Dr. Mona Tawakkul Elsayed

Associate Prof. of Mental Health and Special Education

learning-disabilit

Code Instrument Description Assessment of Population Format Administrator N Items Administration time Scoring Time Training needed for administration Availability Cost Reliability Validity Sensitivity Specificity Other UK Validation References Manual available Manual location & cost
M-COSMIC Modified Classroom Observation Schedule to Measure Intentional Communication  Developed as an ecologically valid measure of social-communication behaviour, delineating forms, functions, and intended partners of children’s spontaneous
communication acts. This revised version of the COSMIC was designed to evaluate social-communication in children with ASD with more varied levels of functioning and language ability than intended with the original measure which focused on low functioning individuals. 
1.2 Communication needs Children Observation Researcher N/A 25 minutes N/R Raters in Clifford (2010) received
approximately 25 h of training in use of the instrument.
Available: M-COSMIC record form provided in Clifford (2010) and manual available upon request from author. N/R Inter-rater reliability: ICCs have been found to be good with the majority above 0.84 (Clifford, 2010). Convergent validity: Good convergent validity has been found between the M-COSMIC and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Generic algorithm total scores (ADOS-G), but not for specific items. Significant associations were also found between the M-COSMIC and several subscales of the Preschool Language Scales; MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory; and VABS (Clifford, 2010). N/R N/R Validated with autism sample only (LD N/R) Yes Clifford, S., Hudry, K., Brown, L., Pasco, G., & Charman, T. (2010). The Modified-Classroom Observation Schedule to Measure Intentional Communication (M-COSMIC): Evaluation of reliability and validity. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(3), 509-525. 
CASP Communication Assessment Profile  Designed to assess the 'communicative competence' of adults with mental handicap, including the form, function and context of language. There are two parts, plus an appendix. Part 1 is a staff questionnaire, to be filled in by someone who works closely with the individual being assessed (such as a keyworker). Part 2 is for use by the speech therapist and involves sections to assess communication, such as presenting photographs to assess auditory discrimination. It is the only UK standardised assessment tool for adults with severe to moderate learning disabilities. 1.2 Communication needs Adults Questionnaire and Observation Paid carer; speech therapist 48 questions for carer section; 8 sections for speech therapist. 20-45 minutes N/R N/R Available: http://www.winslowresources.com/communication-assessment-profile-casp-casp.html £199.20 Inter-rater reliability: Therapist - therapist agreement has been found to be high (81%-99%); therapist - key worker agreement has been found to be good for all subscales (70% - 82%), with the exception of the Talking to Self subscale (56%) (Van der Gaag, 1988; Van der Gaag, 1990).  Convergent Validity:
Significant correlations have been found between CASP and the Adaptive Behaviour Scale (ABS) and Communicative Ground Scale (CGS), offering evidence of convergent validity (Van der Gaag, 1990).

N/R N/R N/A Yes Van der Gaag, A. (1988). The development of a communication assessment procedure for use with adults with a mental handicap: An interim report. British Journal of Mental Subnormality, 34(1; 66), 62-68.

Van der Gaag, A. D., & Lawler, C. A. (1990). The validation of a language and communication assessment procedure for use with adults with learning difficulties. Health bulletin, 48(5), 254-259.  
MESSIER Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals with Severe Retardation  Designed to assess strengths and weaknesses in social skills with people with severe and profound Intellectual Disability. 1.2 Communication needs Adults Interview Paid carer 85 N/R N/R N/R Unclear. Reported in recent articles but full questionnaire not provided. Not listed online. Perhaps contact author: [email protected] N/R Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Excellent internal consistency has been demonstrated for the entire scale (0.94). Positive subscales have shown good to excellent internal consistency, ranging from 0.87-0.96. Negative subscales show acceptable internal consistency ranging from 0.73-0.81 (Matson, 1999a; Matson, 2008b).

Inter-rater reliability: Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients ranged from r = 0.14 to r = 0.89, suggesting inadequate to high inter-rater consistency on individual items. There was good inter-rater reliability for the scale as a whole (r = 0.73)(Matson, 1999a).
Convergent validity: Good convergent validity has been found between the MESSIER and relative measures including sociometric ranking and the Vineland (LeBlanc, 1998; Matson, 1998). N/R N/R N/A No (USA) LeBlanc, L. A., Matson, J. L., Cherry, K. E., & Bamburg, J. W. (1999). An examination of the convergent validity of the Matson evaluation of social skills for individuals with severe retardation (MESSIER) with sociometric ranking. British Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 45(2), 85-91.

Matson, J. L., Carlisle, C. B., & Bamburg, J. W. (1998). The convergent validity of the matson evaluation of social skills for individuals with severe retardation (MESSIER). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19(6), 493-500.

Matson, J. L., Leblanc, L. A., & Weinheimer, B. (1999a). Reliability of the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills in Individuals with Severe Retardation (MESSIER). Behavior Modification, 23(4), 647-661.

Matson, J. L., & Boisjoli, J. A. (2008b). Cutoff scores for the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals with Severe Retardation (MESSIER) for adults with intellectual disability. Behavior Modification, 32(1), 109-120.

Paclawskyj, T. R., Rush, K. S., Matson, J. L., & Cherry, K. E. (1999). Factor structure of the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Individuals with Severe Retardation (MESSIER). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 289-293. 
Triple C - Revised Triple C – Checklist of Communicative Competencies Revised Assesses communication among adolescents and adults with little to no speech. The revised checklist comprises five stages that reflect the continuum from unintentional to symbolic communication. 1.2 Communication needs Adults Observation Paid carer 81 1-2 weeks N/R N/R Available: https://www.scopevic.org.au/index.php/yiiCart/frontend/product/category/path/1_3 £65.55 (manual and checklists) Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha):  The non-parametric equivalent to Cronbach’s alpha (KR20) has been found to found to be  excellent (0.97 overall, range 0.83-0.93 for individual stages; Iacono, 2009).

Inter-rater reliability: Cohen’s kappa has been found to yield a moderate to high
coefficient: k = 0.63 (Iacono, 2009).
Structural validity: Factor analysis has confirmed a one factor solution (Iacono, 2009).  N/R N/R N/A No (Australia) Iacono, T., West, D., Bloomberg, K., & Johnson, H. (2009). Reliability and validity of the revised Triple C: Checklist of Communicative Competencies for adults with severe and multiple disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53(1), 44-53. 
CAI Contextual Assessment Inventory Designed to rapidly identify generic classes of contextual variables associated with problem behaviour in individuals with developmental disabilities. Subcategories include social/cultural contexts, task/activity contexts, physical contexts, and biological contexts. 1.2 Environmental factors Adults Questionnaire Paid carer 80 25 minutes N/R N/R Available: Included in appendix of McAtee, M., Carr, E. G., Schulte, C., & Dunlap, G. (2004). A Contextual Assessment Inventory for Problem behaviour Initial Development. Journal of Positive behaviour Interventions, 6(3), 148-165. Free Test–retest reliability: The CAI has shown good test-retest reliability across studies (0.74).

 Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability has ranged from good (mean percentage agreement 94.8%) to poor (intra-class correlation 0.28).

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha):
 Internal consistency has been found to be excellent (0.95).


Convergent validity: Significantly more
behaviour log entries corresponded to items rated as frequently associated with problem behaviour on the CAI than corresponded to items rated as rarely associated with problem behaviour - effect size 0.76.

Predictive validity: Problem behaviour was significantly more likely to occur in the contexts rated on the CAI as frequently associated with
problem behaviour in contrast to those rated as rarely associated with problem behaviour - effect size 0.85.
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Carr, E. G., Ladd, M. V., & Schulte, C. F. (2008). Validation of the Contextual Assessment Inventory for problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(2), 91-104.

McAtee, M., Carr, E. G., & Schulte, C. (2004). A Contextual Assessment Inventory for problem behavior: Initial development. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3), 148-165. 
EI Ecological Interview Designed to investigate the relationship between environmental events and variability in challenging behaviour. 1.2 Environmental factors Children and adults Interview Paid carer 76 N/R N/R N/R Available: Free to researchers and practitioners for non-
commercial
use. Copyright is held by Peter McGill.
Please ensure that an appropriate citation is included in
any publications using the EI.
Free Test–retest reliability: The EI has shown good test-retest reliability (weighted kappa 0.64; Barratt, 2012).

Inter-rater reliability: McGill (2005) demonstrated 100% agreement between staff ratings of frequency and 98.7% agreement for ratings of likelihood of challenging behaviour using the EI.


Convergent validity: Barratt (2012) found that some items of the EI showed significant correlation with the CAI but this was not consistent. N/R N/R N/A Yes Barratt, N., McGill, P., & Hughes, C. (2012). Antecedent influences on challenging behaviour: a preliminary assessment of the reliability, generalisability and validity of the Ecological Interview. International Journal of Positive Behavioural Support, 2(2), 31-41.

McGill, P., Teer, K., Rye, L., & Hughes, D. (2005). Staff reports of setting events associated with challenging behavior. Behavior Modification, 29(4), 599-615. 
NCAPC Non communicating adults pain checklist  Designed to measure  pain behaviour among adults with intellectual disabilities. The measure includes 6 sub-categories of pain behaviour: Vocal reaction, Emotional reaction, Facial expression, Body language, Protective reaction, and Physiological reaction. 1.2 Pain assessment Adults Observation Paid carer; researcher 18 N/R N/R N/R Available: https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/3726/Appendices_Meir%20Lotan.pdf?sequence=4 & http://pediatric-pain.ca/our-measures/ Free Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha):
Internal consistency has been shown to be acceptable to good (0.72-0.85) (Lotan, 2009b; Lotan 2010; Lotan 2013).

Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability has been found to vary from low (0.40-0.49 within groups of nurses and case managers) to high (0.77-0.92 within groups of paid caregivers and therapists) (ICC(1,1) = 0.40–0.88). Reliability between caregiver and therapists has been found to be moderate (0.71-0.75) (Lotan, 2009a). Lotan (2013) found high inter-rater reliability between two observers (role unspecified).

Test-retest reliability: Relative intra-rater reliability has been found to be high (ICC 0.93 - 0.94) (Lotan, 2009a).
Sensitivity to detect pain: The NCAPC has shown a Standardized Response Means (SRM) of 0.57 indicating a moderate effect (Lotan, 2013). Lotan (2009b; 2010) found that SRM values were high for the whole
sample as well as for all levels of IDD.

The mean NCAPC sum scores monitored across different situations have shown significantly lower values (p < 0.05) during no pain
situations (dormitory and dental clinic waiting room), than during pain situations (influenza injection and dental hygiene treatment) (Lotan, 2010).

Convergent validity: The NCAPC has shown significant correlations with the Pain and Discomfort Scale (PADS) (Lotan, 2013).
N/R N/R N/A No (Israel) Lotan, M., Benishvily, A., & Gefen, E. (2013). Comparing the non-communicating adult pain checklist (NCAPC) with the pain and discomfort scale (PADS) in evaluating pain in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Pain Management, 6(1), 15-24.

Lotan, M., Moe-Nilssen, R., Ljunggren, A. E., & Strand, L. I. (2010). Measurement properties of the Non-Communicating Adult Pain Checklist (NCAPC): A pain scale for adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, scored in a clinical setting. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(2), 367-375.

Lotan, M., Moe-Nilssen, R., Ljunggren, A. E., & Strand, L. I. (2009a). Reliability of the Non-Communicating Adult Pain Checklist (NCAPC), assessed by different groups of health workers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(4), 735-745.

Lotan, M., Ljunggren, E. A., Johnsen, T. B., Defrin, R., Pick, C. G., & Strand, L. I. (2009b). A Modified Version of the Non-Communicating Children Pain Checklist-Revised, Adapted to Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Sensitivity to Pain and Internal Consistency. Journal of Pain, 10(4), 398-407. 
NCCPC Non Communicating Children’s Pain Checklist  Designed to measure  pain behaviour among children with intellectual disabilities. 1.2 Pain assessment Children Observation Paid carer; family carer 26 10 minutes N/R None Available: http://pediatric-pain.ca/our-measures/ Free Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found be acceptable (Breau, 2000).

Test–retest reliability: The  number of items reported by caregivers during pain has been found to be consistent over time. This indicates that the Checklist was reliable when used by the same observer for two discrete pain events. It also provides evidence that the pain behaviour of those with cognitive impairments may be consistent over time (Breau, 2000).

Convergent validity: NCCPC scores have been found to be significantly correlated with caregivers’ numerical pain ratings which indicated how helpful the specific behaviour was for deciding on the presence of pain (Breau, 2000). N/R N/R N/A No (Canada) Breau, L. M., McGrath, P. J., Camfield, C., Rosmus, C., & Finley, G. A. (2000). Preliminary validation of an observational pain checklist for persons with cognitive impairments and inability to communicate verbally. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 42(9), 609-616. 
NCCPC-PV Non Communicating Children’s Pain Checklist - Postoperative version  Designed to assess postoperative pain among children with intellectual disabilities. 1.2 Pain assessment Children Observation Paid carer; family carer; researcher 27 10 minutes N/R None Available: http://pediatric-pain.ca/our-measures/ Free Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): The NCCPC-PV has been found to be internally reliable (0.71-0.91; Breau, 2002).

Inter-rater reliability: Intra-class correlations for total scores have been found to be 0.82 before surgery and 0.78 after surgery. Thus, total scores showed
good inter-rater reliability (Breau, 2002).
Convergent validity: Postoperative NCCPC-PV scores have been found to be correlated with visual analogue scale ratings provided by caregivers and
researchers, but not with those of nurses (Breau, 2002).
0.88 (for caregivers); 0.75 (for researchers; Breau, 2002). 0.81 (for caregivers); 0.63 (for researchers; Breau, 2002). N/A No (Canada) Breau, L. M., Finley, G. A., McGrath, P. J., & Camfield, C. S. (2002). Validation of the non-communicating children's pain checklist - Postoperative version. Anesthesiology, 96(3), 528-535
SIPT Sensory Integration and Praxis Test Designed to measure the sensory integration processes that underlie learning and behaviour. Consists of 17 subtests requiring children to perform visual, tactile, kinesthetic, and motor tasks. 1.2 Sensory deficits Children Observation Psychologist (or related discipline) 17 120 minutes 30-45 minutes None Available: http://www.wpspublish.com/store/p/2971/sensory-integration-and-praxis-test-sipt £634.01 (for kit including all test materials; 10 design copying booklets; 10 motor accuracy booklets; 10 kinaesthesia test sheets; manual; carrying case); £167.44 and £333.69 for 10 and 25 use scoring kit, respectively - must be bought separately from kit) Test-retest reliability: Coefficients for the major test scores on the 17 subtests of the SIPT have been found to range from 0.48 - 0.93 (Mailloux, 1990).

Inter-rater reliability: The inter-rater reliability coefficients have been found to range between 0.94 and 0.99 (Mailloux, 1990).
Structural validity: Factor analyses of the SIPT generally demonstrate the emergence of factors that can be seen as logically related to past groupings of scores, with the addition of new factors specifically reflecting the inclusion of additional measures of praxis (Mailloux, 1990).

Discriminant validity: The SIPT has been found to discriminate between children without dysfunction and those with dysfunction at a statistically significant level (Mailloux, 1990).
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Mailloux, Z. (1990). An overview of Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests. The American journal of occupational therapy, : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association. 44(7), 589-594. 
AAMR ABS American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) Adaptive Behaviour Scale - Residential and Community A two-part assessment designed to assess adaptive behaviour among individuals in community and residential settings. Part One evaluates adaptive behaviours considered important to personal responsibility and independent living. Part Two assesses social adaptations and maladaptive behaviour. 1.2 Severity of LD Adults Questionnaire N/R 612 30 minutes (approx. based on information from ABS School version) N/R N/R Available: Nihira, K., Lambert, N. M., & Leland, H. (1993). Adaptive Behaviour Scale: Residential and Community. Examiner's Manual. Pro-ed. N/R N/R Convergent validity:
Significant correlations have been found between the ABS Part II and Reiss Screen, ABC Irritability and Hyperactivity subscales (Walsh, 1999).
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Walsh, K. K., & Shenouda, N. (1999). Correlations among the Reiss Screen, the Adaptive Behavior Scale Part II, and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104(3), 236-248. 
AAMR ABS-S2 American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) Adaptive Behaviour Scale-School, Second Edition (1993 version) A two-part assessment designed to evaluate adaptive behaviour in children ages 3 to 18 who are being evaluated for Mental Retardation, Autism, and/or behaviour disorders. Part One features nine behaviour domains and evaluates adaptive behaviours considered important to personal responsibility and independent living. Part Two features four behaviour domains that assess social adaptations and maladaptive behaviour.

Replaces: Adaptive Behaviour Scale Public School Version
1.2 Severity of LD Children Questionnaire Clinician 437
(13 domains)
15-30 minutes N/R Graduate-level course in tests and measurement at a university or to equivalent documented training. Available: https://ecom.mhs.com/(S(sl2nkd453flnrrm4ginmgzfb))/inventory.aspx?gr=edu&prod=abss2&id=pricing&RptGrpID=abc  £44.36 (ABS-S:2 Exam. Booklets); £21.60 ABS-S:2 Prof/Summ Forms (25/pkg).  N/R Structural validity:
Watkins (2002) and Stinnett (1999) found that a two-factor solution provided the best dimensional model. These results suggest that interpretation of the ABS-S:
2 should focus on its two major conceptual
components (personal independence and
social behaviour) rather than the five factors and 16 domains endorsed by its authors. 
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Stinnett, T. A., Fuqua, D. R., & Coombs, W. T. (1999). Structural validity of the AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-School: 2. School Psychology Review, 28(1), 31-43.

Watkins, M. W., Ravert, C. M., & Crosby, E. G. (2002). Normative factor structure of the AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-School, Second Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(4), 337-345. 
AMPS Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) Designed to evaluate a person’s quality of performance of personal or instrumental activities of daily living. Participants receive a score based on the quality of 16 motor and 20 process performance skills.  1.2 Severity of LD Adults Observation Occupational therapist 36 60 minutes  N/R (60 minutes total for administration and scoring) Yes (£592.25 per course: http://www.innovativeotsolutions.com/content/amps/courses/)  Available: http://store.innovativeotsolutions.com/ £56.55 (for AMPS manual/scoring guide); £41.07-£177.97 (for AMPS licence key). N/R Predictive validity:
Kottorp (2008) found that a difference of 1.0 logit on the AMPS process scale increases the likelihood of needing minimal or no assistance by more than three times (odds ratio = 3.11), although the motor ability measure did not add significantly to the predictive value of the model.
N/R N/R N/A Yes Kottorp, A. (2008). The use of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in predicting need of assistance for adults with mental retardation. OTJR Occupation, Participation and Health, 28(2), 72-80. 
School AMPS School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) An observation-based assessment designed to measure students' ability to perform functional school tasks. The School AMPS is similar to the original AMPS in design, with several important modifications: (a) The tasks are related to school work instead of activities of daily living (ADL); (b) the scoring manual includes examples applicable to classroom tasks; and (c) the occupational therapist interviews a student's educational team members to determine a student's problem tasks (instead of choosing assessment tasks on the basis of a student interview) and matches these problem tasks with School AMPS tasks. 1.2 Severity of LD Children  Observation Occupational therapist 36 60 minutes  N/R (60 minutes total for administration and scoring) Yes (£585.96 per course: http://store.innovativeotsolutions.com/training-courses/school-amps-training-courses). Available: http://store.innovativeotsolutions.com/ £38.69 (for School AMPS manual); £41.07-64.88 (for School AMPS licence key). Intra-rater Reliability: Strong intra-rater reliability and goodness-of-fit have been found demonstrating consistency of scoring (Atchinson, 1998; Fisher, 2000).
Construct validity:
Studies have used Rasch analysis to assess construct validity. Four facets were considered in analysis: a) the ability of students; b) the challenge of the tasks; c) the difficulty of skills items; d) the severity of the rater. Based on the following assertions: a) a student is more likely to obtain higher scores on easy skill items than on harder skill items; b) easy skill items and tasks are more likely to be easier for all students than are hard skill items and tasks; c) raters are more likely to award higher scores for easy skill items and tasks than for hard skill items and tasks.

Scale Validity: Motor skill items have been found to show acceptable goodness-of-fit, although Atchison (1998) found that findings for process items are more mixed (Atchison, 1998; Fisher, 2000).

Person Response Validity:
The School AMPS has suggested that the person response validity is acceptable for the motor scale but not for the process scale (Fisher, 2000).

Convergent validity: Good convergent validity between the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale–Fine Motor (PDMS-FM) and Motor scale of the AMPS (Atchinson, 1998).
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Atchison, B. T., Fisher, A. G., & Bryze, K. (1998). Rater reliability and internal scale and person response validity of the School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(10), 843-850.

Fisher, A. G., Bryze, K., & Atchison, B. T. (2000). Naturalistic assessment of functional performance in school settings: reliability and validity of the School AMPS scales. Journal of outcome measurement, 4(1), 491-512. 

VABS II Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales II (2005)  Designed to support the diagnosis of intellectual  and developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder and ADHD by assessing adaptive functioning in five domains: Communication (Receptive, Expressive and Written), Socialization (Interpersonal Relationships, Play and Leisure Time and Coping Skills), Daily Living Skills (Personal, Domestic and Community) and Motor Skills (Gross and Fine, only applicable for children under 6); Maladaptive Behaviour (optional for children
5 years and over).
1.2 Severity of LD Children and young people Interview Family carer; researcher 297 20-60 minutes 15-30 minutes Examiners and scorers should have graduate training in test administration and interpretation. Available: http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000668/vineland-adaptive-behaviour-scales-second-edition-vineland-ii-vinelandii.html £118.28 (for Vineland-II Expanded Interview Starter Set. Price for other items vary); £56.16 for manual. N/R Convergent validity:
Gleason (2012) used content analysis to demonstrate that the items of the Vineland II map well onto the International Classification of Functioning,
Disability and Health (ICF).

Cross cultural validity: Manohari (2013) suggested that the Vineland may not be readily generalisable to Indian participants, due to differences in gender roles and self care activities between the West and India.
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Gleason, K., & Coster, W. (2012). An ICF-CY-based content analysis of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 37(4), 285-293.

Manohari, S. M., et al. (2013). Use of vineland adaptive behavior scales-II in children with autism-an Indian experience. Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health 9(1): 5-12.
MOAS Modified Overt Aggression Scale  Designed to measure aggressive behaviours in adults and children. Aggression is divided into 5 categories: verbal aggression towards others, verbal aggression towards self, physical aggression against objects, physical aggression against self, and physical aggression against others. The MOAS differs from the original Overt Aggression Scale by modifications to wording and the addition of items measuring verbal aggression toward self. 2.2 Challenging behaviour - aggression Adults Questionnaire Family carer; paid carer 20 N/R N/R N/R Available:
http://www.thereachinstitute.org/files/documents/moas.pdf
Free Inter-rater reliability:
The level of agreement between raters has been found to be high for verbal aggression (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC 0.90), physical aggression against others (ICC 0.90) and for total MOAS score (ICC 0.93). Levels of agreement on the other two subscales have been found to be lower but still in the moderate range (0.49-0.56) (Oliver, 2007).
N/R N/R N/R N/A Yes Oliver, P., Crawford, M., Rao, B., Reece, B., & Tyrer, P. (2007). Modified overt aggression scale (MOAS) for people with intellectual disability and agressive challenging behaviour: A reliability study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(4), 268-372. 
ABC Aberrant behaviour checklist Problem behaviour rating scale designed to assess treatment effects in people with intellectual disabilities.  Five subscales including: Irritability, Lethargy/Social Withdrawal; stereotypic behaviour; hyperactivity/noncompliance; inappropriate speech. To score the ABC, the individual items for each subscale are simply summed to their respective subtotals. Thus the scale renders five subscale scores. It is inappropriate to compute a total aberrant score, based on a summation of all items, as the subscales are largely independent. Different versions for individuals in community and those in residential settings are available. 2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Children and adults Questionnaire Family carer; paid carer; teacher 58 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.slosson.com/onlinecatalogstore_c51452.html  £60.78-£69.12 (for residential complete kit and community version complete kit, respectively) LD sample
Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): 0.92-0.93 for Irritability; 0.90-0.91 for Lethargy/Social Withdrawal; 0.84-0.90 for Stereotypic Behaviour; 0.93-0.96 for Hyperactivity; and 0.76-0.86 for Inappropriate Speech (Aman, 1995; Aman, 1985b; Marshburn, 1992).

Test-retest reliability: Moderate to good. In Aman (1987a), inter-rater and test-retest reliability correlations varied markedly both across subscales and raters but were comparable to levels derived with other symptom checklists and deemed to be adequate.

Fragile X sample
Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): (based on modified six factor solution) 0.94 for Irritability; 0.92 for Hyperactivity, 0.86 for Lethargy/Social Withdrawal; 0.92 for Social Avoidance (newly derived factor), 0.87 for Stereotypic Behaviour, and 0.80 for Inappropriate Speech (Sansone, 2012).
LD sample
Structural validity:
The five factor solution of the ABC has been replicated with LD and ASD samples (Aman, 1987b; Aman, 1995; Bihm, 1991; Brinkley, 2007; Newton, 1988).
Brown (2002) and Marshburn (1992) found a four factor solution to be most appropriate with an LD sample, as the Inappropriate Speech factor was not replicated.

Coefficients of congruence: Moderate to excellent congruence has been found between the original ABC factor structure and that found with LD samples  0.62 - 0.97  (Aman, 1987b; Aman, 1995; Brown, 2002; Marshburn, 1992).

Convergent validity:
Good convergent and divergent validity has been demonstrated by significant relationships between the ABC, HoNOS-LD, Vineland, Reiss Screen, Challenging Behaviour Inventory, DASH-II and Adaptive Behaviour Scale (Aman, 1985b; Hill, 2008; Oliver, 2003; Paclawski, 1997; Rojahn, 2003; Roy, 2002a; Walsh, 1999).

Fragile X sample
Structural validity: A six factor solution, which adds a 'social avoidance' factor to the original ABC factors has been found (Sansone, 2012)
Stereotypy 0.33; Total  0.74; Irritability (for SIB) 0.48; Irritability  (for aggression) 0.45. Stereotypy 0.89; Total: 0.57; Irritability (for SIB) 0.75; Irritability  (for aggression) 0.75. Aman (1985a) states "we caution readers that the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist is an experimental instrument and that it should not be used as a tool for routine clinical assessment".
The very high test-retest reliability (0.96-0.99) found in Aman 1985b has since been disregarded due to methodological issues (see Aman, 1987a).
Yes Aman, M. G., Burrow, W. H., & Wolford, P. L. (1995). The aberrant behavior checklist-community: Factor validity and effect of subject variables for adults in group homes. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100(3), 283-292.
 
Aman, M. G., Singh, N. N., & Turbott, S. H. (1987a). Reliability of the aberrant behavior checklist and the effect of variations in instructions. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 92(2), 237-240.

Aman, M. G., Richmond, G., & Stewart, A. W. (1987b). The Aberrant Behavior Checklist: Factor structure and the effect of subject variables in American and New Zealand facilities. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91(6), 570-578.

Aman, M. G., Singh, N. N., Stewart, A. W., & Field, C. J. (1985a). The aberrant behavior checklist: A behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(5), 485-491.

Aman, M. G., Singh, N. N., Stewart, A. W., & Field, C. J. (1985b). Psychometric characteristics of the aberrant behavior checklist. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(5), 492-502.

Bihm, E. M., & Poindexter, A. R. (1991). Cross-validation of the factor structure of the aberrant behavior checklist for persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(2), 209-211.

Brinkley, J., Nations, L., Abramson, R. K., Hall, A., Wright, H. H., Gabriels, R., . . . Cuccaro, M. L. (2007). Factor analysis of the aberrant behavior checklist in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 1949-1959.

Brown, E. C., Aman, M. G., & Havercamp, S. M. (2002). Factor analysis and norms for parent ratings on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Community for young people in special education. Research in developmental disabilities, 23(1), 45-60.

Hill, J., Powlitch, S., & Furniss, F. (2008). Convergent validity of the aberrant behavior checklist and behavior problems inventory with people with complex needs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(1), 45-60.

Marshburn, E. C. and M. G. Aman (1992). "Factor validity and norms for the Aberrant Behavior Checklist in a community sample of children with mental retardation." Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 22(3): 357-373.

Newton, J. T., & Sturmey, P. (1988). The Aberrant Behaviour Checklist: A British replication and extension of its psychometric properties. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 32(2), 87-92.

Oliver, C., McClintock, K., Hall, S., Smith, M., Dagnan, D., & Stenfert-Kroese, B. (2003). Assessing the severity of challenging behaviour: Psychometric properties of the Challenging Behaviour Interview. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(1), 53-61.

Rojahn, J., Aman, M. G., Matson, J. L., & Mayville, E. (2003). The Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the Behavior Problems Inventory: Convergent and divergent validity. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24(5), 391-404.

Roy, A., Matthews, H., Clifford, P., Fowler, V., & Martin, D. M. (2002a). Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for People with Learning Disabilities (HoNOS-LD). British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(JAN.), 61-66.

Sansone, S. M., K. F. Widaman, et al. (2012). "Psychometric study of the aberrant behavior checklist in fragile X syndrome and implications for targeted treatment." Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42(7): 1377-1392.

Walsh, K. K., & Shenouda, N. (1999). Correlations among the Reiss Screen, the Adaptive Behavior Scale Part II, and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104(3), 236-248. 
BPI-01 Behaviour Problem Inventory Fifty-two item respondent-based behaviour rating instrument for self-injurious, stereotypic, and aggressive/destructive behaviour in mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. Reports frequency and severity of behaviour. The three subscales of the BPI-01 are: (i) self-injurious behaviour (14 items), (ii) stereotyped behaviour (24 items) and (iii) aggressive/destructive behaviour (11 items).
2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Children and adults Questionnaire Family carer; paid carer; teacher 52 N/R N/R N/R Publisher: Johannes Rojahn, Ph.D.
10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-993-4241
N/R LD sample
Inter-rater & test-retest reliability:
Rojahn (2010b) found good inter-rater reliability between teacher informants, but it was poor between parent and teacher informants.
Gonzalez (2009) found that the inter-rater and re-test reliability coefficients of the SIB items and subscale were generally good, whereas the overall inter-rater and test–retest reliability coefficients of the Aggression ⁄ Destruction items and subscale were in the good to excellent range. The Stereotypy items and subscale had fair to low inter-rater and retest reliability coefficients (Gonzalez, 2009).

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Values range from poor to acceptable for the SIB subscale;  poor to excellent for the Stereotypy items; and acceptable to good for Aggressive/Destructive behaviour (Gonzalez, 2009; Rojahn, 2001; Rojahn, 2010b; Rojahn, 2012b).

Cornelia de Lange Syndrome sample
Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Values range questionable to excellent (0.66 - 0.90) (Rojahn, 2013).

LD sample
Convergent validity:
Good convergent and divergent validity has been demonstrated by significant correlations in predicted directions between the BPI and measures including the ABC, NCBRF, Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP ), Autism Spectrum Disorders-Behaviour Problems for Intellectually Disabled Adults (ASD-BPA) and DASH-II (Hill, 2008; Rojahn, 2003; Rojahn 2010a; Rojahn 2010b; Rojahn, 2012b).

Structural validity: There have been mixed findings. Rojahn (2001) and Gonzalez (2009) replicated a three factor solution and Hill (2008) found a six factor solution which seemed to map onto the three subscale structure of the BPI. However, Rojahn (2010) failed to replicate a three factor solution. Barnard-Brak (2013) used confirmatory factor analysis to indicate acceptable
model fit for each latent construct suggesting support for the one-dimensional nature of each trait.

Criterion validity: Individuals with a diagnosis of PDD had higher scores on the SIB and Stereotyped Behaviour subscales than those without; in addition, they also had elevated Aggression/Destruction scores. Higher Stereotyped Behaviour scores
among people with a diagnosis of stereotyped behaviour disorder, compared with residents without, can be considered as another sign of validity of the BPI-01.

Cornelia de Lange Syndrome sample
Rojahn (2013) found evidence of a sufficient factor structure for each of the Structurals identified by the BPI-01.
SIB & Stereotyped behaviour subscales 0.21 (Rojahn 2003). SIB & Stereotyped behaviour subscales 0.87 (Rojahn 2003). High inter-scale correlations suggest that little may be gained from retaining both frequency and severity scales for data collection. However, Rojahn (2001) suggested that it is recommended that both scales be retained when clinical decisions are made about an individual. Yes Barnard-Brak, L., Rojahn, J., & Wei, T. (2013). Psychometric analysis of the behavior problems inventory using an item-response theory framework: A sample of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35(4), 564-577.

Gonzalez, M. L., Dixon, D. R., Rojahn, J., Esbensen, A. J., Matson, J. L., Terlonge, C., & Smith, K. R. (2009). The Behavior Problems Inventory: Reliability and factor validity in institutionalized adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22(3), 223-235.

Hill, J., Powlitch, S., & Furniss, F. (2008). Convergent validity of the aberrant behavior checklist and behavior problems inventory with people with complex needs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(1), 45-60.

Rojahn, J., Matson, J. L., Lott, D., Esbensen, A. J., & Smalls, Y. (2001). The Behavior Problems Inventory: an instrument for the assessment of self-injury, stereotyped behavior, and aggression/destruction in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(6), 577-588.

Rojahn, J., Aman, M. G., Matson, J. L., & Mayville, E. (2003). The Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the Behavior Problems Inventory: Convergent and divergent validity. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24(5), 391-404.

Rojahn, J., Wilkins, J., Matson, J. L., & Boisjoli, J. (2010a). A comparison of adults with intellectual disabilities with and without ASD on parallel measures of challenging behaviour: The Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01) and Autism Spectrum Disorders-Behavior Problems for intellectually disabled adults (ASD-BPA). Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(2), 179-185.

Rojahn, J., Rowe, E. W., Macken, J., Gray, A., Delitta, D., Booth, A., & Kimbrell, K. (2010b). Psychometric evaluation of the Behavior Problems Inventory-01 and the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form with children and adolescents. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 3(1), 28-50.

Rojahn, J., Barnard-Brak, L., Richman, D., Dotson, W., Medeiros, K., Wei, T., & Abby, L. (2013). Behavior problems in individuals with Cornelia de Lange Syndrome: Population-specific validation of the Behavior Problem Inventory-01. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 25(5), 505-515.

BPI-S Behaviour Problem Inventory - Short Form A shortened version of the Behaviour Problems Inventory (BPI-01). The BPI-S contains the same
three sub-scales as the BPI-01: Self-injurious Behaviour;
Stereotyped Behaviour; and Aggressive/Destructive Behaviour.
2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Children and adults Questionnaire Family carer; paid carer; teacher 30 N/R N/R N/R Publisher: Johannes Rojahn, Ph.D.
10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-993-4241 
N/R Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Acceptable internal consistency has been found for the Aggressive/Destructive and Stereotyped Behaviour subscales of the BPI-S. For the SIB subscale, values range from unacceptable to acceptable (Rojahn, 2012b).  Structural validity: Confirmatory factor analysis results have indicated acceptable model fit for each latent construct suggesting support for the one-dimensional nature of each trait (Barnard-Brak, 2013).

Convergent validity: Good convergent and divergent validity has been demonstrated by significant correlations in predicted directions between the BPI and measures including the ABC, NCBRF, Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP) and DASH-II (Rojahn, 2012b).
0.92-0.99 for ability of SIB, stereotypy and aggression subscales to detect SIB (Rojahn, 2012a). N/R N/A Yes Barnard-Brak, L., Rojahn, J., & Wei, T. (2013). Psychometric analysis of the behavior problems inventory using an item-response theory framework: A sample of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35(4), 564-577.

Rojahn, J., Rowe, E. W., Sharber, A. C., Hastings, R., Matson, J. L., Didden, R., . . . Dumont, E. L. M. (2012b). The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Part II: Reliability and validity. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(5), 546-565. 
DBC-P Developmental Behaviour Checklist  The DBC is a suite of instruments for the assessment of behavioural and emotional problems of children and adolescents with developmental and intellectual disabilities. 2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Children and young people Questionnaire Family carer; paid carer 96 10-15 minutes N/R N/R Available: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/spppm/research/devpsych/dbc.html £77.46 (DBC Starter Kit - consists of 1 x DBC Manual plus 1 packet each of DBC-P and DBC-T checklists and score sheets) Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to be questionable for the antisocial subscale (0.67) and acceptable to excellent for the remaining subscales (0.73-0.91) based on the original six factor solution (Einfield, 1995).
Internal consistencies for a revised five factor solution have been found to range from questionable for the Anxiety subscale (0.66) to excellent for the Disruptive/Antisocial and Self-Absorbed subscales (0.91) (Dekker, 2002).

Inter-rater reliability: Intra-class correlations have been found to be moderate to substantial for parent ratings (0.75-0.80) and poor (0.30 - antisocial subscale) to substantial (0.74 - self absorbed subscale) for teacher ratings (Einfield, 1995).

Test-retest reliability: Intra-class correlations have been found to be moderate to substantial (0.75-0.80) (Einfield, 1995).
Sensitivity to change: Post-treatment change as measured by the DBC has been found to be strongly correlated with change as rated by an experienced clinician (Clarke, 2003).

Structural validity:
Einfield (1995) produced six clinically meaningful and factorially valid subscales using principle components analysis: Disruptive, Self-Absorbed, Communication
Disturbance, Anxiety, Social Relating, and Antisocial. However, Dekker (2002) suggested that a five factor solution was more appropriate, which included the following subscales: Disruptive/Antisocial,
Self-Absorbed, Communication Disturbance, Anxiety, and Social Relating. Dekker (2002) suggested that this revised scale structure
constitutes an improvement over the original structure
given that it is based on a larger sample and one that
better represents all levels of ID.

Convergent validity:
Strong positive correlations have been found between the DBC and the Adaptive
Behaviour Scale (0.72) and the Scales of Independent
Behaviour (0.72 p < .001 in each case).

Concurrent validity:
Pearson product-moment correlations between the
DBC total score and psychiatrist ratings has been found to be significant (0.81, p < .001) (Einfield, 1995).
N/R N/R N/A No (Australia) Clarke, A. R., Tonge, B. J., Einfeld, S. L., & Mackinnon, A. (2003). Assessment of change with the Developmental Behaviour Checklist. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(3), 210-212.

Dekker, M. C., Nunn, R. J., Einfeld, S. E., Tonge, B. J., & Koot, H. M. (2002). Assessing emotional and behavioral problems in children with intellectual disability: revisiting the factor structure of the developmental behavior checklist. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 32(6), 601-610.

Einfield, S. L., & Tonge, B. J. (1995). The developmental behavior checklist: The development and validation of an instrument to assess behavioral and emotional disturbance in children and adolescents with mental retardation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25(2), 81-104. 
DBC-A Developmental Behaviour Checklist for adults Assesses a comprehensive range of emotional,
behavioural and mental health problems in adults
with mild, moderate and more severe levels of ID.
2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Adults Questionnaire Family carer; paid carer 107 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/spppm/research/devpsych/dbc.html £64.92 (DBC Manual & DBC-A Supplement); £5.90 per 10 pack of checklists. Inter-rater reliability: Substantial agreement has been found between family members (ICC 0.72; Mohr, 2005) and acceptable agreement between paid carers (ICC 0.69; Mohr, 2011).
Test–retest reliability: Test-retest reliability has been found to be good, ranging  from 0.75-0.85 (ICC; Mohr, 2005).
Convergent validity: A strong positive correlation has been demonstrated between the DBC-A and both the PAS-ADD and ABC, providing evidence of good convergent validity (Mohr, 2005). N/R N/R N/A No (Australia) Mohr, C., Tonge, B. J., & Einfeld, S. L. (2005). The development of a new measure for the assessment of psychopathology in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(7), 469-480.

Mohr, C., Tonge, B. J., Taffe, J., Rymill, A., Collins, D., Keating, C., & Einfeld, S. L. (2011). Inter-rater reliability of the Developmental Behaviour Checklist for Adults in community accommodation settings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(7), 710-713. 
MAS Motivation Assessment Scale Designed to provide information about the function(s) of the target behaviour(s) of a client. Each item refers to one of four potential functions, with each item rated on a 7-point Likert scale. The MAS is supposed to reveal whether the target behaviour is related to sensory,
escape, attention, or tangible variables.
2.2 Functional analysis Children and adults Questionnaire Family carer; paid carer; teacher 16 N/R 10 minutes N/R Available: http://www.robertjasongrant.com/wp-content/uploads/MotivationAssessmentScale.pdf. Permissions and copywrite unclear. Free Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to range from questionable to good for the Sensory subscale (0.67-0.83), questionable to good for Escape (0.68-0.88), questionable to excellent for Attention items (0.69-0.96) and good to excellent for Tangible items (0.80-0.91) (Bihm, 1991; Duker, 1998; Koritsas, 2013; Newton, 1991; Shogren, 2003; Spreat, 1996). 

Inter-rater reliability: There have been mixed findings about inter-rater reliability with levels of agreement ranging from poor to almost perfect. However, the majority of studies report poor agreement  (Akande, 1998; Crawford, 1992; Duker, 1998; Durand, 1988; Kearney, 1994; Koritsas, 2013; Newton, 1991; Shogren, 2003; Sigafoos, 1994; Spreat, 1996; Thompson, 1995; Zarcone, 1991). 
Convergent validity: The MAS correlates with functionally analogous scales of the QABF, offering evidence of convergent validity (Koritsas, 2013; Paclawskyj, 2001; Shogren, 2003).

Structural validity: There have been mixed findings about the factor structure of the MAS. Several studies have failed to replicate the original factor structure of the MAS. (Duker, 1998; Kearney, 2006; Joosten, 2008; Koritsas, 2013) and others have offered support for the structure in institutional but not school samples (Bihm, 1991; Singh, 1993).

Predictive validity: Durand (1988) found that teacher's rating on the MAS predicted their student's behaviour in experimental conditions.
N/R N/R Inconsistencies in the psychometric properties of the MAS have led some authors to conclude that "in developing interventions to address
challenging behaviour, other techniques (e.g. observations)
should be used to supplement information
from these measures (Koritsas, 2013).
Yes Akande, A. (1998). Some South African evidence of the inter-rater reliability of the Motivation Assessment Scale. Educational Psychology, 18(1), 111-115.

Bihm, E. M., Kienlen, T. L., Ness, M. E., & Poindexter, A. R. (1991). Factor structure of the Motivation Assessment Scale for persons with mental retardation. Psychological reports, 68(3 Pt 2), 1235-1238.

Crawford, J., Brockel, B., Schauss, S., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1992). A comparison of methods for the functional assessment of stereotypic behavior. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(2), 77-86.

Duker, P. C., & Sigafoos, J. (1998). The Motivation Assessment Scale: Reliability and Structural validity across three topographies of behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19(2), 131-141.

Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18(1), 99-117.

Joosten, A. V., & Bundy, A. C. (2008). The motivation of stereotypic and repetitive behavior: Examination of Structural validity of the motivation assessment scale. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(7), 1341-1348.

Kearney, C. A., Cook, L., Chapman, G., & Bensaheb, A. (2006). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the Motivation Assessment Scale and Resident Choice Assessment Scale. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18(1), 1-11.

Kearney, C. A. (1994). inter-rater reliability of the Motivation Assessment Scale: Another, closer look. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(2), 139-142.

Koritsas, S., & Iacono, T. (2013). Psychometric comparison of the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF). Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(8), 747-757.

Newton, J. T., & Sturmey, P. (1991). The motivation assessment scale: Inter-rater reliability and internal consistency in a British sample. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 35(5), 472-474.

Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T. R. (2001). Assessment of the convergent validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale with analogue functional analysis and the Motivation Assessment Scale. [Comparative Study
Validation Studies]. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45(Pt 6), 484-494.

Shogren, K. A., & Rojahn, J. (2003). Convergent reliability and validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function and the Motivation Assessment Scale: A replication study. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 15(4), 367-375.

Sigafoos, J., Kerr, M., & Roberts, D. (1994). inter-rater reliability of the motivation assessment scale: Failure to replicate with aggressive behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15(5), 333-342.

Singh, N. N., Donatelli, L. S., Best, A., Williams, D. E., Barrera, F. J., Lenz, M. W., . . . Moe, T. L. (1993). Factor structure of the motivation assessment scale. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 37(1), 65-74.

Spreat, S., & Connelly, L. (1996). Reliability analysis of the motivation assessment scale. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100(5), 528-532.

Thompson, S., & Emerson, E. (1995). Inter-informant agreement on the Motivation Assessment Scale: Another failure to replicate. Mental Handicap Research, 8(3), 203-208.

Zarcone, J. R., Rodgers, T. A., Iwata, B. A., Rourke, D. A., & Dorsey, M. F. (1991). Reliability analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale: A failure to replicate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12(4), 349-360.
NCBRF Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form Standardized instrument for assessing child and adolescent behaviour. Two "levels" of the NCBRF [one for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities and one for normally developing children] are available. The first form is simply called the NCBRF, which was derived for children with developmental disabilities, namely those with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders. There are two versions of the NCBRF, one for completion by parents and one for teacher ratings. The scale has two subscales: Social competence and problem behaviours. 2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Children and young people Questionnaire Family carer; teacher. 76 N/R 8 minutes N/R Available: http://psychmed.osu.edu/ncbrf.htm Free Inter-rater reliability: Poor reliability for the NCBRF prosocial scales has been found between teacher and parent-teacher ratings. For the problem behaviour scales teacher-teacher agreement was fair, but parent-teacher agreement ranged from poor to moderate (Aman 1996; Rojahn, 2010b).

Test-retest reliability: Rojahn (2010b) found fair reliability for prosocial and problem behaviour subscales.

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to be fair to good for the prosocial scales and good for the problem behaviour scales, based on an LD sample (Aman, 1996; Norris, 1999; Rojahn, 2010b).
Lecavalier (2004) found questionable to good consistency for the Adaptive Social subscale (0.63-0.79) and acceptable to good consistency for Compliant/Calm (0.79) based on parent and teacher ratings, respectively, based on an ASD sample.
Convergent validity: Studies indicate strong convergent and divergent validity between the NCBRF and  BPI-01, ABC and DBC (Aman, 1996; Norris, 1999; Rojahn 2010b).

Structural validity:
There have been mixed findings regarding the factor structure of the NCBRF.
Lecavalier (2004) and Norris (1999) replicated a two factor structure for social competence items based on ASD and LD samples. But Rojahn (2010b) found the fit for a two factor solution to be poor.
Lecavalier (2004) found a five factor solution to be more appropriate than the original six factor solution for problem behaviour items. Other studies have demonstrated poor fit for both five and six factor solutions for this scale (Norris, 1999; Rojahn, 2010b).
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Aman, M. G., Tasse, M. J., Rojahn, J., & Hammer, D. (1996). The Nisonger CBRF: A child behavior rating form for children with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 41-57.

Lecavalier, L., Aman, M. G., Hammer, D., Stoica, W., & Mathews, G. L. (2004). Factor analysis of the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(6), 709-721.

Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2011). Evaluating the validity of the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form - Parent Version. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2894-2900.

Rojahn, J., Rowe, E. W., Macken, J., Gray, A., Delitta, D., Booth, A., & Kimbrell, K. (2010b). Psychometric evaluation of the Behavior Problems Inventory-01 and the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form with children and adolescents. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 3(1), 28-50.
QABF Questions About behavioural Function  A caregiver report form designed to identify behavioural functions important in maintaining aberrant behaviour. Five subscales of the assessment relate to five possible variables influencing problem behaviour: attention, escape from task demands or social contact, non-social reinforcement, physical discomfort, and tangible reinforcement. 2.2 Functional analysis Children and adults Questionnaire Paid carer; Family carer 25 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.robertjasongrant.com/wp-content/uploads/QABF.pdf Free Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to be generally acceptable to excellent for all subscales (Koritsas, 2013; Nicholson, 2006; Paclawskyj, 2000; Shogren, 2003; Zaja, 2011). Although Paclawskyj (2000) found that it was questionable for the test as a whole (0.601).

Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability for subscales has been found range from poor to almost perfect (kappa 0.21-0.95) (Koritsas, 2013; Matson, 2007c; Matson, 2009; Nicholson, 2006; Paclawskyj, 2000; Shogren, 2003; Zaja, 2011).

Test-retest reliability:
Scores have been found to be stable over time (Paclawskyj, 2000; Zaja, 2011).
Convergent validity: The Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and Functional Assessment for Multiple
Causality (FACT) have been found to correlate with functionally analogous scales of the QABF, offering evidence of convergent validity (Koritsas, 2013; Paclawskyj, 2001; Shogren, 2003; Zaja, 2011). Watkins (2013) also demonstrated that the QABF identified the same behavioural functions in participants when compared to a brief functional analysis.

Predictive validity:
Participants with treatments developed from functional assessment
(QABF results) have been found to improve significantly when compared to controls receiving
standard treatments not based on functional analysis (Matson, 1999b).


Structural validity:
Paclawskyj (2000) replicated the original five factor solution. Nicholson (2006) also found five factors that corresponded to the five subscales of the QABF, however their analysis suggested the existence of a sixth factor with a high loading from only a single item, concerning the repetitive nature of the
behaviour. The proposed explanation for this was that respondents differentiated repetitiveness of behaviour from aspects suggesting sensory or other automatic reinforcement.

N/R N/R N/A Yes Koritsas, S., & Iacono, T. (2013). Psychometric comparison of the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF). Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(8), 747-757.

Matson, J. L., Bamburg, J. W., Cherry, K. E., & Paclawskyj, T. R. (1999b). A validity study on the questions about behavioral function (QABF) scale: Predicting treatment success for self-injury, aggression, and stereotypies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(2), 163-176.

Matson, J. L., & Boisjoli, J. A. (2007c). Multiple versus single maintaining factors of challenging behaviours as assessed by the QABF for adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 32(1), 39-44.

Matson, J. L., & Wilkins, J. (2009). Factors associated with the questions about behavior function for functional assessment of low and high rate challenging behaviors in adults with intellectual disability. Behavior Modification, 33(2), 207-219.

Nicholson, J., Konstantinidi, E., & Furniss, F. (2006). On some psychometric properties of the questions about behavioral function (QABF) scale. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27(3), 337-352.

Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T. R. (2000). Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF): A behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21(3), 223-229.

Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T. R. (2001). Assessment of the convergent validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale with analogue functional analysis and the Motivation Assessment Scale. [Comparative Study
Validation Studies]. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45(Pt 6), 484-494.

Shogren, K. A., & Rojahn, J. (2003). Convergent reliability and validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function and the Motivation Assessment Scale: A replication study. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 15(4), 367-375.

Watkins, N., & Rapp, J. T. (2013). The convergent validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale and functional analysis for problem behavior displayed by individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 11-16.

Zaja, R. H., Moore, L., van Ingen, D. J., & Rojahn, J. (2011). Psychometric comparison of the functional assessment instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for self-injurious, stereotypic and aggressive/destructive behaviour. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 24(1), 18-28. 
MBI Maslach Burnout Inventory  Developed to assess burnout in professionals. Subscales are: Emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and personal accomplishment. 2.3 Burnout Paid carers Questionnaire Self 22 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.mindgarden.com/products/mbi.htm £59.59-£214.51 (licence to conduct 50 and 500 paper and pencil administrations, respectively); £71.50-257.42 (licence to use online version for 50 and 500 administrations, respectively). Manual £23.83. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Values for Emotional Exhaustion (0.87-0.90) and Personal Accomplishment (0.76) subscales have been found to be acceptable to good. Internal consistency for the Depersonalisation subscale has varied from unacceptable to acceptable (0.68-0.71) (Chao, 2011; Hastings, 2004). Structural validity:
Chao (2001) found that while a three factor solution suggested an acceptable fit for the data, a four factor solution provided a better fit than the original three factor solution.

The three sub-scale items all have positive loadings greater than 0.40 on the anticipated factors. 19 of the 22 items  loaded  above 0.40 on the appropriate factor and less than 0.40 on the other factors.
N/R N/R N/A Yes Chao, S. F., McCallion, P., & Nickle, T. (2011). Factorial validity and consistency of the Maslach Burnout Inventory among staff working with persons with intellectual disability and dementia. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(5), 529-536.

Hastings, R. P., Horne, S., & Mitchell, G. (2004). Burnout in direct care staff in intellectual disability services: a factor analytic study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48(3), 268-273.
SWC-R Shortened Ways of Coping (Revised) Questionnaire  Used to represent thoughts and actions which can be used to deal with the demands of a stressful encounter. The measure is scored into two subscales, Practical Coping and Wishful Thinking, representing distinct Ways of Coping. 2.3 Carer needs Adults Questionnaire Self 14 N/R N/R N/R Unclear. N/R in publication or online. N/R Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to range from poor to good for the Wishful Thinking subscale (0.52-0.82) and acceptable to good for the Practical Coping subscale (0.70 - 0.80) (Hatton, 1995b).

Test-retest reliability:
Subscales showed stability over time with paired t-test showing no significant differences between measurements over a 16 month period (Hatton, 1995b).
Predictive validity:
A significant association has been found between 1991 Wishful Thinking scores and 1993 distress scores (Hatton, 1995b).
N/R N/R N/A Yes Hatton, C., & Emerson, E. (1995b). The development of a shortened "Ways of Coping" questionnaire for use with direct care staff in learning disability services. Mental Handicap Research, 8(4), 237-251. 
WC-R Ways of Coping Questionnaire - Revised Used to represent thoughts and actions which can be used to deal with the demands of a stressful encounter. 2.3 Carer needs Adults Questionnaire Self 66 10 minutes N/R N/R Available: http://www.mindgarden.com/products/wayss.htm £59.59 and £214.51 (licence to conduct 50 and 500 paper and pencil administrations, respectively); £71.50-£257.42 (licence to use online version for 50 and 500 administrations, respectively). Manual £23.83. Down Syndrome Sample
Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to be poor for the Passive Acceptance subscale (0.53); questionable for the Stoicism subscale (0.65); and acceptable for the remaining Practical Coping, Wishful Thinking and Seeking Social Support subscales (0.77 - 0.90) (Knussen, 1992).

Test-retest reliability: For mothers, four out of five subscales have shown
adequate (i.e. alpha > 0-6) levels of test-retest reliability, with only the Passive Acceptance subscale failing to reach an adequate level of test-retest reliability. For fathers, all the coping subscales except Stoicism showed adequate levels
of test—retest reliability (Hatton, 1995a).
Down Syndrome Sample
Structural validity:
Subscales resulting from factor analysis have been found to be similar to those reported in earlier
studies, and differences appear to be attributable
to variation in personal and situational variables (Knussen, 1992).
N/R N/R Data only available for Down Syndrome sample. Yes Hatton, C., Knussen, C., Sloper, P., & Turner, S. (1995a). The stability of the Ways of Coping (Revised) Questionnaire over time in parents of children with Down's syndrome: A research note. Psychological Medicine, 25(2), 419-422.

Knussen, C., Sloper, P., Cunningham, C. C., & Turner, S. (1992). The use of the Ways of Coping (Revised) questionnaire with parents of children with Down's syndrome. Psychological Medicine, 22(3), 775-786. 
QRS-F Questionnaire on Resources and Stress (Friedrich, short form) Used widely with parents of children with disabilities. The QRS–F assesses four subcomponents of parental perceptions: parent and family problems (stressful aspects of the impact of the child with disability on parents and the wider family), pessimism
(parents’ pessimistic beliefs about the child’s future), child characteristics (features of the child that are associated with increased demands on parents), and physical incapacity (the extent to which the child is able to perform a range of typical activities).
2.3 Stress Family carers Questionnaire Self 52 N/R N/R N/R Available: The Questionnaire on Resources and Stress and the
manual describing test development are available from the author for research purposes; online: http://quintechildrenshomes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/stressorsresource.pdf
Free LD sample
Internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson coefficient): Internal consistency for the 52 item version of the QRS-F has been found to be excellent (0.89-0.93) (Friedrich, 1983; Scott, 1989).

Autism sample (LD N/R)
Internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson coefficient):
A good level of internal consistency has been found for mothers= 0.85 and for both mothers and fathers= 0.93 of young children with autism, using a 31-item version of the QRS-F derived from factor analysis (Honey, 2005).

Inter-rater reliability: The results of the paired samples t-test for mothers
and fathers in Study 2 showed no significant difference between the
mothers’ (mean = 10.67, SD = 7.08) and fathers’ (mean = 9.91, SD =
5.95) scores (t(42) = 1.34, p = 0.19), suggesting good inter-rater reliability with the 31-item version (Honey, 2005).
LD sample
Convergent validity:
The QRS-F shows significant correlations in the expected direction with the Beck Depression Inventory, Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Friedrich, 1983).

Structural validity:
Scott (1989) successfully replicated the four factor solution found by Friedrich (1983).

Criterion validity:
Scores have been found to vary reliably with handicapping condition, offering support for criterion validity (Scott, 1989).

Autism sample (LD N/R)
Structural validity:
Honey (2005) did not find a two- or three-factor structure that had any resemblance to the existing QRS–F scales. Rather, the majority of the items loaded significantly onto the first factor extracted in most analyses. 

Convergent validity: Adaptation (Judson scale) has been found to be significantly correlated with maternal stress (r(54) = –0.70, p <0.001) and paternal stress (r(43) = –0.46,p < 0.01), offering evidence of convergent validity (Honey, 2005).

N/R N/R N/A Yes Honey, E., Hastings, R. P., & Mcconachie, H. (2005). Use of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress (QRS-F) with parents of young children with autism. Autism, 9(3), 246-255.

Friedrich, W. N., Greenberg, M. T., & Crnic, K. (1983). A short-form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88(1), 41-48.

Scott, R. L., Sexton, D., Thompson, B., & Wood, T. A. (1989). Measurement characteristics of a short form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94(3), 331-339. 
CBI Challenging Behaviour Interview Developed as an assessment of the severity of challenging behaviour. The CBI is divided into two parts. Part I of the interview identifies the occurrence of five clearly operationalized forms of challenging behaviour that have occurred in the last month. Part II of the interview assesses the severity of the behaviours identified on 14 scales measuring the frequency and duration of episodes, effects on the individual and others and the management strategies used by carers. 2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Children and adults Interview Paid carer; teacher. 19 N/R N/R N/R Available: Copies of the interview can be obtained from Prof. Chris Oliver ([email protected]). N/R Inter-rater reliability:
The CBI has been found to demonstrate good inter-rater reliability (kappa 0.50-0.80).

Test-retest reliability:
The CBI has been found to demonstrate goodtest-retest reliability (kappa 0.70-0.91).
Convergent validity:
The CBI has been found to be significantly correlated with the ABC (Oliver, 2003).
N/R N/R N/A Yes Oliver, C., McClintock, K., Hall, S., Smith, M., Dagnan, D., & Stenfert-Kroese, B. (2003). Assessing the severity of challenging behaviour: Psychometric properties of the Challenging Behaviour Interview. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(1), 53-61. 
FAST Functional Analysis Screening
Tool
A functional assessment tool designed to assess four functional properties of a problem behaviour. The four subscales are labelled (1) Social (attention ⁄ preferred items), (2) Social (escape from tasks ⁄ activities), (3) Automatic (sensory stimulation), (4) Automatic (pain attenuation). 2.2 Functional analysis Adults Questionnaire Paid carer; family carer; teacher 16 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.adapt-fl.com/files/FAST.pdf Free Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha):
The FAST has been found to have unacceptably low internal consistency (0.05-0.77 for each subscale with a mean of 0.39) especially for the social attention and social escape subscales (Zaja, 2011).

Inter-rater reliability:
Correlations for inter-rater agreement have been found to range from poor to good (ICC 0.48–0.71) (Zaja, 2011).

Test-retest reliability:
Test-retest correlation coefficients have been found to range from fair to excellent for total FAST scores (0.55-0.82) (Zaja, 2011).
Convergent validity:
Convergent and discriminant validity (Spearman p) has been found to be better between the FACT and the QABF (0.80)  than between the FAST and the FACT (0.50) or the FAST and the QABF (0.51) (Zaja, 2011).
N/R N/R N/A No (USA) Zaja, R. H., Moore, L., van Ingen, D. J., & Rojahn, J. (2011). Psychometric comparison of the functional assessment instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for self-injurious, stereotypic and aggressive/destructive behaviour. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 24(1), 18-28. 
SDQ Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire One of the most widely used brief questionnaires for assessing mental health problems in children and adolescents. The SDQ is divided into 5 domains: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and pro-social behaviour. 2.2 Challenging behaviour (any) Children and young people Questionnaire Family carer; self; teacher. 25 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.sdqinfo.org/ Free Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha):
The SDQ has been found to show acceptable internal consistency overall (0.71) with subscales ranging from unacceptable (0.30 for peer problems) to good (0.87 for total impact) (Emerson, 2005).

Inter-rater reliability:
Inter-rater reliability has been found to be modest for child ratings when compared to parent and teacher ratings (0.11 for peer problems subscale - 0.49 for hyperactivity) (Emerson, 2005).
Criterion validity:
Self-reported difficulties have been found to be significantly correlated with ICD-10 diagnoses (Emerson, 2005).

Structural validity: a three factor model (comprising Positive Relationships, Negative Behaviour and Emotional Competence) was found to be a better measure than the original five factor SDQ model in a population with leearning disabilities


N/R N/R N/A Yes Haynes, A., Gilmore, L., Shochet, I., Campbell, M., & Roberts, C. (2013). Factor analysis of the self-report version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a sample of children with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(2), 847-854.

Emerson, E. Use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to assess the mental health needs of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 2005;30(1):14-23.  
HoNOS-LD Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for People with Learning Disabilities  Developed to measure health and social functioning among people with learning disability. Scales cover a wide range of health and social domains- psychiatric symptoms, physical health, functioning, relationships and housing. 1.2 Health status Adults Questionnaire Paid carer. 18 N/R N/R Yes. Clinical staff will require one day training initially, and a half-day re-training every 2 years. The HoNOS-LD course can be delivered with up to 25 delegates for £3,000.00 + VAT (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/crtu/healthofthenation/learningdisabilities.aspx) Available. The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) allows without express permission the free use, copy and reproduction of HoNOS scoresheets for use in NHS-funded care. Use, copy or reproduction of HoNOS scoresheets for any other purpose should be with the explicit permission of the RCPsych.
Training: 3,000.00 + VAT (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/crtu/healthofthenation/learningdisabilities.aspx)
Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha):
Internal consistency has been found to be acceptable to good (0.74-0.89) (Tenneij, 2009).

Inter-rater reliability:
Inter-rater reliability has been found to be good (kappa 0.58-0.86; Pearson's r=0.82) (Roy, 2002a; Tenneij, 2009).
Sensitivity to change: The HoNOS-LD has been found to be a useful tool in measuring clinical outcomes. Hillier (2010) demonstrating significant improvements in mental state, behaviour and social functioning following in-patient treatment and Roy (2002a) found a significant difference in ratings over time for individuals engaged in treatment, suggesting sensitivity to change.

Criterion validity: Nurses ratings on the HoNOS-LD have been found to distinguish between individuals placed on closed wards and outpatients, although psychiatrist/psychologists ratings have not been found to do so (Tenneij, 2009).

Convergent validity: The HoNOS-LD has been found to be positively correlated with the ABC, Social Functioning Scale for the Mentally Retarded and Adult Behavior Checklist (Roy, 2002a; Tenneij, 2009).
N/R N/R N/A Yes Hillier, B., Wright, L., Strydom, A., & Hassiotis, A. (2010). Use of the HoNOS-LD in identifying domains of change. Psychiatrist, 34(8), 322-326.

Roy, A., Matthews, H., Clifford, P., Fowler, V., & Martin, D. M. (2002a). Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for People with Learning Disabilities (HoNOS-LD). British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(JAN.), 61-66.

Tenneij, N., Didden, R., Veltkamp, E., & Koot, H. M. (2009). Reliability and validity of the HoNOS-LD and HoNOS in a sample of individuals with mild borderline intellectual disability and severe emotional and behavior disorders. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 2(3), 188-200. 
DASH-II Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II A measure of comorbid psychopathology in people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Consists of 13 subscales: Anxiety, Depression, Mania, PDD/Autism, Schizophrenia, Stereotypies, Self-Injury, Elimination, Eating, Sleeping, Sexual, Organic, and Impulse Control. 1.2 MH needs People with severe and profound intellectual disabilities Questionnaire Paid carer; family carer. 84 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.disabilityconsultants.org/DASHII.php £192.97 (manual, 50 protocols, 50 score sheets, shipping from USA) Inter-rater reliability:
Sevin (1995) found the Mean Percentage Agreement (MPA) across all items to be 0.86 for frequency, 0.85 for duration, and 0.95 for severity. Intra-class correlation coefficients were greater than 0.5 for ten of the subscales, indicating adequate agreement. However, they were less than 0.5 for the anxiety, schizophrenia and sexual disorders subscales indicating poor agreement.

Test-retest reliability: Sevin (1995) calculated percentage agreement and kappa coefficients. MPA across all items was 0.84 for frequency, 0.84 for duration, and 0.91 for severity.  Good inter-rater reliability was also reported by Matson (1991).

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has bee found to vary from unacceptable to good across subscales, with good internal consistency for the total scale (0.87, Paclawski, 1997).
Diagnostic validity:
Numerous studies have evaluated the subscales of the DASH-II and have found them to be valid for the diagnosis of depression (Matson et al, 1997), mania (Matson & Smiroldo, 1997), schizophrenia (Bamburg, 2001), and autism/pervasive developmental disorder (Matson et al, 1998).  However, caution has been reported in terms of the validity of the anxiety subscale due to high rates of false positive diagnoses (Matson et al, 1997).

Structural validity:  Sturmey (2004) found 5 factors that were named Emotional Lability/Antisocial, Language Disorder, Dementia/Anxiety, Sleep Disorder, and Psychosis. Scales derived from this factor analysis were internally consistent.

Convergent and discriminant validity:
The DASH-II demonstrates good convergent  and discriminant validity with the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), MESSIER, and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS). (Paclawski, 1997; Sturmey, 2004).
N/R N/R N/A Yes Bamburg, J. W., Cherry, K. E., Matson, J. L., & Penn, D. (2001). Assessment of schizophrenia in persons with severe and profound mental retardation using the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II (DASH-II). Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13(4), 319-331.

Matson, J. L., Gardner, W., Coe, D. A., & Sovner, R. (1991). A scale for evaluating emotional disorders in severely and profoundly mentally retarded persons- Development of the diagnostic assessment for the severely handicapped (DASH) scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 159(SEPT.), 404-409.

Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Hamilton, M., Anderson, S. J., Bamburg, J. W., Baglio, C. S., . . . Kirkpatrick-Sanchez, S. (1999). Characteristics of depression as assessed by the diagnostic assessment for the severely handicapped-II (DASH-II). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(4), 305-313.

Matson, J. L., & Smiroldo, B. B. (1997). Validity of the Mania subscale of the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II (DASH-II). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 221-225.

Matson, J. L., Smiroldo, B. B., Hamilton, M., & Baglio, C. S. (1997). Do anxiety disorders exist in persons with severe and profound mental retardation? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 39-44.

Matson, J. L., Smiroldo, B. B., & Hastings, T. L. (1998). Validity of the Autism/Pervasive Developmental Disorder subscale of the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(1), 77-81.

Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Bamburg, J. W., & Baglio, C. S. (1997). A comparison of the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II (DASH-II) and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18(4), 289-298.

Sevin, J. A., Matson, J. L., Williams, D., & Kirkpatrick-Sanchez, S. (1995). Reliability of emotional problems with the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped (DASH). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34(1), 93-94.

Sturmey, P., Matson, J. L., & Lott, J. D. (2004). The Factor Structure of the DASH-II. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 16(3), 247-255.
N/R http://www.disabilityconsultants.org/DASHII.php;


£192.97 (manual, 50 protocols, 50 score sheets, shipping from USA)
PAS-ADD Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with a Developmental Disability The PAS-ADD Clinical Interview is the most comprehensive of the PAS-ADD assessments. It is primarily designed for people with a level of language that enables them to give some verbal contribution to the interview. It provides full diagnoses under both ICD-10 and DSM-IV (TR). The PAS-ADD clinical interview is based on the original PAS-ADD 10 1.2 MH needs Adults Interview Paid carer; self 66 N/R N/R Yes Available: http://79.170.44.140/pasadd.co.uk/pas-add-clinical-interview/ 225 (materials) £400 training (2013 prices: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/news/events/2013/june/PAS-ADD-Clinical-Interview.aspx) Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability has been gound to be good across all items (Moss 1993). N/R N/R N/A Yes Moss, S., et al. (1993). "Psychiatric morbidity in older people with moderate and severe learning disability. I: Development and reliability of the patient interview (PAS-ADD)." British Journal of Psychiatry 163(OCT.): 471-480. N/R N/A
PAS-ADD Checklist Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with a Developmental Disability Checklist A screening instrument specifically designed to help staff recognize mental health problems in the people with intellectual disability for whom they care, and to make informed referral decisions. The Checklist consists of a life-events checklist, and 29 symptom items scored on a four-point scale. The broad areas encompassed in the Checklist are: 1 appetite and sleep; 2) tension and worry; 3) phobias and panics; 4) depression and hypomania 5) obsessions and compulsions; 6) psychoses; and 7) autism.   1.2 MH needs Adults Questionnaire Paid carer, family carer 25 N/R N/R None Available: http://79.170.44.140/pasadd.co.uk/pas-add-checklist/ £59.95 (pack of 20) Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability has been found to be good when the PAS-ADD Checklist is used for case identification purposes (Moss 1998).

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to be acceptable for the total Checklist but variable for subscales (0.51-0.87, Moss 1998; Sturmey 2008).
Diagnostic validity:
Moss (1998) found that although the Checklist showed broadly
satisfactory validity, two
individuals had been judged by the psychiatrist as
having a severe condition, but were not detected by
instrument.

Structural validity: Hatton (2008) concluded that given the inconsistency of empirically derived subscales, the PAS-ADD Checklist should not be used to identify specific types of psychopathology. The Checklist may have more utility as a screening tool for general psychopathology and subsequent referral for more detailed assessment. 
0.66 - 0.70 (Moss, 1998; Sturmey, 2005) 0.69 - 0.7 (Moss, 1998; Sturmey, 2005) N/A Yes Hatton, C., & Taylor, J. L. (2008). Factor structure of the PAS-ADD Checklist with adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 33(4), 330-336.

Moss, S., Prosser, H., Costello, H., Simpson, N., Patel, P., Rowe, S., . . . Hatton, C. (1998). Reliability and validity of the PAS-ADD Checklist for detecting psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42(2), 173-183.
 
Sturmey, P., Newton, J. T., Cowley, A., Bouras, N., & Holt, G. (2005). The PAS-ADD Checklist: Independent replication of its psychometric properties in a community sample. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186(APR.), 319-323.
N/R N/A
Mini PAS-ADD Mini PAS-ADD Rather than being an interview, the Mini version of the PAS-ADD provides a framework for an individual, or a
team of individuals, to collect together relevant information on psychiatric symptomatology which is
available without the need for interviewing. Secondly, the Mini PAS-ADD is aimed at case identification, rather than full ICD-10 diagnostic evaluation. The Mini PAS-ADD is a more elaborate instrument that requires some training in its administration, and that provides information that is more detailed, and more rigorously coded, than the PAS-ADD Checklist.
1.2 MH needs Adults Questionnaire Paid carer, self 86 N/R N/R Yes Available: http://79.170.44.140/pasadd.co.uk/mini-pas-add/  £179.95 (materials); cost of training N/R. Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Prosser (1998) found alpha coefficients to range from questionable to excellent (0.60-0.95).

Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability for case identification has been found to be moderate (kappa 0.44, Prosser, 1998).
N/R N/R N/R N/A Yes Prosser, H., Moss, S., Costello, H., Simpson, N., Patel, P., & Rowe, S. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Mini PAS-ADD for assessing psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42(4), 264-272.
Y (handbook) £179.95: http://79.170.44.140/pasadd.co.uk/mini-pas-add/ 
PIMRA Psychopathology Instrument for Mentally Retarded Adults  A widely used diagnostic instrument for psychiatric diagnosis in adolescents and adults with different degrees of MR. Fifty-six items are grouped in eight subscales (Schizophrenia, Affective disorders, Adjustment disorders, Anxiety disorders, Somatoform Disorders, Personality disorders, Poor adjustment), which correspond to DSM-III classification. There are both self-report and other report versions of the instrument. The PIMRA is available in self report and informant versions.  1.2 MH needs Adolescents and adults Questionnaire Paid carer; family carer; self 56 N/R N/R N/R Available: http://www.disabilityconsultants.org/PIMRA.php £193.55 (kit plus shipping from USA) Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability for case identification has been found to be good (86% agreement, Linkaker 1990; kappa 0.64, Linaker, 1991).

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Internal consistency has been found to be variable, ranging from unacceptable to good for informant and self-report measures across studies (0.40-0.85, Matson, 1984; Sturmey, 1990; Watson, 1988).

Test-retest reliability: The stability of scores over time has been found to be variable. Small to large correlations have been found for PIMRA subscale scores taken at 5 month intervals (Watson, 1988), although total PIMRA scores have been found to be highly correlated over time (Matson, 1984; Watson, 1988).
Discriminant validity: A good level of correspondence has been found between PIMRA and DSM diagnosis classifications in general, although may not be satisfactory when a high level of diagnostic precision is required (Linaker, 1991; Linaker, 1994). Authors have pointed out that the PIMRA may not be satisfactory as the only basis for diagnosis.

Convergent validity: Total PIMRA scores have been found to be significantly correlated with the ABC, Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL), DSM-III and the Zung Anxiety Scale, but not with CBCL and Zung depression subscales (Masi, 2002; Sturmey, 1990; Swiezy, 1995).

Structural validity: Matson (1984) found inconsistency between the factors identified for the self-report and informant versions of the PIMRA. The authors suggested that this may demonstrate difficulty
on the part of mentally retarded patients to discriminate on the particular type of psychopathology that they are experiencing.
N/R N/R N/A Yes Linaker, O. (1991). DSM-III diagnoses compared with factor structure of the Psychopathology Instrument for Mentally Retarded Adults (PIMRA), in an institutionalized, mostly severely retarded population. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12(2), 143-153.

Masi, G., Brovedani, P., Mucci, M., & Favilla, L. (2002). Assessment of anxiety and depression in adolescents with mental retardation. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 32(3), 227-237.

Matson, J. L., Kazdin, A. E., & Senatore, V. (1984). Psychometric properties of the psychopathology instrument for mentally retarded adults. Applied research in mental retardation, 5(1), 81-89.

Matson, J. L., & Russell, D. (1994). Development of the psychopathology instrument for mentally retarded adults-sexuality scale (PIMRA-S). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15(5), 355-369.

Sturmey, P., & Ley, T. (1990). The Psychopathology Instrument for Mentally Retarded Adults: Internal consistencies and relationship to behaviour problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 428-430.

Swiezy, N. B., Matson, J. L., Kirkpatrick-Sanchez, S., & Williams, D. E. (1995). A criterion validity study of the schizophrenia subscale of the psychopathology instrument for mentally retarded adults (PIMRA). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 75-80.

Watson, J. E., Aman, M. G., & Singh, N. N. (1988). The psychopathology instrument for mentally retarded adults: Psychometric characteristics, factor structure, and relationship to subject characteristics. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 9(3), 277-290.
Y £193.55 : http://www.disabilityconsultants.org/PIMRA.php

تواصل معنا

الجدول الدراسي


روابط مكتبات


https://vision2030.gov.sa/


التوحد مش مرض

متلازمة داون

روابط هامة

برنامج كشف الإنتحال العلمي (تورنتن)

روابط مهمة للأوتيزم


ساعات الإستشارات النفسية والتربوية

تجول عبر الانترنت

spinning earth photo: spinning earth color spinning_earth_color_79x79.gif


موعد تسليم المشروع البحثي

على طالبات المستوى الثامن  شعبة رقم (147) مقرر LED 424 الالتزام بتسليم التكليفات الخاصة بالمشروع في الموعد المحدد  (3/8/1440هـ)


m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

معايير تقييم المشروع البحثي الطلابي



m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

ندوة الدور الاجتماعي للتعليم

 

حالة الطقس

المجمعة حالة الطقس

الساعات المكتبية


التميز في العمل الوظيفي

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

(التميز في العمل الوظيفي)

برنامج تدريبي مقدم إلى إدارة تعليم محافظة الغاط – إدارة الموارد البشرية - وحدة تطوير الموارد البشرية يوم الأربعاء 3/ 5 / 1440 هـ. الوقت: 8 ص- 12 ظهرًا بمركز التدريب التربوي (بنات) بالغاط واستهدف قياديات ومنسوبات إدارة التعليم بالغاط

تشخيص وعلاج التهتهة في الكلام

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

حملة سرطان الأطفال(سنداً لأطفالنا)

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

اليوم العالمي للطفل

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

المهارات الناعمة ومخرجات التعلم


m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

المهارات الناعمة

المهارات الناعمة مفهوم يربط بين التكوين والتعليم وبين حاجات سوق العمل، تعتبر مجالاً واسعاً وحديثا يتسم بالشمولية ويرتبط بالجوانب النفسية والاجتماعية عند الطالب الذي يمثل مخرجات تعلم أي مؤسسة تعليمية، لذلك؛ فإن هذه المهارات تضاف له باستمرار – وفق متغيرات سوق العمل وحاجة المجتمع – وهي مهارات جديدة مثل مهارات إدارة الأزمات ومهارة حل المشاكل وغيرها. كما أنها تمثلالقدرات التي يمتلكها الفرد وتساهم في تطوير ونجاح المؤسسة التي ينتمي إليها. وترتبط هذه المهارات بالتعامل الفعّال وتكوين العلاقات مع الآخرينومن أهم المهارات الناعمة:

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

مهارات التفكير الناقد

مهارات الفكر الناقد والقدرة على التطوير من خلال التمكن من أساليب التقييم والحكم واستنتاج الحلول والأفكار الخلاقة، وهي من بين المهارات الناعمة الأكثر طلبا وانتشارا، وقد بدأت الجامعات العربية تضع لها برامج تدريب خاصة أو تدمجها في المواد الدراسية القريبة منها لأنه بات ثابتا أنها من أهم المؤهلات التي تفتح باب بناء وتطوير الذات أمام الطالب سواء في مسيرته التعليمية أو المهنية.

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

الصحة النفسية لأطفال متلازمة داون وأسرهم

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa


m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa



لا للتعصب - نعم للحوار

يوم اليتيم العربي

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

موقع يساعد على تحرير الكتابة باللغة الإنجليزية

(Grammarly)

تطبيق يقوم تلقائيًا باكتشاف الأخطاء النحوية والإملائية وعلامات الترقيم واختيار الكلمات وأخطاء الأسلوب في الكتابة

Grammarly: Free Writing Assistant



مخرجات التعلم

تصنيف بلوم لقياس مخرجات التعلم

m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa


التعلم القائم على النواتج (المخرجات)

التعلم القائم على المخرجات يركز على تعلم الطالب خلال استخدام عبارات نواتج التعلم التي تصف ما هو متوقع من المتعلم معرفته، وفهمه، والقدرة على أدائه بعد الانتهاء من موقف تعليمي، وتقديم أنشطة التعلم التي تساعد الطالب على اكتساب تلك النواتج، وتقويم مدى اكتساب الطالب لتلك النواتج من خلال استخدام محكات تقويم محدودة.

ما هي مخرجات التعلم؟

عبارات تبرز ما سيعرفه الطالب أو يكون قادراً على أدائه نتيجة للتعليم أو التعلم أو كليهما معاً في نهاية فترة زمنية محددة (مقرر – برنامج – مهمة معينة – ورشة عمل – تدريب ميداني) وأحياناً تسمى أهداف التعلم)

خصائص مخرجات التعلم

أن تكون واضحة ومحددة بدقة. يمكن ملاحظتها وقياسها. تركز على سلوك المتعلم وليس على نشاط التعلم. متكاملة وقابلة للتطوير والتحويل. تمثيل مدى واسعا من المعارف والمهارات المعرفية والمهارات العامة.

 

اختبار كفايات المعلمين


m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa




m.ebrahim@mu.edu.sa

التقويم الأكاديمي للعام الجامعي 1439/1440


مهارات تقويم الطالب الجامعي

مهارات تقويم الطالب الجامعي







معايير تصنيف الجامعات



الجهات الداعمة للابتكار في المملكة

تصميم مصفوفات وخرائط الأولويات البحثية

أنا أستطيع د.منى توكل

مونتاج مميز للطالبات

القياس والتقويم (مواقع عالمية)

مواقع مفيدة للاختبارات والمقاييس

مؤسسة بيروس للاختبارات والمقاييس

https://buros.org/

مركز البحوث التربوية

http://www.ercksa.org/).

القياس والتقويم

https://www.assess.com/

مؤسسة الاختبارات التربوية

https://www.ets.org/

إحصائية الموقع

عدد الصفحات: 3687

البحوث والمحاضرات: 1166

الزيارات: 191702