In measurement-based care or routine outcome monitoring self-report questionnaires are used to monitor how a patient fares in therapy. Interpretation and utilization of test results are improved and communication facilitated when raw scores are converted to common metrics, such as standard scores (T-scores) and percentile rank scores. Both types of common metrics are described and reviewed and a warning is issued that percentiles may be misinterpreted at the tails of the scale. Data from the Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA) was used to investigate various approaches to obtain T-scores. The study analyzed cross-sectional data from two normative samples: a representative sample of the Dutch general population (N = 11,789) and a clinical sample (N = 9987) of patients with substance use disorder. Linear, normalized, and IRT-based T-scores were compared.Results revealed that T-scores derived from a linear conversion were biased at the lower end of the scale. Normalizing raw test scores through either Rankit normalization or by an IRT approach yielded improved and quite similar T-scores. For all possible raw scores on the MANSA, corresponding normalized T-scores are presented, as well as Percentile Rank scores for the two reference groups. Finally, cut-off values for reliable change and clinically significant change are presented for raw scores and T-scores. Practical guidance is offered for converting raw test scores into two common metrics: normalized T-scores and Percentile Rank scores. For T-scores, simple linear conversions yielded biased results. These findings have implications for test developers, practitioners, and researchers who want to express test results in valid and unbiased common metrics. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10862-025-10266-0.

Psychometric properties of the Emotion Regulation Scale for Children and Adolescents (ERQ-CA), an assessment of emotion regulation strategies, were examined among older children. The ERQ–CA was evaluated with 147 participants between 9 and 12 years old. Explorative factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were calculated twice within a four-month interval. We meticulously assessed internal consistency, convergent, and concurrent validity by analyzing the relationship between ERQ-CA scores and measurements of resilience and intrinsic motivation. Measurement invariance was tested for the pre- and post-test across gender, age group, intervention group, and longitudinally. A robust two-factor structure of cognitive reappraisal (CR) and expressive suppression (ES) was found. Internal consistency was adequate, with Cronbach’s α = 0.76 for CR and α = 0.77 for ES. Test-retest reliability in four months was r = 0.50 for CR and r = 0.32 for ES. The ERQ-CA showed convergent and concurrent validity with established measures of resilience and motivation. The gender and age-based mean scores were consistent with those of previously reported studies. We found measurement invariance across gender at the pre-test and intervention groups at the pre-and post-test, indicating stability across responses to the ERQ-CA. These findings significantly contribute to the theoretical understanding of emotion regulation in children and this knowledge’s practical application in clinical, educational, and research settings.

Harmonizing the scores obtained by different instruments that measure the same construct enable researchers to combine them in one analysis. An important step in harmonization is checking whether there is measurement invariance across populations. This study aimed to examine whether the harmonized scores for anxiety/depression and ADHD obtained by two different instruments (the Child Behaviour Check List (CBCL) and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)) are measurement invariant across other countries, languages, and age groups. We used cohorts from Australia (1330 children aged 10–11.5 years), the Netherlands (943 children aged 11–13.5 years) and the United Kingdom (4504 children aged 14–19). We used the Bayesian method for modeling measurement non-invariance proposed by Verhagen and Fox, 2013a that we adapted for using on polytomous items and in a relatively small number of groups (cohorts). Results showed that there is hardly any differential functioning of harmonized anxiety/depression and ADHD scores obtained by CBCL and SDQ across cohorts. The same model that harmonizes measures in Australian 10-year-old children can also be used in cohorts from the UK and the Netherlands.

The present study examines the disagreement between parents and teachers on the Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptomatology (ODS) in children and how sociodemographic factors like gender and socio-economic status (SES); and emotional characteristics such as aggressiveness, temperament, callousness; anxious and depressive symptoms, and irritability may be predictors of this incongruence. A community sample of 614 3-year-old, followed up until age 14 (N = 287) was obtained from a longitudinal study that began in 2009. Parents and teachers completed an ODS scale and multiple questionnaires about child´s emotional difficulties. Analyses indicated that parent-teacher ratings were discrepant, and this disagreement diminished with age (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.12 to 0.69) with parents consistently reporting higher ODS scores compared to teachers across various ages. Predictors of parent-teacher disagreement on ODS were analyzed using polynomial regression with second and third order interactions. Results revealed that disagreement was higher when rating females, and for children belonging to low + low/medium or high SES groups. Lower ratings of aggressiveness, callousness and irritability, while higher scores of effortful control were significant predictors of higher parent-teacher ODS discrepancies. Research on how child affective variables influence multi-informant disagreement could lead to better clinical practice in addition to more accurate assessment and diagnosis in the infant-juvenile population.

Behavioural assessments offer clinically relevant insights into anxious symptomatology, complementing self-report questionnaires in monitoring treatment effects. However, as a behavioural test is a form of brief exposure, it might not solely measure distress, but also influence it. In this study, we investigated whether measuring spider avoidance behaviour changes spider-related distress. Seventy-five individuals with a broad range of spider fear provided self-reported fear and disgust ratings, using the Spider Distress Scale, before and after engaging in a tarantula and in a house spider behavioural approach task (BAT). We found that self-reported fear, but not disgust, decreased after engaging in the behavioural assessments. A subsequent exploration within low- and high-fear subgroups showed that this pattern was driven by low-fear individuals, as in high-fear individuals spider fear and disgust remained unaffected by the behavioural assessments. Spider fear did not decrease on two exploratory questionnaires. In principle, these findings are promising for the validity of behavioural assessments in translational research where sub-clinical samples are typically targeted. However, they emphasise the need to carefully translate laboratory findings to (sub-)clinical populations, not only due to varying fear levels, but also because behavioural assessments may be experienced differently in the context of a treatment study.