Achenbach System of
competencies and/or adaptive functioning.
Empirically Based
Assessment (ASEBA)
Thomas M. Achenbach
University of Vermont, U.S.A.
The Achenbach System of Empirically Based
Assessment (ASEBA) comprises a family
of instruments for assessing the behavioral,
emotional, and social problems and adaptive
functioning of children, youths, and adults at
ages 1 1∕2 to 90+ years. Some ASEBA forms are
designed for completion by parents, daycare
providers, teachers, youths, adults to describe
their own functioning, and adult collaterals
to describe the adult who is being assessed
(e.g., spouse, partner, family member, friend,
therapist). Other ASEBA forms are designed
to assess specific samples of behavior, as rated
by clinical interviewers, psychological exam-
iners who administer standardized ability and
achievement tests, and observers of children in
classrooms and other group settings. Table 1
lists the ASEBA forms, with the ages of the peo-
ple assessed and the informants who complete
the forms.
The Nature of ASEBA Instruments
Each ASEBA instrument is designed to assess
a broad spectrum of problems that can be
rated by particular kinds of informants. Each
item is important in its own right for assessing
possible needs for help with problems such
as setting fires, suicidal behavior, physically
attacking people, and distractibility. Ratings of
particular subsets of items are also summed to
yield scores for a variety of scales, as described
later. To help users evaluate the degree of
deviance indicated by particular scale scores,
norms are provided that are based on scores for
representative samples of people. Most ASEBA
The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, First Edition. Edited by Robin L. Cautin and Scott O. Lilienfeld.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp150
instruments also have items for assessing
Since the first ASEBA findings were published
(Achenbach, 1966), ASEBA instruments have
been translated into 90 languages. Over 8,000
publications by some 15,000 authors report
research findings and practical applications in
80 societies and cultures (Bérubé & Achenbach,
2013).
History of the ASEBA
The ASEBA originated with Thomas Achen-
bach’s efforts to determine whether more
differentiated patterns of child (for brevity,
“child” is used to include “adolescent”) psy-
chopathology could be identified than were
implied by the then-prevailing psychiatric
diagnostic system. That system—embodied in
the first edition of the American Psychiatric
Association’s (1952) Diagnostic and Statisti-
cal Manual (the DSM)—provided only the
following two categories for childhood dis-
orders: Adjustment Reaction of Childhood
and Schizophrenic Reaction, Childhood Type.
Neither category was based on empirical find-
ings nor were explicit criteria provided for the
categories.
To determine whether more differentiated
patterns of child psychopathology could be
empirically identified, Achenbach (1966) con-
structed a form for rating reports of particular
behavioral, emotional, and social problems in
the case records of children seen for mental
health services. After rating large samples
of records, Achenbach performed statistical
analyses to identify patterns of co-occurring
problems. The analyses yielded considerably
more “narrow-band” syndromes of problems
than were implied by the two official diag-
nostic categories. Additional analyses yielded
“broad-band” groupings of problems, which
Achenbach named internalizing and exter-
nalizing. Classification of children’s problems
2 ACHENBACH SYSTEM OF EMPIRICALLY BASED ASSESSMENT (ASEBA)

Table 1 ASEBA forms for ages 1 1∕2 to 90+ years.

Name of form Ages of people assessed (years) Filled out by

Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1 1∕2 –5 Parents, surrogates

1 1∕2 –5 (CBCL/1 1∕2 –5)
Caregiver-Teacher Report Form 1 1∕2 –5 Daycare providers, preschool teachers
(C-TRF)
Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6–18 Parents, surrogates
6–18 (CBCL/6–18)
Teacher’s Report Form (TRF) 6–18 Teachers, school counselors
Youth Self-Report (YSR) 11–18 Youths
Brief Problem Monitor (BPM) 6–18 Parents, teachers, youths
Semistructured Clinical Interview 6–18 Clinical interviewers
for Children and Adolescents
(SCICA)
Direct Observation Form (DOF) 6–11 Observers
Test Observation Form (TOF) 2–18 Psychological examiners
Adult Self-Report (ASR) 18–59 Adults
Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL) 18–59 Adult collaterals
Older Adult Self-Report (OASR) 60–90+ Older adults
Older Adult Behavior Checklist 60–90+ Older adult collaterals
(OABCL)
To view each form, lists of available translations, and other information, visit www.aseba.org

according to the syndromes and also accord-
ing to the internalizing and externalizing
groupings showed that some of the syndromes
were subsumed by the internalizing grouping,
some syndromes were subsumed by the exter-
nalizing grouping, and some syndromes were
not subsumed by either the internalizing or the
externalizing grouping.
Assessment Based on Parent,
Teacher, and Self-Ratings
To base assessment more directly on reports
of children’s functioning in everyday contexts,
Achenbach subsequently applied empirically
based assessment methodology to obtain-
ing data directly from parents, teachers, and
children themselves. In collaboration with
Professor of Child Psychiatry Melvin Lewis
(1928–2007) of the Yale Child Study Center,
Achenbach developed the Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL) on which parents report and
rate their children’s problems and also their
competencies, including social relationships,
activities, and school functioning. Achenbach
additionally developed the Teacher’s Report
Form (TRF) and Youth Self-Report (YSR) to
obtain teacher and self-ratings of items like
those rated by parents on the CBCL, plus other
items that are specific to teacher or self-ratings.
Each problem item is rated 0 = not true,
1 = somewhat or sometimes true, or 2 = very
true or often true.
The CBCL, TRF, and YSR were revised and
refined on the basis of ratings, comments,
and suggestions by large samples of parents,
teachers, and youths who completed successive
pilot editions. Achenbach’s statistical analy-
ses yielded syndromes and internalizing and
externalizing groupings of problems resem-
bling those identified in his earlier analyses of
ratings of case records.
The results of the analyses of parent, teacher,
and self-ratings were used to construct scales
for scoring syndromes, internalizing, exter-
nalizing, and total problems in order to
evaluate individual children for purposes of
mental health services, special education,
 ACHENBACH SYSTEM OF EMPIRICALLY BASED ASSESSMENT (ASEBA)
epidemiology, training of practitioners, and
research. Scores for each problem scale are
computed by summing the 0–1–2 ratings of
the items comprising the scale. Scales were
also developed for scoring the competence and
adaptive functioning items.
Normed Profiles for Displaying
Scale Scores
To help users judge whether children’s scale
scores are in the normal range, are sufficiently
deviant to warrant professional help, or are in
a borderline deviant range, norms were con-
structed on the basis of scale scores obtained
by representative samples of children who were
not referred for mental health services. Scale
scores are displayed on profiles in relation to
norms for the child’s gender, age group, the
kind of informant who rated the child, and
(as explained later) societies relevant to the
child and rater. As illustrated in Figure 1, the
profile for the syndrome scales also displays
the raw syndrome scale scores (sum of 0, 1, 2
ratings of the items comprising the scale), the
percentile of the child’s scale score in relation
to the appropriate normative sample, and the
standard score (T score) for the child’s scale
score. T scores comprise a standard metric
whereby each T score has the same meaning
for all the scales of a particular type, such as
the syndrome scales. As Figure 1 shows, the
profile of syndrome scores also displays the 0,
1, and 2 ratings given each problem item by the
informant who completed the ASEBA form.
Reports by Different Informants
The CBCL, TRF, and YSR assess children as
they are seen from the different perspectives
of parents, teachers, and children themselves.
To measure the typical levels of agreement
between reports of children’s problems by dif-
ferent informants, Achenbach, McConaughy,
and Howell (1987) performed meta-analyses
of correlations between reports by different
informants. The informants included parents,
teachers, children, mental health workers, and
observers. The rating instruments included
3
not only the ASEBA but many other forms
and interviews for which published reports
of cross-informant correlations were found.
The meta-analyses yielded a mean correlation
of .60 between ratings by pairs of informants
who play similar roles with respect to children,
including pairs of parents, teachers, mental
health workers, and observers. Between pairs
of informants who play different roles (e.g.,
parent versus teacher), the mean correlation
was .28. And between children’s self-ratings
and ratings of the children by adults, the
mean correlation was .22. Even for people who
play similar roles (e.g., pairs of parents, pairs
of teachers), the evidence thus showed that
no informant was likely to provide precisely
the same information as another informant.
Instead, because ratings by each kind of infor-
mant were found to be reliable and valid, each
kind of informant could potentially provide
useful but often different assessment data.
Cross-Informant Syndromes
and Use of Assessment Data from
Multiple Informants
To facilitate use of data from multiple infor-
mants, Achenbach (1991) conducted new
statistical analyses to identify syndromal pat-
terns that are common to parent, teacher,
and self-ratings of children’s problems. Eight
syndromes were identified that had coun-
terparts in parent, teacher, and self-ratings.
Software was then developed to score these
syndromes on parallel profiles for displaying
parent, teacher, and self-ratings of each child.
For twenty-first century versions of the
forms, small changes were made and new
®
Windows software was developed that added
narrative summaries of findings for each child
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000, 2001). The new
software also added bar graphs comparing a
child’s scores on each scale from up to eight
forms completed by parents, teachers, and
children. As illustrated in Figure 2, each bar
reflects T scores for a particular scale com-
puted from ratings by a parent, teacher, or child
and standardized on the basis of norms for
 CBCL/6-18 - Syndrome Scale Scores for Boys 12-18
ID: 2301251405-002 Date Filled: 04/05/2001 Informant: Ralph F. Webster
Name: Wayne Webster Gender: Male Birth Date: 03/03/1986
Age: 15 Relationship: Biological Father
Clinician: Dr. Barrett Agency: CMHC
Internalizing Verified: Scanned Externalizing
100 C
95 L
90 I
N
T 85
I
S 80 C
C 75 A
O 70 L
R
65 N
E
60 O
55 R
M
≤ 50
Anxious/ Withdrawn/ Somatic Social Thought Attention Rule-Breaking Aggressive A
Depressed Depressed Complaints Problems Problems Problems Behavior Behavior L
Total score 11 8 3 8 5 15 6 19
T Score 72-C 70-C 61 69-B 66-B 76-C 62 73-C
Percentile >97 >97 87 97 95 >97 89 >97
0 14.Cries 1 5.EnjoysLittle 0 47.Nightmares 2 11.Dependent 1 9.MindOff 2 1.ActsYoung 0 2.Alcohol 1 3.Argues
1 29.Fears 1 42.PreferAlone 0 49.Constipate 0 12.Lonely 0 18.HarmSelf 0 4.FailsToFinish 2 26.NoGuilt 1 16.Mean
0 30.FearSchool 1 65.Won’tTalk 1 50.Dizzy 1 25.NotGetAlong 0 40.HearsThings 2 8.Concentrate 2 28.BreaksRules 1 19.DemAtten
0 31.FearDoBad 1 69.Secretive 2 54.Tired 1 27.Jealous 0 46.Twitch 2 10.SitStill 0 39.BadFriends 0 20.DestroyOwn
0 32.Perfect 0 75.Shy 0 56a.Aches 1 34.OutToGet 0 58.PicksSkin 2 13.Confused 0 43.LieCheat 0 21.DestroyOther
2 33.Unloved 1 102.LacksEnergy 0 56b.Headaches 2 36.Accidents 0 59.SexPartsP 1 17.Daydream 0 63.PreferOlder 1 22.DisbHome
2 35.Worthless 2 103.Sad 0 56c.Nausea 0 38.Teased 0 60.SexPartsM 2 41.Impulsive 0 67.RunAway 2 23.DisbSchool
2 45.Nervous 1 111.Withdrawn 0 56d.EyeProb 1 48.NotLiked 1 66.RepeatsActs 1 61.PoorSchool 0 72.SetsFires 2 37.Fights
0 50.Fearful 0 56e.SkinProb 0 62.Clumsy 0 70.SeesThings 2 78.Inattentive 0 73.SexProbs 0 57.Attacks
0 52.Guilty 0 56f.Stomach 0 64.PreferYoung 0 76.SleepsLess 1 80.Stares 0 81.StealsHome 2 68.Screams
2 71.SelfConsc 0 56g.Vomit 0 79.SpeechProb 1 83.StoresUp 0 82.StealsOut 2 86.Stubborn
0 91.TalkSuicide 0 84.StrangeBehv 2 90.Swears 1 87.MoodChang
2 112.Worries 1 85.StrangeIdeas 0 96.ThinksSex 1 88.Sulks
1 92.SleepWalk 0 99.Tobacco 1 89.Suspicious
0 100.SleepProblem 0 101.Truant 0 94.Teases
0 105.UsesDrugs 2 95.Temper
0 106.Vandalism 2 97.Threaten
0 104.Loud

Copyright 2001 T.M. Achenbach B = Borderline clinical range; C = Clinical range Broken lines = Borderline clinical range

Figure 1 Syndrome profile from the CBCL/6-18 completed for a 15-year-old boy (copyright 2001 T. M. Achenbach). From Achenbach,
T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research
Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
 Cross-Informant Comparison - CBCL/TRF/YSR Syndrome Scale T Scores
ID: 2301251405 Name: Wayne Webster Gender: Male Birth Date: 03/03/1986 Comparison Date: 04/13/2001
Form Eval ID Age Informant Name Relationship Date Form Eval ID Age Informant Name Relationship Date
CBC1 001 15 Alice N. Webster Biological Mother 04/04/2001 TRF5 005 15 Carmen Hernandez Classroom Teacher {F} 04/11/2001
CBC2 002 15 Ralph F. Webster Biological Father 04/05/2001 TRF6 006 15 Charles Dwyer Classroom Teacher {M} 04/12/2001
YSR3 003 15 Self Self 04/05/2001
TRF4 004 15 George Jackson Classroom Teacher {M} 04/10/2001

Anxious/Depressed Withdrawn/Depressed Somatic Complaints

100

90

80

70

60

≤ 50
72-C 72-C 70-C 68-B 61 63 82-C 70-C 83-C 79-C 74-C 74-C 58 61 64 50 58 62
CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6 CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6 CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6
Social Problems Thought Problems Attention Problems
100

90

80

70

60

≤ 50
69-B 69-B 80-C 70-B 65-B 69-B 69-B 66-B 77-C 70-C 60 66-B 71-C 76-C 63 68-B 65-B 64
CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6 CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6 CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6

Rule-Breaking Behavior Aggressive Behavior

100
B = Borderline clinical range; C = Clinical range
90 Broken lines = Borderline clinical range
{F} = Female {M} = Male
80

70

60

≤ 50
57 62 56 63 83 53 73-C 73-C 67-B 82-C 65-B 67-B
CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6 CBC1 CBC2 YSR3 TRF4 TRF5 TRF6

Figure 2 Cross-informant comparisons of syndrome scores for a 15-year-old boy (copyright 2001 T. M. Achenbach). From Achenbach, T.
M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for
Children, Youth, and Families.
6 ACHENBACH SYSTEM OF EMPIRICALLY BASED ASSESSMENT (ASEBA)
the child’s gender and age group, the type
of informant (parent, teacher, self), and a
user-selected multicultural norm group.
In addition to slightly revised forms and new
software for ages 1 1∕2 –18 years, the twenty-first
century ASEBA includes forms for assessing
18- to 59-year-old adults, older adults over
age 59, the Test Observation Form (TOF)
to enable psychological examiners to assess
the behavior of 2- to 18-year-olds during test
sessions, the Direct Observation Form (DOF)
for assessing the behavior of 6- to 11-year-olds
in classrooms and other group settings, the
Semistructured Clinical Interview for Children
and Adolescents (SCICA) for assessment of 6-
to 18-year-olds via clinical interviews, and the
Brief Problem Monitor (BPM) for assessing
changes in children’s functioning over brief
user-selected intervals (see Achenbach, 2009,
for an overview of the twenty-first century
instruments).
DSM-Oriented Scales
The syndromes that have been derived from
statistical analyses of ratings of large samples of
individuals embody a “bottom-up” approach
whereby sets of co-occurring problems are
empirically identified. The DSM, by contrast,
embodies a “top-down” approach whereby
experts formulate diagnostic categories and
criteria for judging whether problems reported
for an individual conform to a particular
category. To help users apply the ASEBA
item ratings to their diagnostic deliberations,
the twenty-first century ASEBA forms are
scored on DSM-oriented scales as well as on
empirically derived scales.
The DSM-oriented scales were constructed
by having international panels of expert psy-
chiatrists and psychologists judge each ASEBA
problem item as being not consistent, somewhat
consistent, or very consistent with particular
DSM diagnostic categories. ASEBA prob-
lem items that were rated by most experts as
being very consistent with a particular DSM
diagnostic category were used to construct a
DSM-oriented scale representing that category.
Like the bottom-up scales, each DSM-oriented
scale is scored by summing the 0–1–2 ratings
of the items. Also like the bottom-up scales, the
DSM-oriented scales are normed by gender,
age group, type of informant, and multicultural
norm group. And the DSM-oriented scales are
displayed on profiles and on bar graphs for
multiple informants, as illustrated in Figure 2
for syndrome scales.
Multicultural Applications of the
ASEBA
Translations of ASEBA instruments are
available in 90 languages, and some 3,000
publications report use of ASEBA instru-
ments outside the United States (Bérubé
& Achenbach, 2013). To test the degree to
which the ASEBA syndromes fit problems
reported for people in other societies, Ivanova,
Rescorla, and Achenbach, in collaboration
with international colleagues, have performed
confirmatory factor analyses of ratings of
problems for samples of people from age 1 1∕2
to 59 from over 50 societies (e.g., Rescorla
et al., 2012). The ASEBA syndromes have
been supported for all the societies analyzed
to date. In addition, statistical comparisons
of scale scores have shown small to medium
effect sizes for differences between societies but
great similarity with respect to effects of age
and gender across societies. Large correlations
have been found between the mean ratings
for each problem item in different societies,
indicating that the same items tend to receive
high, medium, or low ratings from informants
in different societies.
Multicultural Norms
The support for ASEBA syndromes in many
societies and the large cross-society correla-
tions between mean item ratings indicate that
the ASEBA forms can be similarly used for
standardized assessment of behavioral, emo-
tional, and social problems in these societies.
To facilitate use of the ASEBA to assess peo-
ple from the various societies, multicultural
norms have been constructed to enable users
 ACHENBACH SYSTEM OF EMPIRICALLY BASED ASSESSMENT (ASEBA)
to display individuals’ scale scores in relation
to norms for relevant societies.
As an example, consider a 14-year-old boy
living in the United States whose mother is
from Brazil and whose father is from Peru.
If the boy is evaluated for mental health ser-
vices, his mother could complete the Brazilian
Portuguese CBCL/6–18 and his father could
complete the Latino Spanish CBCL/6–18. If
the boy has an American teacher, the teacher
could complete the English-language TRF. The
boy could be given the choice of completing
the YSR in English, Brazilian Portuguese, or
Latino Spanish. The scale scores from the
CBCL completed by the boy’s mother can be
displayed on a profile like that in Figure 1 in
relation to norms appropriate for Brazil. The
scale scores from the CBCL completed by the
boy’s father can be displayed in relation to
norms appropriate for Peru. The scale scores
from the TRF completed by the boy’s teacher
can be displayed in relation to norms appropri-
ate for the United States. And the scale scores
from the boy’s YSR can be displayed in relation
to norms appropriate for the United States,
Brazil, and Peru. The user can thus see whether
any scales are clinically deviant according to
any or all sets of relevant norms. The user can
also view bar graphs of scale scores from all
raters (like the graphs in Figure 2) to quickly
identify consistencies and discrepancies among
informants in reporting high, medium, or low
levels of problems, standardized for the boy’s
gender, age range, the type of informant, and
the multicultural norm group.
Family-Based Assessment
Parents are usually involved in referrals and
evaluations of children for mental health
services. Because children’s functioning is
intertwined with their parents’ functioning,
comprehensive evaluations of children should
include evaluations of parents’ functioning.
With appropriate developmental differences,
the ASEBA instruments for children and adults
are similar in format, have many analogous
items, and have several parallel syndromes
7
and DSM-oriented scales, plus internalizing,
externalizing, and total problems scales.
For family-based assessment, practitioners
can ask parents to complete the ASR to describe
their own functioning, the ABCL to describe
their partner’s functioning, and the CBCL to
describe their child’s functioning. The prac-
titioner can then compare the profiles scored
from the ASR, ABCL, and CBCL in order
to identify scales on which parent and child
scores may be similarly elevated. For example,
if a child and parent both have elevated scores
on the attention problems syndrome and/or
the DSM-oriented attention deficit hyper-
activity problems scale, this finding would
suggest that both the child and parent may
need help with attention problems. Elevations
on different scales may convey other messages.
For example, if a child obtains elevated scores
on the anxious/depressed syndrome and/or
the DSM-oriented depressive problems or
anxiety problems scale but a parent obtains
an elevated score on the aggressive behavior
scale, this pattern may suggest that the parent’s
aggressive behavior contributes to the child’s
depression and/or anxiety. Moreover, differ-
ences between parents’ ASR scores and scores
from the ABCL completed by their partner
can reveal important differences between how
parents see themselves versus how they are
seen by others.
If practitioners deem it appropriate, they can
show parents their ASR and ABCL profiles to
document the areas in which they versus their
partner report problems. If parents’ problem
levels are high and/or adaptive functioning lev-
els are low in particular areas, practitioners can
discuss with parents their possible needs for
help in those areas. Parents can also be shown
profiles scored from the CBCLs that they com-
pleted, plus profiles scored from the TRF and
YSR (with the consent of those who completed
the forms). Practitioners can then point out
relations between the parents’ scale scores and
their child’s scale scores, as well as similarities
and differences between how their child is seen
by different informants. To facilitate compar-
isons between scores obtained from parent
8 ACHENBACH SYSTEM OF EMPIRICALLY BASED ASSESSMENT (ASEBA)
and child ratings, ASEBA software produces
bar graphs like those in Figure 2 that display
ASR and ABCL scale scores side-by-side with
CBCL, TRF, and YSR scale scores.
Future Directions
The ASEBA continues to develop on the basis
of new research, technological innovations,
and practitioners’ experience. Because the
ASEBA is designed for easy use in diverse
kinds of research, practice, and training, it will
develop in as many directions as thousands
of users take it. The ASEBA team is contin-
uing to develop applications to family-based
assessment in order to help practitioners
take account of family characteristics and to
improve understanding and communication
among family members. With international
colleagues, the ASEBA team is continuing
to extend multicultural research, norms, and
applications to more and more societies. After
the fifth edition of the DSM was finalized,
ASEBA researchers collaborated with experts
from many societies to identify ASEBA items
that are very consistent with criteria for DSM-5
diagnostic categories. DSM-5 versions of the
ASEBA DSM-oriented scales were then con-
structed, normed, and incorporated in the
ASEBA software.
SEE ALSO: Achenbach, Thomas M. (b. 1940);
Cross-Cultural Issues in Assessment
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1966). The classification of
children’s psychiatric symptoms: A factor-
analytic study. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 80, 1–37. doi:10.1037/
h0093906
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the
1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF Profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (2009). The Achenbach System of
Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA):
Development, findings, theory, and applications.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research
Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell,
C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and
emotional problems: Implications of
cross-informant correlations for situational
specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual
for the ASEBA preschool forms & profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research
Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual
for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research
Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
American Psychiatric Association. (1952).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders. Washington, DC: Author.
Bérubé, R.L., & Achenbach, T. M. (2013).
Bibliography of published studies using the
Achenbach System of Empirically Based
Assessment (ASEBA). Burlington, VT: University
of Vermont, Research Center for Children,
Youth, and Families.
Rescorla, L. A., Ivanova, M. A., Achenbach, T. M.,
Begovac, I., Chahed, M., Drugli, M. B., … Zhang,
E. Y. (2012). International epidemiology of child
and adolescent psychopathology: 2. Integration
and applications of dimensional findings from 44
societies. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 1273–1283.
Further Reading
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2007).
Multicultural understanding of child and
adolescent psychopathology: Implications for
mental health assessment. New York: Guilford
Press.