1
Test
Running head: THE SCREENING TEST
Article Summary:
The Screening Test for Emotional Problems: Studies of Reliability and Validity
Tracey Phillips, Veronica Hardy, Debbie Hood, Amanda Szapkiw, and Lucinda West
Regent University
Article Summary:
The Screening Test for Emotional Problems: Studies of Reliability and Validity
The researchers provide a preliminary analysis of the reliability and validity of scores on the Screening Test for Emotional Problems (STEP) as they relate to criteria established for students with emotional disturbance under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). In addition, the five criteria for public school students to be diagnosed as emotionally disturbed are identified as: (a) an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory or health factors, (b) an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers, (c) inappropriate types of behaviors or feelings under normal circumstances, (d) a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression, and (e) a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. The BASC-2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006) fulfills categories 2, 3, and 4.
This article further “examines the five specific eligibility characteristics for the category of emotional disturbance defined in the IDEIA and presents preliminary pilot studies of reliability and validity of mother and teacher responses on the Screening Test for Emotional Problems (STEP)” (Erford, Balcom, & Morre-Thomas, 2007, p. 209). This test is currently being used to aid in the identification of school-age children with emotional disturbances as defined by the IDEIA. In addition to varying eligibility criteria, the researchers identify the current limitations that school-based counselors and psychologists face in assessing emotional disturbance.
A critical limitation that school-based counselors and psychologists experience is the lack of consistent, comprehensive, and centralized assessment tool to appropriately screen and identify students with emotional disturbances. Subsequently, practitioners use authoritative nosological diagnostic sources such as the DSM-IV-TR and standardized clinical assessments such as the MMPI- adolescent version for diagnosis. A concern with this method, as expressed by the writers, is that many school counseling professionals lack comfort with the level of training and expertise required to implement the DSM-IV-TR successfully. As a result, the counselors are exceedingly cautious due to the ethical implications of practicing beyond their competency level. A second limitation is the financial and time constraints, which result in the use of quick screening level instruments. The practitioners are often forced to make referrals to outside agencies for more costly diagnostic assessments and treatment. Due to these constraints, the writers chose to conduct a pilot study using the STEP and to measure its efficacy in the diagnosing and screening of children who meet the criteria for emotional disturbance.
The study consisted of matched sets of mothers and primary special education teachers of 470 participants (375 boys, 85 girls) ages 5-18 who were eligible for special education services due to an emotional disturbance. Sample participants were selected from a single large, mostly suburban school system in a southern U.S. state. The racial breakdowns were as follows: 68% Caucasian, 18% African-American, 13% Hispanic, and 1% Asian American. There were approximately 88% who yielded from urban or suburban settings and 12% from rural settings.
The STEP piloted consisted of 40 items, with 8 items assigned to each of the 5 subscales identified in the IDEIA: 1) academic performance 2) social problems, 3) behavior problems, 4) depression and 5) anxiety. In order to enhance the consistency of the assessment tool, reliability and validity measures were implemented.
The researchers investigated item reliability, validity and decision accuracy among the teacher and mother responses. For test-retest reliability the STEP was completed by mothers and teachers of the participants then completed again after 14 days. For convergent validity the scores on the STEP were compared to 2 ASEBA instruments: the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) completed by parents, and the Teachers Report Form (TRF) completed by the teacher, to determine correlation of scores. In order to measure Decision Accuracy, the mother and teacher of each participant completed the STEP and the results were subjected to decision accuracy analysis indicators of sensitivity, specificity, PPP, NPP and %CC. In conclusion, the findings suggest that the STEP is a “psychometrically adequate screening tool for students with a wide range of emotional disturbances as defined in the IDEIA” (p. 221). In contrast, the tool does have limitations such as test equivalency across respondents and sampling issues related to selection and diversity.
Reference
Erford, B., Balcom, L., & Morre-Thomas, C. (2007). The screening test for emotional problems: Studies of reliability and validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,39(4), 209-225.