See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338853793

Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update on Administration and Scoring

Article  in  Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

5 82,813

1 author:

Bangalore N Roopesh
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences
78 PUBLICATIONS   571 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Autism and Epilepsy -exploration of a relationship View project

National Mental Health Survey of India 2015-16 Prevalence pattern and outcome View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bangalore N Roopesh on 28 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology Copyright, 2019, Indian Association of
2019, Vol. 46, No. 2, 91-102 Clinical Psychologists (ISSN 0303-2582)
Review Article

Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update on

Administration and Scoring
Bangalore N Roopesh1*

ABSTRACT:
Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) has been one of the main psychological assessment
tools for the evaluation of social and adaptive functions for several decades globally as well as in
India. In addition to assessing social competence, VSMS is also used as a substitute test to assess
intelligence when other core intelligence tests cannot be used due to various reasons, such as poor
speech ability and in conditions where the child is not cooperative. The original version (Doll,
1953) was adapted to the Indian setting by A.J. Malin (1965) and later it saw further modification
by Bharat Raj (1992). However, due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining the manuals, especially
the Indian adapted, several errors have crept in over the years in its administration as well as
scoring. Two important errors that need immediate attention of the professionals are the maximum
possible Chronological Age (CA) to be considered and the way the final Social Age (SA) is
calculated. In this regard, to help in arriving at a consensus across professionals, this article will
discuss few of the important aspects in administration and scoring with appropriate examples.
Key Words: VSMS, Bhatia Battery, Binet Kamat Test, Intelligence, S.Q., Children

I. INTRODUCTION: clear and easy, so the postgraduate trainees who have

Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS; Doll,
1935, 1953) is one of the widely used psychological
assessment tools in the Indian Subcontinent.
It is mainly used to assess social and adaptive
functions or social competency. Generally, VSMS
is administered along with other tests such as Binet-
Kamat Test and Bhatia’s Battery of Intelligence test,
to obtain the comprehensive picture of the child/
person’s abilities. VSMS is the most preferred test
to assess intelligence whenever standard intelligence
tests cannot be used due to various reasons such
as when child’s speech output is inadequate, when
the person is not cooperative, in situations where a
person has active psychopathology / symptoms and
in situations where a large number of subjects are
waiting for the assessment and certification (eg.,
disability assessment camps). In addition, VSMS
is also preferred because it takes relatively very
less time compared to other tests and also due to its
apparent simplicity of administering, scoring and
interpretation.
Surprisingly, due to its apparent simplicity many
institutions do not devote adequate time in teaching/
training this particular assessment tool. Probably the
implicit understanding might be that as VSMS is very
1. Additional Professor, Dept of Clinical Psychology, 311, 3rd Floor, Dr. M.V. Govindaswamy Building, NIMHANS, Bengaluru-29
*Corresponding Author: Dr B N Roopesh, Email: bn.roopesh@gmail.com
either bachelors or masters degree in psychology
might be able to easily understand its administration
and scoring. Compounding the difficulty, there are
two Indian adaptations / modifications, one from
A.J. Malin in 1965 and again by Bharat Raj in 1992.
However, the complete manual of these adaptation/
modification are extremely difficult to obtain. What
is available is usually a brief introduction of the test,
the test items and the description of some of the
items. A substantial majority of the professionals are
not even aware that there are two Indian versions and
there are differences between them. Those who are
aware about the two versions, despite ascertaining
the merits and demerits of each version, blindly
adhere to what has been taught to them. Due to the
above issues, throughout the country, there are no
consensus with respect to the proper administration
and scoring of VSMS. This complacency can be
observed across the subcontinent irrespective of
whether it’s an established premier institute or new
small department.
II. BACKGROUND
Edgar Arnold Doll (1935) constructed
Vineland Social Maturity Scale on the similar lines
of Binet and Simon test of Intelligence scale. The

91
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....

items were arranged in order of ‘normal average life Score SA Score SA Score SA
age progression’. The total 117 items were arranged 1.0 .06 31.0 1.83 76.0 9.7
in the increasing order of difficulty. It was meant to 1.5 .09 31.5 1.85 76.5 9.8
measure maturation in social independence or social 2.0 .12 32.0 1.89 77.0 10.0
competence from infant to young adult, i.e. from
2.5 .15 32.5 1.91 77.5 10.1
age ‘0 to 25+’. The main purpose of each item is to
3.0 .18 33.0 1.94 ..continues ..continues
represent a particular aspect of the ability to look after
3.5 .21 33.5 1.97 101.0 20.0
one’s own practical needs. The important purpose of
the test was for child guidance, child training, and to 4.0 .24 ..continues ..continues 101.5 20.8
distinguish between mentally retarded/intellectually ..continues ..continues 74.5 9.2 102 21.0
disabled child with or without social incompetence. 30.0 1.77 75.0 9.3 103 22.0
The test had a correlation of around .80 to .85 30.5 1.79 75.5 9.5 ..continues ..continues
with standard intelligence tests such as Stanford- III. INDIAN ADAPTATION
Binet. Similar to mental age (MA) of Binet-Simon
Malin in 1965 from Nagpur Child Guidance
test of intelligence, Doll adopted social age (SA).
Centre, adapted VSMS to Indian settings. The
However, in contrast to using age-credits as used
adapted version had only 89 items and assessed from
in Binet-Simon test, Doll used a “direct total score-
0 to 15 years of age. The 89 items, except few, are
conversion” table to arrive at the social age (Doll,
almost the exact match (in terms of content) with
1953; or kindly refer table 1 below for description).
the first 89 items of the original version of Doll
Table 1: Showing The Example of Doll’s Norms for (kindly refer table 2). However, it appears* that in
Conversion of Total Score To Social Age. Notice contrast to the ‘direct total score-conversion table’,
That The Half Points Between Every Whole Malin slightly modified the same and arrived at “age-
Numbers. Decimal Points in Social Age (SA) credits” for each item in each year to arrive at the
Columns Below Indicate Months and Days social age (kindly refer figure 3 for description).

Figure 1: Showing The Malin’s ‘Age-Credits Table For Each Item In Each Year’

92
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....

Bharat Raj in 1992 further extended/modified Doll’s norms for converting total scores to SA values
the VSMS and this version is more similar to the is not given here due to possible copyright issues.
Doll’s in terms of item description as well as scoring However, it has been briefly given in table 1.
(kindly refer table 2).
Figure 2: Shows the table of Bharat Raj’s
Table 2: Comparison of the Modified VSMS Conversion of Raw Score to Social Age.
Items Among the Three Versions. Items
Not Mentioned Here are Relatively Same
in all The Three Versions.
Item
Doll (1953) Malin (1965) Bharat Raj (1992)
no.
1 “Crows”, laughs “Crows”, laughs Cries/laughs
Removes shoes or
21 Pulls of socks Pulls of clothes sandals, pulls off
socks
Gives up baby Walks without Walks or uses go-
26
carriage support cart for walking
Plays with other Plays with own
27
children hands
Eats with own hands
28 Eats with spoon
(biscuits, bread, etc.)
35 Asks to go to toilet Signals to go to toilet Asks to go to toilet
Eats with spoon/
38 Eats with fork
hands (food)
43 Cuts with scissors Can do paper folding
Uses skates, sled, Uses hoops, flies Uses hoops, flies
57
wagon kites, or uses knife kites, rides tricycles
Plays simple games
Plays simple table
59 which require talking
games
Turns
Uses table knife Mixes rice “properly
62
for spreading unassisted
Tells time to Can differentiate Tells time to
66
quarter hour between AM & PM quarter hour
Uses table knife Helps himself during
67
for cutting meals
IV. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Refuses to believe The author has come across several trainees
Disavows literal Understands and and professionals having doubts or confusion
68 any magic and fairy
Santa Claus keeps family secrets
tale regarding several aspects of the test. For the clarity,
Writes occasional
Distinguishes Writes occasional they are divided into issues with administration,
78 between friends any short letters to scoring and interpretation.
short letters
play mates friends

79
Makes telephone Makes independent IV. A: ISSUES WITH ADMINISTRATION
calls choice of shops
Answers ads; IV. A. i: Who is the Informant?
Answers ads; Follows local current
81
purchases by mail events
writes letters for Informant should be usually the person who
information knows the child most and who has seen and interacted
Bharat Raj’s norms has been given in the with the child at least for few weeks to months. It
figure 2. Bharat Raj’s norms is almost similar to is usually the primary care taker. It can be mother,
Doll’s norms, except that Doll has and given social father or grandparents. Sometimes it so happens that
age equivalents for every half point between every a father/uncle/aunt/grandparent who is not staying
whole number from item 1 to item 102. The entire with the child on a regular basis accompany the child

93
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....
for the assessment. In this scenario it is advisable
that the psychologist requests them to bring along the
primary care taker to get the adequate information.
This also applies to any other person who accompanies
the child. In some situations, a child is bought by a
caretaker of the children’s home (with a request from
the child welfare committee/court), where the child
would have got admitted to the home couple of days
before the referral. In this situation, the psychologist
can send the caretaker back with the request that the
informant/caretaker should observe the child for few
weeks and then bring back for the assessment.
IV. A. ii: To Assess With Or Without The Child
Being Present?
VSMS is devised in such a way that it can be
administered without the child. This nature of the test
has been one of the reasons for its success since its
inception. However, experienced psychologists would
have observed that several times, informants will be
completely unaware whether their child has or has
not achieved particular behaviour. Example of such
Items where the informants may not be aware of are,
‘unwraps sweets, chocolates’, ‘can do paper folding’,
and so on. In addition, there can be unintentional
bias from the informants while reporting. Again,
experienced psychologists would have come across,
informants giving positive responses to several tasks,
where upon direct observation, the child might not
seem to be able to perform. Example of such items
are, ‘mixes rice properly unassisted’, ‘goes to bed
unassisted’, and so on. In many instances, trainees
in the institutions perform assessment with their
limited assessment skills. In these situations, if the
child is present it becomes easier for the consultants
or supervisors to cross-check the results with the
observation and interview of the child. Further, in
several conditions especially where the child has a
developmental syndrome with recognizable body
features, it becomes easier to observe and corroborate
the assessment results.
There can be instances where there might
be differences in what is being reported by the
informant and what is being observed in the child.
In such conditions, psychologists should not hesitate
to ask the child to perform a particular behaviour.
Example of such items are ‘paper folding’, ‘walking
downstairs one step at a time’ and so on. Therefore, it
is strongly advisable to perform the assessment when
the child is around.
IV. A. iii. What Actually Does the Items Assess?
There are items in the test where explanation
is not provided in the items sheet itselt. However,
for many items, detailed explanations are provided
later in the assessment manual. A psychologist
should be aware about all these explanations, and/or
whenever in doubt, they should refer to these detailed
explanations. However, there are some items, where
a trainee or a novice psychologist might find it
difficult to know what actually to look for. Example
of one such item where there is no explanation is,
‘Item 53: Goes about neighborhood unattended’.
Here the problem might be to determine ‘what
is neighborhood’ and it can be subjective, where
neighborhood can be different to different people.
Whenever such problems arise, the psychologist has
to ‘look at what age level the item belongs to’. This
will most of the time solve the problem. In the above
example, item number 53 is in the age of 4 years 4
months (age range between 4 to 5 years). Therefore,
one has to know how much a 4 years 4 months old
child can explore the neighborhood. In this case, it
might be about few houses around its own house (if
the child is in an independent house) or going around
the apartment complex within its boundary wall.
Another such item without explanation is, ‘item 70:
Combs or brushes hair’. Again, the test administrator
should be aware that what 8 years old (age range of
7 to 8 years) child can do with her/his scalp hair. An
8 years old boy with a typical male hair cut should
be able to comb his entire scalp neatly and probably
able to separate the hair both sides (typical left and
right separation) clearly. If the child is a girl with
typical long hair, then she is expected to comb her
entire scalp and separate sides clearly. However,
tying of the hair can be optional, but not mandatory
as tying the hair is not part of the item. However, all
the above tasks are rated mainly if the child is taught/
trained/provided the opportunity to do the task/
activity. If the child is not learnt a particular task/
activity, then different rating system applies (more
on this in the section below on giving half-credits).
IV. A. iv.: To Administer It Serial Wise or
Domain Wise?
Another issue several trainees have doubt is
94
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....
whether to administer the items in serial wise or
domain wise. Either way it should not matter if the
examiner knows what all to look for and considers
every aspect while administration. However, it is
always better if the test is administered domain
wise. The reasons for this are
Its easy to ask questions in the domain wise.
For example, the examiner can ask everything
about the hygiene aspects continuously, such as
whether the child washes and dries his/her own
hand, whether s/he washes her/his face, can take
bath with and without assistance and so on. Domain
wise assessment will also make it easier to identify
discrepancies in the tasks a child can perform.
For example, if the informant says that the child
can’t wash face, but can take-bath-assisted. Here
taking-bath-assisted is higher level activity, and
when the child can perform higher-level task, s/he
should be able to do lower level activity. Further,
in domain wise assessment both the examiner
and the informant will be talking mainly about a
particular domain and will not be jumping from one
activity (in a particular domain) to another activity
(in another domain) if the test administered in the
serial (non-domain) wise.
If the test is administered in a serial wise,
there is a chance that the examiner might skip (not
assess) particular items in a particular domain. This
is because the items are not evenly distributed across
the domains. For example, self-direction domain
starts from item 60 (at age 5 years 8 months), and
the next item in self-direction is 76 (at 9 years 4
months). If administered serially, there is a chance
that if a child is getting all negative responses from,
for example item 65 to item 73, an examiner might
think of stopping the administration, thinking
that the child has got so many negative credits.
Similarly, in locomotion domain, after item 61 (at 6
years) the next item is 77 (at 9 years 4 months). If
the examiner administers serially, and the child gets
continuous negative score, for example from item
63 to item 73, there is a chance that the examiner
might stop administering the test thinking that the
child is getting continuously negative scores. Here
in this example, if stopped administration, the
examiner will not get a chance to know whether the
child can or cannot be able to do item 77.
95
IV. A. v.: When to Give Half Mark/Credit?
The ability of the children does not always
exactly fit according to the description of the test
items. There will be variations in their ability to
perform particular task, and these variations should
be acknowledged both for diagnosing as well as for
rehabilitation purposes. In this regard, providing
half mark/credit becomes important. The examples
of the scenarios where the examiner feels that a child
has the ability to do an activity, but was not able
to do due to several reasons are; child not having
had an opportunity to master the skill, temporary
ill health, caregivers have not taught particular skill
set and so on. In these cases, a half-credit can be
given. For example: ‘Goes to school unattended’.
Here half-credit can be given if the family stay in a
heavy road traffic area and the parents won’t send
the child alone to school, but otherwise parents
say the child might / would’ve gone to school with
some help if the traffic constraints were not there
(Same thing applies, if the school is far and the
child goes to school in the van/bus). Examiners
should be cautious that half-credit/mark cannot be
given when the performance has been adversely
affected by the any permanent mental disability.
On the other hand, there can be scenarios
where at that instance the child may not perform the
task due to lack of opportunity, but the caretakers
(and the examiners) are convinced that the child can
do a particular task to the full extent, a full credit/
mark should be given instead of half credit/mark.
For example, item/task ‘is trusted with money’. In
this scenario if the caretakers don’t allow the child
to go out to for small purchases, but the child has
the ability to take care of the money at home (eg.
puts the money carefully in the piggy bank), knows
the neighbourhood adequately especially where the
shops are located (this can be ascertained by asking
the caretakers or even the child), and can go around
immediate surroundings/neighbourhood. Then it is
clear that if provided the opportunity, this child will
be able to perform this task, and hence a full credit/
mark can be given.
IV. A. vi: Where to Start and When to Stop?
VSMS is a brief test and hence the examiner
can start about 2 years lower than the child’s
chronological age. However, this should be flexible,
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....
depending on the behavioural observation of the
child. On the other hand, the examiner can stop the
administration after 3 failures in the same domain,
especially when the child has developmental issues.
Examiners should be aware that a child who has
developmental delays or disability will have more
scatter than a typically developing child. Therefore,
administration should continue as much as possible
i.e. either till 3 failures in the same domain and/or
until the test items match the chronological age of the
child. For example, if the child with developmental
difficulties is 8 years old, it is advisable to administer
the test items that corresponds to 8 years, i.e. in this
scenario it will be till item 70.
IV. B. ISSUES WITH SCORING
IV. B. i. Arriving at the Social Age:
The Difference between Two Commonly Used
Methods:
Different institutions follow and teach different
methods. Some follow the ‘Total Correct Score –
Match’ method* (Doll/Bharat Raj’s scoring system),
some ‘Add Months-to-Years Wise’ method* (Malin’s
scoring system) and some of them follow the mixture
of the above. It should be noted that the ‘Add Months-
to-Years wise’ method of scoring yields the best
results. The proof with examples are given below.
Figure 3: Showing the 'Total Correct Score – Match’ Method of Scoring Using Bharat Raj’s Norms
(*the different names for the scoring i.e. ‘Total Correct
Score – Match’ and ‘Add Months-to-Years wise’, are used/
given by this author for the description and comparison
purpose. However, irrespective of what they are called, one
should know that both are different scoring system)
An illustration of the administration has been
carried out with an imaginary subject who has problem
in speech and communication. The same results (i.e.,
whether the person can do or cannot do a particular
activity) are applied to the three different scoring
system. Each of these three methods are explained
below along with figures for clear understanding.
Only ‘‘Add Months-to-Years Wise’ Scoring System
(IV. B. i. b. and Figure 4) is Appropriate, Better
and Does Justice to the Subject.
IV. B. i. a.: The ‘Total Correct Score – Match’
Scoring Method:
In this method, one has to add up the entire
scale’s correct responses to arrive at a total score,
and then match the total score to the corresponding
‘social age’ in the norms table (refer figure 3). For
example, if the child has obtained overall 82 (i.e.
able to do 82 items on the whole), this score of 82
will be matched on the norms table*2. The score of
82 corresponds to the social age (SA) of 134 months
(figure 3, red circle).
96
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....

IV. B. i. b: done for each year to arrive at that particular year

‘Add Months-to-Years Wise’ Method:
This method requires one to add up the number
of correct responses for each year separately to
obtain the age score for that particular year, and
then adding up these separate age scores to arrive
at the social age (refer figure 4). In this scenario,
each item has its value in terms of the number of
days/months. This value for each item (within a year)
can be easily arrived at by dividing the ‘number of
months in a year i.e., ‘12’ by ‘number of items in
that particular year’. For example, as there are 17
items in year 0 to 1, so each item has a value of 0.7
months (12 divided by 17 results in 0.7 months).
Therefore, if a child can perform 15 items in year 0
to 1, then that child’s score for that year is 15 (items)
multiplied by 0.7 (months), which results in 10.5
months (for year 0 to 1). Similarly, there are 4 items
in year 6, so each item has a value of 3 months (12
divided by 4 is 3 months) in that age level. Therefore,
if a child has achieved 2 items in year 6, then the
child’s score for that year is 2 (items) multiplied by
3 (months) is 6 months. Similar calculations can be
age score in months. After this, on has to add up all
these ‘age scores’ to arrive at the social age (SA).
One does not have to do the above calculations,
because the ‘age-equivalent chart’ gives the values.
The psychologist has to just add up the number of
correct items (in that particular year) and look at
the same year box and find the ‘age-score’ for that
particular year. For example, in figure 4, it shows that
in year 5 to 6, the person can do 4 items (out of 5),
so in that particular 5 to 6 year, 4 items correct yields
9.6 age credits/value.
Apparently on the surface level both methods
appear to be correct, as both methods yield relatively
same Social Quotient if the subject is a small child
and/or to some extent if the child is developmentally
normal. This apparent similarity might have been
one of the major factors in professionals ignoring
the differences in the scoring system and following
the incorrect ‘total correct score-match’ method of
scoring. The differences in scoring method will be
apparent if the subject is an adolescent and/or if the
child has developmental delay in any of the domains.

Figure 4: Showing ‘How To Calculate Social Age Through Correct Method (‘Add Months-To-Years
Wise’ Method). If You Total the Credit in Months from Each Year, the Total Will Be 160.4
Months. This Will the Social Age (SA).

97
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....

IV. B. I. C. An Erroneous Way of Mixing of Two
Methods of Scoring:
Another erroneous practice has been in the
vogue where the scoring involves both the norms.
Here professionals who practice the incorrect ‘Total
correct score–match’ method (of Doll’s / Bharat
Raj’s) of scoring follow Malin’s normative data.
However, even this method is also incorrect (refer
figure 5). As it can be observed that the social age
obtained through this method of scoring closely
resembles the social age obtained through the ‘total
correct score-match’ method (figure 3), thereby
corroborating that these two methods are incorrect.

Figure 5: Showing the Results Another Incorrect Scoring Method, Where ‘Total Correct Score–
Match’ Method is Used With Malin’s Normative Data.

IV. B. i. d: The Reason Why ‘Total Correct Score – Match’ Scoring Method is Wrong:
The reason is very simple and it is due to the fact that the ‘number of items are different in each
year’, and especially/specifically due to the number of items in the last 3 years (12 to 15 years). For
example, as mentioned earlier in year ‘0 to 1’ there are 17 items (and so each item has 0.7 months value).
However, year ‘12 to 15’ has 5 items (and so each item has 7.2 months value) (refer table 3). As mentioned
earlier, the ‘total correct score–match’ method, just uses the total number of correct responses to find the
corresponding social age. Here, the main culprit is that the norms that are used to find the social age match
is in the age scale (and not in point scale), yielding scores that are in months (and not in points).
Therefore, the problem arises when a child does not perform any particular item. If the child does
not perform any 4 items, then 4 scores/points are reduced from the total score. That is, the child gets 85

98
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....

items correct (i.e the total possible obtainable is 89 Actually, the two (or three) different scoring
in VSMS, so if the child does not perform 4 items, system make substantial differences. The differences
the score is 85). Here, the ‘total correct score– are significant when a child has developmental delay
match’ method does not consider in which year the more in any specific domains compared to global
child has not achieved/cleared a particular item, i.e. delay. In this regard, table 4 clearly shows the extent
whether it is in year ‘0 – 1’ or it is in year ‘12 to of the differences among different scoring method.
15’. That is, this method incorrectly treats all the It clearly shows how commonly practiced ‘total
unachieved items as same (without considering the correct score–match’ scoring method is incorrect and
value of each item in a particular year). Therefore, further shows the benefit of using ‘add months-to-
irrespective of the item that is not achieved, the year wise’ method.
score of 85 is matched with the norm and the social Table 3: Showing The Number of Items in Each
age is obtained, which is 12.6 years (refer figure 2). Year and the Value of Each Item in That
That is, the months are reduced/knocked off from
Particular Year
the top. Further, at the value of months are more for
each item (refer table 3). So, any item anywhere if it Age / year No. of items (in each year) Each item carries
is not achieved, the costly months are reduced from 0 – 1 year 17 0.7 months
the top (which is incorrect and should not be done). 1 – 2 year 17 0.7 months
That is, as mentioned earlier, each year has 2 - 3 year 10 1.2 months
different number of items and subsequently has 3 - 4 year 6 2 months
different value for each item (table 3). Therefore, 4 - 5 year 6 2 months
in year ‘4 to 5’, each item has a value of 2 months, 5 - 6 year 5 2.4 months
and in year ’12 to 15’, each item has a value of 7.2 6 - 7 year 4 3 months
months. Therefore, in ‘total correct score–match’ 7 - 8 year 5 2.4 months
method of scoring, in whichever year, for the non- 8 - 9 year 4 3 months
performing item/task of the child (if the child makes 9 - 10 year 3 4 months
equal to or less than 5 errors), the penalty is always
10 - 11 year 4 3 months
paid in 7.2 months at the year ’12 to 15’ (in a child
11 - 12 year 3 4 months
who is more than 15 years of age and the score is
12 - 15 year 5   7.2 months
total score is not less than 84. If the child has 10
items less, which gives it’s a score of 79, then the Figure 6: Showing the value of each item in a
penalty would be 7.2 months for 5 items each, which year on the first column on the left. The second column
is 36 months, 4 months for 3 items each which is shows how one item less anywhere will reduce 7.2
12 months, and 3 months for 2 items each, which months from the social age. The third column on
is 6 months. That is for 10 items less the values are the right shows, how one item less (in this scenario
reduced from the top, which is 36+12+6 months = the in year 7 – 8) will just remove the value of that
54 months reduction from the top). Figure 6 shows particular value item (2.4 months in this scenario) and
how much value each item has in a particular year not 7.2 months (The figure is just for illustrative and
and how much will be reduced from the top. In the explanation purpose. This is not to be used for scoring).
middle bar graph (incorrect scoring system) it can
be seen that how just one item less in the year 7
to 8 (which actually has just 2.4 months value for
each item), has reduced 7.2 months. At the same
time in the right bar graph (correct scoring system),
the same one item less from year 7 to 8 (having 2.4
months value for each item) has reduced the same
2.4 months value. Figure 6 has been shown only
for illustration purpose to pictorially depict how
the erroneous method (middle bar graph) of scoring
knocks off age-credit from the top.

99
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....

Table 4: Table Showing the Results (SQ and its chronological age (CA) should also be 15 years. If
Interpretation) of the 3 Different Scoring the child is less than 15 years old, then obviously the
Methods of the Imaginary Subjects child’s actual age should be considered. Different
(Chronological Age 15+ Years) With Different scenarios are explained below in table 5.
Difficulties. Clearly, ‘Add Months-To-Years Table 5: Explaining what Chronological Age to
Wise’ Method Yields Appropriate Social Age. be Considered for Different Age
Erroneous
 
Total correct
mix of both
Add Months-to- Scenario Child’s age Chronological Age (CA)
score – match Years wise
methods 1 7 years 7 years (84 months)
Absent Self-Direction 80 80 89
(money, purchases, Lower Dull Lower Dull Higher Dull 2 10 years 6 months 10 years 6 months (126 months)
choice of shops) Normal Normal Normal
3 14 years 10 months 14 years 10 months (178 months)
66 66 87
Absent communication 4 15 years 2 months 15 years (180 months)
Mild Mild Dull Normal /
(speech issues)
Retardation Retardation Below Average
5 16 years 15 years (180 months)
68 68 84
Absent socialization
(ASD issues)
Mild Mild Dull Normal / 6 18 years 15 years (180 months)
Retardation Retardation Below Average
93 Some professionals take 16 years as the
Absent locomotion 73 73
(Cerebral Palsy) Borderline Borderline
Normal / maximum. Here one of the main reasons they use 16
Average
years is because for Binet Kamat Test (BKT), 16 years
Specific Learning 84
Disability (SLD) (4 items
83
Dull Normal
93 are used as the maximum possible chronological age.
Dull Normal / Normal /
less, about reading, item
Below Average
/ Below
Average These professionals might not be aware that these
number 73, 78, 81 & 84) Average
are two different tests and that these two tests have
IV. B. ii. Maximum Chronological Age to be different ceiling levels. For example, as mentioned
above, VSMS has items to assess only till 15 years
Considered - 15 Years or 16 Years?
of age, whereas BKT has items to assess till 22
An analogy will explain it better. Students years of age. Somebody can think what difference
of Section A and Section B, both are of 10th grade it can make if you take 16 years than 15 years as the
were told that they will have exam next month for maximum chronological age. The below description
the chapters that were taught. Both the sections were clearly explains the discrepancies.
taught from chapter 1 to chapter 15. Students prepare
For the explanation purpose, let us assume that
for the exam. As usual like normal curve, some a child who is 16 years old has completely normal
students prepare extremely well, some extremely development/abilities in all the aspects. So, it is
low and some prepare about average for their exams. understandable that given the ‘completely normal’
However, for the exams, one of the teachers of development/abilities this child is supposed to get an
section B (not fully aware that the chapters taught SQ/IQ of around ‘100’. So, if we administer VSMS
were only till chapter 15) includes questions from she will pass all the items (as she has normal abilities)
chapter 1 to chapter 16. After few days when the of the test. So, her Social Age will be 15 years (the
results are announced, students from section A would maximum one can obtain in VSMS – Indian version).
have scored more marks compared to students from Let us calculate what happens if we take 16 years and
section B. School principal, other teachers and the 15 years as the maximum chronological age.
parents of the section B think that those students - If 16 years as the chronological age: SA / CA x
(section B) are less intelligent compared to the 100; 15 / 16 x 100 = 193.75,
students from section A. - If 16 years as the chronological age: SA / CA x
Well, the above is what happens when 16 years 100; 15 / 15 x 100 = 100
is considered as the maximum chronological age The difference of 6.75 SQ points, where a normal
(when the child is at or above 15 years of age). Similar child got less scores for not her fault (when 16
to the above analogy, Indian version of VSMS has years is considered).
items and assess the social and adaptive functions Similarly, for explanation purpose, let us assume there
only till 15 years of age. Therefore, the maximum is another girl who is 17-year-old and has some

100
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....
developmental difficulties. After administering
VSMS she get the social age of 11 years.
- If 16 years as the chronological age: SA / CA x
100; 11 / 16 x 100 = 68.75 (Mild Retardation)
- If 15 years as the chronological age: SA / CA x
100; 11 / 15 x 100 = 73.33 (Borderline)
In the above example, erroneously taking 16
years as the maximum chronological age has resulted in
otherwise ‘Borderline’ social and adaptive functioning
child, to be wrongly diagnosed as having ‘mild mental
retardation level of social and adaptive functions’.
Given this, in VSMS the maximum
chronological age to be considered should be 15
years (180 months).
IV. B. iii. Decimals:
Those who are less inclined in arithmetic
might overlook this small but significant difference.
Decimals vary from 0.1 to 1.0 (i.e. 10 decimal points).
VSMS scoring tables also lists social age in decimals
(10 decimal points). However, one should be aware
that a year has 12 months (12 points) which is not in
decimal system. Therefore, one has to remember to
follow two things.
i. All the calculations should be done using months
instead of years. If the child’s age is 12 years
2 months, then for the calculations (for both
Social Age and Chronological Age) it should
be converted into months (i.e. 14 years x 12 =
144+2 = 146 months).
ii. When the social age chart/norm table says 7.5
years, the decimal value is actually 6 months.
So, for the social age it should be considered as
7x12 + 6 = 84+6 = 90 months.
IV. B. iv. Retrospective Assessment:
There can be situations where a psychologist
is expected to assess social and adaptive functions
retrospectively. For example, before the regression
of psychomotor functions or before the onset of
psychotic symptoms. Here for the scoring purpose,
the chronological age should be the time in the past
and not the current age of the child. For example,
currently the child is 13 years, and had the onset
of psychotic symptoms at age 11 years 3 months.
Here the psychologists evaluate the child’s social
and adaptive functions at age 11 years (to be on the
safer side). So, the chronological age (CA) for the
SQ calculation should be 11 years (i.e. 132 months).
101
IV. B. v. Half-Credit Calculation:
There is confusion regarding how the half-credit
(half mark/point) are to be considered. Doll’s method
is such that there is not chance for this confusion,
because throughout in the norms-chart Doll provides
separate Social Age values for half-credit (i.e.,
separate social age values for say total score of 70,
70.5, 71, 71.5, 72. Refer table 1). However, Indian
adaptations do not have this separate social age values
for so many half-credit scores. However, this problem
only arises if the total score has half points. If the total
score has half points, the examiner has to round it off
to the higher value. That is if the total score is 65.5,
then it should be rounded off to 66.
On the other hand, if there are any half-credit
in between the test, there are few things the examiner
should be aware of. If the half-credit is between two
full credits, then this particular half-credit should be
considered as full credit. The latter half-credit to full
credit conversion should be done only with a domain.
For example, item 43 (in ‘occupation’ domain) gets
a half-credit (½ score), and item 36 (which is below
item 43 in the same domain – ‘occupation’) and
item 48 (which is above item 43 in the same domain
- ‘occupation’) gets a full credit/marks (1 point
each). Therefore, in this scenario, item 43 should be
considered as a full-credit (1 point).
On the other hand, if item 58 gets a ½ credit,
and item 57 gets 1 credit and item 59 gets 1 credit,
then item 58 should not be given 1 credit, as items
57, 58 and 59 belong to totally different domains.
IV. C. ISSUES WITH INTERPRETATION
IV. C. i. Is SQ the Same as IQ?
A psychologist has to remember that VSMS is
not the first line of or the main test to assess intelligence
quotient (this article has a limited scope and so does
not discuss what is intelligence). Social Age or the SQ
obtained by administering VSMS adds value to the
IQ, and SA/SQ is mainly used for the rehabilitation
planning and also to determine the extent of disability.
Only and only when no other tests can be used to
assess IQ, one can use SQ with limited interpretive
liberties. In situations, where IQ tests cannot be used
to assess intelligence, the psychologist should not give
up but wait and see whether the IQ tests can be used
after some days/weeks, when the situation improves.
 Bangalore N Roopesh.... / Vineland Social Maturity Scale: An Update .....
Example: When a child has psychotic symptoms. Here
the psychologist instead of using VSMS, can wait
until the symptoms reduces and then can try to do
appropriate IQ tests to determine intelligence.
In terms of similarity of SQ with the IQ, Doll
and others have reported the correlation of VSMS
SQ scores to be around 0.8 to 0.9 with IQ scores
(eg. Binet-Simon intelligence test). Therefore, to a
significant extent SQ can be a good substitute for IQ
(again, only in the absence of an IQ score). However,
the psychologist should be cautious in interpreting the
SQ. This is more so in situations when the child has
speech delay, autistic symptoms and/or cerebral palsy.
IV. C. ii. Domain-Wise / Profile and Scatter Analysis
As reported earlier item distribution in VSMS
across domains as well across age is not uniform.
There are scatter in terms of age (for example there
are 5 items in age 8, 4 items in age 9, for a complete
list (refer table 3). On the other hand, there is a scatter
in terms of domains (items end at 7 years 4 months
for ‘Self-Help General’, items end at 15 years for
‘occupation’, where as items start at 5 years 8 months
for ‘Self-Direction’).
In terms of number of items in terms of age
level, VSMS has substantial number of items or has
relatively similar number of items till around age 8
years. Therefore, domain wise scatter analysis is
more accurate till this year. After above this year,
the psychologist has to be cautious in reporting and
interpreting the domains separately. Similarly, in
terms of domain per se, for ‘Self-Direction’ items
start from 5 years 8 months, this should be kept in
mind for reporting and interpretation. In this case,
if the child is younger than for example 6 years, it
is advisable to say that ‘there are no items to assess
below 5 years 8 months for self-direction’ rather than
saying, self-direction not achieved. On the other
hand, for the scatter analysis, a score difference 2
or more can be considered as significant. However,
again due to uneven distribution of items across the
domains, interpreting scatter needs caution.
CONCLUSION
VSMS it is not immune to bias and influences
from various sources. This article above has looked into
one such bias which is the “examiner’s experience and
knowledge”. Apart from this, there are other sources of
102
View publication stats
variations such as socio-economic status (where low
socioeconomic children will do poorly compared to
children from high socioeconomic status) and certain
developmental conditions. Conditions, such as autism
spectrum disorders, where children score low on
‘socialization’ and ‘communication’ domains, which
will adversely affect the SQ. Similarly, children
with cerebral palsy score poorly on ‘locomotion’
and ‘socialization’ domains, which affects their SQ.
Despite these differences, there are no ways this can
be offset or compensated.
On the other hand, as in any test that assesses
the ability, more so in VSMS (as it is interview based
assessment) examiners has to be aware that ability
is different than motivation/interest. Experienced
examiners, have heard the caretakers telling that “my
child doesn’t do it, but only if I yell at him, he will
do”. This statement implies that the above child has
the ability for that behaviour and should be given full
credit (1 score). Here whether the child is interested
to do or lazy should not influence the judgement.
VSMS is more clinical than psychometric in
nature. The technique used is more of an interview
and behavioural observation. Therefore, VSMS is
more suited for rehabilitation purpose in terms social
and adaptive skills. However, it has also proved its
efficacy in the diagnosis of mental disability, if used
with caution.
To conclude, the current article is not an
exhaustive account on the administration, scoring
or interpretation. It focuses mainly on the areas
where there is more confusion or no consensus. The
important thing about scoring that any psychologists
assessing VSMS should be aware of is that the
maximum chronological age should be 15 years
and ‘add months-to-year wise’ scoring system is the
correct system.
REFERENCES
Doll, E. A. (1936). A practical method for the measurement
of social competence. Paper presented at the
24th Annual Meeting of the Eugenics Research
Association, New York, June 6th, 1936.
Doll, E.A. (1953). The Measurement of Social
Competence: A Manual for the Vineland Social
Maturity Scale. Educational Publishers Inc, USA.
Bharat Raj (1992). Vineland Social Maturity Scale and
Manual, Indian Adaptation – Enlarged Version,
Swayamsidtha-Prakashana, Mya.