BASC-3 Flex Monitor

Inattention / Hyperactivity

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

  • A Digital Manual is required for implementation of program and can be obtained for $55
  • Administration/ scoring is $1.25 per completed form

 

Replacement Cost:

$1.25 per form scored

 

Included in Cost:

The BASC–3 Flex Monitor Inattention/Hyperactivity tool includes teacher and parent forms that are to be used in conjunction with Q-global®, a secure online system for administering, scoring, and reporting test results.

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

 

Training Requirements:

  • Less than 1 hour of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • Those interpreting the BASC-3 Flex Monitor scores should be a B qualified professional who has completed formal coursework in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests and measurements and should understand the basic psychometrics that underlie test use and development.
  • It is also recommended that these individuals have coursework in areas related to the emotional and behavioral development of children.
  • Finally, these individuals should be familiar with the principles presented in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014).

 

Accommodations:

The Inattention/Hyperactivity form can be administered digitally using a smartphone, tablet device, or computer.

The forms may also be printed on paper, and responses can be entered into Q-global for immediate scoring and reporting.

Where to Obtain:

Website:

https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/products/100001542/basc3-flexmonitor.html

Address:

Pearson, Attn: Inbound Sales & Customer Support, P.O. Box 599700, San Antonio, TX 78259

Phone Number:
1-800-627-7271

Email:

https://support.pearson.com/getsupport/s/ClinicalProductSupportForm (online

contact only)


Access to Technical Support:

Online and over the phone through customer and technical support team.

 

The BASC-3 Flex Monitor was developed to provide an efficient alternative for monitoring the status of behavioral and emotional functioning; it is an online tool (also offering paper form options) that can be used to measure the effectiveness of intervention programs at a group or individual level.

 

The BASC-3 Flex Monitor offers standard forms to measure each of the following behavioral/emotional domains: Inattention/Hyperactivity, Internalizing Problems, Disruptive Behaviors, Developmental Social Disorders, and School Problems. In addition, custom forms can be developed from an item bank of more than 700 items across teacher, parent, and student forms. For each custom form, a standardized total score (in T score units) is provided that is based on a nationally representative normative sample. When developing a form, a reliability coefficient can also be generated based on the same normative sample, providing an indication of the quality of the form being developed prior to its use in monitoring behavioral and emotional functioning. Spanish-language versions are available for all parent and student forms.

 

The Inattention/Hyperactivity form measures a variety of inattentive or hyperactive behaviors, including the ability to attend work, sustain attention, listen to and follow directions, maintain behavioral control, respond appropriately, and complete assignments on time.

Assessment Format:

  • Individual
  • Group
  • Computer-administered*

*With the option of paper forms. All responses must be entered online into the Q-global platform for scoring.

 

Administration Time:

  • 5 minutes or less per student

 

Scoring Time:

  • 5 minutes or less per student

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated automatically

 

Scores Generated:

  • Developmental Benchmarks
  • Raw Score
  • Standard Score

 

 

Reliability

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Justify the appropriateness of each type of reliability reported:

Internal consistency and standard error of measurement. Internal consistency (represented by the statistic coefficient alpha) suggests whether items in a scale largely reflect the same underlying dimension. Such information is important for establishing the items included in the overall score are indicative of an overall construct.

Test-Retest reliability. Test-retest reliability reflects the consistency of ratings from the same teacher, parent, or student over a brief time interval. This metric is important for use in measures used repeatedly.

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each reliability analysis conducted:

Internal consistency and standard error of measurement. Samples included 1,700 participants for the teacher forms and 1,800 for the parent forms. Overall, these samples indicate a close correspondence between the BASC–3 Flex Monitor standardization sample and the 2013 census proportions across most of the forms and age bands.

Test-Retest reliability. Sample sizes ranged from 69 participants (parent form, child level) to 126 participants (parent form, adolescent level) for the test-retest studies. The samples include a variety of demographic groups across various socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity, and geographic region, as well as a reasonable split between the number of males and females.

Sample demographics for internal consistency/SEM analysis.

Informant

Age Range

Demographic Composition (percentages)

Teacher

2-3

African American 13.5

Asian 3.5

Hispanic 26.5

Other 6.0

White 50.5

Teacher

4-5

African American 13.7

Asian 4.3

Hispanic 26.3

Other 6.3

White 49.3

Teacher

6-7

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 25.0

Other 5.3

White 51.3

Teacher

8-11

African American 13.3

Asian 5.0

Hispanic 24.0

Other 5.3

White 52.3

Teacher

12-14

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 23.0

Other 5.0

White 53.7

Teacher

15-18

African American 13.7

Asian 4.3

Hispanic 22.7

Other 4.3

White 55.0

Parent

2-3

African American 13.7

Asian 3.3

Hispanic 25.7

Other 6.0

White 51.3

Parent

4-5

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 26.0

Other 6.0

White 49.7

Parent

6-7

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 24.7

Other 4.7

White 52.3

Parent

8-11

African American 13.3

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 24.0

Other 5.7

White 52.3

Parent

12-14

African American 14.3

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 22.7

Other 4.7

White 53.7

Parent

15-18

African American 13.7

Asian 4.3

Hispanic 22.0

Other 4.3

White 55.7

 

Sample demographics for test-retest analysis:

Informant

Age Range

Demographic Composition (percentages)

Teacher

2-5

African American 11.4

Asian --

Hispanic 7.1

Other 10.0

White 71.4

Teacher

6-11

African American 5.8

Asian 2.9

Hispanic 24.6

Other 2.9

White 63.8

Teacher

12-18

African American 5.6

Asian 0.8

Hispanic 17.5

Other 4.0

White 72.2

Parent

2-5

African American 11.4

Asian --

Hispanic 7.1

Other 10.0

White 71.4

Parent

6-11

African American 5.8

Asian 2.9

Hispanic 24.6

Other 2.9

White 63.8

Parent

12-18

African American 5.6

Asian 0.8

Hispanic 17.5

Other 4.0

White 72.2

 

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability:

The standard coefficient alpha procedures were used. Values for test-retest correlations include both unadjusted and adjusted values (adjusted for restriction of range, which can bias correlation coefficients in either a positive [greater variability than a population estimate] or negative [smaller variability than a population estimate] direction).

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Teacher Age Range: 2-18

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

SEM

Coefficient Alpha

2-3

200

*

0.89

3.32

Coefficient Alpha

4-5

300

*

0.92

2.83

Coefficient Alpha

6-7

300

*

0.95

2.24

Coefficient Alpha

8-11

300

*

0.94

2.45

Coefficient Alpha

12-14

300

*

0.94

2.45

Coefficient Alpha

15-18

300

*

0.95

2.24

Test-retest

2-5

72

*

 

-

Test-retest

6-11

81

*

 

-

Test-retest

12-18

95

*

 

-

*Only one teacher was asked to complete a Teacher Rating Scale for each child. Teachers, however, were allowed to participate in the study for more than one student.

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Parent Age Range: 2-18

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

SEM

Coefficient Alpha

2-3

300

300

0.82

4.24

Coefficient Alpha

4-5

300

300

0.88

3.46

Coefficient Alpha

6-7

300

300

0.89

3.32

Coefficient Alpha

8-11

300

300

0.88

3.46

Coefficient Alpha

12-14

300

300

0.90

3.16

Coefficient Alpha

15-18

300

300

0.88

3.46

Test-retest

2-5

70

70

0.88

 

Test-retest

6-11

69

69

0.92

 

Test-retest

12-18

126

126

0.89

 

 

 

Validity

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Describe and justify the criterion measures used to demonstrate validity:

To support the constructs being measured by the BASC–3 Flex Monitor forms, a series of correlational analyses were performed between the Total Scores obtained on the BASC–3 Flex Monitor forms and the composite scale scores from the BASC–3 TRS, PRS, and SRP. These analyses were performed using the standardization sample used to develop the BASC–3 Flex Monitor norms. The results of the analyses provide evidence of concurrent and discriminant validity of the Flex Monitor Total Scores with a well-established measure of behavioral and emotional functioning.

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each validity analysis conducted:

The sample size included 4,400 children with 1,700 children in the sample for the Teacher Form,1,800 in the sample for the Parent Form and 900 in the sample for the Self-report Form. The samples consist of an equal number of male and female children in each age grouping. Overall, these samples indicate a close correspondence between the BASC–3 Flex Monitor standardization sample and the 2013 census proportions across most of the forms and age bands. When creating the general norms, attention was given to the presence of emotional, behavioral, or physical diagnoses or classifications reported for the child.

Sample demographics for correlational analysis:

Informant

Age Range

Demographic Composition (percentages)

Teacher

Preschool (2-5)

Ages 2-3:

African American 13.5

Asian 3.5

Hispanic 26.5

Other 6.0

White 50.5

Ages 4-5:

African American 13.7

Asian 4.3

Hispanic 26.3

Other 6.3

White 49.3

Teacher

Child (6-11)

Ages 6–7:

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 25.0

Other 5.3

White 51.3

Ages 8–11:

African American 13.3

Asian 5.0

Hispanic 24.0

Other 5.3

            White 52.3

Teacher

Adolescent (12-18)

Ages 12–14:

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 23.0

Other 5.0

White 53.7

Ages 15–18:

African American 13.7

Asian 4.3

Hispanic 22.7

Other 4.3

            White 55.0

Parent

Preschool (2-5)

Ages 2–3:

African American 13.7

Asian 3.3

Hispanic 25.7

Other 6.0

White 51.3

Ages 4–5:

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 26.0

Other 6.0

White 49.7

Parent

Child (6-11)

Ages 6–7:

African American 13.7

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 24.7

Other 4.7

White 52.3

Ages 8–11:

African American 13.3

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 24.0

Other 5.7

White 52.3

Parent

Adolescent (12-18)

Ages 12–14:

African American 14.3

Asian 4.7

Hispanic 22.7

Other 4.7

White 53.7

Ages 15–18:

African American 13.7

Asian 4.3

Hispanic 22.0

Other 4.3

White 55.7

 

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity:

Correlational analyses were performed to establish the relationship between Flex Monitor Total Scores and BASC-3 Teacher/Parent/Self-Report Form Composite Scales.

 

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Teacher Age Range: Preschool (ages 2-5)

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Externalizing Problems

500

*

0.87

-

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Internalizing Problems

500

*

0.40

-

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Adaptive Skills

500

*

-0.56

-

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Behavioral Symptoms Index

500

*

0.86

-

*Only one teacher was asked to complete a Teacher Rating Scale for each child. Teachers, however, were allowed to participate in the study for more than one student.

 

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Teacher Age Range: Child (ages 6-11)

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Externalizing Problems

600

*

0.84

 

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Internalizing Problems

600

*

0.36

 

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale School Problems

600

*

0.79

 

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Adaptive Skills

600

*

-0.72

 

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Behavioral Symptoms Index

600

*

0.85

 

*Only one teacher was asked to complete a Teacher Rating Scale for each child. Teachers, however, were allowed to participate in the study for more than one student.

 

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Teacher Age Range: Adolescent (ages 12–18)

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Externalizing Problems

600

*

0.85

 

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Internalizing Problems

600

*

0.47

 

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale School Problems

600

*

0.88

 

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Adaptive Skills

600

*

-0.79

 

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Behavioral Symptoms Index

600

*

0.86

 

*Only one teacher was asked to complete a Teacher Rating Scale for each child. Teachers, however, were allowed to participate in the study for more than one student.

 

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Parent Age Range: Preschool (ages 2-5)

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Externalizing Problems

600

600

0.85

 

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Internalizing Problems

600

600

0.51

 

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Adaptive Skills

600

600

-0.54

 

Correlation

2-5

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Behavioral Symptoms Index

600

600

0.85

 

 

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Parent Age Range: Child (ages 6-11)

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Externalizing Problems

600

600

0.82

 

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Internalizing Problems

600

600

0.48

 

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Adaptive Skills

600

600

-0.65

 

Correlation

6-11

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Behavioral Symptoms Index

600

600

0.85

 

 

Subscale: IH Total Score Form: Parent Age Range: Adolescent (ages 12–18)

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (examinees)

n (raters)

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Externalizing Problems

600

600

0.75

 

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Internalizing Problems

600

600

0.57

 

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Adaptive Skills

600

600

-0.70

 

Correlation

12-18

BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scale Behavioral Symptoms Index

600

600

0.82

 

 

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool:

Across all of the forms and levels, BASC–3 Flex Monitor Total Scores correlated with BASC–3 composite scale scores in a predictable fashion. Correlations between the ADHD and Disruptive Behavior Total Scores with the Externalizing Problems composite were consistently high. Scores from all BASC–3 Flex Monitor forms exhibited moderate to high correlations with scores from the Behavioral Symptoms Index, which is a global indicator of problems with behavioral/emotional functioning.

Bias Analysis Conducted

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
RatingYesYes

Have additional analyses been conducted to establish whether the tool is or is not biased against demographic subgroups (e.g., students who vary by race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?

Bias Analysis Method:

During the development of the BASC–3 items, items were arranged into scales based on the standardization data and were then evaluated to see whether items functioned in the same way for females and males and for African American, Hispanic, and white children. This was done using two Differential Item Functioning (DIF) methods: Rasch-based and Mantel-Haenszel. The Rasch based method is based on the work of Mellenbergh (1982); person ability is estimated first using all data and then person abilities are fixed at the values obtained before and item difficulty parameters for all groups are estimated separately and compared. If the difference between the estimates for the two groups is larger than .50 logits and t test is significant at the .01 level, the item is considered as being potentially biased (Draba, 1977). This method estimates DIF based on crosstabulation of the classification using the measure of the trait. Absolute DIF size larger than .64 logits indicates moderate to large bias, which correspondents to delta unit 1.5. Items were considered for removal when a consistent pattern emerged across forms and levels. Only a small number of items were removed based on these criteria.

 

Subgroups Included:

Females and males and African American, Hispanic, and white children.

 

Bias Analysis Results:

A small number of items were removed based on these criteria.

Sensitivity

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Describe evidence that the monitoring system produces data that are sensitive to detect incremental change (i.e., small behavior change in a short period of time):

Items included on the BASC–3 TRS, PRS, and SRP standardization forms were based on items from the BASC–2 TRS, PRS, and SRP, as well as new items that were created based on behaviors reported by teachers, parents, and students (see Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2015 for a detailed discussion). The items reflect a comprehensive view of behavioral and emotional functioning across a wide domain corresponding to the BASC–3 scales. These items were used to form the initial pool of BASC–3 Flex Monitor items. Items were reviewed during several iterations for their appropriateness in monitoring change in behavioral and emotional functioning; items that were not considered appropriate for monitoring change were removed from the item pool. This process resulted in over 700 items remaining in the BASC–3 Flex Monitor item pool.

Reliability: Intensive Population

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
Ratingdashdash

Justify the appropriateness of each type of reliability reported:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each reliability analysis conducted:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Describe reliability of the slope analyses conducted with a population of students in need of intensive intervention:

No qualifying evidence provided.

Validity: Intensive Population

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
Ratingdashdash

Describe and justify the criterion measures used to demonstrate validity:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each validity analysis conducted:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Describe predictive validity of the slope of improvement analyses conducted with a population of students in need of intensive intervention:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool:

No qualifying evidence provided.

Decision Rules: Changing Intervention

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Specification of validated decision rules for when changes to the intervention should be made:

There are several ways to evaluate the scores provided on BASC–3 Flex Monitor forms. First, T scores can be evaluated according to the classification categories (see Table 2.2 presented earlier). These categories can be helpful when the primary question of interest is how the individual’s score compares to a representative population of the same age cohort. By itself, this information might not meet the primary need of most progress monitoring situations. A more traditional way of evaluating scores is to compare score changes across time. The BASC–3 Flex Monitor reports offer comparisons between a score and the score obtained during the initial form administration, as well as comparisons between a score and the score that directly precedes it. When comparing scores, the standard error of the difference is used to test for statistically significant differences between scale scores (using the formula provided in Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 111). In this statistical test, the standard error value that is used is based on the test-retest reliability coefficients. Both methods of comparison are valuable when interpreting BASC–3 Flex Monitor results. Any formalized intervention strategy requires a commitment of time and resources from those involved in implementing it. The intervention should result in improved behavioral and emotional functioning (i.e., improved Total Scores on the monitoring form), as indicated by the change in T-score comparisons. However, intervention efforts should also result in functioning levels that are considered acceptable. For example, consider an intervention strategy designed to reduce disruptive behaviors. A child receives average ratings of 95 during a baseline preintervention period. After 6 weeks of 30-minute one-on-one sessions three times a week, the child’s monitoring form score is 75, for a 20-point difference. Undoubtedly, such a large difference would be statistically significant. However, a T score of 75 is still very extreme compared to the general population and lies in the Clinically Significant range. As such, serious consideration would need to be given to changing the intervention approach to something that might result in further reduction in behavioral problems.

 

Evidentiary basis for these rules:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Decision Rules: Choosing Intervention

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
Ratingdashdash

Specification of validated decision rules to inform intervention selection:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Evidentiary basis for these rules:

No qualifying evidence provided.

Administration Format

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
Data
  • Rating Scale
  • Rating Scale

Admin & Scoring Time

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
Data
  • 5-10 Minutes
  • 5-10 minutes

Scoring Format

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
Data
  • Computer-scored
  • Computer-scored

Levels of Performance

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
Data
  • Clinically Significant, At-risk, Average, Low, Very Low
  • Clinically Significant, At-Risk, Average, Low, Very Low

Specify the levels of performance and how they are used for progress monitoring:

“High score indicates a desirable level of functioning” Form

“Low score indicates a desirable level of functioning” Form

T-score range

Very High

Clinically Significant

70 and higher

High

At-Risk

60-69

Average

Average

41-49

At-Risk

Low

31-40

Clinically Significant

Very Low

30 and below

There are several ways to evaluate the scores provided on BASC–3 Flex Monitor forms. First, T scores can be evaluated according to the classification categories in Table 2.2 above. These categories can be helpful when the primary question of interest is how the individual’s score compares to a representative population of the same age cohort. By itself, this information might not meet the primary need of most progress monitoring situations. A more traditional way of evaluating scores is to compare score changes across time. The BASC–3 Flex Monitor reports offer comparisons between a score and the score obtained during the initial form administration, as well as comparisons between a score and the score that directly precedes it. When comparing scores, the standard error of the difference is used to test for statistically significant differences between scale scores. In this statistical test, the standard error value that is used is based on the test-retest reliability coefficients (for Standard Flex Forms).

Usability Study

Age/Grade: InformantAge 2-18:
Parent
Age 2-18:
Teacher
DataNoNo

If a usability study has been conducted on your tool, describe the results of the study:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

If a social validity study has been conducted on your tool, describe the results of the study:

No qualifying evidence provided.