Beck Youth Review

Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333–340

A review of the Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional

and Social Impairment

Jillayne E. Bose-Deakins, Randy G. Floyd*

Department of Psychology, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, United States

Received 5 February 2004; accepted 23 June 2004

Abstract

This review focused on the Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment (BYI)

[Beck, J., Beck, A., & Jolly, J. (2001). Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment

manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation]. The BYI were designed as self-report instruments

for assessing maladaptive cognitions and behaviors of children ages 7 to 14. They include

inventories measuring anxiety, depression, disruptive behavior, anger, and self-concept. The review

evaluated the development, standardization, and norming of the BYI and the evidence of reliability

and validity of their scores. Although the BYI achieve many of the goals outlined by their authors,

users should be aware that there are a number of limitations or unanswered questions regarding the

inventories.

D 2004 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Test Review; Anxiety; Depression; Disruptive behavior; Anger; Self-concept

Introduction

This review focuses on the Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social

Impairment (BYI), which was developed by Beck, Beck, and Jolly (2001) and published

by The Psychological Corporation. The BYI were designed as self-report instruments for

assessing maladaptive cognitions and behaviors of children ages 7 to 14. The purpose of

0022-4405/$ -

All rights rese

doi:10.1016/j.

* Corresp

E-mail add

see front matter D 2004 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

rved.

jsp.2004.06.002

onding author. Tel.: +901 678 4846.

ress: [email protected] (R.G. Floyd).

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333–340334

the review is to aid school psychologists and other mental health professionals in

evaluating the development, standardization, and norming of the BYI and the evidence

of reliability and validity of their scores. The review is organized around the Standards

for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association

[AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and National Council on

Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999), and it is supported by established rules-

of-thumb for evaluating the psychometric properties of assessment instruments (e.g.,

Bracken, 1987).

Overview of BYI

The BYI includes five self-report inventories. The Anxiety Inventory measures

fearfulness, worry, and bodily symptoms indicating anxiety. The Depression Inventory

measures sadness, negative thoughts about one’s self and future, and associated bodily

symptoms. The Anger Inventory measures hostility, physiological over-arousal, and

perceptions of aggressive attributions of others. The Disruptive Behavior Inventory

measures delinquent and aggressive behaviors. In contrast to these measures of

psychopathology, the Self-Concept Inventory measures perceptions of competency and

self-worth. Each inventory contains 20 items, which are presented as brief self-statements.

Users may purchase inventories in isolation, or they may purchase a Combination Booklet

containing all five inventories. Each inventory yields a raw score that can be transformed

into a T-score (M=50, SD=10) and a percentile rank based on a comparison to same-sex

agemates. The Combination Booklet yields no composite or total scores representing

higher-level groupings of items (e.g., internalizing or externalizing problems). None of the

inventories contain subscales representing more specific item grouping, such as those seen

with the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992) and the Revised Children’s

Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1985). At present, there is no

scoring or report-writing software.

Standardization samples

Drawing from a sample of 1100 children from four demographic regions and 30 sites,

the BYI norming sample included 800 children ages 7 to 14. Telephone screening was

conducted with parents to assure that children had minimal levels of reading proficiency,

spoke English as a first language, and displayed no bsevere physical or mental condition

that might interfere with the assessmentQ (Beck et al., 2001, p. 26). Four norm groups,

containing 200 children each, were formed from the larger norming sample: boys of ages 7

through 10 years, boys of ages 11 through 14 years, and girls from the same two age

groups. The size of these sex- and age-based groupings appears to be adequate and

comparable to many other self-report inventories. The authors report that a stratified

sampling plan, based on the 1999 United States Census data, was used to ensure that the

norming sample was representative of the important characteristics of the general

population, but their stratification variables appeared limited to sex, race-ethnicity, and

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333–340 335

parent education levels. Although the match between the norming sample and the census

data on these three variables appears to have been adequate (Floyd & Bose, 2003), no data

indicate that there was representative sampling from different demographic regions and

different community sizes.

In addition to the sex- and age-based norming groups, results from a sample of 107

children receiving outpatient mental health services were used to develop a clinical

comparison group. These children were collected from one site in New Jersey and

were predominantly White boys between the ages of 7 and 10. Most children in this

sample were diagnosed by psychiatrists as having an adjustment disorder (22%) or

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; 39%), but other diagnoses included

mood disorders (14%), anxiety disorders (11%), and disruptive behavior disorders

(8%). Because of the relatively small sample size and poor representativeness of the

clinical comparison group and the absence of descriptions of the specific diagnoses

(e.g., major depressive disorder) of children in this group, these bclinical normsQ can be

considered poor.

Scale/item characteristics

Based on the standard that a ceiling on an instrument measuring behavioral or

emotional excesses is acceptable if the maximum raw score is associated with a

standardized score at least two standard deviations above the normative mean (Bracken,

Keith, & Walker, 1998), the Self-Concept, Anxiety, Depression, Anger, and Disruptive

Behavior inventories each appear to assess the full range of maladaptive cognitions and

behaviors. Similarly, based on the standard that a floor on instruments measuring

behavioral or emotional deficits is acceptable if a raw score of 1 is associated with a

standard score at least two standard deviations below the normative mean, the Self-

Concept inventory appears to assess the full range of deficits. In addition, the item

gradients for each inventory appear to be acceptable (Bracken et al., 1998). Thus, item

gradients for each inventory included at least 3 raw score points per standard deviation of

T-scores.

Reliability

Using previously published standards (e.g., Bracken, 1987), the internal consistency

and the 1-week test–retest reliability of the BYI appear to be at least acceptable across

most inventories and norm groups. Internal consistency coefficients for all inventories

exceeded the minimum criterion of .80 using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha method for each

norm group. Thus, items within inventories appear to be homogeneous in nature. Median

test–retest reliability coefficients across inventories, when corrected for range restriction,

exceeded the minimum criterion of .80. More specifically, corrected coefficients for each

inventory were above the criterion of .80 except for the Anxiety and Anger inventories for

girls ages 7 to 10 (n=27) and the Depression inventory for boys ages 7 to 10 (n=20). No

analysis of the long-term stability of the inventory scores was offered.


Validity evidence

Validity evidence presented in the BYI manual is arranged in a manner consistent with

the Standards (AERA, APA, and NCME, 1999). Several sources of evidence support the

use and interpretation of the BYI as measures of subjective distress, hostility, and

delinquent behaviors.

Evidence based on content

The content of the inventories was developed based on reviews of the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2000),

research examining relevant child psychological disorders, and reviews of related

assessment instruments for children. The theoretical and empirical foundations of

cognitive therapy appear to have been incorporated into item and scale development

(Beck & Alford, 1998). The authors of the BYI reported that items were based on the

verbal reports of children receiving psychotherapy, and items on some inventories seem to

have been revised based on those from the editions of the Beck Depression Inventory (e.g.,

Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1990). Initial

items were field tested in outpatient, partial hospitalization, and private practice settings,

and items were deleted from the initial pool based on field testing and statistical analyses.

Our review of items reveals that they appear to measure thoughts or behaviors consistent

with the inventory labels (e.g., Anxiety), but the procedure for assignment of items to

inventories seems to have been based on only logical–intuitive means consistent with the

theoretical and empirical foundations of cognitive therapy. One general weakness in this

domain of validity evidence is apparent. It does not appear that independent experts were

consulted during item development or evaluation. For example, there is no evidence that

independent experts systematically evaluated the correspondence between the BYI items

and the diagnostic criteria for prevalent DSM disorders of childhood and adolescence. In

addition, there is no evidence of evaluation of the cultural, racial, and gender bias of items.

Evidence based on response processes

Concise written instructions for children rating the items are included on the response

page for each inventory. All of the inventories require that children (a) read brief sentences

and (b) respond by circling a response. Items are reported to have been written to reflect a

second grade reading level, and the authors of the BYI indicate that examiners may read

items to children with apparent reading difficulties to ensure accurate responding.

It is notable that items from different inventories are not interspersed in the

Combination Booklet as items are in other broad-band or omnibus self-report inventories.

Thus, all the Self-Concept Inventory items are included on the first response page, Anxiety

Inventories items on the second, and so on. All items on each inventory are also scaled

similarly, so that the items for the Self-Concept Inventory are worded as positive attributes

and the items for the Anxiety, Depression, Anger, and Disruptive Behavior inventories are

worded as negative attributes. As a result, whether used in isolation or in the Combina-

tion Booklet, the inventories may lead children to fall prey to response sets that will


compromise the validity of their scores. Because of this potential limitation, it is a

weakness that the inventories do not provide indexes that could indicate social desirability,

exaggeration of symptoms, or inconsistent or patterned responding.

Evidence based on internal structure

The authors of the BYI describe several analyses that examine the relations among

items and the relations among inventory scores. The manual provides item–total

correlations, internal consistency estimates within inventories, and factor loadings of

items to support the internal structure of the BYI. However, no confirmatory factor

analysis of items is reported. Although the reported exploratory factor analysis did not

account for correlated factors or examine the factor structure within each inventory, its

results are notable. Principal axis factor analysis of items revealed three factors: one

apparently representing negative affect, another representing aggressive symptomatology,

and a final one representing self-concept. Although the manual provides no rationale for

the number of factors extracted and includes no factor loading matrix, according to BYI

authors, the first factor comprised all items on the Depression and Anxiety inventories and

almost all of the items on the Anger Inventory. The second factor comprised most items

from the Disruptive Behavior Inventory and a few items from the Anger Inventory. The

final factor comprised all items from the Self-Concept Inventory. Based on the limited

information provided, these results indicate that items from the Anxiety, Depression, and

Anger inventories do not uniquely measure the constructs they were designed to represent.

Although the results are not surprising based on research examining measurement of

depressive, anxious, and externalizing behaviors in children (e.g., Achenbach, 1991; Stark

& Laurent, 2001), noticeably absent were explanations regarding (a) why the inventories

remained distinct and (b) why composite scores representing the latent factors are not

provided in the Combination Booklet.

Correlations between inventory scores across the four norm groups indicated

consistent, strong, and statistically significant relations. As predicted, correlations between

the Self-Concept Inventory and the four inventories measuring maladaptive cognitions and

behaviors were negative in magnitude, whereas the correlations among all other

inventories were consistently positive. As evident from the factor analysis, correlations

between the Anxiety, Depression, and Anger inventories were consistently high. The

Anger and Disruptive Behavior inventories also demonstrated high correlations.

Evidence based on external relations

The manual for the BYI reports several studies supporting their relations with other

assessment instruments. Using five sizeable samples of children, each of the four

inventory’s T-scores from the BYI were correlated with total scores and subscale scores of

five self-report inventories for children: the CDI (Kovacs, 1992), the RCMAS (Reynolds

& Richmond, 1985), the Conners–Wells Adolescent Self-Report Scale (Conners, 1997),

and the Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (Piers, 1996). All but a small fraction

of the correlations were significant at the .01 level, and scores from the pathology

inventories consistently demonstrated positive correlations with like scores and negative


correlations with measures of adaptive characteristics. As expected, the Self-Concept

Inventory consistently demonstrated the opposite pattern. These findings provide sound

convergent validity evidence for the inventories. In fact, the magnitude of the correlations

tended to be highest when representing the relations between scores measuring the same

constructs (e.g., depressed mood, anxiety). However, because many positive, significant

correlations were evident across measures of different constructs (e.g., feelings of anger

and anxiety), strong evidence of discriminant validity is generally lacking for most of the

BYI pathology inventories.

The authors of the BYI reported the results of two studies examining the ability of the

BYI to discriminate between children from its standardization sample and children

classified as having some psychological or educational condition. Statistical analyses used

to support the discriminative validity of the BYI included t tests, MANOVAs, ANOVAs,

and calculation of d-ratios. When children in special education programs were compared

to children in the standardization sample matched on age, gender, and ethnicity, significant

differences were found between groups across all inventories. However, an insufficient

description of the sampling of children in special education (e.g., whether they were

recruited from a single school) and the heterogeneous nature of the sample of children in

the special education sample (who received services for a variety of learning and

behavioral difficulties) weakens the conclusions about the discriminative validity of

specific inventories. In the second sample, children seen in a psychiatric clinic who

composed the clinical comparison group (described above) were compared to children

from the standardization sample matched on gender and age. Results revealed significant

differences between groups on three of the inventories: Self-Concept, Anger, and

Disruptive Behavior. Because the composition of the clinical comparison group was

primarily children with ADHD and children with adjustment disorder, these findings are

not unexpected. However, these findings provide no support for the use of the Depression

and Anxiety inventories, per se, which measure the constructs that are probably the most

well studied of the five constructs measured by the BYI. No evidence is provided based on

analysis of the BYI scores of children with independently established psychiatric

diagnoses or educational classifications that would yield estimates of classification

accuracy or cut-scores for placing children at risk for these diagnoses or classifications.

Evidence based on consequences

Recently, the authors and publishers of assessment instruments have been increasingly

pressured to provide evidence that scores and decisions based on them produce intended,

and not unintended, effects for those participating in the assessment. Those supporting the

publication of the BYI seem to be off to a good start based on the purported links between

the inventories and the DSM, well-established theories of psychological disorders, and

empirically validated cognitive-behavioral treatments. Despite this strong substantive base

linking assessment to effective treatments, the BYI come up short. Although the manual

represents two brief case studies to model decision-making using the BYI, there is little

focus on the development of treatments based on BYI results. Furthermore, the authors

make no reference to and provide no evidence of their sensitivity to treatment effects,

which could support their utility in treatment monitoring.


Conclusions

Overall, the inventories accomplish several goals expressed by the authors. They are

brief instruments that can be useful in screening children who might be at risk for

having or developing maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. Because the inventories can

be administered to individuals or groups, diagnostic screening and monitoring of

children’s thoughts and behaviors can be conducted quickly. The standardization sample

seems to be adequate enough to represent the majority of children in U.S. schools.

Reliability evidence also supports their consistency of measurement across short periods

of time. The inventories have a strong theoretical and empirical base stemming from a

well-established theory of psychopathology and associated treatments. As such, they

offer promise for school psychologists who engage in cognitive-behavioral assessment

and psychotherapies with elementary and middle school children (Hughes, 1999).

Because the Depression and Anxiety inventories correspond to the some of the

characteristics of emotional disturbance, they may be useful to school psychologists

during psychoeducational assessments of this condition. In addition, a self-report

instrument measuring anger may be a nice addition to school psychologists’ assessment

toolbox.

Users should be aware that there are a number of limitations or unanswered questions

regarding the BYI. Some are repeated here. First, the BYI do not include validity indices,

such as a Lie scale. This omission is especially problematic because all like items (e.g.,

items measuring anxiety) are grouped together and because all items are worded as

negative (except those from the Self-Concept Inventory). Second, the lack of item analysis

detecting cultural bias may have negative consequences for school psychologists working

with children from diverse ethnic groups. Third, the majority of the inventories, including

Anxiety, Depression, and Anger, appear to tap into the same general construct—negative

affect or subjective distress. The strong relations between these inventories may represent

the actual co-occurrence of these symptoms or reflect that some similar items are included

on multiple inventories. Fourth, the ability of the inventories to discriminate (a) between

children with emotional and behavior problems and those without or (b) between children

with qualitatively different emotional or behavior problems (e.g., ADHD and conduct

disorder) is weak or absent. Finally, although the BYI have the potential to aid treatment

development and to facilitate treatment monitoring, more evidence is needed to support

these uses.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4–18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington, VT7

University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on

Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC7

American Educational Research Association.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text

revision). Washington, DC7 Author.

Beck, A., & Alford, B. A. (1998). The integrative power of cognitive therapy. New York7 Guilford Press.


Beck, J., Beck, A., & Jolly, J. (2001). Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional & Social Impairment manual. San

Antonio, TX7 Psychological Corporation.

Beck, J., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX7 Psychological Corporation.

Beck, J., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX:

Psychological Corporation.

Bracken, B. A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical

adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 313–326.

Bracken, B. A., Keith, L. K., & Walker, K. C. (1998). Assessment of preschool behavior and social-emotional

functioning: A review of thirteen third-party instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16,

153–169.

Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners’ Rating Scales—Revised: Technical manual. Toronto, ON7 Multi-Health

Systems.

Floyd, R. G., & Bose, J. E. (2003). A critical review of rating scales assessing emotional disturbance. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 43–78.

Hughes, J. N. (1999). Child psychotherapy. In C. R. Reynolds, & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school

psychology (3rd ed.). New York7 Wiley.

Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory manual. North Tonowanda, NY7 Multi-Health Systems.

Piers, E. (1996). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale: Revised manual 1984. Los Angeles7 Western

Psychological Services.

Reynolds, C., & Richmond, B. (1985). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) manual. Los

Angeles7 Western Psychological Services.

Stark, K. D., & Laurent, J. (2001). Joint factor analysis of the Children’s Depression Inventory and the Revised

Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 552–567.

Beck Youth Review

Documents

Transcript of Beck Youth Review