Reliability Generalization (RG) of the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS)

Samuel A. Montano, Trisha M. Kivisalu, Jennifer L. Harrison
{"title":"Reliability Generalization (RG) of the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS)","authors":"Samuel A. Montano, Trisha M. Kivisalu, Jennifer L. Harrison","doi":"10.5897/IJPC2020.0611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Due to an increased usage of college counseling centers in the treatment of mental health concerns, it is imperative that centers implement appropriate assessments of psychological symptoms. We examined the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS), which was designed as a routine instrument to assess a range of mental health symptoms. Proper assessment and reporting of reliability are essential before one can meaningfully interpret assessment outcomes. This study employed a meta-analytic technique, Reliability Generalization (RG), to examine reporting practices, and analyze the reported CCAPS reliability estimates. Additionally, reported CCAPS reliability estimates were analyzed in order to assess diversity variables, which can affect the measurement of psychological symptoms and distress. Only 22% (N = 12) of the 54 total research studies reported reliability estimates for the CCAPS. Most studies cited a previous source and others simply noted that the measure was “reliable” (66%; N = 25). More information is needed for subscale reliability since the current CCAPS Cronbach’s alphas ranged from fair to excellent (> 0.60 - > 0.80). An increase in reliability reporting is needed to examine the CCAPS’ use in various sample populations. Implications for reliability reporting standards are discussed. \n \n   \n \n Key words: Reliability Generalization, Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS), reliability reporting, meta-analysis.","PeriodicalId":91097,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychology and behavioral sciences","volume":"12 1","pages":"85-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of psychology and behavioral sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPC2020.0611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to an increased usage of college counseling centers in the treatment of mental health concerns, it is imperative that centers implement appropriate assessments of psychological symptoms. We examined the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS), which was designed as a routine instrument to assess a range of mental health symptoms. Proper assessment and reporting of reliability are essential before one can meaningfully interpret assessment outcomes. This study employed a meta-analytic technique, Reliability Generalization (RG), to examine reporting practices, and analyze the reported CCAPS reliability estimates. Additionally, reported CCAPS reliability estimates were analyzed in order to assess diversity variables, which can affect the measurement of psychological symptoms and distress. Only 22% (N = 12) of the 54 total research studies reported reliability estimates for the CCAPS. Most studies cited a previous source and others simply noted that the measure was “reliable” (66%; N = 25). More information is needed for subscale reliability since the current CCAPS Cronbach’s alphas ranged from fair to excellent (> 0.60 - > 0.80). An increase in reliability reporting is needed to examine the CCAPS’ use in various sample populations. Implications for reliability reporting standards are discussed.   Key words: Reliability Generalization, Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS), reliability reporting, meta-analysis.
心理症状评估咨询中心(CCAPS)的可靠性综合(RG)
由于越来越多地使用大学咨询中心来治疗心理健康问题,因此中心必须对心理症状进行适当的评估。我们检查了心理症状咨询中心评估(CCAPS),该评估是一种评估一系列心理健康症状的常规工具。在能够有意义地解释评估结果之前,对可靠性进行适当的评估和报告至关重要。本研究采用了一种元分析技术,即可靠性综合(RG),来检查报告实践,并分析报告的CCAPS可靠性估计。此外,对报告的CCAPS可靠性估计进行了分析,以评估可能影响心理症状和痛苦测量的多样性变量。在总共54项研究中,只有22%(N=12)报告了CCAPS的可靠性估计。大多数研究引用了以前的资料来源,其他研究只是指出该指标是“可靠的”(66%;N=25)。由于目前的CCAPS Cronbachα从一般到优秀(>0.60->0.80),因此需要更多关于分量表可靠性的信息。需要增加可靠性报告,以检查CCAPS在各种样本群体中的使用情况。讨论了可靠性报告标准的含义。关键词:信度综合,心理症状咨询中心评估(CCAPS),信度报告,荟萃分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信