Måleegenskaper ved den norske versjonen av Brief Problem Monitor (BPM)

Authors

Agathe Backer-Grøndahl Regionsenter for barn og unges psykiske helse Øst og Sør https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0933-6531
Monica Martinussen Regionalt kunnskapssenter for barn og unge – Nord, UiT Norges arktiske universitet https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0937-1479

DOI:

Keywords:

Atferdsproblemer, Generell psykisk helse, Barn i skolealder, Ungdom

Abstract

Descriptive: Brief Problem Monitor (BPM) is a screening instrument for monitoring children’s functioning in different problem areas (externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and attention problems), as well as for assessing responses to therapeutic interventions. It is a short version of the Achenbach System of Empirical Based Assessment (ASEBA) forms for children and youths aged 6–18 years. Separate BPM forms were developed for different informants: parents (BPM-P), teachers (BPM-T), and a self-report form for youths (BPM-Y). The BPM items (19 items; 18 in the BPM-T) were selected from the corresponding longer ASEBA scales (i.e., CBCL, TRF, and YSR). The BPM was developed by Achenbach et al. (2011). The Norwegian BPM-items were derived from the translations of the CBCL, TRF, and YSR by Torunn S. Nøvik and Sonja Heyerdahl, published in 1986/88, 1993, and 2002, respectively (Kornør & Jozefiak, 2012).
Literature search: The systematic literature search yielded only one study that reported results on the BPM in a Norwegian sample. The study reports analyses of internal consistency (reliability) and validity of the BPM in two large population-based samples of school-age children (4th -10th grades and 1st-7th grades).
Psychometrics: The results suggest good reliability for the total problem scale across reporters, while the reliability coefficients are substantially lower for some of the subscales; in particular, for the BPM-Y. Correlation coefficients between the subscales and corresponding scales in the longer versions indicate good construct validity.
Conclusion: The BPM may provide useful information regarding behavioral and emotional problems in children and youths. However, more studies on Norwegian or Scandinavian samples are needed to examine the adequacy of the psychometric properties of the Norwegian versions of BPM. Also, as the BPM was developed to monitor children’s functioning over a period of time, including their responses to interventions, more studies are needed that focus on - or include - these aspects.

References

Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The Classification of Child Psychopathology: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85(6), 1275-1301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S., Ivanova, M. & Rescorla, L. (2011). Manual for the ASEBA brief problem monitor (BPM). Burlington, VT: ASEBA.

Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles : child behavior checklist for ages 6-18, teacher's report form, youth self-report : an integrated system of multi-informant assessment. Burlington, Vt: ASEBA.

Chorpita, B. F., Reise, S., Weisz, J. R., Grubbs, K., Becker, K. D., Krull, J. L. et al. (2010). Evaluation of the Brief Problem Checklist: Child and Caregiver Interviews to Measure Clinical Progress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(4), 526-536. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019602

De Los Reyes, A. (2011). Introduction to the special section: More than measurement error: Discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.533405

De Los Reyes, A. & Kazdin, A. E. (2004). Measuring informant discrepancies in clinical child research. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 330. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.330

European Federation of Pscyhologists’ Association (EFPA). (2013). EFPA Review model for the description and evaluation of psychological tests: Test review form and notes for reviewers, v 4.2.6: European Federation of Pscyhologists’ Association (EFPA).

Kornør, H. & Jozefiak, T. (2012). Måleegenskaper ved den norske versjonen av Child Behavior Checklist- versjon 2-3, 4-18, 11/2-5 og 6-18 (CBCL). PsykTestBarn, 2(1:3). https://doi.org/10.21337/0014

Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis : An Integrated Approach. London: Taylor and Francis.

Penelo, E., de la Osa, N., Navarro, J. B., Domènech, J. M. & Ezpeleta, L. (2017). 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. Psychological Assessment, 29(11), 1309-1320. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000428

Piper, B. J., Gray, H. M., Raber, J. & Birkett, M. A. (2014). Reliability and validity of Brief Problem Monitor, an abbreviated form of the Child Behavior Checklist. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 68(10), 759-767. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12188

Richter, J. (2015). Preliminary evidence for good psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Brief Problems Monitor (BPM). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 69(3), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2014.951070

Rodenacker, K., Plück, J. & Döpfner, M. (2015). Fragebogen zum Problem-Monitoring für Eltern, Lehrer und Jugendliche–eine deutsche Fassung des Brief Problem Monitor (BPM). Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 44, 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000307

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M. & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.102

Downloads

PDF (Norsk)

Additional Files

Søkestrategi (Norsk)

Published

2018-06-25

How to Cite

Backer-Grøndahl, A., & Martinussen, M. (2018). Måleegenskaper ved den norske versjonen av Brief Problem Monitor (BPM). PsykTestBarn, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.21337/0057