Conference Agenda

Externalizing (e.g., hyperactivity, inattention) and internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety) are two broad categories of behavior that – when present to an elevated degree – lead to functional impairment and represent the cardinal symptoms of common disorders with begin in school age (Ahmad & Hinshaw, 2017). For example, in neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), neurodivergent participants have been found to face increased behavioral challenges compared to their neurotypical counterparts (e.g., risk-taking, disruptive behavior; Reinke et al., 2023). Groups of individuals who have been identified in research findings as accurate judges such as teachers or parents (Ferdinand et al., 2007) are commonly included in assessments of students’ behavior. Research suggests that assessments of various types of behavior problems through multiple informants can often provide crucial insights that help form a solid foundation for the development and evaluation of effective interventions in educational and clinical settings (De Los Reyes et al., 2015). Despite the advantages of including reports from several informants, disagreements to varying degrees between reports are frequently reported. However, previous studies rarely further investigated the lack of conformity between raters.

More recently, studies have indicated that discrepant perceptions, often referred to as biases, can reveal multifaceted information about how children's behavior is perceived and expressed in various contexts (Achenbach, 2020). Rater biases, such as those related to children's competencies (i.e., positive illusory bias), gender, and special educational needs (SEN), should therefore be deemed as a crucial source of information in assessing behavior (Zurbriggen et al., 2023). Therefore, detected biases should be analyzed to understand, what variables can explain differences in informants’ ratings.

This symposium reveals a common denominator in the three contributions – all gathered information from multiple sources regarding emerging behavior problems of school-aged children. Going beyond rater agreements, each contribution addressed unique aspects and possible biases leading to discrepancies among informants.

The first contribution of the symposium investigates the consistency between different perspectives (e.g. teachers, parents, students) on students' internalizing and externalizing problems. Students' gender and SEN status are analyzed as possible sources of biases. The second contribution investigates biases in teachers' perceptions regarding their students' behavior and provides a thorough examination of the ambiguity of the term “behavior problems“ as applied by teachers to students and the influences on labeling besides students’ actual behavior (i.e., teachers’ stereotypical beliefs, general sensitivity to disruption, work-related stress experiences). Finally, the third contribution focuses on the discrepancies in the assessments of self- and other-perceived (a) social skills and (b) behavior problems of children with ADHD and ASD compared to non-diagnosed children. Overall, the results presented at this symposium contribute to the expansion of knowledge in the field of perspective-dependent phenomena and biases in the assessment of children’s behavior.

1. Introduction Over the past decades, there has been increasing interest in the assessment of students’ behavior problems related to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; e.g., inattention) and other externalizing (e.g., conduct problems) and internalizing (e.g., anxiety) problems (e.g., Reinke et al., 2023). Empirical research suggests that the characterization of students’ behavioral problem phenomena requires multiple informants (e.g., teachers, parents, students themselves). In contrast to single-informant reports, this approach is expected to provide sufficient sensitivity and specificity; however, the vast majority of multi-informant assessments of ADHD symptoms and related problems rely on external sources (e.g.; Mulraney et al., 2022; Narad et al., 2015) and retrospective childhood ratings (e.g., Lundervold et al., 2020) leading to substantial underrepresentation of children’s self-perspectives in research. The current study aims to investigate the consistency between self-reports, parent reports, and teacher reports of students’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Further, it will be analyzed if students’ gender and diagnosis of special educational needs (SEN) can explain the specificity (i.e., method bias) in teacher and parent reports. 2. Method The present study uses data from a random Finnish community sample of 1446 students (male= 47.6%) aged 9-11 years. Students’ externalizing problems (i.e., hyperactivity/inattention (H/I), conduct problems (CP)) and internalizing problems (i.e., emotional symptoms (ES), peer problems (PP)) were measured from students', parents’, and teachers' perspectives using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). The dichotomous classification of SEN status used was based on information obtained from special education teachers in the participating schools about students’ received support in Finland’s three-tiered system. To assess the consistency, we applied a correlated trait-correlated method minus one (CT-C[M-1] model (Eid et al., 2003). 3. Findings & Conclusions The initial CT-C(M–1) model indicate good model fit (χ2WLSMV (1283, N = 1378) = 2054.55, p < .001, CFI = .944, SRMR = .087, RMSEA = .021). Results show in general moderate to low consistency between student and teacher or parent reports. Thus, the method specificity for parent and teacher reports was moderate to high, confirming the importance of using different raters. As expected, gender and the status SEN could predict the specificity in other reports of students’ behavior to some extent, in particular for externalizing problems. Overall, the results highlighted the vital role of multi-informant approaches in the assessment of student's behavior problems.

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x Lundervold, A. J., Halmøy, A., Nordby, E. S., Haavik, J., & Meza, J. I. (2020). Current and Retrospective Childhood Ratings of Emotional Fluctuations in Adults With ADHD. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 571101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.571101 Mulraney, M., Arrondo, G., Musullulu, H., Iturmendi-Sabater, I., Cortese, S., Westwood, S. J., Donno, F., Banaschewski, T., Simonoff, E., Zuddas, A., Döpfner, M., Hinshaw, S. P., & Coghill, D. (2022). Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Screening Tools for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(8), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2021.11.031 Narad, M. E., Garner, A. A., Peugh, J. L., Tamm, L., Antonini, T. N., Kingery, K. M., Simon, J. O., & Epstein, J. N. (2015). Parent–teacher agreement on ADHD symptoms across development. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037864 Reinke, A. L., Stiles, K., & Lee, S. S. (2023). Childhood ADHD With and Without Co-occurring Internalizing/Externalizing Problems: Prospective Predictions of Change in Adolescent Academic and Social Functioning. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10870547231187146. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547231187146

1. Theory Many teachers are concerned that students with behavior problems may strain teaching, classmates, or themselves (MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013). Although these concerns seem intuitively understandable, research has shown that the term “behavior problems” refers to a perspective-dependent phenomenon of various forms and degrees (Beaman et al., 2007; Crawshaw, 2015) that is susceptible to perception biases (Eckstein, 2019). Therefore, it is highly unclear what teachers mean when they use this expression without further explanation. This gives rise to a research desideratum we address in this paper: studies should investigate the extent to which the teacher-assigned label “behavior problems” is substantiated by students’ actual behaviors and to what extent it is due to other, idiosyncratic conditions. 2. Methods 85 elementary school teachers and 1412 students (11.7 years) answered a survey. The teachers reported the degree to which they consider each student in their class to have behavior problems. As presumed predictors of these labeling tendencies, we investigated the frequency of students’ undisciplined behaviors (ω = .84), non-behavioral student characteristics (sex; learning ability [ω = .72]), teacher characteristics (general sensitivity to disturbances [ω = .71]; work-related stress experience [ω = .80]), and context factors (latent class means of students’ indiscipline and learning ability). A two-level structural equation model was set up and estimated in Mplus 8.10 (Marsh et al., 2009; Muthén & Muthén, 2017-2023). All effects were estimated while controlling for the others. 3. Findings The model fitted the data well (X2 = 139.468, df = 71, p < .001; RMSEA = .024; CFI = .991). At level 1, significant effects on the teachers’ labeling tendencies were found for the individual students’ indiscipline (Beta = .50), sex (Beta = -.25), and learning ability (Beta = .21). At level 2, teachers’ general sensitivity to disturbances (Beta = .35) and work-related stress experience (Beta = .35) were found to be significant conditions of their general labeling tendency across all students; no significant effects were found for the latent class means of indiscipline and learning ability. In sum, the findings indicate that the label “behavior problems” was well substantiated by the students’ actual behaviors – but it was also due to various other conditions that had little or nothing to do with their behavior, such as teachers’ stereotypical beliefs (Anderson et al., 2012). Reflecting on the study’s strengths and limitations, we will discuss the implications of these results for future research and teaching practice.

Anderson, D. L., Watt, S. E., & Noble, W. (2012). Knowledge of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and Attitudes Toward Teaching Children With ADHD: The Role of Teaching Experience. Psychology in the Schools, 49(6), 511-525. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1002/pits.21617 Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent research on troublesome classroom behaviour: A review. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10300110701189014 Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student misbehaviour. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 293–311. Eckstein, B. (2019). Production and Perception of Classroom Disturbances – A new approach to investigating the perspectives of teachers and students. Frontline Learning Research, 7(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v7i2.411 MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 46-52. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Nagengast, B. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate behavioral research, 44(6), 764-802. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2017-2023). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) frequently overestimate their own abilities in different contexts, reporting higher self-perceptions than the others’ external perceptions (Lau-Zhu et al., 2019). This tendency to overestimate one’s capabilities, compared to external evaluations, is called positive illusory bias (PIB, Owens et al., 2007). However, it is not clear whether the two clinical populations overestimate their own abilities in the same way and if this overestimation impacts multiple areas of functioning (Martin et al., 2019). The present study investigated the accuracy of self-perception of abilities of children with ADHD and ASD compared to non-diagnosed (ND) peers in different areas of functioning. Specifically, differences in the estimation of (a) social abilities and (b) behavioral problems in the three groups were analyzed. Two hundred and twenty Italian children (85% M) between 8 and 16 years (M=11.48, SD=2.28) were included in the study. 50 children with ADHD (84% M), 49 with ASD (79% M) without intellectual disability and 121 ND (86% M) participants were enrolled and matched for sex, age, and intelligence quotient (IQ). Two parallel forms of a specific questionnaire measuring social abilities and behavioral problems were filled out by the children and their parents to compare their perceptions. Two different estimation indices were computed based on the discrepancy between the child’s perception and the adult’s report on children’s social abilities and behavioral problems. Separate linear regressions were run for both estimation indices to investigate the association between the two estimation indices and different independent variables: control variables (i.e., age and IQ) and group (ADHD, ASD and ND). Our results showed a different pattern in the two estimation indices. The self-perception of social abilities, independently from the group, decreased with higher age and was significantly impaired only in the ADHD population, compared to both the ASD and ND groups. Conversely, both children with ADHD and ASD estimate their own behavioral problems in a similar way to that of their parents. Our findings confirm that the overestimation of one’s own abilities, compared to external estimations, regards mainly subjects with ADHD (Capodieci et al., 2019). Moreover, this overestimation of abilities is not always present (Owens & Hoza, 2003). Our results revealed the importance of paying attention to the interpretation of self-reports during the assessment of abilities in children and adolescents with ADHD and helped in differentiating specific difficulties of self-perception abilities between ADHD and ASD.

Capodieci, A., Crisci, G., & Mammarella, I. C. (2019). Does Positive Illusory Bias Affect Self-Concept and Loneliness in Children With Symptoms of ADHD? Journal of Attention Disorders, 23(11), 1274–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054718763735 Lau-Zhu, A., Fritz, A., & McLoughlin, G. (2019). Overlaps and distinctions between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in young adulthood: Systematic review and guiding framework for EEG-imaging research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.10.009 Martin C. P., Peisch V., Shoulberg E. K., Kaiser N., Hoza B. (2019). Does a social self-perceptual bias mask internalizing symptoms in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(6), 630–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13024 Owens, J. S., Goldfine, M. E., Evangelista, N. M., Hoza, B., & Kaiser, N. M. (2007). A Critical Review of Self-perceptions and the Positive Illusory Bias in Children with ADHD. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10(4), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-007-0027-3 Owens, J. S., & Hoza, B. (2003). The role of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity in the positive illusory bias. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 680–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.680