The scale for assessing emotional disturbance: Test-retest and interrater reliability

Michael H. Epstein, Douglas Cullinan, Mark K. Harniss, Gail Ryser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

23 Scopus citations


Three studies are reported addressing the reliability of the Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (Epstein & Cullinan, 1998), a standardized, norm-referenced measure linked to the federal definition of emotional disturbance (ED). The first and second studies investigated test-retest reliability over a 2-week period to determine the stability of the measure over time. The third study investigated interrater reliability between six pairs of teachers who had worked with a student for 2 or more months to determine the consistency with which the measure can be used by different individuals. In each study, samples were drawn from populations of students identified as having ED. Test-retest reliability coefficients were above .80, the standard recommended for screening tests that will be reported individually. Interrater reliability coefficients were at least .79 for all subscales except Unhappiness or Depression and Physical Symptoms or Fears. Implications for use of the SAED are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)222-230
Number of pages9
JournalBehavioral Disorders
Issue number3
StatePublished - May 1999

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology


Dive into the research topics of 'The scale for assessing emotional disturbance: Test-retest and interrater reliability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this