ecbi.,

MEASURE NAME:Acronym:

Basic DescriptionAuthor(s):Author Contact:

Citation:

To Obtain:

E-mail:Website:

Cost per copy (in US $):Copyright:Description:

Theoretical OrientationSummary:

Domains Assessed:1.2.3.

Languages Available:

ECBI

Eyberg, Sheila, Ph.D.Sheila EybergDepartment of Clinical and Health PsychologyBox 100165University of FloridaGainesville, FL 32610-0165Phone: 352-273-6145Fax: 352-273-6156

Author Email: [email protected], S., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory& Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised:Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.16204 N. Florida AvenueLutz, FL 335491-800-331-8378

The measure is also included as an appendix in the manual forParent-Child Interaction Therapy:

Hembree-Kigin, T.L., & McNeil, C.B. (1995). Parent-ChildInteraction Therapy. New York: Plenum [email protected]$1.24YesThis parent-rating scale is used to assess both the frequency ofchild disruptive behaviors and the extent to which the parent findsthe childs behavior troublesome. It has been widely used intreatment outcome studies for disruptive disorders. It can be usedin combination with the SESBI-R, a teacher-report version. It isnot a diagnostic tool.

Externalizing Symptoms (child)

4.5.6.

General symptomatology (child)

Chinese, English, German, Japanese, Korean, Lebanese,Norwegian, Russian, Spanish, Swedish

Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory


NCTSN Measure Review Databasewww.NCTSN.org

1

Age Range:# of Items:Time to Complete (min):Time to Score (min):Periodicity:Response Format:

Measure Type:Measure Format:Reporter:Education Level:

-2.00 16.03655UnknownProblem Scale: Yes/No questionsIntensity Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1=Never to 7=Always)

ScreeningQuestionnaireParent/caregiver6.00

Materials Needed: Paper and pencilComputerVideo equipment

Testing stimuliPhysiological equipmentOther

Material Notes:

Sample Items:Domains Scale Sample Items

Yes

1. ECBI Test Sheets (pkg/25): $31 (Pricing is based on purchaseof this item.)

2. ECBI/SESBI-R Professional Manual: $43

3. ECBI/SESBI-R Introductory Kit: $159 (Includes ECBI/SESBI-RProfessional Manual, 50 ECBI Test Sheets, and 50 SESBI-RTest Sheets.)

Problem Scale Item (Is this a problem for you?) (Yes/No)

Intensity Scale Item (1=Never to 7=Always)

Information Provided: (check all that apply)

Training

Diagnostic information DSM-IIIDiagnostic information DSM-IVStrengthsAreas of concerns/risksProgram evaluation informationContinuous assessmentRaw Scores

Standard ScoresPercentileGraph (e.g., of elevated scale)Dichotomous assessmentClinical friendly outputWritten feedbackOther

Training to Administer: None

Via manual/video

Must be a psychologist

Training by experiencedclinician (

Parallel or Alternate FormsParallel Forms?Alternate Forms:

NoNo

Forms for Different Ages:If so, are forms comparable:

No

Any Altered Versions of Measure: YesDescribe: Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised

(SESBI-R): A teacher-report version of this measure,also reviewed in the database.

Population Used to Develop MeasureAccording to the ECBI Manual (p. 9): The ECBI was first standardized between 1980 and1983 on parents of children from a pediatric clinic of a large medical school in theNorthwestern United States. Primarily the children were from lower- to lower-middleincome Caucasian families. It was restandardized in 1999 with a sample that representedthe general child population in the Southeastern United States. There were 798 childrenbetween ages 2 and 16.

1. Gender: 52% Male, 48% Female

2. Ethnicity: 75% Caucasian, 19% African American, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian, 1% NativeAmerican, and 2% Mixed Ethnicity

3. SES (According to Hollingshead (1975): 12% Lowest SES, 25% GROUP II, 22%GROUP III, 22% GROUP IV, and 10% Highest SES

4. Region: 61% Urban, 39% Rural

PsychometricsGlobal Rating (scale based on Hudall Stamm, 1996):

Norms:YesFor separate age groups:

For clinical populations: YesYesSeparate for men and women:YesFor other demographic groups:

The ECBI was originally standardized on parents of preadolescent childrenin 1980. It was standardized on parents of adolescents in 1983. Primarily,these children were from lower- and lower-middle SES White familiesrecruited from a pediatric outpatient clinic located in a large urban medicalschool in the Northwest U.S. (Eyberg & Robinson, 1983; Robinson, Eyberg,& Ross, 1980).

Notes:

Psychometrically matured, used in multiple peer reviewed articles by different people

Mental health professional who is knowledgeable about conductproblems in children and adolescents.

Training Notes:

Training to Interpret: None

Via manual/video

Must be a psychologist

Training by experiencedclinician (

The ECBI was later standardized by independent investigators on twoadditional samples in the Northwest.

1. Burns & Patterson (1990) reported norms from 1003 children in grades 1-12 recruited through mailings to parents in the Seattle School District (30%return rate).

Sample characteristics were as follows: 52% male, 48% female

Ethnicity: 7% Asian, 8% Black, 78% White, 7% mixed ethnicity

Education: 5% less than high school, 25% high school, 23% some college,25% college degree, and 22% some graduate work

Income: 21% (0-$19,000), 19% ($20,000-$29,000), and 61% (< $30,000)

They reported significant age effects on the intensity and problem score butno meaningful and significant gender effects. In this sample, 7.9% ofchildren scored in the clinical range.

2. Burns, Patterson, Nussbaum, & Parker (1991) provide norms for 1,526children aged 2 to 7 (M=7.08, SD=3.90) recruited from 5 pediatric clinics.Sample characteristics were as follows: 53% Male, 47% Female; 90%White, 4% Native American, 2% Black,

learning disabilities or behavior problems.

The ECBI was restandardized in 1999 on parents from six outpatientpediatric clinics in the Southeast U.S. (Colvin, Eyberg, & Adams, 1999a).

1. This sample consisted of 798 children, aged 2 to 16, with each of the 15age groups equally represented. The sample was 52% male and 48%female. The sample consisted of 74% Caucasian, 19% African-American,3% Hispanic, 1% Asian, 1% Native American, and 2% of Other or MixedEthnicity.

Children resided with both natural parents (53%), with their mother andstepfather (14%), with their father and stepmother (1%), with their mothersonly (26%), with their fathers only (1%), and with foster parents or otherrelatives (5%).

SES: 21% low, 25% middle-low, 22% middle, 22% middle-high, 10% high;61% lived in an urban county and 39% lived in a rural county. Norms arepresented by gender and age (separately by each year 2-16).

Clinical Cutoffs: YesSpecify Cutoffs: Raw score: Intensity and problem scales (cutoffs=60T, 93rd

percentile)Used in Major Studies: Yes

Specify Studies: Burns et al., 1991; Burns, & Patterson, 2001



5

Type:Test-Retest-# days:Internal Consistency:Inter-Rater:Parallel/Alternate Forms:

Rating300

Cronbach's alphaPearson's runknown

0.75 0.750.93 0.950.61 0.79

0.750.940.74

Statistics Min Max Avg

Validity Type

Convergent/Concurrent

Discriminant

Sensitive to Change

Intervention Effects

Not known Not found ClinicalSamples

DiverseSamples

TEST-RETEST RELIABILITYFunderburk, Eyberg, Rich, & Behar (2003) reported 10-month test-retest stability with asample of 88 predominantly Caucasian middle- to upper-middle-class families: Intensity(32)=.75, p

Correlations with the SESBI, the teacher-report form of the ECBI, have beeninconsistent. Funderburk et al., 2003 found no significant correlations betweenECBI and SESBI scores.

McNeil et al. (1991) also found no significant ECBI and SESBI correlations, butpre- to post-treatment change scores were highly correlated, suggesting thatwhile parents and teachers have different perspectives on relative standing ofbehavior problems, both recognize change and agree on magnitude of change.

ECBI scores differentiate between clinic and non-clinic children and adolescents(Eyberg & Robinson, 1983; McNeil et al., 1991), children with different diagnosticclassifications (Ross et al., 1998), abusive and community parents (Bradley &Peters, 1991), and between children with autism and behavior disorders and anormative sample (Dumas, Wolf, Fisman, & Culligan, 1991).

The measure has been shown to be sensitive to treatment effects at posttestand follow-up for multiple treatment for disruptive disorders including Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (Eisenstadt, Eyberg, McNeil, Newcomb, & Funderburk,1993; Nixon, Sweeney, Erichson, & Touyz, 2003) and the Partners ParentTraining Groups (Webster-Stratton, 1998). ECBI clinical cutoffs have providedevidence for the clinical significance of treatment effects. Change in ECBI scoresas a result of treatment are related to scores on the Therapy Attitude Inventory,a consumer satisfaction measure (Brestan, Jacobs, Rayfield, & Eyberg, 1999).

A number of studies have examined the factor structure of the ECBI, but resultshave not been consistent, and there are data suggesting that the ECBI mightbest be viewed as measuring 3 factors. Burns and Patterson (2000) conductedan exploratory factor analysis of 1,263 children and adolescents and identified 3meaningful factors and a fourth poorly defined factor.

Confirmatory factor analysis with a second sample of 1,264 children andadolescents revealed that best model was the 3-factor model: 1) OppositionalDefiant Behavior Toward Adults, 2) Inattentive Behavior, and 3) ConductProblem Behavior. Gross et al. (2003) used these factors and reported alphareliabilities of .79, .73, and .72.

Colvin et al. (1999a) conducted principal components analysis and reportedresults were not suggestive of multiple factors.

STUDIES WITH TRAUMA-EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS1. The ECBI has been found to detect change over treatment in a sample of 15girls aged 9-12 who had experienced sexual abuse (McGain & McKinzey, 1995).

2. Zahr (1996) used the ECBI in a study of the impact of heavy shelling on 100preschool Lebanese children aged 3-6. Children who lived in heavy shellingareas had higher ECBI scores than those not exposed to shelling.

3. Bradley & Peters (1991) found that abusive and clinically involved parentsidentify more problem behaviors using the ECBI than do community parents.

4. Belter, Dunn, & Jeney (1991) found indications of distress using the ECBI in asample of children aged 3-5 living in an area hit by Hurricane Hugo.

STUDIES WITH OTHER CULTURAL GROUPS AND DIVERSE POPULATIONSEyberg Child Behavior Inventory


7

1. The ECBI has been used in multiple studies with low-income AfricanAmerican families. Bendell, Stone, Field, & Goldstein (1989) found ECBI scorescorrelated with the PSI. Dawkins, Fullilove, & Dawkins (1995) administered theECBI to 99 mothers of African American inner-city children aged 3-4. Scoreswere lower than scores for the treatment sample reported in Eyberg & Ross(1978) but higher than was reported for children with no history of behaviorproblems. Capage, Bennett, & McNeil (2001) found no difference betweenAfrican American and Caucasian families in terms of ECBI scores before andafter treatment.

2. The ECBI has been used in a sample of 91 Hong Kong Chinese childrenaged 3-7. For all time periods (pre- and post-intervention) internal consistencywas > .88. The ECBI was sensitive to treatment effects in this sample (Leung,Sanders, Leung, Mak, & Lau (2003).

3. Brubaker & Szakowski (2000) used the ECBI with a sample of deaf children(n=39) and found a positive relationship between inconsistent parental disciplinepractices and ECBI scores.

4. The ECBI has been used with children with learning disabilities (e.g., Eyberg& Pincus, 1999).

5. The ECBI has been used in a number of studies involving children withdevelopmental disabilities with results providing evidence of validity andreliability. Populations include children with autism, Down Syndrome,developmental delays, Asperger Syndrome (Sofronoff, Leslie, & Brown, 2004),and cerebral palsy (Dumas et al., 1991; Glenwick, 1998).

Predictive Validity:

Postdictive Validity:

Sensitivity Rate(s):

Not known Not found ClinicalSamples

DiverseSamples

NonclinicalSamples

Criterion Validity: (check all that apply)

Yes

Yes

Specificity Rate(s):

Positive Predictive Power:

Negative Predictive Power:

Notes:

No studies to date have shown the criterion validity for this measure. Otherwise themeasure seems psychometrically sound and has been well studied in diverse populations,including individuals of lower SES.

Limitations of Psychometrics and Other Comments Regarding Psychometrics:

UnknownConsumer Satisfaction

0.96

0.87

0.88

0.96

Measures used as criterion:



8

Languages Other than English

YesYesYes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Language:

2 3 4 5 61 7

Translation Quality (check all that apply)

1. Developmental disability2. Disabilities3. Lower socio-economic status

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Population Type:

2 3 4 5 61

Degree of Usage: (check all that apply)

4. Rural populations5.6.

YesYes

YesYes

Use with Diverse Populations

Populations for which measure has demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity:Physical abuseSexual abuseNeglectDomestic ViolenceCommunity violenceMedical trauma

TerrorismNatural disasterAccidentsImprisonmentWitness deathAssaultWar/combat

Immigration related traumaYesYes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Use with Trauma Populations

Kidnapping/hostageTraumatic loss (death)OtherYes

Chronically ill childrenChildren with Enuresis

SpanishLebaneseChinese

1.2.3.

YesYesYes

GermanJapaneseKorean

4.5.6.

YesYesYes

NorwegianRussianSwedish

7.8.9.

10.

1= Has been translated2= Has been translated and back translated - translation appears good and valid.3= Measure has been found to be reliable with this language group.4= Psychometric properties overall appear to be good for this language group.5= Factor structure is similar for this language group as it is for the development group.6 = Norms are available for this language group.7= Measure was developed for this language group.

USE WITH DIVERSE POPULATIONS RATING SCALE1. Measure is known (personal communication, conference presentation) to have been used with members of this group.2=Studies in peer-reviewed journals have included members of this group who have completed the measure.3=Measures have been found to be reliable with this group.4=Psychometric properties well established with this group.5=Norms are available for this group (or norms include a significant proportion of individuals from this group)6=Measure was developed specifically for this group.

Notes (including other diverse populations):7. Hearing impaired: 1, 28. Children with Encopresis: 2



9

1. This is a well-tested, widely used measure that has been shown to detect change inbehavior due to treatment.

2. Good psychometrics.

3. Brief and easy to administer and score. It has only 36 items. Other measures aremore than double the length.

4. Intensity and problem scores allow for assessment of raters perceptions regarding thedegree to which the behavior presents a problem.

5. Normative data and clinical cutoffs are available.

6. A Spanish version is available.

7. There is a comparable teacher report version, which allows for assessment ofdisruptive behaviors across settings by parents and teachers.

Pros and Cons/Qualitative Impression

1. Answers are largely subjective.

2. Normative data may not be representative of the populations measured; only a smallpercentage of the families solicited in the Burns et al. (1991; 2001) studies responded tothe study. In addition, norms are not ethnically diverse.

3. The Spanish version has not yet been found reliable across Hispanic cultures.

4. The ECBI as it currently stands may not be as well defined as it would be if it werebased on a 3-factor model as opposed to a 2-factor model. Burns and Patterson (2000)have identified 3 factors that the ECBI measures: Oppositional Defiant Behavior TowardAdults, Inattentive Behavior, and Conduct Problem Behavior.

5. The ECBI was developed primarily as a measure of disruptive behavior and does notassess PTSD symptomatology or anxiety-related symptoms commonly seen in childrenexposed to trauma. Given this, the ECBI should probably be used in conjunction withanother measure of symptomatology when assessing children exposed to trauma.

6. Although the measure can be used for children as young as 2, many of the items donot apply to younger children.

Pros:

Cons:

ECBI norms were developed for chronically ill children. This diverse sample consisted of345 chronically ill children with illnesses from eight categories: neurological impairment,hematological and neoplastic illness, infections and immunological disease, pulmonaryillness, cardiac illness, gastrointestinal and hepatic illness, renal illness, and endocrineconditions (Colvin, Eyberg & Adams, 1999b).

The ECBI was also normed for children with developmental delays (Cone & Casper-Beliveau, 1997). The sample consisted of 167 children, aged 2 to 16; 47 females and 120males.



10

7. Although the measure can be used for children as old as 16, it does not contain itemsthat would be more applicable to disruptive behaviors in the older age range.



11

Published References:References (Representative sampling of publications, presentations, psychometric references)

The reference for the manual is:Eyberg, S., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory & Sutter-Eyberg StudentBehavior Inventory-Revised: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.

A PsychInfo search (6/05) for Eyberg Child Behavior Checklist or ECBI" anywhererevealed that the measure has been referenced in 94 peer-reviewed journal articles. Belowis a sampling of some of those articles:

1. Achenbach, T.M. (2001). What are norms and why do we need valid ones? ClinicalPsychology Science and Practice, 8, 446-450.

2. Bearss, K.E., & Eyberg, S. (1998). A test of the parenting alliance theory. EarlyEducation and Development, 9(2), 179-185.

3. Belter, R.W., Dunn, S.E., & Jeney, P. (1991). The psychological impact of HurricaneHugo on children: A needs assessment. Advances in Behavioour Research and Therapy,13(3), 155-161.

4. Bendell, R.S., Stone, W.L., Field, T.M., & Goldstein, S. (1989). Childrens effects onparenting stress in a low income, minority population. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 8(4), 58-71.

5. Benzies, K.M., Harrison, M.J., & Magill-Evans, J. (1998). Impact of marital quality andparent-child interaction on preschool behavior problems. Public Health Nursing, 15(1), 35-43.

6. Boggs, S.R., Eyberg, S., & Reynolds, L.A. (1990). Concurrent validity of the EybergChild Behavior Inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19(1), 75-78.

7. Bor, W., & Sanders, M.R. (2004). Correlates of self-reported coercive parenting ofpreschool-aged children at high risk for the development of conduct problems. Australianand New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 738-745.

8. Bradley, E.J., Peters, R.D. (1991). Physically abusive and nonabusive mothersperceptions of parenting and child behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(3),455-460.

9. Brestan, E.V., Jacobs, J.R., Rayfield, A.D., & Eyberg, S.M. (1999). A consumersatisfaction measure for parent-child treatments and its relation to measures of childbehavior change. Behavior Therapy, 30(1), 17-30.

10. Brubaker, R.G., & Szakowski, A. (2000). Parenting practices and behavior problemsamong deaf children. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 22(4), 13-28.

11. Burns, G.L., & Patterson, D.R. (2001). Normative data on the Eyberg Child BehaviorInventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory: Parent and teacher rating scalesof disruptive behavior problems in children and adolescents. Child and Family BehaviorTherapy, 23(1), 15-28.

12. Burns, G.L., & Patterson, D.R. (2000). Factors structure of the Eyberg Child Behavior



12

Inventory: A parent rating scale of oppositional defiant behavior toward adults, inattentivebehavior, and conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(4), 569-577.

13. Burns, G.L., Patterson, D.L., Nussbaum, B.R., & Parker, C.M. (1991). Disruptivebehaviors in an outpatient pediatric population: Additional standardization data on theEyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 3(2), 202-207.

14. Calzada, E.J., Eyberg, S.M., Rich, B., & Querido, J.G. (2004). Parenting disruptivepreschoolers: Experiences of mothers and fathers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,32(2), 203-213.

15. Capage, L.C., Bennett, G.M., & McNeil, C.B. (2001). A comparison between AfricanAmerican and Caucasian children referred for treatment of disruptive behavior disorders.Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 23(1), 1-14.

16. Colvin, A., Eyberg, S., & Adams, C. (1999a). Restandardization of the Eyberg ChildBehavior Inventory. Available on-line at http://www.pcit.org.

17. Dawkins, M.P., Fullilove, C., & Dawkins, M. (1995). Early assessment of problembehavior among children in high-risk environments. Family Therapy, 22(3), 133-141.

18. Dumas, J.E., Wolf, L.C., Fisman, S.N., & Culligan, A. (1991). Parenting stress, childbehavior problems, and dysphoria in parents of children with autism, Down syndrome,behavior disorders, and normal development. Exceptionality, 2(2), 97-110.

19. Eisenstadt, T.H., Eyberg, S., McNeil, C.B., Newcomb, K., & Funderburk, B. (1993).Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with behavior problem children: Relative effectiveness oftwo states and overall treatment outcome. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 42-51.

20. Eisenstadt, T.H., McElreath, L.S., Eyberg, S.M., & McNeil, C.B. (1994). Interparentagreement on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 16,21-28.

21. Evers-Szostak, M., & Sanders, S. (1992). The childrens perceptual alteration scale(CPAS): A measure of childrens dissociation. Dissociation: Progress in the DissociativeDisorders, 5(2), 91-97.

22. Eyberg, S.M., Boggs, S.R., & Rodriguez, C.M. (1992). Relationships between maternalparenting stress and child disruptive behavior. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 14(4), 1-9.

23. Eyberg, S.M., & Robinson, E.A. (1983). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization ofa behavioral rating scale with adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12(3), 347-354.

24. Eyberg, S.M. & Ross, A.W. (1978). Assessment of child behavior problems: Thevalidation of a new inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 7(2), 113-116.

25. Funderburk, B.W., Eyberg, S.M., Rich, B.A., & Behar, L. (2003). Further psychometricevaluation of the Eyberg and Behar rating scales for parents and teachers of preschoolers.Early Education and Development, 14, 67-81.

26. Garcia-Tornel, S., Calzada, E. J., Eyberg, S. M., Alguacil, J.M., Serra, C.V., Mendoza,C.B., et al. (1998). Inventario Eyberg del Comportamiento en Ninos: Normalizacion de la



13

version espanola y su utilidad para el pediatra extrahospitalario [Eyberg Child BehaviorInventory: Standardization of the Spanish version and validity with pediatric outpatients inSpain]. Anales Espanoles de Pediatria, 48, 475-482.

27. Garcia-Tornel, S., Eyberg, S.M., Calzada, E J., & Sainz, E. (1998). Trastornos delcomportamiento en el nino: Utilidad del Inventario Eyberg en la practica diaria del pediatra[Behavior problems in children: Validity of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory in commonpediatric settings in Spain]. Pediatria Integral, 3, 348-354.

28. Glenwick, D.S. (1998). Stress, coping, and perceptions of child behavior in parents ofpreschoolers with cerebral palsy. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43(4), 297-312.

29. Gross, D., Fogg, L., Webster-Stratton, C., Garvey, C., Wrenetha, J., & Grady, J.(2003). Parent training of toddlers in day care in low-income urban communities. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 261-278.

31. Leung, C., Sanders, M.R., Leung, S., Mak, R., & Lau, J. (2003). An outcome evaluationof the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong. FamilyProcess, 42(4), 531-544.

31. McGain, B., & McKinzey, R.K. (1995). The efficacy of group treatment in sexuallyabused girls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(9), 1157-1169.

32. McNeil, C.B., Eyberg, S., Eisenstadt, T.H., Newcomb, K. et al. (1991). Parent-childinteraction therapy with behavior problem children: Generalization of treatment effects to theschool setting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20(3), 140-151.

33. Nixon, R.D., Sweeney, L., Erickson, D.B., & Touyz, S.W. (2003). Parent-ChildInteraction Therapy: A comparison of standard and abbreviated treatments. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 251-260.

34. Rich, B.A., & Eyberg, S.M. (2001). Accuracy of assessment: The discriminative andpredictive power of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Ambulatory Child Health, 7, 249-257.

35. Ross, C.N., Blanc, H.M., McNeil, C.B., Eyberg, S.M., & Hembree-Kigin, T.L. (1998).Parenting stress in mothers of young children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and othersevere behavior problems. Child Study Journal, 28, 93-110.

36. Sofronoff, K., Leslie, A., & Brown, W. (2004). Parent management training andAsperger syndrome: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate a parent based intervention.Autism, 8(3), 301-317.

37. Stone, W.L., Bendell, D., & Field, T.M. (1988). The impact of socioeconomic status onteenage mothers and children who received early intervention. Journal of AppliedDevelopmental Psychology, 9: 391-408.

38. Webster-Stratton, C. (1988). Mothers and fathers perceptions of child defiance: Rolesof parent and child behaviors and parent adjustment. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 56(6), 909-915.

39. Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children:Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,66(5), 715-730.



14

A PsychInfo search (6/05) for Eyberg Child Behavior Checklist or ECBI" anywhererevealed that the measure has been referenced in 11 conferences and 21 dissertations.The following references were also found on line.

1. Colvin, A., Eyberg, S. & Adams, C. (1999b). Standardization of the Eyberg ChildBehavioral Inventory with chronically ill children. Manuscript in progress.

2. Cone, J.D., & Casper-Beliveau, S. (1997). The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory:Psychometric properties when used with children with developmental disabilities. Postersession presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement ofBehavior Therapy, Miami, FL.

Unpublished References:

32

94Number of Published References:

Number of Unpublished References:

The author chose not to review or comment on this review. The publisher reviewed thereport and provided corrections, which were integrated.

Author Comments:

Carolyn Kuendig, B.A.Citation for Review:

Nicole Taylor, Ph.D., Robyn Igelman, M.A., Chandra Ghosh Ippen,Ph.D., Madhur Kulkarni, M.S.

Editor of Review:

7/14/2005Last Updated:

PDF Available: yes

(based on author provided information and a PsychInfo search, not including dissertations)

(based on a PsychInfo search of unpublished doctoral dissertations)

This project was funded by theSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The views, policies and opinionsexpressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SAMHSA or HHS.

40. Zahr, L.K. (1996). The effects of war on the behavior of Lebanese preschool children:Influence of home environment and family functioning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,66(3), 401-408.



15

ecbi.,

Documents