Cited by 408Mental Health Research TopicsPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Assessment of Adult Psychopathology: Meta-Analyses and Implications of Cross-Informant Correlations.

Achenbach, Thomas M., Krukowski, Rebecca A., Dumenci, Levent, Ivanova, Masha Y.·2005·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Assessment of adult psychopathology relies heavily on self-reports. To determine how well self-reports agree with reports by "informants" who know the person being assessed, the authors examined 51,000 articles published over 10 years in 52 peer-reviewed journals for correlations between self-reports and "informants" reports. Qualifying correlations were found in 108 (0.2%) of the articles. When self-reports and informant reports were obtained with parallel instruments, mean cross-informant correlations were .681 for substance use, .428 for internalizing, and .438 for externalizing problems. When based on different instruments, the mean cross-informant correlation was .304. The moderate sizes of the correlations argue for systematically obtaining multi-informant data. National survey findings were used to illustrate practical ways to obtain and use such data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.361

Cites

169 of 169 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?

  • Assessments for clinical and research purposes benefit by augmenting self-ratings with observer ratings.

    “As information from different people displays different perspectives, assessments for clinical and research purposes benefit by augmenting self-ratings with observer ratings (Achenbach et al. 2005).”

    From ADHD and associated psychopathology in older adults in a German community sample (2023) · cites this paper as Achenbach et al. 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 170 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Achenbach, T. M., Krukowski, R. A., Dumenci, L., & Ivanova, M. Y.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2005
Volume
131
Issue
3
Pages
361-382
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2075832904
Cited by
406
References
170
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
13.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH064474, R03MH064474)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
adult psychopathology, cross-informant agreement, self-report validity, informant reports, multi-informant assessment, substance use disorders, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, national survey data
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Mental Disorders, Child, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, 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