Objective: The Weekly Assessment of Child Behavior (WACB) is a 9-item parent report used to screen for and to monitor externalizing problems in children. The WACB-Positive Form’s (WACB-P) psychometric properties are limited to two prior publications (Bailin et al., 2024; Timmer et al., 2021). The current study aims to: (a) compare parents’ WACB-P ratings among two groups, those presenting at intake to a Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) program for children’s externalizing problems and those from a pediatric Comparison group; (b) use receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify a possible optimal cutoff score for externalizing problems; and (c) examine these and other psychometric properties of the WACB-P in a predominantly Black and Latino sample. Methods: Data were collected from patients in a PCIT program for children with externalizing problems ( n = 117) and a comparison sample of children ( n = 206) not referred for externalizing problems. We examined the WACB-P’s internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity among children aged 2 to 7 years, the typical age group for PCIT. Results: The WACB-P demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. ROC analysis combined with Youden’s index suggested 41.5 as the optimal cutoff score, yielding high sensitivity (.872) and moderate specificity (.636). Conclusion: These findings support the WACB-P’s use as a reliable, valid brief screen to assess externalizing problems in early childhood. Implications for Impact Statement Few brief and well-validated measures exist for healthcare providers to screen for or monitor changes in child externalizing problems. The Weekly Assessment of Child Behavior (WACB-P), a 9-item parent report, was found to have satisfactory reliability and validity among 323 children age 2 to 7 years. As such, the WACB-P is a promising externalizing problems screen for pediatric healthcare providers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Young et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: