ASSESSING SPECIAL

POPULATIONS
Infant and Preschool Assessment

MOHD ZAHIR HAFIZI BIN SAFIAN

MPP141236
• Assessment of Infant Capacities
• Assessment of Preschool Intelligence
• Practical Utility of Infant and Preschool Assessment
• Screening for School Readiness
• Dial-4
ASSESSMENT OF INFANT
CAPACITIES
• Helps to answer questions about the intellectual and
emotional development of children, whether they are
developmentally delayed, intellectually gifted, at-risk for
emotional disorder, or within the normal spectrum.
• Include individual tests, developmental schedules, and
rating scales.
• What is the use of these measures?
• What is the meaning of a score on developmental
schedule or preschool intelligence test?
• To what extend do these procedures allow us to
prognosticate adult functioning or for that matter, helps us
to predict early school performance?
• The review can be divided into two parts
• Infant measures – from birth to 2 ½ years (sensory and motor
development)
• Preschool tests – Age 2 ½ - age 6 (cognitive skills such as verbal
comprehension and spatial thinking)
Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS)
• By T. Berry Brazelton (Brazelton & Nugent, 1995)
• Emphasizes the need to document the
contributions of the newborn to the parent-infant
system
• To identify and understand the ‘deviant’ infant and
to explore the baby’s reciprocal impacts on
parents
• Suitable for infants up to 2 months age (first week
of life)
• Assesses the infant’s behavioral repertoire on 28
behavior items, each scored on a 9-point scale.
• Response decrement to light
• Orientation to inanimate
• Visual stimulus
• Cuddliness
• Consolability
• Infant’s neurological status is evaluated on
18 reflex items, each scored on a 4-point
scale
• Plantar grasp
• Babinski reflex
• Rooting reflex
• Sucking reflex
• Finally, 7 supplementary items used to
summarize the qualities of responsiveness of
frail, high-risk infants (quality of alertness, general
irritability, examiner’s emotional response to
infant)
• No scoring system ; a summary sheet with ratings
on each specific item
• Reviewers are somewhat skeptical about the
psychometric properties of the instrument
• Eg. Majnemer and Mazer (1998) point to very low
test-retest reliability coefficients
• (r = -0.15 to +0.32 for the individual items) and
weak interrater agreement
• For this reason, deviant scores from a single
administration should not be over interpreted
Bayley-III
• Originally released in 1969 ( now in 3rd edition)
• Formally known as Bayley Scales of Infant and
Toddler Development-III
• Age 1 month-42 months
• Evaluation of developmental delay in infants and
toddlers
• 1st edition – only cognitive and motor capacities of infant
• Latest edition provides assessment for five domains
• Cognitive scale
• Language scale
• Motor scale
• Social-emotional
• Adaptive behavior scale
• Seeks to yield a profile scores useful in infant assessment
and diagnosis
Reliability
• Internal consistency reliability of the five composite scores
appears to be strong with average reliability coefficients
as high as .93 (Language) and .91 (cognitive)
• Test-retest reliability over a short period (average of 6
days) is predictably lower, with coefficients ranging
from .67 (Fine motor) to .80 (Expressive Communication).
• Average stability coefficient across all ages for the major
composites was .80, which is decent given that infants
and toddlers are notoriously distractible
Validity
• Validity is scant at this time but wholly supportive
• Confirmatory factor analysis of the subtests of the
Cognitive, Language, and Motor scales supported the
three-factor model across all age groups of the
standardisation sample, except for the youngest age
group (Bayley, 2006)
• Concurrent validity coefficients with other instruments are
strong as well.
• WPPSI-III Full Scale IQ scores correlated .72 to .79 with Bayley-III
Cognitive composites.
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment-
Clinical Form (DECA-C)
• Designed for preschoolers aged 2:0 through 5:11 with
social and emotional troubles or significant behavioral
concerns (LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999ab, 2003)
• Unique – focus on protective factors that can buffer the
impact of social, emotional, or behavior difficulties.
• Consists of 3 protective factor scales
• Initiative
• Self-control
• Attachment
• As well as 4 problem scales
• Attention problems
• Aggression
• Withdrawal/Depression
• Emotional Control Problems
• Can be completed by parents and teachers
• 62 items – rate the frequency of various behaviors on a 5
point scale (never, rarely, occasionally, frequently, very
frequently)
• Based on resilience theory proposed by Werner (1990)
and described by others (e.g., Masten, Best & Garmezy,
1990)
• RESILIENT VS VULNERABLE
• Concentrates on protective factors at 3 levels:
• Environmental
• Family
• Within-child
• Purpose – Interventions can build upon the child’s
strengths
Reliability and Validity
• Internal consistency reliability
 For parents – coefficient alphas for the subscales were typically in the
high .70s (median .78), whereas the values for teachers were higher,
typically in the high .80s (median.88)
• Discriminant analysis with the Total Behavior Concerns
scale scores revealed a 74% accuracy classifying clinical
VS community cases, suggesting good criterion validity
• Ogg et al. (2010) – confirmatory factor analysis of scores
determined that the factor structure proposed by the
original authors was adequate, with minor modifications in
wording.
ASSESSMENT OF
PRESCHOOL
INTELLIGENCE
• Scarr (1981) – whenever one measures a child’s cognitive
functioning, one is also measuring cooperation, attention,
persistence, ability to sit still, and social responsiveness to
an assessment situation
• Special danger – examiner may infer that a low score
indicates low cognitive functioning when, in truth, the child
is merely unable to sit still, attend, cooperate and so forth
• Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-2
(KABC-2)
• Differential Ability Scales-II (DAS-II)
• Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
Intelligence-IV (WPPSI-IV)
• Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales for Early
Childhood, 5th Edition (Early SB5)
Differential Ability Scales-II
• 3-6 to 6-11
• Includes 10 core subtests (primary measures of
cognitive abilities)
• and 10 diagnostic subtests (provide
supplementary information about school
readiness and information processing)
• For age 3 ½ and above, a comprehensive test battery
would include six core subtests and seven diagnostic
subtests
• Heavily saturated with the g factor and are used to derive
3 core cluster scores (Verbal, Nonverbal Reasoning, and
Spatial) and overall composite score known as General
Conceptual Ability (GCA)
Reliability
• For preschooler, GCA internal consistency is .95.
• The cluster score values ranging from .89 to .95.
• Internal consistency of subtests is predictably
lower ranging, although still laudable from .81
to .91.
• Test-retest reliability significantly lower, ranging
from .51 to .92 with most values in the .70s
to .80s
Validity
• Very strong correlation with other tests of
preschool cognitive functioning and
achievement
• DAS II GCA scores correlate by r =.87 with
WPPSI-III IQ and r = .84 with WISC-IV IQ
• r = .82 with WIAT-II total achievement, r = .81
with KTEA-II
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
Intelligence-IV (WPPSI-IV)
• Suitable for age 2 ½ - 7 years and 7 months
• Includes up to 13 subtests
• 5 Primary Index Scales, each based on two subtests,
needed to capture the complexity of cognitive abilities in
older children
• Verbal comprehension (Information, Similarities)
• Visual Spatial (Block Design, Object Assembly)
• Fluid Reasoning (Matrix Reasoning, Picture concepts)
• Working memory (Picture Memory, Zoo Location)
• Processing Speed (Bug Search, Cancellation)
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale for Early Childhood
(Early SB5)
• Combine subtests from SB5 + Test Observation
Checklist (TOC) + software-generated parents
report
• Age 2 – 7 years 3 months
• Age range in which child’s true level of functioning
can be radically underestimated due to behavior
problems
• Purpose of TOC is to provide a qualitative but
highly structured format for describing wide range
of behaviors, including noncompliance, known to
affect test performance
• TOC are divided into two groups
• Characteristics
• Motor skills
• Activity level
• Attention/Distractibility
• Impulsivity
• Language
• Specific behaviors (page 276)
• Consistency in performance
• Mood
• Frustration tolerance
• Change in mental set
• Motivation
• Fear of failure
• Degree of cooperativeness/refusals
• Anxiety
• Need for redirection
• Parental behaviors
• Representativeness of test behaviors
• TOC helps the examiner to identify problematic behaviors
that may affect the validity of the test results
• Documentation of these behavior problems may prove
helpful in the early detection of developmental difficulties
such as
• learning disabilities,
• behavior problems,
• attentional difficulties,
• borderline cognitive function
• Neuropsychological deficits
(Aylward & Carson, 2005)
PRACTICAL UTILITY OF
INFANT AND PRESCHOOL
ASSESSMENT
Predictive validity of Infant and Preschool Tests
• No correlation between performance during the
first six months of life with IQ score after age 5
(McCall, 1976)
• The findings with preschool tests are somewhat
more positive in tone. The correlation between
preschool test results and later IQ is typically
strong, significant and meaningful
• Infant tests generally have poor prognostic value,
preschool tests are moderately predictive of later
intelligence.
Practical Utility of Infant Scales
• Use of infant tests – screening for developmental
disabilities
• Early detection of children at risk for mental retardation is
vital because it provides for early intervention and allows
for improved outcomes later in life
• Existing infant tests are poor predictors of childhood and
adult intelligence, exception to the infants obtained very
low scores on the Bayley test and other screening tests.
• E.g., Infants who score two or more SD below the mean on the
original Bayley and the Bayley-II (mental scale) reveal a high
probability of meeting the criteria for mental retardation later in
childhood (Goodman, Malizia, Durieux-Smith, MacMurray, &
Bernard, 1990)
• Very low score on infant test – 2 or more SD
below the mean – accurately prognosticates
mental retardation in childhood.
• E.g., Studies with Denver-II revealed a false positive
rate of only 5-11 percent * (Frankenburg, 1985)
• E.g., 23 young children with mild, moderate and severe
mental retardation confirmed by the Bayley at ages 18-
30 months continued to merit a diagnosis of mental
retardation 1-3 years later. (VanderVeer and Schweid,
1974)
Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence (FT-II)
• Assesses visual recognition memory using 10-
trial habituation format (Fagan & Shepherd, 1986)
• A photograph is shown to the infant, followed by
paired presentation of the original face with either
• A photograph of a similar but new face, OR
• A photograph of the original face in a different
orientation
Validity
• Validation as predictor of childhood intelligence
and as screening for mental retardation are
mixed in outcome
• FTII scores obtained at 7-9 months of age
correlated only .32 with SB IQ at age 3 for a
sample of 200 infants (DiLalla, Thompson,
Plomin, and others, 1990)
• FTII scores obtained at 7-9 months of age
Correlated with WPPSI-R IQ at age 5 were very
low, about .2, for two Norwegian samples of
healthy children (Anderson, 1996)
• FTII may perform better as a screening test than
a general predictor of childhood intelligence.
• Shepherd (1986) reported positive findings in a
study of 62 infants who experienced adverse
factors such as premature birth or maternal
diabetes. When evaluated at 3 years of age, 8
children revealed cognitive delay (IQ < 70)
whereas 54 were considered normal
SCREENING FOR SCHOOL
READINESS
Summary of the five approaches
Maturationist Model Biological issue, a question of
cognitive, psychomotor and emotional
maturation that stem directly from
unfolding biological maturation
Environmental Model Children’s acquisition of skills learned
from early socialization experiences
Constructivist Model Children can learn tasks by interacting
not just with teachers, but also with
more knowledgeable peers and adults
Cumulative-Skills Model Children possess important
prerequisite skills necessary for
learning foundational subjects such as
reading and math
Ecological Model Interaction between developmental
status and children’s environments.
• Ideal screening instrument is a short test that can
be administered by teachers, school nurses, and
other individuals who have received limited
training in assessment.
• Classifying children as normal or at risk
• Identify children in need of additional evaluation
• Glascoe and Shapiro (2005) outline five common
pitfalls of developmental and behavioral
screening in infancy and early childhood:
• Waiting until the problem is observable
• Ignoring screening results
• Relying on informal methods
• Using inappropriate tests
• Assuming services are limited or nonexistent
Qualities of Good Preschool Screening
Instrument
• Minnesota Intragency Developmental Screening
Task Force – has published extensive standards
by which it recommends and approves screening
instruments (www.health.state.mn.us)
 Primary
purpose of
screening

Minimum
expertise Areas covered
required

Cultural.
Ethnic and
linguistic
sensitivity
Criteria Test-retest
reliability

Practicality
Concurrent
and
validity
administration

Sensitivity and
spesficity
Instruments for Preschool Screening
• A few recommended tools by Glascoe, 2005;
Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2005)
• Available in multiple languages including Spanish,
French, Korean, Viatnamese, Loatian, Cambodian,
Hmong and Tagalog
• Reflect the increasing diversity of American culture and
the desire to provide adequate school based services to
recent immigrants
* Table 7.5 (page 282)
DIAL-4
The Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of
Learning-4
• An individually administered test designed for the
quick and efficient screening of developmental
problems in preschool children ages 2:6 through
5:11 (Mardell & Goldenberg, 2011)
• Motor
Administer directly to the child by
• Concepts the examiner
• Language
• Self-Help
Questionnaires filled out by parent
• Social-Emotional and teachers
• DIAL-4 does not reveal strong sensitivity when the
recommended cutoffs are used to identify children as
showing “potential delay”. Reported to be in the range
of .73 to .82, depending on the target group being
researched (Mardell & Goldenberg, 2011)
• Specificity is reported to be in the range of .82 to .86,
depending on the scales and the comparison groups used
• 14-18% samples of normal children will be flagged as “potential
delay”. These will cause anxiety for the parents and likely trigger
the need for additional consultation and testing
Denver II
• Updated version of the highly popular
Denver Developmental Screenig Test-
Revised (Frankerburg, 1985; Frankerburg
& Dodds, 1967)
• Most widely known and researched
pediatric screening tool in the US
• Translated into 44 different languages
• Age 1 month – 6 years
• Consists of 125 items in 4 areas (personal-social,
fine motor-adaptive, language and gross motor)
• The items are mix of parent report, direct
elicitation, and observation
• Total time of evaluation is 20 minutes or less
• Score can be interpreted as normal,
questionable, or abnormal in reference to age-
based norms
Reliability
• Outstanding for a brief screening test
• Interrater reliability among trained raters
averaged on outstanding .99.
• Test-retest reliability for total score over a 7- to
10-day interval averaged .90
Validity
• Excellent content validity as the behaviors tested
are recognized by authorities in child
development
• However, the test interpretation categories
(normal, questionable, abnormal) were based on
clinical judgment and therefore await additional
study for validation
HOME
• The Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment (HOME) – HOME Inventory
• Based on observation and an interview with
primary caretaker
• Measure of children’s physical and social
environments
• 3 forms
• Infant and Toddler
• Early Childhood
• Middle Childhood
Background and Description
• Prior to HOME Inventory, measurement of children’s
environments was based largely upon demographic data
such as
• Parental education
• Occupation
• Income
• Location of residence
• These indices were combined into a cumulative measure
referred to as social class or SES
• Hollingshead and Redlich measure was derived
entirely from status indices.
• This indices reflect, indirectly, meaningful environmental
variation
• In contrast to the SES approach, HOME
Inventory was to provide direct process measure
of children’s environments.
• To measure specific, designated patterns of nurturance
and stimulation available to children in the home
Reliability
• Methods used for the assessment reliability
included interobserver agreement, internal
consistentcy and long-range test-retest stability
coefficients
• Interobserver agreement is reported to be 90%
or higher
• Internal consistency using Kuder-Richardson
formula ranged from .67 to .89 for all subscales
except variety of stimulation of only .44.
Validity
• Show modest correlations with SES indices
• Significantly but not highly related to SES
indices, .30s and .40s, while total score is .45
(Bradley, Rock, Caldwell & Brisby, 1989)
• r = .58 with SB IQ at 36 months age. Factor-
analytic studies of HOME also support the
construct validity of this instrument (Bradley,
Mundfrom, Whiteside and others, 1994)
 TESTING
PERSONS
WITH
DISABILITIES
TOPIC 7B
THIS PART

Instruments
Administration
Development
ORIGINS

• 1950s; awareness started to build

• Shift from outright disdain to being supportive
• 1973; Bill of Rights  Education for All
Handicapped Children Act
• Psychologists were to assess children in all areas
of possible disability  instruments
NON LANGUAGE TESTS

• Require little or no written or spoken language

• Suitable for non-English-speaking persons,
referrals with speech impairments and examinees
with weak language skills
• Can also be used for supplementary test for
examinees with no disabilities
NON LANGUAGE TEST
INSTRUMENTS
• Leiter International Performance Scale-Revisited
• Human Figure Drawing Tests
• Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude
• Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-4 (TONI-4)
THE DEVELOPMENT

• Use census statistics – sample – validity

• LIPS-R: 1993, DAP: 1980, H-NTLA: 1960
• TONI-4: 2,272 people from 33 states
• Sample stratified according to age, sex, race, ethnic
group, SES
• Reliability established using test-retest, .80 and
above
 ADMINISTRATION

LIPS-R HFD |DAP H-NTLA TONI-4

• Matching • Intellectual • Pantomime • Pragmatic

• Visualizatio maturity • 12 subtest; and simple
n and • Accuracy of memory, • Identify
Reasoning observation visual- relationships
• Memory and and spatial among
Attention development reasoning, abstract
• No time of fluid figures
conceptual reasoning
thinking
NON READING AND MOTOR
REDUCED TESTS
• Designed for illiterate examinees and motor-impairing
conditions
• Case study: Cerebral Palsy
• Severe motor and language disabilities
• But; have some personal independence and efficient with
short communications
• Easily underestimated; find the able mind inside the
disabled body
 PEABODY PICTURE
VOCABULARY TEST-IV
Administration
228 testing plates
• Point to the picture
• 19 sets of 12 items; arranged accordingly

Development
Rapid measure of listening vocabulary
• 3,540 individuals 2 ½ - 90 yo
• Artwork is balanced for racial and gender differences
• PPVT-III tends to underestimate intellectual and scholastic achievement
• High correlation with Verbal IQ than Performance IQ
 TESTING PERSONS WITH VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS

 More than 1 million individuals of American adults who are legally

blind – a term used in determining eligibility for government benefit.

The number of children with visual impairment is substantially

smaller, with only 0.4 percent of students between the ages of 6 and 21
years receiving special education services because of a vision problem.

Inaddition to special arrangements in testing, individuals with visual

impairment may require unique instrument for valid assessment.

MOHD NOOR FIKRI BIN ZOOL MP131095

 TESTING PERSONS WITH VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS
The Hayes-Binet and The Perkins-Binet retains most of the
verbal items from the Stanford-Binet but also adapts other items to
a tactual mode.

The Perkins-Binet possesses acceptable split-half reliability and

show high correlation with verbal scales of The Wechsler
Intelligence Scale For Children (WISC-R).

The developers of the Perkins-Binet have acknowledged that

visual problem exist on a continuum by developing separate norm
for children with usable vision and no useable vision.
 TESTING PERSONS WITH VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS

The Haptic Intelligence Scale for Adult Blind (HISAB) consist of six
subsets, four of which resemble the Digit Symbol, Block Design,
Object Assembly, and Picture Completion test of the WAIS (Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale) Perfomance Scale. The remaining two subsets
consist of Bead Arithmetic and a Pattern Board.

The Reliability of the HISAB is excellent and provide normative data

on a sample of adult with visual impairment. HISAB scores correlate .65
with the WAIS Verbal IQ.

Althoughthe HISAB is still manufactured and sold by Stoelting

Company, unfortunately, the test has never been investigated empirically.
 TESTING PERSONS WITH VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS
The Blind Learning Aptitude Test (BLAT) is a tactile test for
children from 6 to 16 years of age who are blind. The BLAT items
are in bas-relief form, consisting of dots and lines similar to
Braille.
The items consist of six different types :

1) Recognition of differences
2) Recognition of similarities
3) Identification of progressions
4) Identification of the missing element in a 2 x 2 matrix
5) Completion of a figure
6) Identification of the missing element in a 3 x 3 matrix
 TESTING PERSONS WITH VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS

The BLAT reveals excellent reliability, with internal consistency

(Kuder-Richardson) of .93, and test-retest reliability over a 7-
month period of .87 and .92 (two studies).

The test correlates very well with the Hayes-Binet (r = .74) and
the WISC Verbal scale (r = .71). The BLAT also shows strong
correlations with Braille oral reading speed and comprehension.
 TESTING PERSONS WITH VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS
The Intelligence Test for Visually Impaired Children (ITVIC)
includes a number of haptic subset, which are intended to replace
traditional performance subtests like Block Design that require
intact vision. Dekker (1993) has developed this instrument for
visually impaired children.

Designed for children 6 to 15 years of age. The instrument

includes five verbal subtests adapted from existing instruments
such as the Wechsler scales and seven new nonverbal subtests.
 TESTING PERSONS WITH VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS
The Intelligence Test for Visually Impaired Children (ITVIC) incudes : -

VERBAL NONVERBAL / HAPTIC

Vocabulary Perception of Objects

Digit Span Perception of Figures

Verbal Fluency Block Design

Verbal Analogies Rectangle Puzzles

Learning Names Map and Plan Tests

Exclusion of Figures

Figural Analogies
 TESTING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF
OR HARD OF HEARING
More than 1 Million Americans are deaf or sufficiently hard of hearing
that they rely on American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary
means of communication.

One problem is that sign language “can now be characterized on a

multidimensional continuum encompassing numerous styles, lexical
variants, syntactic structures, dialects, and approximations to or
departures from English word ordering”.

Thus, a test developed in standard ASL is not equally fair to all persons
who are deaf. In general, the proper and valid assessment of persons who
are deaf requires that interested psychologist immerse themselves in the
deaf culture.
TESTING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF
OR HARD OF HEARING

American Sign Language

 TESTING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF
OR HARD OF HEARING

For the intellectual assessment of persons who are deaf or hard of

hearing, The Wechsler Performance subtests remain the tools of
choice.

Other tests sometimes used with persons who are deaf include
Raven’s Progressive Matrices and The Hiskey-Nebraska Test of
Learning Aptitude. The WAIS – III is now available in a formal
ASL translation, endorsed and disseminated by the test publisher.
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

The term intellectual disability is the currently preferred

designation for the disability historically referred to as mental
retardation.
The most authoritative source for the definition of intellectual
disability is the American Association of Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), which defines as follows :-

“Intellectual disability is characterized by significant

limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive
behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive
skills. This disability originates before age 18”.
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

Tables 7.8
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
The AAIDD further stipulates that significantly subaverage intellectual
functioning is an IQ of 70 to 75 or below on scale with mean of 100 and a
standard deviation of 15. The agency explicitly affirms the importance of
professional judgement in individual cases. A low IQ by itself is an
insufficient foundation for the diagnosis of intellectual disability.
Limitations in adaptive skill are more difficult to confirm than a low IQ.
Fortunately, the AAIDD stipulates specific skills within the three areas of
adaptive functioning, namely :
1)Conceptual skills : language and literacy; money, time, and number
concepts and self-direction.
2)Social skills : interpersonal skills, social responsibility, self-esteem, the
ability to obey laws and to avoid being victimized.
3)Practical skills : activities of daily living, health care, occupational skills,
schedules/routines, safety, and use of the telephone
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
The first standardized instrument for assessment adaptive
behavior was the Vineland Social Maturity Scale, the original
scale consisted of 117 discrete items arranged in a year-scale
format.
This Vineland Scale has undergone several revisions and is now
known as the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second
Edition.
We can distinguish two types of instrument designed for two
different purposes. One group of mainly norm-referenced scales is
used largely to assist in diagnosis and classification. An other
group of mainly criterion-referenced scales is used largely to assist
in training and rehabilitation.
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
The Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised (SIB-R) is an
ambitious, multidimensional measure of adaptive behavior that is
highly useful in the assessment of intellectual disability.

The instrument consists of 259 adaptive behavior items organized

into 14 subscales. The scale is completed with the help of a parent,
caregiver, or teacher well acquainted with the examinee’s daily
behaviors.

For each subscale, the examiner reads a series of items and for
each item records a score from 0 (never or rarely does task) to 3
(does task very well).
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

Table 7.9
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

The reliability of the SIB-R is generally respectable, and the

individual subscale tend to show split-half reliabilities in the vicinity of
.80; the four cluster have median composite reliabilities around .90; the
Broad Independence Scale has a very robust reliability in the high .90s.
Validity data for the SIB-R are very promosing. The mean score of
various samples of disabled and nondisabled subject show
confirmation relationship; SIB-R scores are lowest among those
persons known to be most severely impaired in learning and
adjustment.
For disabled examinees, SIB-R scores correlate very strong with
intelligence score ( in the .80s) whereas with nondisabled examinees,
the realtionship is minimal.
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

The Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP) is one of

the most widely used test in the field of developmental disabilities.
This test is a 16-page booklet that evalutes adaptive behavior,
maladaptive behavior and the need for assistance and supports.
This technique provides for a maladaptive behavior subscale with
enhanced reliability (r = .80) in comparison to similar subscales from
other instruments that reveal low reliability ( r = .60)
One of the most useful and appealing aspects of the ICAP is that it
provides an overall service score based on both adaptive and
maladaptive behavior. The Service Score, which range from 0 to 100,
indicates the likely level of attention, supervision, and training
needed by the client.
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

Table 7.10
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II (VABS-II) is the

most widely used measure of adaptive behavior is existence.The
instrument is the outcome of a major revision and restandardization
of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale, originally published on 1935
by Edgar A. Doll.

The VABS-II is a good concurrent validity, including correlations

in the range of .50 to .80 with the Wechsler scales and Stanford-
Binet. However, some of the interview items require knowledge
that the information may not possess.
ASSESSMENT OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
The AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scales; Second Edition (American Association on
Mental Retardation) is suitable for persons 18 to 80 years of age and it is a psychometric
tour de force that border on overkill.
In addition to assessing the appropriate behavioral domains, a noteworthy feature of the
instrument is the careful attention to maladaptive behaviors, which are evaluted in eight
domains :

1.Violent and antisocial behavior

2.Rebellious behavior

3.Eccentric and self-abusive behavior

4.Untrustworthy behavior

5.Withdrawal

6.Stereotyped and hyperactive behavior

7.Inappropriate body exposure

8.Disturbed behavior
 ASSESSMENT OF AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDERS
Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) include diagnostic
categories such as Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s syndrome,
Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive
Developmental Disorder, among others.

All children with ASDs share in common is a core of difficulties

with reciprocal social skills, communication abilities, and flexible
behavior.

The assessment of children for ASDs is a complex endeavor that

includes screening tests, behavioral observation, and diagnostic
evaluation by specialists in pediatrics, neurology, and psychology.
 ASSESSMENT OF AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDERS
The Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) is an appealing 23-items
checklist that enjoys strong content validity. The M-CHAT is a screening test used with
toddlers between 16 and 30 month of age to identify children at risk for ASDs.
Items on the checklist resemble the following :

Does your child play with other children ? YES NO

Does your child smile when you smile ? YES NO
Does your child engage in pretend play ? YES NO
Does your child enjoy peek-a-boo ? YES NO
Does your child respond to his/her name ? YES NO
Does your child sustain eye contact ? YES NO

Children who fail three or more items (or two or more critical items) should be referred
for further evaluation by specialists. The M-CHAT has been translated into more than 30
languages.
 ASSESSMENT OF AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDERS
The Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits-Part 1,
(BISCUIT-part 1) by the authors.The instrument consist of 71 items that
assess the core symtoms of autism in toddlers 17 to 37 months of age.

The items are completed by a parent or caretaker on a 30point scale that

includes 0 (not different, no impairment), 1 (somewhat different, mild
impairment), and 2 (very different, severe impairment).

An exploratory factor analysis of result for 1,287 children enrolled in an

early intervention program yielded a three-factor solution consistent with
symptom clusters found in ASD children, supporting the construct
validity of the scale, also demonstrated good convergent validity with the
M-CHAT, and appropriate divergent validity with measures of adaptive
abd motor behaviors in a sample of 1,007 toodlers.
THAT’S ALL FOR TODAY
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH