Only complementary voices tell the truth: a reevaluation of validity in multi-informant approaches of child and adolescent clinical assessments.
Multi-informant approaches are thought to be key to clinical assessment. Classical theories of psychological measurements assume that only convergence among different informants' reports allows for an estimate of the true nature and causes of clinical presentations. However, the integration of multiple accounts is fraught with problems because findings in child and adolescent psychiatry do not conform to the fundamental expectation of convergence. Indeed, reports provided by different sources (self, parents, teachers, peers) share little variance. Moreover, in some cases informant divergence may be meaningful and not error variance. In this review, we give an overview of conceptual and theoretical foundations of valid multi-informant assessment and discuss why our common concepts of validity need revaluation.
Department of Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Aleksandra
A
Kaurin
Department of Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Institute of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Boris
B
Egloff
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Argyris
A
Stringaris
Department of Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. wessa@uni-mainz.de.
Michèle
M
Wessa
D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D002653:Child Behavior Disorders / Q000523:psychology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000523:psychology*; D010290:Parents / Q000523:psychology; D011582:Psychological Theory
Construct validity; Cross-informant agreement; Incremental validity; Meaningful divergence; Multimethod assessment