BASC-3 Flex Monitor
Internalizing Problems

Summary

The BASC-3 Flex Monitor was developed to provide an efficient alternative for monitoring the status of behavioral and emotional functioning; it is an efficacious online tool (also offering paper form options) that can be used to measure effectiveness of intervention programs at a group or individual level. The BASC-3 Flex Monitor includes teacher, parent, and self-report forms that are to be used in conjunction with Q-global, a secure online system for administering, scoring, and reporting test results. 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 Internalizing Problems form measures a variety of anxious, depressive, and somatic behaviors, including worrying, irritability, fear, sadness, stress, stomach pains and headaches.

Where to Obtain:
Cecil R. Reynolds and Randy W. Kamphaus / Pearson
https://support.pearson.com/getsupport/s/ClinicalProductSupportForm (online contact only)
Pearson, Attn: Inbound Sales & Customer Support, P.O. Box 599700, San Antonio, TX 78259
1-800-627-7271
https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/products/100001542/basc3-flexmonitor. html
Initial Cost:
$1.25 per completed form
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Included in Cost:
This program requires a digital manual that can be obtained for $55. Administration/scoring per completed per form: $1.25
The BASC-3 Flex Monitor Internalizing Problems form includes teacher, parents, and self-report forms that are to be used in conjunction with Q-global, a secure online system for administering, scoring and reporting test results. The forms 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. Reports provide a raw score and standardized T score, a graph that is used to track scores over repeated administrations, and a summary of item responses.
Training Requirements:
Less than one 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), or the more recent updates and should endorse standards for the ethical use of educational and psychological tests. A complete review of this manual should be completed prior to using the BASC-3 Flex Monitor components. Information about qualification level B that is needed to purchase materials can be found at: https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/qualifications.html
Access to Technical Support:
Online/phone through customer and technical support team.
Assessment Format:
  • Rating scale
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 5 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Standard score
  • Developmental benchmarks
Administration Time:
  • 5 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection
  • Other technology : Tests may also be printed and administered on paper, but the Q-global® platform, a secure online system, is used for scoring and reporting test results.

Tool Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
The BASC-3 Flex Monitor was developed to provide an efficient alternative for monitoring the status of behavioral and emotional functioning; it is an efficacious online tool (also offering paper form options) that can be used to measure effectiveness of intervention programs at a group or individual level. The BASC-3 Flex Monitor includes teacher, parent, and self-report forms that are to be used in conjunction with Q-global, a secure online system for administering, scoring, and reporting test results. 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 Internalizing Problems form measures a variety of anxious, depressive, and somatic behaviors, including worrying, irritability, fear, sadness, stress, stomach pains and headaches.
Is your tool designed to measure progress towards an end-of-year goal (e.g., oral reading fluency) or progress towards a short-term skill (e.g., letter naming fluency)?
not selected
not selected
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
selected Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).
selected 0-4 years old
selected 5 years old
selected 6 years old
selected 7 years old
selected 8 years old
selected 9 years old
selected 10 years old
selected 11 years old
selected 12 years old
selected 13 years old
selected 14 years old
selected 15 years old
selected 16 years old
selected 17 years old
selected 18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.
selected Students in general education
selected Students with disabilities
not selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading
not selected Global Indicator of Reading Competence
not selected Listening Comprehension
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Phonemic Awareness
not selected Decoding
not selected Passage Reading
not selected Word Identification
not selected Comprehension

Spelling & Written Expression
not selected Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
not selected Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics
not selected Global Indicator of Mathematics Comprehension
not selected Early Numeracy
not selected Mathematics Concepts
not selected Mathematics Computation
not selected Mathematics Application
not selected Fractions
not selected Algebra

Other
Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:


BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.
Internalizing Problems: measures a variety of anxious, depressive, and somatic behaviors, including worrying, irritability, fear, sadness, stress, stomach pains, and headaches.
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?
Internalizing

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:
Email Address
https://support.pearson.com/getsupport/s/ClinicalProductSupportForm (online contact only)
Address
Pearson, Attn: Inbound Sales & Customer Support, P.O. Box 599700, San Antonio, TX 78259
Phone Number
1-800-627-7271
Website
https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/products/100001542/basc3-flexmonitor. html
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$1.25
Unit of cost
completed form
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
This program requires a digital manual that can be obtained for $55. Administration/scoring per completed per form: $1.25
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
The BASC-3 Flex Monitor Internalizing Problems form includes teacher, parents, and self-report forms that are to be used in conjunction with Q-global, a secure online system for administering, scoring and reporting test results. The forms 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. Reports provide a raw score and standardized T score, a graph that is used to track scores over repeated administrations, and a summary of item responses.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?
selected
selected
selected
selected
not selected
selected
If other, please specify:
Psychologists and pediatricians

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?
not selected
selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?
selected
selected
selected
not selected
not selected
selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? (Select all that apply)
selected
selected
selected

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:
Tests may also be printed and administered on paper, but the Q-global® platform, a secure online system, is used for scoring and reporting test results.

What is the administration context?
selected
selected    If small group, n=
selected    If large group, n=
selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
5
per (student/group/other unit)
student

Additional scoring time:
Time in minutes
5
per (student/group/other unit)
student

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
per (grade/level/unit)

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can multiple students be rated concurrently by one administrator?

If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?
There are no restrictions to how many forms a parent can complete about his/her child, or a teacher about his/her students.

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
Less than one hour of training.
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
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), or the more recent updates and should endorse standards for the ethical use of educational and psychological tests. A complete review of this manual should be completed prior to using the BASC-3 Flex Monitor components. Information about qualification level B that is needed to purchase materials can be found at: https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/qualifications.html
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
No
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
Online/phone through customer and technical support team.

Scoring

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What types of scores result from the administration of the assessment?
Score
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Frequency
not selected Duration
not selected Interval
not selected Latency
selected Raw score
Conversion
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Rate
not selected Percent
selected Standard score
not selected Subscale/ Subtest
not selected Composite
not selected Stanine
not selected Percentile ranks
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected IRT based scores
Interpretation
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Error analysis
not selected Peer comparison
not selected Rate of change
selected Dev. benchmarks
not selected Age-Grade equivalent
How are scores calculated?
not selected Manually (by hand)
selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
Yes

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?
selected Age norms
not selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
selected Standard score
not selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
not selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.
There are 9 to 14 items across the preschool, child, and adolescent levels of the teacher and parent forms (Teacher: Preschool [13], Child [13], and Adolescent [13]; Parent: Preschool [13], Child [14], and Adolescent [14]; Self-Report Child [9], Adolescent [10]). Items are scored from 0 to 3 points, and scores are summed to form an overall raw score, which is then converted to a standardized T score. The T scores are based on nationally representative, age-based standardization samples (ages 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-11, 12-14, and 15-18, with sample sizes ranging from 200-300 with an equal representation of male and females in each sample).
Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?
Yes
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide benchmarks for the slopes?
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide percentile ranks for the slopes?
What is the basis for calculating slope and percentile scores?
selected Age norms
not selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

Describe the tool’s approach to progress monitoring, behavior samples, test format, and/or scoring practices, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.

Levels of Performance and Usability

Are levels of performance specified in your manual or published materials?
Yes
If yes, specify the levels of performance and how they are used for progress monitoring:
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).

What is the basis for specifying levels of performance?
selected
not selected
not selected Other
If other, please specify:
False

If norm-referenced, describe the normative profile.

National representation (check all that apply):
Northeast:
selected New England
selected Middle Atlantic
Midwest:
selected East North Central
selected West North Central
South:
selected South Atlantic
selected East South Central
selected West South Central
West:
selected Mountain
not selected Pacific

Local representation (please describe, including number of states)
Date
April 2013 through November 2014
Size
4400
Gender (Percent)
Male
50
Female
50
Unknown
SES indicators (Percent)
Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
Other SES Indicators
Parent education level (i.e., the highest school grade completed by the child’s mother or female guardian, or the child’s father if the mother’s education level was unavailable): grade 11 or less (1), high school graduate (2), 1 to 3 years of college or technical school (3), and 4 years of college or more (4)
Race/Ethnicity (Percent)
White, Non-Hispanic
49.3–55.7
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Unknown
Disability classification (Please describe)


First language (Please describe)


Language proficiency status (Please describe)
If criterion-referenced, describe procedures for specifying levels of performance.

Describe any other procedures for specifying levels of performance.

Has a usability study been conducted on your tool (i.e., a study that examines the extent to which the tool is convenient and practicable for use?)

If yes, please describe, including the results:


Has a social validity study been conducted on your tool (i.e., a study that examines the significance of goals, appropriateness of procedures (e.g., ethics, cost, practicality), and the importance of treatment effects)?
No
If yes, please describe, including the results:

Performance Level

Reliability

Age / Grade
Informant
Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
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 interval. This metric is important for use in measures used repeatedly.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and 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 129 participants (self-report 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. Below are the descriptions of each sample used for each separate test. For Teachers, Age Range 2-18 (Coefficient Alpha): 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 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 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 For Parent, Age Range 2-18 (Coefficient Alpha): 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 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 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 For Self-Report, Age Range 8-18 (Coefficient Alpha): Ages 8–11 African American 13.7 Asian 4.7 Hispanic 23.7 Other 5.0 White 53.0 Ages 12–14 African American 13.7 Asian 5.0 Hispanic 22.7 Other 4.3 White 54.3 Ages 15–18 African American 12.7 Asian 4.3 Hispanic 23.0 Other 4.3 White 55.7 For Teacher, Age Range 2-18 (Test-Retest): Ages 2–5 African American 6.9 Asian 6.9 Hispanic 11.1 Other 11.1 White 63.9 Ages 6–11 African American 4.9 Asian 3.7 Hispanic 30.9 Other 1.2 White 59.3 Ages 12–18 African American 13.7 Asian -- Hispanic 15.8 Other 2.1 White 68.4 For Parent, Age Range 2-18 (Test-Retest): Ages 2–5 African American 11.4 Asian -- Hispanic 7.1 Other 10.0 White 71.4 Ages 6–11 African American 5.8 Asian 2.9 Hispanic 24.6 Other 2.9 White 63.8 Ages 12–18 African American 5.6 Asian 0.8 Hispanic 17.5 Other 4.0 White 72.2 For Self-Report Age Range 8-18 (Test-Retest): Ages 6–11 African American 16.3 Asian 5.0 Hispanic 37.5 Other -- White 41.3 Ages 12–18 African American 6.2 Asian -- Hispanic 18.6 Other 4.7 White 70.5
*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 than a population estimate] direction).

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., model-based evidence, internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients). Include detail about the type of reliability data, statistic generated, and sample size and demographic information.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
*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. Thus, ns for raters are not provided for the teacher forms.
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Age / Grade
Informant
Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
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(s), including size and 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. Below are the descriptions of each sample used for each separate test. For Teachers, Age Range 2-5 (Correlations): 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 For Teachers, Age Range 6-11 (Correlations): 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 For Teachers, Age Range 12-18, (Correlations): 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 For Parent, Age Range 2-5 (Correlations): 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 For Parent, Age Range 6-11 (Correlations): 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 For Parent, Age Range 12-18 (Correlations): 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 For Self-Report, Age Range 8-11 (Correlations): Ages 8–11 African American 13.7 Asian 4.7 Hispanic 23.7 Other 5.0 White 53.0 For Self-Report, Age Range 12-18 (Correlations): Ages 12–14 African American 13.7 Asian 5.0 Hispanic 22.7 Other 4.3 White 54.3 Ages 15–18 African American 12.7 Asian 4.3 Hispanic 23.0 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 Score and BASC-3 Teacher/Parent/Self-Report Form Composite Scales.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
*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. Thus, ns for raters are not provided for the teacher forms.
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Across all the forms and levels, BASC-3 Flex Monitor Total Scores correlated with BASC-3 composite scale scores in a predictable fashion. Correlations between ADHD and Disruptive Behavior Total Scores with Externalizing Problems composite were consistently high. Score 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.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Age / Grade: Informant Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Yes Yes Yes
Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.
Yes
If yes,
a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:
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.
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
Females and males and African-American, Hispanic, and white children.
c. Describe the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements. Include magnitude of effect (if available) if bias has been identified.
A small number of items were removed based on these criteria.

Growth Standards

Sensitivity to Behavior Change

Age / Grade: Informant Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe evidence that the monitoring system produces data that are sensitive to detect incremental change (e.g., small behavior change in a short period of time such as every 20 days, or more frequently depending on the purpose of the construct). Evidence should be drawn from samples targeting the specific population that would benefit from intervention. Include in this example a hypothetical illustration (with narrative and/or graphics) of how these data could be used to monitor student performance frequently enough and with enough sensitivity to accurately assess change:
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): Reliability for Students in Need of Intensive Intervention

Age / Grade
Informant
Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool:
Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted:
Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability:

In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., model-based evidence, internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients). Report results by age range or grade level (if relevant) and include detail about the type of reliability data, statistic generated, and sample size and demographic information.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No
If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability data.
Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity (Intensive Population): Validity for Students in Need of Intensive Intervention

Age / Grade
Informant
Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Dash Dash Dash
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
In the table(s) below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.
Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No
If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.
Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Decision Rules: Data to Support Intervention Change

Age / Grade: Informant Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Are validated decision rules for when changes to the intervention need to be made specified in your manual or published materials?
Yes
If yes, specify the decision rules:
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. 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 testretest 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.
What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?

Decision Rules: Data to Support Intervention Selection

Age / Grade: Informant Age 2-18
Parent
Age 2-18
Teacher
Age 8-18
Child
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Are validated decision rules for what intervention(s) to select specified in your manual or published materials?
No
If yes, specify the decision rules:
What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.