Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Psychometric Evaluation of Romanian Translations of the Behavior Problems Inventory-01 and the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form

2010; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 3; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/19315860903520515

1931-5864

Camelia E. Mircea, Johannes Rojahn, Anna J. Esbensen,

Autism Spectrum Disorder Research

Abstract Psychometric properties of Romanian translations of the Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01; CitationRojahn, Matson, Lott, Esbensen, & Smalls, 2001) and the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form (NCBRF; CitationAman, Tassé, Rojahn, & Hammer, 1996) were explored. Respondents completed the instruments for 115 children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Internal consistency of both instruments' total scales was good to excellent (Cronbach's α ranging from .88 to .95) and the subscale internal consistencies were fair to excellent (with α ranging from .74 to .94). The results based on bivariate Spearman correlations and multiple regression analyses provided strong convergent and discriminant validity of both instruments. Overall, the Romanian versions of the behavior rating scales had very good reliability (internal consistencies) and convergent and discriminant validity. It is hoped that this study will be a catalyst for Romanian clinicians and researchers as well as for transcultural researchers working with Romanian individuals with intellectual disabilities to continue the exploration of the utility and psychometric quality not only of the BPI-01 and the NCBRF but also of other English language psychopathology assessment instruments. KEYWORDS: intellectual disabilitiesRomania Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01) Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form (NCBRF)convergent validitydiscriminant validityinternal consistency ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Florin Tarnauceanu, executive director of the Department of Social Work and Child Protection of Suceava County (Romania), and all the mental health professionals who administered the assessment instruments. Notes 1. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by George Mason University Human Subjects Review Board and the Department of Social Work and Child Protection, Suceava, gave us permission to analyze the data. 2. Reliability interpretative guidelines: below .70 = unacceptable, between .70 and .79 = fair, between .80 and .89 = good, .90 and above = excellent.