Psychometrics

click Clinical Dimensions

Internal consistency values using alpha coefficients for the component subscales comprising each clinical dimension range from .78 to .96.

Test-retest reliability coefficients using intraclass correlation coefficients range from .88 to .96 and all are significant at p<. 0001.

Generalizability of the dimensional clinical structure using congruence coefficients illustrate that dimensions derived in samples controlled for respective demographics (age, ethnicity, gender) are nearly identical to those emergent in the scaling sample (average similarity = .99) while remaining distinct from all other dimensions in those subsamples (average dissimilarity ranging from .07-.13).

watch Monitoring Dimensions 

Internal consistency values using alpha coefficients for the component subscales comprising each clinical dimension range from .87 to .92.

Test-retest reliability coefficients using intraclass correlation coefficients range from .87 to .93and all are significant at p<. 0001.

Generalizability of the dimensional clinical structure using congruence coefficients illustrate that dimensions derived in samples controlled for respective demographics (age, ethnicity, gender) are nearly identical to those emergent in the scaling sample (average similarity = .99) while remaining distinct from all other dimensions in those subsamples (average dissimilarity ranging from .11-.14).

Concurrent Validity 

Significant and substantial variance in internalizing DISC psychopathology and all variants of BSI psychopathology is associated with CASI’s Mental Health Problems dimension. Similarly, DISC externalizing-type psychopathology is strongly associated with both CASI’s Delinquency and Psychosocial Functioning dimensions, whereas CASI’s Chemical Dependency dimension is uniquely related to DISC substance dependence. The CASI Risk Behavior dimension holds a small but significant association with BSI psychoticism. In contrast, CASI dimensions that should theoretically show no significant relationship to divergent pathology (e.g., CASI Delinquency or Chemical Dependency with BSI psychopathology), supporting the specificity of CASI dimensions.

Predictive Validity 

The dimensions are able to forecast substantial variance in psychiatric symptoms and in medically-verified substance use one month later. The dimensions forecasted substantial variance in adolescent functioning post-treatment discharge, supporting predictive validity.

Additional Psychometric and Scoring Information:

The Alcohol/Drug and Mental Health modules of the CASI significantly correlate with information obtained from the DISC-IV.

In addition to the dimensional scales described above, The CASI also incorporates a tiered approach to scoring which easily lends itself to treatment planning activities (in addition to outcomes evaluation). First, the CASI summarizes the assets and liabilities the youth brings to the assessment site by aggregating critical issues within the following treatment planning categories:  Areas requiring immediate attention (e.g., presence of domestic violence); Priority areas (e.g., pregnancy risk); Critical wrap-around service needs (e.g., inadequate housing); Level of care indicators [e.g., evidence of physical dependence to substance(s)]; Other service need areas (e.g., family communication problems); Assets/Strengths (e.g., feels a positive sense of purpose to life); Administrative information [e.g., name(s) and relationship(s) of legal guardian(s)].  Second, the CASI identifies problem status along a temporal continuum as an indication of chronicity. In addition to identifying problem areas that have never existed, the CASI also identifies problem areas that are: Long-standing (happened two or more years ago and has occurred sometime within the past year); Recent (does not have a history but has occurred sometime within the past year at times other than just the past month); New (occurred only during the past month); and Resolved, i.e., not current (those that have a history but have not occurred in the past year).  This approach was developed in response to clinical input and provides evidence of consequential validity (i.e., utility) (Messick, 1989; Reschly, 1988).