Advertisement

Development of a modified treatment evaluation inventory

  • Mary L. Kelley
  • Robert W. Heffer
  • Frank M. Gresham
  • Stephen N. Elliott
Article

Abstract

Kazdin's (1980a) Treatment Evaluation Inventory (TEI) is the major instrument used to assess parents' acceptance of procedures for behavior problem children. The length of the TEI, however, as well as problems with its scaling and wording limits its value as a clinical research instrument. In the present study, three experiments were conducted to develop a modified TEI. In Experiment 1, 153 parents completed the TEI to evaluate a behavioral treatment for noncompliant and oppositional children. A factor analysis of the data was used to obtain a reliable factor structure for the TEI and to construct a 9-item TEI-Short Form (TEI-SF) with a 5-point scale, consistent anchors on the scale, and simplified text and instructions. Experiment 2 evaluated the psychometric characteristics of the TEI and the TEI-SF. These data indicated the TEI-SF is a sound alternative to the original TEI. Experiment 3 compared the readability and completion time of the two instruments.

Key words

Treatment Evaluation Inventory (TEI) oppositional children TEI Short Form 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cavell, T. A., Frentz, C. E., & Kelley, M. L. (1986a). Acceptability of paradoxical interventions: Some nonparadoxical findings.Professional Psychology, 17, 519–523.Google Scholar
  2. Cavell, T. A., Frentz, C. E., & Kelley, M. L. (1986b). Consumer acceptability of the single case withdrawal design: Penalty for early withdrawal?Behavior Therapy, 17, 82–87.Google Scholar
  3. Cross-Calvert, S., & McMahon, R. J. (1987). The acceptability of a behavioral parent training program and its components.Behavior Therapy, 18, 165–180.Google Scholar
  4. Dorsett, P. G., Matlock, A., & Hobbs, S. A. (1986).Acceptability of behavior management techniques as a function of rationale. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Chicago, Ill., Nov.Google Scholar
  5. Frentz, C. E., & Kelley, M. L. (1986). Parents' acceptance of reductive treatment methods: The influence of problem severity and perception of child behavior.Behavior Therapy, 17, 75–81.Google Scholar
  6. Harman, H. H. (1976).Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1975).How to increase reading ability (6th ed.). New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  8. Heffer, R. W., & Kelley, M. L. (1987). Mothers' acceptance of behavioral interventions for children: The influence of parent race and income.Behavior Therapy, 18, 153–164.Google Scholar
  9. Kazdin, A. E. (1980a). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259–273.Google Scholar
  10. Kazdin, A. E. (1980b). Acceptability of time-out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior.Behavior Therapy, 11, 329–344.Google Scholar
  11. Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects.Behavior Therapy, 12, 493–506.Google Scholar
  12. Kazdin, A. E. (1984). Acceptability of aversive procedures and medication as treatment alternatives for deviant child behavior.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 289–302.Google Scholar
  13. Kazdin, A. E., French, N. H., & Sherick, R. B. (1981). Acceptability of alternative treatments for children: Evaluations by inpatient children, parents, and staff.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 900–907.Google Scholar
  14. Norton, G. R., Austen, S., Allen, G. E., & Hilton, J. (1983). Acceptability of time out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior: A further analysis.Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
  15. Pickering, D., & Morgan, S. B. (1985). Parental ratings of treatments of self-injurious behavior.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 15, 303–314.Google Scholar
  16. Prout, H. T., & Chizik, R. (1988). Readability of child and adolescent self-report measures.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 152–154.Google Scholar
  17. Singh, N. N., & Katz, R. C. (1985). On the modification of acceptability ratings for alternative child treatments.Behavior Modification, 9, 375–386.Google Scholar
  18. Witt, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom management strategies. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.),Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms.Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510–517.Google Scholar
  20. Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Elliott, S. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers' judgments of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention.Behavior Therapy, 15, 204–209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary L. Kelley
    • 1
  • Robert W. Heffer
    • 2
  • Frank M. Gresham
    • 3
  • Stephen N. Elliott
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge
  2. 2.Children's Hospital of New OrleansNew Orleans
  3. 3.Hofstra UniversityHempstead
  4. 4.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison

Personalised recommendations