Assessment Tools

Solution Preview

(1) From Arbisi and Farmer's reviews of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BD-II), compare how Arbisi and Farmer discuss the applicability of the BDI-II to specific populations {note you must add your references for the Arbisi and Farmer reviews]

In his review of the BDI II, Farmer asserts that cut scores on the BDI II had not been cross-validated across populations. Therefore a rate from major depression may be "substantially" lower in non-psychiatric populations. Thus while acknowledging that the BDI-II reflects some improvement over the BDI for evaluating a depressed mood, Farmer argues that the developers have not shown evidence that the BDI-II is an effective tool to be used with other populations. For instance, he points out that the cut score sample did not include variables such as: (a) reflect the race, (b) setting, (c) geographic distribution, (d) education, and (e) family income. In addition, according to Farmer, the student sample used was small and sleeted from one university. He further suggests a flaw in the manual in which potential sex bias could exist.

Arbisi suggests that overall, the psychometric properties (reliability, validity) are good; however, he points to some problems with the original instrument (i.e., BDI, l961). For instance, according to Arbisi, certain items fail to discriminate (construct validity) adequately across the range of depression. For instance, Arbisi asserts that the coefficient alpha estimates of reliability for the BDI-II with outpatients were reported .92 and .93 for the non-clinical sample. In addition, test-re-test reliability coefficients were high at (a=93). Although, as Arbissi points out, the BDI-II was developed as a screening instrument for major depression and, was intended to reflect more sensitivity to symptoms. In ...