Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T08:38:25.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Interview Schedule for Use in the Behavioural Assessment of Children's Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Gregory C. Murphy ,
Alan M. Hudson ,
Neville J. King  and
Andrew Remenyi
Gregory C. Murphy*
Affiliation:
Phillip Institute of Technology, Vic.
Alan M. Hudson
Affiliation:
Phillip Institute of Technology, Vic.
Neville J. King
Affiliation:
Phillip Institute of Technology, Vic.
Andrew Remenyi
Affiliation:
Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences, Vic.
*
Department of Psychology, Phillip Institute of Technology, Bundoora Vic. 3083
Get access

Abstract

A crucial aspect of behavioural assessment and intervention is the initial interview with the client. Although the interview is the most frequently employed method of assessment, very few published behavioural interview schedules are available to clinicians. The authors present an interview schedule for the behavioural assessment of children's problems. Hopefully, such devices will improve the reliability and validity of problem identification and facilitate effective case management.

Type
Articles
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 6 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development. N.Y.: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Greenspoon, J., and Gersten, C. (1967). A new look at psychological testing: Psychological testing from the standpoint of a behaviourist. American Psychologist, 22, 848–853.Google Scholar
Gross, A.M. (1984). Behavioral interviewing. In Ollendick, T.H. and Hersen, M. (Eds.), Child behavioral assessment: Principles and procedures. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1975). Who decided that was the problem? Two stages of responsibility for applied behavior analysts. In Wood, W.S. (Ed.), Issues in evaluating behavior modification. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.Google Scholar
Hay, W., Hay, L., Angle, H., and Nelson, R. (1979). The reliability of problem identification in the behavioral interview. Behavioral Assessment, 1, 107–118.Google Scholar
Haynes, S.N., and Wilson, C.C. (1979). Behavioral assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Holland, C. (1970). An interview guide for behavioral counselling with parents. Behavior Therapy, 1, 70–79.Google Scholar
Kanfer, F., and Grimm, L. (1977). Behavioral analysis: selecting target behaviors in the interview. Behavior Modification, 1, 7–28.Google Scholar
Kanfer, F., and Saslow, G. (1969). Behavioral diagnosis. In Franks, C.M. (Ed.), Behavior therapy: appraisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Keane, T., Black, J., Collins, F., and Vinson, M. (1982). A skills training program for teaching the behavioral interview. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 53–62.Google Scholar
Linehan, M. (1977). Issues in behavioral interviewing. In Cone, J. and Hawkins, R. (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: New directions in clinical psychology. New York: Brunner-Mazel.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.C., and Remenyi, A.G. (1979). Behavior analysis and organizational reality: the need for a technology of program implementation. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repucci, N.D. (1977). Implementation issues for the behavior modifer as institutional change agent. Behavior Therapy, 8, 594–605.Google Scholar
Wilson, F., and Evans, I. (1983). The reliability of target-behavior selection in behavioral assessment. Behavioral Assessment, 5, 15–32.Google Scholar
Woolfolk, A.E., Woolfolk, R.L., and Wilson, G.T. (1977). A rose by any other name … labelling bias and attitudes towards behavior modification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 184–191.Google Scholar