Manual

CAARS 2 Manual

Chapter 10: Fairness, Tables

print this section

Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.2. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes by Gender

Scale Self-Report Observer
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction .03 .02
Hyperactivity .00 .02
Impulsivity .00 .03
Emotional Dysregulation -.04 .03
Negative Self-Concept .03 .02
Note. Values presented are expected test score standardized differences (ETSSD); guidelines for interpreting |ETSSD| values: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. Positive ETSSD values indicate that females would receive higher scores than males who had the same level of the construct being measured.
Click to expand

Table 10.3. Group Differences by Gender (Male vs. Female): CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale Male
(N = 463) 		Female
(N = 463) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 924) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 50.7 48.6 0.21 10.33 .001 .01
SD 9.9 9.3
Hyperactivity M 50.5 48.8 0.18 7.75 .005 .01
SD 10.0 9.3
Impulsivity M 51.0 48.3 0.28 17.94 < .001 .02
SD 9.9 9.4
Emotional Dysregulation M 50.1 49.1 0.10 2.28 .131 .00
SD 9.7 9.6
Negative Self-Concept M 49.8 49.8 -0.01 0.01 .917 .00
SD 10.2 9.6
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates higher scores for males than females.
Click to expand

Table 10.4. Group Differences by Gender (Male vs. Female): CAARS 2 Observer

Scale Male
(N = 444) 		Female
(N = 444) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 886) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 49.8 49.0 0.08 1.27 .260 .00
SD 9.9 9.8
Hyperactivity M 49.5 49.4 0.00 0.00 .974 .00
SD 9.2 10.4
Impulsivity M 49.9 49.3 0.06 0.69 .407 .00
SD 9.6 10.3
Emotional Dysregulation M 49.8 49.9 -0.01 0.03 .874 .00
SD 10.1 10.3
Negative Self-Concept M 48.5 50.9 -0.24 12.98 < .001 .01
SD 9.1 10.4
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates higher scores for males than females.
Click to expand

Table 10.5. Measurement Invariance by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic/Black vs. White): CAARS 2

Form Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Comparison Satorra-Bentler χ2 df ∆CFI
Self-Report Configural 11618.14*** 4948 .039 .968 .967 .047 ––
Weak 11682.68*** 5020 .039 .968 .968 .047 configural vs. weak 75.96 72 .000
Strong 11630.03*** 5087 .038 .969 .969 .047 weak vs. strong 88.85 67 .001
Strict 11491.71*** 5154 .038 .970 .970 .047 strong vs. strict 85.47 67 .001
Observer Configural 12808.66*** 4948 .043 .956 .955 .054 ––
Weak 12863.61*** 5020 .043 .956 .955 .054 configural vs. weak 12808.66*** 4948 .043
Strong 12787.64*** 5087 .042 .957 .957 .054 weak vs. strong 12787.64*** 5087 .042
Strict 12624.07*** 5154 .041 .958 .959 .054 strong vs. strict 12624.07*** 5154 .041
Note. N = 415 Black and Hispanic individuals; N = 1,331 White individuals for Self-Report. N = 431 Black and Hispanic individuals; N = 1,280 White individuals for Observer. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Click to expand

Table 10.6. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes by U.S. Race/Ethnicity

Scale Hispanic/White Comparisons Black/White Comparisons
Self-Report Observer Self-Report Observer
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction .00 -.01 -.01 -.01
Hyperactivity .06 .01 -.02 .02
Impulsivity -.02 .03 -.06 -.01
Emotional Dysregulation -.01 .02 .00 .03
Negative Self-Concept -.01 -.02 -.03 -.05
Note. Values presented are expected test score standardized differences (ETSSD); guidelines interpreting |ETSSD|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. Positive ETSSD values indicate that Black or Hispanic individuals would receive higher scores than White individuals who had the same level of the construct being measured.
Click to expand

Table 10.7. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Hispanic): CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale White
(N = 93) 		Hispanic
(N = 93) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 184) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 51.7 48.5 0.33 4.88 .028 .03
SD 10.9 8.5
Hyperactivity M 51.5 48.7 0.29 3.96 .048 .02
SD 10.8 8.3
Impulsivity M 51.2 47.6 0.41 7.63 .006 .04
SD 10.1 7.3
Emotional Dysregulation M 51.4 47.4 0.42 8.08 .005 .04
SD 10.9 7.9
Negative Self-Concept M 52.6 48.8 0.37 6.36 .012 .03
SD 11.5 8.8
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for White individuals than Hispanic individuals.
Click to expand

Table 10.8. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Hispanic): CAARS 2 Observer

Scale White
(N = 103) 		Hispanic
(N = 103) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 204) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 48.1 49.6 -0.17 1.41 .237 .01
SD 8.5 8.7
Hyperactivity M 47.5 50.3 -0.31 4.86 .029 .02
SD 8.8 9.5
Impulsivity M 49.1 49.6 -0.06 0.16 .691 .00
SD 9.0 8.4
Emotional Dysregulation M 48.6 48.8 -0.02 0.01 .903 .00
SD 9.1 8.3
Negative Self-Concept M 49.4 48.6 0.10 0.52 .472 .00
SD 8.5 7.5
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for White individuals than Hispanic individuals.
Click to expand

Table 10.9. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Black): CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale White
(N = 138) 		Black
(N = 138) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 274) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 51.2 48.1 0.31 7.52 .006 .03
SD 10.3 8.8
Hyperactivity M 51.4 47.6 0.36 11.44 .001 .04
SD 10.7 7.7
Impulsivity M 50.6 48.1 0.24 4.64 .032 .02
SD 10.2 8.9
Emotional Dysregulation M 50.9 48.6 0.22 3.41 .066 .01
SD 10.5 9.9
Negative Self-Concept M 52.7 46.1 0.59 27.86 < .001 .09
SD 11.3 9.4
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for White individuals than Black individuals.
Click to expand

Table 10.10. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Black): CAARS 2 Observer

Scale White
(N = 152) 		Black
(N = 152) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 302) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 49.0 48.8 0.02 0.03 .853 .00
SD 9.6 10.5
Hyperactivity M 48.7 49.0 -0.03 0.05 .826 .00
SD 8.9 10.2
Impulsivity M 49.8 49.1 0.07 0.35 .557 .00
SD 9.8 10.9
Emotional Dysregulation M 50.6 48.9 0.16 2.04 .154 .01
SD 9.8 11.0
Negative Self-Concept M 49.5 47.5 0.21 3.28 .071 .01
SD 10.1 9.5
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for White individuals than Black individuals.
Click to expand

Table 10.11. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Asian): CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale White
(N = 52) 		Asian
(N = 52) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 102) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 50.4 49.2 0.12 0.36 .549 .00
SD 9.9 9.9
Hyperactivity M 51.6 50.2 0.12 0.36 .548 .00
SD 10.9 11.3
Impulsivity M 49.9 49.7 0.03 0.02 .895 .00
SD 10.3 11.3
Emotional Dysregulation M 50.4 48.8 0.15 0.61 .437 .01
SD 10.3 9.9
Negative Self-Concept M 51.3 48.2 0.30 2.36 .128 .02
SD 11.4 8.8
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for White individuals than Asian individuals.
Click to expand

Table 10.12. Group Differences by U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Asian): CAARS 2 Observer

Scale White
(N = 35) 		Asian
(N = 35) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 68) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 47.1 48.3 -0.16 0.46 .501 .01
SD 7.4 8.5
Hyperactivity M 46.6 50.1 -0.42 2.97 .089 .04
SD 6.5 10.0
Impulsivity M 47.0 49.8 -0.38 2.42 .125 .03
SD 6.7 8.6
Emotional Dysregulation M 47.8 49.8 -0.19 0.64 .427 .01
SD 10.3 10.0
Negative Self-Concept M 50.2 49.0 0.15 0.36 .552 .01
SD 10.9 6.3
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for White individuals than Asian individuals.
Click to expand
Click to expand

Table 10.14. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes by Country of Residence

Scale Self-Report Observer
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction -.01 .00
Hyperactivity .02 -.02
Impulsivity -.05 -.03
Emotional Dysregulation -.03 -.01
Negative Self-Concept -.01 .00
Note. Values presented are expected test score standardized differences (ETSSD); guidelines for interpreting |ETSSD|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. Positive ETSSD values indicate that individuals from Canada received higher scores than those from the U.S. who had the same level of the construct being measured.
Click to expand

Table 10.15. Group Differences by Country of Residence: CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale U.S.
(N = 86) 		Canada
(N = 86) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 170) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 50.8 49.5 0.15 0.95 .331 .01
SD 10.0 7.6
Hyperactivity M 51.6 47.8 0.41 7.23 .008 .04
SD 11.2 7.3
Impulsivity M 50.8 49.4 0.16 1.09 .298 .01
SD 10.0 7.5
Emotional Dysregulation M 50.2 49.7 0.06 0.13 .716 .00
SD 9.4 8.9
Negative Self-Concept M 51.7 50.4 0.14 0.81 .369 .00
SD 10.5 8.9
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for individuals from the U.S. than individuals from Canada.
Click to expand

Table 10.16. Group Differences by Country of Residence: CAARS 2 Observer

Scale U.S.
(N = 81) 		Canada
(N = 81) 		Cohen’s d F
(1, 160) 		p η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction M 50.0 48.6 0.04 0.90 .345 .01
SD 9.7 8.2
Hyperactivity M 48.7 48.1 0.02 0.27 .605 .00
SD 8.9 8.0
Impulsivity M 49.6 48.7 0.03 0.46 .498 .00
SD 9.0 8.8
Emotional Dysregulation M 49.6 49.2 0.01 0.09 .765 .00
SD 10.0 8.5
Negative Self-Concept M 50.0 49.2 0.02 0.29 .589 .00
SD 10.7 8.6
Note. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that scores were higher for individuals from the U.S. than individuals from Canada.
Click to expand

Table 10.17. Measurement Invariance by Education Level: CAARS 2

Form Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Comparison Satorra-Bentler χ2 df ∆CFI
Self-Report Configural 15029.34*** 4948 .043 .963 .961 .046 ––
Weak 15101.93*** 5020 .043 .963 .962 .046 configural vs. weak 76.56 72 .000
Strong 15018.49*** 5087 .042 .963 .963 .046 weak vs. strong 85.01 67 .000
Strict 14984.68*** 5154 .041 .964 .964 .046 strong vs. strict 169.72*** 67 .001
Observer Configural 15539.54*** 4948 .045 .953 .952 .051 ––
Weak 15627.29*** 5020 .044 .953 .952 .051 configural vs. weak 99.73 72 .000
Strong 15566.46*** 5087 .044 .954 .954 .051 weak vs. strong 86.56 67 .001
Strict 15510.30*** 5154 .043 .954 .955 .051 strong vs. strict 183.57 67 .000
Note. N = 710 individuals with high school education or less (EL1 and EL2); N = 1,515 individuals with post-secondary education (EL3, EL4, and EL5) for Self-Report. N = 796 individuals with high school education or less (EL1 and EL2); N = 1,134 individuals with post-secondary education (EL3, EL4, and EL5) for Observer. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Click to expand

Table 10.18. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes by Education Level

Scale Self-Report Observer
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction .00 .00
Hyperactivity -.05 .01
Impulsivity .01 .00
Emotional Dysregulation .02 .02
Negative Self-Concept .00 .00
Note. Values presented are expected test score standardized differences (ETSSD); guidelines for interpreting |ETSSD|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80|. Positive ETSSD values indicates higher scores would be expected for individuals without post-secondary education (EL 1 and EL 2) relative to individuals who have post-secondary education (EL 3, EL 4, and EL 5) with the same level of the construct being measured.
Click to expand

Table 10.19a. Group Differences by Education Level: CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale EL 1
(N = 127) 		EL 2
(N = 378) 		EL 3
(N = 385) 		EL 4
(N = 281) 		EL 5
(N = 149) 		F
(4, 1298) 		p Partial η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction EMM 57.1 55.4 56.7 56.3 56.4 1.39 .235 .00
SD 11.7 16.0 15.0 13.5 11.3
Hyperactivity EMM 55.4 53.1 54.0 53.0 53.4 1.93 .103 .01
SD 12.3 16.7 15.7 14.1 11.8
Impulsivity EMM 55.5 52.9 54.1 53.6 54.0 1.97 .097 .01
SD 12.3 16.7 15.7 14.1 11.8
Emotional Dysregulation EMM 56.8 54.2 54.3 53.2 53.1 3.40 .009 .01
SD 12.4 16.9 15.9 14.2 11.9
Negative Self-Concept EMM 55.6 54.6 54.9 54.9 54.0 0.51 .729 .00
SD 12.2 16.5 15.6 13.9 11.7
Note. EMM = estimated marginal means. EL = Education level; EL 1 = No high school diploma; EL 2 = High school diploma/GED; EL 3 = Some college or associate degree; EL 4 = Bachelor’s degree; EL 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14. EMMs without a common superscript letter differ (p < .01) as per Tukey’s HSD post-hoc tests; values with common superscript letters are not significantly different.
Click to expand

Table 10.19b. Group Differences by Education Level: CAARS 2 Self-Report Effect Sizes

Scale EL 1
vs. EL
2 		EL 1
vs. EL
3 		EL 1
vs. EL
4 		EL 1
vs. EL
5 		EL 2
vs. EL
3 		EL 2
vs. EL
4 		EL 2
vs. EL
5 		EL 3
vs. EL
4 		EL 3
vs. EL
5 		EL 4
vs. EL
5
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.06 -0.09 -0.06 -0.07 0.03 0.03 -0.01
Hyperactivity 0.15 0.09 0.18 0.17 -0.06 0.01 -0.02 0.07 0.04 -0.03
Impulsivity 0.16 0.09 0.14 0.12 -0.07 -0.05 -0.07 0.03 0.01 -0.03
Emotional Dysregulation 0.16 0.17 0.26 0.30 -0.01 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.00
Negative Self-Concept 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.13 -0.02 -0.02 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.07
Note. EL = Education level; EL 1 = No high school diploma; EL 2 = High school diploma/GED; EL 3 = Some college or associate degree; EL 4 = Bachelor’s degree; EL 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Values presented are Cohen’s d effect size estimates; guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that individuals in the first group had higher scores than individuals in the second group.
Click to expand

Table 10.20a. Group Differences by Education Level: CAARS 2 Observer

Scale EL 1
(N = 130) 		EL 2
(N = 386) 		EL 3
(N = 380) 		EL 4
(N = 268) 		EL 5
(N = 156) 		F
(4, 1303) 		p Partial η2
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction EMM 56.2 53.7 53.9 53.1 53.4 2.24 .063 .01
SD 12.6 17.1 16.0 14.2 11.9
Hyperactivity EMM 53.4 50.9 51.4 51.3 51.9 1.50 .200 .00
SD 13.0 17.6 16.4 14.6 12.3
Impulsivity EMM 53.3 50.6 50.7 49.9 51.0 2.53 .039 .01
SD 13.0 17.6 16.5 14.6 12.3
Emotional Dysregulation EMM 54.6 51.9 51.8 50.9 52.5 3.06 .016 .01
SD 13.0 17.6 16.4 14.6 12.3
Negative Self-Concept EMM 57.1 54.3 55.2 54.1 54.0 2.92 .020 .01
SD 12.3 16.7 15.5 13.8 11.6
Note. EMM = estimated marginal means. EL = Education level; EL 1 = No high school diploma; EL 2 = High school diploma/GED; EL 3 = Some college or associate degree; EL 4 = Bachelor’s degree; EL 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Guidelines for interpreting η2: negligible effect size < .01; small effect size = .01 to .059; medium effect size = .06 to .13; large effect size ≥ .14.
Click to expand

Table 10.20b. Group Differences by Education Level: CAARS 2 Observer Effect Sizes

Scale EL 1
vs. EL
2 		EL 1
vs. EL
3 		EL 1
vs. EL
4 		EL 1
vs. EL
5 		EL 2
vs. EL
3 		EL 2
vs. EL
4 		EL 2
vs. EL
5 		EL 3
vs. EL
4 		EL 3
vs. EL
5 		EL 4
vs. EL
5
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.23 -0.01 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.03 -0.02
Hyperactivity 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.12 -0.03 -0.02 -0.06 0.01 -0.03 -0.05
Impulsivity 0.16 0.17 0.24 0.18 0.00 0.04 -0.03 0.05 -0.03 -0.08
Emotional Dysregulation 0.17 0.18 0.27 0.17 0.00 0.06 -0.04 0.06 -0.05 -0.12
Negative Self-Concept 0.18 0.13 0.23 0.26 -0.06 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.01
Note. EL = Education level; EL 1 = No high school diploma; EL 2 = High school diploma/GED; EL 3 = Some college or associate degree; EL 4 = Bachelor’s degree; EL 5 = Graduate or professional degree. Values presented are Cohen’s d effect size estimates; guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates that individuals in the first group had higher scores than individuals in the second group.
Click to expand

Table 10.21. Item-Level Demographic Group Differences: Gender

Item Type Item Stem Self-Report Observer
%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d 		%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d
Male Female Male Female
Associated Clinical Concern Items Suicidal thoughts/attempts 24.4 26.8 .03 12.2 16.9 .10
Self-injury 21.0 20.7 -.02 12.2 15.3 .07
Sadness/emptiness* 28.5 26.1 -.04 10.6 10.3 .01
Anxiety/worry 9.9 12.7 .02 4.3 5.6 .02
Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Bothered by things endorsed on the CAARS 2 16.0 9.1 -.06 13.1 11.3 .01
Things endorsed on the CAARS 2 interfere with life 13.2 8.9 -.05 12.4 13.3 -.02
Problems in romantic/marital relationship(s) 19.0 12.1 -.12 14.9 17.1 .03
Problems in relationships with family members 13.4 10.8 -.07 13.7 13.1 .07
Problems in relationships with friends, coworkers, or neighbors 14.9 8.6 -.11 5.6 9.2 .03
Problems at work and/or school 18.8 9.1 -.11 6.1 7.2 -.02
Has a harder time with things than other people do 13.8 9.5 -.04 5.9 6.8 .04
Underachiever 16.0 9.1 -.09 10.1 7.7 -.02
Sleep problems 18.8 20.1 .02 12.4 16.2 .08
Problems with money management 16.0 13.0 -.02 13.3 15.3 .03
Neglects family or household responsibilities 15.3 9.5 -.07 9.7 7.4 -.06
Risky driving 19.0 6.5 -.12 7.4 2.9 -.11
Problems due to time spent online 13.8 13.0 -.01 10.6 14.0 .01
Note. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. A positive Cliff’s d value indicates higher ratings for females than males.
* The item stem for this Screening Item is Sadness/Emptiness for Self-Report and Sadness for Observer.
Click to expand

Table 10.22. Item-Level Demographic Group Differences: U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Hispanic)

Item Type Item Stem Self-Report Observer
%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d 		%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d
White Hispanic White Hispanic
Associated Clinical Concern Items Suicidal thoughts/attempts 28.0 19.4 .16 8.7 14.6 -.04
Self-injury 28.0 18.3 .18 8.7 7.8 .07
Sadness/emptiness* 35.5 25.8 .11 12.1 9.9 .02
Anxiety/worry 18.3 11.8 .05 4.0 7.8 -.04
Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Bothered by things endorsed on the CAARS 2 20.4 18.3 .05 9.7 9.7 .08
Things endorsed on the CAARS 2 interfere with life 15.1 10.8 .13 13.6 13.6 -.10
Problems in romantic/marital relationship(s) 21.5 17.2 .06 18.4 21.4 .01
Problems in relationships with family members 17.2 16.1 .12 14.6 12.6 .00
Problems in relationships with friends, coworkers, or neighbors 17.2 11.8 .09 6.8 6.8 .01
Problems at work and/or school 14.0 15.1 .00 6.8 4.9 .00
Has a harder time with things than other people do 17.2 19.4 .00 7.8 5.8 -.03
Underachiever 14.0 14.0 .09 9.7 6.8 -.04
Sleep problems 22.6 15.1 .15 9.7 15.5 -.08
Problems with money management 23.7 9.7 .08 18.4 18.4 .00
Neglects family or household responsibilities 19.4 10.8 .08 10.7 11.7 .01
Risky driving 12.9 11.8 -.01 6.8 5.8 .02
Problems due to time spent online 16.1 10.8 .02 13.6 15.5 -.04
Note. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. A positive Cliff’s d value indicates higher ratings for White individuals than Hispanic individuals.
* The item stem for this Screening Item is Sadness/Emptiness for Self-Report and Sadness for Observer.
Click to expand

Table 10.23. Item-Level Demographic Group Differences: U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Black)

Item Type Item Stem Self-Report Observer
%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d 		%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d
White Black White Black
Associated Clinical Concern Items Suicidal thoughts/attempts 35.5 16.7 .27 11.8 14.5 .11
Self-injury 31.2 17.4 .19 11.2 15.8 .08
Sadness/emptiness* 33.3 20.3 .16 6.2 11.3 -.06
Anxiety/worry 15.2 5.1 .10 1.4 4.6 -.04
Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Bothered by things endorsed on the CAARS 2 14.5 8.7 .17 9.2 11.2 .06
Things endorsed on the CAARS 2 interfere with life 15.2 8.7 .13 11.2 14.5 .01
Problems in romantic/marital relationship(s) 17.4 15.9 .02 16.4 15.8 -.02
Problems in relationships with family members 14.5 8.7 .09 15.1 11.8 .07
Problems in relationships with friends, coworkers, or neighbors 15.9 9.4 .09 5.3 9.2 .03
Problems at work and/or school 16.7 12.3 .06 3.9 12.5 -.08
Has a harder time with things than other people do 11.6 8.7 .11 6.6 9.9 -.01
Underachiever 17.4 11.6 .15 12.5 8.6 .03
Sleep problems 26.1 19.6 .13 13.8 13.2 .17
Problems with money management 21.7 13.8 .08 16.4 23.0 .02
Neglects family or household responsibilities 15.9 12.3 .08 10.5 9.9 .01
Risky driving 13.8 8.7 .06 5.9 7.9 -.02
Problems due to time spent online 15.2 12.3 .05 14.5 15.8 -.02
Note. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. A positive Cliff’s d value indicates higher ratings for White individuals than Black individuals.
* The item stem for this Screening Item is Sadness/Emptiness for Self-Report and Sadness for Observer.
Click to expand

Table 10.24. Item-Level Demographic Group Differences: U.S. Race/Ethnicity (White vs. Asian)

Item Type Item Stem Self-Report Observer
%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d 		%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d
White Asian White Asian
Associated Clinical Concern Items Suicidal thoughts/attempts 26.9 19.2 .21 5.7 11.4 -.02
Self-injury 21.2 13.5 .13 8.6 2.9 -.03
Sadness/emptiness* 26.9 15.4 .12 3.0 5.7 -.03
Anxiety/worry 13.5 13.5 .00 0.0 5.7 -.06
Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Bothered by things endorsed on the CAARS 2 13.5 15.4 -.04 11.4 14.3 .03
Things endorsed on the CAARS 2 interfere with life 13.5 9.6 -.14 5.7 8.6 -.09
Problems in romantic/marital relationship(s) 13.5 11.5 .00 14.3 14.3 .07
Problems in relationships with family members 13.5 13.5 .04 11.4 2.9 .00
Problems in relationships with friends, coworkers, or neighbors 11.5 9.6 .05 8.6 2.9 .03
Problems at work and/or school 11.5 11.5 -.01 5.7 5.7 -.10
Has a harder time with things than other people do 9.6 5.8 .04 2.9 0.0 .09
Underachiever 7.7 11.5 .03 5.7 5.7 .06
Sleep problems 21.2 3.8 .27 14.3 11.4 .02
Problems with money management 15.4 13.5 .07 14.3 11.4 -.01
Neglects family or household responsibilities 13.5 13.5 -.08 2.9 0.0 -.02
Risky driving 7.7 11.5 -.04 5.7 2.9 -.02
Problems due to time spent online 7.7 13.5 -.06 2.9 17.1 -.17
Note. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. A positive Cliff’s d value indicates higher ratings for White individuals than Asian individuals.
* The item stem for this Screening Item is Sadness/Emptiness for Self-Report and Sadness for Observer.
Click to expand

Table 10.25. Item-Level Demographic Group Differences: Country of Residence

Item Type Item Stem Self-Report Observer
%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d 		%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d
U.S. Canada U.S. Canada
Associated Clinical Concern Items Suicidal thoughts/attempts 22.1 26.7 -.02 8.6 7.4 .03
Self-injury 20.9 20.9 .06 14.8 13.6 .10
Sadness/emptiness* 34.9 33.7 .04 7.7 7.5 .01
Anxiety/worry 20.9 10.5 .10 3.8 3.8 .00
Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Bothered by things endorsed on the CAARS 2 11.6 9.3 .11 13.6 8.6 -.05
Things endorsed on the CAARS 2 interfere with life 9.3 7.0 .06 13.6 9.9 .13
Problems in romantic/marital relationship(s) 15.1 12.8 -.01 19.8 14.8 .07
Problems in relationships with family members 10.5 9.3 .08 13.6 6.2 .09
Problems in relationships with friends, coworkers, or neighbors 15.1 9.3 .12 4.9 1.2 .08
Problems at work and/or school 15.1 11.6 .07 7.4 3.7 .14
Has a harder time with things than other people do 10.5 10.5 .09 4.9 1.2 .09
Underachiever 14.0 10.5 -.04 13.6 7.4 .00
Sleep problems 20.9 22.1 -.06 19.8 21.0 .05
Problems with money management 17.4 12.8 .08 18.5 16.0 .05
Neglects family or household responsibilities 16.3 7.0 .04 11.1 8.6 .09
Risky driving 11.6 8.1 .05 3.7 6.2 -.07
Problems due to time spent online 16.3 10.5 -.01 11.1 14.8 -.03
Note. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. A positive Cliff’s d value indicates higher ratings for individuals from the U.S than individuals from Canada.
* The item stem for this Screening Item is Sadness/Emptiness for Self-Report and Sadness for Observer.
Click to expand

Table 10.26. Item-Level Demographic Group Differences: Education Level

Item Type Item Stem Self-Report Observer
%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d 		%
Endorsed/Elevated 		Cliff’s
d
EL 1-2 EL 3-5 EL 1-2 EL 3-5
Associated Clinical Concern Items Suicidal thoughts/attempts 23.2 27.7 -.08 12.6 17.4 -.04
Self-injury 22.0 21.8 .00 13.6 15.0 -.05
Sadness/emptiness* 23.2 29.1 -.07 10.3 13.7 -.02
Anxiety/worry 10.9 13.4 -.03 4.9 6.4 -.02
Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Bothered by things endorsed on the CAARS 2 12.1 16.7 -.05 10.3 15.8 -.10
Things endorsed on the CAARS 2 interfere with life 9.1 14.2 -.05 14.7 15.5 -.02
Problems in romantic/marital relationship(s) 13.1 17.2 -.10 16.5 18.2 -.05
Problems in relationships with family members 13.1 12.9 -.06 12.2 14.9 -.05
Problems in relationships with friends, coworkers, or neighbors 10.3 13.4 -.08 7.4 7.7 -.02
Problems at work and/or school 10.1 17.3 -.09 5.8 8.6 -.06
Has a harder time with things than other people do 9.5 13.5 .00 6.8 7.6 .03
Underachiever 12.3 12.5 .00 11.2 9.3 .07
Sleep problems 15.8 22.2 -.09 15.3 15.7 -.05
Problems with money management 14.5 16.4 -.05 16.3 16.0 .00
Neglects family or household responsibilities 9.9 16.1 -.06 10.3 9.0 .01
Risky driving 10.3 15.3 -.07 6.2 5.6 .01
Problems due to time spent online 12.1 15.8 -.13 10.9 14.8 -.04
Note. EL = Education level. EL 1–2 = High school diploma or less; EL 3–5 = Some post-secondary education. Guidelines for interpreting Cliff’s |d|: negligible effect size < .15; small effect size = .15 to .32; medium effect size = .33 to .46; large effect size ≥ .47. A positive Cliff’s d value indicates higher ratings for individuals with higher levels of education (EL 3–5) than individuals with lower levels of education (EL 1–2).
* The item stem for this Screening Item is Sadness/Emptiness for Self-Report and Sadness for Observer.