clinical on the delinquency, attention problems, and aggression subscales. Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Age 14 Teacher Report Form T scores by Demographics Aggression Attention Anxiety/ Depression Delinquency Social N % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) Overall (9.0) (8.1) (6.1) (8.2) (6.7) Male (8.8) (8.3) (6.7) (7.9) (6.9) Female (9.2) (7.8) (5.4) (8.6) (6.4) EA (11.8) (11.6) (6.3) (10.2) (6.9) MW (11.2) (7.1) (5.5) (11.3) (5.8) SO (7.7) (7.2) (4.9) (7.1) (6.0) SW (8.3) (7.6) (7.2) (7.8) (7.4) NW (7.9) (6.8) (5.6) (6.7) (6.3) % represents youth who had a T score that is borderline/clinical (>= 67) at age 14. Table 4 displays descriptive statistics for the Teacher Report Form total scales from the Age 14 interview, by child s gender and study site. As seen in Table 4, overall T scores are highest on the externalizing problems scale (37% of the sample was considered to be borderline/clinical).

5 Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for the Age 14 Teacher Report Form T scores by Demographics Internalizing Externalizing Total N % M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) Overall (9.7) (11.0) (10.6) Male (10.0) (10.9) (10.5) Female (9.4) (11.1) (10.7) EA (11.3) (13.5) (13.4) MW (9.2) (12.7) (11.8) SO (8.6) (10.0) (9.7) SW (9.9) (10.5) (9.8) NW (9.6) (9.8) (9.8) % represents youth who had a T score that is borderline/clinical (>= 63) at age 14. Reliability As can be seen in Table 5, internal consistency for the Teacher Report Form scales using the LONGSCAN sample was good to excellent (ranging from.73 to.96). Table 5. Cronbach Alphas for the Teacher Report Form T scores Attentio Aggression n Anxiety/ Depression Delinquency Social Internalizing Externalizing Total Age Age Validity Table 6 provides correlations between the Age 12 Teacher Report Form T scores and other select age 12 outcomes (i.e., T scores from the Child Behavior Checklist, Trauma Symptom Checklist, and Youth Self Report Form). There are some moderately significant correlations (ranging from.09 to.31). Table 6. Correlations between Age 12 Teacher Report Form T Total Scores & other Select Age 12 Outcomes N Internalizing Externalizing Total Trauma Symptom Checklist 473 Anger.06.12**.12** Anxiety.09* Depression.10*.10*.10* PTSD Dissociation Child Behavior Checklist 513 Internalizing.15***.15***.15*** Externalizing.19***.31***.31*** Total.20***.28***.28*** Youth Self-Report 488 Internalizing.10*.11*.11* Externalizing.12**.24***.24*** Total.15***.22***.22*** * <.05, ** <.01, *** <.001

6 Publisher Information University Associates in Psychiatry 1 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT (802) References and Bibliography Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for Teacher s Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of VT, Department of Psychiatry. Hunter, W.M., Cox, C.E., Teagle, S., Johnson, R.M., Mathew, R., Knight, E.D., Leeb, R.T., & Smith, J.B. (2003). Measures for Assessment of Functioning and Outcomes in Longitudinal Research on Child Abuse. Volume 2: Middle Childhood. Accessible at the LONGSCAN web site ( Jacobowitz, D. Personal communication, February 26, See also