Gail Ryser

The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale Convergent Validity

In this article, two studies that investigate the convergent validity of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS) are reported. In both studies, special education teachers of students identified as seriously emotionally dis turbed completed the BERS and a second mea sure of child functioning. In the first study, the five BERS subscales and overall strength quo tient were correlated with the five subscales and total score from the Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment-Adolescent Version. Correlations were generally moderate to high. In the second study, the BERS was correlated to the five com petence scales, the broad-band dimensions (i.e., Internalizing and Externalizing), and the Total Problem score of Achenbachs Teacher Report Form. Correlations were generally moderate to high for the competence scales and the externalizing dimension, but not for the internalizing dimension. Recommenda tions for use of the BERS are discussed.

The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability

Two studies are reported addressing the reliability of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS). The first study investigated test-retest reliability over a two-week period to determine the stability of the measure over time. The second study investigated inter-rater reliability between two teachers or classroom aides who were familiar with a student to determine the consistency with which the measure can be used by different individuals. In each study, samples were drawn from populations of students identified with emotional or behavioral disorders as specified by federal statutes. Reliability coefficients in each study were above .80, the standard recommended for screening tests that are reported individually, and in most cases above .90. Implications for use of the BERS are discussed.

Standardization of the behavioral and emotional rating scale: factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity.

The present study reports on the standardization of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale and examines its factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Data on a national sample of children without disabilities (n=2,176) and children with emotional and behavioral disorders (n=861) were collected. Analysis of the data from the first sample identified five factors: interpersonal strengths, family involvement, intrapersonal strength, school functioning, and affective development. The factors appeared to be highly stable and reliable (.79 to .99). No statistically significant age or gender differences were noted, although females were rated higher on each factor and the overall score. The second sample was rated significantly lower than the first across the factors and total score. The article discusses future research issues and practical implications.

Validity and Reliability of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (2nd Edition): Youth Rating Scale

Objective: This article reports findings of three studies addressing convergent validity and test-retest reliability of the Youth Rating Scale of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale-Second Edition (BERS-2). Method: Pearson product-moment correlations were used in all three studies, the first two addressing convergent validity and the third addressing test-retest reliability. Results: Analysis indicated that (a) the six BERS-2 subscales and overall strength index were generally highly positively correlated with the social skills composite score from the Social Skills Rating System-Student Form (Secondary Level, Grades 7 to 12), (b) the BERS-2 subscales and strength index were generally moderately negatively correlated with the Problem scales of Achenbach’s Youth Self-Report, and (c) test-retest reliability coefficients over a 1-week period were all above .80. Conclusions: Results provide evidence that the BERS-2 Youth Rating Scale has acceptable psychometric properties and may be considered for use by social work practitioners in assessment and intervention activities.

Strengths-Based Assessment Differences Across Students with LD and EBD

Current assessment techniques for children with learning disabilities (LD) and emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) are typically focused on identifying deficits. In this study we investigated the use of an alternative strength-based perspective, using the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS). Results showed that the BERS discriminated among students with LD and EBD and those who were nondisabled. The use of the BERS improved significantly over chance in classifying students with EBD and nondisabled students, but not in classifying students with LD. This suggests that the BERS may be useful in the EBD assessment process. Implications for future research are discussed.

Characteristics of Emotional Disturbance of Elementary School Students.

The five characteristics of emotional disturbance (ED) as stated in the IDEA definition and a variable called socially maladjusted, were investigated. Participants were African American and European American elementary school boys and girls, 336 with ED and 548 without ED. Variables were measured with the Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance. Students with ED exceeded those without ED on all characteristics. Student category and race interacted for all characteristics in various ways. There were also interactions of category and gender. Among students with ED, one form of comorbidity was more prevalent among girls than boys, but there were no differences by race. Results clarify how students with ED exhibit the five characteristics associated with having ED and the socially maladjusted condition and show the need to consider all five characteristics in understanding the ED disability.

The Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance: Test–Retest and Interrater Reliability

Three studies are reported addressing the reliability of the Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (Epstein & Cullinan, 1998), a standardized, norm-referenced measure linked to the federal definition of emotional disturbance (ED). The first and second studies investigated test–retest reliability over a 2-week period to determine the stability of the measure over time. The third study investigated interrater reliability between six pairs of teachers who had worked with a student for 2 or more months to determine the consistency with which the measure can be used by different individuals. In each study, samples were drawn from populations of students identified as having ED. Test–retest reliability coefficients were above .80, the standard recommended for screening tests that will be reported individually. Interrater reliability coefficients were at least .79 for all subscales except Unhappiness or Depression and Physical Symptoms or Fears. Implications for use of the SAED are discussed.

Development of a Scale to Assess Emotional Disturbance

The Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (SAED) was developed to operationally define the federal definition of emotional disturbance (ED) and to assist in the identification of children who qualify for the federal special education ED category. This study reports on the standardization of the SAED and examines the scales factor structure, reliability, and construct validity. Data were collected on a national sample of children with ED and without ED. Data from the ED sample led to the identification of six behavior problem factors that correspond to the federal definition. The factors were determined to be highly internally consistent. Intercorrelations among subscales based on these factors supported the construct validity of the SAED, as did the fact that all subscales and an overall problem score were rated significantly higher among the ED sample than among the non-ED sample. Future research directions and useful practical applications of the SAED are suggested.

The Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance: Concurrent Validity

The Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (SAED) is a standardized, norm-referenced measure designed to operationalize the federal definition of Emotional Disturbance. It has demonstrated content validity and reliability. The two studies reported here address the SAEDs concurrent validity. Samples in each study consisted of students identified with Emotional Disturbance. In both studies, special education teachers rated students on the SAED and a second measure of childrens emotional and behavior problems. In the first study the SAED was compared to the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist. Correlations were generally moderate to high for similar subscales and low for dissimilar subscales. In the second study, the SAED was compared to the Teacher Report Form. Again, correlations generally were as expected and compatible with results of the first study. Results indicate that the SAED emotional and behavior problem subscales measure constructs akin to emotional and behavior problems measured by similar collections of item on the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist and Teacher Report Form. Implications of results and recommendations for use of the SAED are discussed.

The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale-Second Edition: Parent Rating Scale (BERS-II PRS): A Hispanic Cross-Cultural Reliability Study:

This study examined the extent to which the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: Parent Rating Scale (BERS: PRS) constitutes a reliable measure for assessing strengths of Hispanic children and youth. Major conceptual and theoretical issues with respect to cross-cultural assessment are presented. Further, emotional and behavioral disorders are discussed in the context of cross-cultural assessment relative to the large and growing participation in U. S. schools of Hispanic students. Standard scores, coefficient alphas, and SEMS for total norm sample, European and Hispanic Americans were equivalent, thus tentatively supporting the cross-cultural utility of the BERS-II PRS.