Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

1978, Vol. 46, No. 3, 478-488

The Child Behavior Profile: I. Boys Aged 6-11

Thomas M. Achenbach
National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland

The goal was to develop a descriptive classification system that could be used
to group children for research and clinical purposes, to reflect adaptive com-
petencies as well as behavior problems, and to facilitate quantitative assessment
of behavioral change. The system is embodied in a series of Child Behavior
Profiles that are standardized separately for children of each sex at ages 4-5,
6-11, and 12-16. The profiles are scored from the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL), which was designed to obtain parents' reports of their children's com-
petencies and problems in standardized format. This article reports standardiza-
tion of the profile for boys aged 6-11. Factor analysis of the CBCLs of 450
disturbed boys yielded nine behavior problem scales labeled Schizoid, Depressed,
Uncommunicative, Obsessive-Compulsive, Somatic Complaints, Social With-
drawal, Hyperactive, Aggressive, and Delinquent. The first five problem scales
load on a second-order factor labeled Internalizing, and the last three load on
a factor labeled Externalizing. Three social competence scales entitled Activities,
Social, and School were also constructed from the CBCL. Norms are based on
a normal sample of 300. Comparison of disturbed and normal boys showed dif-
ferences (p < .001) on all behavior problem and social competence scores.
Eight-day test-retest correlations averaged .89, whereas interparent correlations
averaged .74. Computerized and hand-scored versions of the profile can be used
to display item and scale scores for individual boys.

One of the greatest handicaps to research
and communication on child psychopathology
has been the lack of a standardized, objective,
and reliable way of describing and classifying
behavior disorders. Not until the 1968 edition
of the American Psychiatric Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM; APA,
1968) was the need for a differentiated classi-
fication of children's disorders even recognized
in the official nomenclature. Prior to the 1968
edition, the only childhood disorders recognized
The author is indebted to the staffs of the many
clinical agencies that have contributed to this work, as
well as to Sue Fleisher for her unflagging efforts in all
phases of the research, Melvin Lewis for his collabora-
tion in developing the behavior problem component of
the CBCL, and Brian McLaughlin and Craig Edelbrock
for programming the Child Behavior Profile.
Requests for reprints, for copies of the CBCL, and
for computerized and hand-scored versions of the Child
Behavior Profile should be sent to Thomas M. Achen-
bach, Laboratory of Developmental Psychology,
Building 1SK, National Institute of Mental Health,
9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20014.
by the DSM were adjustment reaction of
childhood and childhood schizophrenia.
Although provisional guides to classification
such as the DSM may be needed during the
early stages of a field's development, the in-
adequacy of the DSM has inspired numerous
attempts to evolve alternative methods of
classification for childhood disorders. The most
common approach has been to factor analyze
checklists of behavior problems. However, the
diversity of checklists, subject samples, sources
of data, and methods of analysis has led to
almost equally great diversity of results
(Achenbach & Edelbrock, in press). One of the
recurrent differences among studies is whether
they yield a small number of broad-band
factors or a larger number of narrow-band
factors. The number and breadth of the factors
has been determined largely by the number of
items used and the methods of analysis. At one
extreme, Quay and Peterson's (1967) 55-item
Behavior Problem Checklist typically yields
two broad-band factors labeled Conduct
Problem and Personality Problem, although

In the public domain.

478
 THE CHILD BEHAVIOR PROFILE 479

two smaller factors labeled Inadequacy-Im- Behavior Checklist (CBCL), which comprises
maturity and Socialized Delinquency have also not only a diverse array of behavior problems
been found (cf. Quay, 1972). At the opposite but also items reflecting adaptive competencies,
extreme, Baker and Dreger (1973) have including participation in various activities,
derived 30 factors from a checklist of 274 items. social relationships, and school success. These
Findings of a few broad factors and numer- items form three social competence scales on
ous narrower factors are not necessarily which children are scored in relation to norms
contradictory, as second-order analyses have for their age and sex. The CBCL, which takes
shown narrow-band factors to be subsumed by about 17 minutes to complete, is designed to
broad groupings like the Conduct Problem and be filled out by parents or parent surrogates,
Personality Problem factors (Achenbach, 1966; because they typically have a more compre-
Miller, 1967). Other analyses by Achenbach hensive picture of their children's problems and
(1966) have shown that the two broad-band competencies than do any other possible
groupings—which he labeled Externalizing and informants. Furthermore, parents' views and
Internalizing—were replicated in child psy- biases are pivotal in determining whether
chiatric samples differing in age, sex, and clinical services are obtained and which treat-
socioeconomic status, but that the narrow- ment options are implemented; they are also
band factors differed among various subgroups. important in determining the long-term
It thus appears that the broad-band factors prognoses.
represent general behavior patterns but may Data obtained with the CBCL are entered on
mask syndromes that vary with such charac- the Child Behavior Profile, which displays the
teristics as sex and developmental level. items reported by parents as well as the child's
The value of any classification system standing on narrow- and broad-band syn-
depends on the function it is to serve. In our dromes. Using either a computerized or a hand-
present state of ignorance about etiology, scored version of the profile, the clinician or
prognosis, and appropriate treatment, the researcher can obtain an overview of the
worth of a system for describing and classifying specific behavior reported by the parent, how
child psychopathology can be measured in the child's problems and competencies cluster,
terms of the following criteria: (a) It should and how the child compares with normal
provide a description of behavior in a standard- children of similar age and sex. The profile
ized format that is useful to clinicians and approach preserves more information than does
researchers alike, (b) It should be differentiated classification into mutually exclusive categories
enough to include narrow-band syndromes according to individual syndromes, and the
peculiar to particular subgroups, (c) It should profiles themselves can be used as a basis for
not rest on clinical inferences by professionals, multidimensional classification. The profile
as few children in need of help receive adequate described here was constructed from data on
professional attention, (d) It should reflect normal and clinical samples of boys 6-11 years
children's positive adaptive competencies as old. Subsequent articles will report the profiles
well as their maladaptive characteristics, (e) for boys 4-5 and 12-16, and girls 4-5, 6-11,
It should enable us to group children for and 12-16.
purposes of research on etiology, epidemiology,
and treatment effectiveness, (f) It should
facilitate quantitative assessment of behavorial Method
change in order to evaluate prognosis under
various conditions. CBCL Behavior Problem Items
This article reports efforts to develop a Development of the CBCL began with the behavior
descriptive classification system that will fulfill problem checklist that was constructed by Achenbach
the six criteria just enumerated. Separate (1966) from a survey of existing literature and case
analyses are performed for children divided histories of 1,000 child psychiatric patients. The original
checklist was designed to be filled out from case history
according to age and sex in order to detect data by raters using present-absent response alterna-
patterns that may be peculiar to particular tives. It was adapted for parents' use by simplifying
subgroups. Data are obtained with the Child the wording, expanding the present-absent alternatives
 480 THOMAS M. ACHENBACH
to a 0-1-2 scale, and adding new items in consultation
with clinicians. Pilot editions were further revised on
the basis of item analyses and feedback from parents,
clinicians, and paraprofessionals.
The current edition comprises 118 behavior problem
items to which the parent responds by circling a 0, 1,
or 2 according to the following instructions:
Below is a list of items that describe children. For each
item that describes your child now or within the past
12 months, please circle the 2 if the item is very true or
often true of your child. Circle the 1 if the item is some-
what or sometimes true of your child. If the item is not
true of your child, circle the 0.
The items are intended to provide broad but non-
redundant coverage of behavioral problems that can
be rated with a minimum of inference. The parent is
requested to write in descriptions of behaviors for items
that might otherwise be ambiguous. For example,
Item 28 is; Eats or drinks things that are not food
(describe) Parents' descriptions make it possible
to discriminate between those who arc concerned about
their child's consumption of junk foods and those whose
child is eating dirt, paint, and so on. Only nonfood
substances such as the latter arc scored on the Child
Behavior Profile. In addition to the 118 items, spaces
arc provided for parents to write in unlisted physical
problems having no known medical cause and any other
problems that are not listed.
CBCL Social Competence Items
Following a survey of the meager existing literature
on social competence indices for children, descriptions
of positive behavioral characteristics were piloted in
various formats with parents. It was found that items
paralleling the behavior problems but describing
positive characteristics inevitably sounded like lists of
boy scout virtues with a strong social desirability
component. Most parents endorsed all such items as
describing their child. On the other hand, items of the
type used on the Vineland Social Maturity Scale (Doll,
1965) failed to discriminate among children of normal
intelligence. The items found to be most successful and
ultimately selected for the CBCL comprise scales of
involvement and attainment in the three areas described
below.
Activities scale. This scale consists of scores for the
amount and quality of the child's participation in (a)
sports; (b) nonsports hobbies, activities, and games;
and (c) jobs and chores. The parent is first asked to
report the participant sports (up to three) that the
child likes best. Beside each sport, the parent is asked
to check boxes indicating how much time—compared
to other children of the same age—the child spends in
the sport and boxes indicating how well—compared to
other children of the same age—the child does in each
one. The alternatives include don't know, below average,
average, and above average. A second item, with similar
response alternatives, is provided for reporting the
child's favorite hobbies, activities, and games, other
than sports. On the third item of the Activities scale,
the parent is to list the child's jobs or chores (up to
three). Beside each entry the parent is to check boxes
indicating how well the child carries it out, compared
to other children of the same age. The response alterna-
tives are like those of the preceding items.
After trying other response formats, such as request-
ing parents to report the actual frequency of each
activity, the present format was chosen for three
reasons: (a) The significance of the frequency of
participation varies greatly with the particular activity
and environment, (e.g., Opportunities for riding
bicycles are generally more frequent than for skiing,
but both depend on the season of the year and the
locality.) (b) To make the parent's task as easy as
possible, we wished to use a format of maximum
simplicity and generality, (c) Recognizing that we are
obtaining the parent's perception of the child, we
wished to maximize the power of the CBCL to dis-
criminate children for whom parents could report at
least some evidence of social competence from those
for whom parents could report nothing positive.
The scoring system for the Activities scale allocates
0-2 points for number of sports, with 0 being assigned
if one or no sport is listed, 1 point for two sports, and
2 points for three sports; 0-2 points for the mean score
obtained for sports participation and skill, with 0
assigned for each response of below average, 1 for each
response of average, 2 for each response of above average,
and don't know responses omitted from scoring; 0-2
points for number of activities; 0-2 points for average
amount and quality of participation in activities; 0-2
points for number of jobs and chores; and 0-2 points
for average quality of job performance. The latter four
scores follow the same scoring principles as outlined
for sports.
The reason for assigning a score of 0 to a report of
either zero or one sport, activity, or job is that so few
parents of children in clinical samples reported no
sports, other activities, or jobs that the difference
between none and one did not appear worth recognizing
in the scoring. However, a child who has none can
receive only a 0 for participation and skill in that area,
whereas a child who has one can receive up to 2 points
for participation and skill for that one entry. The six
scores for the Activities scale are added together to
provide a summary score that can range from 0 to 12,
and this is entered with its T score on the Child Be-
havior Profile, as explained later.
Social scale. The Social scale consists of scores for
(a) the child's membership and participation in
organizations; (b) number of friends and contacts with
them; and (c) behavior with others and alone. On the
first item, the parent is asked to list (up to three)
organizations, clubs, teams, or groups the child belongs
to and to indicate how active the child is in each, com-
pared to other children of the same age. The number of
organizations and amount of participation in each are
scored 0-2 in the same fashion as items on the Activities
scale. On the next item, the parent is to indicate how
many close friends the child has, with the response
alternatives being none, 1, 2 or 3, and 4 or more. None
and 1 are both scored 0, 2 or 3 is scored 1, and 4 or more
is scored 2. The parent is also asked to indicate how
 THE CHILD BEHAVIOR PROFILE 481

many times a week the child does things with his/her Results
friends. The responses—less than 1, 1 or 2, and 3 or
more—are scored 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Behavior Problem Scales
The third item of the Social scale asks: "Compared
to other children of his/her age, how well does your
The frequency with which parents endorsed
child; Get along with his/her brothers and sisters?
Get along with other children? Behave with his/her each item (i.e., scored it 1 or 2) was first
parents? Play and work by himself/herself?" The tabulated to identify items that were too rare
response alternatives are worse, about the same, and or common to add to the discriminative power
better, and they are scored 0, 1, and 2, respectively. of factor-based scales. With a lower cutoff of
Responses to the first three questions are averaged to
provide a score for behavior with others, whereas the 5% and an upper cutoff of 95%, four items
response to the last question provides a score for were found to be too rare and none was too
independent behavior. The Social scale score is the common for inclusion in the factor analysis.
sum of the six scores just described, each of which can The four low frequency items were: Item 75.
range from 0 to 2, for a possible total of 12. Sexual problems (describe) ; Item 78.
School scale. The School scale consists of scores for
(a) the average of the child's performance in academic Smears or plays with bowel movements; Item
subjects; (b) placement in a regular or special class; 105. Uses alcohol or drugs (describe) ;
(c) being promoted regularly or held back; and (d) the and Item 110. Wishes to be of opposite sex.
presence or absence of school problems. For academic The low frequency for Items 73 and 110 does
performance, the alternatives are failing, below average,
average, and abase average for reading, writing, arith- not mean that no sexual items remained for
metic, spelling, and/or other subjects. The response analysis (e.g., Item 5. Behaves like opposite
alternatives are scored 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively, andsex; Item 59. Plays with own sex parts in
are averaged to provide a score ranging from 0 to 3. public; Item 60. Plays with own sex parts too
The parent is next asked to indicate whether the much; and Item 96. Thinks about sex too
child is in a special class, and, if so, what kind; whether
much were all reported for at least 5% of the
the child has ever repeated a grade, and, if so, the grade
and reason; and to describe any academic or other cases).
problems the child has had in school. Negative answers Narrow-band scales. A principal components
to each of these items are scored 1, and answers indica- analysis was performed on the 114 items meet-
tive of school difficulties are scored 0. These items thus
provide three 0-1 scores, which, when added to the
ing the 5% criterion for the 450 subjects.
0-3 score for academic performance, yield a 0-6 score Because there is no unique criterion for rotation
for the School scale. to simple structure, orthogonal (varimax) and
oblique (direct quartimin) rotations were both
performed on varying numbers of factors to
Construction of the Child Behavior Profile identify the most robust. When more than 13
The behavior problem scales of the profile were factors were rotated, factors that had con-
derived through factor analysis of CBCLs filled out by sistently appeared in smaller rotations began
parents of 450 boys being evaluated in 20 East Coast to break down into factors having only two or
mental health settings. These included guidance clinics, three large loadings. When less than 11 factors
health maintenance organizations, and private prac- were rotated, substantial groupings that oc-
tices. Racial composition was 79.7% white, 18.7%
black, and 1.6% other. Mean socioeconomic status curred in the 11-, 12-, and 13-factor rotations
(SES) was 4.4 (SD = 1.8) based on Hollingshead's were combined into very large factors. The
(Note 1) 7-step scale for breadwinner's occupation. To 12-factor varimax rotation was selected as
insure that younger and older boys contributed equally containing the best representation of the
to the profile, the sample contained equal numbers of
6- to 8-year-olds and 9- to 11-year-olds, with approxi- factors that appeared most consistently in
mately equal numbers at each year. the various rotations. However, only the
Norms for the profile were computed from CBCLs largest 9 of the 12 factors were retained for the
of 300 normal boys, SO at each age from 6 to 11. These profile, as the smallest 3 had only 3-5 items
CBCLs were obtained by interviewers who went to with loadings > .30. Each of the 9 factors had
randomly selected homes in the greater Washington, at least 8 items with loadings > .30. Because
D.C.) area, as described elsewhere (Achenbach & Edel-
the largest rotated factor (Aggressive) had 33
brock, Note 2). The normative sample contained no
boys who had received mental health services in the
items with loadings > .30, and many of the
previous year. Racial composition was 79.4% white, items with loadings between .30 and .40 also
18.3% black, and 2.3% other. Mean SES was 4.1 had substantial loadings on other factors, only
(SD = 1.7). the items with loadings >.40 on this factor
482 THOMAS M. ACHENBACH

Table 1
First-Order Varimax Loadings on Behavior Problem Scales

Internalizing scales IV. Obsessive-Compulsive (cont .) VIII. Aggressive (cont.)

1 . Schizoid 93. Excess talk 34 68. Screams .49
47. Nightmares 33 90. Swears .46
40. Auditory hallucination .55 50. Anxious 33 25. Poor peer relations .45
70. Visual hallucination .50 Eigenvalue 4 03 88. Sulks .45
29. Fears .44 7. Brags .45
30. Fears school .41 V. Somatic Complaints 43. Lies, cheats .43
11. Clings to adults .37 56f. Stomach problems 64 27. Jealous .43
SO. Anxious .36 56a. Pains 50 87. Moody .43
47. Nightmares .31 56b. Headaches 58 19. Demands attention .41
59. Public masturbation .30 56c. Nausea 56 93. Excess talk .41
75. Shy, timid .30 56g. Vomits 44 48. Unliked .40
Eigenvalue 2.53 49. Constipated 41 Eigenvalue 8.77
//. Depressed 51. Dizziness 39
77. Sleeps much 32 IX. Delinquent
35. Feels worthless .68 54. Overtired 31
52. Feels guilty .67 82. Steals outside home .70
Eigenvalue 3. 08 81. Steals at home .67
32. Needs to be perfect .58
33. Feels unloved .55 21. Destroys things belong-
Mixed scale .57
112. Worrying .52 ing to others
VI. Social Withdrawal 106. Vandalism .54
103. Sad .51
31. Fears own impulses .48 48. Unliked 59 72. Sets fires .50
91. Suicidal talk .46 25. Poor peer relations 59 101. Truant .48
12. Lonely .40 111. Withdrawn 56 67. Runs away .48
14. Cries much .39 42. Likes to be alone 46 39. Bad friends .44
50. Anxious .39 38. Is teased 36 43. Lies, cheats .44
71. Self-conscious .39 64. Prefers younger children 33 20. Destroys own things .42
34. Feels persecuted .34 34. Feels persecuted 32 90. Swears .37
88. Sulks .32 102. Slow moving 31 23. Disobedient at school .31
.31 Eigenvalue 3 05 Eigenvalue 4.52
45. Nervous
89. Suspicious .30 Externalizing scales Other Problems
18. Harms self .30
Eigenvalue 4.94 VII. Hyperactive 2. Allergy
8. Can't concentrate 65 4. Asthma
///. Uncommunicative 1. Acts too young 58 5. Acts like opposite sex
65. Won't talk .61 61. Poor school work 56 6. Encopresis
69. Secretive .50 62. Clumsy 48 15. Cruel to animals
75. Shy, timid .42 13. Confused 45 24. Doesn't eat well
103. Sad .36 17. Daydreams 43 26. Lacks guilt
80. Stares blankly .33 41. Impulsive 40 28. Eats nonfood
71. Self-conscious .32 64. Prefers younger children 40 36. Accident prone
13. Confused .32 10. Hyperactive 36 44. Bites nails
86. Stubborn .30 79. Speech problem 31 53. Overeats
Eigenvalue 2.97 20. Destroys own things 30 55. Overweight
Eigenvalue 3 75 56d. Eye problems
IV. Obsessive-Compulsive 56e. Rashes
85. Strange ideas .52 VIII. Aggressive 58. Picking
100. Can't sleep .52 3. Argues 71 60. Excess masturbation
76. Sleeps little .45 22. Disobedient at home 66 63. Prefers older children
84. Strange behavior .43 95. Temper tantrums 64 73. Sex problems
9. Obsessions .42 86. Stubborn 63 78. Smears feces
92. Walks, talks in sleep .40 37. Fighting 61 96. Sex preoccupation
80. Stares blankly .40 16. Cruel to others 60 98. Thumb sucking
17. Daydreams .38 97. Threatens people 57 99. Too neat
46. Twitches .37 94. Teases .56 105. Alcohol, drugs
83. Hoarding .37 74. Shows off .55 107. Wets self
66. Compulsions .36 104. Loud .51 108. Wets bed
54. Overtired .36 23. Disobedient at school .51 109. Whining
13. Confused .35 57. Attacks people .50 110. Wishes to be opposite sex

Note. Items are designated with the numbers they bear on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and
summary labels for their content. For actual wording of items, see the CBCL. Other Problems items were
excluded from scales because of low frequency or low loadings.
 THE CHILD BEHAVIOR PROFILE
were retained for the scale constructed from
the factor. Each of the scales constructed from
the other 8 factors consisted of the items hav-
ing loadings > .30 on those factors. The items,
their varimax loadings, eigenvalues, and de-
scriptive labels for each scale are presented
in Table 1.
Scoring of scales. Because equal weights for
items are likely to provide greater robustness
in a linear discrimination system than are
weights based on factor loadings (Wainer,
1976), the unweighted raw scores (0, 1, or 2)
for all items of a scale were summed to obtain
a subject's total score on the scale. The raw
scores obtained by the 300 normal boys were
used to compute normalized T scores for each
of the nine scales. A T score of 80 was assigned
to the highest raw score in the normal sample
on each scale, excluding outliers. Because a
substantial number of clinical subjects ob-
tained higher raw scores than any normal
subject on each scale, T scores up to 90 were
added to the T scores based on the normal
sample. This was done by dividing the T scores
from 80 to 90 into as many intervals as there
were raw scores between the highest score
obtained by a normal subject and the highest
raw score obtainable on the scale. These
fractional T scores were then assigned to the
raw scores from the highest score in the normal
sample to the highest possible score and were
rounded to the nearest whole T score.
Second-order analysis. The normalized T
scores obtained by the clinical sample on the
nine scales were intercorrelated and subjected
to a principal components analysis, with
varimax and direct quartimin rotations of the
two factors having eigenvalues > 1.00. The
results of the two rotations were very similar
in that Scales 1-5 (Table 1) all had loadings
> .63 on the first second-order factor, whereas
Scales 7-9 had loadings > .65 on the other
second-order factor. There was a small differ-
ence in the ordering of the scales in that
Scale 4 had a slightly higher loading than
Scale 5 in the varimax rotation, whereas this
order was reversed in the quartimin rotation.
Scale 6 had moderate loadings on both factors
in both rotations; they were .38 and .44 on
the two factors of the quartimin rotation and
.44 and .51 on the two factors of the varimax
rotation. Because the scoring of some items on
483
more than one scale might inflate the correla-
tions among scales, the second-order analysis
was repeated on first-order scales from which
all redundantly scored items were deleted. This
yielded the same two second-order factors.
The ordering of the scales in Table 1 follows
the order of their loadings on the second-order
varimax factors, with Scale I having the highest
loading on the first second-order factor, Scale
VI having moderate loadings on both second-
order factors, and Scales VTI-IX having
progressively higher loadings on the second
second-order factor. The items of Scales I-V
clearly form a broad-band grouping like the
Personality Problem and Internalizing group-
ings found previously, whereas the items on
Scales VII-IX form a broad-band grouping
like the Conduct Problem and Externalizing
groupings found previously (Achenbach, 1966;
Miller, 1967; Quay & Peterson, 1967).
To obtain normalized T scores for Internal-
izing and Externalizing, raw scores were com-
puted for each normal subject by summing
his scores on all items of the five Internalizing
scales and all items of the three Externalizing
scales. Items that were included on more than
one scale were scored only once to obtain the
Internalizing or Externalizing score, but the
three items that appeared on at least one
Internalizing and one Externalizing scale were
counted once each toward both the Internal-
izing and Externalizing scores. Normalized T
scores were derived from the distributions of
raw scores for Internalizing and Externalizing
in the same way as for the nine first-order
scales, with the following modification: Be-
cause the range of possible Internalizing and
Externalizing scores extended far above the
highest score obtained by any of the 450
clinical subjects, the highest raw score actually
obtained by any clinical subject was assigned
a T score of 89 and all higher possible raw
scores were assigned a T score of 90. The T
scores from 80 to 89 were assigned by dividing
these T scores into as many intervals as there
were raw scores from the highest normal
(excluding outliers) to the highest clinical
subject. These fractional T scores were
assigned in sequence to the raw scores ranging
from the highest score obtained by a normal
subject to the highest score obtained by a
484 THOMAS M. ACHENBACH
clinical subject. The fractional T scores were
then rounded to the nearest whole T score.
Social Competence Scales
The scores obtained on the social competence
scales by the 300 normal subjects were used to
obtain normalized T scores. A T score of 20
was assigned to the lowest raw score obtained
by a normal subject, excluding outliers. Be-
cause some clinical subjects obtained lower
scores than any normal subjects on these
scales, T scores between 10 and 20 were
assigned by dividing them into as many
intervals as there were raw scores between the
score assigned a T score of 20 and the lowest
raw score obtainable on the scale.
Age, SES, and Clinical Versus Normal
Comparisons
To assess differences in scores related to age,
SES, and clinical status, unweighted-means
analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were per-
formed on the 300 normal subjects and 300 of
the clinical subjects, 50 at each age. SES was
divided into three levels, comprising Hollings-
head Occupational Categories 1 and 2, 3 and
4 and 5-7. Age was divided into two levels,
years 6-8 and 9-11.
Behavior problem scales. A 3 (SES) X 2
(age) X 2 (clinical vs. normal) X 9 (repeated
measures on behavior problem scales) ANOVA
showed significantly higher scores for clinical
than normal subjects, F(\, 588) = 517.73,
p < .001. SES was also significant, with upper-
SES subjects obtaining the lowest scores and
lower-SES subjects obtaining the highest,
F(2, 588) = 3.37, p < .05. Age showed no
effect (F = .09), and there were no significant
interactions among SES, age, and clinical
status. The repeated measures effect of scale
was significant, F(&, 4704) = 8.64, p < .001,
as were the interactions of scale with age,
F(&, 4704) = 2.39, p < .05, with clinical status,
F(8, 4704) = 32.61, p < .001, and with age
and clinical status together, F(&, 4704) = 2.33,
p < .05.
To elucidate these effects, a 3 (SES) X 2
(age) X 2 (clinical status) ANOVA was per-
formed on each scale, with consideration being
given only to differences that were reflected in
significant F values for the overall repeated
measures ANOVA. All nine of the smaller
ANOVAs showed higher scores for clinical
than normal subjects, with F(l, 588) values
ranging from 67.97 to 408.29, all ps < .001.
SES was significant for Somatic Complaints,
F(2, 588) = 3.88, p < .05; Hyperactive, F(2,
588) = 4.44, p < .05; Aggressive, F(2, 588)
= 3.45, p < .05; and Delinquent, ^(2, 588)
= 5.43, p < .01. In all significant comparisons,
lower-SES subjects had the highest scores and
upper-SES the lowest. Modified least signifi-
cant difference contrasts (Winer, 1971) showed
significantly higher scores for lower- than
upper-SES subjects on all four scales and
significantly higher scores for lower- than
middle-SES subjects on the Delinquency scale.
The ANOVA for the Schizoid scale showed
significantly higher scores for younger than
older boys, ^'(1, 588) = 6.33, p < .05, but the
lack of significant main effects for age in the
other eight ANOVAs and the very small F
of .09 for age in the repeated measures ANOVA
indicates that age differences were minimal.
Significant interactions between age and
clinical status in the ANOVAs for the De-
pressed and Social Withdrawal scales both
reflected higher scores for older clinical subjects
than younger clinical subjects and lower scores
for older normals than younger normals. How-
ever, on both scales, clinical subjects of both
age groups scored significantly higher than
normals. Table 2 presents all the mean scores,
collapsed over age to save space.
Internalizing, Externalizing, and total score.
Separate 3 (SES) X 2 (age) X 2 (clinical
status) ANOVAs on Internalizing, External-
izing, and total raw score all showed signifi-
cantly higher scores for clinical than normal
subjects, with F(\, 588) values ranging from
362.47 to 479.76, ps < .001. The SES effect
was also significant for Externalizing, F(2, 588)
= 3.57, p < .05, and for total score, F(2, 588)
= 4.63, p < .01. In both cases, contrasts
showed significantly higher scores for lower-
SES than upper-SES boys. No other effects
were significant in any of the ANOVAs.
Social competence scales. In a 3 (SES) X 2
(age) X 2 (clinical status) X 3 (repeated mea-
sures on social competence scales) ANOVA,
clinical subjects had significantly lower scores
than normals, F(\, 528) = 254.78, p < .001.
 THE CHILD BEHAVIOR PROFILE 485

Table 2
Mean Scores for Clinical and Normal Boys on Scales of the Child Behavior Profile

Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES

Clinical Normal Clinical Normal Clinical Normal
Scale (63) (67) (141) (97) (96) (136)

Social Competence
Activities 48.2 53.4 45.6 52.9 43.3 49.1
Social 42.1 55.4 39.1 51.9 40.0 50.0
School 43.0 60.1 41.2 57.8 38.2 52.3

Behavior Problems
Schizoid 62.4 55.7 64.3 53.5 63.3 54.0
Depressed 63.8 52.9 66.1 52.4 67.4 52.5
Uncommunicative 65.0 52.6 67.0 53.1 68.2 53.5
Obsessive-Compulsive 62.5 52.3 64.9 52.4 67.0 53.2
Somatic Complaints 61.0 56.4 62.3 55.9 61.4 57.0
Social Withdrawal 64.5 54.2 65.7 53.7 66.9 53.7
Hyperactive 66.0 50.5 67.4 52.8 68.7 53.5
Aggressive 64.3 51.9 68.2 50.6 70.6 51.5
Delinquent 66.1 54.9 68.1 54.5 69.4 56.6
Internalizing 64.6 51.1 67.2 50.7 68.8 51.4
Externalizing 66.7 50.8 69.3 50.4 71.4 51.6
Total raw score 54.0 20.4 61.8 20.9 65.6 22.8

Note. Numbers in parentheses are ns. SES = socioeconomic status. All scores except total raw score are
normalized 7" scores. Differences between clinical and normal samples are all significant at p < .001. See
text for tests of SES differences.

(The total number of cases was less than in
the behavior problem ANOVAs because some
of the youngest subjects had insufficient school
data to be scored on the school scale.) SES was
also significant, with lower-SES subjects having
the lowest scores and upper-SES subjects the
highest scores, F(2, 528) = 14.61, p < .001.
Age differences were not significant (F = 1.68),
nor were any of the interactions among non-
repeated measures dimensions. The repeated
measures dimension was significant, F(2, 1056)
= 8.65, p < .001, as were the interactions of
scale with age, F(2, 1056) = 3.09, p < .05,
and with clinical status, F(2, 1056) = 27.83,
p < .001.
SES X Age X Clinical Status ANOVAs on
each of the three social competence scales
showed significantly lower scores for clinical
subjects than normal subjects on all three
scales, with Fs(i, 528) ranging from 42.36 to
179.47, all ps < .001. SES differences were also
significant on all three, with Fs(2, 528) ranging
from 4.74 to 9.71, all ps, < .01. Contrasts
showed significantly higher scores for upper-
SES than lower-SES subjects on all three
scales and higher scores for upper-SES than
middle-SES subjects on the Social scale.
Middle-SES subjects scored significantly higher
than lower-SES subjects on the Activities and
School scales. The only other significant effect
reflected higher scores by older than younger
subjects on the Social scale F(i, 528) = 4.73,
p < .05.
Format of the Child Behavior Profile
On the computer-scored version of the pro-
file, face sheets describe the nature and purpose
of the profile and provide a listing of items on
each behavior problem scale, plus items not
appearing on any scale. The printout for the
behavior problem scales presents a graphic
display in which raw scores for the scales are
listed in nine columns, percentiles are listed to
the left, and T scores are listed to the right.
An asterisk designates the child's raw score in
each column of the display, and the asterisks
can be connected by pencil to provide a visual
profile. Below the graphic display are printed
abbreviations of the items reported by the
486 THOMAS M. ACHENBACH
parent on each scale, together with the score
(1 or 2) given each item by the parent, and the
child's raw score and T score for each scale.
To the right of the nine scales are printed any
items scored as present but not belonging to a
scale. Also printed are the total number of
items scored as present and the sum of Is and
2s for all items, for the Internalizing items, and
for the Externalizing items, plus the T scores
for Internalizing and Externalizing. The social
competence scales arc presented in similar
fashion on another page. The hand-scored
version of the profile is like the computerized
version, except that all items are printed and
the scorer enters and sums the scores obtained.
Test-Rdest Reliability
An interviewer obtained CBCLs from
mothers of 12 normal boys on two occasions at
a mean interval of 8 days (range = 7-12 days).
Pearson correlation coefficients on the 12
scales, Internalizing, Externalizing, and total
behavior problem scores ranged from .72 for
the Activities scale to .97 for total score (all
ps < .01), with a mean of .89. (All means of
correlations were computed by z transforma-
tion.) Dependent t tests for which p values
were multiplied by 15 to correct for the number
of comparisons (Winer, 1971) showed one
significant difference from Time 1 to Time 2,
a drop in total behavior problem score,
/(ll) = 3.81, p < .05. Even though this was
the only significant change in means, it should
be noted that 14 of the 15 means decreased,
whereas only the mean for Delinquent Be-
havior increased from Time 1 to Time 2
(p < .01 for the proportion of decreases/
increases by sign test). There thus appears to
be a general tendency to report fewer behavior
problems and fewer items indicative of com-
petence on the second occasion, although the
differences in most scores were slight.
To assess the short-term stability of profile
shapes, a Q correlation was computed between
each boy's Time 1 profile and his Time 2
profile. This was done by standardizing each
of the 12 scale scores within the sample and
computing a Pearson correlation coefficient
between each boy's 12 scale scores at Time 1
and his 12 scores at Time 2. The mean of the
12 correlations on 12 variables was .86, which
is significant at p < .001 whether it is treated
as a correlation on 12 observations or as 12
subjects X 12 scores = 144 observations. To
determine whether the correlation could be an
artifact of the Q approach, a baseline correla-
tion was obtained by pairing each boy's Time 1
profile with every other boy's Time 2 profile
except his own. The mean of these 66 correla-
tions was — .04, which indicates that the mean
correlation of .86 between each boy's Time 1
profile and his own Time 2 profile was not an
artifact of the Q approach. For workers inter-
ested in using the nine behavior problem scales
alone, it may be useful to know that the mean
Q correlation between Time 1 and Time 2
9-scale profiles was .84, whereas between ran-
dom pairs it was .02. As a measure more
sensitive to the similarity between profile
elevations, the mean of Cattell's (1949) rv was
.78 between Time 1 and Time 2 12-scale
profiles and .74 between the 9-scale profiles.
For randomly paired Time 1 and Time 2
profiles, the 12- and 9-scale means were .01
and .02, respectively.
Inter parent Agreement
Mothers and fathers of 37 clinic boys inde-
pendently filled out the CBCL. Pearson corre-
lations between scores obtained from mothers'
and fathers' CBCLs on the 12 profile scales,
Internalizing, Externalizing, and total behavior
problem score ranged from .58 for the Activities
scale to .87 for the School scale (all ps < .001),
with a mean of .74. Dependent t tests for which
p values were multiplied by 15 to correct for
chance showed a significant interparent differ-
ence only on the School scale, where fathers
gave higher scores than mothers, <(36) = 3.38,
p < ,05. Across all 15 comparisons, the
fathers' mean scores were higher on six and
the mothers' on nine (p > .40 by sign test).
After standardization of scores on each scale
within the sample of 37, the mean Q correlation
for the 37 pairs of 12-scale profiles was .69. For
the nine behavior problem scales, the average
Q correlation was .74. By comparison, the
means of the 666 12- and 9-scale correlations
for randomly paired mothers and fathers were
— .02 and .04, respectively. The mean rv for
the wife-husband 12-scale profile pairs was .59
and for the 9-scale profile pairs was .69, com-
 THE CHILD BEHAVIOR PROFILE
pared to .03 and .04, respectively, for the
random pairs.
Long-term Stability of Behavior Problem Scores
As part of a follow-up study, 46 parents who
had filled out the behavior problem portion of
the CBCL when applying to child guidance
clinics were asked to complete it again at a
mean interval of 14.8 months (range = 9-27
months). The families had received a mean of
11.9 clinical interviews (range = 0-50), but
all had terminated with the clinics before the
follow-up was begun. To avoid overlap between
the initial and follow-up data, the parents were
asked to report only behavior problems occur-
ring within the 6 months prior to follow-up,
rather than within the previous 12 months, as
requested on the initial CBCL. Because of this
shorter baseline period, possible regression of
scores toward the mean, and "hello/good-bye"
effects, changes in scores should not necessarily
be interpreted as indicating improvement.
Pearson correlations for the nine scales,
Internalizing, Externalizing, and total score
ranged from .26 for Somatic Complaints to .79
for Delinquent Behavior, with a mean of .63,
all significant except Somatic Complaints.
However, the follow-up CBCLs showed de-
creases on all nine behavior problem scales, as
well as on total behavior problem score and T
scores for Externalizing and Internalizing.
With p values multiplied by 12 to correct for
chance, the decreases were significant by
dependent t tests for all scores except Schizoid,
Somatic Complaints, and Social Withdrawal.
The general decrease in reported problems was
also reflected in the mean rp of .43 between
intake and follow-up profiles, compared with
a mean rp of .03 between the 1,035 randomly
paired intake and follow-up profiles. Despite
the decreases in reported problems, the mean
Q correlation between initial and follow-up T
scores was .64, indicating considerable long-
term stability in profile shape, as compared
to the mean Q correlation of .02 for the 1,035
random pairs.
Discussion
Although no other studies have taken
precisely the same approach, comparison of
487
the present findings with the most similar
previous studies, those of Achenbach (1966)
and Miller (1967), reveals considerable simi-
larity along with some differences that are
worth noting. (A more extensive survey of
previous findings for both sexes, various age
groups, and various sources of data is pre-
sented by Achenbach & Edelbrock, in press.)
Despite the differences in behavior checklists
and the fact that Achenbach (1966) used case
history data, six of the present narrow-band
factors are similar to factors that he obtained
for boys. These six are the Schizoid, Obsessive-
Compulsive, Somatic Complaints, Hyper-
active, Aggressive, and Delinquent factors. The
last four of these six are also similar to narrow-
band factors found by Miller (1967), which he
named Anxiety, Hyperactivity, Infantile
Aggression, and Antisocial. In addition, the
Social Withdrawal factor found in the present
study is similar to Miller's factor of the same
name. Miller's failure to find factors like the
Schizoid and Obsessive-Compulsive factors is
probably due, as Miller pointed out, to the
lack of severely disturbed children in his
sample.
The remaining two narrow-band factors in
the present study, those labeled Depressed and
Uncommunicative, have no direct counterparts
in the previous factor analyses of boys' be-
havior problems. However, the Depressed
factor is quite similar to the Depressive Symp-
toms factor that Achenbach (1966) obtained
for girls. The emergence of such a factor for
boys suggests that cultural changes may be
leading either to a greater incidence of depres-
sion in boys or to a greater willingness to
acknowledge such feelings in boys. Whatever
the reason, it appears that the recent spurt of
interest in childhood depression is well justified
(e.g., Lewis & Lewis, Note 3). The other
narrow-band factor, labeled Uncommunicative,
has no clear counterpart in either of the
previous studies. Although the value of each
scale lies less in the interpretation of its mean-
ing than in its ability to add discriminative
power to the profile as a whole, this scale is
suggestive of a constriction in self-expression
that might accompany depression in some
children.
The second-order Externalizing and Inter-
nalizing factors are quite similar to the group-
488 THOMAS M. ACHENBACH
ings given these names by Achenbach (1966)
and to the second-order Aggression and Social
Inhibition factors found by Miller (1967).
Miller's remaining second-order factor, entitled
Learning Disabilities, was not likely to appear
in the present data because of the different
approach taken to the scoring of school
performance. Miller's inclusion of several
similar items reflecting poor school performance
(e.g., reads poorly; spells poorly; writes
poorly) made a factor comprising these items
almost inevitable. To avoid factors resulting
from redundancy in items, the CBCL includes
only the general item, poor school work, as a
behavior problem. However, to provide a
differentiated picture of school performance,
the CBCL assigns scores for all academic
subjects, which are then averaged and com-
bined with scores for special versus regular
class status, repeating grades, and other school
problems to yield a score for the School scale.
The major objective of this research does
not, of course, end with the creation of scales
for behavioral problems and competencies.
More important is the value of the profile for
describing children's behavior in an economical
but comprehensive and meaningful fashion,
the power of the profile to discriminate among
children who may benefit from different kinds
of help, and the sensitivity of the profile to
changes as well as stabilities in children's
behavior. Because they preserve a maximum
of information about children's behavior, the
profile patterns may provide a much better
basis for classifying children than do tradi-
tional diagnostic categories or scores on
individual scales. The short- and long-term
test-retest correlations indicate stability in
patterning, and the interparent correlations
reflect agreement between parents' perceptions
of patterning in their children's behavior.
Highly significant differences between normal
and clinical subjects on all scales also demon-
strate discriminative validity. Studies are now
under way to determine whether profile pat-
terns can be identified that significantly differ-
entiate children with respect to long-term
prognosis and other clinically relevant
characteristics.
Reference Notes
1. Hollingshead, A. B. Two-factor index of social
position. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University,
1957.
2. Achenbach, T. M., & Kdclbrock, C. S. Behavioral
problems and competencies reported by parents of
normal and disturbed children aged 4 through 16.
Manuscript in preparation, 1977.
3. Lewis, M., & Lewis, D. O. An overview of some recent
research on depression in children. Paper presented at
the meeting on Depression in Childhood, Berkeley,
California, June 1976.
References
Achenbach, T. M. The classification of children's
psychiatric symptoms: A factor analytic study.
Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No.
615).
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. The classifica-
tion of child psychopathology: A review and analysis
of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, in press.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (2nd cd.).
Washington, D.C.: Author, 1968.
Baker, R. P., & Dreger, R. M. The preschool behavioral
classification project: An initial report. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 1973, 1, 88-120.
Cattell, R. B. rv and other coefficients of pattern
similarity. Psychometrika, 1949, 14, 279-298.
Doll, E. A. Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Circle Pines,
Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1965.
Miller, L. C. Louisville Behavior Checklist for males,
6-12 years of age. Psychological Reports, 1967, 21,
885-896.
Quay, II. C. Patterns of aggression, withdrawal, and
immaturity. In IT. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.),
Psycho-pathological disorders of childhood. New York:
Wiley, 1972.
Quay, II. C., & Peterson, D. R. Manual for the Behavior
Problem Checklist. Champaign, 111.: Children's
Research Center, University of Illinois, 1967.
Wainer, H. Estimating coefficients in linear models: It
don't make no nevermind. Psychological Bulletin,
1976, 83, 213-217.
Winer, B. F. Statistical principles in experimental design
(2nd cd.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Received April 28, 1977 •