MEASURE NAME:
Acronym:
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
ECBI
Basic Description
Author(s):
Author Contact:
Author Email:
Citation:
To Obtain:
Eyberg, Sheila, Ph.D.
Sheila Eyberg
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology
Box 100165
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32610-0165
Phone: 352-273-6145
Fax: 352-273-6156
[email protected]
Eyberg, S., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
& Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised:
Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
16204 N. Florida Avenue
Lutz, FL 33549
1-800-331-8378
The measure is also included as an appendix in the manual for
Parent-Child Interaction Therapy:
Hembree-Kigin, T.L., & McNeil, C.B. (1995). Parent-Child
Interaction Therapy. New York: Plenum Press.
E-mail:
[email protected]
Website:
www.parinc.com
Cost per copy (in US $): $1.24
Copyright:
Yes
Description:
This parent-rating scale is used to assess both the frequency of
child disruptive behaviors and the extent to which the parent finds
the child’s behavior troublesome. It has been widely used in
treatment outcome studies for disruptive disorders. It can be used
in combination with the SESBI-R, a teacher-report version. It is
not a diagnostic tool.
Theoretical Orientation
Summary:
Domains Assessed:
Languages Available:
1. Externalizing Symptoms (child)
2. General symptomatology (child)
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chinese, English, German, Japanese, Korean, Lebanese,
Norwegian, Russian, Spanish, Swedish
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
1
Age Range:
# of Items:
Time to Complete (min):
Time to Score (min):
Periodicity:
Response Format:
2.00 - 16.0 Measure Type:
Screening
36
Measure Format:
Questionnaire
5
Reporter:
Parent/caregiver
5
Education Level:
6.00
Unknown
Problem Scale: Yes/No questions
Intensity Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1=Never to 7=Always)
Materials Needed:
Yes
(check all that apply)
Material Notes:
Paper and pencil
Testing stimuli
Computer
Physiological equipment
Video equipment
Other
1. ECBI Test Sheets (pkg/25): $31 (Pricing is based on purchase
of this item.)
2. ECBI/SESBI-R Professional Manual: $43
3. ECBI/SESBI-R Introductory Kit: $159 (Includes ECBI/SESBI-R
Professional Manual, 50 ECBI Test Sheets, and 50 SESBI-R
Test Sheets.)
Sample Items:
Domains
Externalizing
Symptoms (child)
Scale
Problem Scale
Sample Items
Intensity Scale
Item (1=Never to 7=Always)
Item (Is this a problem for you?) (Yes/No)
Notes (additional scales and domains):
Information Provided: (check all that apply)
Diagnostic information DSM-III
No
Diagnostic information DSM-IV
Strengths
Yes
Areas of concerns/risks
Program evaluation information
Yes
Continuous assessment
Yes
Raw Scores
Yes
Yes
Yes
Standard Scores
Percentile
Graph (e.g., of elevated scale)
Dichotomous assessment
Clinical friendly output
Written feedback
Other
Training
Training to Administer:
(check all that apply)
Yes
None
Must be a psychologist
Via manual/video
Training by experienced
clinician (<4 hours)
Training by experienced
clinician (≥4 hours)
Prior experience psych
testing & interpretation
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
2
Training to Interpret:
(check all that apply)
Training Notes:
None
Yes
Must be a psychologist
Via manual/video
Training by experienced
clinician (<4 hours)
Yes
Prior experience psych
Training by experienced
testing & interpretation
clinician (≥4 hours)
Mental health professional who is knowledgeable about conduct
problems in children and adolescents.
Parallel or Alternate Forms
Parallel Forms?
Alternate Forms:
Forms for Different Ages:
If so, are forms comparable:
Any Altered Versions of Measure:
Describe:
No
No
No
Yes
Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised
(SESBI-R): A teacher-report version of this measure,
also reviewed in the database.
Population Used to Develop Measure
According to the ECBI Manual (p. 9): The ECBI was first standardized between 1980 and
1983 on parents of children from a pediatric clinic of a large medical school in the
Northwestern United States. Primarily the children were from lower- to lower-middle
income Caucasian families. It was restandardized in 1999 with a sample that represented
the general child population in the Southeastern United States. There were 798 children
between ages 2 and 16.
1. Gender: 52% Male, 48% Female
2. Ethnicity: 75% Caucasian, 19% African American, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian, 1% Native
American, 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
Psychometrics
Global Rating (scale based on Hudall Stamm, 1996):
Psychometrically matured, used in multiple peer reviewed articles by different people
Norms:
Yes
For separate age groups:
Yes
For clinical populations:
Yes
Separate for men and women: Yes
For other demographic groups: Yes
Notes:
The ECBI was originally standardized on parents of preadolescent children
in 1980. It was standardized on parents of adolescents in 1983. Primarily,
these children were from lower- and lower-middle SES White families
recruited from a pediatric outpatient clinic located in a large urban medical
school in the Northwest U.S. (Eyberg & Robinson, 1983; Robinson, Eyberg,
& Ross, 1980).
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
3
The ECBI was later standardized by independent investigators on two
additional samples in the Northwest.
1. Burns & Patterson (1990) reported norms from 1003 children in grades 112 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 but
no meaningful and significant gender effects. In this sample, 7.9% of
children scored in the clinical range.
2. Burns, Patterson, Nussbaum, & Parker (1991) provide norms for 1,526
children 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, <1% Asian, <1% Hispanic, and 3%
Mixed Ethnicity.
Average education of reporters was 13.36 grades (SD=2.51).
Income: 18% (< $10,000), 17% ($10,000-$19,000). 25% ($20,000-$29,999),
40% (> $30,000)
They reported significant effects for child gender for both Frequency and
Problem scores with boys rating higher than girls; however, they noted that
the difference accounted for <1% of the variance.
They also found significant age effects for Frequency and Problem scales,
with children 2-5 having higher Frequency scores than the other 3 age
groups, and children 6-9 scoring higher than older age groups. In this
nonclinical sample, 10.4% of children scored in the clinical range on the
ECBI.
Note: Norms provided by Burns and colleagues are provided by gender and
age (2-5, 6-9, 10-13, 14-17). ECBI norms, specifically those collected by
Burns & Patterson (1990) and Burns et al. (1991) have been critiqued by
Achenbach (2001) as not being representative of the populations generally
studied. In addition, given the response rates, it is questionable as to
whether the norms are representative. Colvin et al. (1999a) critiqued the
Burns norms stating that the Burns et al. (1991) sample was unbalanced,
given that nearly half the children were aged 2-5, and the Burns et al. (1991)
sample included 17-year-olds, which is outside the ECBI age range. In
addition, both samples had exclusions that would affect the base rate of
behavior problems including exclusion of those with a history of treatment for
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
4
learning disabilities or behavior problems.
The ECBI was restandardized in 1999 on parents from six outpatient
pediatric 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 15
age 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 Mixed
Ethnicity.
Children resided with both natural parents (53%), with their mother and
stepfather (14%), with their father and stepmother (1%), with their mothers
only (26%), with their fathers only (1%), and with foster parents or other
relatives (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 are
presented by gender and age (separately by each year 2-16).
Clinical Cutoffs:
Specify Cutoffs:
Used in Major Studies:
Specify Studies:
Yes
Raw score: Intensity and problem scales (cutoffs=60T, 93rd
percentile)
Yes
Burns et al., 1991; Burns, & Patterson, 2001
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
5
Reliability:
Type:
Rating
Statistics
Min
Max
Avg
Test-Retest-# days: 300 Acceptable
0.75
0.75
0.75
Internal Consistency:
Acceptable
Cronbach's alpha
0.93
0.95
0.94
Inter-Rater:
Acceptable
Pearson's r
0.61
0.79
0.74
Parallel/Alternate Forms:
unknown
Notes:
TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY
Funderburk, Eyberg, Rich, & Behar (2003) reported 10-month test-retest stability with a
sample of 88 predominantly Caucasian middle- to upper-middle-class families: Intensity
(32)=.75, p<.0001; Problem )r=.75, p<.0001).
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
Cronbach’s alpha avg: .94 (I), .93 (P)
INTERRATER RELIABILITY
Scores above are for pairs of mothers and fathers as cited in the manual.
Eisenstadt, McElreath, Eyberg, & McNeil (1994) reported correlations between maternal
and paternal reports for intensity (r=.69) and problems (r=.61).
Although they were not studying interrater reliability, Calzada, Eyberg, Rich, & Querido
(2004) report on correlations between maternal and paternal ECBI scores. Intensity
scores were significantly correlated, r=.64. The correlation for problem scores was r=.40,
which was not significant, given a Bonferroni correction.
Content Validity:
Items are face valid.
Construct Validity: (check all that apply)
Validity Type
Not known Not found
Convergent/Concurrent
Nonclinical Clinical
Samples
Samples
Yes
Yes
Diverse
Samples
Yes
Discriminant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sensitive to Change
Yes
Intervention Effects
Longitudinal/Maturation Effects
Yes
Sensitive to Theoretically
Distinct Groups
Factorial Validity
Notes:
Yes
ECBI scores have been found to correlate with CBCL externalizing scales
(Boggs et al., 1990). Consistent with the literature, ECBI scores also correlate
with indicators of marital functioning, parenting stress, parenting behaviors, and
maternal history (Bearss & Eyberg, 1998; Benzies, Harrison, & Magill-Evans,
1998; Bor & Sanders, 2004; Eyberg, Boggs, & Rodriguez, 1992; WebsterStratton, 1988). They have also been found to correlate with scores on the
Children’s Perceptual Alteration Scale (Evers-Szostak & Sanders, 1992).
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
6
Correlations with the SESBI, the teacher-report form of the ECBI, have been
inconsistent. Funderburk et al., 2003 found no significant correlations between
ECBI and SESBI scores.
McNeil et al. (1991) also found no significant ECBI and SESBI correlations, but
pre- to post-treatment change scores were highly correlated, suggesting that
while parents and teachers have different perspectives on relative standing of
behavior 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 diagnostic
classifications (Ross et al., 1998), abusive and community parents (Bradley &
Peters, 1991), and between children with autism and behavior disorders and a
normative sample (Dumas, Wolf, Fisman, & Culligan, 1991).
The measure has been shown to be sensitive to treatment effects at posttest
and follow-up for multiple treatment for disruptive disorders including ParentChild Interaction Therapy (Eisenstadt, Eyberg, McNeil, Newcomb, & Funderburk,
1993; Nixon, Sweeney, Erichson, & Touyz, 2003) and the Partners Parent
Training Groups (Webster-Stratton, 1998). ECBI clinical cutoffs have provided
evidence for the clinical significance of treatment effects. Change in ECBI scores
as 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 results
have not been consistent, and there are data suggesting that the ECBI might
best be viewed as measuring 3 factors. Burns and Patterson (2000) conducted
an exploratory factor analysis of 1,263 children and adolescents and identified 3
meaningful factors and a fourth poorly defined factor.
Confirmatory factor analysis with a second sample of 1,264 children and
adolescents revealed that best model was the 3-factor model: 1) Oppositional
Defiant Behavior Toward Adults, 2) Inattentive Behavior, and 3) Conduct
Problem Behavior. Gross et al. (2003) used these factors and reported alpha
reliabilities of .79, .73, and .72.
Colvin et al. (1999a) conducted principal components analysis and reported
results were not suggestive of multiple factors.
STUDIES WITH TRAUMA-EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS
1. The ECBI has been found to detect change over treatment in a sample of 15
girls 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 100
preschool Lebanese children aged 3-6. Children who lived in heavy shelling
areas had higher ECBI scores than those not exposed to shelling.
3. Bradley & Peters (1991) found that abusive and clinically involved parents
identify more problem behaviors using the ECBI than do community parents.
4. Belter, Dunn, & Jeney (1991) found indications of distress using the ECBI in a
sample of children aged 3-5 living in an area hit by Hurricane Hugo.
STUDIES WITH OTHER CULTURAL GROUPS AND DIVERSE POPULATIONS
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
7
1. The ECBI has been used in multiple studies with low-income African
American families. Bendell, Stone, Field, & Goldstein (1989) found ECBI scores
correlated with the PSI. Dawkins, Fullilove, & Dawkins (1995) administered the
ECBI to 99 mothers of African American inner-city children aged 3-4. Scores
were lower than scores for the treatment sample reported in Eyberg & Ross
(1978) but higher than was reported for children with no history of behavior
problems. Capage, Bennett, & McNeil (2001) found no difference between
African American and Caucasian families in terms of ECBI scores before and
after treatment.
2. The ECBI has been used in a sample of 91 Hong Kong Chinese children
aged 3-7. For all time periods (pre- and post-intervention) internal consistency
was > .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 discipline
practices 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 with
developmental disabilities with results providing evidence of validity and
reliability. Populations include children with autism, Down Syndrome,
developmental delays, Asperger Syndrome (Sofronoff, Leslie, & Brown, 2004),
and cerebral palsy (Dumas et al., 1991; Glenwick, 1998).
Criterion Validity: (check all that apply)
Measures used as criterion:
Not known Not found
Predictive Validity:
Yes
Postdictive Validity:
Yes
Sensitivity Rate(s):
0.96
Specificity Rate(s):
0.87
Positive Predictive Power:
0.88
Negative Predictive Power:
0.96
Nonclinical Clinical
Samples
Samples
Diverse
Samples
Notes:
Limitations of Psychometrics and Other Comments Regarding Psychometrics:
No studies to date have shown the criterion validity for this measure. Otherwise the
measure seems psychometrically sound and has been well studied in diverse populations,
including individuals of lower SES.
Consumer Satisfaction
Unknown
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
8
Languages Other than English
Language:
Translation Quality (check all that apply)
1= Has been translated
2= 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.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Spanish
Lebanese
Chinese
German
Japanese
Korean
Norwegian
Russian
Swedish
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
5
Yes
Yes
6
Yes
7
Use with Trauma Populations
Populations for which measure has demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity:
Physical abuse
Natural disaster
Terrorism
Yes
Yes
Sexual abuse
Accidents
Immigration related trauma
Yes
Yes
Neglect
Imprisonment
Kidnapping/hostage
Domestic Violence
Witness death
Traumatic loss (death)
Community violence
Assault
Medical trauma
Yes
Yes
Other
War/combat
Use with Diverse Populations
USE WITH DIVERSE POPULATIONS RATING SCALE
1. 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.
Population Type:
Degree of Usage: (check all that apply)
1
1. Developmental disability
Yes
2. Disabilities
3. Lower socio-economic status
4. Rural populations
5. Chronically ill children
6. Children with Enuresis
Notes (including other diverse populations):
7. Hearing impaired: 1, 2
8. Children with Encopresis: 2
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
9
ECBI norms were developed for chronically ill children. This diverse sample consisted of
345 chronically ill children with illnesses from eight categories: neurological impairment,
hematological and neoplastic illness, infections and immunological disease, pulmonary
illness, cardiac illness, gastrointestinal and hepatic illness, renal illness, and endocrine
conditions (Colvin, Eyberg & Adams, 1999b).
The ECBI was also normed for children with developmental delays (Cone & CasperBeliveau, 1997). The sample consisted of 167 children, aged 2 to 16; 47 females and 120
males.
Pros and Cons/Qualitative Impression
Pros:
1. This is a well-tested, widely used measure that has been shown to detect change in
behavior due to treatment.
2. Good psychometrics.
3. Brief and easy to administer and score. It has only 36 items. Other measures are
more than double the length.
4. Intensity and problem scores allow for assessment of rater’s perceptions regarding the
degree 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 of
disruptive behaviors across settings by parents and teachers.
Cons:
1. Answers are largely subjective.
2. Normative data may not be representative of the populations measured; only a small
percentage of the families solicited in the Burns et al. (1991; 2001) studies responded to
the 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 were
based 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 Toward
Adults, Inattentive Behavior, and Conduct Problem Behavior.
5. The ECBI was developed primarily as a measure of disruptive behavior and does not
assess PTSD symptomatology or anxiety-related symptoms commonly seen in children
exposed to trauma. Given this, the ECBI should probably be used in conjunction with
another 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 do
not apply to younger children.
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
10
7. Although the measure can be used for children as old as 16, it does not contain items
that would be more applicable to disruptive behaviors in the older age range.
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
11
References
(Representative sampling of publications, presentations, psychometric references)
Published References:
The reference for the manual is:
Eyberg, S., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory & Sutter-Eyberg Student
Behavior Inventory-Revised: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
A PsychInfo search (6/05) for “Eyberg Child Behavior Checklist” or “ECBI" anywhere
revealed that the measure has been referenced in 94 peer-reviewed journal articles. Below
is a sampling of some of those articles:
1. Achenbach, T.M. (2001). What are norms and why do we need valid ones? Clinical
Psychology Science and Practice, 8, 446-450.
2. Bearss, K.E., & Eyberg, S. (1998). A test of the parenting alliance theory. Early
Education and Development, 9(2), 179-185.
3. Belter, R.W., Dunn, S.E., & Jeney, P. (1991). The psychological impact of Hurricane
Hugo 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). Children’s effects on
parenting stress in a low income, minority population. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 8(4), 58-71.
5. Benzies, K.M., Harrison, M.J., & Magill-Evans, J. (1998). Impact of marital quality and
parent-child interaction on preschool behavior problems. Public Health Nursing, 15(1), 3543.
6. Boggs, S.R., Eyberg, S., & Reynolds, L.A. (1990). Concurrent validity of the Eyberg
Child Behavior Inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19(1), 75-78.
7. Bor, W., & Sanders, M.R. (2004). Correlates of self-reported coercive parenting of
preschool-aged children at high risk for the development of conduct problems. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 738-745.
8. Bradley, E.J., Peters, R.D. (1991). Physically abusive and nonabusive mothers’
perceptions 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 consumer
satisfaction measure for parent-child treatments and its relation to measures of child
behavior change. Behavior Therapy, 30(1), 17-30.
10. Brubaker, R.G., & Szakowski, A. (2000). Parenting practices and behavior problems
among 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 Behavior
Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory: Parent and teacher rating scales
of disruptive behavior problems in children and adolescents. Child and Family Behavior
Therapy, 23(1), 15-28.
12. Burns, G.L., & Patterson, D.R. (2000). Factors structure of the Eyberg Child Behavior
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
12
Inventory: A parent rating scale of oppositional defiant behavior toward adults, inattentive
behavior, 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). Disruptive
behaviors in an outpatient pediatric population: Additional standardization data on the
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 3(2), 202-207.
14. Calzada, E.J., Eyberg, S.M., Rich, B., & Querido, J.G. (2004). Parenting disruptive
preschoolers: 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 African
American 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 Child
Behavior Inventory. Available on-line at http://www.pcit.org.
17. Dawkins, M.P., Fullilove, C., & Dawkins, M. (1995). Early assessment of problem
behavior 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, child
behavior 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 of
two 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). Interparent
agreement on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 16,
21-28.
21. Evers-Szostak, M., & Sanders, S. (1992). The children’s perceptual alteration scale
(CPAS): A measure of children’s dissociation. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative
Disorders, 5(2), 91-97.
22. Eyberg, S.M., Boggs, S.R., & Rodriguez, C.M. (1992). Relationships between maternal
parenting stress and child disruptive behavior. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 14(4), 19.
23. Eyberg, S.M., & Robinson, E.A. (1983). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of
a behavioral rating scale with adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12(3), 347354.
24. Eyberg, S.M. & Ross, A.W. (1978). Assessment of child behavior problems: The
validation 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 psychometric
evaluation 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
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
13
version espanola y su utilidad para el pediatra extrahospitalario [Eyberg Child Behavior
Inventory: Standardization of the Spanish version and validity with pediatric outpatients in
Spain]. Anales Espanoles de Pediatria, 48, 475-482.
27. Garcia-Tornel, S., Eyberg, S.M., Calzada, E J., & Sainz, E. (1998). Trastornos del
comportamiento 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 common
pediatric settings in Spain]. Pediatria Integral, 3, 348-354.
28. Glenwick, D.S. (1998). Stress, coping, and perceptions of child behavior in parents of
preschoolers 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 of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 261-278.
31. Leung, C., Sanders, M.R., Leung, S., Mak, R., & Lau, J. (2003). An outcome evaluation
of the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong. Family
Process, 42(4), 531-544.
31. McGain, B., & McKinzey, R.K. (1995). The efficacy of group treatment in sexually
abused girls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(9), 1157-1169.
32. McNeil, C.B., Eyberg, S., Eisenstadt, T.H., Newcomb, K. et al. (1991). Parent-child
interaction therapy with behavior problem children: Generalization of treatment effects to the
school setting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20(3), 140-151.
33. Nixon, R.D., Sweeney, L., Erickson, D.B., & Touyz, S.W. (2003). Parent-Child
Interaction Therapy: A comparison of standard and abbreviated treatments. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 251-260.
34. Rich, B.A., & Eyberg, S.M. (2001). Accuracy of assessment: The discriminative and
predictive power of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Ambulatory Child Health, 7, 249257.
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 other
severe behavior problems. Child Study Journal, 28, 93-110.
36. Sofronoff, K., Leslie, A., & Brown, W. (2004). Parent management training and
Asperger 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 on
teenage mothers and children who received early intervention. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 9: 391-408.
38. Webster-Stratton, C. (1988). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of child defiance: Roles
of parent and child behaviors and parent adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 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.
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
14
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.
Unpublished References:
A PsychInfo search (6/05) for “Eyberg Child Behavior Checklist” or “ECBI" anywhere
revealed 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 Child
Behavioral 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. Poster
session presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of
Behavior Therapy, Miami, FL.
Number of Published References:
94
(based on author provided information and a PsychInfo search, not including dissertations)
Number of Unpublished References:
32
(based on a PsychInfo search of unpublished doctoral dissertations)
Author Comments:
The author chose not to review or comment on this review. The publisher reviewed the
report and provided corrections, which were integrated.
Citation for Review:
Carolyn Kuendig, B.A.
Editor of Review:
Last Updated:
Nicole Taylor, Ph.D., Robyn Igelman, M.A., Chandra Ghosh Ippen,
Ph.D., Madhur Kulkarni, M.S.
7/14/2005
PDF Available:
yes
This project was funded by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The views, policies and opinions
expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SAMHSA or HHS.
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
NCTSN Measure Review Database
www.NCTSN.org
15