SENA: An Effective Clinical Evaluation System In The Child And Adolescent Population
With the constant evolution that knowledge of psychology intrinsically entails, more complete evaluation instruments are increasingly necessary that allow the achievement of a more comprehensive assessment process. This is even more relevant in the case of the child population, where a process of psychological development is taking place that will be decisive in the subsequent achievement of adult personality and functioning.
In this sense, the rise of multidimensional psychometric tests is becoming increasingly evident. This type of approach allows us to contemplate personal variations in the characteristics and manifestations of psychological problems. The Evaluation System for Children and Adolescents (SENA) is a good example of this type of methodology which has a series of particularities that greatly facilitate the clinician’s role in the evaluation of child and adolescent psychopathology.
SENA is oriented to evaluate the set of emotional and behavioral problems that can be observed between 3 and 18 years of age Its publication in 2015 was a proposal to replace a very similar previous test, the BASC (Behavior Assessment System for Children and Adolescents) with the aim of updating some of the elements included in the scales, increasing the validity index. of the test and complement it with other scales of clinical interest, such as those related to Psychological Resources and Areas of Vulnerability.
More specifically, the SENA presents three types of questionnaire depending on the age of the person evaluated: early childhood education (3-6 years), primary education (6-12 years) and secondary education (12-18 years). It also has the particularity that each chronological section of the test is multi-informant, each one being made up of three complementary questionnaires: the self-report, which collects the answers of the subject himself; the family report, answered by the parents; the school report, which includes the evaluation in the school environment observed by the child’s tutor or also by the educational center psychologist.
This instrument allows obtaining, through different age-specific forms and informants, an exhaustive assessment to determine the existence and intensity of the emotional and behavioral problems most commonly associated with the child and adolescent population. Thus, more specifically SENA differentiates the following typologies of psychological difficulties
Internalized problems
These are related to anxiety or dysphoric symptoms and more commonly become internal emotional manifestations of the individual.
Externalized problems
Its indicators may be externally more evident and relate to more behavioral aspects.
Contextual problems
These scales are made up of the assessment of problems in the family and at school (differentiating academic difficulties from relational difficulties with respect to peers).
Specific problems
Depending on the chronological modality administered, the existence of the following types of problems is evaluated:
All the aforementioned scales come together to obtain global indices that synthesize what was found in them and add a general value of difficulties in executive functions and the total level of personal resources.
On the other hand, SENA also provides other types of indices with very relevant information that facilitate a deeper and more complete assessment of the personal dispositions of the evaluated person in order to establish more clearly if the problems found have a more or less favorable prognosis These include vulnerability scales or factors most linked to a more unfavorable prognosis and personal resources, which are understood as protective factors associated with a better prognosis.
On the other hand, the SENA highlights the presence of positive responses in critical items, the severity of which requires special attention to its more detailed analysis, such as questions about suicidal ideation, bullying, hallucinations, etc.
Finally, this tool measures, through control scales, the sincerity with which the informants have responded without minimizing, maximizing or expressing an incoherent style in the answers provided. The scales included in this section refer to Inconsistency and Positive/Negative Impression of the answers provided.
Conclusion: purpose, reliability and validity of the SENA
Like any psychometric instrument for psychological evaluation, the SENA It is not intended by itself to serve as the only diagnostic element Although it is true that it provides a large volume of information, everything found from this must be complemented with a good anamnesis process and other methodologies such as observation, interviews or the administration of other complementary tests. As a whole, this will allow us to rigorously develop a clearer diagnostic impression, as well as outline the type of psychological intervention most appropriate for the evaluated case in question.
Regarding the main indices that assess the quality of a psychological evaluation instrument, reliability (the degree to which the test is precise in the variables it measures) and validity (the certainty with which the test measures the variable it measures). want to measure), satisfactory levels have been obtained in both areas.
Thus, the average obtained in all SENA scales has achieved an internal consistency or reliability of 0.86 (values ​​between 0.0 and 1.0). On the other hand, the level of agreement between informants is between 40 and 60%, which places SENA in the average of most evaluation instruments and even slightly higher depending on the informant source and the scale. specific clinic.
Finally, regarding the validity of the test the long process and the participation of a large group of experts who have participated in the development and review of the items that make up the test are an example of the exhaustive work carried out to achieve a satisfactory validity value.
