Cross-Ethnic Measurement Invariance of the SCARED and CES―D in a Youth Sample

Acknowledgement: This research was supported by a Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation Young Investigator’s Award granted to Brian C. Chu. We thank the local school systems, their administration, and staff for their collaboration and support in this project, including Janet Barbin, Precious Acolaste, Frank DeVone, Paul Day, Roberta Mitchell, and Michael Rich. We also thank study coordinators Sofia Crocco, Petra Esseling, and Margaret Areizaga, and all research staff who made this project possible. We also express our gratitude to the youth who shared their experiences and time with us. Last, we would like to acknowledge Rens van de Schoot for his consultation on conducting measurement invariance analysis in Mplus.

Anxiety and depressive disorders are among the most prevalent psychiatric conditions affecting adolescents (Costello, Mustillo, Erkanli, Keeler, & Angold, 2003), with substantial overlap between anxiety and depressive symptoms (Stark & Laurent, 2001). Questionnaires are commonly used and offer an efficient method for screening symptoms across diverse settings. However, the majority of measures have been developed, normed, and validated using majority, non-Hispanic White (hereafter referred to as White) samples. As a consequence, we have limited knowledge of how well these measures assess distress in other ethnic groups.

Available data comparing multiethnic and White youth on prevalence rates and symptom presentation of anxiety are limited. Several studies have suggested that African American or Black (hereafter referred to as Black) youths’ reported experience of somatic and panic symptoms may be greater, and levels of social and school anxiety may be lower compared with those of White youth (e.g., Kingery, Ginsburg, & Alfano, 2007; Neal & Ward Brown, 1994). In contrast, Ferrell, Beidel, and Turner (2004) found few differences in the clinical presentation of social phobia in Black and White youth. Research with other ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanic youth) has been similarly inconsistent (Ginsburg & Silverman, 1996; Varela et al., 2004). In some studies of depression, findings have indicated no differences in depression rates among racial and ethnic groups (Siegel, Aneshensel, Taub, Cantwell, & Driscoll, 1998), some have shown lower rates of depression in ethnic minority youth (Allen & Mitchell, 1998), and others have shown greater depressive symptoms among Black, Latino, and Asian American youth compared with White counterparts (e.g., Perreira, Deeb-Sossa, Harris, & Bollen, 2005).

In order to accurately identify and interpret mean differences, measurement invariance of questionnaires needs to be examined to determine whether observed differences are based on psychometrically sound assessment tools or if they may be artifacts of measurement bias. When measurement invariance is not demonstrated, it suggests that groups are responding differently to items, and factor means cannot reasonably be compared across groups. There are several reasons why groups may systematically differ on a given measure. Different ethnic groups may conceptualize a construct differently, use varying symptoms to identify it, or may interpret the possible responses or response scale differently (Crockett, Randall, Shen, Russell, & Driscoll, 2005). Even if total scores are similar, if the factor structure underlying the construct is divergent across groups obtaining the same total score in one group may not bear the same meaning in another group. Despite the possibility of measurement noninvariance, relatively little research has addressed this issue for anxiety and depression measures among ethnic minority youth.

The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED; Birmaher et al., 1999) was developed to screen for anxiety disorders as defined by criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev., DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The SCARED has demonstrated good psychometric properties across diverse settings and clinical utility as a screening tool (Hale, Crocetti, Raaijmakers, & Meeus, 2011). Validation data have supported the five proposed subscales: General Anxiety (GAD), Somatic Symptoms/Panic (SS), Separation Anxiety (SAD), Social Phobia (SoP), and School Phobia (Sch). This five-factor structure has been largely replicated (e.g., Gonzalez, Weersing, Warnick, Scahill, & Woolston, 2012), but there is evidence that the factor structure may vary across ethnic groups (e.g., Wren et al., 2007).

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale (CES–D; Radloff, 1977) was developed to assess affective and somatic symptoms of depression in adults. Exploratory factor analysis yielded a four-factor structure corresponding to Negative Affect (NA), Positive Affect (PA), Somatic Symptoms (SS), and Interpersonal Symptoms (IP). Although initially developed for adults, the CES–D has been widely used with youth and has shown similar psychometric properties (Roberts, Andrews, Lewinsohn, & Hops, 1990). The four-factor solution has been largely replicated in White adolescents (e.g., Crockett et al., 2005). A handful of studies have addressed the issue of measurement invariance for ethnic/racial minority groups in the United States using confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) procedures (e.g., Crockett et al., 2005; Perreira et al., 2005) with varied results. For example, Crockett et al. (2005) reported invariance of factor loadings between White and Mexican American youth but noninvariance for European, Cuban, and Puerto Rican American youth.

In sum, only one study has investigated measurement invariance of the SCARED with multiethnic youth samples, and only a few have investigated invariance with the CES–D. The primary goal of the present study was to examine the cross-ethnic structure and validity of score interpretations of the SCARED and CES–D for White, Hispanic, Black, and Asian/Indian (hereafter referred to as Asian) youth in middle school. A secondary goal was to compare ethnic groups on factor means if invariance was established. This investigation adds to existing knowledge in several ways. First, ours is the first study to examine measurement invariance of the SCARED across several major ethnic groups and the second to do so for the CES–D. Second, we make methodological advances compared with previous studies by taking into account the categorical nature of the response scales. Third, we examined measures of anxiety and depression in the same multiethnic sample, whereas previous studies have tended to focus on one or the other.

Participants were 881 seventh-grade youth (45% female; age range = 11–14 years; M = 12.5, SD = 0.44) at a suburban/urban middle school in the northeastern United States. The middle school enrolls approximately 1,100 economically and ethnically diverse seventh- and eighth-grade students; 32% of youth are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Among the participating youth, 396 (44.9%) self-identified as Black, 185 (21%) Hispanic, 166 (18.8%) White, and 134 (15.2%) Asian/Pacific Islander/Indian. Ethnicity was collected as part of the school’s routine enrollment procedures; only broad ethnic categories were collected.

The SCARED (Birmaher et al., 1999) is a 41-item self-report measure with each anxiety symptom item rated over the past 3 months on a scale ranging from 0 (not true or hardly ever true) to 2 (very true or often true). Subscales and total score are calculated by summing item responses. Previous research has indicated strong discriminant and convergent validity of total and subscale scores (for a review, see Muris, Merckelbach, Ollendick, King, & Bogie, 2002).

The CES–D (Radloff, 1977) is a 20-item self-report measure with each item rated for frequency with which symptoms have been experienced during the past week on a scale ranging from 0 (rarely [less than 1 day]) to 3 (most of the time [5–7 days]). The four PA items are reverse-scored, and a composite is calculated by summing item responses.

Youth participated in a grade-wide screening in two waves over 2 consecutive years aimed at identifying anxiety and depression symptoms. All English-speaking students in the seventh grade whose parents provided consent and who attended school the day of the screening were eligible. Students who were enrolled in English as a second language or who required significant academic assistance (i.e., receiving special education for the majority of their classes) due to learning disabilities were not eligible (22 and 18 youth were ineligible in the first and second waves, respectively). In Year 1 of the study, 427 of 497 eligible youth completed the screening (45 opted out, 25 agreed but were absent). In the second year, 454 of 524 eligible youth completed the screening (39 opted out, 31 agreed but were absent). Participants completed a 35-min battery of questionnaires, including the two for this study, during a gym or health class period.

Single and multiple group CFA models were estimated using Mplus software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011) to assess measurement invariance of the SCARED and CES–D between White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian youth. Since data were ordered categorically and highly skewed, and the number of response categories was less than five, a robust weighted least squares estimator was used as recommended by Byrne (2012). All SCARED items were positively skewed. All but one item of the CES–D showed positive skew. Item 7, “I felt that everything I did was an effort,” showed kurtosis. Based on this finding and issues with this item during initial CFA models (detailed later), Item 7 was ultimately removed from analyses.

To test for measurement invariance, we followed the procedure as described by Widaman and Reise (1997). The initial step was to test for configural invariance by performing CFAs for each group separately and then running a multiple-group CFA for all groups simultaneously based on the original factor structures. For the SCARED, this model consisted of five latent factors (the subscales), and for the CES–D, this model consisted of four latent factors. We subsequently examined increasingly restrictive multiple group CFAs to examine whether factor loadings were equal across groups (weak metric invariance) and whether factor loadings and thresholds together were equal across groups (strong metric invariance). When there was evidence of noninvariant measurement parameters at any step, analysis proceeded in the context of partial measurement invariance. Model fit was evaluated using the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its 90% confidence interval, the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). Comparisons among models relied on recommendations of Cheung and Rensvold (2002) and Chen (2007) as well as the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Specifically, a change of .005 or less in the CFI, along with a change in RMSEA that falls within the 90% confidence interval of the less constrained model indicates invariance (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Regarding AIC and BIC values, lower values indicate a better fitting model. We also calculated chi-square difference tests (Δχ2) between nested models; however, because the χ2 and Δ χ2 are strongly influenced by sample size, their use as an indicator of model fit is impractical for tests of invariance (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

For descriptive purposes, correlations between SCARED and CES–D total scores were calculated for each ethnic group. Correlations were positive and significant (p < .01) across all groups: White (r = .55), Black (r = .68), Hispanic (r = .66), and Asian (r = .62). Reliability estimates for SCARED and CES–D subscales are summarized in Table 1. Means for total and subscale scores and percentages of youth scoring above the clinical cutoffs across ethnic groups are summarized in Table S1 in the online supplemental materials.

CFA models were fit separately for each ethnic group. In all groups, the five-factor model showed adequate to good fit to the data (CFI and TLI ranged from .90 to .96, and RMSEA were all under .04; see Table S2 in the online supplemental materials). Further, all factor loadings were moderate to large, in the expected direction, and statistically significant for all four groups. Next we used multiple group CFAs to test for measurement invariance. Results are summarized in Table 2. Three models were tested. In Model 1, we estimated the five-factor model simultaneously across all groups. This unconstrained model showed good fit to the data, supporting configural invariance. In Model 2 (weak metric invariance), we constrained factor loadings to be equal but allowed the thresholds to differ between groups. In Model 3, both factor loadings and thresholds were constrained to be equal. All models showed good fit to the data. It appeared that Model 3, the most restrictive model, showed the lowest AIC and BIC values compared with the other two models. This result is consistent with strong invariance. All factor loadings and intercorrelations for this final model (Model 3) were significant with the exception of the intercorrelation between the Sch and SoP factors for Asian youth (see Table S3 in the online supplemental materials for factor loadings).

These results support the five-factor structure of the SCARED across the four ethnic groups and suggest that youth across groups appear to interpret the individual items and the scoring scale the same. It is likely that SCARED scores represent the same construct in these groups, indicating that we can compare groups with confidence, making straightforward interpretations of latent means and correlations. These results differ somewhat from those of Gonzalez et al.’s (2012) investigation of measurement invariance between White and Black youth, although general conclusions and recommendations for use and interpretation of the SCARED are similar. Gonzalez et al. (2012) did replicate the five-factor structure finding support for configural invariance but reported partial metric invariance between the two groups based on youth report. Gonzalez et al. evaluated responses within an outpatient psychiatric clinical sample with a larger age range (ages 11–18) while the current study recruited a community sample. Differences across studies may reflect differences in sample and setting; however, symptom severity was comparable across the two samples.

Comparing latent factor means across ethnic groups (presented as z scores) revealed significant (p-values < .05) group differences in means of the SAD, SS, and Sch factors. Specifically, Hispanic youth reported higher levels of SAD than did White (ΔM = .38), Black (ΔM = .29), and Asian (ΔM = .35) youth. Hispanic youth also reported higher levels of Sch than White (ΔM = .27), Black (ΔM = .15), and Asian (ΔM = .36) youth. Black and Hispanic youth reported higher levels of SS than White youth (ΔM = .20; ΔM = .24, respectively), and Black youth reported higher Sch compared with Asian youth (ΔM = .20). These findings are consistent with previous literature suggesting that Hispanic youth are more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for SAD (Ginsburg & Silverman, 1996) and that somatic symptoms may be stronger indicators of anxiety for Hispanic and Black youth than for White youth (Gonzalez et al., 2012; Varela et al., 2004). Clinically, increased attention to somatic symptoms in Hispanic and Black youth may lead to greater detection of emotional distress in these groups. In contrast to reports that Hispanic and Black youth experience more worry and general anxiety than White youth (Ginsburg & Silverman, 1996; Varela et al., 2004) and that Asian youth report more SoP than White youth (Okazaki, 1997), there were no differences among groups on the GAD or SoP factors.

Separate CFA models for each group were estimated, and all fit CES–D data well. However, Item 7 (“I felt that everything I did was an effort”) failed to load significantly on its factor (SS) in all four ethnic groups. Following recommendations by Byrne (2012, p. 78) together with evidence of kurtosis from initial data screening, Item 7 was removed from further analyses. Subsequent CFAs were based on the remaining 19 items. Separate CFA models for each group were first fit to the data. In all groups, the four-factor model showed good fit to the data (CFI and TLI ranged from .94 to .98, and RMSEA values were all under .06; see Table S4 in the online supplemental materials). Next we used multiple group CFAs to test for measurement invariance. Results are summarized in Table 3. Four models were tested. Fit indices suggested good fit to the data for the configural invariance model (Model 1), the weak metric invariance model (Model 2: only factor loadings constrained to be equal), and the strong invariance model (Model 3: factor loadings and thresholds constrained to be equal). Although Model 3 showed good fit, the intercorrelation between the NA and SS factors in the Hispanic group exceeded 1, indicating model misspecification. Based on modification indices, constraints on Items 9 (“Thought life had been a failure”), 10 (“Felt fearful”), and 13 (“Talked less than usual”) were released for the Hispanic group. This modified model (Model 4) showed good fit to the data.

Models 1 and 2 were then compared with Model 4, the most restrictive mode. Model 4 showed the lowest AIC and BIC values, and a review of other fit indices also supported Model 4 (ΔCFI and ΔTLI were less than .005). These results indicated that Model 4 fit the data best, supporting strong invariance among White, Black, and Asian youth and partial strong invariance for the Hispanic group. Factor loadings and intercorrelations in Model 4 were positive and significant for all groups (See Table S5 in the supplemental online material for factor loadings).

These results provide support for the original four-factor structure of the CES–D across the four ethnic groups, similar to prior research (Crockett et al., 2005; Motl, Dishman, Birnbaum, & Lytle, 2005; Roberts et al., 1990). Strong invariance was established across White, Black, and Asian youth and partial strong invariance for Hispanic youth. For Hispanic youth, Items 9 and 10 from the NA factor and Item 13 from the SS factor were noninvariant at the strong invariance level. Thus, there is some risk of classification error when using the CES–D as a screening measure. Unstandardized factor loadings indicated that these items are strong indicators of the factors on which they load for Hispanic youth (range = 0.94–1.30) compared with the other groups (range = .45–.87). Similar results have been reported with these same items previously (Crockett et al., 2005; Radloff, 1991). For example, Crockett et al. (2005) found Items 9 and 10 to have stronger factor loadings in Mexican American than in Anglo American youth. Thus, these items appear to have disproportionate “influence” over the factor scores for Hispanic youth compared with youth in other ethnic groups. When comparing factor means across groups, one might consider weighting item scores by factor loadings. Left unweighted, there is a risk for negative affect and somatic symptoms to be underestimated in Hispanic youth compared with White, Black, and Asian youth. Nevertheless, we ultimately support the use of the CES–D across Hispanic, Black, White, and Asian youth. Noninvariance was identified for only three of 19 items, a level that should not deter across-group comparisons (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989; Crockett et al., 2005).

Comparing factor means across ethnic groups revealed significant differences in means of the NA and SS factors, whereas there were no group differences in means for the PA and IP factors. Hispanic youth reported slightly higher levels of NA than did White (ΔM = .34), Black (ΔM = .25), and Asian (ΔM = .42) youth. Hispanic youth also reported higher levels of SS than White (ΔM = .27), Black (ΔM = .20), and Asian (ΔM = .45) youth. Asian youth reported slightly lower levels of SS than Black youth (ΔM = .25). The higher reported levels of NA and SS in Hispanic youth are consistent with previous epidemiological studies suggesting that Hispanic youth tend to have higher rates of depressive disorders than other ethnic groups in the United States (e.g., Siegel et al., 1998). In contrast to reports of Asian Americans reporting higher levels of depression than their White counterparts (e.g., Okazaki, 1997), Asian youth in the current sample did not report elevated depressive symptoms compared with White, Hispanic, or Black youth.

All results must be interpreted in light of methodological limitations. The present study relied on convenience samples. We did not have parent reports of youth symptoms and only included youth in the seventh grade. Relying on a single source limits the generalizability of these findings to overarching constructs of anxiety and depression. Results imply that diverse ethnic groups of youth are mostly invariant in how they perceive and report symptoms using two measures. We cannot account for parents or other reporters. The limited age range constrains the extent to which we can generalize our findings to older or younger youth. Perceptions of symptoms could vary across racial/ethnic groups at different ages and developmental stages. Future research should test for measurement invariance of these measures for parent-report and across a wider range of ages. Further, the sample was ethnically diverse but was limited to an English-speaking U.S. sample. Limiting the sample to English-speaking youth may have muted potential differences across different levels of acculturation. Further, recruiting participants from a single U.S. school may have constricted the diversity of cultural perspectives represented, even in this ethnically diverse school. Anecdotally, recent immigrants composed a noticeable proportion of the student body. However, this was not systematically assessed. In the current sample, we were also not able to discriminate ethnic groups beyond broad categories, potentially obscuring differences in factor structure and item bias among ethnic subgroups. Given previous research indicating potential differences in the structure of the CES–D in some ethnic subgroups, it is important for future research on these measures to identify youth beyond broad ethnic/racial categories.

This research supports the cross-ethnic measurement invariance of the SCARED and CES–D and their use as tools for assessing anxiety and depressive symptoms in English-speaking, ethnically diverse youth in a middle school in the United States. We have provided evidence of strong invariance of the SCARED and of full or partial strong invariance of a 19-item version of the CES–D across four ethnic groups. These results bolster confidence in previous and future research utilizing these measures in ethnically/racially diverse samples of U.S. youth and indicate that observed differences in mean anxiety and depressive symptoms are not likely due to differential measurement properties across ethnic groups. Results also indicate that certain groups of youth, Hispanic youth in particular, experience more anxiety and depression in certain domains than White, Black, and Asian youth. The mechanisms by which such differences evolve have yet to be identified. Cultural phenomena are one possibility. For instance, it has been proposed that strong family orientation in Hispanic culture may explain greater separation anxiety, and negative stigma for mental health problems may explain somatic expression of emotional distress (Varela et al., 2004). Research is needed to investigate such hypotheses.

Allen, L., & Mitchell, C. (1998). Racial and ethnic differences in patterns of problematic and adaptive development: An epidemiological review. In V. C.McLoyd & L.Steinberg (Eds.), Minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues (pp. 29–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000.) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Birmaher, B., Brent, D. A., Chiappetta, L., Bridge, J., Monga, S., & Baugher, M. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): A replication study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1230–1236. doi:10.1097/00004583-199910000-00011

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Costello, E. J., Mustillo, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., & Angold, A. (2003). Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 837–844. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.837

Crockett, L. J., Randall, B. A., Shen, Y. L., Russell, S. T., & Driscoll, A. K. (2005). Measurement equivalence of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Latino and Anglo adolescents: A national study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 47–58. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.47

Ferrell, C. B., Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2004). Assessment and treatment of socially phobic children: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 260–268. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_6

Ginsburg, G. S., & Silverman, W. K. (1996). Phobic and anxiety disorders in Hispanic and Caucasian youth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 10, 517–528. doi:10.1016/S0887-6185(96)00027-8

Gonzalez, A., Weersing, V. R., Warnick, E., Scahill, L., & Woolston, J. (2012). Cross-ethnic measurement equivalence of the SCARED in an outpatient sample of African American and non-Hispanic White youths and parents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 361–369. doi:10.1080/15374416.2012.654462

Hale, W. W., III, Crocetti, E., Raaijmakers, Q. A., & Meeus, W. H. (2011). A meta-analysis of the cross-cultural psychometric properties of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 80–90. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02285.x

Kingery, J. N., Ginsburg, G. S., & Alfano, C. A. (2007). Somatic symptoms and anxiety among African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 363–378. doi:10.1177/0095798407307041

Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Birnbaum, A. S., & Lytle, L. A. (2005). Longitudinal invariance of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale among girls and boys in middle school. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 90–108. doi:10.1177/0013164404266256

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Ollendick, T., King, N., & Bogie, N. (2002). Three traditional and three new childhood anxiety questionnaires: Their reliability and validity in a normal adolescent sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 753–772. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00056-0

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide, Sixth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Neal, A. M., & Ward Brown, B. J. (1994). Fears and anxiety disorders in African American children. In S.Friedman (Ed.), Anxiety disorders in African Americans (pp. 65–75). New York, NY: Springer.

Okazaki, S. (1997). Sources of ethnic differences between Asian American and White American college students on measures of depression and social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 52–60. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.52

Perreira, K. M., Deeb-Sossa, N., Harris, K. M., & Bollen, K. (2005). What are we measuring? An evaluation of the CES–D across race/ethnicity and immigrant generation. Social Forces, 83, 1567–1601. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0077

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES–D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100306

Radloff, L. S. (1991). The use of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 149–166. doi:10.1007/BF01537606

Roberts, R. E., Andrews, J. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Hops, H. (1990). Assessment of depression in adolescents using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Psychological Assessment, 2, 122–128. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.2.2.122

Siegel, J. M., Aneshensel, C. S., Taub, B., Cantwell, D. P., & Driscoll, A. K. (1998). Adolescent depressed mood in a multiethnic sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 413–427. doi:10.1023/A:1022873601030

Stark, K. D., & Laurent, J. (2001). Joint factor analysis of the Children’s Depression Inventory and the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 30, 552–567. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_11

Varela, R. E., Vernberg, E. M., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Riveros, A., Mitchell, M., & Mashunkashey, J. (2004). Parenting style of Mexican, Mexican American, and Caucasian-Non-Hispanic families: Social context and cultural influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 651–657. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.651

Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J.Bryant, M.Windle, & S. G.West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10222-009

Wren, F. J., Berg, E. A., Heiden, L. A., Kinnamon, C. J., Ohlson, L. A., Bridge, J. A., . . .Bernal, M. P. (2007). Childhood anxiety in a diverse primary care population: Parent–child reports, ethnicity, and SCARED factor structure. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 332–340. doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e31802f1267

Submitted: November 21, 2012 Revised: September 3, 2013 Accepted: October 10, 2013