Cited by 8Youth Substance Use and School AttendanceAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Die Einschätzungsskala der Schulverweigerung: Psychometrische Gütekriterien und Validierung einer modifizierten Version

Knollmann, Martin, Sicking, Alexander, Hebebrand, Johannes, Reissner, Volker·2017·Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie

Abstract

Objective: Psychometric properties of the original and a modified version of the «Einschätzungsskala der Schulverweigerung» (German version of the School Refusal Assessment Scale, SRAS; Kearney & Silverman, 1993; Overmeyer et al., 1994) were analyzed in order to identify alternative ways to revise the SRAS/ESV compared to the existing revision SRAS-R (Kearney, 2002). The SRAS/ESV consists of a parent and a child version and measures four functions of school refusal (avoidance of negative affect related to school settings, escape from aversive social or evaluative situations, attention-getting behavior, positive tangible reinforcement). Method: Data from N = 124 (parent version) respectively N = 156 (child version) patients of a specialized psychiatric outpatient unit for children and adolescents with school-avoiding behavior were obtained. Analyzes included characteristics of items and scales, face-, factorial-, and construct-validity (correlations with other questionnaires, e. g., YSR, CBCL were analyzed). Results: Many items seem to measure overall anxiety instead of the functional aspects of school refusal, one item measures expansive behavior. Four factors were obtained, but they did not reflect the assumed structure of the ESV (e. g., overlap of the two avoidance-related scales). Post-hoc-analyzes with a modified version (elimination of several items with problematic content validity) suggested three factors, convergent and discriminative validity of the modified version was confirmed. Because only some of the afore-mentioned problems have been addressed in the revised version (SRAS-R; Kearney, 2002), a new revision and extension of the German version of the questionnaire covering more aspects of school avoidance behavior (e. g., bullying, depression, somatic complaints, psychosocial factors) is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1024/1422-4917/a000415

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • The four-factor model of SAPs embodied in the SRAS is not consistently supported by research.

    “The four-factor model of SAPs embodied in the SRAS is not consistently supported by research.This is described in Heyne and colleagues' (2017) review and evidenced in a recent study yielding three factors (Knollmann, Sicking, Hebebrand, & Reissner, 2017).”

    From Differentiation between school attendance problems: why and how? (2019) · cites this paper as Knollmann et al., 2017

  • Authors point to the complex or ambiguous wording of many of the items added to the SRAS to form the SRAS-R.

    “Second, authors point to the complex or ambiguous wording of many of the items added to the SRAS to form the SRAS-R (Gonzálvez et al., 2016;Heyne et al., 2017;Knollmann et al., 2017).”

    From Differentiation between school attendance problems: why and how? (2019) · cites this paper as Knollmann et al., 2017

  • Some SRAS items seem to measure overall anxiety as opposed to the functional aspects of refusal to attend school.

    “First, some SRAS items seem to measure overall anxiety as opposed to the functional aspects of refusal to attend school (Knollmann et al., 2017).”

    From Differentiation between school attendance problems: why and how? (2019) · cites this paper as Knollmann et al., 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knollmann, M., Sicking, A., Hebebrand, J., & Reissner, V.
Affiliations
University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Venue
Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie
Published
2017-07-01
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
265-280
ISSN
  • 1422-4917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1664-2880
OpenAlex
W2321475564
Cited by
8
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.42
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Youth Substance Use and School Attendance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
school refusal, questionnaire validation, psychometric properties, factor structure, construct validity, content validity, children and adolescents, German version, questionnaire revision
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Child, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Motivation, Parents, Phobic Disorders, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Translating, Reproducibility of Results

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