Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale For People With Mental .

2y ago
52 Views
8 Downloads
221.19 KB
18 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Nixon Dill
Transcription

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale for people with mentalretardation, emotional disorders, and behavioral problemsHossein Baghooli1; Mahdiyeh Toeiserkani; Behzad ChavooshiIslamic Azad University, Marvdasht Branch, IranAbstract:Objectives: The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-II is useful in assessing aninGLYLGXDO¶Vdaily functioning. They can be used as an evaluation and diagnostic toolfor individuals who are mentally retarded or individuals with other handicaps.Method: To determine the efficacy of VABS in clinical settings, 3 cases with mentalretardation and behavioral or emotional problems were evaluated according toinstruction scale in clinical settings. The subjects were referred to take rehabilitativeand psycho educational aids.Results: The analyses of the obtained scores exhibit a powerful dimension of theVABS to discriminate weakness and strength adaptive behavior's components.Conclusion: The VABS can be used to develop individual educational,rehabilitative, and treatment programs and can monitor progress during such aprogram. Finally, the VABS can be used in research in which the development andfunctioning of handicapped and non-handicapped individuals are investigated.Key words: adaptive behavior, vineland adaptive behavior scales, behavioralproblems, mental retardation.Submitted: 25 May 2009Accepted: 29 September 20091 -Correspondence: Email : bhossein @gmail.com1

Her performance in the communication and daily living skills domains, whichcorresponds to percentile ranks of 39 and 47, respectively, is at the adequate adaptivelevel. Her socialization domain standard score, however, corresponds to a percentilerank of 7, and is classified as moderately low when compared with other children thesame age. There information in figure 2 is provided to determine if there are anysignificant patterns in her adaptive behavior.Her adaptive functioning in the area of Socialization represents a statisticallyVLJQLILFDQW ZHDNQHVV S ZKHQ FRPSDUHGdomains. (See figure 2.). In addition, a difference of these magnitudes was unusualwhen compared with the differences obtained by the national standardization sample.The difference occurred in less than 10 percent of individuals her age. Herperformance in the socialization domain therefore showed a significant and unusualweakness in comparison with her own average level of functioning.The 21-pint difference between her daily living skills standard score of 99 andSocialization standard score of 78 is both statistically significant at the .05 level andunusual: the difference fell in the extreme 10 percent for her age group in the nationalstandardization sample.The range of 21 points between her highest and lowest domain standard scores (DailyLiving Skills and Socialization) is statistically significant at the.05 level. This range ofdomain standard scores, however, is not large enough to be considered unusual whencompared with others in the "case" age group in their national standardization sample.Thus, her range of domain standard scores is too large to be attributed to chancefluctuations in her scores but is not unusual or abnormal when compared with thestandardization sample.It should be noted that her significant weakness in socialization when compared withher average level of functioning, provided the most concise information a bout herdomain fluctuations. A review of sub domain performance indicates that within thearea of her significant weakness, the socialization domain, her performance in theplay and leisure time sub domain is low. And her performance in the interpersonalrelationships and coping skills sub domain is adequate. Also, although herperformance in the communication domain is adequate, she obtains an adaptive levelof moderately low for the expressive sub domain. She's performance in all other subdomains is in the adequate range.5

1.Domain Strengths and Weaknesses: Differences between Each Domain Standard Score andthe Mean Standard ScoreDomainStandar Difference Strengths Statistical NationalSupplemend Score standard(S)Or significan standardizati tary normscore and Weakness ce levelon samplegroupMeanes (W)Communicati96 5SonDaily Living99 8SSkillsExtremeSocialization 78-13W.0510%Motor SkillsSum 273Mean 912.pairvise Comparisons between Domain Standard cal betweenNormsignificanc Standardizati yDomainstandard Groupe levelon SamplescoreCommunicationCommunication iving Range of Domain Standard ScoresDomainDomainDifferencewithwith Low ScoresDailySocializatio 21living skills nStandardSignificance Norm GroupFigure 2. Score summary and profile completed for case A6

Case "B":He was a mentally retarded aged 29years 4 months, and was evaluated by WAIS-R.he obtained a full scale IQ of 62 (verbal IQ of 62 performances IQ of 65). After that,the survey form was administered. Figure 3 shows his score summary and profile.Figure 4 shows the results of the investigation of his domain strengths andweaknesses.The results revealed an adaptive behavior composite standard score of 59at the 90percent confidence level; his true score is said to fall within the range of 52 to 66. Hisadaptive behavior composite standard score ranks him in the lowest 1 percent of thenational standardization sample and classifies his general adaptive functioning as low.His standard scores in the adaptive behavior domains, along with the bands of error atthe 90 percent confidence level, are as follows. Communication 46 11(3557). Dailyliving skills 83 9(74-92), and socialization 65 9(56-74). His performance in the dailyliving skills domain is moderately low although his standard score of 83 is only 2points below the adequate level. His level of functioning in both the communicationand socialization domains is low. When his standard scores in the three domains werecompared with his mean domain standard score of 65 (Figure 4), it was determinedthat he H[KLELWV D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW Vdomain. The strength in daily living skills and weakness in communication areunusual, based on the performance of the standardization sample. Discrepancies of themagnitude of his daily living skills standard score and his mean standard score, andthe communication standard score and his mean standard score, were evidenced byfewer than 10 percent of the age reference group used in the national standardizationsampleA review of his sub domain performance tells us that his performance in the personalsub domain is low. This is in contrast to his relative overall strength in the daily livingskills domain and his adequate levels of performance for the other two sub domains ofthis domain, Domestic and community. In the communication domain a weakness forhim, he obtained low adaptive levels for the expressive and written sub domains. Hisperformance in all Socialization sub domains is moderately low.The items of the personal sub domain were reviewed to generate hypotheses about hissurprisingly low performance. The item scores suggest that he is performing mostactivities (toileting, dressing, grooming).7

RawscoresSub shipsPlay and leisure timeCoping SkillsSOCIAIZATIONDOMAINSUMGrossFindSUM OF DOMAINSTANDARD SCORESADAPTIVEBEHVIORCOMPOSITECOMMUNIC46 1ATION1DOMAINDAILYLIVNGSCALSDOMAIN83 9SOCIALIZATIONDOMAIN65 9MOTORDOMAIN 266032118763053159453233110Standardscoresx- 100SD 15467365Band oferror 11National normgroup21 913Stanine13Supplementary normgroupSP 95SP90Adequate -811-013-912-012-0 911Sp80ModModLo 70.31SP90Lo1945459 7Figure 3. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview edition survey formIndividual's name: case "B"Chronological age: 29-4-9His low adaptive level appears to be a result of his performance on one item: takingresponsibility for his health care is important to note, it does not merit concern abouthis overall performance of activities in personal sub domain.8

A review of his performance on the items of the expressive and written sub domainsshows that his glow adaptive level for the expressive sub domain is based on only oneitem activity expressing goals for the future. Although only one item is involved, it issuggested that, because of his weakness in the communication domain, the expressivesub domain of the expanded form be administered. In the written sub domain, he doesnot perform many activities, such as reading at the fourth grade level, writing letters,and using the table of contents or index in reading materials. it is recommended thatthe written sub domain of the expanded form be administered to acquire morespecified information about hisperformance in thisarea. For part 1 of themaladaptive behavior domain he obtained a maladaptive level of no significant incomparison with the national standardization sample.His percentile ranks for the adaptive behavior composite and domains, using a sampleof mentality retarded adults in nonresidential facilities as the reference group, were inthe PR80 to PR 95 range his performance in comparison with this group is classifiedas PR above average. This is in contrast to his performance in comparison with thenational. No handicapped standardization sample; with the exception of the nationalpercentile rank of 13 for the Daily Living Skills domain all national percentile rankswere or lower.The differences between his Daily Living Skills and communication domain standardscored showed his mean standard score were unusual. Occurring in less than theextreme 10 percent of the national standardization sample (see figure 4). They are notunusual, however, when compared with the differences obtained by thesupplementary norm group of mentally retarded adults in nonresidential facilities thisinformation may appear some what contradictory. but simply indicates that While thedifferences between his Daily Living Skills and Communication domain standardscores and his mean standard score an unusual when compared with a group of nonhandicapped individuals, these differences are not abnormal for a group of individualswith the same handicap as him. It is important not only to interpret his relativestrength in Daily Living Skills and weakness in communication and to makerecommendations concerning his performance in these areas, but also to note that thedifferences between his standard scores for these domains and his mean standardscore are not unusual for mentally retarded adults in non residential facilities.he exhibited non maladaptive behavior on part 1 and parts 1 and 2 of the MaladaptiveBehavior when compared with the supplementary norm group of mentally retarded9

adults in nonresidential facilities. His part 1 maladaptive when compared with thenational standardization sample was also no significant.1.Domain Strengths and Weaknesses: Differences between Each Domain Standard Score andthe Mean Standard ScoreStrength Statistical NationalDomainStandar DifferenceSupplemens (S)d Score betweensignifican standardizati tary normstandard score Weaknes ce levelon samplegroupand Meanses (W)Communicati46-19W.01onDaily Living83 18S.01SkillsSocialization650Motor SkillsSum 194Mean 6472.pairvise Comparisons between Domain Standard ScoresStatisticalDomainDifferencesignificanc betweene level(.06Domainstandard of .01)scoreCommunicationCommunicationExtreme 10%Extreme 10%NationalStandardization SampleSupplementary NormGroupTable otorSkillsSkillsMotorSocializationsSkillsRange of Domain Standard ScoresDomain Norm GroupFigure 4. Score summary and profile completed for case BCase "C"She is a girl with 8 years 10 months old and in the third grade, was referred becauseof suspected emotional disorder. she was administered the Peabody picture10

vocabulary test- revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & dunn, 1981); Wechsler intelligence scalefor children-revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974); woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery tests of achievement (Woodcock,1978),and developmental test ofvisual-motor integration(Beery&Bucktenica,1967).the results obtained from theseinstrument, summarized in table 7,indicate that she excels in intellectual developmenthearing vocabulary, academic achievement, and visual-motor skills.The survey form was administered with his mother as the respondent .the results aresummarized in figure 5. She obtained a standard score of 104 for the Adaptivebehavior Composite, at the 90 percent confidence level, her true score is said to fallbetween 97 and 111. This range of standard scores and bands of error at the 90percent level of confidence are communication 124 9(115-133), Daily Living Skills109 9 (100-118), and socialization 76 10(66-86).She exhibits quite different levels of functioning in the domains. Her communicationdomain performance is classified as moderately high. The items of this domainmeasure verbal skills as well as school related skills of reading and writing and herperformance in this area is consistent with her high level of performance on thePPVT.R ,WISC-R , and Woodcock-Johnson achievement cluster. Her performance inthe Daily Living Skills domain is Adequate, Wile her performance in the socializationdomain is classified as moderately low. The socialization domain is an area ofconcern because it is related to the reason for referral a suspected emotional disorder.An exploration of domain strengths and weakness(figure.6)indicates that she exhibitsa statistically significant strength(p .01)in the Communication domain and astatistically significant weakness (p .01)in the Socialization domain when thesedomains are compared with her average level of functioning .the differences betweenthese domain standard score and her average standard score are unusual ,as well. Theywere obtained by less than 2 percent (Communication domain) and 1 percent(Socialization domain) of individuals her age in the national standardization sample.her performance in the Survey form sub domains indicates adequate or moderatelyhigh adaptive levels for all sub domains , with the exception of moderately low levelsfor two socialization sub domains, interpersonal Relationships and play and leisuretime. Her performance in these two sub domains is consistent with the moderately lowlevel of performance on the Socialization domain.11

RawscoresSub shipsPlay and leisure timeCoping SkillsSOCIAIZATIONDOMAINSUMGrossFindSUM OF DOMAINSTANDARD 24 9DAILYLIVNGSCALSDOMAIN109 9SOCIALIZATIONDOMAIN76 10MOTORDOMAIN 26623212675224414138242092Standardscoresx- 100SD 1512410976Band oferror 9National normgroup95 973StanineSupplementary normgroup16Adequate levelSuplimentarynormgroupadequate qadeqModadeqMod10-28-011-99-104-105-06-25-89-4 1052ModAdeqMod 7616adeq309104104 7Figure 5. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview edition survey formIndividual's name: case "C"Chronological age: 8-10-0Her performance in the items of the interpersonal Relationships and play and leisuretime sub domains was reviewed to generate more specific hypotheses about her12

functioning in these areas. In the interpersonal Relationships sub domain, item scoressuggest that she does not do things with friends or groups of friends and may notcommunicate well socially. In the play and leisure time sub domain, item scoressuggest that she may have problems with sharing and cooperating and has no hobbies(figure 6). For maladaptive behavior domain, her maladaptive level is no significant,indicating that maladaptive behaviors are not interfering with adaptive functioning.1.Domain Strengths and Weaknesses: Differences between Each Domain Standard Score andthe Mean Standard ScoreDifferen Statistical fican significanc standardiza aryScorenormbetween cee leveltiongroupstandard level(.06sampleCommunicatio124nDaily Living109SkillsSocialization76scoreof .01) 21S.01Extreme10% 6S-27W.01Extreme10%Motor SkillsSum 309Mean 1032.pairvise Comparisons between Domain Standard ScoresDifferenc StatisticalDomainesignificance betweenlevel(.06 ofDomain standard.01) mmunication LivingSSkillsCommunicationSocializati SonCommunication MotorW.05SkillsDailyLivingSocializati SkillsonDailyLiving MotorSkillsSkillsMotorSocializationsSkillsRange of Domain Standard ScoresDomainDomainDifference StandardNationalwith highest with Low betweenSignificance ScoresScoresScoresSupplementaryNorm GroupFigure 6. Score summary and profile completed for case C13SupplementaryNormGroup

Conclusion:Several hypotheses can be generated about case A's performances. First, herperformance in the play and leisure time sub domain appears to be the majorcontributor to her weakness in the socialization domain. The next logical step is toexamine she's performance on the times of the play and leisure time sub domain.because she has a moderately low level of performance in expressive sub domain,those item scores should be reviewed as well. The play and leisure time item scoresindicate that she has no hobbies and does not go place with friends. In the expressivesub domain, she does not express abstract ideas. The latter involves only one item, anitem about expressing goals for the future.She obtained a maladaptive level of intermediate for part 1 of the maladaptivebehavior domain. A review of the item scores in this domain tells us that sheexpresses a dislike for school and is withdrawn and defiant. Because she was referredfor her difficulty in getting along with her classmates and teachers, further evaluationsof her maladaptive behavior is recommended, perhaps through discussions with herparents, teachers, and even by herself.While her overall adaptive functioning is in the adequate range, the survey formresults show a significant weakness in socialization in comparison with her ownaverage level of functioning. It is recommended that the entire socialization domain ofthe expanded form be administered to acquire more information about her weaknessin socialization and to provide support for the hypothesis that her performance in theplay and leisure time sub domain is a major contributor to her socialization weakness.In addition, further evaluation of her expression of abstract concepts, whichcontributed to a moderately low adaptive level for the expressive sub domain. Andfurther evaluation of her maladaptive behavior is suggested.In conclusion of the case "B", overall adaptive functioning is in the low range and isconsistent with his intellectual functioning as measured by the WAIS-R. Hisperformance in the Daily Living Skills domain however is in the moderately low toadequate range and is strength in comparison with his average level of functioning.Furthermore, he appears to be functioning quite well in all areas when compared withothers having handicap .This suggests that he has been able to perform the programsin which he participates at his training school and at home.14

To conclude case "C", her hearing vocabulary, intellectual level, academicachievement, and visual motor skills are well above average. She above averagefunctioning in these areas is consistent with her performance in the survey formcommunication domain. Her functioning in the Daily Living Skills domain, whilelower than in communication is Adequate.It is clear from the results of the survey form that her greatest psycho educationalneeds are in the area of Socialization and more specifically, in InterpersonalRelationships and Play and Leisure time administration of the entire socializationdomain of the expanded form is recommended in order to acquire more informationabout her functioning and to plan an effective program for her at home and school.To sum up, our study has limits that must be taken into account. Thenumber of samples, although adequate for the analysis, must beincreased. There will have to be studies comparing persons withdifferent Intellectual or behavioral Disability etiological diagnoses.Environmental variables, such as living in the family or in an institute,will have to be compared. Lastly, the correlation between VABS and otherrelated scales in the presence of specific psychopathological and/orbehavioral issues will have to be considered.AcknowledgmentThe present article was derived from a more extensive research entitled"standardization of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Survey Form-secondEdition for Iranian population" which had been supported via Islamic AzadUniversity- Marvdasht Branch. Therefore we would like to express our appreciationto all the managers of there for their financial support.15

References1- Anjum, N., Khadi, P. B., & Phadnis, L. (1990). Factors affecting thesocial maturity of rural and urban infants of 6²12 months.IndianJournal of Behaviour, 14, 33²38.2-Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative ¿Windexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238²246.3-Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the ¿Wof models to covariances andmethodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400²404.Doll, E. A. (1935). A genetic scale of social maturity. The AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 5, 180²185.4-Doll, E. A. (1965). Vineland social maturity scale. Circle Pines, MN:American Guidance Service.5-Goel, S. K., & Sen, A. K. (1981). Psychological assessment of thementally retarded and evaluations of the tests. Indian Journal of MentalRetardation, 14, 19²25.6-Grossman, H. K. (1983). Classi¿FDWLRQin mental retardation.Washington, D.C. American Association on Mental 'H¿FLHQcy.Holman, J., & Bruininks, R. (1985). Assessment and training ofadaptive behavior. In K. C. Lakin & R. H. Bruininks (Eds.), Strategies forachieving community integration of developmentally disabled citizens(pp. 73²104). Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.7-Hunt, P. C. (2005). An introduction to Vietnamese culture forrehabilitation service providers in the United States. In J. H. Stone(Ed.), Culture and disability: Providing culturally competent services (pp.203²223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.8-Jayashankarappa, B. S. (1986). Intellectual tests and socialadaptive behavioural scales used for the assessment of thementally handicapped in India. Journal of Personality and ClinicalStudies, 2, 89²98.9- Jo reskog, K. G., & So rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: 8VHU¶Vreference guide.6FLHQWL¿FSoftware International.10- Goldberg et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 30 (2009)592 60216

11- Kamphaus, R. W. (1987). Conceptual and psychometric issues inthe assessment of adaptive behavior. The Journal of Special Education,21, 27²33.12- Keller, H. R. (1988). ChildreQ¶Vadaptive behaviors: Measure andsource generalizability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 371.13- Malin, A. J. (1968). Vineland social maturity scale, Nagpuradaptation, test items and manual. Nagpur: Child Guidance Centre.MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Poweranalysis and determination of sample size for covariance structuremodeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130²149.14-Pearson Education, Inc. (n.d.). Publication Summary Form forVineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Retrieved January 18, /technical/vineland.asp.15-Reschly, D. J. (1982). Assessing the mildly mental retardation:The inÀXHQFH of adaptive behavior in socioeconomic status andprospect for nonbiased assessment. In C. R. Reynold & T. B. Gutkin(Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 2009²2042). NewYork: John Wiley&Sons.16-Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). The VinelandAdaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: America Guidance Service.Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (2005). VinelandAdaptive Behavior Scales Second Edition Survey Forms Manual. AGSPublishing.17-Thua Thien Hue Statistical Of¿FH (2004). Statistical yearbook2003, Hue, Vietnam: Author.18-Tombokan-Runtukahu, J., Nitko, A. J. (1991). Translation,cultural adjustment, and operationalization of the construct ofadaptive behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regional2I¿FHof Education and Culture Department, North SulawesiProvince, Indonesia.19-USAID (2005). Vietnam Disability Situation Assessment andProgram Review, Washington, D.C.: Author.20-Villa, R. A., Tac, L. V., Muc, P. m., Ryan, S., & Thousand, J. S. (2003).Inclusion in Viet Nam: More than a decade of implementation.Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 23²32.17

21-Wilder, L. K., & Obiakor, F. E. (2003, October). Issues, practices, andsolutions in transitioning ethnically diverse learners with emotional/behavioral disability. International CCBD Conference. St Louis, MO.22-Zhang, J., Wheeler, J. J., & Richey, D. (2006). Cultural validity inassessment instruments for children with autism from a Chinesecultural perspective. International Journal of Special Education, 21,109²114.18

type of assessment and interpretation via Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-II that has proven useful for evaluating individuals with varying levels of MR, emotional disorders and some behavioral difficulties. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), (16) consist of4 domains (and 11 sub- domains) of

Related Documents:

The Vineland-II Teacher Form employed a Check if Estimated response option for every item In Vineland-3, this approach is used instead of DK and N/O . IN THE VINELAND-3 BOOKLET AND MANUAL Vineland-3 Forms Vineland Adaptive Behavior

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales – Second Edition (VinelandTM-II) - TSLAT 03 escala vineland manual completo - SlideShare Vineland Adaptive Behavior . Vineland II - Pearson Clinical. The Measurement of Social Competence: A Manual WPPSI-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual Supplement. Vi

Adaptive Functioning The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS; Sparrow et al. 1984) is a standardized semi-structured caregiver interview that evaluates the adaptive functioning for Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skill domains. The psychometrics of the measure are well established and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior

Portfolio Work Sample www.DamianBariexca.net Vineland II Adaptive Behavior Scales (Vineland II) This examiner conducted the Vineland II Survey Interview with XXX’s father, Mr. XXX. This survey utilizes third-party information to identify areas of concern in adaptive or maladaptive behavior in an individual. XXX’s overall

*Vineland Social Maturity Scale. ABSTRACT. The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) is a good measure of adaptive behavior for the pre-school child or the retardate of pre-school ability.It is an excellent clinical technqiue. It is more than a questionnaire and more than a rating scale. We recommend it as a

Vineland adaptive behavior scale II (VABS II) Personal, social and communication skills were assessed using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition (VABS-II) [26]. Adaptive behavior refers to an individual’s day-to-day activities needed for personal and social sustenance; these scales assess what a person does

Adaptive Tests: (Please keep in mind we can only accept these tests from the past three years and with an accompanying neurological diagnosis) 1) Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland 3) 2) Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition (ABAS-3) 3) Adap

2013 AMC 8 Problems Problem 1 Amma wants to arrange her model cars in rows with exactly 6 cars in each row. She now has 23 model cars. What is the smallest number of additional cars she must buy in order to be able to arrange all her cars this way? Solution Problem 2 A sign at the fish market says, "50% off, today only: half-pound packages for just 3 per package." What is the regular price .