Multistudy Report

Multi-Informant and Multicultural

Advances in Evidence-Based
Assessment of Students’
Behavioral/Emotional/Social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Difficulties
Thomas M. Achenbach

Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

Abstract: This article presents practical tools for evidence-based assessment of students’ behavioral/emotional/social difficulties and
strengths in culturally sensitive ways. The assessment instruments obtain teacher, parent, and student ratings, plus observations in
classrooms and other group settings, in interviews, and in testing sessions. To document differences in students’ functioning in school and
other contexts, plus differences between teacher, parent, and student perspectives, users can display cross-informant comparisons of ratings
of specific difficulties items. Users can also display cross-informant comparisons between bar graphs of scores on empirically derived
syndromes, DSM-oriented scales, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems. Scale scores are standardized according to norms for
students’ gender and age, type of informant (teacher, parent, student), and multicultural norms. Multicultural norms are based on teacher,
parent, and student ratings of population samples of students in many societies. The ratings were used to construct gender-, age-, and
informant-specific norms for societies having relatively low difficulties scores, medium scores, or high scores. The assessment instruments
can be used to identify students who need help and to tailor interventions to students’ needs. The same instruments can be used to measure
changes by comparing pre- versus post-intervention scores. Brief instruments assess progress over short periods.

Keywords: evidence-based assessment, multicultural, multi-informant, students, schools

School personnel in many countries must deal with students’
behavioral difficulties. Concerns about these difficulties
are increasing, because schools are increasingly expected
to take responsibility for difficulties that might previously
have prevented youths from attending school. Whether
or not such difficulties are actually increasing in the youth
population as a whole, school personnel need to assess
them because of increasing obligations to educate students
despite such difficulties. Moreover, assessment of students’
difficulties must be sensitive to cultural differences among
students.
This article presents practical tools for assessing
students’ behavioral difficulties from multiple perspectives.
Because behavioral difficulties are so often intertwined with
emotional and social difficulties, I refer to behavioral/
emotional/social difficulties.
The Need for Multi-Informant
Assessment
Students often function differently in different contexts
and are perceived differently by different people. For
example, a student’s mathematics teacher may report
difficulties indicative of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD). However, one of the student’s parents
may feel that the student does not have ADHD, because
the student concentrates intensely on videogames at home.
Discrepancies between teacher and parent reports are
common, as revealed by a mean Pearson correlation (r)
of only .27 between teacher and parent ratings of students’
difficulties in a meta-analysis of many studies (Achenbach,
McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). Discrepancies between

Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000448
 128
teacher and parent reports may be caused partly by differ-
ences between students’ behavior at school versus home.
Discrepancies may also be caused by differences between
teacher and parent perspectives, opportunities to observe
students, and tendencies to notice, remember, and report
different aspects of what is observed. Consequently, the
r of only .27 between teacher and parent ratings is not
surprising.
The same meta-analytic study found a mean r of .60
between ratings by pairs of adults who play similar roles
and who observe students in similar contexts, including
pairs of teachers, pairs of parents, pairs of mental health
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
workers, and pairs of direct observers (Achenbach et al.,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1987). Although the mean r of .60 indicates substantially
better agreement between pairs of similar informants than
between teachers and parents, the mean r of .60 neverthe-
less indicates that reports by similar informants may also be
discrepant. For example, unlike the mathematics teacher
who reported ADHD difficulties, the student’s history
teacher may report no ADHD difficulties. And, unlike the
parent who reported intense concentration on videogames,
the student’s other parent may report ADHD difficulties
because the student fails to attend to homework.
The 1987 meta-analyses obtained a mean r of .20 between
teachers’ ratings and students’ self-ratings and a mean r of
.25 between parents’ ratings and students’ self-ratings, indi-
cating that students’ self-ratings also tend to differ from
both teachers’ and parents’ ratings of the students. Since
the meta-analytic findings were published three decades
ago, hundreds of studies have found similarly modest
correlations between teacher, parent, and self-ratings
(De Los Reyes et al., 2015). Comparisons of teacher ratings,
parent ratings, and student self-ratings on parallel assess-
ment instruments have found similar patterns of cross-
informant discrepancies in dozens of societies (Rescorla
et al., 2013, 2014).
Documenting Informant Discrepancies
Does Not Threaten Validity
Informant discrepancies might be viewed as threats to valid
assessment. However, as documented in the cited articles,
the reliability and validity of many instruments completed
by different informants are well established for assessing
students’ difficulties, as seen by the different informants.
Consequently, informant discrepancies should not be dis-
missed as reflecting measurement error, unreliability, or
poor validity (De Los Reyes, 2011). Instead, as found in
multiple meta-analyses, widely replicated informant dis-
crepancies validly document potentially important differ-
ences in how students function in different contexts, as
reported by people relevant to helping the students, such
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
as teachers, parents, and the students themselves.
To advance evidence-based assessment of students’ diffi-
culties, it is necessary to use instruments that reliably and
validly document both the differences and similarities in
how students function and in how they are perceived in
different contexts. It is equally necessary to help school
and mental health professionals understand the value of
documenting informant discrepancies in order to obtain
more comprehensive understanding of individual students
than afforded by diagnostic constructs such as ADHD.
Discrepancies between teacher, parent, and student
reports indicate that different informants often provide
potentially valuable information about different aspects of
students’ functioning. Consequently, assessment of stu-
dents’ difficulties should include data from multiple infor-
mants whenever possible. In addition to teacher, parent,
and student reports, it is also helpful to obtain direct obser-
vations of students’ functioning in settings such as class-
rooms, group activities, interviews, and administration of
individual ability and achievement tests. The following
sections present multi-informant instruments collectively
known as the Achenbach System of Empirically Based
Assessment (ASEBA). Subsequent sections present methods
for obtaining, displaying, and comparing data from differ-
ent informants, multicultural findings and norms, and
practical applications to initial assessments of students,
brief assessments of responses to interventions, and out-
come assessments.
Multi-Informant Assessment
Instruments
ASEBA instruments are designed to assess difficulties
and strengths in developmentally appropriate ways for ages
1½ to 90+ years (Achenbach, 2009). This section focuses on
instruments for assessing students’ difficulties and strengths
on the basis of data obtained from teachers, parents,
students, observers, interviewers, and test administrators.
Theoretical Framework
The ASEBA’s theoretical framework stems from a
developmental approach to psychopathology (Achenbach,
2009). The theoretical framework embodies certain episte-
mological tenets regarding how to advance knowledge of
psychopathology in relation to the course of human develop-
ment. One tenet is that conceptualizations of psychopathol-
ogy can be derived from systematic aggregations of data
obtained from standardized, developmentally appropriate
assessments of large samples of individuals within particular
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
age ranges. Another tenet is that well-supported patterns
of co-occurring characteristics can serve as taxonomic
constructs for modeling psychopathology within particular
age periods. Implementation of the theoretical framework
involves:
1. Construction of standardized developmentally appro-
priate instruments for assessing large samples of indi-
viduals on the basis of data from different kinds of
informants.
2. Multivariate statistical analyses of the assessment data
to identify sets of difficulties that tend to co-occur.
3. Multi-level analyses from which to derive hierarchical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
models spanning from assessment of many specific
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
difficulties – at the most molecular level – to narrow-
band syndromes comprising sets of mutually associ-
ated difficulties and then to broad-band groupings of
mutually associated syndromes, culminating in a
general psychopathology dimension.
The theoretical framework is applied via iterative processes
of developing, pilot testing, and refining assessment instru-
ments; using the instruments to assess large clinical and
population samples of individuals; deriving taxonomic con-
structs from the assessment data; comparing and refining
constructs across multiple samples and informants; testing
the constructs with new data; further refining the con-
structs; further refining instruments for operationalizing
the constructs; assessing population samples of individuals
on which to base norms; and assessing clinical samples on
which to test validity. The assessment instruments and
taxonomic constructs are then tested in many ways in many
different populations.
Development of Assessment Instruments
The portion of each instrument for assessing difficulties
has been developed according to an empirically based,
“bottom-up” strategy that starts by generating numerous
descriptors of difficulties that can be rated by particular
kinds of informants. The descriptors are formulated in
terms of items that can be rated on Likert scales with a min-
imum of inference. The items are tested by having large
samples of informants – including teachers, parents, and
students – rate the items for students who have been
independently determined to need help for behavioral/
emotional/social difficulties versus students who are not
judged to need help for such difficulties. Informants are
invited to evaluate the items, to suggest additional items,
and to provide open-ended comments. The items are also
tested for their ability to discriminate between students
who have been referred for help versus students who have
not been referred for help. This process continues
iteratively in order to add new items, to refine the items,
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
129
and to delete items that are rarely endorsed, that are not
understood by informants, or that fail to discriminate
between referred versus nonreferred students.
Ratings of the surviving items for large samples of
students are subjected to exploratory factor analyses (EFAs)
and then to confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to derive
and validate syndromes of co-occurring difficulties. Each
syndrome is given a descriptive label that summarizes the
difficulties comprising the syndrome.
Instrument Contents
The complete contents of each instrument can be freely
viewed at www.aseba.org. Each instrument contains
instructions tailored to the kinds of informants for whom
the instrument is designed. As detailed in the following
sections, instructions for teacher, parent, and self-report
instruments specify a period of months on which infor-
mants are asked to base their responses. Instructions for
instruments completed by observers, interviewers, and test
administrators specify how data are to be recorded on the
basis of observations of students in specific contexts during
specified time samples.
The instruments contain difficulties and strengths items
tailored to the student characteristics reportable by the
informants for whom the instrument is designed. Examples
of difficulties items are provided for each instrument in the
following sections. In addition to rating items on Likert
scales, informants are invited to write in descriptions of
students’ functioning and other information that communi-
cates informants’ views of the students.
Teacher, Parent, and Self-Report
Instruments
To assess students’ functioning over periods of months,
parallel assessment instruments have been constructed
for completion in 15–20 min by teachers and other school
staff (Teacher’s Report Form, TRF), by parents (Child
Behavior Checklist for Ages 6–18, CBCL/6–18), and by
youths (Youth Self-Report, YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla,
2001). Parents and students are asked to base their ratings
on the preceding 6 months, whereas teachers are asked to
base their ratings on the preceding 2 months to allow for
the shorter periods during which teachers may know
students before they rate them (users can reduce the
6-month and 2-month periods if desired, e.g., for purposes
of reassessments over shorter periods). Difficulties items
are rated 0 = not true (as far as you know), 1 = somewhat
or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true. Each instru-
ment also includes strengths items that have been validated
for assessing students according to ratings by the intended
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
 130
kind of informant. Many items have counterparts on all
three instruments, whereas some items are specific to the
TRF, CBCL/6–18, or YSR. For example, Unhappy, sad, or
depressed is on all three instruments, whereas Disrupts class
discipline is on only the TRF. Disobedient at home is on the
CBCL/6–18 and YSR, but not on the TRF. All three instru-
ments have open-ended items for describing the best things
about the student, plus concerns about the student.
EFAs and CFAs of ratings of difficulties items have yielded
syndromes of covarying difficulties that have been given the
following descriptive labels: Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/
Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Thought
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Problems, Attention Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Aggressive Behavior. Dimensional scores are computed by
summing an informant’s ratings of the items comprising a
syndrome. Second-order factor analyses have yielded a
broad group of covarying syndromes designated as Internal-
izing, which comprises the Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/
Depressed, and Somatic Complaints syndromes. The sec-
ond-order factor analyses have also yielded a broad group
of covarying difficulties designated as Externalizing, which
comprises the Rule-Breaking Behavior and Aggressive
Behavior syndromes. Broad-band Internalizing and Exter-
nalizing scales are scored by summing the scores of their
constituent syndromes. A general psychopathology dimen-
sion – designated as Total Problems – is scored by summing
ratings on all difficulties items.
Difficulties are also scored on scales corresponding to
diagnostic categories of the American Psychiatric Associa-
tion’s (2013) “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth
Edition” (DSM-5). Strengths are scored on scales desig-
nated as Activities, Social, School, Total Competence,
Academic Performance, Adaptive Functioning, and Positive
Qualities.
Observer, Interviewer, and Test
Administrator Instruments
In addition to instruments for obtaining teacher, parent,
and self-ratings, the ASEBA includes instruments for
assessing students on the basis of observations in specific
contexts during specified time samples, as outlined in the
following sections.
Direct Observation Form (DOF)
The DOF uses time samples of observations to assess stu-
dents’ functioning during school classes and during group
activities, such as recess (McConaughy & Achenbach,
2009). Using the DOF, an observer (e.g., teacher aide,
paraprofessional, counselor, etc.) writes a narrative descrip-
tion of a student’s difficulties and on-task behavior during a
10-min observational sample. At the end of each 1-min
interval, the observer rates whether the student was on-task
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
during the preceding minute. At the end of a 10-min
sample, the observer rates 88 difficulties items. Some items
– such as Unhappy, sad, or depressed – have counterparts on
the TRF, CBCL/6–18, and TRF, whereas other items – such
as Physically isolates self from others – do not.
To obtain a more representative sample of a student’s
functioning than afforded by any single time sample,
multiple 10-min samples should be observed during
mornings and afternoons on different days. The DOF aver-
ages item, scale, and on-task scores obtained for up to six
10-min samples. The difficulties scales include factor-
analytically derived syndromes, DSM-oriented scales, and
Total Problems.
To provide comparisons with other students in the same
environment, the DOF should be used to rate observations
of one randomly selected student of the same gender as the
identified student during the 10 min before the identified
student is observed and one during the 10 min after the
identified student is observed. The DOF displays the com-
parison students’ scores on profiles next to the identified
student’s scores in relation to gender-specific norms based
on large samples of students observed in many different
schools.
Semistructured Clinical Interview for Children
and Adolescents (SCICA)
The SCICA assesses more subtle characteristics of students’
functioning than can be assessed by observations in group
settings or by teacher, parent, or self-ratings (McConaughy
& Achenbach, 2001). These characteristics can be elicited
during interactions with an experienced interviewer and
can help in evaluating a student’s amenability to counseling
and talking therapies.
The SCICA’s protocol of open-ended questions guides the
interviewer, who can then follow up with more specific
questions regarding difficulties reported by the student’s
teachers and/or parents. The student is encouraged to talk
about his/her activities, likes and dislikes, feelings, difficul-
ties, relationships, stresses, and wishes. The SCICA can
include whatever is brought up by the student or interviewer.
With the student’s permission, the SCICA session is
audio- or video-recorded to provide documentation that
the interviewer can check following the interview. The inter-
viewer also writes notes in spaces provided on the SCICA
protocol. Following the interview, the interviewer rates the
student on 120 observational items (e.g., Acts too young for
age; Argues; Avoids eye contact) and 126 self-report items
(e.g., Reports being confused; Reports being treated unfairly;
Reports being unhappy, sad, or depressed). The SCICA item
ratings are summed to yield scores for syndromes,
DSM-oriented scales, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total
Problems in relation to norms based on large samples of
students assessed with the SCICA.
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
Test Observation Form (TOF)
When concerns about a student warrant individual ability
or achievement testing, the test situation provides excep-
tional opportunities for test administrators to observe
students’ reactions to academic tasks and challenges.
The TOF assesses behavioral/emotional/social difficulties
manifested by students while they are being tested
(McConaughy & Achenbach, 2004). During the test, the
administrator writes brief observational notes on the TOF.
Following the test, the administrator rates 124 difficulties
that are potentially observable in the test situation. Exam-
ples include: Difficulty following directions; Tremors in hands
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
or fingers; Flat affect; and Unhappy, sad, or depressed.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The TOF item ratings are summed to yield scores for
syndromes, DSM-oriented scales, Internalizing, Externaliz-
ing, and Total Problems in relation to norms for the
student’s gender and age. The TOF results can help test
administrators evaluate whether ability and/or achieve-
ment test scores are valid estimates of the student’s abilities
and achievement, as well as whether particular behavioral/
emotional/social difficulties may interfere with the
student’s academic functioning. The results can be placed
in the student’s record to provide much more detailed
and explicit documentation of a student’s test behavior than
test administrators would typically have time to provide.
Normative Samples, Test-Retest
Reliabilities, and Cronbach’s α
Table 1 summarizes ASEBA instruments for assessing
students, the normative sample sizes, test-retest reliabili-
ties, and Cronbach’s α. Extensive validity data have been
published for all the instruments, including discrimination
between students referred for special education and/or
mental health services versus demographically similar non-
referred students. These data are detailed in the instru-
ments’ manuals, which also detail correlations between
the instruments’ scores and scores from other instruments,
plus the normative and reliability findings that are summa-
rized in Table 1 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001, 2007;
McConaughy & Achenbach, 2001, 2004, 2009). Hundreds
of peer-reviewed publications report reliability and validity
data obtained in other ways (Bérubé & Achenbach, 2017).
Cross-Informant Comparisons
As mentioned earlier, students often function differently in
different contexts and may be perceived differently by
teachers, parents, and the students themselves (De Los
Reyes, 2011; De Los Reyes et al., 2015). Because each
informant may provide different but valid information,
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
131
it is important to obtain data from more than one informant
whenever possible. To make full use of data from multiple
informants, it is essential to display the data in ways that
reveal both discrepancies and agreements between difficul-
ties reported by different informants. Ratings of difficulties
items by up to 10 informants can be displayed in side-by-
side comparisons. As an example, if a teacher, a parent,
and a student rate the student, the user can compare
ratings by each informant on items that have counterparts
on the TRF, CBCL/6–18, and YSR. The user can then iden-
tify items on which ratings by the different informants
agree and items on which they disagree. The user can also
display bar graphs of scores for each syndrome and DSM-
oriented scale scored from the TRF, CBCL/6–18, and
YSR. Each bar is standardized on the basis of norms for
the student’s gender and age, the type of informant
(teacher, parent, student), and the appropriate multicultural
norm group (explained later).
Case Illustration
To illustrate cross-informant comparisons of scale scores,
Figure 1 displays bar graphs scored for the eight factor-
analytically derived syndromes scored from TRFs com-
pleted by two teachers, CBCL/6–18 forms completed by
both parents, and the YSR completed by 12-year-old Sandra
to describe herself (names have been changed to English
language versions and personal details are fictitious). Scores
that are below the bottom broken line on each graph are in
the normal range (< 93rd percentile; T scores < 65 for
12-year-old girls). Scores that are between the two broken
lines are in the borderline clinical range (93rd–97th
percentiles; T scores 65–69 for 12-year-old girls). And
scores that are above the top broken line are in the clinical
range (> 97th percentile; T scores > 69 for 12-year-old girls).
By looking at the right-hand box in the middle row of
Figure 1, you can see that ratings by both teachers yielded
scores in the borderline clinical range for the Attention
Problems syndrome. However, ratings by both parents
yielded scores well down in the normal range for the Atten-
tion Problems syndrome. The higher scores yielded by the
teachers’ ratings indicate that Sandra manifests attentional
difficulties in school that are not evident to her parents.
These findings suggest that interventions to help Sandra
should especially focus on her attentional problems in
school. By contrast, Sandra’s parents but not her teacher
rated her in the clinical or borderline clinical range on the
Aggressive Behavior syndrome shown in the middle of
the bottom row of boxes in Figure 1. These findings suggest
that Sandra needs help with aggressive behavior that occurs
more with her parents than with her teachers. Elevations in
the Somatic Complaints and Social Problems scores
obtained from ratings by some informants suggest that
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
 132 T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties

Table 1. ASEBA instruments for assessing students’ Behavioral/Emotional/Social Difficulties

N for normative
Instrument Ages Completed by Scales samples Test-retest rs Cronbach’s α
CBCL/6–18 6–18 Parent Competence, Syndromes, 59,804a .80–.94 Mean = .88 .53–.97 Mean = .79
DSM-oriented, Obsessive-
compulsive, Stress,
Sluggish Cognitive Tempo,
Internalizing, Externalizing,
Total Problems
TRF 6–18 Teacher, School staff Same as CBCL/6–18, except 32,349a .60–.95 Mean = .85 .58–.97 Mean = .85
has Academic Performance
& Adaptive Functioning
instead of Competence
YSR 11–18 Student Same as CBCL/6–18, except 31,300a .67–.91 Mean = .81 .55–.95 Mean = .77
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

has Positive Qualities, but

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

not Sluggish Cognitive

Tempo
BPM 6–18 Parents, Teachers, Attention Problems, 5,125 .83–.90 Mean = .85 .78–.86 Mean = .83
School staff, Students Internalizing, Externalizing,
Total Problems
DOF 6–11 Trained observer On-task, Syndromes, 667 .25–.77 Mean = .54 .49–.81 Mean = .70
DSM-oriented
SCICA 6–18 Trained interviewer Syndromes, DSM-oriented, 686 .57–.86 Mean = .78 .32–.90 Mean = .73
Internalizing, Externalizing,
Total Observed & Total Self-
Reported Problems
TOF 2–18 Test administrator Syndromes, DSM-oriented, 3,943 .53–.87 Mean = .80 .74–.94 Mean = .84
Internalizing, Externalizing,
Total Problems
Notes. ASEBA = Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment; CBCL/6–18 = Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6–18; TRF = Teacher’s Report Form;
YSR = Youth Self-Report; BPM = Brief Problem Monitor; DOF = Direct Observation Form; SCICA = Semistructured Interview for Children and Adolescents;
TOF = Test Observation Form. All forms can be viewed at www.aseba.org
a
Samples that included many societies, as detailed by Achenbach and Rescorla (2007). Other samples included only students living in the US.

Sandra also needs help in these areas. The comparisons of
teacher, parent, and self-ratings of specific items may
additionally reveal specific difficulties that are rated higher
by Sandra’s teachers than by her parents or herself, and
vice versa. These difficulties may therefore warrant being
targeted for help in one context but not another.
The different difficulties reported by different infor-
mants reflect the fact that students such as Sandra often
function differently in different contexts and with differ-
ent interaction partners. Consequently, efforts to help
Sandra may require different methods to ameliorate her
attentional difficulties in school than to ameliorate her
aggressive behavior at home, as well to ameliorate
her somatic complaints and social difficulties. Help for
Sandra’s attentional difficulties in school is likely to require
collaboration with her teachers to alter contingencies that
affect her attention and to assess changes in her school
functioning. Analogously, help for Sandra’s aggressive
behavior, somatic complaints, and social difficulties is
likely to require collaboration with her parents to alter
family dynamics and to assess changes. The essential
point is that both similarities and differences between
reports by different informants contribute to the kind of
comprehensive assessment and case formulation needed
for effective help.
Multicultural Findings
The increasing cultural diversity of students in many
schools must be taken into account when assessing
behavioral/emotional/social difficulties. To obtain data
from students and their parents, translations of assessment
instruments may be needed in languages other than the
dominant language of the school personnel. Assessment
instruments should be empirically supported for use in
multiple societies and cultural groups. ASEBA instruments
are available in some 100 languages including 37 European
languages (listed at www.aseba.org). Published studies
report use of ASEBA instruments in over 100 societies
and cultural groups (Bérubé & Achenbach, 2017). Indige-
nous researchers have used ASEBA instruments to assess
population samples in over 50 societies where CFAs have
supported ASEBA syndromes (Ivanova et al., 2010, 2011;
Ivanova, Achenbach, Rescorla, Turner, Ahmeti-Pronaj,

European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140 Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cross-Informant Comparison - Syndrome Scale T Scores CBCL/TRF/YSR

ID: 0010000250 Name: Sandra J. Remy Gender: Female Birth Date: 04/02/1989 Comparison date: 11/09/2001
Form Eval ID Age Informant Name Relationship Date Form Eval ID Age Informant Name Relationship Date
CBC1 101 12 Theresa Remy Biological Mother 10/29/2001 YSR5 105 12 Self Self 11/08/2001
CBC2 102 12 Keith Remy Biological Father 10/29/2001
TRF3 103 12 Maria Fernandez Classroom Teacher {F} 11/07/2001
TRF4 104 12 Janet Holden Classroom Teacher {F} 11/06/2001

Anxious/ Depressed Withdrawn/ Depressed Somatic Complaints

Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing

100

90
T
S 80
C
O 70
R
E 60

50
57 55 62 61 59 54 54 59 59 61 68-B 62 64 66-B 57
CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5 CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5 CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5
T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties

Social Problems Thought Problems Attention Problems

100

90
T
S 80
C
O 70
R
E 60

50
61 64 62 68-B 66-B 60 56 62 57 51 54 59 67-B 67-B 63
CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5 CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5 CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5

Rule-Breaking Behavior Aggressive Behavior

100
B = Borderline clinical range; C = Clinical range
90 Broken lines = Borderline clinical range
T {F}=Female {M}=Male
S 80 nc = not calculated due to insufficient data
C
O 70
R
E 60

50
51 57 50 50 54 77-C 65-B 62 64 59
CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5 CBC1 CBC2 TRF3 TRF4 YSR5

Figure 1. Cross-informant comparisons of syndrome scale scores for 12-year-old Sandra (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2015a; Reproduced by permission).

European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140

133
 134
et al., 2015; Ivanova, Achenbach, Rescorla, Turner,
Árnad
ottir, et al., 2015; Rescorla, Ivanova, et al., 2012).
Multicultural Correlations Between Mean
Item Ratings
The CFA results indicate similar patterns of covariation
among difficulties items rated by parents, by teachers,
and by youths in many societies. Additional tests of
multicultural similarities in patterns of item ratings were
performed as follows: for each society that provided a
population-based sample for a particular instrument (e.g.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the CBCL/6–18), the mean of the 0–1–2 ratings of each dif-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ficulties item was computed for that instrument. For each
pair of societies, a Q correlation was then computed
between the mean ratings for all items in one society and
the mean ratings for all items in the other society (Q corre-
lations measure the covariation between two sets of scores
on many variables, e.g., the mean ratings on many CBCL/
6–18 items from Society A and from Society B). After the Q
correlation was computed between each pair of societies,
the mean of all these Q correlations was computed. The
mean Q correlation was .74 for the CBCL/6–18, .72 for
the TRF, and .70 for the YSR (Rescorla, Ivanova, et al.,
2012). As these mean correlations were large according to
Cohen’s (1988) criteria, they indicate considerable similar-
ity in the rank ordering of item ratings across societies.
In other words, there was considerable cross-society consis-
tency with respect to the difficulties items that tended to
receive low ratings, those that received medium ratings,
and those that received high ratings.
Multicultural Comparisons Between
Scale Scores
Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) that compared the magni-
tudes of difficulties scale scores across many societies have
yielded small to medium effects of societal differences on
the scores, with similar gender and age effects in the
different societies. Published peer-reviewed journal articles
provide details of these findings and of the samples, includ-
ing sampling procedures, sample composition, and sample
N for each society (Rescorla, Achenbach, et al., 2012;
Rescorla, Achenbach, Ginzburg, et al., 2007; Rescorla
et al., 2007a, 2007b; Rescorla et al., 2011; Rescorla,
Ivanova, et al., 2012). Table 1 reports Ns for the total
multicultural normative samples for each instrument.
Applications in Europe
Hundreds of articles report use of ASEBA instruments in
Europe. For example, findings for thousands of Dutch
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
students have been reported from the Zuid Holland
longitudinal study, the Tracking Adolescents’ Individ-
ual Lives Survey (TRAILS), the Generation R Project
(R = Rotterdam), and many studies generated by the
Netherlands Twin Registry (Boomsma, van Beijsterveldt, &
Hudziak, 2005; Ormel et al., 2012; Reef, Diamantopoulou,
van Meurs, Verhulst, & van der Ende, 2009; Tiemeier
et al., 2012). Articles also report use of ASEBA instru-
ments in 36 other European societies (Bérubé & Achenbach,
2017).
Hierarchical Linear Modeling of Societal,
Cultural, and Individual Differences
Hierarchical linear models have shown that much more
variance in difficulties scores is accounted for by indi-
vidual differences within societies than by differences
between societies or between culture clusters (Anglo,
Confucian, Eastern Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin
Europe, Middle Eastern, Nordic Europe, Southern Asia;
Rescorla, Althoff, Achenbach, Ivanova, & the Interna-
tional ASEBA Consortium, 2017). This means that – after
using multicultural norms (explained in the next sections)
to take account of societal and cultural differences – users
can base decisions about individual students’ needs on the
students’ standardized scale scores for difficulties such as
aggressive behavior, attention problems, and depression.
Why Use Multicultural Norms?
The purpose of multicultural norms is to provide metrics for
evaluating individuals’ scale scores in relation to distribu-
tions of scores from population samples for societies rele-
vant to those individuals. The use of population-based
norms for evaluating behavioral/emotional/social problems
is analogous to the use of population-based norms for eval-
uating variables such as height. Because height does not
have identical distributions for both genders at all ages in
all societies, norms for height are constructed on the basis
of population samples for each gender at different ages
from different societies. Data from societies found to have
similar distributions for height can be aggregated to provide
a single set of norms for those societies. Data from other
societies found to have similar distributions for height can
be aggregated to provide other sets of norms for height.
Different sets of norms can thus provide metrics that are
more appropriate for judging whether individuals in partic-
ular societies need help than if the same metric were
applied to individuals in all societies. For example, because
the mean height of Dutch people has been found to exceed
the mean height of people in most other societies, applica-
tion of Dutch norms to individuals in a society having a
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
lower mean height would cause too many individuals in
that society to be identified as candidates for help for
stunted growth.
Construction of Multicultural Norms
Because it is important to take account of societal differ-
ences in difficulties scale scores, three sets of multicultural
norms have been constructed for the TRF, CBCL/6–18, and
YSR. The multicultural norms were constructed as follows,
using the TRF as an example: the TRF Total Problems
score (sum of 0–1–2 ratings on all TRF difficulties items)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
was used as a metric that indicates the degree to which
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
societies had relatively low, medium, or high TRF difficul-
ties scores (because the Total Problems score is the sum
of ratings for all difficulties items, the mean Total Problems
score is a good omnibus metric for the central tendency of
difficulties scores obtained by students in each society).
Across all the societies in which population samples were
assessed, the distribution of mean TRF Total Problems
scores formed a normal, bell-shaped curve, with about
two-thirds of the societies having mean Total Problems
scores within 1 SD of the “omnicultural” mean (the mean
of all the mean Total Problems scores). Approximately
one-sixth of the societies had mean Total Problems scores
> 1 SD below the omnicultural mean, while approximately
one-sixth had mean Total Problems > 1 SD above the
omnicultural mean (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2007).
Because the distribution of mean TRF Total Problems
scores was continuous and normal, with no extreme out-
liers, three sets of multicultural norms sufficed to take
account of societal differences in difficulties ratings. The
three sets of multicultural norms were constructed as
follows: separately for each gender at ages 6–11 and 12–18
in each society whose mean TRF Total Problems score
was > 1 SD below the omnicultural mean (called “Group
1”), a cumulative frequency distribution of Total Problems
scores was computed. The cumulative frequency distribu-
tions for all the Group 1 societies were then averaged to
create a Group 1 cumulative frequency distribution, sepa-
rately for each gender at ages 6–11 and 12–18. Normalized
T scores were assigned to each TRF raw scale score on
the basis of the percentile occupied by the raw scale score
in the Group 1 Total Problems cumulative frequency distri-
bution for each gender at ages 6–11 and 12–18. The same
procedure was followed for assigning normalized T scores
to TRF raw scores for each difficulties scale, separately
for each gender at ages 6–11 and 12–18.
Normalized T scores were assigned in the same way to
societies whose mean Total Problems scores were > 1 SD
above the omnicultural mean (“Group 3” societies). Because
the US mean Total Problems score corresponded to the
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
135
mean of the “Group 2” societies (whose mean Total Prob-
lems scores ranged from 1 SD to +1 SD around the omni-
cultural mean) and because the US norms had already been
used in many research and clinical applications, the US
norms were adopted for Group 2. Similar procedures were
followed for constructing multicultural Group 1, 2, and 3
norms for the CBCL/6–18 and YSR (Achenbach & Rescorla,
2007). Multicultural norm groups for societies from which
indigenous researchers have provided population samples
are listed at www.aseba.org, including 25 European
societies.
Applications of Multicultural Norms
To compare a student’s difficulties scale scores with
appropriate norms, options are provided for displaying scale
scores on profiles in relation to Group 1, 2, and 3 norms.
For example, if an immigrant student attends school in a
host society for which TRF scores are in Group 1, the user
can display TRF scale scores from a TRF completed by a
host society teacher in relation to Group 1 norms. This
would show the user whether difficulties reported by the
teacher are in the normal range, borderline clinical range,
or clinical range, compared to students in the host society.
If the Group 2 YSR norms are appropriate for the
student’s home society or for a host society to which the
student is well acculturated, the user can display the youth’s
YSR scale scores in relation to Group 2 YSR norms. And if a
parent came from a society for which CBCL/6–18 Group 3
norms are appropriate, the user can display scale scores
from the parent’s CBCL/6–18 in relation to Group 3 norms.
The CBCL/6–18, TRF, and YSR are in different norm
groups for some societies. For example, Japanese and Main-
land Chinese parents’ CBCL/6–18 scores are in Group 1,
whereas Japanese and Mainland Chinese students’ YSR
ratings are in Group 2. Findings that parent, teacher, and
self-ratings from a particular society may qualify for differ-
ent norm groups reflect the fact that assessment of
students’ difficulties depends on data from informants
who differ with respect to their knowledge of the student,
attention to various aspects of the student’s functioning,
judgments of that functioning, and ability and willingness
to report the student’s difficulties. These and other charac-
teristics of informants and of the students themselves can
affect ratings, as well as affecting other kinds of assessment
data. Comparisons of CBCL/6–18 and YSR difficulties
scores (on corresponding items) for 27,861 students in
25 societies showed that students reported more difficulties
than their parents did in all societies (Rescorla et al., 2013).
However, the magnitude of the parent-student discrepan-
cies varied widely. The largest discrepancy was in Japan,
where the CBCL/6–18 difficulties scores were the lowest
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
 136
of all the societies but the YSR scores were among the high-
est. The reasons for the low parents’ ratings of the same
items rated by their daughters and sons might include lack
of awareness of the students’ difficulties and/or a desire to
“save face” by not endorsing difficulties, although very few
Japanese parents gave ratings of 0 to all difficulties items.
Comparisons of CBCL/6–18 and TRF ratings (on corre-
sponding items) for 27,962 students in 21 societies showed
that CBCL/6–18 scores were higher than TRF scores in all
societies except Thailand (Rescorla et al., 2014). Discrepan-
cies between parent and teacher ratings are not surprising
in view of parents’ and teachers’ different roles and the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
different conditions under which they see students. The lar-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gest discrepancy was in Portugal, where CBCL/6–18 diffi-
culties scores were considerably higher than TRF scores.
Other European countries manifested various patterns of
similarities and differences between the norm groups for
which ratings by parents, teachers, and students qualified.
For example, in Greece, Italy, and Lithuania, CBCL/6–18
and TRF scores qualified for Group 2, whereas YSR scores
qualified for Group 3. For Norway, CBCL and YSR scores
qualified for Group 1, whereas TRF scores qualified for
Group 2.
Cultural variations related to schooling, parent-child rela-
tionships, attitudes toward students’ difficulties, and will-
ingness to report difficulties, plus differences in social
structures, political systems, economic conditions, religion,
and actual rates of students’ difficulties could potentially
affect ratings of students’ difficulties. Considering the
multitude of potentially relevant variables, interpretations
of the precise reasons for societal differences in mean scale
scores would be speculative. Despite the impossibility of
pinpointing all reasons for differences in ratings of students’
difficulties, population-based norms provide metrics for
evaluating the magnitude of difficulties scores, just as they
do for variables such as height.
Case Illustration
To illustrate applications of the multicultural norms,
Figure 2 displays graphs of scores for DSM-oriented scales
from CBCL/6–18, TRF, and YSR forms completed for
14-year-old Jack (not his real name). Jack’s family had
emigrated from Society E to host Society F when Jack
was 4 years old. Jack attended Society F schools, was well
acculturated in Society F, and was fluent in the language
of Society F. Several of Jack’s earlier teachers had
mentioned his inattentiveness, but, when Jack was 14, his
mathematics teacher became so concerned about his
inattentiveness that she consulted a school counselor.
With the consent of Jack’s mother, the counselor asked
Jack’s teacher to fill out the TRF. Scores in the clinical range
on the DSM-oriented Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity,
Oppositional Defiant, and Conduct scales prompted the
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
counselor to ask Jack’s mother to fill out the CBCL/6–18
and to consent to asking Jack to fill out the YSR. Because
Jack’s mother was not sufficiently fluent in the language
of host Society F, she completed the Society E translation
of the CBCL/6–18. When given a choice of the Society E
or Society F version of the YSR, Jack chose the Society F
version.
The graphs in Figure 2 show that the teacher’s concern
about attention difficulties was corroborated by TRF and
CBCL/6–18 scores in the clinical range for the Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity scale. However, the graphs also show
that Jack’s mother and teacher additionally reported
enough difficulties on the Oppositional Defiant and
Conduct scales to be of concern, while Jack reported
enough difficulties on the Depressive and Somatic scales
to be of concern. Interventions to help Jack should there-
fore focus not only on difficulties with attention but on
other difficulties as well.
The bars in Figure 2 show T scores that are based on
norms for 14-year-old boys rated by parents (designated
as CBC1), teachers (designated as TRF2), and youths
(designated as YSR3). The T scores for Jack’s mother’s
ratings are based on Group 1 norms, because the CBCL/
6–18 normative sample in her home Society E met criteria
for Group 1. The T scores for ratings by Jack and his teacher
are based on Group 2 norms, because the TRF and YSR
normative samples in Society F met criteria for Group 2.
The school counselor also displayed Jack’s T scores in rela-
tion to YSR Group 1 norms (appropriate for Jack’s home
society). By displaying a student’s scale scores in relation
to two or even three sets of norms that might be relevant
to that student and to the informants, users can see whether
different norms would yield different conclusions about
whether a student’s difficulties are in the normal, border-
line, or clinical range. In Jack’s case, use of the Group 1
YSR norms did not reveal any important differences from
what is shown for the Group 2 norms in Figure 2.
Note that users can select one or more sets of norms that
they deem relevant to ratings by a particular informant.
Even though Jack was well acculturated, the user initially
selected Group 1 norms for ratings by Jack’s less-accultu-
rated mother to provide a normative metric appropriate
for ratings by parents from her home society.
As Figure 2 shows, the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity,
Oppositional Defiant, and Conduct scales were in the
clinical range according to CBCL/6–18 ratings by Jack’s
mother and TRF ratings by Jack’s teacher. However, all
three scales were in the normal range when scored from
Jack’s YSR. These results indicate that similar difficulties
were observed at home and school but that Jack denied
the difficulties or was unaware of them. On the other hand,
the Depressive and Somatic (e.g., headaches without
known medical cause) scales were in the clinical range
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 2. Cross-informant comparisons of Jack’s scores on DSM-oriented scales in relation to CBCL norms for Society E, TRF norms for Society F,
and YSR norms that are the same for Societies E and F (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2015b; Reproduced by permission).
when scored from Jack’s YSR but in the normal range when
scored from Jack’s mother’s and teacher’s ratings. This
indicates that Jack’s depressive and somatic difficulties
were not evident to his mother or teacher but should be
considered in efforts to help Jack.
Assessments to Guide Interventions
Figure 2 illustrates how multi-informant, multicultural
assessments can reveal different aspects of students’ diffi-
culties. Although Jack’s teacher was initially concerned
about Jack’s inattentiveness, her TRF ratings and Jack’s
mother’s CBCL/6–18 ratings revealed that – compared to
norms based on gender, age, informant, and multicultural
norm group – Jack manifested high levels of oppositional
and conduct difficulties, as well as attentional difficulties.
The consistencies between the CBCL/6–18 and TRF scores
indicate that Jack’s behavioral difficulties were not confined
to school. Jack’s YSR ratings, by contrast, revealed high
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
137
levels of depressive and somatic difficulties, which his
mother and teacher did not report.
Baseline Assessments
Decisions about interventions depend on many factors that
differ from one society and school to another, as well as
depending on the student’s age, difficulties, strengths, recep-
tiveness to help, and parents’ inclinations. Whether interven-
tions are feasible in school or whether outside mental health
services are warranted, the TRF, CBCL/6–18, and YSR
provide baseline assessments for determining whether help
is needed and, if so, what difficulties should be targeted.
To provide detailed documentation of a student’s function-
ing in class and/or group activities, observations by a school
counselor, school psychologist, or paraprofessional can be
recorded and scored on the DOF, which was described
earlier. If individual ability and/or achievement tests are
administered, the test administrator can complete the TOF
to document and score the student’s functioning in the test
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
 138
situation. And if the SCICA is administered, it can document
more subtle aspects of the student’s functioning, as well as
evaluating the student’s amenability to counseling and
talking therapies.
Because the DOF and TOF assess functioning during
specific time samples, they can be considered assessments
of the student’s state during the time samples. The SCICA
assesses state aspects of a student’s functioning on the basis
of observations during the interview, plus trait aspects on the
basis of the student’s self-reports of functioning over longer
periods outside the interview. The TRF, CBCL/6–18, and
YSR measure traits over the periods on which ratings are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
based (2 months for the TRF; 6 months for the CBCL/6–18
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and YSR).
Assessment of Progress
If interventions are implemented, changes in students’
functioning can be assessed over user-selected periods of
days, weeks, or months with the Brief Problem Monitor
(BPM; Achenbach, McConaughy, Ivanova, & Rescorla,
2011). Parallel versions of the BPM are designed for com-
pletion in 1–2 min by teachers (BPM-T), parents (BPM-P),
and students (BPM-Y). Each version includes items
from the TRF, CBCL/6–18, or YSR that are rated on 0–1–2
Likert scales, based on the period of days, weeks, or months
specified by the user. The standard sets of BPM items
are scored on Internalizing, Attention Problems, Exter-
nalizing, and Total Problems scales, which have norms
based on gender, age, type of informant (teacher, parent,
student), and multicultural norm group. Respondents and
users can add comments, plus difficulties and strengths
items, if desired.
The BPM displays cross-informant comparisons of item
ratings and scale scores. It also provides line graphs of scale
scores across the time points when students are rated. The
line graphs make it easy to see changes in students’ difficul-
ties over time and in relation to norms based on gender,
age, informant, and multicultural norm group. BPM results
can be used to determine whether interventions should be
changed or ended. The BPM can be considered more of a
state than trait measure, as it assesses functioning over
relatively short periods.
Assessment of Outcomes
To determine whether students improve significantly, the
initial assessment instruments should be completed again
after interventions have been implemented. For example,
if the TRF, CBCL/6–18, and/or YSR were completed before
an intervention began, completion of the same form(s)
again will enable users to make comparisons with baseline
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
scores in order to determine how much improvement has
occurred. The Progress & Outcomes App (P&O App;
Achenbach, 2017) displays bar graph comparisons of scale
scores obtained at different times, such as baseline, during
the course of interventions, and following interventions.
The P&O App uses standard errors of measurement to
determine whether changes in scale scores exceed chance
expectations. To make findings easy to understand without
requiring statistical training, the P&O App displays text
statements regarding whether changes in scale scores
exceed chance expectations. For users who are familiar
with basic statistics and who wish to compare effects of dif-
ferent interventions, the P&O App can also provide statisti-
cal comparisons between changes in scores from baseline
to subsequent assessments for students who receive differ-
ent intervention conditions.
Summary and Conclusions
School personnel must increasingly deal with students’
behavioral difficulties, while also being sensitive to cultural
differences among students. This article presents evidence-
based tools for assessing students’ difficulties, designated
here as behavioral/emotional/social difficulties, because
behavioral difficulties are so often intertwined with emo-
tional and social difficulties.
The assessment tools include parallel forms for comple-
tion by teachers, parents, and students to assess a broad
spectrum of problems and strengths. The forms are scored
on empirically derived syndromes, DSM-oriented scales,
Internalizing, Externalizing, Total Problems, strengths,
and other scales. To take account of differences between
informants’ ratings of students’ difficulties, users can dis-
play side-by-side comparisons of each informant’s ratings
of each difficulties item. They can also display bar graphs
of scale scores obtained from each informant’s ratings.
The scale scores are standardized on the basis of norms
for the student’s gender and age, the type of informant,
and the appropriate multicultural norm group.
The multicultural norm groups are based on teacher,
parent, and student ratings of difficulties for population
samples of students in many societies. Gender-, age-, and
informant-specific norms have been constructed from dis-
tributions of difficulties scores in societies having relatively
low scores (Group 1 societies), medium scores (Group 2
societies), or high scores (Group 3 societies). Users can dis-
play scale scores standardized for the Group 1, 2, or 3
norms that are appropriate for the student and informants.
Additional instruments are designed to assess students’
functioning on the basis of observations in class and other
group settings, in interviews, and in test sessions.
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
The instruments completed by informants and by
observers provide data for determining whether students’
difficulties warrant interventions and for guiding interven-
tions in school and in other settings, such as mental health
services. The instruments can be used to assess students
again after interventions are implemented in order to
evaluate changes in students’ functioning by comparing
pre- versus post-intervention scores. During the course of
interventions, progress can be monitored by having teach-
ers, parents, and/or students complete the BPM, which
assesses students’ functioning over user-selected periods
of days, weeks, or months.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The evidence-based tools described in this article enable
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
users to take account of cross-informant and multicultural
variations in assessment of students’ difficulties. The
assessment data provide a basis for deciding on interven-
tions, for guiding the interventions, and for comparison
with subsequent assessments to evaluate changes in
students’ functioning.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the nonprofit University of
Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and
Families, which publishes the Achenbach System of Empir-
ically Based Assessment and from which the author
receives remuneration.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (2009). The Achenbach System of Empirically
Based Assessment (ASEBA): Development, findings, theory, and
applications. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research
Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M. (2018). Manual for assessing progress and
outcomes in problems and strengths using the ASEBA. Burling-
ton, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,
Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987).
Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implica-
tions of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.101.2.213
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., Ivanova, M. Y., & Rescorla,
L. A. (2011). Manual for the ASEBA Brief Problem Monitor
(BPM). Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center
for Children, Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA
school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of
Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2007). Multicultural supple-
ment to the Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for
Children, Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2015a). Mental health
practitioners’ guide for the Achenbach System of Empirically
Based Assessment (ASEBA) (9th ed.). Burlington, VT: University
of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
139
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2015b). Multicultural guide for
the ASEBA forms & profiles for ages 1½–59. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and
Families.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statisti-
cal manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC:
Author.
Bérubé, R. L., & Achenbach, T. M. (2017). Bibliography of published
studies using the Achenbach System of Empirically Based
Assessment (ASEBA). Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Boomsma, D. I., van Beijsterveldt, T. C. E. M., & Hudziak, J. J.
(2005). Genetic and environmental influences on Anxious/
Depression during childhood: A study from the Netherlands
Twin Registry. Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 4, 466–481.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
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 and Adolescent
Psychology, 40, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.
533405
De Los Reyes, A., Augenstein, T. M., Wang, M., Thomas, S. A.,
Drabick, D. A. G., Burgess, D. E., & Rabinowitz, J. (2015). The
validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and
adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141,
858–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038498
Ivanova, M. Y., Achenbach, T. M., Rescorla, L. A., Bilenberg, N.,
Bjarnadottir, G., Denner, S., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2011). Syn-
dromes of preschool psychopathology reported by teachers
and caregivers in 14 societies using the Caregiver-Teacher
Report Form (C-TRF). Journal of Early Childhood and Infant
Psychology, 7, 87–103.
Ivanova, M. Y., Achenbach, T. M., Rescorla, L. A., Harder, V. S.,
Ang, R. P., Bilenberg, N., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2010). Preschool
psychopathology reported by parents in 23 societies. Testing
the seven-syndrome model of the Child Behavior Checklist for
Ages 1.5–5. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 1215–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaac.2010.08.019
Ivanova, M. Y., Achenbach, T. M., Rescorla, L. A., Turner, L. V.,
Ahmeti-Pronaj, A., Au, A., . . . Zasępa, E. (2015). Syndromes of
self-reported psychopathology for ages 18–59 in 29 societies.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37,
171–183.
Ivanova, M. Y., Achenbach, T. M., Rescorla, L. A., Turner, L. V.,
Árnado
ttir, H. A., Au, A., . . . Zasępa, E. (2015). Syndromes of
collateral-reported psychopathology for ages 18–59 in 18
societies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychol-
ogy, 15, 18–28.
McConaughy, S. H., & Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Manual for the
semistructured clinical interview for children and adolescents
(2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research
Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
McConaughy, S. H., & Achenbach, T. M. (2004). Manual for
the Test Observation Form for Ages 2–18. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and
Families.
McConaughy, S. H., & Achenbach, T. M. (2009). Manual for the
ASEBA Direct Observation Form. Burlington, VT: University of
Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Ormel, J., Oldewinkel, A. J., Sijtsema, J. J., Van Ourt, F., Raven, D.,
Veenstra, R., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2012). The Tracking Adoles-
cents' Individual Liver Survey (TRAILS). Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 1020–1036.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
 140
Reef, J., Diamantopoulou, S., van Meurs, I., Verhulst, F., & van der
Ende, J. (2009). Child to adult continuities of psychopathology:
A 24-year follow-up. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 120,
230–238.
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ginzburg, S., Ivanova, M. Y.,
Dumenci, L., Almqvist, F., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2007). Consistency
of teacher-reported problems for students in 21 countries.
School Psychology Review, 36, 91–110.
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Bilenberg, N.,
Bjarnadottir, G., Denner, S., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2012).
Behavioral/emotional problems of preschoolers: Caregiver/
teacher reports from 15 societies. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 20, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1063426611434158
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Dumenci, L.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Almqvist, F., Bilenberg, N., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2007a). Epidemi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ological comparisons of problems and positive qualities
reported by adolescents in 24 countries. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 75, 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-006X.75.2.351
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Dumenci, L.,
Almqvist, F., Bilenberg, N., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2007b). Behav-
ioral and emotional problems reported by parents of children
ages 6 to 16 in 31 societies. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 15, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/
10634266070150030101
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Harder, V. S.,
Otten, L., Bilenberg, N., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2011). International
comparisons of behavioral and emotional problems in pre-
school children: Parents’ reports from 24 societies. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 456–467.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.563472
Rescorla, L. A., Althoff, R. R., Achenbach, T. M., & Ivanova, M. Y.,
the International ASEBA Consortium. (2017). Effects of society,
culture, and individual differences on child mental health
problems. Manuscript submitted for publication.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2018), 34(2), 127–140
T. M. Achenbach, Assessment of Students’ Difficulties
Rescorla, L. A., Bochicchio, L., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y.,
Almqvist, F., Begovac, I., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2014).
Parent-teacher agreement on children’s problems in 21 soci-
eties. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43,
627–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.900719
Rescorla, L. A., Ginzburg, S., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y.,
Almqvist, F., Begovac, I., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2013). Cross-
informant agreement between parent-reported and adolescent
self-reported problems in 25 societies. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 42, 262–273.
Rescorla, L. A., Ivanova, M. Y., Achenbach, T. M., Begovac, I.,
Chahed, M., Drugli, M. B., . . . Zhang, E. Y. (2012). International
epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology: 2.
Integration and applications of dimensional findings from 44
societies. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 1273–1283.
Tiemeier, H., Velders, F. P., Szekely, E., Roza, S. J., Dieleman, G.,
Jaddoe, V. W. V., . . . Verhulst, F. C. (2012). The Generation R
Study: A review of design, findings to date, and a study of the
5-HTTLPR by environmental interaction from fetal life onward.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 51, 1119–1135.
Received May 31, 2016
Revision received August 29, 2016
Accepted October 8, 2016
Published online November 29, 2017
Thomas M. Achenbach
Department of Psychiatry
University of Vermont
1 South Prospect Street
Burlington, VT 05401
USA
thomas.achenbach@uvm.edu
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing