Clinical validity of the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms-62 (CCAPS-62): Further evaluation and clinical applications.

Abstract

Self-report instruments of psychological symptoms are increasingly used in counseling centers but rely on rigorous evaluation of their clinical validity. Three studies reported here (total N = 26,886) investigated the validity of the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms-62 (CCAPS-62; Locke et al., 2011) as an assessment and screening instrument. In Study 1, initial evidence regarding the concurrent validity of the CCAPS-62 was replicated and extended in a naturalistic clinical sample of clients from 16 counseling centers. Using this sample, convergent validity of the subscales was examined in counseling center clients, the range of sensitivity of the subscales was investigated using item-response theory, and the presence of 2nd-order factors was preliminarily examined. In Study 2, 7 of the 8 CCAPS-62 subscales statistically significantly differentiated between students in counseling and those who were not, using data collected from a large national survey, although most differences were small and the groups' distributions overlapped considerably. Cut scores based on the differences between these clinical and nonclinical populations showed limited utility due to overall similarities between these broadly defined groups. In Study 3, therapist-rated diagnoses collected from 5 university counseling centers were used to further examine the validity of subscale scores. In addition, cut points for diagnostic screening using receiver operating characteristic curves were evaluated. Overall, these studies support the use of the CCAPS-62 as an initial measure of psychological symptoms in college counseling settings, provide additional information about its psychometric performance, develop cut scores, and illustrate the potential for collaboration between practitioners and researchers on a large scale.

Clinical Utility of the CCAPS, CAS, and OQ-45

“…We also sought to provide university counseling centers information about the strengths and limitations of these instruments, as well as provide the test publishers with valuable information about potential improvements. Additionally, the present study partially replicated and extended previous clinical utility studies on these instruments (e.g., McAleavey et al, 2012;Nafziger, Couillard, & Smith, 1997).…”

Change in Academic Distress: Examining Differences Between a Clinical and Nonclinical Sample of College Students

“…Internal consistency for the Academic Distress subscale was determined to be .83 (alpha) with a mean of 1.94 ( SD = 1.03). The Academic Distress subscale was found to correlate significantly with the Academic Adjustment scale of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, r =–.69 (Beyers & Goossens, 2002; McAleavey et al, in press). The test–retest of the CCAPS‐62 was examined using a nonclinical undergraduate sample from a Department of Psychology subject pool during Spring 2010.…”

Inter- and intra-group differences in psychological concerns among international students

“…Cross-cultural validation of the CCAPS-62 has been undertaken in some cases, including a Thai version (Ratanasiripong et al, 2015). Good construct validity and convergent validity have been demonstrated for nonclinical and clinical samples McAleavey et al, 2012). In addition, the test-retest reliabilities for the eight CCAPS-62 subscales after a one-week interval ranged from .78 to .93 and a two-week interval ranged from .76 to .92 .…”

“…Psychometric properties of the CCAPS-62 across diverse US ethnic minority and international student groups have been documented (e.g. Locke et al, 2011;McAleavey et al, 2012). Since its psychometric development, the CCAPS has been used in an array of studies, including explorations of therapist effectiveness with racial and ethnic minorities (Hayes, McAleavey, Castonguay, & Locke, 2016) and distress among transgender college students (Effrig, Bieschke, & Locke, 2011).…”