Category Archives: Research Instruments and Tools

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS)

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) assesses symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress in adults using a 21-item questionnaire. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me) to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the time). Click here to see a full pdf of the DASS scale.

Screen Shot 2013-02-16 at 5.08.07 PM

Two studies that are worth reading regarding the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) are:

Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 176-181.

Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227-239.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS): DAS-4

The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) is a self-reported tool that measures a couples’ satisfaction–how happy they are with each other) and consists of 32 questions. You can click here to download a pdf of the DAS.

Screen Shot 2013-02-16 at 5.00.47 PMThe DAS-4 is an abbreviated version of this–so you can complete the form faster!

The 4 alludes to the fact that there are only four items: three of which are on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (all the time) to 5 (never), while the final item is on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (extremely happy) to 6 (perfect).

Two articles to read regarding the Dyadic Adjustment Scale are:

Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological Assessment, 17(1), 15-27.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 38(1), 15-28.

Parent Problem Checklist (PPC)

The Parent Problem Checklist (PPC) is used to help measure parental adjustment but using its 16-item questionnaire measuring inter-parental conflict over child rearing issues, with the questions in a yes/no format, but a Likert-scale is also added in to describe the extent to which a problem occurs.

Screen Shot 2013-02-16 at 4.51.58 PM

To see the Parent Problem Checklist click here.

To read more about the Parent Problem Checklist, check out these two articles:

Dadds, M. R., & Powell, M. B. (1991). The relationship of interparental conflict and global marital adjustment to aggression, anxiety, and immaturity in aggressive and nonclinic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(5), 553-567.

Stallman, H. M., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2009). Parent Problem Checklist: Tool for assessing parent conflict. Australian Psychologist, 44(2), 78-85.

 

Parenting Scale (PS)

The Parenting Scale (SC) is a 7-point Likert-scale 30-item questionnaire that measures the similarities and differences in how the parents parent. The questions ask parents simple hypotheticals to see how they would react to different behavior problems. The Screen Shot 2013-02-13 at 10.16.21 PMparenting scale’s 30 questions can be found here. The scale measures the parents on three subscales: laxness, overreactivity  and hostile parenting, although in the Swedish context, only laxness and overreactivity have been found to be reliable (see Salari, Terreros, & Sarkadi, 2012). Laxness refers to a parents’ inconsistent or permissive parenting, while Screen Shot 2013-02-13 at 10.13.23 PMoverreactivity refers to a parents’ harsh or punitive parenting. Hostile parenting refers to the extent to which a parent hits, curses or insults their child.

Rhoades and O’Leary (2007) published this article on the factor structure and validity of the Parenting Scale.

Another good citation for the Parenting Scale (PS) is:

Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 137-144.

Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC)

Screen Shot 2013-02-13 at 9.58.22 PMThe Parenting Sense of Competence scale measures parental competence on two dimensions: Satisfaction and Efficacy. It is a 16 item Likert-scale questionnaire (on a 6 point scale ranging from strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [6]), with nine questions under Satisfaction and seven under Efficacy. Satisfaction section examines the parents’ anxiety, motivation and frustration, while the Efficacy section looks at the parents’ competence, capability levels, and problem-solving abilities in their parental role.

The scale can also be a 17-point scale, as seen here (although as a 16-point scale, the last question isn’t used).

 

Scoring the PSOC: The scoring for the 17-point scale is found here (When scoring the PSOC, it is important to remember that several of the questions are reverse coded).

parenting-sense-of-competence-scale

Screen Shot 2017-03-26 at 3.20.33 PM

Some citation references for this scale are (the last two have public links to the publications’ pdfs):

Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(2), 167-175. (who cite Gilbaud-Wallston & Wanderson, 1978).

Ohan, J. L., Leung, D. W., & Johnston, C. (2000). The Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Evidence of a stable factor structure and validity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des Sciences du comportement, 32(4), 251-261.

Gilmore, Linda A. and Cuskelly, Monica (2008) Factor structure of the parenting sense of competence scale using a normative sample. Child care, health & development, 38(1). pp. 48-55.

Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI)

The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) is a parent rating scale that assesses child behavior problems using two scales: the intensity scale and the problem scale. The intensity scale is seen as the more objective scale, as it measures how frequent particular behaviors occur within the child, while the problem scale measures whether or not the parent sees that behavior as a problem.

Screen Shot 2013-02-13 at 9.39.01 PM

For example, perhaps a child hits their sibling. Hitting the sibling might be part of the intensity scale, while if the parent things this is a problem is part of the problem scale (i.e. one parent may say “hitting should never be allowed” while the other says “siblings will be siblings”–even though both agree that the child does hit their sibling. Screen Shot 2013-02-11 at 10.41.09 AM

The tool can be used for children who are between 2 to 16 years old and the examination takes about 5-10 minutes (using the full 36-item questionnaire). There is also a revised edition with only 22 questions, called the ECBI-22. Both parents and professionals can use the tool.

For more information see:

ECBI’s website for purchasing the product.

General information on ECBI, as well as some citations and the reliability and validity numbers.

Some good citations for ECBI are:

Axberg, U., Hanse, J. J., & Broberg, A. G. (2008). Parents’ description of conduct     problems in their children – A test of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) in a Swedish sample aged 3–10. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 497-505.

Burns, G., & Patterson, D. R. (2000). Factor structure of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: A parent rating scale of oppositional defiant behavior toward adults, inattentive behavior, and conduct problem behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(4), 569-577.

Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Rich, B. A., & Eyberg, S. M. (2001). Accuracy of assessment: the discriminative and predictive power of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Ambulatory Child Health, 7(3-4), 249-257.

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): National Averages and Region V Averages for 2010

I have written a number of posts on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). This assessment tool for early childhood education seems to be a hot topic, probably because it is often used in ECE research and because it’s mandated by Head Start (feel free to search my blog by running a search on the homepage for other CLASS blog posts for more information on CLASS, what it can do for you, how it’s used, and the benefits of CLASS).

In this installment though I would like to discuss the 2010 national averages of CLASS and the regional averages for Region V. Region V consists of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. To see the full pdf posted by http://www.ohsai.org click here.

The average CLASS scores for the Nation under the three domains are as follows:

Emotional Support:              5.35

Classroom Organization:     4.74

Instructional Support:         3.36

Region V has the CLASS averages under the three domains are as follows:

Emotional Support:              5.41

Classroom Organization:     4.76

Instructional Support:         3.54

This means that on average, Region V is doing better than the national average on all three domains. Despite the numbers being very close (i.e. Classroom Organization is 4.74 vs 4.76), remember that the smallest difference on a large scale (i.e. 10’s of thousands of children) make a big impact on our overall nation’s education scores. And so Region V should celebrate for being better than the national average! Something to be proud of! However, Illinois and Indiana are below the Regional and the National average for Emotional Support; Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan are below the Regional and National averages for Classroom Organization; and Illinois and Indiana are below the National and Regional averages for Instructional Support.

In other other words, Illinois and Indiana need to up their classroom quality. On the other hand, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin are doing pretty well comparatively.

With that in mind, remember that CLASS scores are out of 7 points on all dimensions (and therefore on all three domains as well). So Instructional Support, for example, as a long way to go before we see the true potential of what excellent Early Childhood Education can accomplish.

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): 2011 Region V Averages

I have written several blog posts about the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (feel free to search my blog to read more on CLASS and the what’s, how’s, and why’s of it).

I recently posted the 2010 national averages of CLASS under their three domains. However, today I want to compare Region V’s average scores between 2010 and 2011. Region V consists of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Did Region V make any improvements in CLASS over the course of the year? Did Region V falter and have their classrooms degrade over the three domains of CLASS? Let’s find out.

Last year (2010), Region V did better, on average, on all three dimensions than the National Average, with Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin leading the charge (see early blog post). Click here to see a pdf of how Region V scored on CLASS for 2010 and 2011, beyond what this blog post discusses.

2010’s averages are as follows for Region V:

Region V has the CLASS averages under the three domains are as follows:

Emotional Support:              5.41

Classroom Organization:     4.76

Instructional Support:         3.54

In 2011, Region V scored as follows:

Emotional Support:              5.24

Classroom Organization:     4.86

Instructional Support:         3.20

This means that Region V dropped on both Emotional Support and Instructional Support, while their Classroom Organization increased. Not good. Not good. The swing for Classroom Organization was a pretty good upward swing by increasing by 0.10. That’s huge! Especially when considering the number of classrooms that would have to change in order to increase by a full tenth of a point.

However, Emotional Support dropped by 0.17 and Instructional Support by 0.34. What this means is that Region V is being less sensitive to the children’s needs (i.e. less smiling, fewer praise, possibly more sarcasm or possibly being demeaning to children, etc) while at the same time decreasing what Region V is actually teaching the children (i.e. less verbal responses, less feedback loops, less thinking and conceptualizing by the children, etc).

The caveat to this is that in 2010 their were only 64 grantees that had CLASS completed on them while in 2011 there were 73. It’s hypothetically possible that the scores didn’t go down or up (or maybe they did), but rather that 2011 shows a fuller picture of the kind of education Head Start children are receiving compared to 2010, since there are so many more grantees participating in CLASS in 2011. As it stands, it’s possible that the grantees who were scored last year increased under all three domains, but since 9 more grantees were graded, it’s hypothetically possible that those 9 scored much lower than all of the other grantees and thus dragged down the average. Naturally the opposite of this could be true as well. Only when there is a full picture of all of the grantees or when we can compare the same grantees to the same grantees over time will we truly know if they are improving or not.

 

 

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Implementation Guide: Hamre, Goffin, Kraft-Sayre

Hamre, Goffin, Kraft-Sayre created a nice slideshow of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Implementation Guide. An overview from the index points out that this slide show goes over topics such as: investing in effective teacher-child interactions, the classroom assessment scoring system: an overview, improving teacher-child interactions, evaluation and monitoring, and professional development.

For other blogs on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): click here to read a synopsis on CLASS and other early childhood assessment tools, click here to see the breakdown of the CLASS content (the domains and dimensions), click here to read more about Dr Hamre’s work regarding CLASS and academic achievement, or click here to find research that has been published using CLASS as an assessment tool.

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Interventions for Academic Achievement

Bridget K. Hamre (hamre@virginia.edu) at the University of Virginia presented at the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Conference a PowerPoint that lays out what the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) can do: namely, assess the classroom quality, while pairing that up with academic achievement for adolescents in high school. She has also given an interview with ScienceWatch on her thoughts on CLASS and on early childhood social science research in general.

Hamre’s PowerPoint provides a lot of nice background information on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) including topics like CLASS’ scope and alignment, what is CLASS?, CLASS versions, What does CLASS measure?, What are the domains and dimensions of CLASS?, Standardizing CLASS, CLASS Training, Reliability and Validity of CLASS, data on CLASS, alignment with professional development, and an academic intervention using CLASS-S.

For other blogs on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): click here to read a synopsis on CLASS and other early childhood assessment tools, click here to see the breakdown of the CLASS content (the domains and dimensions), click here to read about CLASS and how to implement it, or click here to find research that has been published using CLASS as an assessment tool.