Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment - Parent Form ( ITSEA - PARENT FORM )
Carter, A.S., & Briggs-Gowan, M. (2005). ITSEA BITSEA: The Infant-Toddler and Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment. PsychCorp: San Antonio, TX.
The ITSEA assesses for social or emotional problems and competencies in infants and toddlers and was designed to identify children with deficits or delays in these areas. It provides a comprehensive profile of problems and competencies with scores on 4 domains:
Each domain is comprised of a number of subscales (see sample items). The ITSEA also yields scores on three clusters that include atypical behaviors: Maladaptive, Social Relatedness, and Atypical. There are two versions, a Parent Form and a Childcare Provider Form; both are reviewed in this database.
3-point scale: 0 = Not true/rarely, 1 = Somewhat true/sometimes, and 2 = Very true/often. A No Opportunity code allows raters to indicate they have not had the opportunity to observe the behavior.
Separate norms are provided for the Parent Form by gender and age (12-17 months, 18-23 months, 24-29 months, and 30-36 months). Norms are presented this way because the authors report that age and gender differences found on scale and subscale scores suggest the "importance of comparing the scores of young children within relatively narrow age bands (i.e., 6 months) and to children of their own sex" (Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2005 p. 50).
Pros & Cons/References
1. The items appear clear and easy to understand.
2. The measure was developed specifically to assess infants and toddlers and includes items that are developmentally sensitive and relevant to young children.
3. Assesses competencies as well as problem behaviors.
4. Norms are presented separately by age and gender following the results of analyses that suggest the importance of comparing young children to others in their age band and sex. Many other measures for young children do not present norms in this way and have not conducted analyses looking at differences among groups of younger children.
5. There is a Childcare Provider version with identical items and scales to allow for comparisons between reporters.
1. The measure is somewhat long. Studies of consumer satisfaction seem to suggest that approximately 39% felt the measure was somewhat too long or too long. However, these parents were part of a community sample. A clinic sample might be able to balance the length of the measure with the value of the information it yields.
2. The age range of the measure 1-3 is awkward for treatment-outcome research and longitudinal studies because children need to fall in that age range at pre-, post-, and follow-up assessment periods.
3. With regard to using the measure for trauma-exposed children, there is no scale that directly measures trauma symptoms, so another measure would need to be used to capture trauma symptomatology.
4. Psychometrics have been examined primarily by the authors. More research would be helpful. In addition, although the measure has been shown to be sensitive to treatment effects, it has not yet been used in randomized controlled designs, which would allow a test of sensitivity to different intervention conditions.
5. As with most parent report measures, items are face valid and parent may respond defensively or in biased ways. There are no validity scales associated with this measure.