See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264972250

Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale–2 Parent Report: Exploring a Spanish

Version With At-Risk Students

Article  in  Behavorial Disorders · August 2009

DOI: 10.1177/019874290903500104

CITATIONS READS

4 2,009

4 authors:

Jill D. Sharkey Sukkyung You

University of California, Santa Barbara Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
105 PUBLICATIONS   1,824 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   2,205 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gale M. Morrison Amy-Jane Griffiths

University of California, Santa Barbara Chapman University
67 PUBLICATIONS   2,144 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

“I Don’t Wanna Live No More”: Differences in Prevalence Rates of Chronic Hopelessness, Suicidal Ideation, and Suicide Attempt among Adolescents by Gang
Membership and Latina/o Ethnicity View project

Adolescents' Resilience to Cyberbullying Victimization: the Role of School Climate View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jill D. Sharkey on 23 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale–2 Parent
Report: Exploring a Spanish Version
With At-Risk Students

Jill Sharkey, Sukkyung You, Gale Morrison, and Amy Griffiths

University of California, Santa Barbara

ABSTRACT: Youth strengths are as important to consider as deficits in understanding developmental

outcomes and thus are an important component of psychoeducational assessment. Latino/as are
understudied with regard to strength-based constructs, although cultural and socioeconomic factors
may be related to differences in Latino/a parents’ views of their children’s strengths and school
experiences. The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale–2 (BERS-2) Parent Report is one of the most
widely used measures to examine school-based strengths of students. With two sets of data collected
with Spanish-speaking Latino/a parents of students aged 9 to 14 years, the authors examined the
BERS-2 to explore and then preliminarily confirm latent constructs present in reports of their
children’s strengths. A three-factor model, labeled Self-Control, School Participation, and Emotional
Health, emerged as an alternative fit to the data. Results indicate that the BERS-2 measures culturally
sensitive constructs, yet amended procedures may enhance the assessment of student strengths from
the parent perspective, particularly when working with Spanish-speaking Latino/a families.

& The ability to identify strengths is a crucial
component of psychoeducational assessment.
Longitudinal research has found that youth
strengths are as important to consider as their
deficits for understanding developmental tra-
jectories (Garmezy, 1993). Strengths help
students and their families avoid negative
outcomes and achieve healthy development.
Moreover, understanding strengths allows for
more accurate and effective intervention and
treatment plans (Jimerson, Sharkey, Nyborg, &
Furlong, 2004). Thus, strength-based assess-
ment has the potential to identify important
individual and environmental factors to con-
sider when understanding students’ treatment
needs and may also promote intervention
success through relationship building.
In response to the now well-established
link between strengths and outcome, psychol-
ogists have begun to incorporate a strengths
approach with the traditional deficit-focused
model to promote understanding the internal
and external factors that influence a child’s
abilities and disabilities. With strength-based
assessment in its infancy, it is unknown
whether strength-based concepts apply with
diverse populations. Precedent in deficit-based
assessment indicates the multicultural robust-
ness of assessments such as the Achenbach
scales (Rescorla et al., 2007). Achenbach and
colleagues (2008) have studied the Achenbach
System of Empirically Based Assessment across
more than 70 cultures and found somewhat
different relevance of constructs among groups
but relatively consistent findings across cul-
tures. They also found that scores varied more
within than between groups. In a summary of
their findings, the researchers concluded that
understanding the differential functioning of
various assessments within and across cultural
groups is important (a) to diversify normative
data, (b) to compare recent immigrants to
nonimmigrant functioning from the same
country of origin, and (c) to further enhance
the accuracy of diagnostic criteria for mental
disorders. Validated through multicultural
norming, strength-based assessment has the
potential to inform more accurate diagnosis
and treatment of multicultural youth with
behavioral disorders.
Although very little multicultural research
has been applied to strength-based assessment,
there is debate among scholars regarding the
consistency of positive psychology traits across
cultures. Peterson and Seligman (2004) have
conducted the most extensive multicultural
research in positive psychology to date. They
examined character strengths across numerous
cultural groups and found 24 individual virtues
present in all cultures, which led them to
conclude that positive traits transcend culture.
Yet other scholars argue that a cultural context

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65 November 2009 / 53

is always required to understand the role of
strengths for diverse people, and the same
strengths are not equally relevant across
cultures (Snyder & Lopez, 2007). A reasonable
hypothesis is that a variety of virtues or positive
traits are likely to be strengths across cultures,
but the relative value or use of these traits in
diverse cultures and their relation to success
may vary within and between cultures (Ped-
rotti & Edwards, 2010). The only way to
understand the influence of various positive
traits across cultures is to measure them with
instruments that have multicultural validity.
The Behavioral and Emotional Rating
Scale–Second Edition
The Behavioral and Emotional Rating
Scale–Second Edition (BERS-2) Parent Rating
Scale (PRS) is one of the most widely used
measures to examine school-based strengths of
students (Furlong, Sharkey, Boman, & Cald-
well, 2007). The BERS-2 was developed for the
Children’s Mental Health Services System of
Care Project (Center for Mental Health Servic-
es, 2001), which involves wraparound services
for children with emotional and behavioral
disorders, and was subsequently implemented
for the national evaluation of the Comprehen-
sive Community Mental Health Services for
Children and Families Program (Center for
Mental Health Services, 2001). The BERS-2
assesses multiple types of strengths (e.g., social
skills, emotional control) in different domains
(i.e., school and family), and its factor structure
has been validated for typical as well as at-risk
students. The measure has been used most
frequently to assess the strengths of students
with significant emotional and behavioral
concerns.
Epstein and Sharma (1998) created the
original BERS using empirical procedures
along with professional judgment. According
to the test manual, they created a list of 1200
items based on literature in areas of develop-
mental psychology, resilience, protective fac-
tors, and strength-based assessment. After
consultation with experts and preliminary
analyses, authors winnowed items down to
ones that distinguished between children with
and without emotional disturbance. Explorato-
ry factor analysis completed scale develop-
ment with 52 items in five domains (i.e.,
Interpersonal Strength, Family Involvement,
Intrapersonal Strength, School Functioning,
and Affective Strength). The original BERS
54 / November 2009
was designed to be completed by any adult
(e.g., parent, teacher, school psychologist)
with knowledge about a student. After devel-
opment procedures were completed, the BERS
was published and implemented in numerous
projects across the country to help develop
treatment plans based on strengths.
In the BERS-2 revision, Epstein (2004)
made subtle changes to the original BERS to
create teacher, parent, and self-report versions.
For the parent report, the original 52-item
BERS was maintained, and five career strength
items were added. The test manual does not
mention if alternative trial items were tested,
and it appears that the original 52 items were
retained for separate parent, teacher, and child
versions without scrutiny. That the same items
would load on the same five factors for
parents, teachers, and youths is unlikely given
developmental and cognitive differences
among groups (Furlong et al., 2007). None-
theless, new normative samples were collected
with 927 parents of students from 34 states
with 14% of Hispanic ethnic background,
which was nationally representative in com-
parison with national census data. The BERS-2
was subsequently published and implemented
nationwide.
Although the BERS-2 is a widespread
measure that includes research-based items
and some psychometric examination, review-
ers of the original BERS have raised concerns
that have yet to be addressed (Furlong et al.,
2007). For example, Doll (2001) noted that the
underlying factor analysis needs to be verified
and a conceptual model should be offered.
However, to validate the parent and youth
versions, authors (Buckley, Ryser, Reid, &
Epstein, 2006) conducted a confirmatory factor
analysis with the five-factor BERS-2 and tested
only the original five-factor solution. They
concluded that the scale was an acceptable
fit with samples of parents and youths despite
unacceptable root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) values of .148 (parent)
and .120 (youth). Thus, the original five-factor
structure of the BERS-2, parent version, was
not substantiated, rendering its use for clinical,
research, and evaluation purposes question-
able. The authors appeared to base their
conclusion of a replicated factor structure on
levels of alternative measurement indices (i.e.,
comparative fit index [CFI], Tucker-Lewis Index
[TLI], Bentler-Bonett normed fit index [NFI]);
however, the RMSEA was the only index
reported that takes into consideration sample
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
size and model complexity. Given that to date,
no independent assessment of reliability and
validity has been undertaken with the BERS-2
parent report, studies need to further explore the
factor structure of the BERS-2 with various
parent groups that represent diverse popula-
tions. Rigorous psychometric evaluation by
external evaluators is important to promoting
the most efficient, reliable, and valid measures
for assessing and monitoring student strengths.
In the case of the BERS-2, the corpus of
information needed to validate its use with
parents, as described in the test manual, is still
developing.
The Importance of Understanding the
Latino/a1 Parent Perspective
Latino/as’ origins are rooted in South and
Central American countries including Mexico,
Cuba, Puerto Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Colombia, and Costa Rica (Miville, 2010).
Although they are the largest and most rapidly
growing ethnic minority group in the United
States, Latino/as are understudied with regard to
psychological processes in general and strength-
based constructs in particular, which has led to
the perception of cultural exceptions as weak-
nesses rather than potential strengths (Pedrotti &
Edwards, 2010). Given their population growth
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), overrepresentation
in families with incomes below the poverty level
(Smokowski, Reynolds, & Bezruczko, 1999),
higher frequency in families at risk for poor
behavioral and mental health outcomes (Vega et
al., 1998), and relatively high risk for school
dropout and academic failure (Tinkler, 2002), it
is important to understand the perspectives of
Latino/a parents about their children’s strengths.
Although Latino/as are not a homogenous
group, there are general characteristics that
differentiate the Latino/a identity from Europe-
an Americans values, particularly for recent
immigrants who are more likely to be less
acculturated to majority group values. Latino/a
parents distinguish themselves from parents of
other backgrounds by expressing concern
about showing respect to authority figures,
and they may not become involved in educa-
tional matters for fear of showing disrespect to
teachers (Drummond & Stipek, 2004). Latino/a
parents may often feel intimidated by teachers
and the school system in general (Chrispeels &
Rivero, 2001) and may feel anxious, unwel-
come, and misinformed when entering the
school environment. Latino/a parents often see
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
a sharp delineation between the role of the
school and their role as parents: The role of
parents is to provide nurturance and to teach
morals, respect, and good behavior, whereas
the role of the school is to instill knowledge in
students (Tinkler, 2002). There is clearly a
need for educators to develop a stronger
understanding of the cultural values that
children bring with them from their home
environment to school (Tinkler, 2002) and the
implications of those cultural differences on
parental understanding of their children’s
educational experience.
Purpose
In this study, we explore the factor structure
of the BERS-2 with Spanish-speaking parents of
at-risk youths. Because it is a measure used to
assess strength characteristics for children with
significant mental health concerns including
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, opposi-
tional defiant disorder, and mood disorders, it is
crucial to identify the psychometric properties
for this population. Thus, as was done in the
original BERS-2 norming process, we purpose-
fully selected samples of youths with emotional
and behavioral concerns.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study explores a Spanish version of
the BERS-2 PRS. First, we examined the ques-
tion, What are latent constructs present in
Latino/a parents’ reports regarding their chil-
dren’s strengths? Second, we assessed the
hypothesis that the sample-specific factor struc-
ture would be a better fit than the original norm-
based factor structure to a second set of data.
Methods
Participants
Sample 1. Participants were parents of
students in fourth through seventh grade from
low-socioeconomic neighborhoods in two
school districts in the Central Coast region of
California. Participating schools enrolled 94%
to 99% of students who were classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged and 66% to
72% of students who were classified as
English-language learners. Parents who identi-
fied as Latino/a and responded in Spanish,
representing 52% of the overall sample, were
selected for analysis. Data were collected at
November 2009 / 55
two time points. At the first data collection
period, parents represented 97 students (69%
male) aged 9 to 14 years (M 5 10.87 years). At
the second data collection period, the parent
group represented 112 students (76.8% male)
aged 10 to 15 years (M 5 12.09 years).
Sample 2. Participants were parents of
youths enrolled in a community program that
provided comprehensive services to criminally
involved families with identified substance
abuse problems. Parents who identified as
Latino/a and responded in Spanish were
selected for analysis, representing 48% of the
overall sample. Data were collected at two
time points. At the first data collection period,
participants represented 83 students (58%
male) aged 13 to 17 years (M 5 15.21 years).
At the second data collection period, parents
represent 73 students (62% male) aged 14 to
17 years (M 5 15.18 years).
Although immigration history was not
obtained from these samples, a 2005 demo-
graphic survey in the area revealed that of
individuals who were classified as Hispanic or
Latino/a, 92% identified as Mexican, 0.5% as
Puerto Rican, 0.3% as Cuban, and 7% as
Other Hispanic or Latino/a. Thus, the majority
of Spanish-speaking parents of children in both
studies were likely recent immigrants from
Mexico, with fewer from other Central and
South American countries.
Measures
Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale–2
Parent Rating Scale. The BERS-2 PRS, exclud-
ing the career strengths subscale, was used to
measure youth strengths from a parent per-
spective. The BERS-2 PRS consists of 52 items
completed by parents to assess behavioral and
emotional strengths of children between the
ages of 5 and 18 years within a school setting.
Based on factor analyses studies with the
original BERS, the BERS-2 consists of five
subscales: Affective Strength, School Function-
ing, Intrapersonal Strength, Family Involve-
ment, and Interpersonal Strength (Epstein,
2004). The items are rated using a Likert-type
scale ranging from 0 to 3 (i.e., 0 5 not at all
like, 1 5 not much like, 2 5 like, 3 5 very
much like). The Affective Strength subscale
includes 7 items that reflect the students’
ability to give and receive affection from
others (e.g., ‘‘Shows concerns for the feelings
of others’’). The School Functioning subscale
includes 9 items and assesses if the child
56 / November 2009
performs competently in classroom tasks and
in school in general (e.g., ‘‘Reads at or above
grade level’’). The Intrapersonal Strength sub-
scale consists of 11 items to assess the child’s
perceptions of his or her accomplishments and
competence in various areas (e.g., ‘‘Identifies
personal strengths’’). The Family Involvement
subscale has 10 items to explore how often the
child participates in family activities and his or
her relationship with the family unit (e.g.,
‘‘Participates in family activities’’). Finally, the
Interpersonal Strength subscale includes 15
items and assesses the child’s ability to control
emotions and behaviors in social situations
(e.g., ‘‘Is kind towards others’’). Mooney,
Epstein, Ryser, and Pierce (2005) conducted
a series of three studies to test the reliability
and validity of the BERS-2 PRS. With 78
parents of elementary and middle school youth
in Nebraska (91% white), they found test-retest
correlations at or above .80 for all subscales
and the strength index. With 85 and 55 parents
of elementary and middle school youth in
Nebraska (93% and 100% white, respectively),
the authors found 90% significant correlations
between the BERS-2 PRS and the Social Skills
Rating System and the Child Behavior Check-
list, respectively. Mooney and colleagues
(2005) noted the need for additional studies
using larger and more diverse samples to
establish other types of reliability and validity.
Procedures
Translation procedures were implemented
to create a Spanish version of the BERS-2 PRS.
First, the BERS-2 PRS was translated into Spanish
by a bilingual, bicultural Latino/a American
graduate student trained in social-emotional
assessment and the purpose of the BERS-2. This
preliminary translation was subsequently back-
translated into English by a second trained
bilingual, bicultural Latino/a American graduate
student who provided additional feedback
regarding how well items preserved intent rather
than merely a literal translation of the measure.
The measure was piloted with Spanish-speaking
families, and wording was adjusted based on
feedback. The Spanish version was subsequently
requested and obtained by the original BERS-2
authors (M. Furlong, personal communication,
May 22, 2008). Although the BERS-2 Parent
Spanish has not been published, it has been used
in evaluation projects, further necessitating its
empirical examination. This study represents a
first step in establishing reliability and validity of
this Spanish version of the BERS-2.
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
 Participants in the first sample were
recruited for a research study because they
were referred for discipline to school princi-
pals or had been suspended or expelled from
school. Parents in the second sample were
recruited for an intervention project through
truancy, juvenile probation, or adult parole
systems. Upon completion of recruitment
procedures including informed consent, the
BERS-2 PRS was administered to parents in
both studies by a graduate student researcher
during a one-on-one, face-to-face visit as part
of a larger set of study procedures. Parents
were given the choice to complete the
measure in English or Spanish, and those
who completed the measure in Spanish were
retained in this study. Directions for comple-
tion were explained verbally in the parents’
primary language, and any questions were
answered prior to or during the survey. Parents
were asked to complete a second set of
measures, including the BERS-2, 1 to 2 years
(first sample) and 6 months (second sample)
after their initial response. The first set of
responses was used to conduct the first stage of
analysis, and the second set of responses was
used to conduct the second stage of analysis.
Because this was a secondary data analysis,
combining two samples allowed us to achieve
the sample size necessary for the required
analysis. Using the second set of data acquired
from the same parents allowed us to confirm
the exploratory factor structure on a unique,
although not independent, set of data.
Overview of the Statistical Analyses
Analyses were conducted in two stages of
factor analyses. First, exploratory factor anal-
ysis (EFA) was employed to explore the
underlying structure of a relatively large set
of variables included in the BERS-2 Parent
Report. After conducting EFA, confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the
fit of the proposed factor structure to a second
sample. Because the BERS items are ordinal
variables that violate the assumption of multi-
variate normality, analysis was based on a
robust weighted least squares (WLS) estimation
using Mplus 4.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2006).
Exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory
factor analysis is a method of examining how
scale items may optimally group together into
distinct subsets to measure an overall construct
in the most parsimonious fashion. Empirical
techniques, such as creating an eigenvalue
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
cutoff or minimum factor loading, can be used
to identify the ideal number of factors.
However, an overreliance on the statistics of
a particular EFA can lead to results that fit for
one sample but are neither theoretically sound
nor true for the population estimated. Thus, we
considered empirical data within a theoretical
framework that explains item groupings.
Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory
factor analysis allows researchers to test a
priori models by plotting the proposed factor
structure with measured variables loading onto
proposed, or latent, variables (Kline, 1998).
The fit of the proposed model was evaluated
based on CFI (Bentler, 1990), nonnormed fit
index (NNFI; also known as the Tucker Lewis
Index; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and RMSEA
(Steiger & Lind, 1980). The CFI provides a
measure of fit, which assesses the improve-
ment in fit of the hypothesized model relative
to a null model. Although it is generally
accepted that a CFI value equal to or greater
than .90 represents a well-fitting model
(McDonald & Ho, 2002), a revised cutoff
value close to .95 has been recommended
(Hu & Bentler, 1999). The NNFI and RMSEA
were also included. We chose these indices
because they are relatively independent of
sample size and take into account model
complexity, which is an important property
for comparing several alternative models with
different degrees of complexity. Values of .95
or above for NNFI (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and
RMSEA values of about .08 indicate fair fit,
whereas .05 or less indicates good fit (Browne
& Cudek, 1993).
Results
Stage 1: EFA
Before conducting EFA, a content analysis
of highly correlated items was carried out to
avoid multicollinearity. When intercorrela-
tions among some variables are high (..85),
one should be dropped as redundant. Examin-
ing the correlation matrix, the absolute values
of correlations were not too high (ranged from
.28 to .81); thus, all items were retained. A
robust WLS estimation was used with a
promax rotation with study sample 1 (N 5
180). Oblique rotation was used given the
correlation between BERS dimensions. Empir-
ical approaches, such as a scree test and
pattern of factor loading, were considered
within a theoretical framework considering
November 2009 / 57
 TABLE 1
Rotated Pattern Matrix From Exploratory Factor Analysis: Study 1 Sample
BERS-2 Item I II III
B1 Family belongingness 0.673 0.065 0.234
B2 Trusts a significant person 0.630 0.147 0.206
B3 Accepts a hug 0.714 0.104 0.059
B4 Participates in community activities 0.600 0.267 20.137
B5 Self-confidenta 0.386 0.142 0.407
B6 Acknowledges painful feelings 0.636 0.016 0.262
B7 Maintains positive family relationshipsa 0.562 20.016 0.476
B8 Demonstrates a sense of humor 0.746 0.064 0.090
B9 Asks for helpa 0.577 0.012 0.323
B10 Uses anger management skills 20.081 0.149 0.721
B11 Communicates with parents about behavior 0.253 0.173 0.520
a
B12 Remorseful of behavior that hurt others 0.340 20.002 0.538
B13 Show concern for feelings of othersa 0.672 20.108 0.419
a
B14 Completes a task on first request 20.067 0.367 0.481
B15 Interacts positively with parents 0.194 20.002 0.795

B16 Reacts to disappointment in a calm manner 0.093 0.009 0.766

B17 Considers consequences of own behavior 0.205 0.151 0.571
B18 Accepts criticism 0.453 0.138 0.144
B19 Participates in church activities 0.528 0.284 20.049
B20 Demonstrates age-appropriate hygiene skills 0.646 0.193 0.053
B21 Requests support from peers and friends 0.605 0.216 0.017
B22 Enjoys a hobby 0.575 0.268 0.032
B23 Discuss problems with others 0.555 0.006 0.140
B24 Completes school tasks on time 20.049 0.853 0.153
B25 Accepts the closeness and intimacy of others 0.784 20.042 20.039
B26 Identifies own feelings 0.611 0.118 0.231
B27 Identifies personal strengths 0.607 0.174 0.177
B28 Accepts responsibility for own actions 0.177 0.114 0.603
B29 Interacts positively with siblingsa 0.302 0.090 0.486
B30 Loses a game gracefully 0.145 20.042 0.637
B31 Completes homework regularly 0.115 0.819 0.078
B32 Is popular with peers 0.721 0.017 0.032
B33 Listens to others 0.722 20.095 0.243
B34 Express concern for others 0.827 20.102 0.173
B35 Admits mistakesa 0.324 20.065 0.674
B36 Participates in family activitiesa 0.529 0.138 0.336
B37 Accepts ‘‘no’’ for an answer 0.072 0.294 0.517
B38 Smiles often 0.845 0.058 0.008
B39 Pays attention in class 0.053 0.829 0.024
B40 Computes math problems at above grade level 0.080 0.639 0.125
B41 Reads at or above grade level 0.131 0.569 0.094
B42 Enthusiastic about lifea 0.625 0.054 0.311

58 / November 2009 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65

 TABLE 1 (Continued )
Rotated Pattern Matrix From Exploratory Factor Analysis: Study 1 Sample
BERS-2 Item I II III
a
B43 Respects the right of others 0.304 0.182 0.459
a
B44 Shares with others 0.622 20.011 0.343
B45 Complies with rules at home 20.001 0.285 0.632
B46 Apologizes to others when wrong 0.175 0.182 0.529
B47 Studies for tests 0.029 0.667 0.259
B48 Talks about the positive aspects of life 0.494 0.228 0.237
B49 Is kind toward others 0.753 0.011 0.208
B50 Uses appropriate languagea 0.480 0.091 0.361
B51 Attends school regularlya 0.529 0.430 0.036
B52 Use note-taking and listening skills in school 0.183 0.766 0.038

Note. Numbers in bold type signify items that load on that specific factor.
aDouble-loaded item.

extant literature to confirm that the final factor
selection was interpretable and substantively
plausible. Through this process, a three-factor
model emerged as the most meaningful and
parsimonious model. The fit of the three-factor
solution in RMSEA and standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) was acceptable.
The value of RMSEA was .07, and the value of
SRMR was .04. Table 1 displays which items
related to each of three obtained factors and
reports pattern coefficients. Fourteen double-
loaded items were eliminated to have a
simpler structure; thus, 38 items of the 52
original items were finally selected for the
three-factor solution. Cronbach’s alphas and
intercorrelations for these three factors are
presented in Table 2. The intercorrelations
ranged from .65 and .66, and they were not
high enough to suggest that the scales sub-
stantially overlapped.
Stage 2: CFA
The second stage sought to explore the
factor structure of BERS based on the proposed
TABLE 2
Descriptive and Intercorrelation Statistics of
the Three-Factor Model From Exploratory
Factor Analysis: Study 1 Sample
EFA three-factor model and original five-factor
model using study sample 2 (N 5 185). We
also evaluated a one-factor model. This
examination was conducted on an exploratory
basis because EFA and CFA are not typically
performed on the same participants. Although
our data were from two distinct data collection
periods, the same participants were surveyed
twice.
The results of the three CFA models are
shown in Table 3. Fit indices indicated that the
three-factor model proposed from EFA yielded
a slightly better fit than the other two models.
Improvements were seen for all of the model fit
indices. The one-factor model was not accept-
able in terms of CFI, NNFI, and RMSEA. The
NNFI values for three-factor and five-factor
models were good (both greater than .95),
whereas the RMSEA value for the three-factor
model (.08) was acceptable but not for the
five-factor model (.09) based on accepted
criteria (Browne & Cudek, 1993). The CFI
value was not ideal yet was improved for the
three-factor model compared with the five-
TABLE 3
Fit Indexes for the Confirmatory Factor
Models
Group S-B x2 df CFI NNFI RMSEA
One factor 264.20 63 .81 .93 .13

M SD a 1 2 3 Three factor 153.54 65 .92 .97 .08

1. Emotional Health 2.79 0.84 .96 — Five factor 193.68 75 .89 .96 .09

2. School Participation 2.07 0.85 .92 .65 —

Note. CFI 5 comparative fit index; NNFI 5 nonnormed fit
3. Self-Control 2.61 0.87 .93 .66 .65 — index; RMSEA 5 robust root mean square error of
approximation.

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65 November 2009 / 59

 TABLE 4
Descriptive and Intercorrelation Statistics of the Five-Factor Model From Confirmatory Factor
Analysis: Study 2 Sample
M SD a 1 2 3 4 5
1. Interpersonal Strength 2.23 0.60 .91 —
2. Family Involvement 2.25 0.57 .82 .94 —
3. Intrapersonal Strength 2.49 0.54 .89 .87 .85 —
4. School Functioning 2.09 0.68 .89 .80 .77 .70 —
5. Affective Strength 2.49 0.57 .80 .88 .90 .93 .65 —

factor model, and the other two indices (NNFI
and RMSEA) were acceptable.
The correlation patterns of the three-factor
and five-factor BERS scales were also exam-
ined to check validity (see Tables 4 and 5).
Intercorrelations among three factors were not
too high (range 5 .68 to .81), which suggests
discriminant validity of BERS scales. However,
intercorrelations among the five factors were
significantly higher (range 5 .65 to .94), which
suggests the five-factor BERS scales are redun-
dant. Therefore, the three-factor model
emerged as the most meaningful and parsimo-
nious model using both substantive and
statistical criteria. Standardized factor loadings
for the three-factor model are provided in
Table 6. Results demonstrated that the stan-
dardized factor loadings of each construct are
substantively large (..58), suggesting that all
factors are well determined with valid indica-
tors.
Discussion
As one of the most widely used measures
to examine school-based strengths of students
of children with emotional and behavioral
disorders involved with wraparound services,
it is crucial to evaluate the reliability and
validity of the BERS-2 as implemented in
practice. This study explores the factor struc-
TABLE 5
Descriptives and Intercorrelation of the
Three-Factor Model From Confirmatory
Factor Analysis: Study 2 Sample
M SD a 1
1. Emotional Health 2.46 0.51 .91 — overall Latino/a culture. Familismo is one such
2. School Participation 2.05 0.75 .90 .68
3. Self-Control 2.13 0.65 .88 .81 .78 —
ture of a Spanish version of the BERS-2 to gain
further insight into its utility as a culturally
sensitive measure of youth strengths. Cultural
and socioeconomic factors may influence
parents’ views of their children’s strengths
and school experiences. Culture influences
the ways students behave, and for ethnic
minority students, it may also contribute to a
mismatch between the behavioral expecta-
tions of their home and school environments
(Aaroe & Nelson, 2000).
Results suggest that a three-factor BERS
model is a better fit to the data than the
original five-factor BERS model given statisti-
cal, theoretical, and practical considerations.
Using descriptive labels, Emotional Health is
composed of 21 items (e.g., trusts a significant
person), School Participation is composed of 7
items (e.g., completes school tasks on time),
and Self-Control is composed of 10 items (e.g.,
reacts to disappointment in a calm manner). As
we will describe in additional detail, these
factors appear to be consistent with extant
literature related to Latino/a identity generally
and for Mexican Americans specifically.
Although within-group differences are
substantial, common cultural characteristics
related to recent immigrants to the United
States from Mexico include a unique mix of
Native American and European cultures. For
example, the importance of daughters’ virtue
to family honor originates in Spanish culture,
whereas the prestigious role of the eldest son
in the family originates in Mayan tradition
(McNeill et al., 2001). Given their unique
cultural influences, there are certain cultural
norms that tend to describe traditional Mexi-
2 3 can Americans and even extend to define an
— value that refers to extended family members’
contribution to emotional and financial sup-
port of everyone in the family and that the

60 / November 2009 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65

 TABLE 6
Standardized Factor Loadings of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
BERS-2 Item BERS-2 Subscale I II III
Factor 1: Emotional Health
1. Family belongingness FAM .783
2. Trusts a significant person FAM .589
3. Accepts a hug AS .718
4. Participates in community activities FAM .793
6. Acknowledges painful feelings AS .786
8. Demonstrates a sense of humor INTRA .668
18. Accepts criticism INTER .583
19. Participates in church activities FAM .609
20. Demonstrates age-appropriate hygiene skills INTRA .717
21. Requests support from peers and friends INTRA .629
22. Enjoys a hobby INTRA .655
23. Discuss problems with others AS .583
25. Accepts the closeness and intimacy of others AS .610
26. Identifies own feelings INTRA .877
27. Identifies personal strengths INTRA .795
32. Is popular with peers INTRA .576
33. Listens to others INTER .735
34. Express concern for others AS .771
38. Smiles often INTRA .681
48. Talks about the positive aspects of life INTRA .808
49. Is kind toward others INTER .861
Factor 2: School Participation
24. Completes school tasks on time SCHL .917
31. Completes homework regularly SCHL .890
39. Pays attention in class SCHL .867
40. Computes math problems at above grade level SCHL .632
41. Reads at or above grade level SCHL .621
47. Studies for tests SCHL .817
52. Use note-taking and listening skills in school SCHL .913
Factor 3: Self-Control
10. Uses anger management skills INTER .687
11. Communicates with parents about behavior FAM .702
15. Interacts positively with parents FAM .777
16. Reacts to disappointment in a calm manner INTER .709
17. Considers consequences of own behavior INTER .836
28. Accepts responsibility for own actions INTER .744
30. Loses a game gracefully INTER .657
37. Accepts ‘‘no’’ for an answer INTER .611
45. Complies with rules at home FAM .785
46. Apologizes to others when wrong INTRA .727

Note. INTRA 5 Intrapersonal Strength; INTER 5 Interpersonal Strength; SCHL 5 School Functioning; FAM 5 Family
Involvement; AS 5 Affective Strength.

Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65 November 2009 / 61

needs of the family transcend the needs of the
individual (McNeill et al., 2001). Each family
member is expected to cooperate and contrib-
ute to the benefit of the family as a whole.
Because Mexican American cultural values
include strong family loyalty and allegiance,
which may differ from the behavioral styles of
majority-culture youth who may strive for
more self-expression and individuality (Griggs
& Dunn, 1996), Mexican American parents
may be less likely to identify family strengths
as distinct from personal strengths. Results
indicate that the original BERS Family Func-
tioning variables primarily converged with
Interpersonal Strength items, which is under-
standable because parents’ basis for under-
standing their child’s interpersonal functioning
is within the family system.
The Behavioral Self-Control factor is con-
sistent with Latino/a personal identity and
expectations for behavior. Respeto dictates
respectful behavior toward others due to age,
gender, socioeconomic level, and authority
status (McNeill et al., 2001). Children are
expected to obey their parents and demon-
strate appropriate behavior at school and
particularly toward authority figures such as
teachers. In Spanish terms, controlarse is a
value of controlling oneself (Dana, 1993).
Related items in this factor include ‘‘uses
anger management skills,’’ ‘‘reacts to disap-
pointment in a calm manner,’’ and ‘‘considers
consequences of own behavior.’’
The Emotional Health factor is also con-
sistent with Latino/a personal identity. A
behavioral strength prioritized in Latino/a
culture is represented by the concept of
simpatı́a, which refers to a priority for affec-
tional social behaviors. Mexican Americans
value maintaining pleasantries and avoiding
conflict in relationships. In research, having
close relationships with parents is related to
important positive outcomes for Mexican
American youth (Love & Buriel, 2007). Items
in the Emotional Health scale include ‘‘family
belongingness,’’ ‘‘accepts a hug,’’ and ‘‘ac-
cepts the closeness and intimacy of others’’
and seem consistent with the simpatı́a identity.
The School scale included school items
from the original BERS and thus appears to
have a consistent latent structure across
normative samples and the current sample.
Research in cross-cultural differences between
Mexican American and Anglo-American
mothering in the school context found that
Mexican American mothers, particularly re-
62 / November 2009
cent immigrants, were more traditional, in-
cluding the belief that school holds the
responsibility to educate children, parents
should not question teachers’ methods, and
children should obey educators (Rodriguez &
Olswang, 2003). Despite potentially different
attitudes toward school, and potentially differ-
ent relations between the school factor and
educational outcomes, parents of different
backgrounds appear to rate the school items
cohesively.
Limitations and Future Directions
Sample sizes used for factor analyses were
relatively small given traditional guidelines, as
larger samples tend to provide more stable
results. However, a simulation study by
MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, and Hong
(1999) demonstrated that a common rule of
thumb regarding sample size in factor analysis
is not valid. On the basis of simulation, their
findings showed that the level of communality
is more important than the role of sample size.
According to their guidelines, our study
sample, near 200 (study 1 sample 5 180 and
study 2 sample 5 185), is not problematic
because the mean level of communality is
consistently high (.7) and factors are well
determined in our study. It is ideal to conduct
EFA and a subsequent CFA with distinct
samples of participants. Although our data
were from two distinct data collection periods,
the same participants were surveyed twice.
Conducting CFA with an independent sample
would strengthen our findings.
Within-group differences are often just as
meaningful as between-group differences. Ac-
culturation level is likely to be related to
perception of strengths, and the more parents
become acculturated to majority-group values,
the more likely their report of strengths is to
match parents of majority-group students. In
this study, we were not able to determine the
level of acculturation, age of arrival in the
United States, or education level. However, it
is likely that most participants were immigrants
with low levels of acculturation given their
preference for Spanish materials. Future stud-
ies should examine the relationship between
acculturation level and perception of strengths.
The primary goal of the BERS-2 is to
identify strengths of students with emotional
and behavioral difficulties who are referred for
wraparound services. Thus, it is important to
explore the underlying factor structure of the
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
BERS-2 with high-risk samples of youth.
Although previous psychometric evaluation
of the BERS-2 suggests that the factor structure
is valid for typical students as well as students
with emotional and behavioral disorders, to be
robust for use in schools with all students,
future research should continue to explore and
confirm the factor structure of the BERS-2 with
a typical school population.
It is unknown whether a more parsimoni-
ous three-factor model is unique to the
Spanish-speaking participants assessed in this
study or to a broader tendency of parents
reporting on their child’s strengths because the
factor structure of the BERS-2 has not been
thoroughly explored with regard to its fit to
parent respondents. As a model of cross-
cultural research in the field of deficit-focused
assessment, the Child Behavior Checklist
(Achenbach, 1991) has been studied in nu-
merous societies across the world. This re-
search has demonstrated that the factor struc-
ture of the eight U.S.-derived syndrome scales
fit data from 30 other societies (Ivanova et al.,
2007). Thus, it is possible that a consistent
factor structure exists for strength-based scales
such as the BERS-2, with separate norms to
reflect group differences in strength identifica-
tion. Further research is necessary to determine
if the factor structure identified in the current
study is unique to Spanish-speaking Latino/a
parents or consistent across parents of diverse
cultures.
Given the substantial limitations to this
study, it is not meant to provide a comprehen-
sive psychometric analysis of the BERS-2
Spanish version. Rather, it is presented as an
exploration to generate further hypotheses
regarding strength constructs and multicultural
perspectives. Future studies should capitalize
on the limitations present in this study to
advance the study of strength-based assess-
ment. The BERS-2 is a promising measure that
would benefit from additional reliability and
validity analysis.
Conclusion
Using the BERS-2 with multicultural fam-
ilies necessitates an understanding of the
cultural factors that guide healthy functioning
for a particular group. As every family is
unique in their cultural values, acculturation,
and relationship with the school, a sensitive
test administrator should be aware of potential
cultural effects on a youth’s school experience
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
and question the relevance of results before
making recommendations.
The BERS-2 has been published and used
with at-risk families across the country as part
of a national system of care evaluation and for
psychological assessment. Results are com-
monly used to inform intervention strategies.
Given the widespread use of the BERS-2, it is
crucial for independent research to examine its
psychometric properties. Results of this study
suggest that the BERS-2 may measure cultur-
ally sensitive constructs. Thus, working with
families to design interventions that improve
on these strengths is likely to be acceptable,
although this hypothesis needs to be tested.
Future studies should explore the factor
structure of the BERS-2 with larger samples of
parent and youth groups that represent
diverse populations in the United States.
Ultimately, the most robust measure will be
validated across cultures and in different
languages to encourage comparison between
societies (Rescorla et al., 2007). Such re-
search should include an examination of how
acculturation affects parent perspectives of
strengths. By considering strengths from di-
verse parent perspectives, it is more likely that
parents of minority students will be more
involved in school-based interventions. As a
second step, it is important to relate assess-
ment results to treatment recommendations.
Interventions designed to enhance strengths
should be developed and tested to determine
if they are effective at promoting healthy
outcomes. Without these types of research
efforts, strength-based assessment will contin-
ue to be advocated for and conducted but
without direction as how to proceed with
intervention.
NOTE
1. The term Latino/a was selected to represent the
participants in this study because all participants
self-identified as Latino/a on the demographic
portion of the questionnaire administered to them.
Although using a single label to refer to a large and
diverse group does not accurately reflect the identity
of individual participants, we felt it was more
accurate to use a general term to avoid overgener-
alization of the results to a specific ethnic group
(e.g., Mexican Americans) that was not represented
by all participants. Latino/a is a more inclusive term
than Hispanic because it represents the diversity of
languages (e.g., Spanish, Portuguese, French), an-
cestry (e.g., Europe, Africa, and the Americas), and
values of immigrants to the United States from Latin
America (Miville, 2010). Readers should keep in
November 2009 / 63
mind that results summarize group data that reflect
general trends among participants.
REFERENCES
Aaroe, L., & Nelson, J. R. (2000). A comparative
analysis of teachers’, Caucasian parents’, and
Hispanic parents’ views of problematic school
survival behaviors. Education and Treatment of
Children, 23, 314–324.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child
Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Bur-
lington, VT: University of Vermont, Department
of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., Becker, A., Döpfner, M., Heier-
vang, E., Roessner, V., & Steinhausen, H., et al.
(2008). Multicultural assessment of child and
adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and
SDQ instruments: Research findings, applica-
tions, and future directions. Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49, 251–275.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in
structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance
tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 588–606.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative
ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J.
S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Buckley, J. A., Ryser, G., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H.
(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale–2
(BERS-2) Parent and Youth Rating Scales.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 27–
37.
Center for Mental Health Services. (2001). Annual
report to Congress on the evaluation of the
Comprehensive Community Mental Health Ser-
vices for Children and their Families Program,
2001. Atlanta, GA: ORC Macro.
Chrispeels, J. H., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging
Latino/a families for student success: How
parent education can reshape parents’ sense of
place in the education of their children. Pea-
body Journal of Education, 76, 119–169.
Dana, R. H. (1993). Multicultural assessment per-
spectives for professional psychology. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Doll, B. (2001). Review of the Behavioral and
Emotional Rating Scale: A strength-based ap-
proach to assessment. In B. S. Plake, & J. C.
Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measure-
ments yearbook (pp. 142–144). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Drummond, K. V., & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income
parents’ beliefs about their role in children’s
academic learning. Elementary School Journal,
104, 197–213.
64 / November 2009
Epstein, M. H. (2004). Behavioral and Emotional
Rating Scale: A strengths-based approach to
assessment (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Epstein, M. H., & Sharma, J. (1998). Behavioral and
Emotional Rating Scale: A strengths-based ap-
proach to assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Furlong, M. J., Sharkey, J. D., Boman, P., & Caldwell,
R. (2007). Cross-validation of the Behavioral and
Emotional Rating Scale-2 Youth Version: An
exploration of strength-based latent traits. Jour-
nal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 696–
711.
Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty: Resilience
despite risk. Psychiatry, 56, 127–136.
Griggs, S., & Dunn, R. (1996). Hispanic-American
students and learning style. Internet site: http://
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/
content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2a/25/b8.pdf
(Accessed June 6, 2006).
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6, 1–55.
Ivanova, M. Y., Achenbach, T. M., Dumenci, L.,
Rescorla, L. A., Almqvist, F., & Bilenberg, N., et
al. (2007). Testing the 8-syndrome structure of
the Child Behavior Checklist in 30 societies.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psy-
chology, 36, 405–417.
Jimerson, S. R., Sharkey, J. D., Nyborg, V. M., &
Furlong, M. J. (2004). Strength-based assessment
and school psychology: A summary and synthe-
sis. California School Psychologist, 9, 9–19.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
Love, J. A., & Buriel, R. (2007). Language brokering,
autonomy, parent-child bonding, biculturalism,
and depression: A study of Mexican American
adolescents from immigrant families. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 472–491.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., &
Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.
Psychological methods, 4, 84–99.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. (2002). Principles and
practice in reporting structural equation analy-
ses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.
McNeill, B. W., Prieto, L. R., Niemann, Y. F.,
Pizarro, M., Vera, E. M., & Gómez, S. P. (2001).
Current directions in Chicana/o psychology. The
Counseling Psychologist, 29, 5–17.
Miville, M. (2010). Latina/o identity development:
Updates on theory, measurement, and counsel-
ing implications. In L. A. Suzuki, M. Casas, J. G.
Ponterotto, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook
of multicultural counseling (3rd ed.). (pp. 241–
252). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Ryser, G., & Pierce, C.
D. (2005). Reliability and validity of the
Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale–Second
Edition: Parent Rating Scale. Children &
Schools, 27, 147–155.
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s
guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Pedrotti, J. T., & Edwards, L. M. (2010). The
intersection of positive psychology and multi-
culturalism in counseling. In J. G. Ponterotto, J.
M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed.,
pp. 165–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character
strengths and virtues: A handbook and classifi-
cation. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Rescorla, L., Achenbach, T., Ivanova, M. Y.,
Dumenci, L., Almquist, F., Bilenberg, N., et al.
(2007). Behavioral and emotional problems
reported by parents of children ages 6 to 16 in
31 societies. Journal of Emotional and Behav-
ioral Disorders, 15, 130–142.
Rodriguez, B. L., & Olswang, L. B. (2003). Mexican-
American and Anglo-American mothers’ beliefs
and values about child rearing, education, and
language impairment. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 452–462.
Smokowski, P., Reynolds, A., & Bezruczko, N.
(1999). Resilience and protective factors in
adolescence: An autobiographical perspective
from disadvantaged youth. Journal of School
Psychology, 37, 425–448.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Positive psychol-
ogy: The scientific and practical explorations of
human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. M. (1980, June). Statistically
based tests for the number of common factors.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
Tinkler, B. (2002). A review of literature on Hispanic/
Latino/a parent involvement in K-12 education.
Internet site: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/
data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/
27/ce/30.pdf (Accessed March 3, 2006).
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). The Hispanic population:
Census 2000 brief. Washington, DC: Author.
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 53–65
View publication stats
Vega, W. A., Kolody, B., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S.,
Alderete, E., Catalano, R., & Caraveo-Anduaga,
J. (1998). Lifetime prevalence of DSM-III-R
psychiatric disorders among urban and rural
Mexican Americans in California. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 55, 771–778.
AUTHORS’ NOTE
Authors wish to thank the principal investiga-
tors of studies used in this secondary data
analysis. Data were originally collected
through support from a field-initiated research
grant to Gale Morrison (P.I.) at the University
of California, Santa Barbara from the US
Department of Education, Special Education
Programs, grant # H324C000072 and a
Challenge 2 grant evaluation subcontract to
Shane R. Jimerson, Michael J. Furlong, and
Manuel Casas (P.I.s) at the University of
California, Santa Barbara from the State of
California Board of Corrections.
Address correspondence to Jill Sharkey, Uni-
versity of California, Santa Barbara, Counsel-
ing, Clinical, and School Psychology, Gevirtz
Graduate School of Education, University of
California, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. Phone:
(805) 893-3441; Fax: (805) 893-3375; E-mail:
jsharkey@education.ucsb.edu.
MANUSCRIPT
Initial Acceptance: 6/09/09
Final Acceptance: 10/20/09
November 2009 / 65