Free Psychological Assessment Tools

Screening Tools

Mental Health Tests, Quizzes, Self-Assessments, & Screening Tools PsyCom is committed to connecting people concerned about their mental health with medically-reviewed mental health articles and quizzes. The status of standardized assessment tools is constantly in flux, with new tools created and old tools updated on a regular basis. Future efforts to document such tools in a web-based repository such as the American Psychological Association (APA) PracticeOUTCOMES website are ideal; however this service requires an APA membership.

With psychological assessment. Data from more than 125 meta-analyses on test validity and 800 samples examining multimethod assessment suggest 4 general conclusions: (a) Psychological test validity is strong and compelling, (b) psychological test validity, is comparable to medical test validity, (c) distinct assessment methods provide unique.
CAGE AID is a commonly used, 5- question tool used to screen for drug and alcohol use.The CAGE Assessment is a quick questionnaire to help determine if an alcohol assessment is needed. If a person answers yes to two or more questions, a complete assessment is advised.
Sep 23, 2019 In some tools, patients are asked to draw pictures or are shown pictures and asked to explain how the image makes them feel, or to create a story about the image. These types of psychological assessment tools are based more on the understanding and judgment of the psychiatrist, rather than a preset rating scale as with objective tests and tools.

One of the most common psychological assessment tools is the BASC, which is meant for children between the ages of 2 and 21. This tool uses several different sets of questions, collected from the child, parents or caregivers, and teachers, and then translates this data into a ranking system.

Used appropriately as part of a broader assessment, screening tools give clinicians a common language and objective metric. They provide a consistent approach to testing for the presence or absence of a disorder and help patients receive effective treatment.

We've collected some of the more commonly used public-domain screening tools. These self-reports are sensitive and research supported. The generic measures cover a broad range of psychiatric or substance use orders while specific measures target a particular disorder.

Click on the links below to download the screening tools as PDFs. Be sure to download the Guide for Using the Screening Measures.

Generic measures

Specific measures

Modified Mini Screen
(MMS) — A self-report measure that rapidly assesses for present mood, anxiety, and psychotic-spectrum disorders

Mental Health Screening Form III
(MHSF III) — A self-report measure that covers a range of disorders

CAGE Adapted to Include Drugs
(CAGE-AID) — A sensitive screen for alcohol and drug problems

Simple Screening Instrument
for Alcohol and Other Drugs
(SSI-AOD) — A screen that is more specific than the CAGE-AID

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
(CES-D) — A twenty-item questionnaire about depressive symptoms

PTSD Checklist
(PCL) — A checklist for assessing symptoms resulting from a traumatic event

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
(SIAS) — A self-report measure in which respondents rate their distress about specific social interactions

Cogn Behav Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as:

doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.02.002

NIHMSID: NIHMS589127

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Cogn Behav Pract

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

NIHMS589127-supplement-Appendix_A.docx (57K)

NIHMS589127-supplement-Appendix_B.docx (46K)

Abstract

Evidence-based assessment has received little attention despite its critical importance to the evidence-based practice movement. Given the limited resources in the public sector, it is necessary for evidence-based assessment to utilize tools with established reliability and validity metrics that are free, easily accessible, and brief. We review tools that meet these criteria for youth and adult mental health for the most prevalent mental health disorders to provide a clinical guide and reference for the selection of assessment tools for public sector settings. We also discuss recommendations for how to move forward the evidence-based assessment agenda.

Keywords: evidence-based practice, evidence-based assessment, public sector

The thorniest challenge facing the mental health field is the dissemination and implementation (DI) of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in community settings (). EBPs refer to “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences” (, p. 1). Despite the proliferation of many EBPs for both children and adults suffering from psychosocial difficulties (), these treatments are not widely available in community settings where the majority of individuals receive services (President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003). Implementation science focuses on determining how to most effectively transmit knowledge about EBPs (i.e., dissemination) and how to use strategies that allow for increased adoption of such treatments (i.e., implementation; ). The desired result of implementation science is to ensure that community clinicians are providing EBPs to youth and adults with the ultimate goal of improved quality of care. One aspect to this pursuit that has to date received little attention is evidence-based assessment (EBA), a critical foundational component of EBPs (; ).

The scope of EBA is twofold, encompassing both the process through which assessment is conducted, and the instruments utilized for evaluation (). The scope of this review will focus on the latter (i.e., instruments used for evaluation). We first briefly highlight the importance of EBA in the context of EBP. Assessment is inherently a decision-making task fraught with the biases that plague clinical decision-making (; Garb, 1998). For example, clinicians are subject to cognitive heuristics and biases such as confirmatory bias (i.e., preferentially seeking evidence consistent with an initial conceptualization at the cost of considering emerging contradictory information; ). These biases may be more avoidable with a systematic and empirically-based, research-driven approach to assessment. The importance of an accurate diagnosis is an implicit prerequisite to the selection of EBPs, which are largely organized by specific disorders. Moreover, diagnostic categories are the common language through which we think about, question, and communicate about research findings and clinical problems. Without accurate assessments yielding accurate diagnoses, we may widen the research-practice communication gap (). There is also some evidence that accurate diagnosis is associated with better treatment outcomes (; ). Finally, emerging evidence suggests that simply tracking progress during treatment and providing feedback to clinicians results in better treatment outcomes (; ). Therefore, EBA is critical to any evidence-based treatment approach. Given the importance of EBA, to date, two special issues of peer-reviewed journals have focused on EBA in both adult and youth populations: see special issues of Psychological Assessment () and the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (). These special issues have resulted in recommendations on EBA for a variety of disorders, including youth and adult anxiety (; ), adult depression (), youth disruptive behavior disorders (), and youth bipolar disorder ().

Although these reviews have resulted in important recognition of the importance of EBA and preliminary guidelines, they have not always been as applicable to low resource mental health settings such as those in the public sector because they have featured resource-intensive ways to engage in EBA. In the pages that follow, we identify and address issues related to the use of standardized tools in low resource mental health settings. The challenge of identifying which standardized instruments to use in the public sector is complicated by the sheer volume of assessment methods and processes and the many purposes of assessment compared to treatment (). Treatment providers in agencies in public settings must often contend with high workload, poor financial compensation, limited time, and intense demand for resources (). Assessments must not add unnecessarily to the paperwork burden for providers and agencies, lest the cost, time, and resource requirements of EBA become barriers that outweigh the potential benefits (). Given the known barriers to implementation of EBPs in community settings and our desire to increase EBA in the public sector, assessments must be brief, free or low cost, validated for use in multiple populations particularly ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status individuals, and straightforward and brief to administer, score and interpret (). These recommendations are echoed by public health researchers who recommend that for standardized assessment instruments to be usable, they must be important to stakeholders in addition to researchers, low burden to administer, broadly applicable, sensitive to change, and represent constructs that are actionable (i.e., clinician or patient can do something about them; ).

Accordingly, the goal of this paper is to conduct a review of EBA instruments for the most prevalent mental health disorders in youths and adults that meet the criteria delineated above. We focus on instruments that can be used for screening (i.e., identifying those at risk for a disorder), diagnosis (i.e., identifying those who meet DSM criteria), and/or treatment monitoring and evaluation (i.e., evaluating the success of treatment or interim response to treatment (Hunsley & Mash, 2008). We hope this manuscript can serve as a clinical guide and reference for the selection of assessment instruments for low-resource mental health settings.

Methods

Search Methods

We searched PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar using this search term as our template: (“disorder name or type” or “mental health”) AND (instrument OR survey OR questionnaire OR measure OR assessment). For “disorder name or type”, we used the following terms: “trauma,” “trauma exposure,” “depression,” “anxiety,” “obsessive-compulsive disorder,” “panic,” “worry,” “generalized anxiety disorder,” “eating disorder,” “anorexia nervosa,” “bulimia nervosa,” “suicide,” “suicidality,” “self-injurious,” “schizophrenia,” “psychosis,” “personality disorders,” “borderline personality disorder,” “conduct disorder,” “oppositional defiant disorder,” “attention-deficit disorder,” “bipolar,” “mania,” “quality of life,” “functioning,” and “general functioning.” For disorders that could apply to both youth and adults (e.g., anxiety), we inserted “child,” “youth,” or “adolescent” in front of the disorder name or type when searching for youth-specific measures. We also searched for adolescent versions of all child and adult measures identified in our search. We employed a snowball sampling technique in which we searched the reference sections of located articles for potentially eligible measures. Also, due to its specific relevance, a textbook referencing EBA instruments was searched by hand for relevant measures (Hunsley & Mash, 2008). Finally, we reached out to experts to ensure that we did not miss any instruments. Specifically, the first author queried members of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT) via the ABCT members’ listserv and engaged in conversations with experts about measures they had used previously in studies. We also included measures we have used in previous studies in low-resource settings.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We utilized the following criteria when deciding whether or not to include measures: we required that the measures be free, easily accessible via the Internet or the author of the measure, brief (items < 50), have established reliability and validity, and be relevant for the most prevalent mental health disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression, trauma-associated disorders, oppositional behavior disorders; ; ). We crafted these criteria based on a recent paper written by ) encouraging the use of pragmatic measures. Specifically, recommend that instruments be: important to stakeholders, low burden to administer, broadly applicable, sensitive to change, and measure actionable constructs. Our inclusion criteria map on these recommendations explicitly. The instruments we included are: (a) of importance for stakeholders in that they meet the needs for outcome assessment, a growing reality and requirement in many public systems, (b) are low burden to administer because they have fewer than 50 items, (c) are broadly applicable because they are appropriate for high prevalence conditions, (d) are sensitive to change when intended to be used as progress monitoring instruments, and (e) measure actionable constructs such as symptoms of a mental health disorder that are amenable to change through treatment.

See Figure 1 for the number of instruments that were identified, reviewed, included, and excluded. Two hundred and sixty four instruments (134 adult, 130 youth) were initially located: 25 adult and 54 youth instruments were excluded because they had a financial cost associated with them, 15 adult and nine youth instruments were excluded because they could not be accessed (e.g., only available through journal articles which required a library subscription), 18 adult and 12 youth instruments were excluded due to number of items (i.e., >50 items), 11 adult and 10 youth instruments were excluded due to inadequate psychometrics (e.g., no information provided on reliability and/or validity) and 36 adult and 25 youth instruments were excluded due to being too specific or pertaining to a low base rate disorder (e.g., an instrument to diagnose personality disorders in incarcerated adolescent males; an instrument to rate trichotillomania symptoms). In all, 49 instruments (29 adult, 20 youth) were included.

Instrument Classification

Given that instruments can serve multiple purposes (i.e., diagnosis, screening, and treatment monitoring/evaluation), we elected to classify the manner in which each instrument could be used. Instruments may be used for: (a) diagnosis: to determine “the nature and/or cause of the presenting problem”; (b) screening: to identify “those who are at risk...or who might be helped by further assessment or intervention”; and/or (c) treatment monitoring and evaluation: “track changes in symptoms and functioning” or determine “effectiveness...of the intervention.”(p. 6, Hunsley & Mash, 2008). An instrument could be designated as meeting all three criteria. We operationally defined instruments as appropriate for diagnosis if they were created to map on to DSM criteria. Sometimes, authors of instruments stated that it was explicitly not meant to be used for diagnosis (e.g., eating disorder instruments). However, to be consistent, we included any measure that mapped on to DSM criteria as meeting the “diagnosis” definition. Instruments met criteria for screening if the questions queried for symptoms of a mental health disorder or behavioral and/or emotional difficulties. Finally, instruments were classified as treatment monitoring and evaluation instruments if they could be used for screening or diagnosis, and data were available on the instrument's sensitivity to change following psychotherapy or psychotropic medication.

Reliability and Validity

Because methods and metrics to assess validity were not consistent across measures (e.g., concurrent validity, convergent validity, divergent validity), it was not possible to apply a validity coding scheme across instruments. Therefore, Appendices A and B summarize any evidence of validity as presented in the original psychometric papers. For reliability data, specifically internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability, we considered adequate, good and excellent reliabilities based on the criteria set forth by Hunsley & Mash (2008). These criteria are reviewed in Table 1.

Table 1

Criteria	Preponderance of evidence indicates:
Internal Consistency
Adequate	α values of .70-.79
Good	α values of .80-.89
Excellent	α values ≥ .90
Inter-rater reliability
Adequate	k values of .60-.74, or Pearson correlation or intraclass correlation values of .70-.79
Good	k values of .75-.84, or Pearson correlation or intraclass correlation values of .80-.89
Excellent	k values ≥ .85, or Pearson correlation or intraclass correlation values ≥ .90
Test-retest reliability
Adequate	test-retest correlations of at least .70 over a period of several days to several weeks
Good	test-retest correlations of at least .70 over a period of several months
Excellent	test-retest correlations of at least .70 over a period of a year or longer

Results

Twenty-nine adult and 20 youth instruments were identified. All instruments are free¹, can be accessed through a website or by emailing the author, and contain less than 50 items. Additionally, all have reliability and validity information available. See Tables 2 and and33 for a list of all instruments and selected information (i.e., number of items, age range, sensitivity to change, reporter, and classification). More in-depth descriptions, including reliability and validity data, as available, are presented in the appendices (see Appendices A and B).

Table 2

Adult Instruments
Measure	Where to obtain	Number of Items	Ages	Reporter	Sensitive to change	Screening	Diagnosis	Tx Monitoring & Evaluation
Anxiety
The Clinically Useful Anxiety Outcome Scale (CUXOS)	http://www.outcometracker.org	2Q	18+	S	X	X	X
Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7)	http://www.phqscreeners.com	7	18+	S	X	X	X	X
Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A)	http://www.outcometracker.org	15	18+	C	X	X	X
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Clinician-Report (LSAS-CR)	http://healthnet.umassmed.edu/mhealth/LiebowitzSocialAnxiet yScale.pdf	24	18+	S and C	X	X	X
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Self-Report (LSAS-SR)	http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/S AD/
Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS)	http://www.outcometracker.org	7	18+	C	X	X	X	X
Fear Questionnaire (FQ)	http://www.outcometracker.org	24	18+	S	X	X
Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ)	http://www. outcometracker.org	16	18+	S	X	X	X
Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN)	http://www.psychtoolkit.com	17	18+	S	X	X	X
Worry and Anxiety Questionnaire (WAQ)	http://www.psychology.concor dia.ca/fac/dugas/downloads/en/ WAQ.pdf	11	18+	S	X	X	X	X
Depression
The Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS)	http://www.outcometracker.org	18	18+	S	X	X	X	X
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D)	http://www.outcometracker.org	17	18+	C	X
The Inventory of Depressive Symptoms and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (IDS and QIDS)	http://www.ids-qids.org	30 16	18+	S and C	X	X	X	X
Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)	http://www.phqscreeners.com/	9	18+	S	X	X	X	X
Eating Disorders
Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS)	http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/sticelab/scales/#edds	22	18+	S	X	X	X	X
Sick, Control, One, Fat, Food Screening Tool (SCOFF)	http://www.marquette.edu/coun seling/documents/AQuickAssessmentforEatingConcerns.pdf	5	18+	S	X
Mania
Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale (ASRM)	http://www.cqaimh.org/pdf/tool asrm.pdf	5	18+	S	X	X	X
Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Scale (MAS)	http://opapc.com/images/pdfs/ MRS.pdf	11	18+	C	X	X	X
Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS)	http://dcf.psychiatry.ufl.edu/files/2011/05/Young-Mania-Rating-Scale-Measure-with-background.pdf	11	18+	C	X	X	X
Overall Mental Health
National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)	https://www.assessmentcenter.net/promisforms.aspx	4-30	18+	S	X
Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ)	http://www.phqscreeners.com/	11	18+	S	X	X	X	X
Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS)	http://www.power2u.org/downloads/pn-55.pdf	41	18+	S and C	X	X
Personality Disorders
Borderline Evaluation of Severity over Time (BEST)	http://psychiatry.ucsd.edu/bord erlineServices.html	15	18+	S	X	X	X	X
Suicidality
Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C- SSRS)	http://www.cssrs.columbia.edu	20	18+	C	X	X	NA^*	X
The Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire - Revised (SBQ-R)	http://www.integration.samhsa. gov/images/res/SBQ.pdf	4	18+	S	X	NA^*
Trauma
Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R)	ude.fscu@ssiew.leinad	22	18+	S	X
Los Angeles Symptom Checklist (LASC)	ude.enidreppep@yofd	43	18+	S	X	X
The Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist - Civilian Version (PCL-C)	http://www.ptsd.va.gov	17	18+	S	X	X
The Trauma History Screen (THS)	http://www.istss.org/AssessmentResources/5347.htm	14	18+	S	X
The Trauma History Questionnaire (THQ)	http://ctc.georgetown.edu/toolkit/	24	18+	S and C	X

Note.

S = self, C = clinician, * = not a diagnosable disorder; cannot be a diagnostic tool.

Table 3

Youth Instruments
Measure	Where to obtain	Number of Items	Ages	Reporter	Sensitive to Change	Screening	Diagnosis	Tx Monitoring & Evaluation
Anxiety
Children Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS)	http://icahn.mssm.edu/research/centers/center-of-excellence-for-ocd/rating-scales	10	6-17	P	X	X	X
Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Children (PSWQ-C)	http://www.childfirst.ucla.edu/Resources.html	16	7-17	S	X
Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale Youth and Parent Versions (RCADS/RCADS-P)	http://www.childfirst.ucla.edu/Resources.html	47	6-18	S and P	X	X	X	X
Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotion Disorders (SCARED)	http://psvchiatrv.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/assessments/SCARED%20Child.pdf	41	6-18	S and P	X	X	X
Spence Children's Anxiety Scale (SCAS)	http://www.scaswebsite.com	44	7-19	S and P	X	X	X	X
Depression
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC)	http://www.bri2htfutures.or2/rnentalhealth/pdf/professionals/bridges/cesdc.pdf	20	6-23	S	X	X	X
Depression Self Rating Scale for Children (DSRSC)	http://www.scalesandmeasures.net/files/files/Birleson%20Self- Rating%20Scale%20for%20Child%20Depressive%20Disorder.pdf	18	8-14	S	X
Disruptive Behavior
Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory-Parent & Teacher Version (CADBI)	http://measures.earlvadolescence.org/measures/view/40/	25	Not specifi-ed	P and T	X	X
Eating Disorder
Child Eating Attitudes Test (ChEAT)	http://www.1000livesplus.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/documents/1011/ChEAT.pdf	26	8-13	S	X
Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26)	http://eat-26.com	26	16-18	S and C	X
Mania
Parent Version-Young Mania Rating Scale (P-YMRS)	http://dcf.psvchiatrv.ufl.edu/files/2011/05/Youna-Mania-Ratina-Scale-Measure-with- backaround.pdf	11	5-17	C	X
Child Mania Rating Scale - Parent (CMRS-P)	http://www.dbsalliance.ora/pdfs/ChildManiaSurvev.pdf	21	5-17	P	X	X	X	X
Overall Mental Health
Brief Problem Checklist (BPC)	http://www.childfirst.ucla.edu/Resources.html	12	7-13	S and P	X	X	X
The Ohio Scale-Youth, Parent, and Clinician versions	ude.uvb@selaoneb	48	5-18	S, P, and C	X	X
Peabody Treatment Progress Battery (PTPB)	http://peabodv.vanderbilt.edu/research/center-evaluation- proaram-improvement-cepi/rea/ptpb 2nd ed downloa ds.php	11	11-18	S, P, and C	X	X	X
Pediatric Symptom Checklist and Pediatric Symptom Checklist-Youth Report (PSC & Y-PSC)	http://www.massaeneral.ora/psvchiatrv/services/pschome.aspx	35	3-18	S and P	X	X	X
Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)	http://www.sdqinfo.ora/a0.html	25	3-16	S, P, and C	X	X	X
Youth Top Problems (TP)	http://www.wih.harvard.edu/~iweisz/pdfs/2011c.pdf	3	7-13	S, P, and C	X	X
Trauma
Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS)	ude.nnepu.dem.liam@aof	24	8-18	S or C	X	X	X	X
Pediatric Emotional Distress Scale (PEDS)	ude.ledatic@rolvas.vawnoc	21	2-10	P	X	X	X

This review also provides important insights about where assessment tools are most sorely needed. Whereas instruments to measure anxiety symptoms in adults and youths were well represented, instruments to assist in diagnosis and treatment monitoring for youth with depressive symptoms were sparse. Only one instrument for disruptive behavior disorders was identified, and this instrument can be used only for screening and/or diagnosis; not treatment monitoring/evaluation, suggesting a need for instrument development and validation. Diagnostic and treatment monitoring and evaluation instruments for youth with eating disorders were also unavailable. Of great concern, tools assessing suicidality in youths were unavailable. Diagnostic tools of overall mental health were missing for youth. With regard to adult instruments, a need for treatment monitoring and evaluation instruments for trauma were identified as a needed area, as well as instruments that assess for personality disorders other than borderline personality disorder.

Some have suggested that providing a laundry list of psychometrically validated measures is not likely to be effective in encouraging use of EBA on a wider scale (). However, the provision of this list helps lay a foundation in moving the agenda forward for increasing the use of EBA () through the necessary first step of providing access. A few studies have queried mental health clinicians about their use of assessment tools, finding that the primary assessment method used in clinical practice is the unstructured clinical interview (). Clinicians report that barriers to the use of standardized tools are measure access, time demands, and ease of administration and scoring (; ; ). These practical concerns are particularly pressing for fee-for-service clinicians in the public sector. It is our hope that the publication of this collection of measures increases the opportunity for clinicians to quickly access a list of available, free, standardized instruments from which to select a battery for screening, diagnosis, and treatment monitoring and evaluation. Moreover, in concert with sophisticated guidelines in the process of EBA (See Youngstrom, Coukas-Bradley, Calhoun, & Jensen-Doss, this issue), this list has the potential to make an impact on clinicians, clients, and policy-makers in the public sector wishing to integrate assessment and monitoring tools in their toolkit, as well as highlighting areas of need for future research.

There are a number of important clinical issues that must be considered within the context of EBA, including: How does a clinician decide which standardized tool to use? Should the tools be general to mental well-being or specific to the presenting problem or disorder? How should these tools inform the diagnostic process and treatment monitoring? Which informants should be included? When is the best time to administer such tools? We have not made recommendations about which measure a clinician should select for a particular presenting problem, in large part because such guidelines will be necessarily complex and are beyond the scope of this manuscript. Several manuscripts are dedicated to exploring these issues for particular disorders in the referenced special issues. present key themes and considerations in the development of EBA guidelines, and yet suggest that there is still much work to do in delineating EBA guidelines. Making an exciting stride forward, Youngstrom and colleagues (this issue) make recommendations on a twelve-step approach, using evidence-based medicine principles, that can be applied to streamline the assessment process.

There is a general consensus that prior to treatment, clinicians should select broader assessment tools to cast a wide net regarding the presenting problem of a client, and then using more specific tools as the presenting problem becomes more clear (). To monitor progress over time, specific tools can be used to track client improvement or deterioration. This also speaks to the issue of assessment over time. As states, “ongoing, continuous assessment is needed during the course of treatment.” (p. 554). For example, in the case of a youth presenting for treatment; a general screener such as the BPC () can be administered. If particular elevations suggesting anxiety become apparent, then an anxiety specific standardized tool such as the SCARED can then be administered (). Subsequently, this tool can be used on a regular basis (e.g., every 2 weeks) to monitor treatment progress. At the end of treatment, the BPC and SCARED can be administered again to ensure that initial elevations are no longer present.

Beyond the question of which instrument to use and when to administer it, clinicians are confronted with the question of whom to ask to complete it (). This topic has been explored in great depth in the youth assessment literature, but has received less recognition in the adult assessment literature, despite evidence that, similar to data in youths, there is low cross-informant (e.g., caregiver, spouses) agreement for adults (). Unfortunately, there is little guidance available to help clinicians decide how to weigh informant data in adults. In the youth assessment literature, a plethora of evidence suggests discrepancies among children, parents, and teachers when reporting on youths psychosocial difficulties (). There are different methods to assess such divergence (see ). In the absence of EBA guidelines, clinicians are encouraged to use the “or rule.” If a youth or parent reports symptoms on a standardized tool, the clinician targets treatment towards those symptoms. The “or rule” increases sensitivity compared with the “and rule,” which requires that both the youth and parent report symptoms ().

There are also a number of ethical considerations to consider in the context of EBA. One important question is the appropriateness of standardized assessment tools for ethnic/racial minorities and the use of standardized rating scales to make diagnostic determinations. Many standardized assessment tools cited in this manuscript have not been tested in multiple ethnic/racial groups (), and may not be equally valid in assessing psychopathology or diagnostic criteria. In the rare cases in which standardized tools have been compared across different cultures, similarities have been found in the prevalence and presentation of mental health difficulties (; ). More research of this kind is needed given that many of the youth and adults seen in the public sector are ethnic and/or racial minorities. Another ethical issue concerns the use of rating scales as diagnostic tools. The gold-standard diagnostic process is the structured clinical interview (e.g., Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders; SCID; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1996). The standardized tools presented in this manuscript are not intended as diagnostic tools even if they map on to diagnostic criteria; they are all intended as screeners for potential disorders (sometimes necessitating further assessment) or symptom rating tools. However, the SCID and similar interviews are time-intensive, generally unbillable, and require intensive training for administration. Given these practical concerns, they are not feasible in the public sector. Clinicians in these settings need brief standardized tools that can be used as diagnostic aids (see Youngstrom et al., this issue). It is not clear from the literature how much EBA presently occurs in community mental health. Given the practical concerns, the answer is possibly very little. Although future research is necessary to examine this empirical question, it may be better overall for clinicians to be using some EBA tools rather than none at all, and this review will hopefully serve as a helpful resource.

There is a critical need to include EBA as part of the process of implementing EBP in community settings. Initial evaluation and ongoing progress monitoring are foundational components of the EBP process; both are expected and routine in other areas of healthcare (Goodman, McKay, & DePhilippis, in press). Use of standardized tools prior to treatment initiation for screening and diagnostic purposes allows clinicians to target treatment and identify appropriate EBPs. The use of standardized tools to monitor and evaluate treatment and provide feedback over the course of treatment can result in improved outcomes in both youths () and adults (; ). Having inexpensive, brief and easily accessible screening and progress-monitor tools is an important first – but by no means the only necessary – step in increasing the use of EBA in community mental health settings.

Several exciting national initiatives will make it easier for clinicians to use standardized tools as part of ongoing practice. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed PROMIS, a set of freely available validated measures of patient–reported health status for physical, mental, and social well–being (http://www.nihpromise.org). Although promising, more work must be conducted on the use of these measures in clinical populations (e.g., youth with anxiety and/or depression) given that they have been primarily used in pediatric populations (e.g., oncology). The National Cancer Institute has sponsored a separate, free repository of available standardized tools to assess various mental and physical conditions (https://www.gem-beta.org/). Further, the NIH now requires that articles published from NIH-funded research be freely available to the public, which increases the likelihood of any new measures created through public funding becoming available to practitioners and consumers.

In the following paragraphs, we suggest some important next steps to increase the extent to which EBA is used.

Develop guidelines

While assessment guidelines are available for some disorders, these guidelines often do not take into account the practical constraints facing clinicians working in low resource mental health settings. Guidelines are needed for general practice and for specific disorders, with consideration of the limited time and other resources available to community clinicians. Specifically, guidelines are needed to help guide clinicians through the decision making process of which instrument to use, when to use it (e.g., screening, diagnosis, treatment monitoring and evaluation), how often to administer (i.e., frequency), and how to integrate information across instruments in a clinically meaningful manner. For example, the work of provides a significant step forward in developing a standardized assessment protocol that is of low burden to clinicians that can inform treatment need for youth in public sector settings. More work of this kind is needed.

Develop training protocols to increase expertise in EBA

Another largely ignored issue is the need for clinician training in the use of standardized tools. Without understanding how standardized tools can be useful clinically, they become another administrative burden with little clinical payoff (). One of the largest challenges in the EBP movement has been training the existing workforce in treatments with which they have little familiarity (). Such efforts to train clinicians in EBP to date have been largely disappointing (). As efforts are made to improve trainings and understand how the public sector context impacts clinician behavior (e.g., ), an additional consideration will be the provision of training on how to administer standardized tools and use the data in meaningful ways (). An exploration of implementation strategies () that increase the use of standardized tools is an important area of future research.

Develop a frequently updated databank of EBA

The status of standardized assessment tools is constantly in flux, with new tools created and old tools updated on a regular basis. Future efforts to document such tools in a web-based repository such as the American Psychological Association (APA) PracticeOUTCOMES website are ideal; however this service requires an APA membership. Other websites exists but none of them offer a comprehensive overview of screening, diagnostic, and treatment monitoring and evaluation instruments for youths and adults (e.g., http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm5/online-assessment-measures; http://outcometracker.org). A free website similar to this effort that provides an ongoing resource with updated standardized assessment tools by problem area would greatly move the EBA field forward.

Take advantage of new digital technologies

Most measures are administered using paper-and-pencil and require time to score and interpret. Current technology makes it easy to develop software that scores and provide interpretations for clinicians to reduce clinician burden and increase standardization of interpretation. As these technologies become less expensive, clinics could use tablet technology or kiosks to administer measures while clients wait for their appointments. This information then could be transmitted to the clinician in a seamless manner that greatly enhances the accessibility and uniformity of EBA. This may require negotiation with instrument developers as incorporation of instruments into digitalEncéphale. 2001;27(5):475–484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gracious BL, Holmes WD, Ruppar N, Burke KC, Hurt J. Mania Rating Scale reliability in children and adolescents.. Presented at the First Annual International Conference on Bipolar Disorders; Pittsburgh. 1994. [Google Scholar]

Gracious BL, Youngstrom EA, Findling RL, Calabrese JR. Discriminative validity of a parent version of the Young Mania Rating Scale. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2002;41(11):1350–1359. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200211000-00017. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Green B. Trauma History Questionnaire. In: Stamm BH, editor. Measurement of stress, trauma, and adaptation. Sidran Press; Lutherville, MD: 1996. pp. 366–369. [Google Scholar]

Greenhill LL, Pine D, March J, Birmaher B, Riddle M. Assessment issues in treatment research of pediatric anxiety disorders: What is working, what is not working, what is missing, and what needs improvement. Psychopharmacology Bulletin. 1998;34(2):155–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. British Journal of MedicalPsychology. 1959;32(1):50–55. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1959.tb00467.x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, andPsychiatry. 1960;23:56–62. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hamilton M. Hamilton rating scale for Depression (Ham-D). In: American Psychiatric AssociationRush AJ, editor. Handbook of psychiatric measures. American Psychogical Association; Washington, D.C.: 2000. pp. 526–528. [Google Scholar]

Hancock N, Bundy A, Honey A, Tamsett S, Helich S. Sydney eScholarship Repository. University of Sydney; Sydney, Austrailia: 2013. Recovery Assessment Scale: Domains and stages (RAS-DS). [Google Scholar]

Hatfield DR, Ogles BM. Why some clinicians use outcome measures and others do not. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2007;34(3):283–291. doi: 10.1007/s10488-006-0110-y. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hautala L, Junnila J, Helenius H, Väänänen A, Liuksila P, Räihä H, Saarijärvi S. Adolescents with fluctuating symptoms of eating disorders: A 1-year prospective study. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008;62(6):674–680. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04697.x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Heimberg RG, Horber KJ, Juster HR, Safren SA, Brown EJ, Schneier FR, Liebowitz MR. Psychometric properties of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Psychological Medicine. 1999;29:199–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Helmreich I, Wagner S, Mergl R, Allgaier AK, Hautzinger M, Henkel V, Tadíc A. Sensitivity to changes during antidepressant treatment: A comparison of unidimensional subscales of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in patients with mild major, minor, or subsyndromal depresssion. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2011;262(4):291–304. doi: 10.1007/s00406-011-0263-x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hill LS, Reid F, Morgan JF, Lacey JH. SCOFF, the development of an eating disorder screening questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders. 2010;43(4):344–351. doi: 10.1002/eat.20679. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hofmann SG, Dibartolo PM. An instrument to assess self-statements during public speaking: Scale development and preliminary psychometric properties. Behavior Therapy. 2000;31(3):499–515.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hooper LM, Stockton P, Krupnick JL, Green BL. The development, use, and psychometric properties of the Trauma History Questionnaire. Journal of Loss and Trauma. 2011;16(3):258–283. doi:10.1080/15325024.2011.572035. [Google Scholar]

Houck PR, Spiegel DA, Shear MK, Rucci P. Reliability of the self-report version of the panic disorder severity scale. Depression and Anxiety. 2002;15(4):183–185. doi: 10.1002/da.10049. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hudson JL, Rapee RM, Deveney C, Schniering CA, Lyneham HJ, Bovopoulos N. Cognitive-behavioral treatment versus an active control for children and adolescents with anxiety disorders: A randomized control trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2009;48(5):533–544. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31819c2401. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hunsley J, Mash E, editors. Introduction to the special section on developing guidelines for the evidence-based assessment of adult disorders [Special Issue]. Psychological Assessment. 2005;17(3):251–255. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hunsley J, Mash EJ. Evidence-based assessment. Annual Review of ClinicalPsychology. 2007;3:29–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091419. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hunsley J, Mash EJ. A guide to assessments that work. 1st ed. Oxford University Press; New York: 2008. [Google Scholar]

IDS-QUIDS.org. Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) & Quick Inventory ofDepressive Symptomatology (QIDS) 2013 Retrieved from http://www.idsqids.org/index2.html#VALIDITY.

International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Assessing trauma: Child PTSDSymptom Scale. 2013 Retrieved from http://www.istss.org/ChildPTSDSymptomScale.htm.

Ivanova MY, Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA, Dumenci L, Almqvist F, Bilenberg N, Verhulst FC. The generalizability of the Youth Self-Report syndrome structurein 23 societies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2007;75(5):729–738. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.729. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ivanova MY, Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA, Harder VS, Ang RP, Bilenberg N, Verhulst FC. Syndromes of preschool psychopathology reported by parents in 23 societies. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;49(12):1215–1224. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.08.019. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ivarsson T, Lidberg A, Gillberg C. The Birleson Depression Self-Rating Scale(DSRS): Clinical evaluation in an adolescent inpatient population. Journal of Affective Disorders. 1994;32(2):115–125. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jellinek MS, Murphy JM, Robinson J, Feins A, Lamb S, Fenton T. ThePediatric Symptom Checklist: Screening school-age children for psychological dysfunction. Journal of Pediatrics. 1988;112(2):201–209. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(88)80056-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jensen-Doss A, Hawley KM. Understanding barriers to evidence-based assessment:Clinician attitudes toward standardized assessment tools. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2010;39(6):885–896. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2010.517169. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jensen AL, Weisz JR. Assessing match and mismatch between practitioner-generated and standardized interview-generated diagnoses for clinic-referred children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2002;70(1):158–168. doi: 10.1037//0022-006X.70.1.158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jensen-Doss A, Weisz JR. Diagnostic agreement predicts treatment process and outcomes in youth mental health clinics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2008;76(5):711–722. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.711. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Johnson HS, Inderbitzen-Nolan HM, Anderson ER. The Social PhobiaInventory: Validity and reliability in an adolescent community sample. Psychological Assessment. 2006;18:269–277. doi:101037/1040-3590183269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Johnson JG, Harris ES, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The Patient HealthQuestionnaire for Adolescents: Validation of an instrument for the assessment of mental disorders among adolescent primary care patients. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2002;30(3):196–204. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00333-0. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Joiner TE, Walker RL, Pettit JW, Perez M, Cukrowicz KC. Evidence-based assessment of depression in adults. Psychological Assessment. 2005;17(3):267–277. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kazdin AE. Evidence-based assessment for children and adolescents: Issues in measurement development and clinical application. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34(3):548–558. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Keane TM, Caddell JM, Taylor KL. Mississippi Scale for Combat-RelatedPosttraumatic Stress Disorder: Three studies in reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1988;56(1):85–90. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.56.1.85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Keller MB, Ryan ND, Strober M, Klein RG, Kutcher SP, Birmaher B, McCafferty JP. Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2001;40(7):762–772. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200107000-00010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kertz S, Bigda-Peyton J, Bjorgvinsson T. Validity of the Generalized AnxietyDisorder-7 Scale in an acute psychiatric sample. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 2013;20(5):456–464. doi: 10.1002/cpp.1802. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):617–627. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

King LA, King DW, Leskin G, Foy DW. The Los Angeles SymptomChecklist: A self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder. Assessment. 1995;2(1):1–17. doi: 10.1177/1073191195002001001. [Google Scholar]

Kovacs M. The Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). PsychopharmacologicalBulletin. 1985;21:995–998. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kroenke K S, Spitzer RL, Williams B. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2001;16:606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care. 2003;41(11):1284–1292. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kubany ES, Haynes SN, Leisen MB, Owens JA, Kaplan AS, Watson SB, Burns K. Development and preliminary validation of a brief broad-spectrum measure of trauma exposure: The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment. 2000;12(2):210–224. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.2.210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lambert MJ, Hansen N, Finch E. Patient-focused research: Using patient outcome data to enhance treatment effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;69:159–172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry. 1987;22:141–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lim YJ, Yu BH, Kim JH. Korean panic disorder severity scale: Construct validity by confirmatory factor analysis. Depression and Anxiety. 2007;24(2):95–102. doi: 10.1002/da.20206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lomas J. Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: Who should do what? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1993;703:226–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26351.x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health RCADS quick guide – Child. 2011 Retrieved from http://lausdsmh.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RCADS-Child-Quick-Guide1.pdf.

Löwe B, Unützer J, Callahan CM, Perkins AJ, Kroenke K. Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Medical Care. 2004;42(12):1194–1201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Luck AJ, Morgan JF, Reid F, O'Brien A, Brunton J, Price C, Lacy JH. The SCOFF questionnaire and clinical interview for eating disorders in general practice: Comparitive study. British Medical Journal. 2002;325:755. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.755. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Maier W, Buller R, Philipp M, Heuser I. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale: Reliability, validity and sensitivity to change in anxiety and depressive disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders. 1988;14(1):61–68. doi: 10.1016/0165-0327(88)90072-9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

List of psychological assessment instrume…

Maloney MJ, McGuire JB, Daniels SR. Reliability testing of a children's version of the Eating Attitude Test. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1988;27(5):541–543. doi: 10.1097/00004583-198809000-00004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

March JS, Parker JD, Sullivan K, Stallings P, Conners CK. TheMultidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC): Factor structure, reliability, andvalidity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1997;36(4):554–565. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199704000-00019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Marks IM, Mathews AM. Brief standard self-rating for phobic patients. BehaviourResearch and Therapy. 1979;17(3):263–267. doi: 0005-7967(79)90041-X. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mash E, Hunsley J, editors. Evidence-based assessment of child and adolescent disorders: Issues and challenges [Special Issue]. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34(3):1537–4416. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Masia-Warner C, Storch EA, Pincus DB, Klein RG, Heimberg RG, Liebowitz MR. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents: An initial psychometric investigation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003;42(9):1076–1084. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

MassHealth PSD-Pediatric Symptom Checklist, Y-PSC-Pediatric Symptom Checklist-Youth Report. 2013 Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/commissions-and-initiatives/cbhi/screening-for-behavioral-health-conditions/the-masshealth-approved-screening-tools/y-psc.html.

Mathai J, Anderson P, Bourne A. Use of the Strengths and DifficultiesQuestionnaire as an outcome measure in a child and adolescent mental health service. Australasian Psychiatry. 2003;11:334–337.[Google Scholar]

Mattick RP, Clarke JC. Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1998;36(4):455–470. doi: S0005-7967(97)10031-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mazure CM, Halmi KA, Sunday SR, Romano SJ, Einhorn AM. Yale-Brown-Cornell Eating Disorder Scale: Development, use, reliability, and validity. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1994;28(5):425–445. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(94)90002-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McHugh RK, Barlow DH. The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments. A review of current efforts. The American Psychologist. 2010;65(2):73–84. doi: 10.1037/a0018121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McIntyre RS, Mancini DA, Srinivasan J, McCann S, Konarski JZ, Kennedy SH. The antidepressant effects of risperidone and olanzapine in bipolar disorder. Canadian Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2004;11:218–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McMahon RJ, Frick PJ. Evidence-based assessment of conduct problems in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34(3):477–505. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Merikangas KR, He JP, Brody D, Fisher PW, Bourdon K, Koretz DS. Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders among US children in the 2001-2004 NHANES. Pediatrics. 2010;125(1):75–81. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2598. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, Borkovec TD. Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1990;28(6):487–495. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Michelson L, Mavissakalian M. Temporal stability of self-report measures in agoraphobia research. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1983;21(6):695–698. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(83)90089-X. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Miranda J, Chung JY, Green BL, Krupnick J, Siddique J, Revicki DA, Belin T. Treating depression in predominantly low-income young minority women: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(1):57–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.1.57 290/1/57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Moberg PJ, Lazarus LW, Mesholam RI, Bilker W, Chuy IL, Neyman I, Markvart V. Comparison of the standard and structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in depressed geriatric inpatients. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2001;9(1):35–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Monga S, Birmaher B, Chiappetta L, Brent D, Kaufman J, Bridge J, Cully M. Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Covergent and divergent validity. Depression and Anxiety. 2000;12(2):85–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Monkul ES, Tural U, Onur E, Fidaner H, Alkin T, Shear MK. Panic DisorderSeverity Scale: Reliability and validity of the Turkish version. Depression and Anxiety. 2004;20(1):8–16. doi: 10.1002/da.20011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Monson CM, Gradus JL, Young-Xu Y, Schnurr PP, Price JL, Schumm JA. Change in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: Do clinicians and patients agree? Psychological Assessment. 2008;20(2):131–138. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.131 2008-06771-005. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–389. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Morgan JF, Reid F, Lacey JH. The SCOFF questionnaire: Assessment of a new screening tool for eating disorders. British Medical Journal. 1999;319(7223):1467–1468.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Motooka H, Tanaka-Matsumi J, Hayashi K. The reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ): A self-report inventory of “worry”. Japanese Journal of Counseling Science. 2009;42(3):247–255.[Google Scholar]

Free Psychological Assessment Tools

Mueser KT, Rosenberg SD, Fox L, Salyers MP, Ford JD, Carty P. Psychometric evaluation of trauma and posttraumtic stress disorder assessments in persons with severe mental illness. Psychological Assessment. 2001;13(1):110–117. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Muris P, Mayer B, Bartelds E, Tierney S, Bogie N. The revised version of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED-R): Treatment sensitivity in an early intervention trial for childhood anxiety disorders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2001;40(3):323–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Murphy JM, Jellinek MS. Screening for psychological dysfunction in economically disadvangted and minority group children: Further validation of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1988;58(3):450–456. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Murphy JM, Kamin H, Masek B, Vogeli C, Caggiano R, Sklar K, Jellinek MS. Using brief clinician and parent measures to track outcomes in outpatient child psychiatry: Longer term follow-up and comparative effectiveness. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2012;17(4):222–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2011.00642.x. [Google Scholar]

Nauta MH, Scholing A, Rapee RM, Abbott M, Spence SH, Waters A. A parent-report measure of children's anxiety: Psychometric properties and comparison with child-report in a clinic and normal sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2004;42(7):813–839. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

NIH-PROMIS PROMIS: Dynamic tools to measure health outcomes from the patient perspective. 2013 Retrieved from http://nihpromis.org.

Nunno M. The effects of the ARC organizational intervention on caseworker turnover, climate, and culture in children's services systems: Commentary. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2006;30(8):849–854. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Oei TP, Moylan A, Evans L. Validity and clinical utility of the Fear Questionnaire for anxiety-disorder patients. Psychological Assessment. 1991;3(3):391–397. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.3.3.391. [Google Scholar]

Ogles B, Melendez G, Davis DC, Lunnen KM. The Ohio Scales: Practical outcome assessment. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2001;10(2):199–212. doi:10.1023/A:1016651508801. [Google Scholar]

Orsillo SM. Measures for acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. In: Antony MM, Orsillo SM, Roemer L, editors. Practitioner's guide to empirically based measures of anxiety. Springer; New York: 2001. pp. 255–307. [Google Scholar]

Osman A, Bagge CL, Guitierrez PM, Konick LC, Kooper BA, Barrios FX. The Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R): Validation with clinical and non clinical samples. Assessment. 2001;8(4):443–454. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Osman A, Barrios FX, Osman JR, Markway K. Further psychometric evaluation of the Fear Questionnaire: Responses of college-students. Psychological Reports. 1993;73(3 Pt. 2):1259–1266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Pavot W, Diener E. Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychological Assessment. 1993;5(2):164–172.[Google Scholar]

Pavuluri MN, Henry DB, Devineni B, Carbray JA, Birmaher B. Child Mania Rating Scale: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2006;45(5):550–560. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000205700.40700.50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Perry L, Morgan J, Reid F, Brunton J, O'Brien A, Luck A, Lacey H. Screening for symptoms of eating disorders: Reliability of the SCOFF screening tool with written compared to oral delivery. International Journal of Eating Disorders. 2002;32(4):466–472. doi: 10.1002/eat.10093. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Pestle SL, Chorpita BF, Schiffman J. Psychometric properties of the Penn StateWorry Questionnaire for Children in a large clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2008;37(2):465–471. doi: 10.1080/15374410801955896. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Pfohl B, Blum N, St John D, McCormick B, Allen J, Black DW. Reliability and validity of the Borderline Evaluation of Severity over Time (BEST): A self-rated scale to measure severity and change in persons with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2009;23(3):281–293. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.3.281 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.3.281. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PHQ Screeners PHQ-9 and GAD-7 Instruction Manual. 2010 Retrieved from: http://www.phqscreeners.com/instructions/instructions.pdf.

Pogge DL, Wayland-Smith D, Zaccario M, Borgaro S, Stokes J, Harvey PD. Diagnosis of manic episodes in adolescent inpatients: Structured diagnostic procedures compared to clinical chart diagnoses. Psychiatry Research. 2001;101(1):47–54. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1781(00)00248-1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, Brent DA, Yershova KV, Oquendo MA, Mann JJ. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS): Initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multi-site studies with adolescents and adults. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2011;168(12):1266–1277. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10111704. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Free Mental Health Assessment Tools

Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, York JL. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012;69(2):123–157. doi:10.1177/10775587114306901077558711430690. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health . Report of the President's NewFreedom Commission on Mental Health. Washington, DC.: 2003. [Google Scholar]

Psych Congress Network Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) 2013 Retrieved from: http://www.psychcongress.com/saundras-corner/scales-screeners/depression/hamilton-depression-rating-scale-ham-d.

Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1977;1(3):385–401.[Google Scholar]

Radloff LS. The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1991;20(2):149–166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ranta K, Kaltiala-Heino R, Rantanen P, Marttunen M. The Mini-Social PhobiaInventory: Psychometric properties in an adolescent general population sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2012;53(5):630–637. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.07.007. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Reynolds CR, Richmond BO. What I think and feel: A revised measure of children's manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1978;6(2):271–280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Riemer M, Athay MM, Bickman L, Breda C, Kelley SD, Vides de Andrade AR. The Peabody Treatment Progress Battery: History and methods for developing a comprehensive measurement battery for youth mental health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2012;39(1-2):3–12. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0404-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Riemer M, Kearns MA. Description and psychometric evaluation of the Youth Counseling Impact Scale. Psychological Assessment. 2010;22(2):259–268. doi: 10.1037/a0018507. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rush AJ, Giles DE, Schlesser MA, Fulton CL, Weissenburger J, Burns C. The Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): Preliminary findings. Psychiatry Research. 1986;18(1):65–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rush AJ, Gullion CM, Basco MR, Jarrett RB, Trivedi MH. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): Psychometric properties. Psychological Medicine. 1996;26(3):477–486. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rush AJ, Trivedi M, Carmody TJ, Biggs MM, Shores-Wilson K, Ibrahim H, Crismon ML. One-year clinical outcomes of depressed public sector outpatients: A benchmark for subsequent studies. Biological Psychiatry. 2004;56(1):46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.04.005S0006322304004779. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, Ibrahim HM, Carmody TJ, Arnow B, Klein DN, Keller MB. The 16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), Clinician rating (QIDS-C), and Self-Report (QIDS-SR): A psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major depression. Biological Psychiatry. 2003;54(5):573–583. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01866-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stable Resource Toolkit SAMHSA. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)-Overview. 1999 Retrieved from: http://www.cqaimh.org/pdf/tool_phq9.pdf.

Saylor CF, Swenson CC, Reynolds SS, Taylor M. The Pediatric EmotionalDistress Scale: A brief screening measure for young children exposed to traumatic events. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 1999;28(1):70–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Scahill L, Riddle MA, McSwiggin-Hardin M, Ort SI, King RA, Goodman WK, Leckman JF. Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale: Reliability and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1997;36(6):844–852.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199706000-00023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Seligson JE, Huebner ES, Valois RF. Preliminary validation of the BriefMultidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). Social Indicators Research. 2003;61(2):121–145.[Google Scholar]

Shachar I, Aderka IM, Gilboa-Schechtman E. The factor structure of theLiebowitz Social Anxiety Scale for children and adolescents: Development of a brief version. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 2013 doi: 10.1007/s10578-013-0398-2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sharp LK, Lipsky MS. Screening for depression across the lifespan: A review of measures for use in primary care settings. American Family Physician. 2002;66(6):1001–1008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Shear MK, Brown TA, Barlow DH, Money R, Sholomskas DE, Woods SW, Papp LA. Multicenter collaborative Panic Disorder Severity Scale. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 1997;154(11):1571–1575. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Shear MK, Rucci P, Williams J, Frank E, Grochocinski V, Vander Bilt J, Wang T. Reliability and validity of the Panic Disorder Severity Scale: Replication andextenstion. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2001;35(5):293–296. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3956(01)00028-0. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Silverman WK, Albano AM. The Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for Children for DSM-IV: Child and Parent Version. Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX: 1996. [Google Scholar]

Silverman WK, Ollendick TH. Evidence-based assessment of anxiety and its disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34(3):380–411. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Smith P, Perrin S, Dyregrov A, Yule W. Principal components analysis of theImpact of Event Scale with children in war. Personality and Individual Differences. 2003;34:315–322. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00047-8. [Google Scholar]

Smolak L, Levine MP. Psychometric properties of the Children's Eating AttitudesTest. International Journal of Eating Disorders. 1994;16(3):275–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Snyder CR, Hoza B, Pelham WE, Rapoff M, Ware L, Danovsky M, Stahl KJ. The development and validation of the Children's Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatr Psychology. 1997;22(3):399–421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Spence SH. A measure of anxiety symptoms among children. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1998;36(5):545–566. doi: S0005-7967(98)00034-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Spence SH, Rapee R, McDonald C, Ingram M. The structure of anxiety symptoms among preschoolers. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2001;39:1293–1316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Spence Children's Anxiety Scale Website Overview: Use of the scale. 2013 Retrieved from: http://www.scaswebsite.com/index.php?p=1_12.

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737–1744. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.18.1737. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166(10):1092–1097. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Gibbon M, First MB. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-Ill-R (SCID) American Psychiatric Press; Washington, D.C.: 1990. [Google Scholar]

Stice E, Fisher M, Martinez E. Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale: Additional evidence of reliability and validity. Psychological Assessment. 2004;16(1):60–71. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.16.1.60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stice E, Hayward C, Cameron R, Killen JD, Taylor CB. Body image and eating related factors predict onset of depression in female adolescents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2000;109:438–444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stice E, Telch CF, Rizvi SL. Development and validation of the Eating DisorderDiagnostic Scale: A brief self-report measure of anorexia, bulimia, and binge-eating disorder. Psychological Assessment. 2000;12(2):123–131. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.2.123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stöber J, Bittencourt J. Weekly assessment of worry: An adaptation of the PennState Worry Questionnaire for monitoring changes during treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1998;36:645–656. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Storch EA, Murphy TK, Geffken GR, Soto O, Sajid M, Allen P, Goodman WK. Psychometric evaluation of the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. Psychiatry Research. 2004;129(1):91–98. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2004.06.009. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Strober M, DeAntonio M, Schmidt-Lackner S, Freeman R, Lampert C, Diamond J. Early childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predicts poorer response to acute lithium therapy in adolescent mania. Journal of Affective Disorders. 1998;51(2):145–151. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619416075?accountid=14707. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stunkard AJ, Messick S. The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition, and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1985;29(1):71–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Stable Resource Toolkit. 1999 Retrieved from: http://www.integration.samhsa.gov/images/res/STABLE_toolkit.pdf.

Swenson CC, Brown EJ, Sheidow AJ. Medical, legal, and mental health service utilization by physically abused children and their caregivers. Child Maltreatment. 2003;8(2):138–144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tangen Haug T, Blomhoff S, Hellstrom K, Holme I, Humble M, Petter Madsu H, Egil Wood J. Exposure therapy and sertraline in social phobia: I-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2003;182:312–318. doi: 10.1192/bjp.02.229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Taylor TK, Burns GL, Rusby JC, Foster EM. Oppositional defiant disorders towards adults and oppositional defiant disorders towards peers: Initial evdience for two separate constructs. Psychological Assessment. 2006;18(4):439–443.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

The National Child Traumatic Stress Network Pediatric Emotional Distress Scale. 2012 Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/content/pediatric-emotional-distress-scale.

Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Ibrahim HM, Carmody TJ, Biggs MM, Suppes T, Kashner TM. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (IDS-C) and Self-Report (IDS-SR), the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symtomatology,Clinician Rating (QIDS-C) and Self-Report (QIDS-SR) in public sector patients with mood disorders: A psychometric evaluation. Psychological Medicine. 2004;34(1):73–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Trull TJ, Hillerbrand E. Psychometric properties and factor structure of the FearQuestionnaire phobia subscale items in two normative samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 1990;12(4):285–297.[Google Scholar]

United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health . The National Institute of Mental Health Strategic Plan. National Institutes of Health; Rockville, MD: 2008. (NIH Publication No. 08–6368. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/[Google Scholar]

Verhulst FC, van der Ende J. Assessment Scales in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Taylor & Francis; Boca Raton, FL: 2006. [Google Scholar]

Wagnild GM, Young HM. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement. 1993;1(2):165–178. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wang R, Su J, Bi X, Wei Y, Mo L, You Y. Application of the chinesePosttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist to adolescent earthquake survivors in China. Social Behavior and Personality. 2012;40(3):415–424. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2012.40.3.415. [Google Scholar]

Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Free Psychological Assessment Tools Free

Watson D, Clark AL. The Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ).Unpublished manuscript. University of Iowa, Department of Psychology; Iowa City, IA: 1991. [Google Scholar]

Watson D, Friend R. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology. 1969;33(4):448–457. doi: 10.1037/h0027806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Weathers FW, Litz BT, Herman DS, Huska JA, Keane TM. The PTSD Checklist (PCL): Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility.. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies; San Antonio, TX.: 1993. [Google Scholar]

Weiss DS, Marmar CR. The Impact of Event Scale—Revised. In: Wilson JPK, Keane TM, editors. Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD: A handbook for practitioners. Guilford Press; New York: 1997. pp. 399–411. [Google Scholar]

Weisz JR, Chorpita BF, Frye A, Ng MY, Lau N, Bearman SK, Hoagwood KE. Youth Top Problems: Using idiographic, consumer-guided assessment to identify treatment needs and to track change during psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;79(3):369–380. doi: 10.1037/a0023307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

West AE, Ceilo CI, Henry DB, Pavuluri MN. Child Mania Rating Scale-Parent Version: A valid measure of symptom change due to pharmacotherapy. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2011;128(1-2):112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.013. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wilkins KC, Lang AJ, Norman SB. Synthesis of the psychometric properties of the PTSD checklist (PCL) military, civilian, and specific versions. Depression and Anxiety. 2011;28(7):596–606. doi: 10.1002/da.20837. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Williams JBW. A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression RatingScale. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1988;45(8):742–747. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800320058007. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Williamson DA, Prather RC, McKenzie SJ, Blouin DC. Behavioral assessment procedures can differentiate bulimia nervosa, compulsive overeater, obese, and normal. Behavioral Assessment. 1990;12:239–252.[Google Scholar]

Wilson KA, Hayward C. Unique contributions of anxiety sensitivity to avoidance:A prospective study in adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2006;44(4):601–609. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.04.005. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wittkampf KA, Naeije L, Schene AH, Huyser J, van Weert HC. Diagnostic accuracy of the mood module of the Patient Health Questionnaire: A systematic review. General Hospital Psychiatry. 2007;29(5):388–395. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2007.06.004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yamamoto I, Nakano Y, Watanabe N, Noda Y, Furukawa TA, Kanai T, Kamijima K. Cross-cultural evaluation of the Panic Disorder Severity Scale in Japan. Depression and Anxiety. 2004;20(1):17–22. doi: 10.1002/da.20029. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Xia L, Ding C. The relationship between interpersonal traits and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: Analyses from wenchuan earthquake adolescent survivors in China. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2011;24(4):487–490. doi: 10.1002/jts.20655. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Young RC, Biggs JT, Ziegler VE, Meyer DA. A rating scale for mania:Reliability, validity and sensitivity. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 1978;133:429–435. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Young SL, Bullock WA. The Mental Health Recovery Measure. Department of Psychology, University of Toledo; Toledo, Ohio: 2003. [Google Scholar]

Free Psychological Assessment Tools For Adhd

Youngstrom EA, Findling RL, Youngstrom JK, Calabrese JR. Toward an evidence-based assessment of pediatric bipolar disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34(3):433–448. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Youngstrom EA, Choukas-Bradley S, Calhoun C, Jensen-Doss A. Clinical guide to the evidence-based medicine approach to diagnosis. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. this issue. [Google Scholar]

Zanarini MC. Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD): A continuous measure of DSM-IV borderline psychopathology. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2003;17(3):233–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zhong J, Wang C, Li J, Liu J. Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Structure and psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B. 2009;10(3):211–218. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B0820189. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Free Mental Health Assessment Tools

Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, McGlinchey JB, Posternak MA. A clinically useful depression outcome scale. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2008;49(2):131–140. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.10.006. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB, Chelminski I. An inadequate community stand of care: Lack of measurement of outcome when treating depression in clinical practice. Primary Psychiatry. 2008;13(6):67–75.[Google Scholar]

Free Psychological Assessment Tools List

Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, Young D, Dalrymple K. A clinically useful anxiety outcome scale. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2010;71(5):534–542. doi:10.4088/JCP.09m05264blu. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]