The 2001 Teacher’s Report Form (TRF) is a teacher-report measure that assesses problem behavior and can identify 8 syndromes. It also assesses academic performance and adaptive functioning. One or more teachers, or other school personnel, who have known the child in the school setting for more than 2 months, can complete the measure independently. The TRF is a parallel form to the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), completed by the caretaker, and the Youth Self-Report (YSR), completed by youths.
It is designed for use in conjunction with these measures to give an overall understanding of the child’s functioning in multiple environments. Cross-informant reports are available.
Overview
TRF
Achenbach, T.M. & Rescorla, L.A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Go to publisher's website: www.aseba.org/ordering
Administration
Consists of 2 response formats:
1) 3-point Likert-type scale: 0=Not True, 1=Somewhat or Sometimes True, and 2=Very True or Often True
2) Fill-in-the-blank questions
| Domains | Scale | Sample Items |
|---|---|---|
| Competence | Academic Competence | How hard is he/she working? |
| Competence | Adaptive Functioning | |
| Competence | Inattention | Fidgets |
| Competence | Hyperactivity-Impulsivity | Disturbs others |
| Competence | Social Problems | Too dependent |
| Competence | Thought Problems | Hears things |
| Internalizing | Anxious/depressed | Hurt when criticized |
Training
Parallel or Alternate Forms
FORM FOR DIFFERENT AGES
The Caregiver-Teacher Report Form is completed by teachers for children aged 1½-5.
ALTERED VERSIONS
The Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18 (CBCL 6-18) is completed by parents, and the Youth Self-Report (YSR) is completed by the child.
Psychometrics
The normative sample for the 2001 TRF revision consisted of 4,437 youth ages 6 to 18. There were 976 newcomers. The sample was augmented
with data from previous versions of the TRF of the statistical analysis, showing that there was no statistical difference in the groups. The sample included children who were not considered to have “serious behavioral/emotional problems” within the previous 12 months.
The normative sample included the following demographic characteristics:
48% boys and 52% girls
SES: 38% upper-class, 46% middle-class, 16% lower-class
Ethnicity: 72% non-Latino White, 14% African American, 7% Latino, 7%
Mixed or Other
Region: 19% Northeast, 23% Midwest, 36% South, and 23% West
T-Scores: 65-69 (Borderline), 70+ (Clinical), no T-score >100 or < 50 are generated for narrow band scales. T-scores as low as 26 are generated for Total Problems and as low as 10 for Total Competence.
| Type: | Rating | Statistics | Min | Max | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test-Retest | Acceptable | Pearson's r | 0.6 | 0.96 | 0.85 |
| Internal Consistency | Acceptable | Chronbach's alpha | 0.72 | 0.97 | |
| Inter-rater | Questionable | Pearson's r | 0.51 | 0.76 | 0.51 |
All reliability was reported for Scaled Scores. Inter-Rater scores reflect ratings between teachers.
Extensive literature searches were conducted, mental health professionals and educators were consulted, and pilot tests were run in creating this measure. The current TRF measure has been refined after years of use. Old items that failed to discriminate significantly have been replaced, and slight changes were made in the wording of various items to make them clearer. Currently, all the items discriminate between referred and nonreferred demographically similar children (p<.01).
| Validity Type | Not known | Not found | Nonclincal Samples | Clinical Samples | Diverse Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convergent/Concurrent | Yes | Yes | |||
| Discriminant | Yes | Yes | |||
| Sensitive to Change | Yes | Yes | |||
| Intervention Effects | Yes | ||||
| Longitudinal/Maturation Effects | Yes | ||||
| Sensitive to Theoretically Distinct Groups | Yes | ||||
| Factorial Validity | Yes | Yes |
| Not Known | Not Found | Nonclinical Samples | Clinical Samples | Diverse Samples | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive Validity: | Yes | Yes | Yes |
ASEBA does not report positive or negative power because the results are confounded with the cut points and sample characteristics.
Psychometrics for this study are very good.
Translations
| Language: | Translated | Back Translated | Reliable | Good Psychometrics | Similar Factor Structure | Norms Available | Measure Developed for this Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Spanish Castilian/Latino | Yes | Yes | |||||
| 2. French (Canadian/Parisian) | Yes | ||||||
| 3.Tagalog (Philipines) | Yes | ||||||
| 4. Vietnamese | Yes | ||||||
| 5. Chinese | Yes | ||||||
| 6. American Sign Langugage | Yes | ||||||
| 7. Farsi | Yes | ||||||
| 8. Polish | Yes | ||||||
| 9. Russian | Yes | ||||||
| 10. Urdu | Yes |
Population Information
The 1986 original sample used to develop the measure comprised 1,700 students receiving mental health or special education services in diverse settings. The sample was ethnically and socioeconomically diverse. Detailed demographic information is provided in the 1986 Manual, pp. 12-14.
| Population Type: | Measure Used with Members of this Group | Members of this Group Studied in Peer-Reviewed Journals | Reliable | Good Psychometrics | Norms Available | Measure Developed for this Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Developmental Disability | Yes | Yes | ||||
| 2. Disabilities | Yes | Yes | ||||
| 3. Lower socio-economic status | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 4. Rural populations | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 5. Child Abuse | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| 6. Latino | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Pros & Cons/References
1. Well researched and widely used.
2. Newly revised measure.
3. DSM-IV oriented.
4. Provides information on strengths of the child.
5. Inexpensive to administer and score.
6. Computer-generated reports are available with clinician-friendly feedback.
7. Parallel forms are available. Can use up to 8 various parallel forms per child.
8. A computer utility called “A2S” is available from ASEBA to easily export data to SPSS.
1. Can be a time-consuming measure to complete.
2. Potential for self-report bias.
3. No assessment of profile validity.
To obtain a full list of references, please see the following or contact ASEBA: Bérubé, R.L., & Achenbach, T.M. (2005). Bibliography of published studies using ASEBA instruments: 2005 edition. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families Numbers provided are based on the manual and the author. A Psych Info search (5/05) for “Teacher Report Form” or “TRF” anywhere revealed that the measure has been referenced in 836 peer-reviewed journal articles. Below is a sampling:
1. Achenbach, T.M., Howell, C., McConaughy, S.H., & Stanger, C. (1995). Six-year predictors of problems in a national sample of children and youth: I. Cross-informant syndromes. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 336-347.
2. Achenbach, T.M., & Rescorla, L.A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
3. Erol, N., Simsek, Z., Oner, O., & Munir, K. (2005). Effects of internal displacement and resettlement on the mental health of Turkish children and adolescents. European Psychiatry, 20(2):152-7.
4. Descheemaeker, M.J., Ghesquiere, P., Symons, H., Fryns, J.P., & Legius, E. (2005). Behavioural, academic and neuropsychological profile of normally gifted Neurofibromatosis type 1 children. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(Pt 1):33-46.
5. Backman, M.L., Santavuori, P.R., Aberg, L.E., & Aronen, E.T. (2005). Psychiatric symptoms of children and adolescents with juvenile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(Pt 1):25-32.
6. Deng, S., Liu, X., & Roosa, M.W. (2004). Agreement between parent and teacher reports on behavioral problems among Chinese children. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25(6):407-7).
7. Oncu, B., Oner, O., Oner, P., Erol, N., Aysev, A., & Canat, S. (2004). Symptoms defined by parents' and teachers' ratings in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Changes with age. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(7):487-91.
No comments from the author, but the author did read and make corrections on the review and granted permission to post sample items.