Cited by 46Family and Disability Support ResearchChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Child Adjustment and Parent Efficacy Scale-Developmental Disability (CAPES-DD): First psychometric evaluation of a new child and parenting assessment tool for children with a developmental disability

Emser, Theresa S., Mazzucchelli, Trevor G., Christiansen, Hanna, Sanders, Matthew R.·2016·Research in Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Child Adjustment and Parent Efficacy Scale-Developmental Disability (CAPES-DD), a brief inventory for assessing emotional and behavioral problems of children with developmental disabilities aged 2- to 16-years, as well as caregivers' self-efficacy in managing these problems. A sample of 636 parents participated in the study. Children's ages ranged from 2 to 15. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a 21-item, three-factor model of CAPES-DD child adjustment with 13 items describing behavioral (10 items) and emotional (3 items) problems and 8 items describing prosocial behavior. Three additional items were included due to their clinical usefulness and contributed to a Total Problem Score. Factor analyses also supported a 16-item, one factor model of CAPES-DD self-efficacy. Psychometric evaluation of the CAPES-DD revealed scales had satisfactory to very good internal consistency, as well as very good convergent and predictive validity. The instrument is to be in the public domain and free for practitioners and researchers to use. Potential uses of the measure and implications for future validation studies are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.09.006

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Emser, T. S., Mazzucchelli, T. G., Christiansen, H., & Sanders, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Emser, Theresa S.
Venue
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
53-54
Pages
158-177
ISSN
0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2287840320
Cited by
46
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Australian Government's National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Faculty of Health Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
developmental disabilities, child adjustment, parental self-efficacy, emotional problems, behavioral problems, prosocial behavior, psychometric properties, scale development
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Child, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Parents, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Parenting, Caregivers, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review