Bruce A. Bracken, PhD
About the
Author
Bruce A. Bracken, PhD
Professor
The College of William & Mary
School of Education
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
757.221.1712
[email protected]
http://babrac.people.wm.edu/
Presentation
Outline
Multidimensional Adjustment and Assessment of
Students’ Interpersonal Relations
Clinical Assessment of Interpersonal Relations (CAIR)
• Development Goals
• Key Features
• Description: Scales, Support Model, Relationship
•
•
•
•
Characteristics
Norm Characteristics and Technical Adequacy
Administration and Scoring
Interpretation
Case Study
Multifaceted Nature
of Adjustment
Multidimensional, contextdependent model of adjustment,
with six primary life domains:
 Three intra-personal domains
• Affect
• Competence
• Physical
 Three interpersonal domains
• Social
• Academic
• Family
ACADEMIC
FAMILY
S O CIAL
GLOBAL
ADJUSTMENT
AFFECT
PHYS ICAL
COMPETENCE
Developmental Nature
of Psychosocial
Adjustment
 Adjustment
becomes
increasingly
differentiated with
age
 Life domains
differentiate as a
function of
exposure
Assessment
Triangulation
Other Sources
- Direct Observation
- Indirect Approaches
(e.g., Projective Techniques)
- Background Information
- Clinical Interview
Behavioral
and
Psychosocial
Adjustment
Third-Party Report
Self-Report
- Clinical Assessment
of Interpersonal Relations
- CAB Parent/Teacher
Social Skills Scale
- Sociometry
CAIR
Clinical Assessment
of Interpersonal Relations
CAIR Features





Self-report (student completed)
Ages 9 to 19 years
Third grade reading level
35 items repeated on each of five scales
•
•
•
Male Peers, Female Peers
Mother, Father
Teacher
 Reflects three interpersonal domains
•
•
•
Social
Family
Academic
CAIR Features
 Twenty - minute completion time
 Theoretically based
• Four dimensions of relationship support
• Fifteen relationship characteristics
 Allows for prorating
• Single-parent situations
• Skipped Items
 Norm-referenced and Ipsative interpretation options
 Mandatory element of Emotional Disturbance
diagnosis
CAIR Features
 Uses a Four-point Item response format
•
•
•
•
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
 Provides score reporting consistent with CAB, CAD,
CAT and most personality tests
•
•
•
•
•
Standard scores (T-scores)
Percentile ranks
Confidence intervals
Qualitative classifications
Graphical profile display
Constructing the CAIR:
A Multidimensional,
Multi-Step, Multi-Year Process
INTERPERSONAL
RELATIONS
DEFINED
DEFINITION
“The unique and relatively stable
behavioral pattern that exists or
develops between two people as
a result of individual and extraindividual influences.”
INTERPERSONAL
SUPPORT
•
•
•
•
Esteem Support
Informational Support
Instrumental Support
Social Support
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
15 RELATIONSHIP
CHARACTERISTICS
Companionship
Emotional Support
Guidance
Emotional Comfort
Reliance
Understanding
Conflict Resolution
Identification
Respect
Empathy
Intimacy
Affect
Acceptance
Shared Values
Serious Emotional
Disturbance
Defined
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Public Law 101-476 defines SED as:
“…one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of
time and to a marked degree that adversely affects educational
performance–
(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual,
sensory, or health factors;
(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers;
(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal
circumstances;
(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression;
(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated
with personal or school problems."
Item Construction
Considerations
1.
Self-report measure of students’ perceptions of
relationship qualities using Likert format
2.
Four-point forced-choice scale to avoid
noncommittal responses
3.
Consistent item format for all five scales
4.
Both positively and negatively connoted conditions
depicted
5.
Simple language, third-grade reading level
Item Construction
Considerations
6. Items reflect 15 core relationship qualities
7. Item content universal to all 9 – 19 year-olds
8. Non-timed instrument
9. CAIR can be administered by paraprofessionals, but
must be interpreted by professionals
10. Items collectively sample the universe of content
and contexts associated with relationships
Psychiatric
Conditions Related to
Interpersonal
Relations
 Adjustment Disorder
- with Anxiety
- with Conduct Disturbance
 Antisocial Personality
 Attention Deficit
Disorder
 Autistic Disorder
 Avoidant Disorder
 Avoidant Personality
 Body Dysmorphic
Disorder
 Borderline Personality
 Childhood Disintegrative
Disorder
 Communication Disorder
 Conduct Disorder
 Delusional Disorder
 Depression
Psychiatric
Conditions Related to
Interpersonal
Relations
 Dysthymic Disorder

Paranoid Personality
 Histrionic Personality

Pervasive Developmental
Disorder
 Intermittent Explosive
Disorder

Schizoid Personality

Schizophrenia
 Learning Disorders

Schizotypal Disorder
 Narcissistic Personality

Sexual Disorders
 Oppositional Defiant
Disorder

Social Phobia

Specific Phobias
 Identity Disorder
Behavioral Correlates
of Interpersonal
Relations
 Adolescent and adult psychosocial adjustment
(Parker & Asher, 1987)
 Future sex role development (Fagot, 1977)
 Expression of intimacy (Buhrmester, 1990)
 Moral development (Berndt, McCartney, Caparulo, & Moore, 1984)
 Emotional security and understanding of the social
structure (Panella, Cooper, & Henggeler, 1982)
 Childhood and adolescent aggression
(Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982; Hartup, 1979)
Behavioral Correlates
of Interpersonal
Relations
 Juvenile crime (Parker & Asher, 1987)
 Risk of dropping out of school (Elliott & Voss, 1974)
 Behavioral disturbance (Panella & Henggeler, 1986)
 Learning disabilities (Bryan, 1974, 1982; Dishion, 1990)
 Mentally retardation (Gottlieb, Semmel, & Veldman, 1978)
 Social isolation (Wanlass & Prinz, 1982)
 Bad conduct discharge from the military (Roff, 1961)
 Emotional Disturbance
(IDEA)
Intra-individual Factors
Related to
Interpersonal Relations
 Position in birth order (Schacter, 1964: Sells & Roff, 1964)
 Parents' style of nurturance and providing care
(Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Hinde & Tamplin, 1983; MacDonald & Parke, 1984)
 Parental mental health
(Becker, Peterson, Hellmer, Shoemaker, & Quay, 1959; Forehand, Long, Brody, & Fauber,
1986; Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Maccoby & Martin, 1983, 1990; Phares & Compas, 1992)
 Marital conflict and divorce between parents
(Emery, 1982; Gottman & Katz, 1989; Grych & Fincham, 1992; Hetherington, 1979;
McCord, McCord, & Thurber, 1962)
 Parent-child conflict (Montemayor, 1982)
 Physical or sexual abuse or maltreatment
(George & Main, 1979; Kinard, 1980; Reidy, 1977)
Inter-individual Factors
Related to
Interpersonal Relations
 Physical attractiveness
(Cavoir & Dokecki, 1973; Dion & Berscheid, 1974; Kennedy, 1990; Langlois & Downs, 1979)
 Physical health (Lotyczewski, Cowen, & Weissberg, 1986)
 Unusualness of the child's name (McDavid & Farari, 1966)
 Ability to express humor (McGhee, 1980)

Perceived social competence (Gresham & Elliott, 1989)
Technical Quality
 Norms
 Reliability
 Internal Consistency
 Stability
 Validity
 Content Validity
 Developmental Validation
 Construct Validity
 Contrasted Groups Validity
 Independent Research Efforts
Standardization
Sample
Sample
Characteristic
Sample
Size
Sample
United States
Percentage*
Percentage
Gender
Males
Females
1179
1309
47.39
52.61
48.80
51.20
2010
239
24
110
27
82.28
9.78
0.98
4.50
1.11
84.10
12.40
0.70
7.90
1.60
Race
White
African American
Native American
Hispanic
Asian American
Standardization
Sample
Sample
Characteristic
Sample
Size
Sample
United States
Percentage*
Percentage
U.S. Region
Northeast
South
North Central
West
173
1310
563
449
6.93
52.50
22.57
17.99
20.20
35.00
23.90
20.90
* Percentages are computed on the number of cases coded, with missing data omitted from
calculations. Total sample size = 2501 subjects.
U.S. and CAIR
Family
Constellations
Family
Type
U.S.
Population
CAIR
Sample
Intact Family
65%
57%
Foster Home
1%
1%
Reconstituted
10%
14%
Single-Parent
22%
17%
CAIR Sample does not sum to 100% due to unreported data. Single-parent families
may be due to never married, separation, divorce, or death of parent.
CAIR Scale
Internal Consistency
and Stability
Coefficient Alpha
r
Stability
r
Mother
.95
Mother
.97
Father
.96
Father
.95
Male Peers
.94
Male Peers
.96
Female Peers
.94
Female Peers
.94
Teacher
.93
Teacher
.97
Total (TRI)
.96
Total (TRI)
.98
CAIR Theoretical
Foundation:
Content Validity
ESTEEM
SUPPORT
INFORMATIONAL
SUPPORT
INSTRUMENTAL
SUPPORT
SOCIAL
SUPPORT
Emotional
Support
Respect
Guidance
Reliance
Companionship
Affect
Empathy
Understanding
Identification
Shared Values
Intimacy
Trust
Emotional
Comfort
Conflict
Acceptance
CAIR
Theoretical Model
Developmental Validation:
Students’ Relationships
with their Parents
Developmental
Validation:
Students’ Relationships
with their Peers
Developmental
Validation:
Students’ Relationships
with their Teachers
Female Students’
Relationships by
Race
Male Students’
Relationships by
Race
Construct Validity:
Factor Analysis
Factor One:
Father Scale
Factor Three:
Mother Scale
Construct Validity:
Factor Analysis
Factor Four:
Male Peers Scale
Factor Five:
Female Peers Scale
Two Items with Primary
(non-significant) Loadings
on Teachers’ Scale
Construct Validity:
Factor Analysis
Factor Two:
Teachers Scale
CAIR –
Multidimensional
Self-Concept
Correlations
Table 5.2
Correlations Between the CAIR and MSCS
Scale
Social Competence Affect
Academic Family
Physical
Mother
.15
.31
.32
.32
.67
.26
Father
.13
.30
.32
.30
.57
.31
Male Peers
.36
.21
.23
.12
.07
.22
Female Peers
.78
.21
.17
.15
.09
.12
Teachers
.08
.23
.18
.32
.31
.17
CAIR – CAT-C
Parent-Completed
Correlations
Table 5.3
Correlations (r) between the CAIR and the CAT-C (Parent Completed)
CAT-C
CAIR
Inattention
Impulsivity
Hyperactivity
Mother
-.26
-.26
-.03
Father
-.35
-.37
-.17
Male Peers
-.18
-.21
.02
Female Peers
-.45**
-.48**
-.21
Teacher
-.39*
-.25
-.32
TRI
-.40*
-.41*
-.14
T score M
51.85
54.19
56.52
SD
12.21
11.81
11.31
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Total
-.13
-.22
-.11
-.34
-.26
-.22
55.44
11.64
CAIR – CAT- C
Child-Completed
Correlations
Table 5.4
Correlations (r) between the CAIR and CAT-C
(Child Completed)
CAD
CAIR
Inattention Impulsivity Hyperactivity Total
Mother
-.30
-.22
.05
-.18
Father
-.33
-.28
-.07
-.26
Male Peers
-.05
.05
.08
.03
Female Peers
-.25
-.08
.01
-.12
Teacher
-.44**
-.38*
-.26
-.41*
TRI
-.41*
-.34
-.13
-.33
T score M
50.14
49.36
52.96
50.54
SD
9.62
11.09
10.55
9.64
* p < .05; ** p < .01
CAIR – CAD
Correlations
Table 5.5
Correlations (r) between the CAIR and CAD
CAD
Depressed Anxiety/ Diminished Cognitive
CAIR
Mood
Worry
Interest
Fatigue
Mother
-.46**
-.19
-.29
-.13
Father
-.45**
-.11
-.30
-.13
Male Peers
-.33
-.14
-.02
.19
Female Peers
-.36
-.01
-.21
.02
Teacher
-.30
.09
-.24
-.13
TRI
-.51**
-.14
-.33
-.13
T score M
50.8
52.43
51.57
49.03
SD
9.92
8.4
10.41
9.71
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Depressed
Total
-.39*
-.37*
-.19
-.25
-.23
-.42*
51.07
8.67
CAIR – CAB Scale
Correlations
Table 5.6
Correlations between the CAIR and CAB Parent Scales
CAIR
Internalizing Externalizing
Mother
-.15
-.33
Father
-.13
-.43*
Male Peers
-.24
-.49**
Female Peers
-.30
-.65**
Teacher
.06
-.40*
TRI
-.14
-.50**
T score M
53.73
51.37
SD
6.26
8.29
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Social
Skills
.48**
.48**
.34
.56**
.37*
.54**
47.4
8.43
Competence
.13
.26
.24
.51
.28
.32
47.17
8.81
CBI
-.28
-.34
-.40*
-.61**
-.24
-.44**
53.57
7.72
CAIR – CAB
Externalizing
Correlations
Table 5.7
Correlations between the CAIR and Externalizing Clusters
CAB Externalizing Clusters
CAIR
Anger
Mother
-.38*
Father
-.49**
Male Peers
-.58**
Female Peers
-.60**
Teacher
-.52**
TRI
-.54**
T score M
52.47
SD
6.8
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Aggression
-.43*
-.49**
-.51**
-.61**
-.45*
-.55**
50.87
7.8
Bullying
-.49**
-.54**
-.54**
-.66**
-.50**
-.62**
51.17
8.21
Conduct
Problems
-.46*
-.54**
-.46*
-.71**
-.43*
-.56**
51.07
11.85
Summary of
Independent CAIR
Research
Clinic Samples:
 Poorer relations on all scales; diminished self-concepts
Runaways:
 Poorer Mother, Father, Teacher relations; exaggerated opposite-
sex Peer relations
Delinquents:
 Poorer Mother relations; 81.5% classification rate; 88.4%
non-delinquent classification rate
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Adolescents:
 Poorer Mother, Father, Male and Female Peer relations
Parenting Style:
 Students with Authoritative Mothers reported better Mother
relations than students with Authoritarian or Permissive Mothers
Interpreting the CAIR
Clinical
Interpretation
Quantitative and Qualitative Interpretation Process
5-Step Interpretation Process
1. Consider CAIR total scale score (i.e., Total Relationship
Index)
2. Consider CAIR scale scores individually and in
combination
3. Compare scale scores with data acquired from different
sources (e.g., sociometry, CAB Social Skills)
4. Explore 15 relationship characteristics
5. Contrast student’s performance on the CAIR in light of
other available information (e.g., referral, background)
CAIR
Relationship
Classifications
CAIR Relationships are classified by descriptive
categories related to degree of relationship strength or
weakness
> 70
60 to 69
40 to 59
30 to 39
< 29
= Significant Relationship Strength
= Mild Relationship Strength
= Normal Range
= Mild Relationship Weakness
= Significant Relationship Weakness
Ipsative Interpretation:
Deviations from
Average Scale Score
Scale
p < .05
p < .01
Mother
8
9
Father
7
9
Male Peers
8
10
Female Peers
8
10
Teacher
9
11
Ipsative
Interpretation:
Example
CAIR
Scale
Mother
Scale
Score
69
Mean
d
+10
Ipsative
Classification
Strength
Father
53
-6
Weakness
Male Peers
40
-19
Weakness
Female Peers
62
+3
Average
Teacher
69
+10
Strength
Mean Score
59
Calculation of
Normative and
Ipsative Profiles
Descargar

Document