The Child Behavior Checklist for Ages

1.5–5 (CBCL/1½–5): Assessment and

analysis of parent- and caregiver-reported
problems in a population-based sample of
Danish preschool children
Nord J Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling on 05/30/10

SOLVEJG KRISTENSEN, TINE BRINK HENRIKSEN, NIELS BILENBERG

Kristensen S, Henriksen TB, Bilenberg N. The Child Behavior Checklist for ages 1.5–5
(CBCL/1½–5): Assessment and analysis of parent- and caregiver-reported problems in a
population-based sample of Danish preschool children. Nord J Psychiatry 2010;64:203-209.

Background: Psychometric instruments are used increasingly within research and clinical settings,
and therefore standardization has become an important prerequisite, even for investigating very
young children. Currently, there are no standardized psychometric instruments available for assess-
ment of preschool children in Denmark. Aims: The aim was to achieve Danish national norm scores
For personal use only.

for the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL/1½–5) and the Caregiver Report Form
(C-TRF). Methods: The study was based on an age- and gender-stratified cohort sample of 1750
children aged 1½–5 years born at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. The CBCL/1½–5 and
C-TRF were mailed to parents, who were asked to pass on the C-TRF to the preschool care-
giver. The national standard register data gave access to information on socio-economic status,
family type, ethnicity and parental educational level for analysis of participation and representa-
tion. Results: A total number of 850 (49%) families replied, and 624 caregivers replied. The mean
Total Problem Score (TPS) with 95% confidence interval was 17.3 (16.3–18.3) for parents’ reports.
Age-and gender-specific scale score findings for Danish preschoolers and schoolchildren were compa-
rable. No differences were found in the mean TPS within subgroups related to parental socio-demo-
graphic features. Conclusion: On the basis of a large sample, Danish national norm scores and
profiles of the ASEBA Preschool Forms were established; the scores of descendents must, however,
be assessed with some caution. With this reservation, the CBCL/1½–5 and C-TRF forms are now
available in Danish and can be recommended for use in clinical and research settings.
• CBCL 1½–5, Epidemiology, Normative data, Preschool Child, Psychometrics.

Solvejg Kristensen, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Research unit, University of
Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark, E-mail: solkri@rm.dk; Accepted 29 October 2009.

O ver the last decade, the use of psychometric instru-

ments has increased within research and clinical set-
tings. As a result, numerous checklists, assessment scales
and structured interviews have been developed, making
validation and standardization important prerequisites for
researchers throughout the psychiatric field. Only a limited
number of these instruments have become the subject of
international interest. One of them is the Achenbach Sys-
tem of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), which
has influenced the worldwide standard for multi-informant
assessment of behavioural, emotional and social function
across different age spans. The instruments have been used
in some 6500 studies and translated into more than 80
languages (1). The instruments are designed to capture both
similarities and differences in how children and youngsters
behave and function under different conditions in different
social settings. Achenbach and his co-workers developed
the ASEBA instruments through decades of research and
practical experience and described them in their early
papers and in the manuals (2–6). The manuals present the
validation and standardization procedures in large Ameri-
can samples. The ASEBA forms for school-aged children
(CBCL/4–18) have well-documented reliability and valid-
ity, and they have been standardized and validated in
numerous countries throughout the world (7–16). Cross-
cultural comparisons have also been made (17–21).

© 2010 Informa UK Ltd. (Informa Healthcare, Taylor & Francis As) DOI: 10.3109/08039480903456595
 S. KRISTENSEN ET AL.
In 2000, the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles was
introduced. It includes a Parent Report Form (Child Behav-
ior Checklist for Ages 1.5–5; CBCL/1½–5), a Caregiver-
Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) and a Language Development
Survey (LDS). It is an extension of the former CBCL/2–3
based on the CBCL/4–18 (6, 22). The CBCL/2–3 has been
used to assess substantial samples in the Netherlands,
Finland, Iceland, Canada and the USA (23, 24).
In Denmark, the CBCL/4–16 was tested and standard-
ized in 1999 (7). It is now used for assessment and detec-
tion of early signs of psychopathology within clinical
settings, quality assessment and as outcome measure of
child behaviour in epidemiological studies (25, 26). For
Nord J Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling on 05/30/10
the same purposes, standardized instruments for even younger
children are needed.
Aim
The aim of this study was to achieve Danish national
norm scores of the ASEBA Preschool Forms by assessing
and analysing parent- and caregiver-reported behavioural,
emotional and social function using the CBCL/1½–5 and
the C-TRF.
Material and methods
For personal use only.
Population
The study was based on a stratified cohort sample of 1750
children aged 1½–5 years born at Aarhus University Hospi-
tal between 1997 and 2002. The Aarhus Birth Cohort was
established in 1989, at the time of the study retrieving infor-
mation on about 5000 pregnant women and their newborns
per year. Two random samples based on 1250 and 500 chil-
dren were drawn from the birth cohort in spring 2003 and
2004, respectively. The two study samples ensured that the
full study population consisted of 175 boys and 175 girls in
each of the age groups: 1½, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years of age. All
children were between 5 and 7 months from their birthday
at the time of participating, meaning that e.g. a 2-year-old
child would be 2 years and 5–7 months old.
CBCL/1½–5 and C-TRF
The CBCL/1½–5 and C-TRF are similarly constructed to
cover an empirical range of behavioural, emotional and
social function problems. Both forms comprise 100 problem
items: 99 closed items and one open-ended item, which
requests the respondent to add any additional problems not
previously listed. The CBCL/1½–5 is completed by the par-
ents or other adults living with the child in a family-like
setting, whereas day care providers or others minding the
child during the daytime complete the C-TRF. The respon-
dent is requested to rate each item, based on the preceding
two months, as 0 for not true, 1 for somewhat or sometimes
true, and 2 for very true or often true. The C-TRF substi-
tutes 17 items pertinent to family situations for items specific
to group situations.
204
The CBCL/1½–5 requests supplementary information
about the health of the child. The C-TRF requests informa-
tion about kind of day care and the role of the respondent
in relation to the child, including how well the respon-
dent knows the child and in which context the child is
evaluated.
Scores and scales on CBCL and C-TRF
Scores on the Preschool Forms are hierarchically ordered.
According to the American standardization, the lowest level
comprises the 100 problem items, and each item is scored
0–1–2 on specific aspects of behavioural, emotional and
social functioning. The next level comprises psychiatric
syndrome scales, derived by applying exploratory and
confirmatory factor analytic methodology. The next hierar-
chical level comprises the 36-item Internalising and 24-item
Externalising Scales. Internalizing and externalizing prob-
lems are not mutually exclusive. The highest level in the
hierarchy comprises the Total Problem Scale. (6)
The Total Problem Scale score (TPS) is computed by
adding the sum of all 0–1–2 scores on the 99 specific
problem items and the highest score of 1 or 2 on any addi-
tional problems entered for item 100. Thus, the TPS ranges
from 0 to 200.
For the purpose of relating symptoms to formal diagnos-
tic criteria and for cross-cultural comparisons, five different
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders
(DSM)-Oriented Scales–Affective Problems, Anxiety
Problems, Pervasive Developmental Problems, Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems and Oppositional Defiant
Problems–were constructed by Achenbach & Rescorla (6).
Sixteen experienced health professionals from nine dif-
ferent cultures judged items to be consistent with
DSM-IV diagnostic categories, meaning that the scales
reflect overlaps between DSM-IV criteria and item rat-
ings for different DSM categories. High scores on these
scales indicate a need for further clinical assessment.
We present Danish scores on the following scales: Total
Problem Scale, Internalising and Externalising Scales,
and DSM-Oriented Scales.
Translation of CBCL and C-TRF
Because of the overlaps of items on the CBCL/4–16 and
the Preschool Forms, the translation for the CBCL/4–16
was used for translating most items. Initially the CBCL/4–
16 was translated from American English into Danish
and then re-translated by another linguist back into
American English (7). Items that were changed during
this procedure were discussed in the research group and
the most meaningful and correct expressions chosen for
the Danish translation. Items appearing only on the Pre-
school Forms were translated by professional linguists
in cooperation with clinicians, and differences in phras-
ing of the items were resolved in the research group by
NORD J PSYCHIATRY·VOL 64·NO 3·2010

discussion, according to agreement with Achenbach &
Rescorla (6).
Other data sources
All persons living in Denmark are registered according to
numerous variables via the unique Danish personal iden-
tification number (CPR) in the Danish Civil Registration
System (CRS). At the time of the study, the CPR gave
access to information on: status of parental education and
occupation, family structure, and both parents’ age and
native country.
Information from the CRS was obtained for the moth-
ers and fathers of the 1750 possible participants and for
Nord J Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling on 05/30/10
a sample of 21,125 gender- and age-matched children
from the background population.
Information on occupational status was dichotomized
into whether the parent was 1) in a regular job, on tempo-
rary leave, an assistant partner or a student (i.e. attached
to the labour market), or was 2) out of work, a pensioner,
rehabilitee or otherwise not attached to the labour market.
Educational status was categorized into three groups
according to the parents’ educational qualifications: 1) less
than or equal to 10 years of education (primary school), 2)
more than 10 but less than 13 years of education (high
For personal use only.
school or short professional education), or 3) more than
13 years of education (longer professional education or
university degree). Family type was assessed according
to National Register information on the number of adults
living at the address of the child into single-parent family
or two-parent family. Parental age was dichotomized into
two groups: 1) parents younger than 35 years and 2)
parents aged 35 or older.
Collection of information from parents
and caregivers
A letter of information, the CBCL/1½–5 and the additional
form were mailed to each family. The families were asked
for one parental reply per family. It was optional who filled
in the questionnaire: the mother, the father, somebody with
a parent-like relation or a combination of respondents. The
letter also contained an open envelope with information and
the C-TRF for the caregiver of the child; the parents were
asked to pass on this envelope. The informants of the two
checklists were requested to complete the forms without
consulting each other and to return them directly to the
researchers. Non-responders received two mailed reminders.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were carried out by SPSS version
14.0 for Windows.
All scores were computed according to Achenbach and
Rescorla’s instructions in the manual for the Preschool
Forms (6). Raw scores on the Total Problem Scale, Inter-
nalising and Externalising Scales and scores on the five
NORD J PSYCHIATRY·VOL 64·NO 3·2010
THE CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST FOR AGES 1½–5
DSM-Oriented Scales were described by mean, standard
deviation (s) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Inter-
nal consistency of the scales was analysed using Cronbach
alpha (α).
Analyses of participation and representation were carried
out using chi-square tests and t-tests. Analyses of parental
educational level, attachment to the labour market and age
were performed for mothers and fathers separately, whereas
analysis of family type was performed related to the child.
Comparisons across age, gender, demographic factors
and scale scores were made using non-parametric statis-
tical tests (Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis). The level
of two-sided statistical significance was set at P⬍0.05.
Ethics
All families approached gave their written informed con-
sent when completing the CBCL/1½–5. By delivering the
C-TRF to the child’s caregiver, the parents accepted that
the caregiver participated and returned the form directly
to the researchers.
No returned checklists resulted in contacting the families
to advise them to seek help for the child.
Results
Participation
A total of 850 families replied sufficiently to the
CBCL/1½–5, whereas 624 caregivers replied to the C-TRF.
Both forms were obtained for 609 children. The overall
parental responds rate was 49%. Participation was equally
distributed within gender and child age groups (P⫽0.75).
Respondents of the CBCL/1½–5 were 78% mothers,
11% fathers and 11% others. The informants of the CTR-F
were 77% caregivers from kindergartens, 21% caregivers
from private or public day care, and 2% others. A total of
12 participating children (1.5%) were descendents.
According to parent information, 56 of 838 (7%)
children had been referred to professional help within the
last year, e.g. a child psychiatrist, psychologist, physio-
therapist or logopaedist.
Analysis of representation and attrition
Analyses of representation and attrition were made to inves-
tigate possible selection bias and external validity (27).
Demographic information on family structure, status of
parental education and occupation, and parents’ age was
dealt with in both analyses.
Analysis of representation was performed by compar-
ing the study sample’s demographic information with infor-
mation on an age- and gender-matched random sample
of the Danish background population (n⫽21,125). In the
analyses of attrition, demographic information on respon-
dents (n⫽850) was compared with that of non-respondents
(n⫽900).
205
 S. KRISTENSEN ET AL.
Results from the analysis of representation showed that
in the study sample both mothers and fathers more fre-
quently had more than 13 years of education (longer pro-
fessional education or university degree), P⬍0.01. Also,
in the study sample, the fathers were more frequently
not attached to the labour market than in the background
population, P⬍0.01.
Results from the analysis of attrition showed that in
non-responding families (n⫽850) both fathers and mothers
were more frequently not attached to the labour marked,
P⬍0.05, than in responding families (n⫽900).
Extensive investigation of the characteristics of a sub-
sample of n⫽300 of the 2004 sample showed that non-
Nord J Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling on 05/30/10
participation was associated with parental self-reported
attitudes towards ethical issues related to CBCL/1½–5,
and to poor parental knowledge about child well-being
and behaviour in general (27).
Mean scores on the Total Problem Scale and the
Internalising and Externalising Scales
The TPS is one of the main outcomes in the literature
regarding ASEBA Forms. The distribution of scores on the
TPS showed practically identical patterns for parents and
caregivers, illustrated in Fig
Fig.1.
For personal use only.
The mean TPS for dichotomized subgroups related to
the mother’s respectively father’s 1) occupational status,
2) educational status, 3) family type and 4) parental age
was investigated. The four groups were dichotomized as
described above under Other data sources. Within each
of the four groups, we found no significant differences in
TPS (P-values ranging from 0.29 to 0.82).
No statistically significant differences were found in
TPS between the profiles of children whose mothers
(n⫽658) and fathers (n⫽90) filled in the CBCL/1½–5,
P⫽0.26.
Fig. 1. Distribution of scores on the Total Problem Scale (TPS) for Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL/1½–5) and the
Caregiver-Teacher Report Form (C-TRF).
206
The 12 participating descendents had a mean TPS of
35.6 (19.9–51.3), whereas it was 16.8 (15.8–17.7) for the
828 non-descendents.
Boys obtained a significantly higher mean TPS than
girls, according to caregivers P⬍0.01. The mean TPS
was higher among the youngest children of 1½–2 years
than among 3–5-year-olds; the difference was statistically
significant for caregiver ratings only, P⫽0.02.
The Internalising Scale comprises problems like emotional
reactivity, anxiety/depression, somatic complaints without
medical cause and withdrawal from social contacts. The
Externalising Scale comprises problems that mainly involve
conflicts with other people, and with their expectations
of the child, such as attention problems and aggressive
behaviour.
Mean scale scores on the TPS, and the Internalising
and Externalising Scales for both checklists are presented
in Tables 1 and 2, also showing gender- and age-strati-
fied scale scores. No statistically significant differences
were found in any of the investigated age or gender
mean Internalising scale scores.
Parents rated externalizing problem behaviour higher
than caregivers, P⬍0.01. Boys’ externalizing behaviour
was scored higher than girls’ by caregivers, P⫽0.01.
Mean Externalising Scale scores were statistically higher
among the youngest children of 1½–2 years than among
3–5-year-olds, both according to the ratings of parents
and caregivers, P⬍0.01.
Scores on DSM-Oriented Scales
To advance the clinical use of the ASEBA preschool
Forms the five DSM-Oriented scales were constructed
(6). Clinically the DSM-Oriented Scales can be used to
support assessment of referred children. The mean and
standard deviation in the normative population guide the
NORD J PSYCHIATRY·VOL 64·NO 3·2010
 THE CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST FOR AGES 1½–5

Table 1. Gender-stratified scale scores for the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL/1½–5) and the Caregiver-Teacher Report
Form (C-TRF).

Checklist Gender n Mean s 95% CI Gender comparison Cronbach α

Total Problem Scale scores

CBCL/1½–5 Boys and girls 850 17.3 15.3 16.3–18.3 – 0.94
Boys 424 17.5 14.5 16.1–18.9 0.93
P⫽0.45
Girls 426 16.7 16.1 15.4–18.1 0.95
C-TRF Boys and girls 624 13.9 15.7 12.7–15.1 – 0.95
Boys 308 15.6 13.8 13.8–17.4 0.95
P⬍0.01
Girls 316 12.2 15.2 10.5–13.9 0.95
Internalising Scale scores
CBCL/1½–5 Boys and girls 850 3.9 5.1 3.5–4.2 – 0.87
Boys 424 3.8 4.6 3.2–4.2 0.84
Nord J Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling on 05/30/10

P⫽0.51
Girls 426 4.0 3.3 3.5–4.5 0.89
C-TRF Boys and girls 624 4.2 5.6 3.8–4.7 – 0.88
Boys 308 4.6 5.6 4.0–5.3 0.87
P⫽0.08
Girls 316 3.8 5.5 3.2–4.4 0.89
Externalising Scale scores
CBCL/1½–5 Boys and girls 850 6.7 6.0 6.3–7.1 – 0.89
Boys 424 6.8 6.1 6.3–7.4 0.89
P⫽0.42
Girls 426 6.5 5.8 5.9–7.1 0.88
C-TRF Boys and girls 624 4.8 6.1 4.3–5.3 – 0.90
Boys 308 5.8 6.6 4.7–6.2 0.91
P⫽0.01
Girls 316 4.2 5.6 3.6–4.8 0.90

s, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

For personal use only.

clinician concerning the degree of psychopathology and
the successful treatment.
Table 3 shows Danish figures of parent- and care-
giver-reported DSM-Oriented Mean Scale scores.
Discussion
Assessment of the preschool child generally involves
variations in behaviour displayed by most children to
some extent during their development. The behavioural
and emotional problems vary in severity and duration,
and may also be more prevalent in specific settings.
Although we do not know at present how predictive
parent- and caregiver-reported problems are for psy-
chopathology later in life, it is still vital to identify and
offer early and adequate help to preschool children
presenting problems of concern, as both the child,
its parents, siblings and caregivers may suffer consider-
able distress, and secondary problems may arise as a
consequence.
Psychometric instruments facilitate early identification
of problem behaviour in the preschool child. The CBCL
for Ages 1½–5 provides a structured overview of behav-
iour, social and emotional function. Generally speaking,
psychometric instruments for use in clinical work and in
research should balance the following demands: reliable
and valid data collection, and feasibility for families and
caregivers, ensuring a sufficiently high representative
cooperation and participation.
In this Danish study, the CBCL for Ages 1½–5 was
completed by parents of 850 children and by caregivers
of 624 children, giving a parental participation rate of
49%. A similarly low participation rate among parents of
preschool-aged children has previously been found on
Iceland using the former CBCL version for 2–3-year-old
children (10).
The analysis of representation, comparing the sample
of the 1750 children to a matched sample of the Danish
background population using socio-demographic vari-
ables, shows possible selection bias regarding parental
occupational and educational status. However, because
no significant differences were found in the mean TPS
across these variables, as published in a recent paper
comparing features of responders and non-responders
(27), we consider the possible selection bias of minor
importance, but we want to emphasize that further stud-
ies to validate the Danish norm scores are planned.
The present study is the first publication on national
norms of the CBCL/1½–5 and C-TRF from outside the
USA. The study design offers some possibility of com-
parison with American scores, although different ways of
sampling were used to achieve the national norms
scores.
Mean TPS was 17.3 (16.3–18.3). Both parents and
caregivers rated declining TPS with increasing age. This
trend has also been found in the USA, both for pre-
school and school-aged children, and for Danish school-
aged children (4, 6, 7). No differences were found in the

NORD J PSYCHIATRY·VOL 64·NO 3·2010 207

 S. KRISTENSEN ET AL.

Table 2. Age-stratified scale scores for Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL/1½–5) and the Caregiver-Teacher Report Form
(C-TRF).

Age in Age group

Checklist years n Mean s 95% CI comparison

Total Problem Scale scores

CBCL/1½–5 1½–2 353 18.5 13.0 17.2–19.9
P⫽0.13
3–5 497 16.1 15.0 14.8–17.4
C-TRF 1½–2 250 15.6 16.1 13.6–17.6
P⫽0.02
3–5 374 12.7 15.4 11.1–14.2
Internalising Scale scores
CBCL/1½–5 1½–2 353 3.4 4.0 3.0–3.9
P⫽0.24
3–5 497 4.2 5.8 3.7–4.7
C-TRF 1½–2 250 4.2 5.5 3.5–4.9
Nord J Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling on 05/30/10

P⫽0.86
3–5 374 4.2 5.7 3.7–4.8
Externalising Scale scores
CBCL/1½–5 1½–2 353 7.8 5.5 7.2–8.3
P⬍0.01
3–5 497 5.9 6.1 5.4–6.5
C-TRF 1½–2 250 5.9 6.3 5.1–6.7
P⬍0.01
3–5 374 4.1 5.9 3.5–4.7

s, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

TPS related to parental age, educational status, occupa-
tion or family type. Boys had a significantly higher mean
TPS than girls according to the ratings of caregivers; this
is equivalent to the findings in the American norm scores
For personal use only.
children, which is parallel to findings of the younger
groups of Danish school-aged children and the younger
groups of American children who scored higher than the
older groups of children (4, 6, 7).

(4, 6). According to parents’ rating, boys also had a slightly
higher mean TPS than girls. This finding was not statis-
tically significant, though it may have clinical relevance.
Comparison of national norm scores is not included in
this paper. A large cross-cultural comparison study of
ASEBA preschool data, where Danish data are included is
in preparation. Danish national ASEBA preschool norm
scores are significantly lower than the established American
norm scores, which also was the case for school age
children (20).
A higher mean TPS was found for the youngest chil-
dren of 1½–2 years than among the older 3–5-year-old
The mean TPS of descendents was twice as high as
for non-descendents; however, the number of participating
descendents was very low and the result must be interpreted
and used with great caution.
In a recent cross-national comparison of national
mean TPS scores obtained using the school age version
of the CBCL, the Danish national norm score was in the
lower third of the 31 countries investigated (20). Thus it
remains uncertain whether the differences found are
related to true cultural differences, i.e. whether they
reflect more problem behaviour among descendents, or
whether they reflect differences in how informants

Table 3. DSM-oriented scale scores for Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL/1½–5) and the Caregiver-Teacher Report
Form (C-TRF).

Scale (scoring range) Mean s 95% CI Cronbach α

Parent-reported DSM-oriented Scale scores (n⫽850)

Affective Problems (0–20) 1.1 1.6 0.9–1.2 0.62
Anxiety Problems (0–20) 1.6 1.9 1.5–1.8 0.65
Pervasive Development Problems (0–26) 1.6 2.3 1.4–1.7 0.72
Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Problems (0–12) 2.3 2.2 2.2–2.5 0.75
Oppositional Defiant Problems (0–12) 2.3 2.1 2.2–2.4 0.76
Caregiver-reported DSM-oriented Scale scores (n⫽624)
Affective Problems (0–20) 0.97 1.9 0.9–1.1 0.75
Anxiety Problems (0–20) 1.3 1.8 1.1–1.4 0.64
Pervasive Development Problems (0–26) 1.8 2.6 1.6–2.0 0.76
Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Problems (0–12) 1.8 2.3 1.6–1.9 0.79
Oppositional Defiant Problems (0–12) 1.3 2.0 1.2–1.5 0.81

s, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

208 NORD J PSYCHIATRY·VOL 64·NO 3·2010


(parents) perceive and rate children. In one culture, a
behavioural appearance may be perceived as normal,
whereas in another culture the same behaviour is consid-
ered deviant (7, 10).
For externalizing problem ratings, we found a signifi-
cantly higher mean scale score for younger than for older
children. In school-aged children, no such age effect was
found. Boys’ externalizing behaviour is scored signifi-
cantly higher by caregivers than girls’, which is consistent
with ratings of the Danish school-aged children (7).
This study will be followed by other studies provid-
ing norm scores of a clinical sample, exploring Danish
syndrome scales and reliability of the CBCL/1½–5 and
Nord J Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling on 05/30/10
C-TRF.
Conclusion
The ASEBA forms are the product of extensive research,
testing and use throughout the world. The Preschool
Forms can be used in various ways to assess the pre-
school child’s behavioural, emotional and social problems
from the perspectives of multiple informants in diverse
settings and thus be helpful in expanding our knowledge.
From a large sample, Danish national norm scores of the
ASEBA Preschool Forms were established. Profiles of
For personal use only.
descendents must, however, be assessed with some cau-
tion because of very low response rates in this group.
With this reservation, the CBCL/1½–5 and C-TRF Forms
are now available in Danish and can be recommended
for use in clinical and research settings.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content
and writing of the paper.
References
1. Webpage of Achenbach Systems of Empirically Based Asessessment.
http://aseba com/ 2009.
2. Achenbach TM. The classification of children’s psychiatric symp-
toms: A factor-analytic study. Psychol Monogr 1966;801–37.
3. Achenbach TM. The child behavior profile: I. Boys aged 6–11.
J Consult Clin Psychol 1978;46:478–88.
4. Achenbach TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18
and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont
Department of Psychiatry; 1991.
5. Achenbach TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2–3 and
1992 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department
of Psychiatry; 1992.
6. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA Preschool
Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department
of Psychiatry; 2001.
7. Bilenberg N. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and related
material: standardization and validation in Danish population
based and clinically based samples. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl
1999;398:2–52.
8. Dopfner M, Schmeck K, Berner W, Lehmkuhl G, Poustka F.
Reliability and factorial validity of the Child Behavior
NORD J PSYCHIATRY·VOL 64·NO 3·2010
THE CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST FOR AGES 1½–5
Checklist—An analysis of a clinical and field sample. Z Kinder
Jugendpsychiatr 1994;22:189–205.
9. Fombonne E. The use of questionnaires in child psychiatry
research: measuring their performance and choosing an optimal
cut-off. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1991;32:677–93.
10. Hannesdottir H, Einarsdottir S. The Icelandic Child Mental Health
Study. An epidemiological study of Icelandic children 2–18 years
of age using the child behaviour checklist as a screening instrument.
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1995;4:237–48.
11. Larson B, Frisk M. Social competence and emotional/behavior
problems in 6–16 years-old Swedish school children. Eur Child
Adolesc Psychiatry 2001;8:24–33.
12. Nøvik TS. Child Behavior Checklist item scores in Norwegian
children. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1999;9:54–60.
13. Roussos AC, Francis K, Zoubou V, Kirianou S, Prokopiou A,
Richardson C. The standardization of Achenbach’s Youth Self-Report
in Greece in a national sample of high school students. Eur Child
Adolesc Psychiatry 2001;10:47–53.
14. Verhulst FC, Akkerhuis GW. Mental Health in Dutch Children
(I): A cross-cultural comparison. Acta Psychiat Scand Suppl
1985;323:2–72.
15. Verhulst FC, Berden GF, Sanders-Woudstrad JA. Mental health in
Dutch children (II): the Prevalence of psychiatric disorders and
relationsship between mesures. Acta Psychiat Scand Suppl
2002;324:1–45.
16. Verhulst FC. A review of community studies. Epidemiology of
child/adolescent psychopathology 2003;146–77.
17. Crijnen AA, Achenbach TM, Verhulst FC. Comparisons of problems
reported by parents of children in 12 cultures: total problems,
externalizing, and internalizing. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
1997;36:1269–77.
18. Crijnen AA, Achenbach TM, Verhulst FC. Problems reported by
parents of children in multiple cultures: the Child Behavior
Checklist syndrome constructs. Am J Psychiatry 1999;156:569–74.
19. Dopfner M, Schmeck K, Poustka F, Berner W, Lehmkuhl G,
Verhulst F. [Behavioral symptoms of children and adolescents in
Germany, the Netherlands and USA. A cross-cultural study with
the Child Behavior Checklist]. Nervenarzt 1996;67:960–7.
20. Rescorla L, Achenbach TM, Ivanova MY. Problems reported by
parents of children ages 6 to 16 in 31 cultures. J Emot Behav Dis
2007;15:130–42.
21. Verhulst FC, Achenbach TM. Empirically based assessment
and taxonomy of psychopathology: Cross-cultural applications.
A review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1995;4:61–76.
22. Rescorla LA. Assessment of young children using the Achenbach
System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). Ment Retard
Dev Disabil Res Rev 2005;11:226–37.
23. Koot H, van den Oord J, Verhulst FC, Boomsma D. Behavioral
and emotional problems in young preschoolers: Cross-cultural testing
of the validity of the Child Behavior Checklist/2–3. J Abnorm
Child Psychol 1997;25:183–96.
24. Larson CP, Pless IB, Miettinen O. Preschool behavior disorders:
their prevalence in relation to determinants. J Pediatr 1988;113:
278–85.
25. Bilenberg N, Petersen DJ, Hoerder K, Gillberg C. The
prevalence of child-psychiatric disorders among 8–9-year-old
children in Danish mainstream schools. Acta Psychiat Scand
2005;111:59–67.
26. Christensen HB, Bilenberg N. Behavioural and emotional problems
in children of alcoholic mothers and fathers. Eur Child Adolesc
Psychiatry 2000;9:219–26.
27. Kristensen S, Jensen CM, Winding TN, Bilenberg N. Validity of
epidemiological surveys with low participation rates. Ugeskr
Laeger 2009;171:415–9.
Solvejg Kristensen, Research Department of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Tine Brink Henriksen, Perinatal Epidemiology Research Unit, Department
of Paediatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Niels Bilenberg, Research Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
209