The Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and Related Materials: Reliability and Validity of Syndromal Assessment

Abstract

The advances in syndromal assessment described by McConaughy (this issue) are analyzed with respect to two related themes: (a) what can be said with confidence and (b) what can be said that might be helpful. There are many uncertainties associated with the prototype-matching process, including alternative methods for the representation of syndromes (e.g., multitrait scaling analysis) and problems with the integration of information from multiple sources (e.g., parent x teacher agreement). The “empirical puzzles” that result present many challenges for professional judgment and little reassurance regarding the reliability of the process. Beyond the measurement difficulties, errors that stem from the child-centered focus of syndromal assessment may be more significant. Although the consideration of empirically-based syndromes can contribute to the assessment-intervention process, alternative strategies for the assessment and conceptualization of problem situations may afford more direct links to the intervention-relevant issues.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gregg M. Macmann

Gregg M. Macmann, PhD, received his doctorate in School Psychology from the University of Cincinnati in 1987. He is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Iowa. His research interests include collaborative consultation, assessment for decision making, and methodological issues in scale validation.

David W. Barnett

David W. Barnett, PhD, is a Professor of School Psychology at the University of Cincinnati. His research and practice interests include services to preschool children, decision making, and assessment and intervention design.

Eric J. Lopez

Eric J. Lopez is completing his doctorate in school psychology from the University of Iowa. His interests include nondiscriminatory assessment and intervention design, cross-cultural counseling, and multicultural and bilingual education.