<%BANNER%>

Cross-Racial Measurement Equivalence of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Factors among Young African-American and Eur...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024712/00001

Material Information

Title: Cross-Racial Measurement Equivalence of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Factors among Young African-American and European-American Children
Physical Description: 1 online resource (50 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Butler, Ashley
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: african, american, child, equivalence, eyberg, factor, income, inventory, low, measurement, preschoolers, psychometric, racial, structure
Clinical and Health Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: CROSS-RACIAL MEASURMENT EQUIVALENCE OF THE EYBERG CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY FACTORS AMONG YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN CHILDREN Use of behavior rating scales is the most common method for treatment screening and for evaluating treatment outcome among young children. A number of rating scales available to screen and assess treatment outcome among young children for behavior problems have strong psychometric properties; however, the psychometric properties have been established in studies with primarily European American children and may not be equivalent when the scales are administered to different racial/ethnic groups. The term measurement equivalence refers to the extent to which the psychometric properties of an instrument are similar across groups. The use of nonequivalent rating scales is problematic if used to screen children from diverse samples that include both racial/ethnic minorities and European Americans. Nonequivalent rating scales are also problematic if used to compare treatment outcomes between different racial/ethnic groups. This study examined the cross- racial measurement equivalence of a behavior rating scale commonly used in screening and evaluating treatment outcomes, the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI). Specifically, this study examined measurement equivalence of the three subscales of the ECBI Intensity Scale (Oppositional Defiant Behavior, Attention Difficulties, and Conduct Problems) between low-income African American and European American children ages 3 to 6 years. Discriminative and convergent validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale subscales with 4- to 6-year-old European American and African American children were examined. Results supported the configural, metric, and scalar invariance of the ECBI Intensity Scale factors between African Americans and European Americans. Furthermore, evidence was found for convergent validity of the Intensity Scale factors with CBCL subscales separately for both racial groups. We failed to find evidence for the discriminant validity of the Intensity Scale factors with the CBCL Anxious/Depressed subscale for either group. Implications of this study for screening and evaluating treatment outcomes of young low-income African American and European American children are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ashley Butler.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Eyberg, Sheila M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024712:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024712/00001

Material Information

Title: Cross-Racial Measurement Equivalence of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Factors among Young African-American and European-American Children
Physical Description: 1 online resource (50 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Butler, Ashley
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: african, american, child, equivalence, eyberg, factor, income, inventory, low, measurement, preschoolers, psychometric, racial, structure
Clinical and Health Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: CROSS-RACIAL MEASURMENT EQUIVALENCE OF THE EYBERG CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY FACTORS AMONG YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN CHILDREN Use of behavior rating scales is the most common method for treatment screening and for evaluating treatment outcome among young children. A number of rating scales available to screen and assess treatment outcome among young children for behavior problems have strong psychometric properties; however, the psychometric properties have been established in studies with primarily European American children and may not be equivalent when the scales are administered to different racial/ethnic groups. The term measurement equivalence refers to the extent to which the psychometric properties of an instrument are similar across groups. The use of nonequivalent rating scales is problematic if used to screen children from diverse samples that include both racial/ethnic minorities and European Americans. Nonequivalent rating scales are also problematic if used to compare treatment outcomes between different racial/ethnic groups. This study examined the cross- racial measurement equivalence of a behavior rating scale commonly used in screening and evaluating treatment outcomes, the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI). Specifically, this study examined measurement equivalence of the three subscales of the ECBI Intensity Scale (Oppositional Defiant Behavior, Attention Difficulties, and Conduct Problems) between low-income African American and European American children ages 3 to 6 years. Discriminative and convergent validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale subscales with 4- to 6-year-old European American and African American children were examined. Results supported the configural, metric, and scalar invariance of the ECBI Intensity Scale factors between African Americans and European Americans. Furthermore, evidence was found for convergent validity of the Intensity Scale factors with CBCL subscales separately for both racial groups. We failed to find evidence for the discriminant validity of the Intensity Scale factors with the CBCL Anxious/Depressed subscale for either group. Implications of this study for screening and evaluating treatment outcomes of young low-income African American and European American children are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ashley Butler.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Eyberg, Sheila M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024712:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CROS S-RACIAL MEASURMENT EQUIVALENC E OF THE EYBERG CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY FACTORS AMONG YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN CHILDREN By ASHLEY MICHELLE BUTLER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Ashley Michelle Butler 2

PAGE 3

To m y mother and sister for their presence, support, encouragement, and love 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWL EDGMENTS I thank my undergraduate advisors and mentors at Dillard University in New Orleans, LA for their encouragement and guidanc e in response to my interest in pursuing a doctoral degree in psychology. I am grateful to the members of my dissertation committee for providing their insights and knowledge, and to Dr. Sheila Eyberg for sharing her expertise and for providing thoughtful feedback throughout my graduate career. I also thank my mother and sister for supporting my passion for assisting underserved children and families through my work. I am appreciative for William, who ha s provided patience and understandi ng. Lastly, I am thankful to God, who makes all things possible. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................8 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .10 Background .............................................................................................................................10 Benefits of Within-Group Psychometric Studies ...................................................................11 Limitations of Within-Group Designs ....................................................................................12 Benefits of Cross-Ethnic Psychometric Studies .....................................................................13 Measurement Equivalence ......................................................................................................14 Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory ...........................................................................................15 Preliminary Studies .................................................................................................................19 Reference Point Data for the ECBI Intensity Scale among African Americans .............19 Means Scores and Reliability of th e ECBI Intensity Scale among African Am ericans ....................................................................................................................19 Validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale among African Americans ....................................20 Study Purposes and Specific Aims .........................................................................................20 2 METHODS...................................................................................................................... .......23 Participants .............................................................................................................................23 Study A Particiants ..........................................................................................................23 Study B Participants ........................................................................................................24 Instruments .............................................................................................................................24 Instruments Administered During Study A .....................................................................24 Instruments Administered During Study B .....................................................................25 Procedures ...............................................................................................................................26 Study A Procedures .........................................................................................................26 Study B Procedures .........................................................................................................26 Examination of Study A and B Differences in Demographics and ECBI Scores ...........26 3 OVERVIEW OF STATISTICAL PROCEDURES ................................................................28 Examination of Measurement Equivalence ............................................................................28 Examination of Reliability and C onvergent and Discrim inant Validity ................................29 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........30 5

PAGE 6

Descriptive Data ............................................................................................................... ...30 Configural Invariance .............................................................................................................30 Examination of Modification Indices .....................................................................................31 Configural Invariance Allo wing Correlation of Residuals of 3 Pairs of Item s ......................32 Scalar Invariance ....................................................................................................................32 Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity of the 3 ECBI Intensity Scale Factors ........32 Internal Consistency of the ECBI Intensity Scale Factors ......................................................33 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......40 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................43 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................49 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Indices of Measurement Equivalence ................................................................................22 2-1 Study A Female Caregivers Education, Marital Status, and Incom e by Racial Group ....27 2-2 Examination of Differences in Demogra phic Variables between Study A Participants Who Did Not Participate in Study B and Study B Participants .........................................27 4-1 Means and Standard Deviations of Study Instrum ent Subscales by Racial Group ...........34 4-2 Item Means, Standard Deviations, Sk ewness, and Kurtosis by Racial Group ..................34 4-3 Sterns and Johnson (2008) Factor Structure ......................................................................36 4-4 Standardized Factor Loadings for the Scalar Invariant Mod el of the ECBI Intensity Scale among African American and European Americans ................................................37 4-5 Completely Standardized Threshold Estimat es for the Scalar Invariant Model of the ECBI Intensity Scale among African Am erican and (European Americans) ....................38 7

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CROSS-RACIAL MEASURMENT EQUIVALENC E OF THE EYBERG CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY FACTORS AMONG YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN CHILDREN By Ashley Michelle Butler August 2009 Chair: Sheila Eyberg Major: Psychology Use of behavior rating scales is the most common method fo r treatment screening and for evaluating treatment outcome among young childre n. A number of rating scales available to screen and assess treatment outcome among young children for behavior problems have strong psychometric properties; however, the psychometric properties have been es tablished in studies with primarily European American children and may not be equivalent when the scales are administered to different racial/ethnic groups. The term measurement equivalence refers to the extent to which the psychometric properties of an instrument are similar across groups. The use of nonequivalent rating scales is problematic if used to screen children from diverse samples that include both racial/ethnic minorities and European Americans. Nonequivalent rating scales are also problematic if used to compare treatment outcomes between different racial/ethnic groups. This study examined the crossracial measurement equivalence of a behavior rating scale commonly used in screening and evaluating treat ment outcomes, the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI). Specifically, this study exam ined measurement equivalence of the three subscales of the ECBI Intensity Scale (Oppositiona l Defiant Behavior, Attention Difficulties, and Conduct Problems) between low-income African American and European American children 8

PAGE 9

9 ages 3 to 6 years. Discriminative and convergent validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale subscales with 4to 6-year-old European American a nd African American children were examined. Results supported the configural, metric, and sc alar invariance of th e ECBI Intensity Scale factors between African American s and European Americans. Fu rthermore, evidence was found for convergent validity of the Intensity Scale factors with CBCL subscales separately for both racial groups. We failed to find evidence for th e discriminant validity of the Intensity Scale factors with the CBCL Anxious/Depressed subscale for either group. Implications of this study for screening and evaluating tr eatment outcomes of young low-income African American and European American children are discussed.

PAGE 10

CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Psychological problems in childhood are co mmonly conceptualized on one of two dimensions, one of which is labeled externalizing and consists of disruptive, delinquent, hyperactive, and aggressive behaviors (Frick & Kimonis, 2005). Approximately half of preschool-age children with exte rnalizing behaviors continue to show significant symptoms at school-age (Campbell & Ewing, 1990) and early adolescence (Pierce, Ewing, & Campbell, 1999). Externalizing behaviors in early childhood have been associated with a number of negative long-term outcomes including antiso cial behavior, adolescent delinquency, and substance abuse (Gunter, Arndt, Riggins-Caspers, Wenman, & Cadoret, 2006; Loeber, Keenan, & Zang, 1997). In addition to thos e negative outcomes, externalizi ng problems of preschool-age children are associated with academic difficultie s during later school-age years (McGee, Prior, Williams, Smart, & Sanson, 2002). Because external izing behavior is enduring (Loeber, 1991) and often worsens without treatment (Loeber, 1982), early screening, tr eatment, and evaluation of treatment outcomes are important. Early screening, treatment, and evaluation of treatment outcome among ethnic minorities are particularly needed. Young ethnic minority ch ildren ages 2-7 with externalizing behavior problems are less likely to receive needed treat ment compared to non-Hispanic white children (Thompson, 2005). A recently proposed model of he lp-seeking behavior for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) described several factors shown to affect tr eatment utilization for ethnic minority children, including both inadequate screening and quality of treatment in some service sectors (Eiraldi, Mazzuca, Clarke, & Power, 2006). Ensuring adequate screening and 10

PAGE 11

treatm ent evaluation among young ethnic minority childr en is an important step in eliminating racial/ethnic disparities in serv ices for externalizing behavior. Behavior rating scales are commonly used fo r screening behavior problems as well as evaluating treatment outcomes of young children b ecause of their ease of administration and amenability to normative comparison. Although the num ber of child behavior rating scales has increased dramatically in recent years (Kam paus, Petoskey, & Rowe, 2000) and increased attention has been given to the psychometric characteristics of the sc ales (Bagner, Harwood, & Eyberg, 2006), a review of the literature shows th at few studies have examined the psychometric properties of behavior rating sc ales with ethnic minority childre n (Tyson, 2004).This gap in the literature is problematic given th e adequacy of a rating scale to screen and evaluate treatment outcomes may not extend to ethnic minority childr en due to differences in scale reliability or validity (Knight & Hill, 1998). Studi es are needed to examine th e psychometric properties of rating scales for ethnic minority children. Two types of research designs, following either an emic or etic approach, are often used to examine the psychometric properties of rating scales for ethnic minority populations. These include (a) within-group designs in which one ethnic group is studied (emic approach), and (b) cross-ethnic comparative designs (etic approach) in which two or more ethnic/racial groups are compared. Concerns in the literature regarding the limitations and benefits of the two research designs are discussed below. Benefits of Within-Gro up Psychometric Studies Researchers have noted that cr oss-ethnic designs are used mo re frequently than withingroup designs (Ponterotto, 1988), and conclusion s from cross-ethnic studies have often suggested that ethnic minorities are deficient in the area u nder study (Graham, 1992). These conclusions have a high cost to society because they may perpetuate racial and ethnic 11

PAGE 12

stereotypes. These negative kinds of study reports can be decreased by the use of within-group designs. It is also increasingly re cognized that race/ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic/Latino group m embership) is not an explanatory variable in cross-ethnic designs (Helms, Jernigan, & Mascher, 2005). In response to this growing recognition, some research ers propose that crossethnic designs include examination of theoreti cally-driven factors to explain racial/ethnic differences, such as immigration status, cultura l beliefs and values, and socioeconomic status (Alvidrez, Azocar, & Miranda, 1996). However, th e numerous potential f actors that could be studied are a challenge to crossethnic designs, and there is a dearth of theory to guide such investigation (Hunsley & Mash, 20 07). Within-group designs avoid this challenge and provide a way to conduct research that re spects racial/cultural differences by evaluating racial/ethnic groups separately (Tucker & Herman, 2002). Several additional benefits of within-group psychometric studies should be noted. Withingroup studies allow understanding of the psychomet ric properties of an assessment instrument within particular ethnic groups. Furthermore, within-group designs that evaluate existing measures developed with primarily European Am erican samples allow examination of whether items need to be added or excluded for sp ecific ethnic groups (e.g., Lambert, Rowan, Lyubansky, & Russ, 2002). Limitations of Within-Group Designs Although within-group designs have a number of strengths, a particular limitation of this approach is important to note. Limitations of within-group psychometric designs include an inability to determine the presence of differences in the psychometric properties of assessment instruments used for screening or treatment eval uation in studies contai ning diverse samples. Cross-ethnic designs, however, can be used to eliminate this limitation. 12

PAGE 13

Benefits of Cross-Ethnic Psychometric Studies Cross-ethnic research designs allow exam in ation of the equivalence of psychometric properties of an assessment instrument across groups. Examining equivalence across groups is important to achieve the goal of using assessment instruments that are equally valid and reliable across ethnic/racial groups and to advance evidence-based assessment for diverse groups. Evidence-based assessment (EBA) has been de fined as using (a) instruments that are psychometrically sound for each purpose they are used; (b) an assessment process (selection, use, and interpretation of an instrument, and integration of data), that has been empirically evaluated; (c) research and theory to guide the selection of cons tructs to be assessed; and (d) research and theory to guide the selection of an assessment process (Hunsley & Mash; 2007). Identifying rating scales th at produce similarly strong ps ychometric properties across racial/ethnic groups will support the EBA move ment in clinical psychology (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence Based Practice, 2006; Hunsley & Mash; 2007). Specifically, to evaluate treatm ent outcome using cross-ethnic designs, rating scales that are psychometrically valid across grou ps are needed to ensure that any differences found between groups are not due to differences in scale functioning. Furthermore, to screen young children in studies and set tings that include diverse sa mples, a rating scale with demonstrated measurement equivalence among gr oups represented in the setting and sample should be used to ensure that children from all the ethnic/racial groups are selected for further assessment in a comparable manner. In sum, both within-group and cross-ethnic research designs have unique strengths that are needed to address, develop, and id entify appropriate methods for screening and evaluating treatment outcome among diverse racial/e thnic children with externalizing behavior. Our previous investigat ions have focused on within-group examinations and this study will be a cross-ethnic approach and examination of measurement equivalence. 13

PAGE 14

Measurement Equivalence Form al examination of measurement equi valence (ME), also termed measurement invariance, indicates the extent to which an asse ssment instrument, such as a rating scale, has similar reliability and validity ac ross two or more racial/ethnic groups. ME has been defined as the degree to which the psychometric properties of an instrument are similar across groups (Knight & Hill, 1998). Demonstration of measuremen t equivalence is a logica l prerequisite to the evaluation of hypotheses regarding group differences (Va ndenberg & Lance, 2000). For example, if no evidence of ME for African Am ericans and European Americans on a depression inventory exists, it would remain unclear whet her mean group differences were due to true differences in the severity of depression or to differences in measurement functioning of the inventory. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is an anal ytic strategy that allows examination of ME between groups. A comprehensive review of studies that examin ed ME using a confirmatory factor analytic strategy identified five indices of ME in these studies (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). These indices, shown in Table 1, can be defined by the type of measurement parameter they examine (See Table 1-1). Based on their review, Vandenberg and Lan ce (2000) recommended that the sequence of statistical tests examining each type of ME proceed in a set order when conducting the CFAs. Specifically, they suggested that four indices be examined in the order A-D in Table 1. Vandenberg and Lance (2000) suggested that index (E), invariant uniquenesses, should only be evaluated in conjunction with examination of factor variances across groups to determine the equivalence of latent factor reliability between groups. Evalua tion of invariant uniquenesses is inconsequential when examining measurement equivalence (Byrne, 1998). 14

PAGE 15

Vandenberg and Lance (2000) also suggested no further tests are need ed, and that it should be concluded that m easurement equivalence exists if examination of invariant covariance (step A) indicates the variance covariance matrices ar e the same across groups. They suggest that if examination of invariant covariance indicates th e covariance matrices are not the same across groups, steps B-D should be performed to determine the specific index/ indices that are nonequivalent. However, others have indicated th is guideline is problematic. Byrne (1998) noted examination of invariant covari ance often produces inconsistent findings regarding measurement equivalence across groups. Specifically, there are cases in which the covariance matrices between groups are equivalent, but further exam ination of additional specific indices of ME show the groups are non-equivalent (Byrne 1998). Beginning measurement equivalence evaluation with examination of configural inva riance (step B) helps prevent concluding that groups are equivalent when they are not. Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory The measure of interest in this study is the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) Intensity Scale. The ECBI Intensity Scale is a 36-item parent-report scale of child disruptive behavior frequency that is often used in re search settings as a screening measure for identification of children in need of treatment, and often used as an outcome measure of child behavior change following treatment (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). It is also increasingly used for tracking the change in child be havior over the course of trea tment. Tracking change during treatment can provide more effective treatment decisions than use of clinical judgment alone, which in turn improves outcome (Lam bert et al., 2003, Hunsley & Mash, 2007). Good psychometric properties have been demonstrated for the ECBI Intensity Scale, including high internal consistency (Gross et al., 2007), 10-month test-retest stability (Funderburk, Eyberg, Rich, & Behar 2003), a nd concurrent validity (Boggs, Eyberg, & 15

PAGE 16

Reynolds, 1990; Gross et al., 2007). In addition, the discrim inative power of the ECBI has been confirmed (Rich & Eyberg, 2001). In the Rich and Eyberg study, the ECBI Intensity Scale classified 91% of children corre ctly according to diagnostic st atus, with 88% of diagnosed children correctly classified and 96% of non-diagnosed children correctly classified. Normative data for the ECBI Intensity Scale have also been provided for some cross-cultural samples. For example, the ECBI has been normed for children from Barcelona (Garcia-Tornel et al., 1998) and from Norway (Reedtz et al., 2008), among others. Burns and Patterson (2000) published an exploratory factor anal ysis using maximum likelihood extraction and oblique ro tation of the ECBI Intensity Sc ale and examined each of one, two, three, four, five, six, and seven factor solu tions of externalizing be havior for the 36 ECBI intensity items within a commun ity sample. These researchers concluded the ECBI was best represented by a four factor solution, identifi ed as Oppositional Behavior toward Adults, Inattentive Behavior, Conduct Problem Behavior, and an uninterpretable factor. They did not explain their decision to accept a f our factor solution over a three factor solution; the 4-factor solution provided substantially less conceptual clar ity than their three factor solution, which they labeled as Oppositional Behavior toward Adults, Inattentive Behavior, and Conduct Problem Behavior. They did not report examining the scree plot to determine the most meaningful factor solution (Burns and Patterson, 2000). Burns and Patterson (2000) further conducte d CFA on their 4-factor solution using a second random sample. Fewer than the complete lis t of items in the first three factors of their EFA was included in CFA to explore their one-, two-, and three-factor structure of the ECBI Intensity Scale (Burns & Patters on, 2000). Exclusion from their CFAs of select items found in 16

PAGE 17

the first 3 factors of their EFA is problem atic because the excluded items were dropped without the use of guidelines to evalua te the EFA factor loadings. Weis, Lovejoy, and Lundahl (2005) conducted a CFA of the three ECBI factors identified by Burns and Patterson (2000), including the smaller subset from the 36 ECBI items among a preschool-age sample. These authors found suppor t for the Burns and Patterson (2000) factor solution as well as evidence showing that each of the three factors differentiated children with externalizing problems from children without si gnificant externalizing problems (Weis et al., 2005). Gross et al. (2007) further examined the Burn s and Patterson (2000) 3factor solution with a diverse ethnic/racial (non-Hispanic White, African American, and Latino) and income community sample of young children ages 2 to 4 using CFA. Their results showed that the Burns and Patterson 3-factor solution fit significantl y worse than a single-f actor structure among the racially and economically diverse sample; howev er, their study did not examine whether the 3factor structure was invariant across groups. Furthermore, their study did not report whether the 3-factor structure was adequate in a diverse raci al sample. Thus, the adequacy of the 3-factor structure in a diverse sample and the measuremen t equivalence of the 3-factor structure remains unknown. The authors did find support for the conve rgent validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale and the Child Behavior Checklis t externalizing subs cale (CBCL 1 5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) separately for the African America n, Latino, and non-Hispanic White samples. Sterns and Johnson (2008) recently conducte d an exploratory fact or analysis using principal axis factoring with oblique rotation of the ECBI In tensity Scale. Their study was conducted using a clinical sample of 181 childre n (mean age of 8 years), of whom 76% were Caucasian, 18% African American, and 6% from other racial /ethnic backgrounds, and all of 17

PAGE 18

who m were diagnosed with ADHD. These resear chers identified a 3-factor solution based on information provided by the scree plot and examin ation of conceptually meaningful factors. They found that 25 (of 36) items had loadings ab ove .40 on one of the three factors, which they labeled Oppositional Defiant Behavior, Attention Difficulties, and Conduct Problems. These three factors included symptoms th at comprise disorders in the Di agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) including Oppostional Defiant Disorder, At tention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Conduct Disorder, respectively. The remaining 11 items had loadings of .28 or above on one of the three factors. The three factors demonstrated good internal co nsistency and both concur rent and discriminant validity (Sterns & Johnson, 2008). Evidence of concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant associations among the ECBI subscales and various subs cales of the Conners Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS-R:L; Conners, 1997) as well as the Behavioral Assessment Scale for Children (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) Specifically, the ECBI Oppositional Defiant Behavior factor was significan tly correlated with the Oppositi onal Behavior subscale of the CPRS and the Aggression subscale of the BA SC (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). The ECBI Attention Difficulties factor was significantly associated with the ADHD Index and DSM-IV Inattention subscales of the CPRS and with th e Attention Problems subscale of the BASC. The ECBI Conduct Disorders factor was correlate d with the Conduct Problems subscale of the BASC. Evidence of discriminant validity of th e ECBI factors was provi ded by results indicating that none of the factors were si gnificantly associated with the Anxious/shy subscale of the CPRS or the Anxiety subscale of the BASC. Although previous stud ies have found a three-factor structure of the ECBI with CFA using three of the factors identified by Burns and Patterson (2000), no study has specifically examined the generalizability of these findings to ethnic 18

PAGE 19

m inority children. The Sterns and Johnson (2008) study clearly followed recommended statistical guidelines to determine factor struct ure. The racial/ethnic co mposition of their sample was primarily European American, leaving ME of the Sterns and Johnson (2008) factor structure between racial/ethnic groups unknown. Preliminary Studies Reference Point Data for the ECBI Inte nsity Scale among African Americans In a pilot study, we determined ECBI Intens ity Scale reference point data for African Americans using a community sample of 154 Afri can American boys and girls ages 3, 4, and 5, with an equal gender representa tion at each age level (Butler, Eyberg, & Brestan, 2005). The mean score for the Intensity Scale was 96.3 (SD = 35.2), and scores ranged from 36 to 217. Analysis of skewness and kurtosi s indicated normal Intensity Scal e distribution (skewness = .80; kurtosis = .58). The mean score for the Problem Scale was 7.29 (SD = 8.47), ranging from 0 to 36. The Problem Scale was slightly negativel y skewed (skewness = 1.23; kurtosis = .73). Means Scores and Reliability of the ECBI Intensity Scale among African Americans Also as part of the pilot study, we examined sc ore distributions and re liability estimates of the ECBI Intensity Scale (Butler, Eyberg, & Brestan, 2005). Results i ndicated high internal consistency ( = .94). We also compared the mean Intensity Scale score from this sample with the published normative data based on a predomin antly European American sample (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999; Colvin, Eyberg, Adams, 1999) and found no significant differe nce, suggesting that the clinical cutoff scores established in the gene ral standardization sample may be adequate for use with African American preschoolers. The inte nsity scores were marginally stable in the absence of treatment [one-w eek test-retest correlation, r(n = 28) = .58, p < .05]. 19

PAGE 20

Validity of t he ECBI Intensity Scale among African Americans In a second pilot study (Butler, Fernandez, & Eyberg, 2007), we examined the concurrent validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale with th e Child Behavior Checklist Aggression Subscale (CBCL; Achenbach 1991) in a community sample of 40 African American caregivers of children ages 4 to 10 years. Results provided evidence of concurrent validity for the Intensity Scale (r = .75). Findings from these two preliminary psychom etric studies provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the ECBI with African Americans. However, without evidence of the ME of the ECBI factors, the factors cannot confidently be interpreted for either treatment screening or treatment outcome comparisons examining racial/ethnic groups. Cross-ethnic treatment outcome comparisons are important to determine whether new or existing treatments developed and evaluated with primarily European Americans are equally effective with ethnic minority groups. Cross-ethnic treatment outcome rese arch is also necessary to identify cultural or other factors that account for ethnic differences in treatment outcome. The identification of cultural or other factors will inform adaptations for treatments developed and evaluated with primarily European Americans to maximize thei r effectiveness with ethnic minority groups. Study Purposes and Specific Aims The purposes of this study were two-fold. Th e first purpose was to examine the ME of the ECBI Intensity Scale factor scores identif ied by Sterns and Johns on (2008) between young European American and African American children ages 3 to 6 years. Specifically, we planned to examine the ECBI Intensity Scale factors for European American and African American children using Vandenberg and Lances (2000) recommendation regarding the sequence of statistics for examining three indices of ME, incl uding configural invarian ce, metric invariance, and scalar invariance. Examination of covarian ce invariance was not planned because this test 20

PAGE 21

21 often produces inconsistent findings (Byrne, 1998). In addition, examination of invariant uniquenesses was not conducted because it is not important in determining ME (Byrne, 1998). Based on our preliminary studies showing good reli ability and validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale with young African American preschool ers, it was hypothesized that measurement equivalence would be found by examination of the following indices of measurement equivalence: configural invariance, metr ic invariance, and scalar invariance. The second purpose of this study was to ex amine the reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale factors among young African American and European American preschoolers, separately. We e xpected to replicate the reliability and validity results of the factors found by Sterns and Johnson (2008) in a sample of predominately European American children. Specifically, we planned to examine Cronbachs alpha to establish the internal consistency of the factors with African American and European Head Start families. We also examined convergent validity by evaluatin g correlations between the (a) ECBI Oppositional Defiant Behavior factor score and the score on the Aggressive Behavior subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991); (b) ECBI Attention Difficult ies factor score and the CBCL Attention Problems Subscale score; and (c) ECBI Conduct Problems factor score and the score on the CBCL Delinquent Behavior Subscale. Lastly, we examined discriminant validity by examining three correlations between the E CBI factors and the Anxi ety/Depression Subscale of the CBCL. Nonsignificant corr elations between the ECBI f actors and the Anxious/Depressed Subscale would indicate discriminant validity.

PAGE 22

Table 1-1. Indices of Measurement Equivalence Measurement Equivalence Index Measurement Parameter Examined A. Invariant covariance covariance ma trices are examined between groups B. Configural invariance patte rns of factor loadings ar e examined between groups C. Metric invariance factor loading coeffi cients for like items are examined between groups D. Scalar invariance inter cepts of like items regressions on the item without measurement error (i.e., latent variable) are examined between groups E. Invariant uniquenesses items unique variances for like items are examined between groups 22

PAGE 23

CHAP TER 2 METHODS Participants Participants were the primary female caregivers of children ages 3 to 6 who participated in one of two studies (Study A and Study B) conduc ted with Head Start families enrolled in Alachua County (Querido, 2004). Head Start is a national program for promoting school readiness by enhancing childrens social and cognitive development through educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services to enro lled children and families (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). Head Start families were a focus of this study because research has indicated that Head Start presc hoolers demonstrate high er levels of physical aggression than other child care samples (K upersmidt, Bryant, & Willoughby, 2000). In addition, ethnic/racial disparities have been found in the number of Head Start ch ildren with significant externalizing behavior on some screening instruments (Serna, Nielsen, Mattern, & Forness, 2002). These findings underscored the importance of examining measurement equivalence of instruments frequently used in screening a nd evaluating treatment outcomes within this population. Study A Particiants Study A assessed the prevalence of externaliz ing behavior in the Alachua County Head Start population using the Eyberg Child Behavi or Inventory. Study A pa rticipants included 278 (70%) African American mothers and 119 (30%) Eur opean American mothers of 3to 6-year old boys (53%) and girls (47%). The mean age of the African American mothers was 30 ( SD = 8.82; Range = 18-70), and the mean age of European American mothers was 31.4 ( SD = 8.16; Range = 19 ). The majority of African American (90%; N = 251) and European American caregivers (92%; N = 110) were the biological mother of the child they ra ted. Please see Table 2 for the 23

PAGE 24

fe male caregivers education, marital status, and income by ethnic/ra cial group. All mothers reported family income level at or below $30,000 indicating a low-income skewed sample. Data from participants in Study A were used to examine the measurement equivalence of the ECBI Intensity Scale factors. Study B Participants Study B participants included a subset of part icipants from Study A. The purpose of Study B was to provide normative data for several m easures within the Alachua County Head Start population, including the Child Behavior Check list (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). Families who participated in Study A were asked if they were interested in participa ting in Study B. Seventyfive percent (N = 203) of Study A families indica ted interest in participating in Study B. Among those who indicated interest, 200 were randomly se lected for participation in Study B. Due to attrition (36% attrition rate), a total of 128 mothers participated in Study B and were 63% (n = 81) African American and 37% (n = 47) Europe an American. In the present study, participant data on the CBCL collected during Study B and da ta on the ECBI from Study A were used to examine the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale factors with data on the CBCL. Instruments Instruments Administered During Study A Demographic questionnaire: A demographic questionnaire was administered to obtain information about the mothers and children in th e study. Child information included age, gender, and race. Maternal information included age and race. Information on family income as well as maternal education level and mar ital status was also obtained. Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Intens ity Scale (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999): The ECBI is a 36-item parent report measure of child disruptive behavi or that contains two 24

PAGE 25

scales : The Problem Scale assesses the number of child behaviors that parents describe as a problematic for themselves, and the Intensit y Scale assesses the frequency of disruptive behaviors that a child ex hibits. Only the Intensity Scale wa s used in this study. The Intensity Scale has demonstrated good inte rnal consistency, test-retest stability, and sensitivity to treatment change in clinic-referred children from primarily European American samples (Eisenstadt, McElreath, Eyberg, & McNeil, 1994; Funderburk et al., 2003; Nixon Sweeny, Erickson, & Touyz, 2003). Investigati on of the ECBI with an African American sample of 3to 5-year-olds demonstrated high internal consiste ncy and test-retest stability with this group (Butler, Eyberg, & Brestan 2005). A subset of th e ECBI items (25 items) was used to examine the measurement equivalence of the three fact ors identified by St ern and Johnson (2008). Instruments Administered During Study B Child Behavior Checklist for 4 to 18 year olds (CBCL/ 4-18; Achenbach, 1991): The CBCL measures a variety of ar eas of child functioning. The CBCL/4-18 contains 118 problembehavior items rated by parent s on a 3-point scale from (0) not true, to (2) very true or often true Several subscales from the CBCL were used in this study including the Aggression (20 items), Anxious/Depressed (14 items), Attention Probl ems (11 items), and Delinquent Behavior Subscales (13 items). Cronbachs alphas that ha ve been reported for these subscales are: Aggression (.92 ), Anxious/Depressed (.87), and Attention Problems (.84), Delinquent Behavior (.74). For the African Americans in this study, Cronbach alphas were as follows: Aggression (.84), Anxious/Depressed (.70), A ttention Problems (.73), and Deli nquent Behavior (.54). For the European Americans, Cronbach alphas were : Aggression (.90), Anxious/Depressed (.68), Attention Problems (.80), and Delinquent Behavior (.55). 25

PAGE 26

Procedures Study A Procedures For Study A, questionnaire packets were sent to teachers of Head Start Centers. Teachers distributed the packets to the mothers of child ren in their classrooms. Questionnaire packets included the ECBI and the demographic questionnair e as well as a letter re questing that parents complete the questionnaires, provide their phone number if interested in participating in Study B, and return the packets to their childs teacher. Pa rents were given a $4 valued gift certificate for returning the completed questionnaires. Teachers mailed returned packet s in a self-addressed, stamped box to the study investigator one month af ter the packets were dist ributed to parents. Study B Procedures A subset of Study A mothers who indicated intere st in further participation were selected for participation in Study B. These selected mothers were contacted vi a telephone and asked if they were still interested in participating in Study B. Mother s who confirmed interest were mailed a consent form, self-addressed stamped envelope, and a questi onnaire packet that included the CBCL for their review. Mothers who re turned their consent form in the envelope via mail were contacted to complete the que stionnaires via telephone, including the CBCL. Mothers were mailed $15 for their participation. Examination of Study A and B Difference s in Demographics and ECBI Scores We examined whether participants in Study A who did not participat e in Study B differed from participants in Study B in marital status education, and income. Chi-square statistics indicated that Study A participan ts who did not participate in Study B did not differ from Study B participants in marital stat us, education, or income (See Table 3). Furthermore, Study A participants who did not part icipate in Study B (M = 96.43, SD = 34.12) did not differ from Study B participants (M = 103.53 SD, = 34.84) in ECBI Intensity scores t = 1.92 (395); p = .56. 26

PAGE 27

Table 2-1. S tudy A Female Caregivers Education, Marital Status, and Income by Racial Group % of AAa caregivers % of EAb caregivers Highest Education Level Completed Junior High School 3 5 Some High School 18 15 High School 22 27 Some College 50 35 College 7 15 Postgraduate education 0 3 Marital Status Married 20 50 Divorced 7 22 Single 62 21 Widowed 2 2 Separated 9 5 Yearly Income Range Below 5,000 25 8 5,000-10,000 24 18 10,001-20,000 34 38 20,001-30,000 17 36aAA = African American. b EA = European American. Table 2-2. E xamination of Differences in Demo graphic Variables betwee n Study A Participants Who Did Not Participate in Study B and Study B Participants df p value Demographic Variables Marital Status 7.40 4 .12 Highest Level of Education 6.26 4 .18 Income Range 3.79 3 .29 27

PAGE 28

CHAP TER 3 OVERVIEW OF STATISTICAL PROCEDURES Examination of Measurement Equivalence The extent to which the Sterns and Johnson (2008) ECBI Intensity Scale factors are equivalent among African Americans and Eur opean Americans was determined based on findings from confirmatory factor analysis (C FA). Analyses were conducted in the M-Plus statistical program using the theta parameteriza tion. This program was used because it allows evaluation of models using the robust weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV). The WLSMV estimator is recommended for use with non-normal data (such as a likert scale item data) to decrease the likelihood of inaccura te model estimation. Specific pr oblems related to inaccurate model estimation include: (a) w eakened relationships among questionnaire items, (b) production of meaningless factors, and (c ) inaccurate parameter estimati ons (Brown, 2006). Our pilot ECBI data from African American families (Butler, Eyberg, & Brestan, 2005) support the use of the WLSMV estimator in this study. Specifically, resu lts showed that 12 ECBI Intensity Scale items were non-normally distributed and negatively skewed (Butler, Eyberg, & Brestan, 2005). Recommendations by Vandenberg and Lance (20 00) guided the order in which indices of ME were examined. A test of covariance invari ance was not conducted because this test often produces inconsistent findings regarding meas urement equivalence (Byrne, 1998). A test of invariant uniquenesses was also not conducted because this test is unimportant to the examination of measurement equivalence in th e absence of examination of factor variance equivalence (Cole & Maxwell, 1985) In addition, when categorical data (such as likert scale data) are being evaluated in th e examination of measurement e quivalence, examination of the equivalence of factor loadings (metric equiva lence) cannot be examined without simultaneous examination of the equivalence of intercepts (s calar equivalence) because the item probability 28

PAGE 29

29 curve is influenced by both parameters (Muth n & Muthn 1998-2007). Therefore, the plan of analysis proceeded in the following order: ex amination of configural invariance followed by simultaneous examination of metric and scalar invariance. A number of fit indices were evaluated to make an overall decision rega rding model fit (Brown, 2006). These indicators included the chi-square statistic ( ), root mean square erro r of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tu cker-Lewis index (TLI). A non-significant an RMSEA less than .08, and CFIs and TLIs greater than .90 suggested good model fit (Brown, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Adequate model fit was determined if at least 2 of th e 4 indices suggested good model fit. Examination of Reliability and Conv ergent and Discriminant Validity We planned to conduct bivariate correlations to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the ECBI factors. Specifically, to examine c onvergent validity, we conducted correlations between the following: (a) the ECBI Oppositional Defiant Behavior factor score and the score on the Aggressive Behavior subscal e of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991); (b) the ECBI Attention Difficu lties factor score a nd the score on the CBCL Attention Problems Subscale and; (c) the ECBI Conduct Problems factor score and the score on the CBCL Delinquent Behavior Subscale. We al so examined discriminative validity by correlating each of the ECBI factors with the Anxiety/Depression Subscale of the CBCL. Lastly, we determined the Cronbachs alphas for each of the three ECBI factors to examine reliability.

PAGE 30

CHAP TER 4 RESULTS Descriptive Data Means and standard deviations were calculate d for the three ECBI factors and the CBCL subscales used in this study, and results are included in Table 41. Results are provided by racial group. Examination of the ECBI Intensity Sc ale items were non-normally distributed and negatively skewed (See Table 4-2 for item means, standard deviations and skewness and kurtosis data by racial group). Configural Invariance Configural invariance was determined based on whether an adequate model fit was found for the 3-factor structure using multiple group (two group) confirmatory factor analysis with the African American and European American samples. Table 4-3 shows the factor structure identified by Sterns and Johnson (2008) that wa s examined for both racial groups in this study. In the multiple group model, factor loadings, item intercepts, and item residuals were not constrained to be equal across groups. Furthermor e, item residuals were not allowed to correlate. The fit of the model was somewhat inadequate, (117, N = 397) = 552.654, p <.01, TLI = .95, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .14. Because no item residuals were allowed to co rrelate in the model, modification indices (MI) for correlated item residuals were examin ed in each group to determine whether specific residuals of items should be allowed to correlate to achieve a better model fit. Item residuals may have relatively high correlations when items are related due to factors ot her than those specified in the model, such as similar wording, sim ilar meaning, or reverse-wording (Brown, 2006). The MI provides an approximation of how much the overall model would decrease if a particular parameter was freely estimated (e.g., if the residu als of 2 items were allowed to correlate). 30

PAGE 31

Modification indices of 3.84 or greater suggest that the overall fit of the model could be significan tly improved if residuals were allowed to correlate (Jaccard & Wan, 1996). Examination of Modification Indices Examination of the multiple group model with European American and African American caregivers showed that several pa irs of items had high correlated residuals as evidenced by high MI values for both groups (greater than 5). Findi ngs suggested that an improvement in model fit could be obtained by allowing correlation of the residuals of the following pairs of items for both racial groups: (a) has temper tantrums and gets angry when doesnt get own way, which were specified to load on the oppositional behavior factor (African American MI = 11.24; European American MI = 5.65), (b) verbally fights with brothers and sisters and verbally fights with friends own age, which were specified to load on the c onduct problems factor (African American MI = 12.11 and European Amer ican MI = 7.68), and (c) physically fights with sisters and brothers and verbally fights with sisters and brothers which were specified to load on the conduct problems factor (African American MI = 185.74 and European American MI = 52.03). Notably, the pairs of items listed in (b) and (c) were also found to have high correlated residuals in the Gross et al (2007) study. Taken together, examination of the modifi cation indices for both groups suggest that specific pairs of items are asso ciated due to a common factor other than oppositional behavior (i.e., the item pair verbally fights with brothers and sisters and verbally fights with friends own age) and conduct problems (i.e., the item pair verbally fights with brothers and sisters and verbally fights with friends own age and the item pair physically fights w ith sisters and brothers and verbally fights with sisters and brothers). Thus, configural invariance was reexamined by adjusting the model to allow correlation of the residuals of these 3 pairs of items. 31

PAGE 32

Configural Invariance Allow ing Correlatio n of Residuals of 3 Pairs of Items The fit of the model was adequate, (118, N = 397) = 423.491, p <.01, TLI = .97, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .11. Specifically, two of the four indices showed good model fit. Thus, configural invariance was suppor ted. See Tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 for factor loadings, item thresholds, and factor correlations for this final model, respectively. Scalar Invariance Scalar invariance was examined by comparing the previous unconstrained model (which indicated configural invariance) to one in whic h factor loadings and item intercepts were constrained to equality across racial groups. A chi-square differen ce test calculated for use with categorical data (such as likert scale data) that is provided in the MPlus Program (Muthn & Muthn 1998-2007) was used to determine whethe r the constrained model fit significantly worse than the unconstrained model. Findings showed that the model w ith constrained factor loadings and intercepts across raci al had an adequate fit (112, N = 397) = 368.14, p <.01, TLI = .97, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .11. Furthermore, this model wa s not significantly different than the unconstrained model (15, N = 397) = 21.09, p =.13. Thus, metr ic and scalar invariance across racial groups was supported. Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity of the 3 ECBI Intensity Scale Factors The following results were found for the Euro pean American sample : (a) the Intensity Scale Attention Difficulties subs cale was significantly correlate d with the Attention Problems subscale of the CBCL, r = 75; p < .01, (b) the Intensity Scale Oppositional Defiant Behavior subscale was significantly correlated with the Aggressive Behavior subscale of the CBCL r = 81; p < .01, and (c) the Intensity Scale Conduct Pr oblem subscale was significantly correlated with the Delinquent Behavior subscale of the CBCL r = 54; p < .01. Therefore, support was found for convergent validity of the 3 ECBI fact ors with the European American sample. In 32

PAGE 33

33 contrast, support was not found for the discriminant validity of the 3 ECBI factors with the Anxiety/Depression Subscale of the CBCL with the European American sample. Specifically, the Anxious/Depressed subscale of the CBCL was significantly correlated with the ECBI Oppositional Defiant Behavior ( r = 49; p < .01), Attention Difficulties ( r = 45; p < .01)., and Conduct Problems ( r = 35; p < .01) subscales. The following results were found for the Africa n American sample: (a) the Intensity Scale Attention Difficulties subscale was significantly co rrelated with the Attention Problems subscale of the CBCL, r = 75; p < .01, (b) the Intensity Scale Oppos itional Defiant Behavior subscale was significantly correlated with the Aggressive Behavi or subscale of the CBCL r = 81; p < .01, and (c) the Intensity Scale Conduct Problem subscale was si gnificantly correla ted with the Delinquent Behavior su bscale of the CBCL r = 54; p < .01. Therefore, support was found for convergent validity of the 3 ECBI factors with the African American sample. In contrast, support was not found for the discriminant validity of th e 3 ECBI factors with the Anxiety/Depression Subscale of the CBCL with the European Ameri can sample. Specifically, the Anxious/Depressed subscale of the CBCL was signifi cantly correlated with the ECBI Oppositional Defiant Behavior ( r = 49; p < .01), Attention Difficulties ( r = 45; p < .01)., and Conduct Problems ( r = 35; p < .01) subscales. Internal Consistency of the ECBI Intensity Scale Factors With the European American sample, adequa te internal consiste ncy was found for the Oppositional Defiant Behavior subscale ( = .93), Attention Difficulties subscale ( = .88)., and the Conduct Problems subscale ( = .72).Adequate internal co nsistency for the Oppositional Defiant Behavior subscale ( = .91), Attention Difficulties subscale ( = .85), and the Conduct Problems subscale ( = .80) was also found with the African American sample.

PAGE 34

Table 4-1. Means and Standard Deviations of Study Instrum ent Subscales by Racial Group African Americans European Americans ECBI Subscale M SD M SD ECBI Oppositional Defiant Behavior 34.7314.5142.11 15.50 ECBI Attention Difficulties 20.47 8.34 24.33 8.82 ECBI Conduct Problems 12.60 6.08 12.51 5.34 CBCL Subscale CBCL Aggression 8.70 6.06 9.51 7.64 CBCL Anxious Depressed 1.93 2.47 1.87 2.29 CBCL Delinquent Behavior 2.04 1.87 2.26 1.99 CBCL Attention Problems 2.62 2.38 2.98 3.15 Table 4-2. Item Means, Standard Deviations Skewness, and Kurtos is by Racial Group EA Sample AA Sample Items Ma SDb Sc Kd Ma SDb Sc Kd 1. Dawdles in getting dressed 3.351.69.14.792.961.53 .33.45 2. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime 3.75 1.61 .14 1.01 2.84 1.64 .60 .42 3. Has poor table manners 2.82 1.42 .82 .47 2.25 1.24 .83 .02 4. Refuses to eat food presented 3.31 1.63 .26 .90 2.85 1.64 .56 .64 5. Refuses to do chores when asked 3.64 1.65 .40 .64 2.63 1.59 .87 .12 6. Slow in getting ready for bed 3.36 1.69 .54 .52 3.33 1.80 .41 .73 7. Refuses to go to bed on time 3.56 1.76 .32 .86 3.43 1.88 .38 .91 8. Does not obey house rules on own 3.44 1.65 .54 .41 2.79 1.58 .69 .28 9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment 3.68 1.61 .13 .62 3.15 1.81 .51 .76 10. Acts defiant when told to do something 3.18 1.66 .68 .39 2.64 1.60 .85 .05 11. Argues with parents about rules 2.98 1.78 .74 .43 1.87 1.39 1.73 2.47 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way 4.25 1.77 .11 1.13 3.61 1.83 .23 .92 13. Has temper tantrums 3.37 2.03 .36 1.18 3.03 1.83 .56 .73 14. Sasses adults 3.02 1.79 .61 .77 2.00 1.52 1.71 2.23 15. Whines 4.11 1.64 .08 .84 3.71 1.85 .35 .90 16. Cries easily 3.34 1.53 .35 .85 3.55 1.68 .36 .73 17. Yells or screams 3.28 1.75 .53 .62 2.96 1.61 .65 .35 18. Hits parents 1.78 1.41 2.02 .3.36 1.32 1.02 3.94 16.3 19. Destroys toys and other objects 2.26 1.63 1.33 .93 1.99 1.41 1.60 1.89 34

PAGE 35

35 Table 4-2. Continued EA Sample AA Sample Items Ma SDb Sc Ma SDb Sc Ma SDb 20. Is careless with toys and other objects 2.811.71.78.322.211.48 1.301.07 21. Steals 1.28 .75 `3.95 18.7 1.20 .65 4.28 20.9 22. Lies 2.19 1.30 1.28 1.57 2.40 1.45 .94 .08 23. Teases or provokes other children 2.19 1.40 1.37 1.37 2.00 1.33 1.52 1.94 24. Verbally fights with friends own age 2.02 1.25 1.56 2.57 2.21 1.41 1.14 .611 25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers 2.98 1.86 .41 1.12 2.70 1.81 .84 .33 26. Physically fights with friends own age 1.59 1.02 2.29 5.96 1.92 1.35 1.59 1.96 27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers 2.42 1.66 .94 .14 2.43 1.74 1.15 .36 28. Constantly seeks attention 3.61 1.81 .36 1.02 3.32 1.90 .55 .74 29. Interrupts 4.13 1.67 .10 .85 3.29 1.76 .53 .70 30. Is easily distracted 3.60 1.72 .40 .65 3.21 1.76 .57 .56 31. Has short attention span 3.47 1.76 .46 .69 2.98 1.77 .66 .48 32. Fails to finish tasks or projects 3.10 1.53 .49 .36 2.72 1.62 .81 .23 33. Has difficulty entertaining self alone 2.48 1.61 1.15 .66 1.71 1.19 2.07 4.23 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing 2.64 1.62 .88 .09 2.31 1.43 1.20 1.10 35. Is overactive or restless 3.17 1.89 .53 .98 2.80 1.89 .86 .45 36. Wets the bed 2.43 1.77 1.24 .52 2.20 1.69 1.34 .67aM= Mean. bSD= Standard deviation. cS= Skewness. dK= Kurtosis.

PAGE 36

Table 4-3. S terns and Johnson (2008) Factor Structure Factor 1: Oppositional Defiant Behavior Factor 2: Attention Difficulties 13. Has temper tantrums 30. Is easily distracted 10. Acts defiant when told to do something 32. Fails to finish tasks or projects 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way 31. Has short attention span 14. Sasses adults 2. Dawdles in getting dressed 9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing 11. Argues with parents about rules 29. Interrupts 8. Does not obey house rules on own 1. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime 17. Yells or screams 15. Whines 5. Refuses to do chores when asked 7. Refuses to go to bed on time 4. Refuses to eat food presented Factor 3: Conduct Problems 23. Teases or provokes other children 21. Steals 27. Physically fights with sister s and brothers 25. Verbally fight s with sisters and brothers 26. Physically fights with friends own age 24. Verbally fights with friends own age 36

PAGE 37

37 Table 4-4. Standardized Factor Loadings for the Scalar Invariant Model of the ECBI Intensity Scale among African American and European Americans Items European American (n = 119) African American (n = 278) Oppositional Defiant Behavior 4. Refuses to eat food presented .44 .49 5. Refuses to do chores when asked .62 .64 7. Refuses to go to bed on time .65 .60 8. Does not obey house rules on own .81 .72 9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment .86 .78 10. Acts defiant when told to do something .89 .82 11. Argues with parents about rules .79 .83 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way .86 .83 13. Has temper tantrums .76 .81 14. Sasses adults .80 .82 15. Whines .71 .73 17. Yells or screams .77 .66 Conduct Problems 21. Steals .45 .49 23. Teases or provokes other children .67 .81 24. Verbally fights with friends own age .88 .90 25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers .47 .57 26. Physically fights with friends own age .76 .85 27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers .48 .53 Attention Difficulties 1. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime .52 .57 2. Dawdles in getting dressed .50 .52 29. Interrupts .81 .78 30. Is easily distracted .83 .83 31. Has short attention span .83 .87 32. Fails to finish tasks or projects .87 .81 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing .88 .74

PAGE 38

Table 4-5. C ompletely Standardized Threshold Es timates for the Scalar Invariant Model of the ECBI Intensity Scale among African Am erican and (European Americans) Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oppositional Defiant Behavior 4. Refuses to eat food presented -.93 (-.96) -.21 (-.22) -.01 (-.01) .82 (.85) 1.20 (1.24) 1.90 (1.96) 5. Refuses to do chores when asked -.95 (-1.20) -.25 (-.31) -.07 (.09) .81 (1.02) 1.13 (1.42) 1.49 (1.88) 7. Refuses to go to bed on time -1.17 (-1.69) -.46 (-.66) -.24 (-.35) .39 (.56) .76 (1.09) 1.10 (1.59) 8. Does not obey house rules on own -1.07 (-2.11) -.30 (-.59) .02 (.03) .74 (1.46) 1.04 (2.05) 1.46 (2.89) 9. Refuses to obey until threatened with punishment -1.15 (-2.57) -.50 (-1.12) -.26 (-.58) .48 (1.07) .80 (1.78) 1.29 (2.89) 10. Acts defiant when told to do something -.93 (-2.29) -.20 (-.49) .11 (-.27) .78 (1.92) 1.12 (2.77) 1.45 (3.59) 11. Argues with parents about rules -.30 (.48) .25 (.39) .49 (.78) 1.05 (1.66) 1.35 (2.14) 1.69 (2.67) 12. Gets angry when doesnt get own way -1.52 (-3.07) -.76 (-1.53) -.55 (-1.12) .14 (.28) .48 (.98) 1.02 (2.06) 13. Has temper tantrums -.92 (-1.42) -.36 (-.56) -.14 (-.22) .46 (.71) .79 (1.23) 1.25 (1.94) 14. Sasses adults -.38 (-.62) .21 (.35) .47 (.77) .86 (1.40) 1.21 (1.98) 1.16 (2.64) 15. Whines -1.64 (-2.30) -.84 (-1.17) -.43 (-.60) .20 (.29) .54 (.76) .94 (1.32) 17. Yells or screams -1.08 (-2.00) -.27 (-.50) .00 (.00) .64 (1.18) 1.03 (1.90) 1.39 (2.57) Conduct Problems 21. Steals 1.05 (1.23) 1.75 (2.05) 1.89 (2.21) 2.25 (2.63) 2.49 (2.92) 2.44 (2.51) 23. Teases or provokes other children -.11 (-.14) .68 (.87) 1.01 (1.30) 1.49 (1.91) 1.94 (2.49) 2.35 (3.00) 24. Verbally fights with friends own age -.17 (-.40) .53 (1.23) .85 (1.99) 1.49 (3.49) 1.78 (4.16) 2.32 (5.43) 25. Verbally fights with sisters and brothers -.34 (-.36) .10 (.11) .32 (.34) .96 (1.02) 1.26 (1.37) 1.72 (1.84) 26. Physically fights with friends own age .19 (.30) .88 (1.37) 1.07 (1.67) 1.64 (2.57) 2.03 (3.18) 3.12 (3.45) 27. Physically fights with sisters and brothers -.14 (-.17) .36 (.40) .61 (.73) 1.12 (1.33) 1.41 (1.69) 1.74 (2.08) 38

PAGE 39

39 Table 4-5. Continued Attention Difficulties 1. Dawdles or lingers at mealtime -01 (-.15) -41 (-47) -.21 (-24) .87 (.99) 1.35 (1.54) 1.65 (1.88) 2. Dawdles in getting dressed -.93 (-1.10) -.31 (-.36) -.10 (-.12) .71 (.84) 1.10 (1.30) 1.71 (2.02) 29. Interrupts -1.41 (-2.66) -.61 (-1.14) -.27 (-.50) .35 (.66) .66 (1.24) 1.17 (2.20) 30. Is easily distracted 1.28 (2.46) .54 (1.04) .15 (.28) .50 (.96) .77 (1.48) 1.19 (2.89) 31. Has short attention span -1.07 (-1.99) -.39 (-.73) -.08 (-.15) .57 (1.06) .87 (1.60) 1.27 (2.35) 32. Fails to finish tasks or projects -.97 (-2.27) -.20 (-.47) .12 (.29) .71 (1.66) 1.16 (2.71) 1.62 (3.79) 34. Has difficulty concentrating on one thing -.58 (-1.50) .09 (.22) .46 (1.94) .99 (2.56) 1.23 (3.18) 1.73 (4.46) Note. European American values in parenthesis. Note: 1 represents the Threshold between Likert Points 1 and 2; 2 represents the Threshold between Likert Points 2 and 3; 3 represents be tween 3 and 4; 4 represents between 4 and 5; and so on. Table 4-6. Factor Correlations for the Scalar Invariant Model of the ECBI Intensity Scale among African American and European Americans Oppositional Defiant Behavior Factor Attention Difficulties Factor Conduct Problems Factor Oppositional Defiant Behavior Factor --.64 (.65).67 (.67) Attention Difficulties Factor ----.62 ( .64) Conduct Problems Factor ------Note: European American values in parentheses

PAGE 40

CHAP TER 5 DISCUSSION This study is the first to examine the measurem ent equivalence of a 3factor structure of the ECBI Intensity Scale across racial/ethnic groups. Specifically, this study examined the configural, metric, and scalar e quivalence of the ECBI Intensity Scale items. Results from this study found support for the Sterns and Johnson (2008) 3-factor structure among a diverse community sample of low-income African American and European American preschoolers. Evidence was found for full equivalence of the E CBI Intensity Scale by demonstration of the invariance of the 3-factor pattern, item factor loadings, and ite m thresholds across groups. These findings suggest that the 3-factor structure can confidently be used to screen and compare treatment outcomes of specific externalizing behavior prob lems among diverse community samples that include low-income European Amer ican and African American preschoolers. This study contributes to the current focus on eviden ce-based assessment in clinical psychology by identifying a rating scale commonly used for screening and evaluating treatment outcomes of externalizing behavior that has similarly strong psychometri c properties across low-income African American and European Americans. Future study should examine whether the ECBI Intensity 3-factor structure is equivalent among other diverse racial/ethnic groups. Our ability to replicate a 3-factor structure of the ECBI Intensity Scale in a low-income sample of diverse racial groups demonstrates generalizability of findings from previous studies that included samples of different socioeconomic status (SES) distributions For example, in the Burns and Patterson (2002) study, approximately half of the sample had a yearly family income of greater than $30,000. In the curre nt study, all of the mothers reported yearly family incomes of equal to or less than $30,000. 40

PAGE 41

Although we expected to replicate previous find ings dem onstrating disc riminant validity of the 3 ECBI Intensity Scale factors (Sterns and Johnson, 2008), Our inability to find discriminant validity may be due to the difficulty in assessi ng internalizing symptoms in young children using the CBCL more generally. For example, review of the literature indicates that syndromes on the revised CBCL Internalizing Subscale (CBCL 1. 5-5; Achenbach & Rescorla 2000), which include the Anxious/Depressed Subscale, ha ve a relatively poor fit across different racial and income groups of young children (Konold, Hamre, & Pianta, 2003; Gross et al., 2006).Studies have also shown that the internalizing and externalizing scal es of the CBCL are highly correlated with one another (Boggs et al., 1990; Ac henbach, 1991). Thus, it remains unclear whether our findings are due to the discriminant validity of the CBCL or the ECBI. Future evaluation of the discriminant validity of the ECBI Intensity scale with young children should us e instruments that themselves have well-established construct validity. The limitations of this study should be noted. This study used only parent-report measures to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the ECBI Intensity scale. The inclusion of behavioral observation data would have increased options for testing the validity of our findings. This study also contained a larger sample of African Americans than European Americans. Although a relatively small sample size may be adequate in confirmatory factor analysis (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999), a larg er sample of European Americans would permit greater confidence in findings from the c onfirmatory factor analysis. Finally, our sample was limited to low-income African American mothers and low-income European American mothers with children enrolled in Head Start in the southeastern U.S., which may limit the generalizability of our results. 41

PAGE 42

42 This study has a number of strengths that shou ld be noted as well. The study contained a large number of African Americans -a group that is often underrepresented in psychometric studies. The study also used pres cribed statistical procedures for examining the measurement equivalence of the ECBI Intensity scale. Use of more appropriate statistical procedures compared to previous studies (Burns & Patterson, 2002; Gross et al., 2007) increases confidence in the generalizability of our findings to other low-income samples of young African American and European American children. Overall, the findings from this study c ontribute to the growing body of literature examining measurement equivalence and psychome tric properties of instruments that assess externalizing behavior across et hnic groups. This study specifical ly examined the measurement equivalence of a 3-factor solution for the ECBI Intensity Scale between low-income European American and African American children ages 3-6 and the convergent and discriminant validity of the ECBI Intensity Scale with subscales from the CBCL. Our results improve knowledge of the factor structure and psychomet ric properties of an assessment instrument frequently used to screen and evaluate treatment outcomes of young children who experi ence disparities in receiving externalizing behavior treatment. This study thereby provides a preliminary step in increasing our ability to screen and examine tr eatment outcomes accurately for problem behavior among young African American children.

PAGE 43

LIST OF REFERE NCES Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Chil d Behavior Checklis t/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Verm ont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T.M., & Rescorla, L.A. (2001). Ma nual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Verm ont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Achenbach, A. T., Becker, A.,Dpfner, M., He iervang, E., Roessner, V., Steinhausen, H., & Rothenberger, A. (2008). Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instrument s: Research findings, applications, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 251-275. Alvidrez, J., Azocar, F., & Miranda, J. (1996) Demystifying the con cept of ethnicity for psychotherapy researchers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 903-908. American Psychiatric Association DSM (2000). Diagnostic and statistica l manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision) Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association Presiden tial Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist 61, 271. Bagner, D. M., Harwood, M. D., & Eyberg, S. M. (2006). Psychometric considerations. In M. Hersen (Ed). Clinicians handbook of child behavioral assessment San Diego: Elsevier. Boggs, S. R., Eyberg, S., & Reynolds L. (1990). Concurrent validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19 75-78. Burns, B. G., & Patterson, D. R. (2000). Fact or structure of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory : A parent rating scale of oppositional defiant behavior toward adults, inattentive behavior, and conduct problem behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24 569577. Butler, A. M ., Eyberg S. M., & Brestan E.V. (2005) Examination of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with African American preschool-age children Poster Presented at the Annual Meeting for the Southeastern Psychol ogical Association; Nashville, TN. Butler, A. M., Fernandez, M., & Eyberg, S.M. (2007). Barriers to entering professional psychological treatm ent for young African American children Poster presented at the Annual Minority Fellowship Program Social H our at the Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association: San Francisco, CA. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming New Jersey: Earlbaum. 43

PAGE 44

Ca mpbell, S. B. & Ewing, L. J (1990). Follow-up hard-to-manage preschoolers: Adjustment at age 9 and predictors of continuing symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 871-889. Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test fo r the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1, 245-76. Cole, D. A. & Maxwell, S. E. (1985). Multi traitmultimethod comparisons across populations: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20 389-417. Colvin, A., Eyberg, S. M., & Adams, C. D. (1999). Restandardization of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Retrieved 5/05/2005 from www.pcit.org. Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners Rating ScalesRevised Toronto, ON: Multi-Health System s Inc. Eiraldi, R. B., Mazzuca, L. B., Clarke, A. T., & Power, T. J. (2006). Service utilization among ethnic minority children with ADHD: A model of help-seeking behavior. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Health Services Research, 33 607-622. Eisenstadt, T. H., McElreath, L. H., Eyberg, S. M., & McNeil, C. B. (1994). Interparent agreement on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 16, 21-27. Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Frick, P. J. & Kimonis, E. R. (2005). Externalizing disorders of childhood and adolescence In J. E. Maddux & B. A. Winstead (Eds.) Psyc hopathology: Foundations for a contemporary understanding. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Funderburk B. W., Eyberg, S. M., Rich, B. A., & Behar, L. (2003). Further psychometric evaluation of the Eyberg and Behar rating scal es for parents and teachers of preschoolers. Early Education & Development, 14, 68-81. Graham, S. (1992). Most of the subjects were White and middle class: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected journals, 1970-1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629-639. Garcia-Tornel, S., Calzada, E. J., Eyberg, S. M., Alguacil, J. M., Serra, C. V., Mendoza, C.B., Collado, H. V., Garcia, M. G., Hernandez, M. C., & Domenech, A. T. (1998). Inventario Eyberg del Comportamiento en Ninos: Norma lizacion de la version Espanola y su utilidad para el pediatra extrahospitalario Anales Espanoles de Pediatria, 48, 473-482. 44

PAGE 45

Gross, D., Fogg, L., Young, M., Ridge, A., Co well, J., Sivan, A., & Richardson, R. (2007). Reliability a nd validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with African American and Latino parents of young children. Research in Nursing and Health, 30 213-233. Gunter, T. D., Arndt, S., Riggins-Caspers, K ., Wenman, G., & Cadoret, R. J. (2006). Adult outcomes of attention deficit hyperactivity di sorder and conduct di sorder. Are the risks independent or additive? Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 18, 233-237. Haynes, S. N., Nelson, K., & Blaine, D. D. (1999). Psychometric issues in assessment research In P. C. Kendall, J. N. Butcher, & G. N. Holmbeck (Eds). Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley. Helms, J. E., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. ( 2005). The meaning of race in psychology and how to change it. American Psychologist, 60 27-36. Hillemeir, M. M., Foster, M., Heinrichs, B. & He ier, B. (2007). Racial differences in parental reports of Attention-Deficit/Hype ractivity Disorder behaviors. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 28 353-361. Hunsley, J. & Mash, E. J. (2007) Evidence-based assessement. Annual Review of Psychology, 3 29-51. Jaccard, J. & Wan, C. K.(1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. In Quantitative applications in the soci al sciences No. 07-114. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Jreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.) Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage. Kamphaus, R. W., Petoskey, M. D., & Rowe, E. W. (2000). Current trends in psychologigcal testing of children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31 155-164. Knight, G. P., Hill, N. E. (1998). Measurement equivalence in research involving minority adolescents In V. C. McLoyd & L. Steinberg (Eds.). Studying mi nority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theore tical issues. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Konold, T. R., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C.(2003). Measuring problem behaviors in young children. Behavioral Disorders, 28 111-123. Kupersmidt, J. B., Bryant, D., & Willoughby, M. T. (2000). Prevalence of aggressive behaviors among preschoolers in Head Start an d community child care programs. Behavior Disorders, 26 42-52. Lambert, M, C., Rowan, G. T., Lyubansky, M ., & Russ, C. (2002). Do problems of clinicreferred African American children overla p with the Child Behavior Checklist. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11 271-285. 45

PAGE 46

Lam bert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J ., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 288-301. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocia l and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53 1431-1446. Loeber, R. (1991). Antisocial behavior : More enduring than changeable? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 30 393-397. Loeber, R., Keenan, K., & Zhang, Q. (1997). Boys experimentation and persistence in developmental pathways toward serious delinquency. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 321-357. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99. Mash, E. J. & Hunsley, J. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of child and adolescent disorders: Issues and challenges. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34 362-379. McGee, R., Prior, M., Williams, S., Smart, D., & Sanson, A. (2002). The long-term significance of teacher-rated hyperactivity and reading ability in childhood: Findings from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 1004-1016. Mistry, R. S., Vandewater, E. A., Huston, A. C., & McLoyd, V. C. (2002). Economic well-being and childrens social adjustment: The role of family process in an ethnically diverse lowincome sample. Child Development, 73 935-951. Muthn, L.K. and Muthn, B.O. (1998-2007). Mplu s Users Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn. Nixon, R. D., Sweeny, L., Erickson, D. B., & To yuyz, S. W.(2003). Parent-child interaction therapy: A comparison of standard and abbreviated treatments for oppositonal defiant preschoolers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71 251-260. Nolan, E. E., Gadow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. ( 2001). Teacher reports of DSM-IV ADHD, ODD, and CD symptoms in schoolchildren. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40 241-249. Pierce, E. W., Ewing, L. J., & Campbell, S. B.(1999). Diagnostic status and symptomatic behavior of hard-to-manage preschool chil dren in middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28 44-57. Ponterotto, J. (1988). Racial/eth nic minority research in the J ournal of Counseling Psychology: A content analysis and methodological critique. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35 410-418. 46

PAGE 47

Querido, J. (2004). Early intervention for child conduct problems in head start families. Dissertation Abstracts Inte rnational: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 4630. Reedtz, C., Bertelsen, B., Luie, J., Handegard, B. H., Clifford, G., & Morch, W. (2008). Eyberg child behavior inventory (ECBI): Norwegian norms to identify conduct problems in children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49 31-38. Reynolds, C. R. & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children (2nd ed). Circle Pines, MO: American Guidance Service, Inc Rich, B. A., & Eyberg, S. M. (2001). Accuracy of assessment: The discriminative and predictive power of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Ambulatory Child Health, 7, 249-257. Serna, L. A., Lamros, K., Nielsen, E. & Forness (2002). Primary prevention in mental health for Head Start classrooms: Partial replica tion with teachers as intervenors. Behavioral Disorders, 28 124-129. Sterns, M. & Johnson, J. (2008). Assessing dimensions of disruptive child behavior with the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Manuscript Submitted for Publication. Thompson, R. (2005). The course and correlates of mental health care received by young children: Descriptive data from a longitudinal urban high-risk sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 27 39-50. Tucker, C. & Herman, K. C.(2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research to meet the academic needs of low-income African American children. American Psychologist, 57 762-773. Tyson, E. H. (2004). Ethnic diffe rences using behavior rating scal es to assess the mental health of children: A conceptual and psychometric critique. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 34, 167201. U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic es (2008). Office of head start. Retrieved 4/18/2008 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hs b/about/index.html#prog_desc Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the m easurement invariance literature: Suggestions, pract ices, and recommendations fo r organizational research. Organizational research methods, 3 4-69. van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997) Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13 29-37. Weckerly, J., Aarons, G. A., Leslie, L. K., Ga rland, A. F., Landsverk, J. & Hough, R. L. (2005). Attention and inattention: The differential effect of caregiver education on endorsement of ADHD symptoms. Journal of Developmental an d Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 201-208. 47

PAGE 48

48 Weis, R., Lovejoy, M. C., & Lundahl, B. W. (2005) Factor structure and discriminative validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory with young children. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27 269-278. Zimmerman, F. J.(2005). Social a nd economic determinants of disp arities in professional helpseeking for child mental health problems: Evidence from a national sample. Health Services Research, 40, 1514-1533.

PAGE 49

BIOGR APHICAL SKETCH Ashley Butler was born and raised in Memphis, Tennessee. Her career in psychology began as a high school student at Overton High School when she became fascinated by the study of human behavior while taking a psychology course. She pursued he r interest in psychology at Dillard University in New Orleans, Louisiana a nd became particularly interested in engagement and utilization of mental hea lth among ethnic minority populati ons. Ashley sought a career in clinical psychology in the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology at the University of Florida. Her interests currently include conducti ng research to addre ss behavioral health disparities among young children with disruptive behavior disorders a nd attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Ashley will be comp leting a postdoctoral fellowship focused on disruptive behavior disorders at Texas Childrens Hospital in Houston, Texas. 49

PAGE 50

CROS S-RACIAL MEASURMENT EQUIVALENC E OF THE EYBERG CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY FACTORS AMONG YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN CHILDREN Name: Ashley Butler Phone: (352)871-4143 Department: Clinical and Health Psychology Supervisory Chair: Sheila Eyberg, PhD Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Month and year of graduation: August 2009 This study examined the cross-racial meas urement equivalence of a commonly used behavior rating scale, the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory, which is used for screening children for behavior problems and evaluating treatmen t outcomes. Specifically, this study examined whether the rating scale is e quivalent among young low-income African American and lowincome European American children. This study found that the rating scal e is equivalent across the two racial groups. This study co ntributes to behavioral health services and research focused on using rating scales that are e quivalent across racial groups. Iden tifying rating scales that are equivalent across racial groups can help to elim inate racial disparities in behavioral health treatment by ensuring that children are screened for further evaluation in a similar manner. Equivalent rating scales can also be confidently used in resear ch to examine differences in behavioral health treatment outcomes across racial groups.