Abstract

Due to an increased usage of college counseling centers in the treatment of mental health concerns, it is imperative that centers implement appropriate assessments of psychological symptoms. We examined the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS), which was designed as a routine instrument to assess a range of mental health symptoms. Proper assessment and reporting of reliability are essential before one can meaningfully interpret assessment outcomes. This study employed a meta-analytic technique, Reliability Generalization (RG), to examine reporting practices, and analyze the reported CCAPS reliability estimates. Additionally, reported CCAPS reliability estimates were analyzed in order to assess diversity variables, which can affect the measurement of psychological symptoms and distress. Only 22% (N = 12) of the 54 total research studies reported reliability estimates for the CCAPS. Most studies cited a previous source and others simply noted that the measure was “reliable” (66%; N = 25). More information is needed for subscale reliability since the current CCAPS Cronbach’s alphas ranged from fair to excellent (> 0.60 - > 0.80). An increase in reliability reporting is needed to examine the CCAPS’ use in various sample populations. Implications for reliability reporting standards are discussed.

Key words: Reliability Generalization, Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS), reliability reporting, meta-analysis.