Test inventory
Australian Scale for Asperger’s Syndrome
Achenbach Child Behaviour Checklist
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Ages 6-18
Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule –Revised (ADIS-R) Child
Beck Anxiety Inventory
Beck Depression Inventory –II
Beck Hopelessness Inventory
Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional & Social Impairment
Bene Anthony Family Relations Test (Test cupboard)
Benton Controlled Oral Word Association Test
British Ability Scales
CAVLT
Child’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test
Children’s Apperception Test
Children’s atypical development scale
Children’s Depression Scale
Children’s Memory Scale
Connor’s rating scales
Connors’ Continuous Performance Test 2.0
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory
Coping Scale for Adults
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales
DES
Eating Disorder Inventory-II
Goldstein-Scheerer Tests of Abstract and Concrete Thinking
Impact of Events Scale (IES)
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
Key Math Revised
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory
MMPI-2
MMPI-Adolescent
NART
NEALE
Pain - OMPSQ
P-3 & Pain profile
Padua inventory
Piers-Harris 2, Piers Harris Children’s Self Concept Scale
Post-Traumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale
Personality Assessment Inventory
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)
Rey Complex Figure Test
Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale
Reynolds Child Depression Scale
RCMAS
Rohde Sentence Completion Method
Rorschach Inkblot Test
SCL-90-R
SCOLP
Self-Directed Search
SIQ
ASIQ
Social Skills Training: Enhancing Social Competence with Children and Adolescents
South Australian Spelling Test
STAXI
STAXI-2
STROOP TEST
SYMBOL DIGIT MODALITIES TEST (SDMT)
Thematic Apperception Test
TRAIL MAKING TEST
TRAUMA SYMPTOM INVENTORY
WAIS-R
WASI
WIAT
Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised
WISC-III
WISC-IV
Wisconsin Card Sort Test
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised
WPPSI-R
WPPSI-III
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning
Test inventory
Australian Scale for Asperger’s Syndrome
This questionnaire is designed to identify behaviours and abilities indicative of Asperger's Syndrome in children during their primary school years. This is the age at which the unusual pattern of behaviour and abilities is most conspicuous. Each question or statement has a rating scale with 0 as the ordinary level expected of a child of that age.
Achenbach Child Behaviour Checklist
Purpose: Designed to assess "social competence" and "behavior problems" in children. [Parent, teacher, self-report]
Population: Ages 4-18.
Score: Five scale scores.
Authors: Thomas M. Achenbach and Craig Edelbrock.
Publisher: Thomas M. Achenbach.
Description: The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) was designed to address the problem of defining child behavior problems empirically. It is based on a careful review of the literature and carefully conducted empirical studies.It is designed to assess in a standardized format the behavioral problems and social competencies of children as reported by parents.
Scoring: The CBCL can be self-administered or administered by an interviewer. It consists of 118 items related to behavior problems which are scored on a 3-point scale ranging from not true to often true of the child. There are also 20 social competency items used to obtain parents’ reports of the amount and quality of their child’s participation in sports, hobbies, games, activities, organizations, jobs and chores, friendships, how well the child gets along with others and plays and works by him/herself, and school functioning.
Reliability: Individual item intraclass correlations (ICC) of greater than .90 were obtained "between item scores obtained from mothers filling out the CBCL at 1-week intervals, mothers and fathers filling out the CBCL on their clinically-referred children, and three different interviewers obtaining CBCLs from parents of demographically matched triads of children."Stability of ICCs over a 3-month period were .84 for behavior problems and .97 for social competencies. Test-retest reliability of mothers’ ratings were .89. Some differences were found between mothers’ and fathers’ individual ratings.
Validity: Several studies have supported the construct validity of the instrument. Tests of criterion-related validity using clinical status as the criterion (referred/non-referred) also support the validity of the instrument. Importantly, demographic variables such as race and SES accounted for a relatively small proportion of score variance.
Norms: Normative data, obtained from parents of 1,300 children, were heterogeneous with respect to race and socioeconomic status and were proportionate to the composition of the general U.S. population.
Suggested Uses: It is suggested that the CBCL is aviable tool for assessing a child’s behaviors, via parent report, in a clinical or research environment.
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Ages 6-18
The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) includes an integrated set of rating forms for ages 1.5 to 59:
Ages 1.5-5 Module (Pre-School)
Ages 6-18 Module (School)
new Test Observation Forms for Ages 2-18 (TOF/2-18)
Ages 18-59 Module (Adult)
Ages 60+ Module (Adult) -- Call
ASEBA forms are used and researched worldwide, as reported in some 5,000 studies across 50 countries.
Features
Multi-informant assessment for ages 1.5-59 with separate forms available for parents/caregivers, teachers/educators, self-rating
Separate norms by gender and age group for competencies, adaptive functioning, syndromes, DSM-oriented scales, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems
Comparable scales across wide age ranges
User-friendly forms for both hand-scoring and key entry (computer-scoring); scannable forms and direct client entry also available
Specialized Guides illustrate use of the ASEBA in mental health, medical, school, and child/family service settings
Extensive research on service needs and outcomes; diagnosis; prevalence of problems, medical conditions, treatment efficacy, genetic and environmental effects, epidemiology, cross-cultural variatons, child abuse, ADHD, HIV, PTSD
The ASEBA offers a comprehensive approach to assessing adaptive and maladaptive functioning. ASEBA instruments clearly document clients' functioning in terms of both quantitative scores and individualized descriptions in respondents' own words.
Descriptions include what concerns respondents most about the clients; the best things about clients; and details of competencies and problems that are not captured by quantitative scores alone. The individualized descriptive data, plus competence, adaptive, and problem scores, facilitate comprehensive, in-depth assessment.
Numerous studies demonstrate significant associations between ASEBA scores and both diagnostic and special education categories. You can relate ASEBA directly to DSM-IV diagnostic categories by using the normed DSM-oriented scales that are available for scoring ASEBA forms.
Ages 1.5-5 Module (Pre-School Age)
Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5-5 (CBCL/1.5-5)
Caregiver-Teacher Report Form (C-TRF/1.5-5)
Ages 6-18 Module (School Age)
Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18 (CBCL/6-18)
Youth Self-Report for Ages 11-18 (YSR/11-18)
Teacher's Report Form for Ages 6-18 (TRF/6-18)
Test Observation Forms for Ages 2-18 (TOF/2-18) NEW
Direct Observation Form for Ages 5-14 (DOF)
Semistructured Clinical Interview for Children & Adolescents (SCICA)
Ages 18-59 Module (Adult Age)
Adult Behavior Checklist for Ages 18-59 (ABCL)
Adult Self-Report for Ages 18-59 (ASR)
Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule –Revised (ADIS-R) Child
(none found yet)
Beck Anxiety Inventory
Purpose: Designed to discriminate anxiety from depression in individuals.
Population: Adults.
Score: Yields a total score
Time: (5-10) minutes.
Author: Aaron T. Beck.
Publisher: The Psychological Corporation.
Description: The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was developed to address the need for an instrument that would reliably discriminate anxiety from depression while displaying convergent validity. Such an instrument would offer advantages for clinical and research purposes over existing self-report measures, which have not been shown to differentiate anxiety from depression adequately.
Scoring: The scale consists of 21 items, each describing a common symptom of anxiety. The respondent is asked to rate how much he or she has been bothered by each symptom over the past week on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 3. The items are summed to obtain a total score that can range from 0 to 63.
Reliability: The scale obtained high internal consistency and item-total correlations ranging from .30 to .71 (median=.60). A subsample of patients (n=83) completed the BAI after 1 week, and the correlation between intake and 1-week BAI scores was .75.
Validity: The correlations of the BAI with a set of self-report and clinician-rated scales were all significant. The correlation of the BAI with the HARS-R and HRSD-R were .51 and .25, respectively. The correlation of the BAI with the BDI was .48. Convergent and discriminant validity to discriminate homogeneous and heterogeneous diagnostic groups were ascertained from three studies. The results confirm the presence of these validities.
Norms: The three normative samples of psychiatric outpatients were drawn from consecutive routine evaluations at the Center for Cognitive Therapy in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The total sample size was 1,086. There were 456 men and 630 women.
Suggested Uses: Recommended for use in assessing anxiety in clinical and research settings
Beck Depression Inventory –II
The Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (BDI-II) is a 21-item self-report instrument intended to assess the existence and severity of symptoms of depression as listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; 1994). This new revised edition replaces the BDI and the BDI-1A, and includes items intending to index symptoms of severe depression, which would require hospitalization. Items have been changed to indicate increases or decreases in sleep and appetite, items labeled body image, work difficulty, weight loss, and somatic preoccupation were replaced with items labeled agitation, concentration difficulty and loss of energy, and many statements were reworded resulting in a substantial revision of the original BDI and BDI-1A. When presented with the BDI-II, a patient is asked to consider each statement as it relates to the way they have felt for the past two weeks, to more accurately correspond to the DSM-IV criteria.
Each of the 21 items corresponding to a symptom of depression is summed to give a single score for the BDI-II. There is a four-point scale for each item ranging from 0 to 3. On two items (16 and 18) there are seven options to indicate either an increase or decrease of appetite and sleep. Cut score guidelines for the BDI-II are given with the recommendation that thresholds be adjusted based on the characteristics of the sample, and the purpose for use of the BDI-II. Total score of 0-13 is considered minimal range, 14-19 is mild, 20-28 is moderate, and 29-63 is severe.
BDI has been used for 35 years to identify and assess depressive symptoms, and has been reported to be highly reliable regardless of the population. It has a high coefficient alpha, (.80) its construct validity has been established, and it is able to differentiate depressed from non-depressed patients. For the BDI-II the coefficient alphas (.92 for outpatients and .93 for the college students) were higher than those for the BDI- 1A (.8 6). The correlations for the corrected item-total were significant at .05 level (with a Bonferroni adjustment), for both the outpatient and the college student samples. Test-retest reliability was studied using the responses of 26 outpatients who were tested at first and second therapy sessions one week apart. There was a correlation of .93, which was significant at p < .001. The mean scores of the first and second total scores were comparable with a paired t (25)=1.08, which was not significant.
Validity: One of the main objectives of this new version of the BDI was to have it conform more closely to the diagnostic criteria for depression, and items were added, eliminated and reworded to specifically assess the symptoms of depression listed in the DSM-IV and thus increase the content validity of the measure. With regard to construct validity, the convergent validity of the BDI-II was assessed by administration of the BDI-1A and the BDI-II to two sub-samples of outpatients (N=191). The order of presentation was counterbalanced and at least one other measure was administered between these two versions of the BDI, yielding a correlation of .93 (p<.001) and means of 18.92 (SD = 11.32) and 21.888 (SD = 12.69) the mean BDI-II score being 2.96 points higher than the BDI-1A. A calibration study of the two scales was also conducted, and these results are available in the BDI-II manual. Consistent with the comparison of mean differences, the BDI-II scores are 3 points higher than the BDI-1A scores in the middle of the scale. Factorial Validity has been established by the inter-correlations of the 21 items calculated from the sample responses.
Beck Hopelessness Inventory
Description:Hopelessness is the experience of despair or extreme pessimism about the future, and as such, is part of the "cognitive triad" (along with a negative view of oneself and one's world) described in Beck's (1979) cognitive model of depression. According to Shneidman (1996), hopelessness-helplessness is the most common emotion experienced among suicidal persons. The Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck et al., 1974; Beck and Steer, 1988; Steer and Beck, 1988) is a 20-item assessment device designed to measure negative expectations about the future. Individuals completing the BHS are asked to answer the questionnaire based on their attitudes during the preceding week. The self-report instrument may be administered in written or oral form, and each item is scored with a true/false response. Total scores range from 0-20 with higher scores indicating a greater degree of hopelessness. The BHS has been translated into Dutch (DeWilde et al., 1993) and Hebrew (Pershakovsky, 1985).
Potential Use:Clinical research and assessment.
Populations Studied:The BHS has been used with high school students and other non-clinically ascertained populations (DeWilde et al., 1993; Osman et al., 1998), adolescent psychiatric outpatients (Brent et al., 1997; 1998) and inpatients (Enns et al., 1997; Goldston et al., 2000; Kashden et al., 1993; Kumar and Steer, 1995; Morano et al., 1993; Rotheram-Borus and Trautman, 1988; Steer et al., 1993a, 1993b; Topol and Reznikoff, 1982), and adolescent suicide attempters on a pediatrics unit (Swedo et al., 1991).
Reliability:Among adolescents who have been psychiatrically hospitalized, hopelessness as assessed with the BHS seems to be a relatively stable construct (correlation between serial administrations 6 months apart = .63; Goldston, unpublished data, January 2000). These data dovetail with data from adult samples suggesting that hopelessness as assessed with the BHS has some "trait characteristics" (Young et al., 1996).
Internal Consistency:In adolescent psychiatric inpatients (Steer et al., 1993a), the BHS has been found to be internally consistent (KR-20 coefficient=.86). Both the Dutch translation of the scale (in three samples of adolescents) and the Israeli version of the BHS have been found to be internally consistent (alphas from .68 to .75, and alpha=.89, respectively).
Concurrent Validity:In a United States adolescent psychiatric inpatient sample, and in Canadian samples of Aboriginal psychiatric inpatient suicide attempters and non-Aboriginal psychiatric inpatient suicide attempters, BHS scores were found to correlate (r=.53, .75, and .82, respectively) with severity of depression as measured with the BDI (Enns et al., 1997). In nonreferred adolescents, BHS scores were negatively related (as predicted) with Reasons for Living - Adolescent Version total scores (r=-.65; Osman et al., 1998). In adolescent psychiatric inpatients, severity of hopelessness was positively related to suicidal ideation (Steer et al., 1993b). Likewise, changes in hopelessness over one year among high school students were related to changes in suicidal ideation over the same period of time, after controlling for changes in depression (Mazza and Reynolds, 1998).
In both Caucasian and Aboriginal adolescent psychiatric inpatient suicide attempters, BHS scores were related to suicide intent; the relationship between BHS scores and suicide intent remained significant for Caucasian but not Aboriginal youths after controlling for concurrent depression (Enns et al., 1997). BHS scores were not found to be related to suicidal intent among primarily Hispanic and African-American adolescent psychiatry inpatient suicide attempters (Rotheram-Borus and Trautman, 1988).
In one study, adolescent suicide attempters reported more hopelessness at psychiatric hospitalization than did adolescents without a history of attempts (Goldston et al., 2000). In another study, suicidal adolescents as well as depressed nonsuicidal adolescents reported more hopelessness than nondepressed, nonsuicidal adolescents (DeWilde et al., 1993). In this study, depressed adolescents also reported more hopelessness than suicidal youths, although it is worth noting that some of the suicide attempters made their suicide attempts as long ago as one year before the study.
Psychiatrically hospitalized adolescent suicide attempters had higher hopelessness scores than nonattempters, both in samples matched for severity of depression (Morano et al., 1993) and in samples not matched for depression scores (Kashden et al., 1993; Topol and Reznikoff, 1982). Hopelessness was one of two variables that were used to discriminate between (or correctly classify) 76% of suicide attempters hospitalized on a pediatrics unit, other at-risk youths, and normal controls (Swedo et al., 1991).
Predictive Validity:Among adults, hopelessness has repeatedly been found to be associated with eventual suicide (Beck et al., 1985, 1990; Fawcett et al., 1990) and repeat self-harm behaviors (Scott et al., 1997; Brittlebank et al., 1990) in clinically referred samples.
Among adolescent psychiatric inpatients with a history of suicide attempts, BHS scores were predictive of suicide attempts following discharge from the hospital (Goldston et al., 2000). These predictive effects were not apparent among adolescents without a history of attempts, and were no longer statistically significant after controlling for depression (Goldston et al., 2000). In a second study (Hawton et al., 1999), the BHS failed to differentiate between adolescents who made repeat attempts and adolescents who did not make repeat attempts in a 1-year follow-up after hospitalization for self-poisoning. However, this study was limited in power because of the small number of youths attempting suicide in the follow-up. When Hawton et al. (1999) combined for statistical analyses the adolescents who presented at hospitalization with repeat suicide attempts and adolescents who made repeat suicide attempts over the follow-up, the repeaters did on average have higher BHS scores than the youths with single overdoses.