Psychology Tutor Phyllis Young Only Please

Psychology Tutor Phyllis Young Only Please
Evaluation of Technical Quality In Unit 2, you selected one standardized test that has relevancy to your academic and professional goals to be the focus of your course project. Your Unit 2 assignment focused on the first four elements of the Code for selecting a test. For this assignment, you will complete a deeper analysis of the technical quality of your selected test by focusing on the fifth element of the Code, which states that the test user will “evaluate evidence of the technical quality of the test provided by the test developer and any independent reviews.” To complete this assignment, you will draw upon the knowledge you gained in Units 3 and 4 about psychometrics in general and reliability and validity in particular. For this assignment, you will use the test you selected for your project in Unit 2. Locate and summarize a minimum of seven articles related to the technical qualities of the selected test. For each article: List the APA reference for each journal article (a minimum of seven). Identify if the article addresses reliability or validity. Discuss if the article addresses sources of error variance, reliability estimates, evidence of validity, or bias and fairness. Identify the specific type of reliability or validity (for example, test-retest reliability, predictive validity, et cetera). Identify the overall results of the research, including any psychometric or statistical outcome. Submit your analysis as a paper using the outline provided in the section “Organize Your Paper” below. Guidelines for Selecting the Literature Use the most current sources you can find. Do not use sources older than 8 years. (You may cite older sources if they are classics, if you want to show the chronology of something, or if you have another good reason. If you choose to use older sources, you will need to explain why.). Use current, peer-reviewed journal articles. Do not use sources without an author or a publication date. Do not use quotes; use only your own words. Please see the Plagiarism in Coursework document in the resources for concerns with high content matching in papers. Evaluate whether or not the results supports the use of your test as appropriate for your field and populations to be served. Organize Your Paper For your paper, use the following headings: Title page (required). Abstract (optional). Introduction. Identify the standardized test you selected in Unit 2. Describe briefly the publisher’s stated purpose for its use. Identify briefly a population or psychological condition that is within the standardization of the test. Technical review article summaries. Each article is to be directly related to your chosen test and one aspect of its technical quality. Note: Use an annotated bibliography for evaluative information format (see the resources for additional information available at Capella about annotated bibliographies). List the APA reference for each journal article (a minimum of seven). Identify if the article addresses reliability or validity. Explain how the article addresses sources of error variance, reliability estimates, evidence of validity, or bias and fairness. Identify the specific type of reliability or validity (for example, test-retest reliability, predictive validity, et cetera). Identify the overall results of the research including any psychometric or statistical outcome. Conclusion. Synthesize the information from all the articles you reviewed about reliability. Synthesize the information from all the articles you reviewed about validity. Evaluate if your test continues to be deemed as appropriate for your planned use in the field and with the population to be served. References (required, use current APA format and style). Submit your draft to Turnitin prior to uploading it to the assignment area. Additional Requirements Your paper should meet the following requirements: References: A minimum of seven journal articles (textbooks, Web pages, literature reviews, and the MMY book reviews do not count for these references). Length of paper: Evaluation must be at least five pages in length for content (not including title page, abstract, or references). Reference Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/fair-testing.pdf
Psychology Tutor Phyllis Young Only Please
Running head: REVIEW AND SELECTION OF A STANDARDIZED TEST 0 Review and Selection of a Standardized Test Mark Einsel Capella University Review and Selection of a Standardized Test Introduction The field of psychology has many paths for one to choose. Thankfully, not every individual is the same, therefore, this affords us to pick and choose a specialization that fits our personality, where we believe we can offer the most guidance and support to those who seek balance, or it could be that you are drawn to a concentration based on an experience. The concentration I have chosen will focus on trauma, PTSD, depression, anxiety, neglect, abuse, and bullying. I have served in the United States Navy, I’m a war veteran, I have depression, anxiety, and have been through verbal and physical abuse as a child, as well as being bullied in school. I believe I can help people find the path they are looking for to bring balance and healing into their lives. Therefore, it is that which I have experienced, able to comprehend, and someone they can speak with, knowing that I to have experienced such anguish. Test Category Based on Academic and Professional Goals The selected test category of choice, which will be relevant to my academic and professional career goal, will be on depressive disorders. I hope to be working with the public, military, military families, and individuals from diverse backgrounds, and cultures. Three Scales of Test Measurement The three tests that I have chosen for this project reflect on depressive disorders.  The three rating scales are, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II), and Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2).  Compare and Contrast Three Tests According to the First Four Elements Based on the three rating scales of test measurement, it is important to understand that there are commonalities within the three. The most common attributes regarding each test is that they each focus on depressive disorders. However, what is primarily dissimilar are the age groups, as well as the focus on the individual based on the test. Element 1 Pursuing this further, we examine Element 1 within each of the rating scales, defining the purpose for the testing. Starting with the Beck Hopelessness Scale. The premise of utilizing the Beck Hopelessness Scale, is to measures the level of undesirable attitudes about the future distrust as alleged by adults and adolescents (Beck & Steer, 1978). Of course, compared to the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II), which was established for the evaluation of indicators that correspond to measures for diagnosing depressive disorders as they are listed according to the DSM IV (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1961). Finally, comparing both Beck rating scales to the Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2), its concentration focuses more on the side of evaluating the incidence and severity of depressive symptoms within our youth (Kovacs, 2003). Each of these rating scales has its own content and skills it will require for testing. As an example, the Beck Hopelessness Scale requires the utilization of psychometrically sound measures for the evaluation of isolated variables corresponding to hopelessness, potential suicidal intent, cognitions, noticeable acts, and obtainable resources, as observed amongst individuals who express such behaviors towards suicidal thoughts (Mendonca, Holden, Mazmanian, & Dolan, 1983). The Beck Hopelessness Scale is also utilized for the United States military, the test consists of 21 items with four reply categories during each given item, which the quantity of the scores are calculated with conceivable ranges varying from zero to sixty-three, the higher the score may be an indicator of increased stages of depressive warning sign severity (Luxton et al., 2016). It is important to understand, the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) was also utilized for the military. As such, it aided as the principal consequence for the noninferiority, the noninferiority trials are proposed to indicate, that indeed the effect of a new treatment will not prove to be inferior than the active control, therefore, making the measurement of hopelessness a feasible gauge of safety (Luxton et al., 2016). The content of the and skills and testing to place are accomplished within 5-10 minutes and focus on these specific areas, sadness, pessimism, prior failures, lacking pleasure, feelings of guilt, punishment feelings, dislike of self, criticalness of self, suicidal views or desires, weeping, anxiety, lack of interest, indecisiveness, insignificance or expendable, reduction of energy, insomnia, irritability, lack/increase of appetite, lack of focus, weariness or exhaustion, and lack of sex drive (Beck et al., 1961). The intent of testing for both Beck rating scales are for depression, suicide, or a feeling of hopelessness. When it comes to Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2), the content can be utilized in an educational and clinical setting to evaluate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, it offers an all-inclusive multi-rater evaluation of depressive symptoms in youth, which assistants in primary identification of depressive symptoms, diagnosis of depressive disorders and other linked disorders, and provides monitoring of treatment effectiveness for the youth (Kovacs, 2003). There are different ways the test can be given, some of the options are available like, Paper-and-Pencil Administration and Scoring, Online Administration and Scoring, and Software Scoring, forms offered depending on the severity and how robust of a report you may require as a psychologist. There is the CDI 2: Self-Report (CDI 2:SR), which CDI 2:SR is 28-item evaluation method that produces a total score, two scale scores (Emotional Problems and Functional Problems), and four subscale scores., CDI 2: Self-Report (Short) version (CDI 2:SR[S]) offers a is an excellent screening method that comprises 12 items and takes about half the time of the full-length version to administer (5–10 minutes), and has outstanding psychometric properties and produces a total score that is commonly very comparable to the one formed by the full-length version (Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [MHS], 2017) Lastly, there is a CDI: Teacher (CDI:T) and CDI: Parent (CDI:P), this is a self-report version, the item selection for the parent and teacher methods are steered to take full advantage of validity, and thus focus on evident displays of depression (Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [MHS], 2017). Each of the rating scales is specifically targeted at a group of individuals based on age. The Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2) test will focus on a group that ranges from the ages of 7-17 years old (Kovacs, 2003). Compared to the Beck Hopelessness Scale, there is more of a focus on the Adolescents and adults ages 17 and over (Beck & Steer, 1978). Unlike the Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2) test, Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) does not have anyone below the age of 13, therefore, the focus is 13 years old and above (Beck et al., 1961). Element 1 covers the purpose, content and skills, as well as the intended test takers within these three rating scales. Element 2 The intent of meeting Element 2 within each of these scales ratings is to ensure suitable trials for test takers with disabilities who need distinct accommodations or those with diverse linguistic backgrounds, which may have laws or regulations that govern how these accommodations will be carried out (Joint Committee on Testing Practices [JCTP], 2004). In addition, the selected tests are to be based on the suitability of assessment content, skills tested, and material covered for the proposed purpose of testing (JCTP, 2004). Diving into the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II), which has been changed and advanced from the original BDI, it was widely utilized by adults as a self-reporting tool, questions were raised as to the level of appropriateness for the use with adolescents, after verification of the test indicated that it could successfully differentiate patients with depression, adults versus adolescents, it was suggested that the BDI and BDI-II were appropriate for use (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Sturman, 2013). However, the BDI-II test is typically finished in 5 to 10 minutes, but as far as providing strategies for the verbal administration of the exam, the manual warns the user against using the BDI-II as a diagnostic device and suitably acclaims that explanations of exam scores should only be commenced by skilled professionals (Beck et al., 1961). As for the Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2) test, there were 21 items from the first BDI that were removed with some semantic alterations for age-appropriate language and content (Kovacs, 2003). Furthermore, 17-item CDI-Parent and the 12-item CDI-Teacher forms were advanced from the traditional format CDI, with appropriate modifications to language to simplify third party reporting and capitalize on validity (Kovacs, 2003). The author involved in the tests presented suitable warnings to potential users, regarding the use of the CDI in clinical settings (Kovacs, 2003). Lastly, the representativeness of the trial on which norms were established is problematic to evaluate, as such the demographic statistics are inadequate, therefore, it is impossible to determine the level to which the norming process was appropriate (Kovacs, 2003). Pursuing forward and looking closely at the Beck Hopelessness Scale, compared to the previous rating scale tests, the Beck Hopelessness Scale has some interesting feedback regarding the appropriateness. As such, The Beck Hopelessness Scale writers have presented this as a quantity of the number of negative attitudes about the forthcoming future events that apparently indicate a risk of suicide completion, which only holds within themselves as one holds a notion of the future; the younger the person, the less probable a situation would occur. However, the Beck Hopelessness Scale is less appropriate for our youth than it is for grown adults (Beck & Steer, 1978). This covers a range of appropriateness of the three rating scales and how they vary from one another. Again, age appropriateness and language appear to be some of the key factors stemming this justification. Element 3 Element three is focused on reviewing resources provided by test developers and selecting tests that are clear, accurate, and comprehensive information is provided (JCTP, 2004). Element three affords the user to seek the materials provided by the test developers, ensure the tests offer vivid, precise, and complete data. Assuredly, the Children’s Depression Inventory 2 (CDI 2) (2nd ed.), provides adequate and accurate data to be utilized on children ranging from 7-17-years old. In fact, the scales focus on the emotional and functional concerns with these age groups, and the CDI 2 SR emotional concerns are subdivided into negative mood, physical symptoms, and negative self-esteem, as opposed to the functional concerns are subdivided into ineffectiveness and interpersonal concerns (Yunhee, 2012). The materials provided for this test include and are based on a three scoring options, hand scoring, scoring software, or MHS online, the resulting scores from these tests on the answered items are standardized into T-scores, with a mean of fifty and standard deviations of ten for total of subscales (Yunhee, 2012). Unquestionably, based on the data provided on this test, the test has been effective with its methods, which appear to indicate substantial results for those who use the test. The developers have developed a product that works well for the considered age group; however, based on the clinical psychology practice that will be establish in my concentration, this would work well with children of military veteran families, not the focused concentration of adults. Comparing the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) and Beck Hopelessness Scale, which focus more on adults and can be utilized for military veterans with depression, and who suffer from thoughts of suicide. The materials utilized in the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) consist of a twenty-one entry, self-report assessment record that measures characteristic behaviors and symptoms of depression, it also includes computerized forms, a card form test, and it requires the user/client to have at a minimum a fifth to sixth grade reading ability to sufficiently comprehend the questions being asked (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). It is important to understand, use of the BDI validates high core reliability, with alpha quantities of .86 and .81 for psychiatric and non-psychiatric individuals (APA, 2017). Unquestionably, Aaron Beck was a pioneer of his time, therefore the materials he developed are accurate and complete. In addition, Beck had established other tests like Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation, Beck Self-Concept Test, Dysfunctional Attitude Scale, Sociotropy Autonomy Scale. The development of the Beck Depression Inventory was influenced to replicate depressed clients’ own idiosyncratic accounts of their own symptoms, of course, this is opposed to those who are non-depressed psychiatric patients (The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. [MHHE], 2001). The Beck Depression Inventory underwent many changes, the discipline behind creating this rating scale involved the precise resolve of each word and item the team employed to gather a specific rating scale, which would allow an instantaneous awareness into the fundamental nature of the psychological hypothesis (MHHE, 2001). When it comes to tests like Beck was able to establish, one must believe that for his time, it was a complex project that consumed many years to develop and perfect to the best of his ability; however, as psychologist, can we accept this to be the last form, or do we always try to improve upon the testing to increase a method of treating conditions that continue to develop and change over time. Next, we evaluate the materials of the test developers for the Beck Hopelessness Scale. The Beck Hopelessness Scale has been a proven and reliable test that was conducted on nurses and nurse students in Nigeria. The test conclusions in this study support that there may be need to establish interventions that will reduce the severity of hopelessness among Nigerian student nurses through the screening for depressive symptoms and psychological distress. It is clearly noted that the Beck Hopelessness Scale is an effective and dependable measure of hopelessness among Nigerian student nurses; however, users have indicated that such interventions have reduced the severity of hopelessness amongst these Nigerian students through the screening for depressive symptoms and psychological distress (ClinMed International Library, 2016). References American Psychological Association. (2017). Beck depression inventory (BDI)Construct: depressive symptoms. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/about/publications/caregivers/practice-settings/assessment/tools/beck-depression.aspx Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1978). Beck Hopelessness Scale [Revised]. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1961). Beck Depression Inventory–II. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu ClinMed International Library. (2016). The Beck Hopelessness Scale: Factor Structure, Validity and Reliability in a Sample of Student Nurses in South-Western Nigeria. International Archives of Nursing and Health Care, 2(3), 1-6. Retrieved from https://www.clinmedjournals.org/articles/ianhc/international-archives-of-nursing-and-health-care-ianhc-2-056.pdf Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN: 9780078035302. Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/fair-testing.pdf Kovacs, M. (2003). Children’s Depression Inventory [2003 Update]. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu Luxton, D. D., Pruitt, L. D., Wagner, A., Smolenski, D. J., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., & Gahm, G. (2016). Home-based telebehavioral health for U.S. military personnel and veterans with depression: A randomized controlled trial. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 84(11), 923-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000135 Mendonca, J. D., Holden, R. R., Mazmanian, D. S., & Dolan, J. (1983). The influence of response style on the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 15(3), 237-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0080734 Multi-Health Systems, Inc. (2017). CDI 2 Children’s Depression Inventory 2. Retrieved from http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=edu&id=overview∏=cdi2 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (2001). Aaron T. Beck, M.D. Retrieved from http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/psychtesting/profiles/beck.htm Yunhee, B. (2012, June). Test review: Children’s depression inventory 2 (CDI 2). Journal Of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(3), 304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282911426407
Psychology Tutor Phyllis Young Only Please
EBSCO Publishing   Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.): NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost〈=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines. References Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1961). Beck Depression Inventory–II. Beck Depression Inventory–II Review of the Beck Depression Inventory-II by PAUL A. ARBISI, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Assistant Professor Department of Psychiatry and Assistant Clinical Professor Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN: After over 35 years of nearly universal use, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) has undergone a major revision. The revised version of the Beck, the BDI-II, represents a significant improvement over the original instrument across all aspects of the instrument including content, psychometric validity, and external validity. The BDI was an effective measure of depressed mood that repeatedly demonstrated utility as evidenced by its widespread use in the clinic as well as by the frequent use of the BDI as a dependent measure in outcome studies of psychotherapy and antidepressant treatment (Piotrowski & Keller, 1989; Piotrowski & Lubin, 1990). The BDI-II should supplant the BDI and readily gain acceptance by surpassing its predecessor in use. Despite the demonstrated utility of the Beck, times had changed and the diagnostic context within which the instrument was developed had altered considerably over the years (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961). Further, psychometrically, the BDI had some problems with certain items failing to discriminate adequately across the range of depression and other items showing gender bias (Santor, Ramsay, & Zuroff, 1994). Hence the time had come for a conceptual reassessment and psychometrically informed revision of the instrument. Indeed, a mid-course correction had occurred in 1987 as evidenced by the BDI-IA, a version that included rewording of 15 out of the 21 items (Beck & Steer, 1987). This version did not address the limited scope of depressive symptoms of the BDI nor the failure of the BDI to adhere to contemporary diagnostic criteria for depression as codified in the DSM-III. Further, consumers appeared to vote with their feet because, since the publication of the BDI-IA, the original Beck had been cited far more frequently in the literature than the BDI-IA. Therefore, the time had arrived for a major overhaul of the classic BDI and a retooling of the content to reflect diagnostic sensibilities of the 1990s. In the main, the BDI-II accomplishes these goals and represents a highly successful revamping of a reliable standard. The BDI-II retains the 21-item format with four options under each item, ranging from not present (0) to severe (3). Relative to the BDI-IA, all but three items were altered in some way on the BDI-II. Items dropped from the BDI include body image change, work difficulty, weight loss, and somatic preoccupation. To replace the four lost items, the BDI-II includes the following new items: agitation, worthlessness, loss of energy, and concentration difficulty. The current item content includes: (a) sadness, (b) pessimism, (c) past failure, (d) loss of pleasure, (e) guilty feelings, (f) punishment feelings, (g) self-dislike, (h) self-criticalness, (i) suicidal thoughts or wishes, (j) crying, (k) agitation, (l) loss of interest, (m) indecisiveness, (n) worthlessness, (o) loss of energy, (p) changes in sleeping pattern, (q) irritability, (r) changes in appetite, (s) concentration difficulty, (t) tiredness or fatigue, and (u) loss of interest in sex. To further reflect DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for depression, both increases and decreases in appetite are assessed in the same item and both hypersomnia and hyposomnia are assessed in another item. And rather than the 1-week time period rated on the BDI, the BDI-II, consistent with DSM-IV, asks for ratings over the past 2 weeks. The BDI-II retains the advantage of the BDI in its ease of administration (5-10 minutes) and the rather straightforward interpretive guidelines presented in the manual. At the same time, the advantage of a self-report instrument such as the BDI-II may also be a disadvantage. That is, there are no validity indicators contained on the BDI or the BDI-II and the ease of administration of a self-report lends itself to the deliberate tailoring of self-report and distortion of the results. Those of us engaged in clinical practice are often faced with clients who alter their presentation to forward a personal agenda that may not be shared with the clinician. The manual obliquely mentions this problem in an ambivalent and somewhat avoidant fashion. Under the heading, “Memory and Response Sets,” the manual blithely discounts the potential problem of a distorted response set by attributing extreme elevation on the BDI-II to “extreme negative thinking” which “may be a central cognitive symptom of severe depression rather than a response set per se because patients with milder depression should show variation in their response ratings” (manual, p. 9). On the other hand, later in the manual, we are told that, “In evaluating BDI-II scores, practitioners should keep in mind that all self-report inventories are subject to response bias” (p. 12). The latter is sound advice and should be highlighted under the heading of response bias. The manual is well written and provides the reader with significant information regarding norms, factor structure, and notably, nonparametric item-option characteristic curves for each item. Indeed the latter inclusion incorporates the latest in item response theory, which appears to have guided the retention and deletion of items from the BDI (Santor et al., 1994). Generally the psychometric properties of the BDI-II are quite sound. Coefficient alpha estimates of reliability for the BDI-II with outpatients was .92 and was .93 for the nonclinical sample. Corrected item-total correlation for the outpatient sample ranged from .39 (loss of interest in sex) to .70 (loss of pleasure), for the nonclinical college sample the lowest item-total correlation was .27 (loss of interest in sex) and the highest (.74 (self-dislike). The test-retest reliability coefficient across the period of a week was quite high at .93. The inclusion in the manual of item-option characteristic curves for each BDI-II item is of noted significance. Examination of these curves reveals that, for the most part, the ordinal position of the item options is appropriately assigned for 17 of the 21 items. However, the items addressing punishment feelings, suicidal thought or wishes, agitation, and loss of interest in sex did not display the anticipated rank order indicating ordinal increase in severity of depression across item options. Additionally, although improved over the BDI, Item 10 (crying) Option 3 does not clearly express a more severe level of depression than Option 2 (see Santor et al., 1994). Over all, however, the option choices within each item appear to function as intended across the severity dimension of depression. The suggested guidelines and cut scores for the interpretation of the BDI-II and placement of individual scores into a range of depression severity are purported to have good sensitivity and moderate specificity, but test parameters such as positive and negative predictive power are not reported (i.e., given score X on the BDI-II, what is the probability that the individual meets criteria for a Major Depressive Disorder, of moderate severity?). According to the manual, the BDI-II was developed as a screening instrument for major depression and, accordingly, cut scores were derived through the use of receiver operating characteristic curves to maximize sensitivity. Of the 127 outpatients used to derive the cut scores, 57 met criteria for either single-episode or recurrent major depression. The relatively high base rate (45%) for major depression is a bit unrealistic for nonpsychiatric settings and will likely serve to inflate the test parameters. Cross validation of the cut scores on different samples with lower base rates of major depression is warranted due to the fact that a different base rate of major depression may result in a significant change in the proportion of correct decisions based on the suggested cut score (Meehl & Rosen, 1955). Consequently, until the suggested cut scores are cross validated in those populations, caution should be exercised when using the BDI-II as a screen in nonpsychiatric populations where the base rate for major depression may be substantially lower. Concurrent validity evidence appears solid with the BDI-II demonstrating a moderately high correlation with the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression-Revised (r = .71) in psychiatric outpatients. Of importance to the discriminative validity of the instrument was the relatively moderate correlation between the BDI-II and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety-Revised (r = .47). The manual reports mean BDI-II scores for various groups of psychiatric outpatients by diagnosis. As expected, outpatients had higher scores than college students. Further, individuals with mood disorders had higher scores than those individuals diagnosed with anxiety and adjustment disorders. The BDI-II is a stronger instrument than the BDI with respect to its factor structure. A two-factor (Somatic-Affective and Cognitive) solution accounted for the majority of the common variance in both an outpatient psychiatric sample and a much smaller nonclinical college sample. Factor Analysis of the BDI-II in a larger nonclinical sample of college students resulted in Cognitive-Affective and Somatic-Vegetative main factors essentially replicating the findings presented in the manual and providing strong evidence for the overall stability of the factor structure across samples (Dozois, Dobson, & Ahnberg, 1998). Unfortunately several of the items such as sadness and crying shifted factor loadings depending upon the type of sample (clinical vs. nonclinical). SUMMARY. The BDI-II represents a highly successful revision of an acknowledged standard in the measurement of depressed mood. The revision has improved upon the original by updating the items to reflect contemporary diagnostic criteria for depression and utilizing state-of-the-art psychometric techniques to improve the discriminative properties of the instrument. This degree of improvement is no small feat and the BDI-II deserves to replace the BDI as the single most widely used clinically administered instrument for the assessment of depression. REVIEWER’S REFERENCES Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194-216. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (1989). Psychological testing in outpatient mental health facilities: A national study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 423-425. Piotrowski, C., & Lubin, B. (1990). Assessment practices of health psychologists; Survey of APA Division 38 clinicians. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 99-106. Santor, D. A., Ramsay, J. O., & Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Nonparametric item analyses of the Beck Depression Inventory: Evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychological Assessment, 6, 255-270. Dozois, D. J. A., Dobson, K. S., & Ahnberg, J. L. (1998). A psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Assessment, 10, 83-89. Review of the Beck Depression Inventory-II by RICHARD F. FARMER, Associate Professor of Psychology, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID: The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) is the most recent version of a widely used self-report measure of depression severity. Designed for persons 13 years of age and older, the BDI-II represents a significant revision of the original instrument published almost 40 years ago (BDI-I; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) as well as the subsequent amended version copyrighted in 1978 (BDI-IA; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979; Beck & Steer, 1987, 1993). Previous editions of the BDI have considerable support for their effectiveness as measures of depression (for reviews, see Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974; Beck, Steer & Garbin, 1988; and Steer, Beck, & Garrison, 1986). Items found in these earlier versions, many of which were retained in modified form for the BDI-II, were clinically derived and neutral with respect to a particular theory of depression. Like previous versions, the BDI-II contains 21 items, each of which assesses a different symptom or attitude by asking the examinee to consider a group of graded statements that are weighted from 0 to 3 based on intuitively derived levels of severity. If the examinee feels that more than one statement within a group applies, he or she is instructed to circle the highest weighting among the applicable statements. A total score is derived by summing weights corresponding to the statements endorsed over the 21 items. The test authors provide empirically informed cut scores (derived from receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve methodology) for indexing the severity of depression based on responses from outpatients with a diagnosed episode of major depression (cutoff scores to index the severity of dysphoria for college samples are suggested by Dozois, Dobson, & Ahnberg, 1998). The BDI-II can usually be completed within 5 to 10 minutes. In addition to providing guidelines for the oral administration of the test, the manual cautions the user against using the BDI-II as a diagnostic instrument and appropriately recommends that interpretations of test scores should only be undertaken by qualified professionals. Although the manual does not report the reading level associated with the test items, previous research on the BDI-IA suggested that items were written at about the sixth-grade level (Berndt, Schwartz, & Kaiser, 1983). A number of changes appear in the BDI-II, perhaps the most significant of which is the modification of test directions and item content to be more consistent with the major depressive episode concept as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Whereas the BDI-I and BDI-IA assessed symptoms experienced at the present time and during the past week, respectively, the BDI-II instructs the examinee to respond in terms of how he or she has “been feeling during the past two weeks, including today” (manual, p. 8, emphasis in original) so as to be consistent with the DSM-IV time period for the assessment of major depression. Similarly, new items included in the BDI-II address psychomotor agitation, concentration difficulties, sense of worthlessness, and loss of energy so as to make the BDI-II item set more consistent with DSM-IV criteria. Items that appeared in the BDI-I and BDI-IA that were dropped in the second edition were those that assessed weight loss, body image change, somatic preoccupation, and work difficulty. All but three of the items from the BDI-IA retained for inclusion in the BDI-II were reworded in some way. Items that assess changes in sleep patterns and appetite now address both increases and decreases in these areas. Two samples were retained to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the BDI-II: (a) a clinical sample (n = 500; 63% female; 91% White) who sought outpatient therapy at one of four outpatient clinics on the U.S. east coast (two of which were located in urban areas, two in suburban areas), and (b) a convenience sample of Canadian college students (n = 120; 56% women; described as “predominantly White”). The average ages of the clinical and student samples were, respectively, 37.2 (SD = 15.91; range = 13-86) and 19.58 (SD = 1.84). Reliability of the BDI was evaluated with multiple methods. Internal consistency was assessed using corrected item-total correlations (ranges: .39 to .70 for outpatients; .27 to .74 for students) and coefficient alpha (.92 for outpatients; .93 for students). Test-retest reliability was assessed over a 1-week interval among a small subsample of 26 outpatients from one clinic site (r = .93). There was no significant change in scores noted among this outpatient sample between the two testing occasions, a finding that is different from those often obtained with college students who, when tested repeatedly with earlier versions of the BDI, were often observed to have lower scores on subsequent testing occasions (e.g., Hatzenbuehler, Parpal, & Matthews, 1983). Following the method of Santor, Ramsay, and Zuroff (1994), the test authors also examined the item-option characteristic curves for each of the 21 BDI-II items as endorsed by the 500 outpatients. As noted in a previous review of the BDI (1993 Revised) by Waller (1998), the use of this method to evaluate item performance represents a new standard in test revision. Consistent with findings for depressed outpatients obtained by Santor et al. (1994) on the BDI-IA, most of the BDI-II items performed well as evidenced by the individual item-option curves. All items were reported to display monotonic relationships with the underlying dimension of depression severity. A minority of items were somewhat problematic, however, when the degree of correspondence between estimated and a priori weights associated with item response options was evaluated. For example, on Item 11 (agitation), the response option weighted a value of 1 was more likely to be endorsed than the option weighted 3 across all levels of depression, including depression in the moderate and severe ranges. In general, though, response option weights of the BDI-II items did a good job of discriminating across estimated levels of depression severity. Unfortunately, the manual does not provide detailed discussion of item-option characteristic curves and their interpretation. The validity of the BDI-II was evaluated with outpatient subsamples of various sizes. When administered on the same occasion, the correlation between the BDI-II and BDI-IA was quite high (n = 101, r = .93), suggesting that these measures yield similar patterns of scores, even though the BDI-II, on average, produced equated scores that were about 3 points higher. In support of its convergent validity, the BDI-II displayed moderately high correlations with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (n = 158, r = .68) and the Revised Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-R; n = 87, r = .71). The correlation between the BDI-II and the Revised Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (n = 87, r = .47) was significantly less than that for the BDI-II and HRSD-R, which was cited as evidence of the BDI-II’s discriminant validity. The BDI-II, however, did share a moderately high correlation with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (n = 297; r = .60), a finding consistent with past research on the strong association between self-reported anxiety and depression (e.g., Kendall & Watson, 1989). Additional research published since the manual’s release (Steer, Ball, Ranieri, & Beck, 1997) also indicates that the BDI-II shares higher correlations with the SCL-90-R Depression subscale (r = .89) than with the SCL-90-R Anxiety subscale (r = .71), although the latter correlation is still substantial. Other data presented in the test manual indicated that of the 500 outpatients, those diagnosed with mood disorders (n = 264) had higher BDI-II scores than those diagnosed with anxiety (n = 88), adjustment (n = 80), or other (n = 68) disorders. The test authors also cite evidence of validity by separate factor analyses performed on the BDI-II item set for outpatients and students. However, findings from these analyses, which were different in some significant respects, are questionable evidence of the measure’s validity as the test was apparently not developed to assess specific dimensions of depression. Factor analytic studies of the BDI have historically produced inconsistent findings (Beck et al., 1988), and preliminary research on the BDI-II suggests some variations in factor structure within both clinical and student samples (Dozois et al., 1998; Steer & Clark, 1997; Steer, Kumar, Ranieri, & Beck, 1998). Furthermore, one of the authors of the BDI-II (Steer & Clark, 1997) has recently advised that the measure not be scored as separate subscales. SUMMARY. The BDI-II is presented as a user-friendly self-report measure of depression severity. Strengths of the BDI-II include the very strong empirical foundation on which it was built, namely almost 40 years of research that demonstrates the effectiveness of earlier versions. In the development of the BDI-II, innovative methods were employed to determine optimum cut scores (ROC curves) and evaluate item performance and weighting (item-option curves). The present edition demonstrates very good reliability and impressive test item characteristics. Preliminary evidence of the BDI-II’s validity in clinical samples is also encouraging. Despite the many impressive features of this measure, one may wonder why the test developers were not even more thorough in their presentation of the development of the BDI-II and more rigorous in the evaluation of its effectiveness. The test manual is too concise, and often omits important details involving the test development process. The clinical sample used to generate cut scores and evaluate the psychometric properties of the measure seems unrepresentative in many respects (e.g., racial make-up, patient setting, geographic distribution), and other aspects of this sample (e.g., education level, family income) go unmentioned. The student sample is relatively small and, unfortunately, drawn from a single university. Opportunities to address important questions regarding the measure were also missed, such as whether the BDI-II effectively assesses or screens the DSM-IV concept of major depression, and the extent to which it may accomplish this better than earlier versions. This seems to be a particularly important question given that the BDI was originally developed as a measure of the depressive syndrome, not as a screening measure for a nosologic category (Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987), a distinction that appears to have become somewhat blurred in this most recent edition. Also, not reported in the manual are analyses to examine possible sex biases among the BDI-II item set. Santor et al. (1994) reported that the BDI-IA items were relatively free of sex bias, and given the omission of the most sex-biased item in the BDI-IA (body image change) from the BDI-II, it is possible that this most recent edition may contain even less bias. Similarly absent in the manual is any report on the item-option characteristic curves for nonclinical samples. Santor et al. (1994) reported that for most of the BDI-IA items, response option weights were less discriminating across the range of depression severity among their college sample relative to their clinical sample, an anticipated finding given that students would be less likely to endorse response options hypothesized to be consistent with more severe forms of depression. Also, given that previous editions of the BDI have shown inconsistent associations with social undesirability (e.g., Tanaka-Matsumi & Kameoka, 1986), an opportunity was missed to evaluate the extent to which the BDI-II measures something different than this response set. Despite these relative weaknesses in the development and presentation of the BDI-II, existent evidence suggests that the BDI-II is just as sound if not more so than its earlier versions. REVIEWER’S REFERENCES Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571. Beck, A. T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: The Depression Inventory. In P. Pichot & R. Oliver-Martin (Eds.), Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology: Modern problems in pharmacopsychiatry (vol. 7, pp. 151-169). Basel: Karger. Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford. Berndt, D. J., Schwartz, S., & Kaiser, C. F. (1983). Readability of self-report depression inventories. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 627-628. Hatzenbuehler, L. C., Parpal, M., & Matthews, L. (1983). Classifying college students as depressed or nondepressed using the Beck Depression Inventory: An empirical analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 360-366. Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., & Garrison, B. (1986). Applications of the Beck Depression Inventory. In N. Sartorius & T. A. Ban (Eds.), Assessment of depression (pp. 123-142). New York: Springer-Verlag. Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Kameoka, V. A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popular self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 328-333. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Kendall, P. C., Hollon, S. D., Beck, A. T., Hammen, C. L., & Ingram, R. E. (1987). Issues and recommendations regarding the use of the Beck Depression Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 289-299. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77-100. Kendall, P. C., & Watson, D. (Eds.). (1989). Anxiety and depression: Distinctive and overlapping features. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Santor, D. A., Ramsay, J. O., & Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Nonparametric item analyses of the Beck Depression Inventory: Evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychological Assessment, 6, 255-270. Steer, R. A., Ball, R., Ranieri, W. F., & Beck, A. T. (1997). Further evidence for the construct validity of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with psychiatric outpatients. Psychological Reports, 80, 443-446. Steer, R. A., & Clark, D. A. (1997). Psychometric characteristics of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with college students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 128-136. Dozois, D. J. A., Dobson, K. S., & Ahnberg, J. L. (1998). A psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Assessment, 10, 83-89. Steer, R. A., Kumar, G., Ranieri, W. F., & Beck, A. T. (1998). Use of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with adolescent psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 20, 127-137. Waller, N. G. (1998). [Review of the Beck Depression Inventory-1993 Revised]. In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 120-121). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.