Reliability and validity of Brief Problem Monitor, an abbreviated form of the Child Behavior Checklist

Abstract

Aim The parent form of the 113 item Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) is widely utilized by child psychiatrists and psychologists. This report examines the reliability and validity of a recently developed abbreviated version of the CBCL, the Brief Problem Monitor (BPM). Methods Caregivers (N=567) completed the CBCL online and the 19 BPM items were examined separately. Results Internal consistency of the BPM was high (Cronbach’s alpha=0.91) and satisfactory for the Internalizing (0.78), Externalizing (0.86), and Attention (0.87) scales. High correlations between the CBCL and BPM were identified for the total score (r=0.95) as well as the Internalizing (0.86), Externalizing (0.93), and Attention (0.97) scales. The BPM and scales were sensitive and identified significantly higher behavioral and emotional problems among children whose caregiver reported a psychiatric diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, bipolar, depression, anxiety, developmental disabilities, or Autism Spectrum Disorders relative to a comparison group that had not been diagnosed with these disorders. BPM ratings also differed by the socioeconomic status and education of the caregiver. Mothers with higher annual incomes rated their children as having 38.8% fewer total problems (Cohen’s d=0.62) as well as 42.8% lower Internalizing (d=0.53), 44.1% less Externalizing (d=0.62), and 30.9% decreased Attention (d=0.39). A similar pattern was evident for maternal education (d=0.30 to 0.65). Conclusion Overall, these findings provide strong psychometric support for the BPM although the differences based on the characteristics of the parent indicates that additional information from other sources (e.g., teachers) should be obtained to complement parental reports.

The Brief Problem Monitor-Parent form (BPM-P), a short version of the Child Behavior Checklist: Psychometric properties in Spanish 6- to 8-year-old children.

“…And second, the discriminative power for BPM-P scores may have been affected because of the low frequency of psychopathology in community samples. Results should be generalised to the children population with caution, given that few families of low SES participated, leading to underestimated ratings of problem scores, as has been observed in mothers responding to the BPM-P (Piper et al, 2014) and also in parents answering the CBCL/6-18 (Raadal, Milgrom, Cauce, & Mancl, 1994). Thus, it would be highly desirable to complement data with reports from teachers and self-reports.…”

“…Evidence on criterion-related validity with psychiatric diagnoses based on information reported by caregivers through an online survey for the English version has also been reported, but no standardised effect sizes were provided and the authors only mentioned that BPM-P scores in the diagnosed group were at least twice those of the non-diagnosed group (Piper et al, 2014). The BPM-P scores of the German version adequately discriminated between clinical and non-clinical children as a whole (OR ≥ 1.25) and also separately when comparing children with and without an internalizing disorder and an externalizing or attention disorder (Rodenacker et al, 2015).…”

“…The BPM-P specifically has been validated in an online recruited sample mainly from the Western United States with a mean child age of 11.5 years (Piper, Gray, Raber, & Birkett, 2014), a Norwegian version in a large sample from the general population with a mean child age of 10.6 years (Richter, 2015), and a German version in clinical and population-based samples with a mean child age of 11.5 and 12.3 years, respectively (Rodenacker, Plück, & Döpfner, 2015). Findings have shown acceptable internal consistency (α between .66 for Internalizing and .87 for Attention, and ≥ .83 for the Total problems score) and excellent concurrent validity with the corresponding scales of the CBCL/6-18 original long form (r between .83 for Internalizing and .97 for Attention, and ≥ .88 for the Total problems score) (Piper et al, 2014;Richter, 2015;Rodenacker et al, 2015).…”

The General Factor of Psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study: A Comparison of Alternative Modeling Approaches

“…These composites effectively reflect a measurement model in which there is a single factor and all indicators are weighted equally.The Kiddie-Structured Assessment for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS) is a structured, diagnostic interview administered to parents via computer in reference to their child (Kaufman, Birmaher, Brent, & Rao, 1997). The Brief Problem Monitoring Form (BPM) is an abbreviated, 18 item version of the CBCL administered to teachers (Piper, Gray, Raber, & Birkett, 2014). Both the KSADS and BPM total problems scores were used here (average factor loadings of .73 and .76, respectively, in unidimensional item response models).…”

World Health Organization life‐skills training is efficacious in reducing youth self‐report scores in primary school going children in Kenya

“…This self-report measure assesses emotional and behavioural problems and demonstrates excellent consistency during comparisons across different and multicultural societies (Piper, Gray, Raber, & Birkett, 2015), has good psychometric properties with high levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82 for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders scales), as well as high test-retest reliability (r = 0.88) (Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2003).…”