4

Development and Standardization

The ABAS-3 includes five updated and revised rating forms that incorporate
the research conducted since publication of the previous edition (ABAS-II,
Harrison & Oakland, 2003). In preparing the ABAS-3 forms and accompanying
materials, the content and research base of the ABAS-II were reviewed and
compared to current best practices in adaptive behavior assessment. This
chapter describes the development of the ABAS-3, beginning with its theoretical
background and relationship to the ABAS-II. The chapter then details the
research methodology and samples collected to standardize the ABAS-3.

Theoretical Background
The conceptual structure of the ABAS-3 and its These sources uniformly conclude that every person
predecessors derives from three broad sources of requires a repertoire of functional adaptive skills to
information: meet the demands and expectations of their envi-
1. Concepts of adaptive behavior promoted by the ronment. The conceptual sources also converge on
AAIDD (formerly AAMR) a hierarchical structure for the assessment of adap-
tive behavior. This structure is described in the next
2. Legal and professional standards applicable to sections.
special education and disability classification
systems
3. Research into the diagnosis and classification of
individuals with various disabilities
Hierarchical Structure of More recently, the AAMR (2002) and AAIDD (2010)
Adaptive Behavior concluded that factor analytic research supports
three adaptive skill domains: Conceptual, Social, and
Adaptive skill areas. The AAMR (1992) and the Practical. These three adaptive domains are included
DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) proposed that adaptive in the following AAIDD (2010), DSM-IV-TR (APA,
behavior comprises the following 10 specific skills:1 2000), and DSM-5 (APA, 2013) definitions of adaptive
··
Communication behavior. The AAIDD (2010, p. 44) describes the three

··
Community Use
domains as follows:

··
··
Functional Academics
Conceptual skills: language; reading and writing;
and money, time, and number concepts
··
Home/School Living
··Social skills: interpersonal skills, social responsi-
··
Health and Safety bility, self-esteem, gullibility, naïveté (i.e., wari-

··
Leisure ness), follows rules/obeys laws, avoids being

··
victimized, and social problem solving
Self-Care

··
Self-Direction ··Practical skills: activities of daily living (personal
care), occupational skills, use of money, safety,

··
Social health care, travel/transportation, schedules/

··
Work (for young adults and adults)
The ABAS-3 provides a standardized assessment of
each of these adaptive skill areas, with scaled scores
based on the standardization samples described
below. These adaptive skills can be conceptually
grouped into the three broad adaptive domains
(Conceptual, Social, and Practical) measured by
the ABAS-3 and included in the AAIDD (2010),
DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000), and DSM-5 (APA, 2013)
definitions of adaptive behavior.
In addition, the ABAS-3, like the ABAS-II, assesses:
routines, and use of the telephone
The ABAS-3 continues to provide standardized
assessment of these adaptive domains.
According to the AAIDD (2010, p. 45), the concept of
adaptive skills implies an array of competencies that
may be distilled into three key points:
1. The assessment of adaptive behavior is based on
the person’s typical (not maximum) performance.
2. Adaptive skill limitations often coexist with
strengths.
3. The person’s strengths and limitations in adaptive

··
Motor (for young children)
Adaptive domains. Another way of understanding
adaptive behavior is in terms of a two-level hierar-
chy consisting of broad-based adaptive domains,
each of which includes several specific skills. His-
torically, two general groupings of adaptive skills
have been described in the literature and measured
with adaptive behavior scales: personal indepen-
dence and social responsibility (AAMR 1992, 2002;
AAIDD, 2010; Horn & Fuchs, 1987). Grossman (1983)
described these two aspects as “what people do to take
care of themselves and relate to others” (p. 42).
skills should be documented within the context
of community and cultural environments typical
of the person’s age peers and tied to the person’s
need for individualized supports.
Ability Versus Frequency in Adaptive
Behavior Assessment
A fundamental distinction within adaptive behavior
assessment is between a person’s ability to display or
perform a behavior in light of past performance, and
the frequency of a person’s actual and continued dis-
play or performance of a behavior. The WHO’s Inter-
national Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health (World Health Organization, 2001, 2007) under-
scores this distinction between abilities and perfor-
mance (in WHO terms, activities versus performance).

1 The grouping of adaptive skill areas into adaptive domains is based on AAMR (2002) guidelines. Although Health and Safety is listed
in both the Conceptual and Practical adaptive domains by the AAMR (2002b), based on the ABAS-3 item content, Health and Safety is
included in the ABAS-3 Practical adaptive domain only. Although the latest editions of the AAMR manual (2002), AAIDD manual (2010),
and DSM-5 (2013) do not require measurement of the specific adaptive skill areas outlined in the AAMR (1992) guidelines, the latest
editions describe comparable types of adaptive skills in the description of the Conceptual, Social, and Practical adaptive domain areas.

56 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization

This distinction is important when understanding
and making provisions for adaptive behavior devel-
opment. Some important skills may not have been
acquired. Thus, efforts are needed to promote their
development. In contrast, some important skills have
been acquired, yet are not being displayed when
needed. Thus, efforts are needed to encourage their
display, not their development. Still other adaptive
behaviors are displayed when needed, and thus are
not targets of intervention.
The ABAS-3 scoring system reflects these differ-
ences between ability and performance. In particu-
lar, adaptive skills that have not been acquired are
rated “0,” representing a lack of ability. In contrast,
performance of adaptive behavior skills that have
been acquired are rated based on whether they
are displayed when needed: never or almost never
(rated “1”), sometimes (rated “2”), and always or
almost always (rated “3”).
Applications of Adaptive Behavior
Assessment: Intellectual Disability
The ABAS-3 and its predecessors were designed to
address international requirements for adaptive
behavior assessment for individuals with intellectual
or developmental disabilities. Assessment of adap-
tive behavior, along with assessment of intelligence,
has long been a requirement for classification and
diagnosis of intellectual disability. The AAMR’s 1959
definition of mental retardation was one of the first
to formally acknowledge adaptive behavior deficits,
along with below-average intelligence, as necessary
for a classification of mental retardation (Heber,
1959). Deficits in adaptive behavior have been given
greater emphasis in subsequent definitions of intel-
lectual disability by the AAIDD (2010), the American
Psychiatric Association (2013), and IDEA special-
education legislation.
AAIDD. The most recent definition by the AAIDD
(2010) of intellectual disability emphasizes deficits in
adaptive behavior as a key component: “Intellectual
disability is characterized by significant limitations
both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive
behavior expressed in conceptual, social, and practi-
cal adaptive skills. This disability originates before
age 18.” (p. 1). The AAIDD manual further specifies
that adaptive behavior should be assessed by stan-
dardized measures that have been normed on the
general population, and that a diagnosis of intellec-
tual disability must include a score that is approxi-
mately two standard deviations below the normative
Theoretical Background
mean on either the overall score of adaptive function-
ing, or on one of the three adaptive behavior domains
(Conceptual, Social, or Practical) (AAIDD, 2010).
DSM. The DSM-5 also establishes diagnostic stan-
dards for intellectual disability. “The diagnosis of
intellectual disability is based on both clinical assess-
ment and standardized testing of intellectual and
adaptive functions” (APA, 2013, p. 37). Although the
DSM-5 specifies IQ scores that are “approximately
two standard deviations or more below the popula-
tion mean,” it is less specific than the AAIDD about
adaptive behavior scores, indicating that “at least
one domain of adaptive functioning—conceptual,
social, or practical—is sufficiently impaired to war-
rant ongoing support in one or more settings” (APA,
2013, pp. 37–38). Nevertheless, DSM-5 provides
some guidelines for adaptive behavior assessment,
including the use of psychometrically sound, stan-
dardized measures, administered to knowledgeable
informants, and interpreted using clinical judgment
(APA, 2013, pp. 37–38).
IDEA. In the United States, federal special-education
legislation and subsequent state regulations have
required deficits in intelligence and adaptive behavior
for a classification of intellectual disability. Accord-
ing to the latest federal legislation, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
(IDEA), “Mental retardation means significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing
concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and
manifested during the developmental period, that
adversely affects a child’s educational performance”
(IDEA, Final Regulations, 2006, Sec. 300.8).
The ABAS-3 addresses requirements for measure-
ment of the adaptive behavior deficits emphasized in
the AAIDD, DSM, and IDEA definitions of intellectual
disability. To do this, the ABAS-3 provides a standard-
ized assessment that yields a broad-based compos-
ite measure (the General Adaptive Composite) that
includes all facets of adaptive behavior; Conceptual,
Social, and Practical adaptive domains; and specific
adaptive skill areas.
Individual agencies and organizations may have
criteria for adaptive behavior deficits that differ from
those of the AAIDD, DSM, or IDEA. Professional users
should consult legal and professional standards
when using adaptive behavior assessment data for
diagnosis, classification, or treatment planning.
ABAS-3 57
Adaptive Behavior and Other Disabilities
Although the assessment of adaptive skills tradition-
ally has been associated with intellectual disability,
adaptive skills are vital for all individuals, including
those with limitations and disabilities other than
intellectual disability. Adaptive skills should be
assessed routinely for children or adults who have
problems that interfere with daily functioning (Har-
rison, 1990; Harrison & Boney, 2002; Reschly, 1990).
These may include, but are not limited to, persons
who exhibit the effects of trauma, display attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), disruptive
Planning the ABAS-3 Revision
The ABAS-3 represents a revision and update of a
well-established instrument in wide use throughout
the United States and around the world. The specific
aims of the revision were to update the normative
sample, add additional clinical studies, update the
item sets and include new items as needed, and
improve upon the ABAS-II by considering develop-
ments in the field of adaptive behavior assessment,
professional reviews, and user feedback.
The ABAS-3 standardization study, described below,
was designed to replicate the size and scope of the
ABAS-II standardization study. In addition, research
was conducted to document the level of equivalence
between scores from the two editions, and to show
that the extensive validity evidence published with
the ABAS-II is applicable to the new edition. The
ABAS-3 includes three new validity studies of clinical
conditions where adaptive behavior is a core focus of
the assessment process: attention-deficit/hyperactiv-
ity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and intellec-
tual disability. These validity and reliability studies
are described in Chapter 5.
The ABAS-II item sets were revised for the ABAS-3
with three goals in mind. First, items were revised to
clarify or update content (for example, some ABAS-II
items that referred to outdated technology and other
daily activities were deleted or revised; others were
reworded to enhance understanding by respondents).
Second, items reflecting adaptive behavior deficits
specific to autism spectrum disorder, attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and gullibility/naïveté
(a facet of intellectual disability; see Greenspan, 2009;
58 ABAS-3
behaviors, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, neuro­
cognitive impairments, autism spectrum disorder
(ASD), developmental delays and disorders, eating
disorders, health impairment, language disorders,
learning disabilities and disorders, neurobehavioral
and neurodevelopmental disorders, motor impair-
ment, physical disabilities, personality disorders,
psychotic and thought disorders, sensory impair-
ments, sleep disorders, substance-related disorders,
or traumatic brain injury. The last section of
Chapter 3 provides examples of how adaptive
behavior assessment helps those with a variety
of presenting problems.
AAIDD, 2010) were added to better assess individu-
als with those disorders. Third, items were added at
higher and lower levels of development to increase
the difficulty range of each adaptive skill area. A
detailed description of the steps used in revising the
item pool appears in “Item Development” below.
Based on input from ABAS-II users, the user experi-
ence for both administrators and respondents was
improved. For example, the instructions were clari-
fied on all forms of the ABAS-3 so that respondents
are better able to understand the distinction between
ratings of zero and one, using the visual design of
the forms to sharpen the distinction between abil-
ity (item ratings of 0) and frequency (item ratings of
1, 2, and 3). The new ABAS-3 forms also are easier to
administer and score. For example, the ABAS-3 Score
Summary page now folds out to facilitate transfer of
adaptive skill area raw scores from their respective
pages, and then folds over to facilitate transfer of
scaled scores to the Optional Analyses page.
Overall, despite updates to the content and visual
format of the ABAS-3, experienced users will find
the essential features of ABAS-II unchanged, includ-
ing overall structure of adaptive skill areas, adaptive
domains, and General Adaptive Composite; number
of forms and their basic features; and general proce-
dures for administration, scoring, and interpretation.
Chapter 4 Development and Standardization
Item Development
Item revision began with a review of the ABAS-II item
set (Harrison & Oakland, 2003). Experts in adaptive
behavior assessment, including the authors and a
group of doctoral-level test developers, first identified
items that were candidates for revision and dele-
tion, based either on outdated content or need for
increased clarity for respondents. Items referring to
older technology or less contemporary activities of
daily living were deleted or updated. For example,
the Leisure item beginning with “Selects television
programs or videotapes . . .” was changed to “Selects
television programs or uses the Internet . . .” Some
items were deleted because users reported that they
were difficult to rate, such as the Self-Care item “Has
pleasant breath.” Other items were identified during
the review process as lacking clarity of specificity in
terms of observable daily behaviors. For example, the
Work item “Attends work regularly” was revised to
“Goes to work at scheduled times” to reflect greater
specificity.
Next, new items were written to assess adaptive
behavior deficits associated with autism spectrum
disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
and intellectual disability. Although a number of
previous ABAS-II items relating to these disabilities
were retained, new items were added to reflect cur-
rent research and practice in these areas. With respect
to autism, items such as “Engages in a variety of fun
activities instead of only one or two” were added to
supplement ABAS-II items such as “Initiates games or
selects television programs liked by friends or family
members.” New ADHD-related items such as “Stands
still when needed, without fidgeting or moving
around” were added to current items such as “Reads
and follows instructions for completing classroom
projects or activities.” Because the ABAS-II included
few items related to gullibility or naïveté, which are
important for people with intellectual disability,
items such as “Checks the accuracy of charges before
paying a bill” and “Refuses gifts and rides from
strangers” were added to the ABAS-3.
Planning the ABAS-3 Revision
Finally, new items were added to each adaptive skill
area to increase the range of development covered
by each of the five ABAS-3 forms. For example, new
low-difficulty items—such as the Community Use
item “Stays with parents or other family members in
a store and does not wander off ” and the Leisure item
“Smiles or shows interest when he or she sees a favor-
ite toy”—were added to the Parent/Primary Caregiver
Form. Similarly, new high-difficulty items—such as
the Community Use item “Is responsible for his or her
personal finances, such as bank account, credit card,
or utility bill” and the Social item “Sends thank-you
notes or emails after receiving a gift or help with an
important task”—were added to the Parent Form.
Likewise, new low-difficulty items were added to
the Teacher/Daycare Provider Form, and new high-
difficulty items were added to the Teacher Form and
the Adult Form.
Based on a series of structured ratings for content
validity and item quality by the test authors, doctoral-
level test developers, and clinical experts, an average
of 60 new items were added to each research form
used in the ABAS-3 standardization. An average
of 220 items per research form were original and
revised items from the ABAS-II.
The five research forms—Parent/Primary Caregiver
(Ages 0–5), Parent (Ages 5–21), Teacher/Daycare
Provider (Ages 2–5), Teacher (Ages 5–21), and Adult
(Ages 16–89)—were administered to the standardiza-
tion samples, after which those items with the best
content and psychometric properties (e.g., item-total
correlations; internal consistency reliability;
goodness-of-fit to a Rasch model of measurement;
and differential item functioning) were retained for
the published ABAS-3 forms, arranged in develop-
mental sequence based on item difficulty. Across all
forms, the ABAS-3 is composed of an item pool that
is 65% original ABAS-II items, 18% revised ABAS-II
items, and 17% new items (see Table 4.1).
ABAS-3 59
 Table 4.1. Number and Type of Items Included per Form in the ABAS-II and ABAS-3
Parent/Primary Teacher/Daycare
Caregiver Form Parent Form Provider Form Teacher Form Adult Form
(Ages 0–5) (Ages 5–21) (Ages 2–5) (Ages 5–21) (Ages 16–89)

Number of items in ABAS-II 241 232 216 193 239

Number of original ABAS-II 177 138 150 121 147
items in ABAS-3
Number of revised ABAS-II 33 48 40 32 40
items in ABAS-3
Number of new items 31 46 26 40 52
in ABAS-3
Total number of items 241 232 216 193 239
in ABAS-3
Percentage of ABAS-3 forms 87% 80% 88% 79% 78%
composed of original and
revised ABAS-II items

Standardization Study
The ABAS-3 standardization study included three
independently collected samples: Infant and Pre-
school (ages 0–5; Parent/Primary Caregiver and
Teacher/Daycare Provider forms), School (ages 5–21;
Parent and Teacher forms), and Adult (ages 16–89;
Adult Form, self-report and rated by others). Taken
together, these samples consisted of 7,737 research
forms completed by respondents who reported on the
adaptive behavior of 4,500 individuals.
For each person included as a case in the standard-
ization sample, one or two respondents completed
an ABAS-3 research form about that person. For
example, for most school-age children, a parent
completed a Parent Form and a teacher completed
a Teacher Form (see Table 4.5). In every case, respon-
dents were those who had extensive knowledge
about the daily adaptive skills of the person, as well
as frequent opportunities of long duration to observe
the person’s skills and responses to environmental
demands. Information about the respondent is listed
in Table 4.6. Respondents for 0- to 5-year-olds com-
pleted the Parent/Primary Caregiver or Teacher/
Daycare Provider forms; respondents for 5- to
21-year-olds completed the Parent or Teacher forms;
and respondents for 16- to 89-year-olds completed
the Adult Form, either as a self-report or as rated by
others. Additional respondents, as well as certain
respondents in the standardization sample, com-
pleted multiple forms for the reliability and validity
studies, which are detailed in Chapter 5. Standardiza-
tion data were collected over an 18-month period,
from March 2013 to September 2014. The sampling
methods are designed to include cases with mild
disabilities, as long as the severity does not preclude
mainstream activities (such as general education).
Over a large standardization sample, these methods
are designed to include these mild problems at their
population base rate.
Characteristics of the Standardization
Sample
The standardization samples were obtained by
recruiting data collectors from across the United
States who had access to persons ages 0 to 89, and to
respondents able to report on those persons’ adap-
tive behavior. Standardization data were collected
at 56 sites in 24 states in all four major U.S. Cen-
sus regions. Each data collector obtained access to
individuals through schools, clinics, day-care centers,
or community organizations. The goal was to collect
a sample representative of the U.S. population in
terms of ethnicity, gender, and household education
level (an accepted index of socioeconomic status).
The demographic characteristics of the ABAS-3 stan-
dardization samples are described in Tables 4.2–4.5.
In general, deviations from the U.S. Census involved
some overrepresentation of White individuals and
those of higher educational attainment. Discrepan-
cies of geographic region, though also present, have
not been shown to have a consistent effect on scores
from behavior rating scales.

60 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization

 Table 4.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Table 4.3. Demographic Characteristics of the
ABAS-3 Standardization Sample: Infant and ABAS-3 Standardization Sample: Parent and
Preschool Forms (Ages 0–5) Teacher Forms (5–21)
% of U.S. % of U.S.
Characteristic n sample Census %a Characteristic n sample Census %a

Gender Gender
Male 723 50.9 49.2 Male 960 50.6 49.2
Female 697 49.1 50.8 Female 936 49.4 50.8

Race/Ethnicityb Race/Ethnicityb
Asian 68 4.8 4.6 Asian 58 3.1 4.6
Black/African American 198 13.9 13.8 Black/African American 462 24.4 14.2
Hispanic Origin 245 17.3 25.7 Hispanic Origin 422 22.3 22.6
Native Hawaiian/ 2 0.1 0.2 Native Hawaiian/ 2 0.1 0.2
Pacific Islander Pacific Islander
American Indian/ 3 0.2 0.9 American Indian/ 39 2.1 0.9
Alaska Native Alaska Native
White 800 56.3 50.2 White 822 43.4 54.2
Other 104 7.3 4.6 Other 91 4.8 3.3

Parents’ educational level Parents’ educational level

Less than high school 60 4.2 12.5 Less than high school 222 11.7 12.3
diploma diploma
High school graduate 202 14.2 24.8 High school graduate 466 24.6 26.8
Some college 340 23.9 31.0 Some college 384 20.3 30.6
Bachelor’s degree 818 57.6 31.7 Bachelor’s degree 824 43.5 30.2
or higher or higher

U.S. geographic region U.S. geographic region

Northeast 242 17.0 17.9 Northeast 196 10.3 17.9
South 650 45.8 38.1 South 1,013 53.4 38.1
Midwest 241 17.0 22.3 Midwest 256 13.5 22.3
West 287 20.2 21.8 West 431 22.7 21.8

Note. Total N = 1,420. Due to rounding, total percentages may not Note. Total N = 1,896. Due to rounding, total percentages may not
equal 100.0%. equal 100.0%.
aU.S. Census Bureau (2012). Race/Ethnicity based on ages 0–5; aU.S. Census Bureau (2012). Race/Ethnicity based on ages 5–21;

parents’ educational level based on ages 25–44 (those most likely parents’ educational level based on ages 25–64 (those most likely
to have children ages 0–5); gender and region based on the general to have children ages 5–21); gender and region based on the general
population. population.
bIndividuals of Hispanic origin are included in the race/ethnicity bIndividuals of Hispanic origin are included in the race/ethnicity

category under “Hispanic Origin”; the remaining race/ethnicity category under “Hispanic Origin”; the remaining race/ethnicity
categories include only individuals of non-Hispanic origin. Individuals categories include only individuals of non-Hispanic origin. Individuals
of two or more races (n = 93) are included in the “Other” category. of two or more races (n = 61) are included in the “Other” category.

Standardization Study ABAS-3 61

 Table 4.4. Demographic Characteristics of the ABAS-3 Standardization
Sample: Adult Form (16–89) (Self-Report and Rated by Others)
Characteristic n % of sample U.S. Census %a

Gender
Male 580 49.0 49.2
Female 604 51.0 50.8

Race/Ethnicityb
Asian 55 4.6 5.1
Black/African American 240 20.3 12.0
Hispanic Origin 148 12.5 15.1
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 14 1.2 0.2
American Indian/Alaska Native 15 1.3 0.7
White 659 55.7 65.6
Other 53 4.5 1.4

Adults’ educational level

Less than high school diploma 106 9.0 14.5
High school graduate 294 24.8 28.4
Some college 372 31.4 31.1
Bachelor’s degree or higher 412 34.8 26.0

U.S. geographic region

Northeast 259 21.9 17.9
South 581 49.1 38.1
Midwest 57 4.8 22.3
West 287 24.2 21.8

Note. Total N = 1,184. Due to rounding, total percentages may not equal 100.0%.
aU.S. Census Bureau (2012). Race/Ethnicity based on ages 16–89; educational level based on

ages 18 and over; gender and region based on the general population.
bIndividuals of Hispanic origin are included in the race/ethnicity category under “Hispanic

Origin”; the remaining race/ethnicity categories include only individuals of non-Hispanic origin.
Individuals of two or more races (n = 39) are included in the “Other” category.

Table 4.5. Standardization Sample by Age Group

Infant–Preschool Forms School-Age Forms Adult Form
Parent/Primary Teacher/Daycare Rated by
Age range Caregiver Provider Age range Parent Teacher Age range Self-report others

0:0–0:3 117 — 5 179 150 16–21 152 150

0:4–0:7 97 — 6 195 186 22–29 165 167
0:8–0:11 100 — 7 192 173 30–39 211 194
1:0–1:3 94 — 8 167 159 40–49 166 151
1:4–1:7 82 — 9 166 161 50–59 132 115
1:8–1:11 96 — 10 158 166 60–69 111 118
2:0–2:5 94 57 11 135 155 70–79 47 65
2:6–2:11 99 63 12 141 138 80–89 30 41
3:0–3:5 81 61 13–14 203 200
3:6–3:11 103 90 15–16 197 199
4:0–4:5 118 108 17–21 138 136
4:6–4:11 129 121
5:0–5:11 161 157

Total 1,371 657 Total 1,871 1,823 Total 1,014 1,001

Note. In the ages 0–5 sample, 2,028 forms were administered to 1,420 individuals, with 545 individuals rated using both the Parent/Primary Caregiver
and Teacher/Daycare Provider forms. In the ages 5–21 sample, 3,694 forms were administered to 1,896 individuals, with 1,349 individuals rated using
both the Parent and Teacher forms. In the ages 16–89 sample, 2,015 forms were administered to 1,184 individuals, with 831 individuals rated by self-
report and by others using the Adult Form.

62 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization

 Table 4.6. Standardization Samples Respondent Characteristics

Parent/Primary Caregiver Sample Adult Sample, Rated by Others

(0–5 years) (21–89 years)
Category of respondent Percentage Category of respondent Percentage

Mother 63.7 Mother 16.2

Father 27.1 Father 3.6
Grandparent 3.9 Wife 18.4
Other relative 3.8 Husband 16.3
Other caregiver 1.4 Sister 10.5
Unknown 0.1 Brother 4.6
Daughter 4.7

Parent Sample (5–21 years) Son 1.4

Category of respondent Percentage Aunt 1.8

Uncle 0.9
Mother 70.5
Other relative 2.3
Father 17.5
Roommate 0.4
Grandparent 5.0
Romantic friend 6.2
Other relative 4.3
Non-romantic friend 7.8
Other caregiver 2.6
Coworker 2.4
Unknown 0.1
Professional caregiver 0.3
Teacher 1.9
Teacher/Daycare Provider Sample
(2–5 years) Other 0.2
Category of respondent Percentage Unknown 0.1

General education teacher 6.6

Preschool teacher 70.5
Day-care or child care provider 16.6
Other service provider 5.2
Unknown 1.1

Teacher Sample (5–21 years)

Category of respondent Percentage

General education teacher 96.9

Other teacher 2.2
Unknown 1.0

Standardization Study ABAS-3 63

 Norms Development
Derivation of Adaptive Skill Area
Scaled Scores
For each age group, the total raw scores of each
adaptive skill area were converted into scaled scores
with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The
raw score distributions were evaluated separately
in each age stratum. Meaningful departures from
normality occurred in most distributions, especially
in the extreme upper and lower age strata. Therefore,
instead of calculating linear standard scores, normal-
ized raw score distributions were reconstituted from
percentile ranks in the original raw score distribu-
tions (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).
The normalized distributions were used to estimate
means and standard deviations for each age group,
after which smoothing methods were applied. These
methods use the stable variance of the entire stan-
dardization sample to adjust for random fluctuations
in variance due to smaller sample sizes within each
age stratum.
The estimated smoothing curves for the adaptive skill
area data conformed to simple growth curve expec-
tations—that is, second-order polynomials (steep
growth in early years, flattening out in later years)
or third-order polynomials (slow growth in early
years, steeper growth in middle years, and flattening
growth toward maturity). Minor hand-smoothing was
required at the extremes of the standard score distri-
butions to ensure the expected progression of scores
when a child transitions from one age stratum to the
next. The scaled score equivalents of adaptive skill
area raw scores are provided in Appendix A.
64 ABAS-3
For children younger than 1 year, the ABAS-3 does
not provide norms for the Community Use, Func-
tional Pre-Academics, and Home Living adaptive
skill areas, because most behaviors in these areas
have not yet developed in children this young. The
Community Use adaptive skill area is not included
on the Teacher/Daycare Provider Form because most
teachers do not regularly observe their students out-
side of the classroom. The Motor adaptive skill area,
which measures fine and gross motor development,
is included only on the Parent/Primary Caregiver and
Teacher/Daycare Provider forms. The Work adap-
tive skill area is included on the Parent, Teacher, and
Adult forms but is only completed by respondents if
the individual has a part-time or full-time job. The
ABAS-3 does not provide norms for the Work adap-
tive skill area for ages 5 to 16 years on the Parent and
Teacher forms or for ages 75 to 89 years on the Adult
Form, because most individuals in these age ranges
are not employed.
Derivation of the General Adaptive
Composite and Adaptive Domain
Standard Scores
To derive the General Adaptive Composite and adap-
tive domain standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15), the
adaptive skill area scaled scores comprising each
adaptive domain were summed. The distributions
of these summed scores were examined for each age
group and form. In some age ranges, the distributions
were approximately normal, but in others, there were
meaningful departures from normality. In particular,
the upper tails of these distributions were often com-
pressed by ceiling effects (i.e., a high proportion of
scores at the top of the possible score range) because
typical adaptive behaviors are well developed for
most individuals without disabilities.
Chapter 4 Development and Standardization
Therefore, instead of calculating linear standard Because many typically developing children and
scores, normalized raw score distributions were adults are competent in all areas of adaptive behav-
reconstituted from percentile ranks in the original ior, ABAS-3 score distributions often show ceiling
raw score distributions, using a process similar to effects, where a number of persons achieve high
that described previously for the adaptive skill area scores on the scale due to normal acquisition of
norms. In this way, the adaptive domain standard adequate adaptive behavior being attained by most
scores and General Adaptive Composite scores were individuals without disabilities. For this reason,
created by transforming the normalized sums of ABAS-3 standard score tables are truncated at a maxi-
scaled scores into standard scores with a mean of 100 mum score of 120 (1⅓ SD above the mean). Unlike
and standard deviation of 15. measures of intelligence, achievement, and other cog-
nitive qualities, the ABAS-3 measures typical behav-
The estimated smoothing curves for the composite
iors and is not intended to measure “exceptional” or
data were not expected to conform to growth curves
“gifted” adaptive behavior. Thus, truncating ABAS-3
in the same way as the adaptive skill areas, because
standard scores at a high of 120 will not affect clinical
the composite scores are based on sums of scaled
usage. The ABAS-3, like other measures of adaptive
scores that are already adjusted for age. Therefore,
behavior, is used to assess the adaptive skill develop-
only linear equations and second-order polynomials
ment of those who are expected to display average
were used for smoothing. As described previously,
or below-average adaptive skills. The standard score
minor hand-smoothing was required at the extremes
tables continue to a lower limit of 40, facilitating
of the standard score distributions to ensure the
assessment of individuals with slight deficits to
expected progression of scores. The standard score
severe impairments in adaptive skills.
equivalents of the adaptive domain and general
adaptive sums of scaled scores are provided in
Derivation of Test-Age Equivalents for
Appendix A.
Adaptive Skill Areas
For the Parent/Primary Caregiver Form, the Gen-
The ABAS-3 provides test-age equivalents of adaptive
eral Adaptive Composite for children ages birth to
skill area raw scores for individuals ages 0 to 21 years
11 months was calculated using only seven adap-
who are rated using the infant–preschool (Parent/
tive skill areas because three of the ten adaptive
Primary Caregiver or Teacher/Daycare Provider)
skill areas are not administered to this age group.
or school-age (Parent or Teacher) forms. A test-age
Although the Motor adaptive skill area is used in
equivalent represents the age in years and months
the GAC calculation, it is not used for the adaptive
at which a particular adaptive skill area’s raw score
domains in this age group. For ages 1 to 5 years
is the average score. The ABAS-3 test-age equivalents
using the Parent/Primary Caregiver Form, the GAC is
were developed by identifying the adaptive skill
calculated using all 10 adaptive skill areas. The sums
area raw score (or scores) corresponding to a scaled
of scaled scores for the Teacher/Daycare Provider
score of 10 for each age group. If the same raw score
Form were calculated using all nine of the adaptive
appeared at multiple age groups, it was assigned to
skill areas included on the form. For the school-age
the middle age group. Interpolation was used when
Parent and Teacher forms, the sums of the scaled
necessary to provide a test-age equivalent for a miss-
scores were calculated using only nine of the ten
ing raw score.
adaptive skill areas. The Work adaptive skill area is
not included in the GAC because it is irrelevant for
most school-aged children. For the adult norms,
the Practical adaptive domain and GAC were calcu-
lated with and without the Work adaptive skill area,
depending on whether or not the individual being
rated was employed.

Norms Development ABAS-3 65