HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Emot Behav Disord. 2012 ; 20(2): 68–81. doi:10.1177/1063426611434158.

Behavioral/Emotional Problems of Preschoolers: Caregiver/

Teacher Reports From 15 Societies
Leslie A. Rescorla, PhD, Thomas M. Achenbach, PhD, Masha Y. Ivanova, PhD, Niels
Bilenberg, MD, PhD, Gudrun Bjarnadottir, PhD, Silvia Denner, PhD, Pedro Dias, PhD, Anca
Dobrean, PhD, Manfred Döpfner, PhD, Alessandra Frigerio, PhD, Miguel Gonçalves, PhD,
Halldór Guđmundsson, MA, Roma Jusiene, PhD, Solvejg Kristensen, MHSc, Felipe
Author Manuscript

Lecannelier, MA, Patrick W. L. Leung, PhD, Jianghong Liu, PhD, Sofia P. Löbel, Bárbara
César Machado, PhD, Jasminka Markovic, Paola A. Mas, Elaheh Mohammad Esmaeili, PhD,
Rosario Montirosso, MSc, Julia Plück, PhD, Adelina Ahmeti Pronaj, Jorge T. Rodriguez,
Pamela O. Rojas, Klaus Schmeck, Mimoza Shahini, MD, Jaime R. Silva, PhD, Jan van der
Ende, MA, and Frank C. Verhulst, MD, PhD
Leslie A. Rescorla, PhD (Bryn Mawr College); Thomas M. Achenbach, PhD, and Masha Y.
Ivanova, PhD (University of Vermont); Niels Bilenberg, MD, PhD, Solvejg Kristensen, MHSc
(University of Southern Denmark); Gudrun Bjarnadottir, PhD (Glaesibaer & Arbaer Health Clinics,
Iceland); Silvia Denner, PhD (Dortmund University, Germany); Pedro Dias, PhD, and Bárbara
César Machado, PhD (Catholic University of Portugal); Anca Dobrean, PhD (Babes-Bolyai
University, Romania); Manfred Döpfner, PhD, and Julia Plück, PhD (University of Cologne,
Germany); Alessandra Frigerio, PhD, and Rosario Montirosso, MSc (Scientific Institute “E.
Author Manuscript

Medea,” Bosisio Parini [LC], Italy); Miguel Gonçalves, PhD (University of Minho, Portugal); Halldór
Guđmundsson, MA (University of Iceland); Roma Jusiene, PhD (Vilnius University, Lithuania);
Felipe Lecannelier, MA, Sofia P. Löbel, Paola A. Mas, Jorge T. Rodriguez, and Pamela O. Rojas
(University of Desarrollo, Chile); Patrick W. L. Leung, PhD (Chinese University of Hong Kong);
Jianghong Liu, PhD (University of Pennsylvania); Jasminka Markovic (Clinical Center of
Vojvodina, Serbia); Elaheh Mohammad Esmaeili, PhD (Tehran Research Institute for Education,
Iran); Adelina Ahmeti Pronaj and Mimoza Shahini, MD (University Clinical Center of Kosovo);
Klaus Schmeck (Psychiatric University Hospitals-Basel, Switzerland); Jaime R. Silva, PhD
(Universidad de la Frontera, Chile); Jan van der Ende, MA, and Frank C. Verhulst, MD, PhD
(Erasmus University Medical Center-Sophia Children’s Hospital, The Netherlands)

Abstract
Author Manuscript

This study tested societal effects on caregiver/teacher ratings of behavioral/emotional problems for
10,521 preschoolers from 15 societies. Many societies had problem scale scores within a relatively
narrow range, despite differences in language, culture, and other characteristics. The small age and
gender effects were quite similar across societies. The rank orders of mean item ratings were
similar across diverse societies. For 7,380 children from 13 societies, ratings were also obtained

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Corresponding Author: Leslie A. Rescorla, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA, 19010, USA,
[email protected].
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
 Rescorla et al. Page 2

from a parent. In all 13 societies, mean Total Problems scores derived from parent ratings were
Author Manuscript

significantly higher than mean Total Problems scores derived from caregiver/teacher ratings,
although the size of the difference varied somewhat across societies. Mean cross-informant
agreement for problem scale scores varied across societies. Societies were very similar with
respect to which problem items, on average, received high versus low ratings from parents and
caregivers/teachers. Within every society, cross-informant agreement for item ratings varied
widely across children. In most respects, results were quite similar across 15 very diverse
societies.

Keywords
international; cross-cultural; preschoolers; teacher-reported problems; cross-informant agreement
Author Manuscript

Psychopathology in preschool children has received increased research and clinical attention
since about 1990 (Carter, 2010). Because preschoolers in many societies attend day care or
preschool programs, caregivers/teachers throughout the world are potentially important
sources of information about preschoolers’ behavioral/emotional problems. One can
hypothesize that differences between societies in cultural values, language, ethnicity,
standard of living, religion, and other characteristics might lead to major societal differences
in caregiver/teacher reports about preschoolers’ problems. However, to test this hypothesis,
international etic studies (Pike, 1967) are needed to compare standardized assessment data
from many different societies. As defined by Pike, etic studies apply the same standardized
procedures for assessing people in different societies.

Relatively little is known about the societal effects on caregiver/teacher reports of

preschoolers’ problems. Few studies have tested societal differences or societal interactions
Author Manuscript

with gender and age on preschoolers’ problems reported by caregivers/teachers. Nor is much
known about similarities or differences between societies with respect to which behavioral/
emotional problems are reported most often by caregivers/teachers. With respect to cross-
informant agreement, little is known about societal differences in problems reported by
parents versus caregivers/teachers.

Effects of Society on Caregiver/Teacher Reports of Preschoolers’ Problems

In one of the few published studies of preschool teachers’ reports from multiple societies,
LaFreniere et al. (2002) reported within-society analyses of teachers’ ratings on the 30-item
Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation Inventory (SCBE-30; LaFreniere & Dumas,
1995) for 4,640 children from eight societies (the United States, Austria, Brazil, Quebec,
Author Manuscript

China, Italy, Japan, and Russia). Principal components analysis yielded the same three
factors in all societies (social competence, anger aggression, and anxiety withdrawal), with
some relatively minor differences between societies on item factor loadings. Cronbach’s
alphas were also comparable across the societies. Within-society analyses of age and gender
effects yielded some similarities across societies (e.g., social competence scores higher for
older children and girls than for younger children and boys; anger-aggression scores higher
for boys than girls) but also some differences (e.g., age effects significant in only a few
societies for anger aggression and anxiety withdrawal). Although LaFreniere et al. provided

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 3

important international findings on caregiver/teacher reports of children’s problems, a

Author Manuscript

limitation was that data from the different societies were not combined into analyses that
directly tested societal effects.

Findings for ratings of preschoolers’ behavioral/emotional problems on the 99-item

Caregiver–Teacher Report Form (C-TRF; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) have also been
reported for several societies. Achenbach and Rescorla (2000) reported normative data for
the C-TRF based on findings for 1,192 U.S. preschoolers. Subsequently, C-TRF findings
were reported by Frigerio et al. (2006) for 526 Italian preschoolers; by Kristensen,
Henriksen, and Bilenberg (2010) for 624 Danish preschoolers; by Liu, Cheng, and Leung
(2010) for 876 Chinese preschoolers; and by Denner and Schmeck (2005) for 1,050 German
preschoolers. Findings from these studies indicated some similarities but also some
differences across the 5 societies in caregiver/teacher reports of preschoolers’ problems.
However, because the data from the 5 societies were not combined, societal effects were not
Author Manuscript

directly tested. Ivanova et al. (2011) used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the fit of
data from 14 societies to the C-TRF problem syndrome structure that had previously been
derived from a mainly U.S. sample. Although Ivanova et al. reported generally good model
fit in all 14 societies, data for each society were analyzed separately rather than being
aggregated.

To our knowledge, C-TRF data from many societies have hitherto not been aggregated into a
single data set so that societal effects could be directly tested. This methodology has been
used, however, by Rescorla et al. (2011) for testing societal effects on parents’ reports about
preschoolers’ problems based on ratings obtained in 24 societies with the 99-item Child
Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL/1½–5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Rescorla
et al. found small to medium societal effect sizes (ESs) on problem scores (3%–12%) and
Author Manuscript

very small gender, age, and interaction effects (<1%). To measure the degree to which
particular problem items tended to receive high, medium, or low ratings in the 24 different
societies, Rescorla et al. computed the mean of the item ratings received for each of the 99
problem items. Large correlations of .63 to .94 were found between mean item ratings for
every pair of societies, indicating considerable similarity in the problems that received high,
medium, or low ratings.

Effects of Society on Cross-Informant Agreement

Modest cross-informant agreement is one of the most robust phenomena in developmental
psychopathology (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; De Los Reyes & Kazdin,
2005). For example, Achenbach et al. (1987) reported a mean correlation (r) of only .28
between reports by parents and teachers. However, few studies have examined cross-
Author Manuscript

informant agreement for preschool children, whether in the United States or abroad.

Gross, Fogg, Garvey, and Julion (2004) examined agreement between parents and
caregivers/teachers for a sample of 241 children ages 2 to 4 years from low-income families
attending day care programs in the United States. The correlation between externalizing
behavior problems rated by caregivers/teachers on the C-TRF and by parents on the 36-item
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) was .17. Also in the

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 4

United States, Winsler and Wallace (2002) reported that parents’ and teachers’ ratings of 47
Author Manuscript

preschool children on the 76-item Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (Merrell,
1994) were “somewhat more in agreement” for externalizing problems (r = .37) than
internalizing problems (r = .23). Parents rated their children as having significantly more
internalizing and externalizing problems than did teachers. More recently, Crane, Mincic,
and Winsler (2011) reported rs of .20 to .28 between parent and caregiver/teacher ratings on
the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999) for 7,756
ethnically diverse U.S. preschoolers from poor families.

Cross-informant agreement between parent and caregiver/teacher ratings of preschoolers on

the CBCL/1½–5 and the C-TRF has been reported for a few societies (Achenbach &
Rescorla, 2000; Frigerio et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2010), with mean cross-informant rs for
problem scale scores ranging from .18 in China to .40 in the United States. However, to our
knowledge, no previous studies have directly tested societal effects on cross-informant
Author Manuscript

agreement for preschoolers. Thus, societies need to be compared with respect to whether
parents and caregivers/teachers typically report similar levels of problems, and whether this
differs by type of problem or by the age and gender of the child. Moreover, societal
differences need to be tested for cross-informant correlations and for agreement regarding
which problems tend to receive high, medium, or low ratings.

Purposes of the Present Study

The present study had two main purposes. The first purpose was to test societal effects on
caregiver/teacher ratings of preschoolers’ problems. The second purpose was to test societal
effects on cross-informant agreement between parents and caregivers/teachers. To achieve
the first purpose, we tested societal effects on preschoolers’ problem scores obtained from
Author Manuscript

caregivers/teachers’ ratings of 10,521 children ages 1½ to 5 years in 15 societies.

Specifically, we used analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) to test the effects of society and
gender on mean problem scores (with age as a covariate) and correlations to test societal
effects on mean item ratings and scale internal consistencies. To achieve the second purpose,
we tested societal effects on agreement between parents’ and caregivers/teachers’ ratings of
7,380 preschoolers in the 13 societies for which both kinds of ratings were available for the
same children. Specifically, we used ANOVAs to test effects of society, informant, and
gender on mean problem scale scores, separately for younger and older preschoolers, plus
correlations to test for societal differences in cross-informant agreement for scale scores and
item ratings.

Method
Author Manuscript

Samples
Data were collected by indigenous investigators interested in studying preschoolers’
behavioral/emotional problems as reported by caregivers/teachers in their own societies.
These investigators shared the data they had collected with the first author for multicultural
comparisons. In each society, data were obtained from general population samples broadly
representative of their societies, with the sampling frame being national in 5 societies and
regional in 10 societies. Recruitment was done through schools in 12 societies, through a

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 5

hospital birth cohort in Denmark, through households in the Netherlands, and through
Author Manuscript

households in the United States supplemented with a birth cohort of children born in 31 U.S.
hospitals. In each society, sampling was based on various demographic factors, though
details of the sampling varied across societies. Data from the 14 non-U.S. societies were
used in Ivanova et al.’s (2011) CFA study, but the analyses do not overlap between the two
studies.

Table 1 summarizes sample information from the 15 societies, with sample sizes ranging
from 299 for Iceland to 1,350 for Iran (N = 10,521). Boys comprised from 43% to 54% of
the samples. The total sample had the following age composition: ages 1½ to 2 years (4%),
age 2 years (11%), age 3 years (16%), age 4 years (33%), and age 5 years (36%). Two
samples (Germany and Romania) had no children younger than 2 years, two samples (China
and Serbia) had no children in the 1½ to 3 age group, and Austria had only two children
younger than 4 years of age.
Author Manuscript

Children who had been referred for mental health or special education services in the
preceding 12 months were excluded from the Italian sample before we received the data.
Information about referral was not available for most of the other 14 samples. Because
referral rates for preschoolers tend to be low and preschool mental health services are scarce
in most societies, it is unlikely that many of the children had been referred for services.

In each society, conventions for obtaining informed consent required by the investigator’s
research institution were followed. Cases were identified only by numerical codes. Children
were excluded if ratings were missing for more than eight problem items, with no cases
excluded for six societies, <1% of cases excluded for five societies, 2% excluded for one
society, and 6% to 7% excluded for three societies.
Author Manuscript

To examine comparability across societies in cross-informant correlations between parents

and caregivers/teachers, a cross-informant data set was created for each society except Chile
and Kosovo, for which parallel parent and caregiver/teacher ratings were not available. For
all cross-informant analyses, cases without both parent data and caregiver/teacher data were
excluded, reducing the sample size to 7,380 children having both forms.

Measures
The primary measure used in this study was the C-TRF (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000),
which obtains ratings from caregivers and teachers who observe children ages 1½ to 5 years
in preschools, early childhood programs, or day care settings. The C-TRF has 99 specific
problem items, all of which are rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not true [as far as you know]; 1
= somewhat or sometimes true; 2 = very true or often true) based on children’s functioning
Author Manuscript

over the preceding 2 months. For cross-informant analyses, parent ratings were obtained on
the CBCL/1½–5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000), which also has 99 items rated on a 3-point
scale (0–1–2) based on children’s functioning over the preceding 2 months. There are 82
items in common across the two forms.

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 6

Six syndromes of co-occurring problems were identified for the CBCL/1½–5 and C-TRF
Author Manuscript

though exploratory and CFA of item ratings (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). The 0–1–2
ratings of items comprising each scale are summed to yield a raw scale score.

Second-order factor analyses of the six syndromes yielded two broad-band groupings:
Internalizing (composed of the Emotionally Reactive, Anxious/Depressed, Somatic
Complaints, and Withdrawn syndromes; maximum possible score on the C-TRF = 64) and
Externalizing (composed of the Attention Problems and Aggressive Behavior syndromes;
maximum possible score on the C-TRF = 68). The Total Problems scale is the sum of the 0–
1–2 ratings on all problem items, with a maximum possible score of 198. The C-TRF and
the CBCL/1½–5 have five Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)–
oriented scales (Affective Problems, Anxiety Problems, Pervasive Developmental Problems,
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems, and Oppositional Defiant Problems), comprising
items identified by an international panel of experts as being very consistent with diagnostic
Author Manuscript

categories of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

Caregivers/teachers in the 14 non-U.S. societies completed C-TRFs translated into the

language of their society. Foreign language versions were created by translators fluent in
English and the foreign language in question. Simple language was used to be consistent
with the fifth-grade reading level of the U.S. version. To verify that translations captured the
original meanings, independent back translations into English were done, which then guided
fine tuning of the translation in an iterative process. Translations were also used for the
CBCL/1½–5, as reported by Rescorla et al. (2011).

Investigators in each society provided 0–1–2 ratings of the 99 specific problem items for
Author Manuscript

each child. These ratings were used to compute raw scale scores for the C-TRF’s six
syndromes, five DSM-oriented scales, and three broadband scales (Internalizing,
Externalizing, and Total Problems), as well as for a 7-item Stress Problems scale
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2010), which was derived from research with preschoolers who
varied in their exposure to traumatic events. The Stress Problems scale includes items such
as 5 = can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long; 47 = nervous, high-strung, or tense;
and 82 = sudden changes in mood or feelings.

Data Analysis
As is typical for problem scores in general population samples where most children have
relatively few problems, scale scores were positively skewed. However, as the general linear
models we used are very robust with respect to deviations from normality, especially with
Author Manuscript

large samples manifesting the same skew pattern (Kirk, 1995), we analyzed untransformed
raw scores. Because the large samples provided such high statistical power that even very
small effects could be statistically significant, we used a probability value of .001.

To achieve the first purpose of the study, we tested the effects of society, gender, and age on
15 problem scales. Because three societies had few or no children younger than 4 years, age
in years was used as a continuous covariate rather than dichotomized as younger versus
older. Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) were used when multiple scales

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 7

with nonoverlapping items could be tested in a single analysis (i.e., the six syndromes, the
Author Manuscript

five DSM-oriented scales, and Internalizing/Externalizing), whereas separate ANCOVAs

were used for Total Problems and Stress Problems. ESs were measured by partial eta
squared (η2), which represents the percentage of total variance uniquely accounted for by a
given variable with the other variables partialed out. ESs were interpreted using Cohen’s
(1988) criteria (small = 1–5.9%, medium = 6–13.9%, and large ≥ 14%). Student-Newman-
Keuls post-hoc tests (with p < .001) were used to test for differences between societies.

To test similarities in item ratings across societies, mean ratings for each of the 99 items
were calculated by averaging all the 0–1–2 ratings obtained on each item within each
society. Correlations between these 99 mean item ratings were then computed for every pair
of societies. To compare the internal consistencies of problem scales across societies,
Cronbach’s alphas were computed for each scale within each society, and correlations were
then computed between alphas for every pair of societies.
Author Manuscript

To achieve the second major purpose of the study, we tested societal effects on cross-
informant agreement for the 7,380 preschoolers in the 13 societies with ratings by a
caregiver/teacher and a parent. The 17 items differing between the C-TRF and the
CBCL/1½–5 were excluded, yielding 82 items in common for cross-informant analyses.
Raw scale scores were calculated for both forms based on the common 82-item set. Because
3 societies had no or very few children younger than age 4 and preliminary analyses
suggested that cross-informant patterns varied somewhat by age, we conducted repeated-
measures ANOVAs on Total Problems, Internalizing, and Externalizing separately by age
group (1½–3, 4–5) to test for effects of informant (parents vs. caregivers/teachers, repeated
measures), society, and gender across the 13 societies. Correlations were also computed
between CBCL/1½–5 and C-TRF problem scale scores within each society. Finally, we
Author Manuscript

tested agreement between parents and caregivers/teachers on item ratings, first using mean
item ratings from caregivers/teachers within each society and then using parent and care-
giver/teacher item ratings separately for each child.

Results
Societal, Gender, and Age Effects on Mean Scale Scores
For each scale, Table 2 displays the range of mean scores, the omnicultural mean (derived by
averaging the 15 society means; Ellis & Kimmel, 1992) and its standard deviation, as well as
the omnicultural standard deviation (derived by averaging the 15 SDs). The omnicultural
mean for Total Problems was 24.1 (SD = 8.6). Mean Total Problems scores in ascending
order for the 15 societies are displayed in Figure 1. On a scale that could range from 0 to
Author Manuscript

198, all 15 societies had scores between 10.6 and 37.8, with 9 of the 15 societies scoring
within 8.6 points (1 SD) of the omnicultural mean. In all, 3 societies (Iceland, Denmark, and
Austria) had scores greater than 1 SD below the omnicultural mean, whereas 3 other
societies (Kosovo, Lithuania, and Iran) had scores greater than 1 SD above the omnicultural
mean. The omnicultural standard deviation (the mean of the 15 SDs) was 20.2, more than
double the standard deviation of the omnicultural mean (8.6), showing that Total Problems
scores varied much more within than between societies.

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 8

Table 3 displays the ESs for significant effects of society, gender, age, and the society ×
Author Manuscript

gender Interactions for all scales. No other interactions were significant. Each ES indicates
the percentage of variance in scores on a particular scale accounted for by a particular factor
with the other factors partialed out. For example, entries in the first row of Table 3 indicate
the percentage of variance in Total Problems scores accounted for by society, gender, age,
and society × gender interactions. F and p values are not included in the table due to the
large number of effects and the fact that only ESs with p < .001 were considered significant.
All multivariate effects in the MANCOVAs were significant at p < .001, but for clarity of
presentation these are not presented in Table 1.

The ANCOVA for Total Problems yielded a medium ES (12%) for differences between
societies. Gender yielded a 1% ES, indicating a slight tendency for boys to score higher than
girls on Total Problems. The age covariate was significant (ES < 1%), indicating a slight
tendency for younger children to score higher than older children. The society × gender
Author Manuscript

interaction was not significant. S-N-K post hoc tests indicated that no society had a mean
Total Problems score significantly higher or significantly lower than all other societies.

As can be seen in Table 3, the ESs for society were 12% for Internalizing and 7% for
Externalizing. Boys scored significantly higher than girls, with a smaller gender effect for
Internalizing (ES < 1%) than for Externalizing (ES = 3%). The significant but very small
society × gender interaction for Externalizing (<1%) indicated that the magnitude of the
gender effect varied somewhat across societies. Younger preschoolers had higher scores than
older preschoolers on Internalizing and Externalizing (ES < 1% for both). For both
Internalizing and Externalizing, Iceland, Denmark, and Austria had the lowest mean scores,
but they were not significantly different from each other nor from the other societies. For
Internalizing, Kosovo, Lithuania, and Iran had the highest mean scores, but they were not
Author Manuscript

significantly different from each other or from those of the other societies. For Externalizing,
Kosovo, Lithuania, Iran, Romania, and Chile had significantly higher scores than all the
other societies.

As shown in Table 3, the MANCOVAs for the two sets of narrow-band scales (syndrome
scales and DSM-oriented scales) yielded ESs for differences between societies ranging from
5% (DSM–Affective Problems, DSM–Oppositional Defiant Problems) to 15% (Somatic
Complaints). Boys scored significantly higher than girls on nine narrow-band scales, with all
ESs less than or equal to 1% except for Attention Problems (3%), Aggressive Behavior
(2%), and DSM–Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems (2%). The society × gender
interaction was significant for Attention Problems and DSM–Attention-Deficit/
Hyperactivity Problems (ES < 1%), indicating that the size of the gender effect varied
Author Manuscript

slightly across societies. Girls scored significantly higher than boys only on Somatic
Complaints (ES < 1%). Younger preschoolers scored significantly higher than older
preschoolers on all narrow-band scales except Withdrawn and DSM–Affective Problems, but
all ESs were very small (<1%). The ANOVA for Stress Problems yielded an ES for Society
of 6%, with boys scoring slightly higher than girls (ES < 1%).

Although Iceland, Denmark, and Austria had the lowest mean scores on most narrow-band
scales, their mean scores were significantly lower than those of all other societies only on

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 9

Attention Problems and DSM–Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems. Lithuania, Iran,

Author Manuscript

and Kosovo had the highest mean scores on most narrow-band scales, with significantly
higher scores than all other societies on the DSM–Pervasive Developmental Problems scale.
On Somatic Complaints, Kosovo had a significantly higher mean score than Iran, which had
a significantly higher mean score than all other societies. On the rest of the scales, the lowest
and highest scoring societies were not significantly different from the remaining societies.
Overall, results suggested that the societies with lower scores (or higher scores) showed the
same tendency on all problem scales, rather than only on a particular type of problem scale.
Similarly, societies scoring within 1 standard deviation of the omnicultural mean tended to
do so on all problem scales.

Societal Effects on Mean Item Ratings

For each society, we averaged the 0–1–2 ratings of each item for the entire sample from that
Author Manuscript

society. We computed Pearson’s rs between the 99 mean item ratings from each society with
those from each other society, yielding a matrix of bisociety correlations. These were
technically Q correlations because they were calculated over items between two “cases”
(i.e., 2 societies), rather than over cases between two items. However, for simplicity here and
elsewhere, we refer to Q correlations as rs. Bisociety rs between mean item ratings for all
pairs of societies ranged from .49 (Austria with Kosovo) to .91 (Germany with Austria).
When we averaged the bisociety rs for each society, the mean bisociety rs ranged from .64
(Kosovo) to .79 (the United States), with 13 of the 15 societies having a mean r ≥ .70. The
omnicultural mean of these 15 bisociety rs was .73, indicating strong similarity with regard
to which C-TRF items received relatively high versus relatively low mean ratings across the
15 societies.

To further explore multicultural findings at the item level, we used the following procedure
Author Manuscript

to identify the 10 problems that had the highest mean ratings. For each item, we averaged
the mean item rating from each of the 15 societies to obtain 99 omnicultural mean item
ratings. The 10 problems with the highest omnicultural mean item ratings comprised the
“Top 10” problem list (see Table 4). Table 4 also lists the number of societies for which
these problems made each society’s own Top 10 list. When listed in descending order within
each society, adjacent mean item ratings were often identical or differed only minutely.
Consequently, Table 4 also indicates in parentheses the number of societies for which each
problem was among the “Top 15” problems. All but 1 of the Top 10 problems was among
the Top 15 problems for at least 11 societies. In all, 7 of the Top 10 problems reflect
difficulties with attention, concentration, and self-control (Items 59, 5, 6, 8, 64, 96, and 16)
and are on the broad-band Externalizing scale. Of the remaining 3 problems, 1 loaded on the
Anxious/Depressed syndrome of the broadband Internalizing scale (Item 33) and 2 (Items 73
Author Manuscript

and 3) did not load on any syndrome. Three additional problems made the Top 10 lists for at
least 5 societies when societies were analyzed separately—51 = fidgets; 68 = self-conscious
or easily embarrassed; and 24 = difficulty following directions.

Both the bisociety correlations between mean item ratings and the Top 10 problem analysis
indicated considerable consistency with respect to the rank ordering of item ratings by
caregivers/teachers in 15 societies. Nevertheless, the 15 societies varied with respect to how

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 10

many problems in their own Top 10 problem set matched the Top 10 set averaged across all
Author Manuscript

societies (e.g., 8 problems matched for Italy, Romania, and Portugal; 7 problems matched
for Iran, Germany, and Austria; 6 problems matched for Denmark, the Netherlands, the
United States, China, and Serbia; and 5 problems matched for Lithuania, Iceland, Chile, and
Kosovo).

Also listed in Table 4 is the omnicultural mean of the percentage of children across the 15
societies whose caregivers/teachers gave ratings of 1 = somewhat or sometimes true or 2 =
very true or often true to the 10 highest scoring problems. For each item, the omnicultural
mean percentage was obtained by averaging the percentage of preschoolers rated 1 and the
percentage rated 2 in the 15 societies. These 10 omnicultural mean percentages ranged from
28% to 39% for ratings of 1 and from 7% to 12% for ratings of 2. Problems were about 3
times more likely to be rated 1 than 2, indicating that more children manifested these
problems to a mild degree than to a severe degree. As indicated in Table 4, 6 of the Top 10
Author Manuscript

problems were also among the Top 10 problems reported by parents of preschoolers across
24 societies (Rescorla et al., 2011).

Societal Effects on Internal Consistency

When Cronbach’s alphas for all 15 scales in each society were correlated with alphas for all
15 scales in every other society, bisociety correlations ranged from .85 (Portugal with
Iceland) to .99 (Italy with Iceland), with a mean bisociety r of .93. Mean bisociety rs for
each society ranged from .90 for the Netherlands to .95 for the United States, China,
Romania, Germany, and Austria. These large correlations indicate that the internal
consistencies of the C-TRF scales were very similar across societies, with Total Problems,
Internalizing, Externalizing, Aggressive Behavior, and DSM–Attention-Deficit/
Hyperactivity Problems having the largest alphas. For each scale, we averaged the alphas
Author Manuscript

across societies to yield an omnicultural mean alpha, as shown in Table 2. Omnicultural

mean alphas for Total Problems, Internalizing, and Externalizing were .95, .88, and .94,
respectively. As Table 2 shows, 4 narrow-band scales had mean alphas less than .70, 4 had
mean alphas from .70 to .79, and 4 had mean alphas greater than .80.

Societal Effects on Cross-Informant Agreement: Mean Score Comparisons

To achieve the second major purpose of the study, we used separate repeated-measures
ANOVAs of scale scores within each age group for the cross-informant sample of 7,380
from 13 societies (ages 1½–3 = 34%, ages 4–5, 66%). We tested societal effects on cross-
informant agreement for Total Problems, Internalizing, and Externalizing, with the
informant (parents vs. caregivers/teachers) as the within-participants factor and with society
and gender as the between-participants factors. ESs from the 2 (Informant) × 13 (Society) ×
Author Manuscript

2 (Gender) ANOVAs are reported below for all effects significant at p < .001.

For ages 1½ to 3, the ANOVA on Total Problems yielded significant main effects for
informant (11%), society (25%), and gender (2%), and the informant × society interaction
(5%). For ages 4 to 5, effects were significant for informant (13%), society (18%), gender
(1%), the informant × society interaction (3%), and the informant × gender interaction (1%).
CBCL/1½–5 mean Total Problems scores were significantly higher than C-TRF mean Total

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 11

Problems scores in all 13 societies, but the informant effect was larger in some societies
Author Manuscript

(e.g., China, Iceland) than in others (e.g., Iran, Denmark). The informant effect was
comparable for younger and older boys (9% and 10%, respectively), but smaller for younger
girls than older girls (13% and 18%, respectively).

For ages 1½ to 3, ANOVAs indicated that the informant effect for Internalizing (1%) was
much smaller than that for Externalizing (16%). By contrast, societal effects were larger for
Internalizing (27%) than for Externalizing (15%). The informant × society interaction was
5% for both scales. Gender had a significant effect for Externalizing only (3%). For
Internalizing, the informant ES for boys (<1%) was comparable with that for girls (1%).
However, for Externalizing, the informant ES for boys (14%) was smaller than that for girls
(19%).

For ages 4 to 5, the informant effect was smaller for Internalizing (5%) than for
Author Manuscript

Externalizing (15%), but societal effects were similar for the two scales (Internalizing =
16%, Externalizing = 13%). The effect of gender was only significant for Externalizing
(2%). The informant × society interaction was the same for Internalizing and Externalizing
(3%), as was the informant × gender interaction (<1%). For Internalizing, the informant ES
was smaller for boys (3%) than for girls (7%). For Externalizing, there was a much larger
gender disparity for the informant effect (boys = 10% and girls = 23%).

It is noteworthy that the repeated-measures ANOVAs on C-TRF and CBCL/1½–5 Total

Problems, Internalizing, and Externalizing in the cross-informant sample (n = 7,380) yielded
larger ESs for society than those obtained in the C-TRF analyses for the full sample (N =
10,521). To explore this finding, we computed separate societal ESs for C-TRF and
CBCL/1½–5 Total Problems using the cross-informant sample of 7,380 children. For ages
Author Manuscript

1½ to 5, societal ESs were 19% on the C-TRF and 18% on the CBCL/1½–5, both smaller
than the societal ES of 25% in the repeated-measures analysis but larger than the societal ES
of 12% for the full C-TRF sample of 10,521 from 15 societies. Similarly, for ages 4 to 5,
societal ESs were 15% on the C-TRF and 13% on the CBCL/1½–5, both smaller than the
societal ES of 18% in the repeated-measures ANOVA and only slightly higher than the
societal ES of 12% for the full C-TRF sample of 10,521. We also computed the correlation
between mean C-TRF and CBCL/1½–5 Total Problems scores for the 13 cross-informant
samples, which was .87, indicating that societies with low C-TRF scores also tended to have
low CBCL/1½–5 scores. It thus appears that the cross-informant, repeated-measured
analyses magnified societal differences in score levels because, when a society deviated
widely from the omnicultural mean on the C-TRF, it also deviated widely on the CBCL/1½–
5.
Author Manuscript

Societal Effects on Cross-Informant Correlations for Scale Scores

Societal effects on cross-informant agreement were also tested by comparing cross-
informant rs computed within each society. These cross-informant rs indicated the degree of
association between problem scale scores derived from ratings by parents versus caregivers/
teachers of the same children within each of 13 societies. Although cross-informant rs were
significant at p < .001 for most problem scales in most societies, nonsignificant rs were
found on many scales for Iceland and Portugal and on a few scales for several other

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 12

societies. Table 5 presents the r for the society with the lowest and the highest cross-
Author Manuscript

informant r, as well as the omnicultural mean r obtained by averaging the 13 societal cross-
informant rs for each scale. Omnicultural mean cross-informant rs ranged from .17 for
Somatic Complaints to .35 for Externalizing.

We used the within-participants asymptotic variance z test for each society to determine
whether cross-informant rs were significantly larger for Externalizing than for Internalizing,
relative to the within-informant rs for the two scales. The z value was significant at p < .001
for the United States, Germany, Romania, Portugal, and Serbia; at p < .01 for Lithuania; and
at p < .05 for Denmark and Italy, indicating that cross-informant agreement was higher for
Externalizing than for Internalizing in these but not other societies.

When cross-informant rs were averaged within each society across all problem scales, they
ranged from .18 in Iceland to .46 in Romania. Iceland, China, and Portugal had mean
Author Manuscript

problem scale cross-informant rs < .20; Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria,
and Serbia had mean rs between .20 and .29; Iran, Denmark, and the United States had mean
rs from .30 to .39; and Romania had a mean r of .46. To test if the societies differed
significantly in mean problem scale cross-informant r, we used the between-participants
Fisher’s z test, starting with the most extreme values to avoid Type 1 errors arising from
multiple comparisons. Results indicated that Iceland’s mean cross-informant r of .18 was
significantly smaller at p < .001 than Romania’s mean cross-informant r of .46, but it was
not significantly smaller than the r of .33 from the United States, the next largest r after
Romania.

Societal Effects on Cross-Informant Agreement for Item Ratings

The first method used to examine societal effects on cross-informant agreement for problem
Author Manuscript

items used mean item ratings for parents and caregivers/teachers within each society. First,
the mean ratings for parents and caregivers/teachers in each society were computed for the
82 items used for cross-informant analyses. Then, correlations were computed across the 82
mean item ratings from parents and caregivers/teachers, yielding a cross-informant r for each
society. These rs ranged from .67 in Austria to .95 in Romania (all p < .001), which were all
large (Cohen, 1988). The omnicultural mean of the 13 rs was .80 (SD = 0.09). Thus, parents
and caregivers/teachers within each of the 13 societies showed strong agreement, on
average, with respect to which items they rated high, medium, or low.

The second method we used to examine cross-informant agreement on item ratings was to
calculate within-child correlations between the parent and caregiver/teacher item ratings for
each child. Mean within-child rs ranged from .17 for China to .41 for Romania, with an
Author Manuscript

omnicultural mean of .25 (SD = 0.07). Within-child rs were much lower than the rs based on
mean item ratings for parents and caregivers/teachers within each society, indicating great
within-society variation across children in their patterns of 0–1–2 ratings. We converted
these rs to Fisher’s zs and then submitted them to 13 (Society) × 2 (Gender) ANOVAs,
separately by age group, to test effects of society and gender on within-child item agreement
between parents and caregivers/teachers. These ANOVAs yielded societal ESs of 9% for
younger preschoolers and 13% for older preschoolers. Neither gender nor the Society ×
Gender interaction was significant for either age group.

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 13

Discussion
Author Manuscript

The first purpose of this study was to test societal effects on caregiver/teacher ratings of
10,521 children ages 1½ to 5 from 15 societies. The second purpose was to test societal
effects on cross-informant agreement between parents’ and caregivers/teachers’ ratings of
7,380 preschool children from 13 societies. To our knowledge, this is the first study to
aggregate data from many societies to directly test societal effects on preschoolers’ problems
reported by caregivers/teachers and on cross-informant agreement between parents and
caregivers/teachers. Overall, our findings indicated substantial similarities among societies
but also some notable differences.

Of the 15 significant societal effects on mean scale scores, 2 were small (1%–5.9%), 12
were medium (5.9%–13.9%), and 1 was large (15% for Somatic Complaints). For Total
Problems, the societal ES was 12%. In all, 9 of the 15 societies scored within 1 standard
Author Manuscript

deviation (8.6 points) of the omnicultural mean of 24.1 on Total Problems, a scale that could
range from 0 to 198. These 9 societies (Italy, the Netherlands, China, the United States,
Portugal, Serbia, Germany, Chile, and Romania) differ greatly in ethnicity, religion,
political/economic system, history, geographic region, and cultural values. They also most
likely differ in the percentage of children enrolled in early childhood programs and in class
size, curriculum, behavioral expectations, and training of staff. Nevertheless, ratings by
caregivers and teachers in these societies yielded mean Total Problems scores spanning a
relatively small proportion of the possible range of scores.

It is also important to underscore that 3 societies scored greater than 1 standard deviation
below the omnicultural mean on Total Problems (Iceland, Denmark, and Austria) and 3 other
societies scored greater than 1 standard deviation above the omnicultural mean (Lithuania,
Author Manuscript

Kosovo, and Iran). It is not obvious what features the low-scoring societies (or high-scoring
societies) have in common, nor how either of these groups differs systematically from the
middle-scoring group. For example, Iceland and Denmark are Nordic societies, but Austria
is not. Austria had lower scores than Germany, the society to which it is probably most
similar. Lithuania and Kosovo but not Iran were formerly in the “East Bloc,” but so was
Serbia, which did not have particularly high scores.

The full range of C-TRF mean Total Problems scores across the 15 societies was from 10.6
to 37.8 on a scale ranging from 0 to 198. To take account of these differences between
societies, multicultural norms for the C-TRF (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2010) have three
norm groups (low, medium, and high), which are based on each society’s mean Total
Problems score. The availability of three sets of norms based on differences in mean Total
Problems scores can facilitate identification of children who may need help. For example, a
Author Manuscript

Lithuanian preschooler’s Externalizing score might be in the clinical range (>97th

percentile) for the medium norm group (based on U.S. norms), but in the normal range for
the high norm group, which includes Lithuania. If U.S. norms are used, a clinician might
assume the child requires help, but if norms appropriate for Lithuania are used, the child will
not have an elevated score based on caregiver/teacher reports in Lithuania. As data become
available for other societies, they will be used to determine the appropriate norm groups for
those societies.

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 14

The societal ES was larger for Internalizing than for Externalizing (12% vs. 7%). Parents’
Author Manuscript

reports on the CBCL/1½–5 (Rescorla et al., 2011) also yielded a larger societal ES for
Internalizing (10%) than for Externalizing (7%). Multicultural comparisons of ratings by
teachers and parents of children ages 6 to 11 (Rescorla, Achenbach, Ginzburg, et al., 2007;
Rescorla, Achenbach, Ivanova, et al., 2007) have likewise yielded larger societal ESs for
Internalizing (11% for teachers, 9% for parents) than for Externalizing (4% for teachers, 6%
for parents). This pattern of results indicates that caregivers, teachers, and parents in
different societies vary more in how they rate Internalizing problems such as anxiety,
depression, social withdrawal, and somatic complaints than in how they rate Externalizing
problems such as aggression. This finding could reflect bigger differences across societies in
the “actual” prevalence of Internalizing problems than of Externalizing problems. However,
this finding might also suggest that there is more “cultural universality” in how adults view
children’s Externalizing behavior than in how they view children’s Internalizing behavior,
Author Manuscript

with more “cultural specificity” in judgments of problems such as anxiety, somatic

complaints, and depression.

The mean bisociety r of .73 indicates that item ratings by caregivers/teachers in 15 societies
were quite consistent in terms of which problem items tended to receive high, medium, or
low ratings. This suggests that, despite the vicissitudes of translation, the items operated
similarly in very different societies. Seven of the Top 10 problems were among the Top 10
problems for at least 10 of the 15 societies. Furthermore, 6 of the Top 10 problems were also
among the Top 10 problems rated by parents (Rescorla et al., 2011), namely, 59 = quickly
shifts from one activity to another; 33 = feelings are easily hurt; 8 = can’t stand waiting,
wants everything now; 6 = can’t sit still, restless, or hyperactive; 16 = demands must be met
immediately; and 96 = wants a lot of attention. These findings suggest that there is
considerable “universality” across diverse societies with respect to the behavioral and
Author Manuscript

emotional problems most commonly displayed by young children, whether viewed by their
parents or their caregivers/teachers.

The mean bisociety r of .93 between alphas across the 15 societies indicates that the problem
scales had similar internal consistencies across very diverse societies. In every society, the
scales with the largest alphas were Total Problems, Internalizing, Externalizing, and
Aggressive Behavior. These C-TRF internal consistency findings are consistent with those
reported by Rescorla et al. (2011) for the CBCL/1½–5, by Rescorla, Achenbach, Ivanova, et
al. (2007) for the CBCL/6–18, and by Rescorla, Achenbach, Ginzburg, et al. (2007) for the
TRF. That is, Total Problems, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Aggressive Behavior, which
are the scales with the most items, tended to have the largest Cronbach’s alphas across
societies on all four instruments. The large bisociety rs between alphas complement Ivanova
Author Manuscript

et al.’s (2011) CFA results, which showed that the data from the 14 non-U.S. samples
analyzed for the present study demonstrated generally good fit to the factor model derived
from U.S. samples

An important finding of our research is that mean Total Problems scores derived from
ratings by caregivers/teachers were significantly lower than those derived from ratings of the
same 82 items by parents in all 13 societies where preschoolers were rated by both kinds of
informants. The informant disparity was smaller in some societies than in others, but it is not

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 15

clear what the societies with smaller disparities (such as Denmark and Iran) have in
Author Manuscript

common, nor how they differ from societies with larger disparities (such as China or
Iceland). To our knowledge, only one study conducted by investigators not involved in the
current study has directly compared the magnitude of parent and caregiver/teacher ratings
for preschoolers, namely, the study by Winsler and Wallace (2002), which found that parents
reported more problems than teachers for a sample of 47 U.S. preschoolers. There are
several reasons why parents might report more problems than caregivers/teachers, including
that they generally spend more time with their own children than do caregiver/teachers and
thus have more opportunity to observe problems, that they see behaviors as more
problematic than do caregivers/teachers because they do not see a reference group of other
children in the same setting, that they may be less experienced at dealing with preschoolers
than are caregivers/teachers and thus less able to forestall problems, or that they are more
anxious and concerned about how their own children are doing than are caregivers/teachers
Author Manuscript

who work with groups of children. However, there may be reasons for caregivers/teachers to
report more problems than parents. For example, young children might be more stressed at
day care/school than at home because they are separated from parents, compelled to follow
school routines, and required to adjust to other children. Despite these factors, caregiver/
teacher ratings were significantly lower than parent ratings in all 13 societies with cross-
informant data, suggesting that these factors were less important than the factors
contributing to higher parent scores.

Another important finding is that the discrepancy between parent scores and caregiver/
teacher scores was smaller for boys than for girls, especially in the older age group. This was
seen in the informant ESs for the younger group (10% for boys vs. 13% for girls) compared
with those for the older group (9% for boys vs. 18% for girls). These findings indicate that
caregivers/teachers tend to report fewer problems than parents do for girls but less so for
Author Manuscript

boys, particularly when the preschoolers are 4 to 5 years of age. This may be because,
particularly as preschoolers get older, girls manifest better adjustment to the demands of the
day care/school environment than do boys, with caregiver/teachers perceiving boys as being
more aggressive, non-compliant, and inattentive than girls. This interpretation of our data is
supported by the fact that the largest C-TRF gender ESs in the current study were on
Externalizing (3%) and its associated scales (Attention Problems = 3%, Aggressive Behavior
= 2%). In addition, in comparing TRF ratings from 21 societies for students ages 6 to 15,
Rescorla, Achenbach, Ginzburg, et al. (2007) found that the largest gender ESs were on
Externalizing, Attention Problems, Aggressive Behavior, and Rule-Breaking Behavior.

Cross-informant agreement between caregivers/teachers and parents was first tested for the
15 problem scales within each society. When cross-informant rs for all problem scales were
Author Manuscript

averaged within society, mean cross-informant rs for problem scales ranged from .18 in
Iceland to .46 in Romania. Iceland, Portugal, and China had the lowest agreement (.18–.19),
whereas Romania, the United States, Iran, and Denmark had the highest agreement (.33–.
46). However, most of the differences between societies in cross-informant rs were not
significant. It is not apparent what cultural factors might account for the relatively low cross-
informant agreement in Iceland, Portugal, and China. Yet, even the highest agreement was
modest, consistent with Achenbach et al.’s (1987) meta-analytic findings. This is to be

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 16

expected, given that caregivers/teachers interact with preschoolers in group settings, whereas
Author Manuscript

parents interact with preschoolers primarily in family settings.

Cross-informant agreement between parents and caregivers/teachers on item ratings was

tested two ways, first using mean item ratings from parents and caregivers/teachers within
each society and then using parent and care-giver/teacher item ratings separately for each
child. When rs between mean item ratings for parents and caregivers/teachers within each
society were computed, rs ranged from .67 in Austria to .95 in Romania. Thus, on average,
parents and caregivers/teachers in every society agreed very well with respect to which items
they tended to rate low, medium, or high. However, when “within-child” cross-informant rs
for item ratings were computed, rs varied widely in every society and the mean r ranged
from only .17 for China to .41 for Romania, indicating great within-society variation in
agreement between parent versus caregiver/teacher ratings of particular problem items. In
every society, some parent–caregiver/teacher pairs agreed well on the child’s problems,
Author Manuscript

whereas others agreed poorly. Societies differed in their overall level of within-child
agreement, but no society had a mean r that would be considered “large” range according to
Cohen’s (1988) criteria.

Limitations
For some societies, such as the United States, we believe that the sample was representative
of the population with respect to region, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) of
children attending day care/preschool. For other societies, such as China, the sample was
large and somewhat diverse in SES, but it was recruited in only one region of a very large
country (a metropolitan area between Shanghai and Nanjing) and probably did not reflect
ethnic minority groups who live in other regions of China or the full SES spectrum of
Author Manuscript

Chinese children attending day care/preschool. Furthermore, because we lacked SES and
ethnicity information in most samples, we could not test effects of these factors on problem
scores. In addition, we did not have information for each society regarding whether
clinically referred children were included, although the percentage of referred children was
probably small. It is also likely that societies varied to some degree in access to day care/
preschool as a function of SES, with children from lower SES families overrepresented in
some societies and underrepresented in other societies. We also know that sampling methods
varied somewhat across societies (e.g., through schools vs. through households or birth
cohorts). In summary, although we had large samples from 15 societies, indigenous
investigators used regional rather than national samples in 10 societies, used somewhat
different methods of obtaining the data, and could not verify how representative their
samples were with respect to SES, ethnicity, and other factors. These factors limit the
Author Manuscript

generalizability of our findings with respect to the population of each society.

European societies were overrepresented, although we had five non-European samples

(Australia, China, Chile, Iran, the United States). Because the data were collected by
indigenous investigators for various purposes, rather than being collected according to a
single international sampling plan, we did not have equal representation from the whole
world. However, our data provide a good benchmark against which data from additional
societies can be compared in future research.

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 17

Another possible limitation of our study is that, despite the process of translation and back
Author Manuscript

translation, we cannot be certain that the problem items held identical meanings for all
caregivers/teachers in every society. This is because we used an etic method, whereby the
same standardized assessment instrument was used in 15 societies, rather than an emic
method (Pike, 1967), whereby meanings of constructs are examined within each society.
Using an emic method, one might explore how caregivers/teachers in the different societies
interpreted the problem items, which might suggest reasons why agreement between parents
and caregivers/teachers was lower in some societies than in others. Despite the fact that it
was not possible to conduct interviews with caregivers/teachers in each society regarding the
meaning of the C-TRF items, the large bisociety rs obtained for mean item ratings suggest
that caregivers/teachers in different societies interpreted the items similarly. Furthermore, the
finding that 6 of the “Top 10” items in caregiver/teacher ratings were also among the “Top
10” items in parent ratings societies suggests that parents and caregivers/teachers were
Author Manuscript

interpreting the items in the same way.

Conclusions
There are many differences among the 15 societies in this study with respect to language,
ethnicity, region, size, religion, political/economic system, and early childhood programs.
Nevertheless, many similarities were found in mean scale scores, age and gender effects,
mean item ratings, scale internal consistencies derived from caregiver/teacher ratings, and
cross-informant patterns for ratings by caregivers/teachers and parents.

Acknowledgments
Funding
Author Manuscript

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article:
The C-TRF is published by the Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families at the University of Vermont,
from which the first three authors receive remuneration.

References
Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell C. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems:
Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin. 1987;
101:213–232. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 [PubMed: 3562706]
Achenbach, TM., Rescorla, L. Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms & profiles. Burlington:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families; 2000.
Achenbach, TM., Rescorla, L. Multicultural supplement to the Manual for the ASEBA preschool
forms and profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and
Families; 2010.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4.
Author Manuscript

Washington, DC: Author; 1994.

Carter A. The field of toddler/preschool mental health has arrived—On a global scale. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010; 49:1181–1182. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.
2010.09.006 [PubMed: 21093766]
Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. New York, NY: Academic Press;
1988.
Crane J, Mincic MS, Winsler A. Parent–teacher agreement and reliability on the Devereux Early
Childhood Assessment (DECA) in English and Spanish for ethnically diverse children living in

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 18

poverty. Early Education and Development. 2011; 22:520–547. DOI:

10.1080/10409289.2011.565722
Author Manuscript

De Los Reyes A, Kazdin AE. Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood

psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study.
Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131:483–509. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.483 [PubMed:
16060799]
Denner S, Schmeck K. Emotional and behavioural disorders at preschool age—Results of a study in
kindergarten children in Dortmund using the Caregiver–Teacher Report Form C-TRF/1½–5.
Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie. 2005; 33:307–317. [PubMed:
16294708]
Dias, P., Machado, BC., Silva, J., Goncalves, M. Child Behavior Checklist/1½–5 and C-TRF scores for
Portuguese preschool children. 2009. Unpublished manuscript
Dobrean, A. Child Behavior Checklist/1½–5 and C-TRF scores for Romanian preschool children.
2009. Unpublished manuscript
Döpfner, M., Plück, J. Child Behavior Checklist/1½–5 and C-TRF scores for German preschool
children. 2009. Unpublished manuscript
Author Manuscript

Ellis BB, Kimmel DD. Identification of unique cultural response patterns by means of item response
theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992; 77:177–184.
Eyberg, S., Pincus, D. Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter Eyberg Student Behavior
Inventory–Revised. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1999.
Frigerio A, Cozzi P, Pastore V, Molteni M, Borgatti R, Montirosso R. The evaluation of behavioral and
emotional problems in a sample of Italian preschoolers using the Child Behavior Checklist and the
Caregiver-Teacher Report Form. Infanzia e Adolescenza. 2006; 5:24–32.
Gross D, Fogg L, Garvey C, Julion W. Behavior problems in young children: An analysis of cross-
informant agreements and disagreements. Research in Nursing & Health. 2004; 27:413–425.
[PubMed: 15514961]
Guđmundsson, H., Bjarnadóttir, G. Child Behavior Checklist/1½–5 and C-TRF scores for Icelandic
preschool children. 2009. Unpublished manuscript
Ivanova MY, Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA, Bilenberg N, Kristensen S, Bjarnadottir G, … Verhulst FC.
Syndromes of preschool psychopathology reported by teachers and caregivers in 14 societies.
Author Manuscript

Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology. 2011; 7:99–116.

Jusiené R, Raižiené S, Barkauskiené R, Bielauskaité R, Dervinyté-Bongarzoni A. The risk factors of
emotional and behavioral problems in preschool age. Visuomenes Sveikata. Public Health. 2007;
4:46–54.
Kirk, RE. Experimental design: Procedures for behavioral sciences. 3. New York, NY: Wadsworth;
1995.
Kristensen S, Henriksen TB, Bilenberg N. The Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5–5 (CBCL/1½–
5): Assessment and analysis of parent- and caregiver-reported problems in a population-based
sample of Danish preschool children. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2010; 64:203–209. DOI:
10.3109/08039480903456595 [PubMed: 20085433]
LaFreniere, PJ., Dumas, JE. Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation–Preschool edition (SCBE).
Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1995.
LaFreniere PJ, Masataka N, Butovskaya M, Chen Q, Dessen MA, Atwanger K, … Frigerio A. Cross-
cultural analysis of social competence and behavior problems in pre-schoolers. Early Education
and Development. 2002; 13:201–219. DOI: 10.1207/s15566935eed13026
Author Manuscript

LeBuffe, PA., Naglieri, JA. The Devereux Early Childhood Assessment. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press;
1999.
Lecanneler, F., Löbel, SP., Mas, PO., Rodriguez, JT., Rojas, PO. C-TRF scores for Chilean preschool
children. 2009. Unpublished manuscript
Liu J, Cheng H, Leung PWL. The application of the preschool Child Behavior Checklist and
Caregiver–Teacher Report Form to Mainland Chinese children: Syndrome structure, gender
differences, country effects, and inter-informant agreement. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology. 2010; 39:251–264. DOI: 10.1007/s10802-010-9452-8

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 19

Markovic, J. Child Behavior Checklist/1½–5 and C-TRF scores for Serbian preschool children. 2011.
Unpublished manuscript
Author Manuscript

Merrell, KW. Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior scales: Test manual. Brandon, VT: Clinical
Psychology Publishers; 1994.
Mohammad Esmaeli, E. Child Behavior Checklist/1½–5 and C-TRF scores for Iranian preschool
children. 2009. Unpublished manuscript
Pike, KL., editor. Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior. 2. The
Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton; 1967.
Rescorla L, Achenbach TM, Ginzburg S, Ivanova MY, Dumenci L, Almqvist F, … Verhulst F.
Consistency of teacher-reported problems for students in 21 countries. School Psychology Review.
2007; 36:91–110.
Rescorla L, Achenbach TM, Ivanova MY, Dumenci L, Almqvist F, Bilenberg N, … Verhulst FC.
Behavioral and emotional problems reported by parents of children ages 6 to 16 in 31 Societies.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2007; 15:130–142.
Rescorla L, Achenbach TM, Ivanova MY, Harder VS, Otten L, Bilenberg N, … Verhulst FC.
International comparisons of behavioral and emotional problems in preschool children: Parents’
Author Manuscript

reports from 24 societies. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2011; 40:456–
467. [PubMed: 21534056]
Schmeck, K., Skrabels, C. Child Behavior Checklist/1½–5 and C-TRF scores for Austrian preschool
children. 2004. Unpublished manuscript
Shahini, M., Pranvera, J. C-TRF scores for Kosovar preschool children. 2010. Unpublished manuscript
Tick NT, van der Ende J, Koot HM, Verhulst FC. 14-year changes in emotional and behavioral
problems of very young Dutch children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry. 2007; 46:1333–1340. DOI: 10.1097/chi.0b013e3181337532 [PubMed: 17885575]
Winsler A, Wallace GL. Behavior problems and social skills in preschool children: Parent–teacher
agreement and relations with classroom observations. Early Education and Development. 2002;
13:41–58. DOI: 10.1207/s15566935eed1301_3
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 20
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Mean C-TRF Total Problems scores in 15 societies (N = 10,521)
Note: C-TRF = Caregiver–Teacher Report Form. The omnicultural mean = 24.1 (SD = 8.6),
with a possible range of 0 to 198.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Characteristics of C-TRF Samples From 15 Societies

Societya Reference n Age (in years) Male (%) Sample

Rescorla et al.

Austria Schmeck and Skrabels (2004) 342 3–5 52 Regional school-based

Chile Lecannelier et al. (2011) 848 1½–5 54 Regional school-based
China Liu et al. (2010) 931 4–5 53 Regional school-based
Denmark Kristensen et al. (2010) 625 1½–5 49 Regional hospital birth cohort
Germany Denner and Schmeck (2005); Döpfner and Plück (2009) 1,237 2–5 52 Regional school-based
Iceland Guđmundsson and Bjarnadóttir (2009) 299 1½–5 49 National school-based
Iran Mohammad Esmaeli (2009) 1,350 1½–5 49 National school-based
Italy Frigerio et al. (2006) 526 1½–5 52 Regional school-based
Kosovo Shahini and Pranvera (2010) 322 1½–5 52 Regional school-based
Lithuania Jusiene et al. (2007) 824 1½–5 53 National school-based
The Netherlands Tick et al. (2007) 371 1½–5 52 Regional household
Portugal Dias et al. (2009) 384 1½–5 51 Regional school-based
Romania Dobrean (2009) 893 2–5 47 National school-based
Serbia Markovic (2011) 377 4–5 43 Regional school-based
The United States Achenbach and Rescorla (2000) 1,192 1½–5 51 National household; hospital birth cohort

Note: C-TRF = Caregiver–Teacher Report Form.

a
Data from the samples participating in the present study were also used by Ivanova et al. (2011), but analyses in the two studies did not overlap.

The Romanian sample used in the present study was slightly smaller than that used by Ivanova et al. (2011), because children with anomalies in age or gender scores were excluded from the present report.

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
Page 21
 Rescorla et al. Page 22

Table 2

Ranges, Omnicultural Means, Standard Deviations, and Alphas Across 15 Societies

Author Manuscript

C-TRF scale (maximum possible score) Rangea Omnicultural M (SD)b Omnicultural SD Mean αc
Total Problems (198) 10.6–37.8 24.1 (8.6) 20.2 .95 (99)
Internalizing (64) 3.0–12.0 7.3 (2.8) 6.7 .88 (32)
Externalizing (68) 5.4–15.2 10.3 (3.3) 10.4 .94 (34)
Emotionally reactive (14) 0.7–2.8 1.6 (0.7) 1.9 .68 (7)
Anxious/Depressed (16) 1.1–3.7 2.4 (0.8) 2.4 .73 (8)
Somatic Complaints (14) 0.2–2.4 0.8 (0.6) 1.2 .53 (7)
Withdrawn (20) 1.0–3.7 2.5 (0.8) 2.9 .80 (10)
Attention Problems (18) 1.6–4.8 3.5 (1.0) 3.5 .84 (9)
Aggressive Behavior (50) 3.5–10.4 6.9 (2.4) 7.7 .93 (25)
DSM–Affective Problems (16) 0.5–2.2 1.3 (0.5) 2.0 .75 (8)
Author Manuscript

DSM–Anxiety Problems (14) 0.5–2.8 1.6 (0.7) 1.9 .66 (7)

DSM–Pervasive Developmental Problems (26) 1.2–4.9 3.2 (1.1) 3.2 .76 (13)
DSM–Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity (26) 2.8–8.1 5.5 (1.7) 5.0 .88 (13)
DSM–Oppositional Defiant Problems (14) 1.1–3.0 2.0 (0.6) 2.5 .82 (7)
Stress Problems (14) 0.9–2.5 1.5 (0.4) 1.8 .63 (7)

Note: C-TRF = Caregiver–Teacher Report Form (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000); DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
a
Range for society means.
b
Average of 15 societal means and 15 societal standard deviations.
c
Omnicultural mean of 15 societal alphas; number of items per scale in parentheses.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Rescorla et al. Page 23

Table 3

Significant Effect Sizes (η2) for C-TRF Scale Scores

Author Manuscript

C-TRF Scale Society (%) Gender (%) Age (%) S × G (%)

Total Problems 12a 1 <1 <1

Internalizing 12 <1 <1 ns

Externalizing 7 3 <1 <1
Emotionally Reactive 9 <1 <1 ns
Anxious/Depressed 9 ns <1 ns
Somatic Complaints 15 <1 <1 ns
Withdrawn 6 <1 ns ns
Attention Problems 6 3 <1 <1
Aggressive Behavior 7 2 <1 ns
DSM–Affective Problems 5 <1 ns ns
Author Manuscript

DSM–Anxiety Problems 9 ns <1 ns

DSM–Pervasive Developmental Problems 7 <1 <1 ns
DSM–Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems 6 2 <1 <1
DSM–Oppositional Defiant Problems 5 1 <1 ns
Stress Problems 6 <1 ns ns

Note: C-TRF = Caregiver–Teacher Report Form (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000); DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994); S = Society; G = gender.
a
Effect sizes are percentage of variance accounted for by each effect that was significant at p < .001. No other effects were significant.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 4

Ten Highest Scoring C-TRF Problems Across 15 Societies

Item no. Item Mean ratinga Societiesb (n) Rated 1c (%) Rated 2d (%)
Rescorla et al.

59 Quickly shifts from one activity to anothere 0.54 13 (15) 34 10

33 Feelings are easily hurte 0.53 12 (14) 37 8

5 Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long 0.51 12 (14) 32 10

6 Can’t sit still, restless, or hyperactivee 0.51 11 (14) 29 11

8 Can’t stand waiting, wants everything nowe 0.50 11 (13) 29 10

64 Inattentive, easily distracted 0.48 10 (13) 31 8

96 Wants a lot of attentione 0.46 5 (11) 26 9

73 Too shy or timid 0.45 10 (12) 31 7

3 Afraid to try new things 0.42 7 (8) 30 6
16 Demands must be met immediatelye 0.42 5 (11) 27 8

Note: C-TRF = Caregiver–Teacher Report Form; For all items, 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true.
a
Mean rating = omnicultural mean of 15 societal mean ratings.
b
Number of societies for which problem was in its “Top 10” list (number of societies for which problem was in its “Top 15” items).
c
Omnicultural mean of percentage of children rated 1 across the 15 societies.
d
Omnicultural mean of percentage of children rated 2 across the 15 societies.
e
Problem was also on “Top 10” list for parents’ ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL/1½–5) in 24 societies (Rescorla et al., 2011).

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.
Page 24
 Rescorla et al. Page 25

Table 5

Cross-Informant Correlations Between C-TRF and CBCL/1½–5 Scales

Author Manuscript

Scale Minimum Maximum Omnicultural meana

Total problems .18 .49 .29
Internalizing .13 .47 .25
Externalizing .21 .57 .35
Emotionally Reactive .09 .37 .22
Anxious/Depressed .16 .41 .24
Somatic Complaints .06 .30 .17
Withdrawn .12 .52 .28
Attention Problems .21 .50 .34
Aggressive Behavior .19 .55 .33
DSM–Affective .04 .45 .18
Author Manuscript

DSM–Anxiety .13 .40 .25

DSM–Pervasive Developmental .14 .50 .32
DSM–Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity .15 .50 .31
DSM–Oppositional Defiant .14 .51 .29
Stress Problems .11 .48 .25

Note: C-TRF = Caregiver–Teacher Report Form; CBCL/1½–5 = Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000); DSM =
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
a
Mean of the within-society rs for the 13 societies with yoked C-TRF and CBCL/1½–5 data.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Emot Behav Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 February 05.