feedback 2

Hawes et al. (2020) conducted validity assessments and discovered that the ASEBA has strong internal consistency when compared to the CBCL and DSM-oriented scale. When it comes to construct and content validity, Genzlinger (2020) has a decent set of metrics. The findings of Willems et al. (2017) study demonstrated a high degree of validity. This implies that the test's attributes may be established, scores can be assessed, and then the results can be applied to specific subjects.

In a one-week period, Hawes et al. (2020) analyzed the test-retest reliability. According to the correlation coefficient, it ranged between 0.80-0.90. Similarly, Genzlinger (2020) found a coefficient of 0.80 dependability in his investigation. ASEBA (2019) found that the dependability of preschoolers, school-aged children, adults, and older adults ranged from 0.76-0.93 to 0.80-0.90, excluding the cross-informant coefficient of 0.39 (aside from the cross-informant coefficient at 0.44). Hence, ASEBA's test-retest reliability might be believed to be of excellent quality by looking at these data. This data reveals that the test is administered quite consistently, with just a little amount of variation.

What are the main reasons you selected these particular assessment instruments over other alternatives?

My choice of this specific assessment instrument is based on the fact that it enables for early detection of poor habits and is designed to be used for the rest of one's life to monitor for variations from baseline. The forms that are utilized are another factor in this evaluation. The open-ended section of the forms allows for additional information from the intended client. The forms may be used to examine a broad spectrum of individuals since they alter depending on the stage of development the subject is in.

Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST)

What is the evidence of the instruments' validity?

The significant correlations between the DAST and other drug evaluation devices provide solid proof of its validity and reliability as a criterion (Kim & Hodgins, 2017). In addition, it has strong construct validity and good discriminatory validity (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2018). Its strong face validity seems to be its principal psychometric constraint. It is possible to consider a high level of face validity as a desirable attribute, depending on the test taker's motives.

What is the evidence of the instruments' reliability?

The DAST has been tested on a wide variety of demographics, including people of different ethnicities, ages, and mental health diagnoses (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2018). Definitely, the instrument's psychometric qualities are a big selling point." It is a very accurate measurement with a high coefficient x and great test-retest reliability. Also, it shows strong connections between items and totals (Kim & Hodgins, 2017).

What is the cost of the instruments? - The test and the guidebook are free, but the training module costs $75.

What are the main reasons you selected these particular assessment instruments over other alternatives?

Although there is some debate over whether this instrument is involved in the norming process, I chose this assessment instrument over others because of the better evidence of reliability and validity, as well as the fact that it is more psychometrically sound than the Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ). It's important to keep in mind that the DAST is only a screening tool. Because of this, it should not be used as a stand-alone tool for diagnosing drug addiction disorders, but rather in conjunction with a more thorough evaluation of substance use.

References

Genzlinger, J. (2020). Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the School-age Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol, cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Psychology of addictive behaviors, 31(1), 85.

Mulvaney-Day, N., Marshall, T., Piscopo, K. D., Korsen, N., Lynch, S., Karnell, L. H., ... & Ghose, S. S. (2018). Screening for behavioral health conditions in primary care settings: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of general internal medicine, 33(3), 335-346.

Willems, Y. E., Dolan, C. V., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., de Zeeuw, E. L., Boomsma, D. I., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2017, November). The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Self-Control Scale (ASEBA-SCS): assessing self-control in youth. In VNOP-CAS-ISED Days.