Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is a complete guide to the Behavioral Assessment System for Children (BASC), a multi-method, multi-dimensional approach to evaluating behaviour and self-perception of children ages 2 years 6 months to 18 years. It was designed to facilitate differential diagnosis and educational classification of a variety of emotional and behavioral difficulties and aid in the design of treatment plans. This BASC includes teacher (TRS) and parent (PRS) rating scales, a self-report of personality (SRP), a structured developmental history (SDH) and a student observation system (SOS). This book provides an overview of the components and uses (Chapter 1), detailed information about each scale (Chapter 2), and information regarding the interpretation of each scale (Chapter 3). A particular strength of the book is the large number of case examples (Chapter 4 & 5) and clinical application including special populations (Chapter 6 & 7). The book has a bibliography and a reference to a website listing many papers using the BASC in clinical practice and in research. The index is weak in that a number of topics that I had hoped to find were not listed in the index. The BASC was designed to be used mainly by registered psychologists but appears to be used in the USA by pediatricians, psychiatrists, and school psychologists as well as other clinical disciplines. The authors recommend that users have adequate professional qualifications and have specific training in using the BASC before applying it to clinical practice. The book demonstrates that the BASC is a clinically sound approach to assessing a number of domains. It measures both clinical and adaptive dimensions of behavior and personality. Scales may be used individually or as a group. The book includes a number of complimentary reports from clinicians who use the BASC regularly. Favorable remarks include that using the BASC at intake can lead to the initial clinical interview being more focused and selective and that the converging areas of need and the areas of discrepancy between the multiple raters are useful in directing treatment. Colleagues who have used the BASC cited several strengths including an assessment of the youth’s attitude towards school and teachers, a comparison of school maladjustment vs. clinical maladjustment, an assessment of locus of control, an assessment of the youth’s sense of inadequacy, a youth self report for children 8–11 years, and adaptive functioning scales (e.g. relations with parents, interpersonal relationships, self esteem, self reliance). The case studies in this book show how the BASC is used in conjunction with other instruments and rating scales. A repeated negative comment by users of the BASC is the absence of the narrative questions on the first page of the Child Behavior Check List. Also, the BASC self-report scales are not useful for picking up youth at risk for specific emotional disorders and drug and alcohol use. The BASC has been mandated in Ontario for Eating Disorders Programs as part of the province wide program evaluation. The decision to use the BASC rather than the Child Behavior Check List related to the larger number of scales addressing school maladjustment and personal adjustment that are not part of earlier instruments. I have never had an opportunity to use the BASC in my clinical practice. It appears to be a clinically sound assessment tool. The BASC is not currently used at the children’s mental health centre where I am employed. Adoption would either be a decision made by the centre’s psychologists or would be mandated as part of an interagency common clinical assessment or program evaluation tool. In Ontario, the Ministries responsible for children’s mental health services have adopted the Brief Child & Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) and Child & Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) as common clinical assessment and program evaluation tools. If I were in a solo private practice I would be unlikely to change to the BASC unless I had colleagues who were able to convince me that it was a far better system than earlier rating scales. The learning curve to adopt the BASC appears to be quite steep. I would also have to continue to use the condition specific rating scales that I currently use since the BASC does not provide adequate information to monitor specific conditions. A further consideration is the cost of purchasing the starter set and the ongoing costs of purchasing the rating scales and the computer scoring fees. The mandated use in the Eating Disorders Programs will eventually give those programs enough broad experience to determine its full range of advantages and disadvantages. No doubt this will lead to further recommendations for use in major programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.082 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".