Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333 340

A review of the Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional

and Social Impairment
Jillayne E. Bose-Deakins, Randy G. Floyd*
Department of Psychology, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, United States
Received 5 February 2004; accepted 23 June 2004

Abstract
This review focused on the Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment (BYI)
[Beck, J., Beck, A., & Jolly, J. (2001). Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment
manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation]. The BYI were designed as self-report instruments
for assessing maladaptive cognitions and behaviors of children ages 7 to 14. They include
inventories measuring anxiety, depression, disruptive behavior, anger, and self-concept. The review
evaluated the development, standardization, and norming of the BYI and the evidence of reliability
and validity of their scores. Although the BYI achieve many of the goals outlined by their authors,
users should be aware that there are a number of limitations or unanswered questions regarding the
inventories.
D 2004 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Test Review; Anxiety; Depression; Disruptive behavior; Anger; Self-concept

Introduction
This review focuses on the Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social
Impairment (BYI), which was developed by Beck, Beck, and Jolly (2001) and published
by The Psychological Corporation. The BYI were designed as self-report instruments for
assessing maladaptive cognitions and behaviors of children ages 7 to 14. The purpose of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +901 678 4846.
E-mail address: rgfloyd@memphis.edu (R.G. Floyd).
0022-4405/$ - see front matter D 2004 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.06.002

334

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333340

the review is to aid school psychologists and other mental health professionals in
evaluating the development, standardization, and norming of the BYI and the evidence
of reliability and validity of their scores. The review is organized around the Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association
[AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and National Council on
Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999), and it is supported by established rulesof-thumb for evaluating the psychometric properties of assessment instruments (e.g.,
Bracken, 1987).

Overview of BYI
The BYI includes five self-report inventories. The Anxiety Inventory measures
fearfulness, worry, and bodily symptoms indicating anxiety. The Depression Inventory
measures sadness, negative thoughts about ones self and future, and associated bodily
symptoms. The Anger Inventory measures hostility, physiological over-arousal, and
perceptions of aggressive attributions of others. The Disruptive Behavior Inventory
measures delinquent and aggressive behaviors. In contrast to these measures of
psychopathology, the Self-Concept Inventory measures perceptions of competency and
self-worth. Each inventory contains 20 items, which are presented as brief self-statements.
Users may purchase inventories in isolation, or they may purchase a Combination Booklet
containing all five inventories. Each inventory yields a raw score that can be transformed
into a T-score (M=50, SD=10) and a percentile rank based on a comparison to same-sex
agemates. The Combination Booklet yields no composite or total scores representing
higher-level groupings of items (e.g., internalizing or externalizing problems). None of the
inventories contain subscales representing more specific item grouping, such as those seen
with the Childrens Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992) and the Revised Childrens
Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1985). At present, there is no
scoring or report-writing software.

Standardization samples
Drawing from a sample of 1100 children from four demographic regions and 30 sites,
the BYI norming sample included 800 children ages 7 to 14. Telephone screening was
conducted with parents to assure that children had minimal levels of reading proficiency,
spoke English as a first language, and displayed no bsevere physical or mental condition
that might interfere with the assessmentQ (Beck et al., 2001, p. 26). Four norm groups,
containing 200 children each, were formed from the larger norming sample: boys of ages 7
through 10 years, boys of ages 11 through 14 years, and girls from the same two age
groups. The size of these sex- and age-based groupings appears to be adequate and
comparable to many other self-report inventories. The authors report that a stratified
sampling plan, based on the 1999 United States Census data, was used to ensure that the
norming sample was representative of the important characteristics of the general
population, but their stratification variables appeared limited to sex, race-ethnicity, and

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333340

335

parent education levels. Although the match between the norming sample and the census
data on these three variables appears to have been adequate (Floyd & Bose, 2003), no data
indicate that there was representative sampling from different demographic regions and
different community sizes.
In addition to the sex- and age-based norming groups, results from a sample of 107
children receiving outpatient mental health services were used to develop a clinical
comparison group. These children were collected from one site in New Jersey and
were predominantly White boys between the ages of 7 and 10. Most children in this
sample were diagnosed by psychiatrists as having an adjustment disorder (22%) or
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; 39%), but other diagnoses included
mood disorders (14%), anxiety disorders (11%), and disruptive behavior disorders
(8%). Because of the relatively small sample size and poor representativeness of the
clinical comparison group and the absence of descriptions of the specific diagnoses
(e.g., major depressive disorder) of children in this group, these bclinical normsQ can be
considered poor.

Scale/item characteristics
Based on the standard that a ceiling on an instrument measuring behavioral or
emotional excesses is acceptable if the maximum raw score is associated with a
standardized score at least two standard deviations above the normative mean (Bracken,
Keith, & Walker, 1998), the Self-Concept, Anxiety, Depression, Anger, and Disruptive
Behavior inventories each appear to assess the full range of maladaptive cognitions and
behaviors. Similarly, based on the standard that a floor on instruments measuring
behavioral or emotional deficits is acceptable if a raw score of 1 is associated with a
standard score at least two standard deviations below the normative mean, the SelfConcept inventory appears to assess the full range of deficits. In addition, the item
gradients for each inventory appear to be acceptable (Bracken et al., 1998). Thus, item
gradients for each inventory included at least 3 raw score points per standard deviation of
T-scores.

Reliability
Using previously published standards (e.g., Bracken, 1987), the internal consistency
and the 1-week testretest reliability of the BYI appear to be at least acceptable across
most inventories and norm groups. Internal consistency coefficients for all inventories
exceeded the minimum criterion of .80 using Cronbachs coefficient alpha method for each
norm group. Thus, items within inventories appear to be homogeneous in nature. Median
testretest reliability coefficients across inventories, when corrected for range restriction,
exceeded the minimum criterion of .80. More specifically, corrected coefficients for each
inventory were above the criterion of .80 except for the Anxiety and Anger inventories for
girls ages 7 to 10 (n=27) and the Depression inventory for boys ages 7 to 10 (n=20). No
analysis of the long-term stability of the inventory scores was offered.

336

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333340

Validity evidence
Validity evidence presented in the BYI manual is arranged in a manner consistent with
the Standards (AERA, APA, and NCME, 1999). Several sources of evidence support the
use and interpretation of the BYI as measures of subjective distress, hostility, and
delinquent behaviors.
Evidence based on content
The content of the inventories was developed based on reviews of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2000),
research examining relevant child psychological disorders, and reviews of related
assessment instruments for children. The theoretical and empirical foundations of
cognitive therapy appear to have been incorporated into item and scale development
(Beck & Alford, 1998). The authors of the BYI reported that items were based on the
verbal reports of children receiving psychotherapy, and items on some inventories seem to
have been revised based on those from the editions of the Beck Depression Inventory (e.g.,
Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1990). Initial
items were field tested in outpatient, partial hospitalization, and private practice settings,
and items were deleted from the initial pool based on field testing and statistical analyses.
Our review of items reveals that they appear to measure thoughts or behaviors consistent
with the inventory labels (e.g., Anxiety), but the procedure for assignment of items to
inventories seems to have been based on only logicalintuitive means consistent with the
theoretical and empirical foundations of cognitive therapy. One general weakness in this
domain of validity evidence is apparent. It does not appear that independent experts were
consulted during item development or evaluation. For example, there is no evidence that
independent experts systematically evaluated the correspondence between the BYI items
and the diagnostic criteria for prevalent DSM disorders of childhood and adolescence. In
addition, there is no evidence of evaluation of the cultural, racial, and gender bias of items.
Evidence based on response processes
Concise written instructions for children rating the items are included on the response
page for each inventory. All of the inventories require that children (a) read brief sentences
and (b) respond by circling a response. Items are reported to have been written to reflect a
second grade reading level, and the authors of the BYI indicate that examiners may read
items to children with apparent reading difficulties to ensure accurate responding.
It is notable that items from different inventories are not interspersed in the
Combination Booklet as items are in other broad-band or omnibus self-report inventories.
Thus, all the Self-Concept Inventory items are included on the first response page, Anxiety
Inventories items on the second, and so on. All items on each inventory are also scaled
similarly, so that the items for the Self-Concept Inventory are worded as positive attributes
and the items for the Anxiety, Depression, Anger, and Disruptive Behavior inventories are
worded as negative attributes. As a result, whether used in isolation or in the Combination Booklet, the inventories may lead children to fall prey to response sets that will

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333340

337

compromise the validity of their scores. Because of this potential limitation, it is a

weakness that the inventories do not provide indexes that could indicate social desirability,
exaggeration of symptoms, or inconsistent or patterned responding.
Evidence based on internal structure
The authors of the BYI describe several analyses that examine the relations among
items and the relations among inventory scores. The manual provides itemtotal
correlations, internal consistency estimates within inventories, and factor loadings of
items to support the internal structure of the BYI. However, no confirmatory factor
analysis of items is reported. Although the reported exploratory factor analysis did not
account for correlated factors or examine the factor structure within each inventory, its
results are notable. Principal axis factor analysis of items revealed three factors: one
apparently representing negative affect, another representing aggressive symptomatology,
and a final one representing self-concept. Although the manual provides no rationale for
the number of factors extracted and includes no factor loading matrix, according to BYI
authors, the first factor comprised all items on the Depression and Anxiety inventories and
almost all of the items on the Anger Inventory. The second factor comprised most items
from the Disruptive Behavior Inventory and a few items from the Anger Inventory. The
final factor comprised all items from the Self-Concept Inventory. Based on the limited
information provided, these results indicate that items from the Anxiety, Depression, and
Anger inventories do not uniquely measure the constructs they were designed to represent.
Although the results are not surprising based on research examining measurement of
depressive, anxious, and externalizing behaviors in children (e.g., Achenbach, 1991; Stark
& Laurent, 2001), noticeably absent were explanations regarding (a) why the inventories
remained distinct and (b) why composite scores representing the latent factors are not
provided in the Combination Booklet.
Correlations between inventory scores across the four norm groups indicated
consistent, strong, and statistically significant relations. As predicted, correlations between
the Self-Concept Inventory and the four inventories measuring maladaptive cognitions and
behaviors were negative in magnitude, whereas the correlations among all other
inventories were consistently positive. As evident from the factor analysis, correlations
between the Anxiety, Depression, and Anger inventories were consistently high. The
Anger and Disruptive Behavior inventories also demonstrated high correlations.
Evidence based on external relations
The manual for the BYI reports several studies supporting their relations with other
assessment instruments. Using five sizeable samples of children, each of the four
inventorys T-scores from the BYI were correlated with total scores and subscale scores of
five self-report inventories for children: the CDI (Kovacs, 1992), the RCMAS (Reynolds
& Richmond, 1985), the ConnersWells Adolescent Self-Report Scale (Conners, 1997),
and the PiersHarris Childrens Self-Concept Scale (Piers, 1996). All but a small fraction
of the correlations were significant at the .01 level, and scores from the pathology
inventories consistently demonstrated positive correlations with like scores and negative

338

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333340

correlations with measures of adaptive characteristics. As expected, the Self-Concept

Inventory consistently demonstrated the opposite pattern. These findings provide sound
convergent validity evidence for the inventories. In fact, the magnitude of the correlations
tended to be highest when representing the relations between scores measuring the same
constructs (e.g., depressed mood, anxiety). However, because many positive, significant
correlations were evident across measures of different constructs (e.g., feelings of anger
and anxiety), strong evidence of discriminant validity is generally lacking for most of the
BYI pathology inventories.
The authors of the BYI reported the results of two studies examining the ability of the
BYI to discriminate between children from its standardization sample and children
classified as having some psychological or educational condition. Statistical analyses used
to support the discriminative validity of the BYI included t tests, MANOVAs, ANOVAs,
and calculation of d-ratios. When children in special education programs were compared
to children in the standardization sample matched on age, gender, and ethnicity, significant
differences were found between groups across all inventories. However, an insufficient
description of the sampling of children in special education (e.g., whether they were
recruited from a single school) and the heterogeneous nature of the sample of children in
the special education sample (who received services for a variety of learning and
behavioral difficulties) weakens the conclusions about the discriminative validity of
specific inventories. In the second sample, children seen in a psychiatric clinic who
composed the clinical comparison group (described above) were compared to children
from the standardization sample matched on gender and age. Results revealed significant
differences between groups on three of the inventories: Self-Concept, Anger, and
Disruptive Behavior. Because the composition of the clinical comparison group was
primarily children with ADHD and children with adjustment disorder, these findings are
not unexpected. However, these findings provide no support for the use of the Depression
and Anxiety inventories, per se, which measure the constructs that are probably the most
well studied of the five constructs measured by the BYI. No evidence is provided based on
analysis of the BYI scores of children with independently established psychiatric
diagnoses or educational classifications that would yield estimates of classification
accuracy or cut-scores for placing children at risk for these diagnoses or classifications.
Evidence based on consequences
Recently, the authors and publishers of assessment instruments have been increasingly
pressured to provide evidence that scores and decisions based on them produce intended,
and not unintended, effects for those participating in the assessment. Those supporting the
publication of the BYI seem to be off to a good start based on the purported links between
the inventories and the DSM, well-established theories of psychological disorders, and
empirically validated cognitive-behavioral treatments. Despite this strong substantive base
linking assessment to effective treatments, the BYI come up short. Although the manual
represents two brief case studies to model decision-making using the BYI, there is little
focus on the development of treatments based on BYI results. Furthermore, the authors
make no reference to and provide no evidence of their sensitivity to treatment effects,
which could support their utility in treatment monitoring.

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333340

339

Conclusions
Overall, the inventories accomplish several goals expressed by the authors. They are
brief instruments that can be useful in screening children who might be at risk for
having or developing maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. Because the inventories can
be administered to individuals or groups, diagnostic screening and monitoring of
childrens thoughts and behaviors can be conducted quickly. The standardization sample
seems to be adequate enough to represent the majority of children in U.S. schools.
Reliability evidence also supports their consistency of measurement across short periods
of time. The inventories have a strong theoretical and empirical base stemming from a
well-established theory of psychopathology and associated treatments. As such, they
offer promise for school psychologists who engage in cognitive-behavioral assessment
and psychotherapies with elementary and middle school children (Hughes, 1999).
Because the Depression and Anxiety inventories correspond to the some of the
characteristics of emotional disturbance, they may be useful to school psychologists
during psychoeducational assessments of this condition. In addition, a self-report
instrument measuring anger may be a nice addition to school psychologists assessment
toolbox.
Users should be aware that there are a number of limitations or unanswered questions
regarding the BYI. Some are repeated here. First, the BYI do not include validity indices,
such as a Lie scale. This omission is especially problematic because all like items (e.g.,
items measuring anxiety) are grouped together and because all items are worded as
negative (except those from the Self-Concept Inventory). Second, the lack of item analysis
detecting cultural bias may have negative consequences for school psychologists working
with children from diverse ethnic groups. Third, the majority of the inventories, including
Anxiety, Depression, and Anger, appear to tap into the same general constructnegative
affect or subjective distress. The strong relations between these inventories may represent
the actual co-occurrence of these symptoms or reflect that some similar items are included
on multiple inventories. Fourth, the ability of the inventories to discriminate (a) between
children with emotional and behavior problems and those without or (b) between children
with qualitatively different emotional or behavior problems (e.g., ADHD and conduct
disorder) is weak or absent. Finally, although the BYI have the potential to aid treatment
development and to facilitate treatment monitoring, more evidence is needed to support
these uses.

References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/418, YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington, VT7
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on
Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC7
American Educational Research Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text
revision). Washington, DC7 Author.
Beck, A., & Alford, B. A. (1998). The integrative power of cognitive therapy. New York7 Guilford Press.

340

J.E. Bose-Deakins, R.G. Floyd / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 333340

Beck, J., Beck, A., & Jolly, J. (2001). Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional & Social Impairment manual. San
Antonio, TX7 Psychological Corporation.
Beck, J., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX7 Psychological Corporation.
Beck, J., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Bracken, B. A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical
adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 313 326.
Bracken, B. A., Keith, L. K., & Walker, K. C. (1998). Assessment of preschool behavior and social-emotional
functioning: A review of thirteen third-party instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16,
153 169.
Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners Rating ScalesRevised: Technical manual. Toronto, ON7 Multi-Health
Systems.
Floyd, R. G., & Bose, J. E. (2003). A critical review of rating scales assessing emotional disturbance. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 43 78.
Hughes, J. N. (1999). Child psychotherapy. In C. R. Reynolds, & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school
psychology (3rd ed.). New York7 Wiley.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Childrens Depression Inventory manual. North Tonowanda, NY7 Multi-Health Systems.
Piers, E. (1996). Piers-Harris Childrens Self-Concept Scale: Revised manual 1984. Los Angeles7 Western
Psychological Services.
Reynolds, C., & Richmond, B. (1985). Revised Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) manual. Los
Angeles7 Western Psychological Services.
Stark, K. D., & Laurent, J. (2001). Joint factor analysis of the Childrens Depression Inventory and the Revised
Childrens Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 552 567.