AUTHOR Pedrini, D. T.; Pedrini, Bonnie C. TITLE Vineland .

gThe normative standardization of the current form of the VinelandSocial aiurity Scale dates back to the middle 1930's.The results ofthe standardization were published and discussed by Doll (1936a, 1953,Ch. 1, 9).llowever, no new standardization has been clone.ram:studies have been published and are listed (Buros, 1938, 1949, 1953, 1959,1965, 1972; Doll, 1953, 1965).has not been attempted.But a re-standardization of the VinelandDoll (1936a) hirnelf called his originalstandardization a "preliminary standardization."indicates the wealmesses of some of his items.zation group included 620 nersons:And, Doll (1953, Ch. 6)The original standardi-10 mele and 10 female at each yearlevel from 0-11, 1-2 to 30-31 years-of-ara from the environs of Vineland,N.J. only.A mm: standardization of aw. 7inelar0 is needed.In this event, deviation social-quotiants ather than ratio socialquotients should be computed.For the 620 "nor, als" in the originalstandardization group, the man social-;luotient ranged from SO to 112points, and the standard-deviation social-nuot:ents ranged from 6 to50 points (Doll, 1953, pp. 376-380).Even if one rules out the belowone-year infants, the mean social - quotients ranged from 95 to 112points, and the standard-deviation social-quotients ranged from 6 to 17Points.The normative social - quotients between ages need to be rela-tively equated in value, both for means and standard deviation if theresults are to have connarability.reality, but it can be helnful.Statistical reality nay not be realThe Stanford-Binet with its long history1The denotations for his snecially abstracted infant-groun (nas listed in Table 5B (Doll, 1953, n. 379) are inaccurate.14/20)

9rof ratio intelligence- quotients (Terinn, 1916; Terman & Merrill, 1937;McNemar, 1942) finally changed to deviation intelligence- quotients (Terman& Merrill, 1960, 1973; Pinneau, 1961).The Vineland in its nextstandnrdization should do likewise.Items and CategoriesItem inclusion on the Vineland ranpes from thirty-four items at year0-I to three items at yerr IX-X to twelve items at year XXV .true if one evaluates the Vineland as an age scale.This isDoll (1953, pn. 48-53)claims age or year-scale and point-scale advantages for the Vineland.A better balance is needed year-by-year in terms of nuMberof items andkind of items.For one Point, the Vineland scoring system gives about one-month ofsocial age at the lower levels, but about one -veer of social agl at theupper levels.In other words, thereat the upper levels.is not em,uph sampling of abilityHence ".at the ore - school level, the VinelandSocial Maturity Scale is fairly adequate as a measure of AdantiveBehavior."(Heber, 1961b, p. 63)not supplanting.It may need sem supplementing, butBut, aChievement tests are defint%ely needed andrecommended at the school-age level; and at the adult level, social andvocational judgments in a family cad community context are recommended.In essence, then, one can infer that the Vineland appears most usefulfor the pre - school child or the retardate of pre-school ability.The inclusion of a senarate Self -Helm general-activities categoryis of doubtful value (PedriniSPedrini, 1966).category could be included in the other categories.The items of thisHerein, factor

11seventeen), however, are high "hen one considers the retardate's range ofabilities.In other ords, for retardates, item analysis above itemseventy-five is not as important or adequate as iten analysis of seventyfive and beloy.retarded?If the "retardate" scored much higher, would he beThe questionable aspect of this kind of iron analysis is theconfotmdinr of criteria and test, input and output, background and foreground.Doll uses social-age means for the retarded in contrastingitem difficulty, in assessing item discrimination.The relationshipis directly dependent and correlated, yet this is not taken intoaccount statistically.In Jefense, one might say that life age isalso related to social age and the Scale items, so what differencedoes it make if one uses social-age means for the retardates?The dif-ference is that the items directly cumulate to give social age, notlife age.External criteria are better than internal criteria.In considering item analysis and validation through between-groupprocedures, Doll (1953, pp. 401-406) contrasts items for life-age meansof "normals" and social-age means of retardates.The criticism mentionedfor the item analysis of protocols of retardates applies here.One might question the use of critical ratio (Cr.), a rather old -fashioned and infrequently used statistic, in the various item analysesof the Scale (Doll, 1953, pp. 71-259, 366-367, 372, 402, 406).Despiteits limitations, however, CR is still acceptable "witchcraft."Appropriate significant-difference tests of one kind or another shouldbe applied in the item analyses between years, sexes, and othergroupings.Correlation coefficients would also add to the analyses,however, and should be included in the next standardization.

1?Language StereotypesDoll'sthe language used in rarts ofOne right he tempted to criticizeidiot, iMbecile, moron -- -till one1953 hook- -for example, feebleminded,theThis was common language prior torealizes the nublication date.Association on ;ten-alby the Americanofficial adoptions of terminologyPeriodically it is good to rid1961b).Deficiency (Heber, 1959, 196110asthat are used against nersons, sucnofstereotypesour languageandstereotynes have surplus pr.vchologicalSuchlanguagemoron, etc.:hat ought to be intended.social meaning above and beyondVSVS and Other Scaleslimitations, is an excellent clinicalThe Vineland, despite itsthan psychometric in nature, eventechnique. It is more clinicalquantitative scores. It is more thanthough the Vineland results inIt can be an interthan a rating scale.a questionnaire and morescale.view and behavior-observationThe interview technique isfor counseling and renediation.ideal for obtaining data relevanttechnique is ideal for assessing interviewThe behavior-observationvalidity and social-interaction.whichmany other scales, some ofThe VSl1S appears to have inspiredOthers may be found, e.g.,Bnros books.are included in the redoubtableEducation Index; ERIC (Educationalin Cumulated Index !tedicus;Index toCenter), including CIJE (CurrentResources Information(Research in Education); ExcerptsJournals in Education) and RIEpsychiatry and in pediatrics; PsychologicalMedics, especially inAbstracts; and Psychological Bulletin.

13The number and quality of studies generated by the scale, or at leastthe number of studies which include the scale may give some notion asto its value.Some scales (especially self-report techniques) remainvainglorious atterpts to extend the self rather than attempts to contribute to the science and art of psychology (not so the Vineland).And some scales seem to markedly penalize subgroups in our culture,without adequate justification.Pedrini, 1972, 1973a.)(For a discussion, see Pedrini &Doll's VSYS (1953, passim) seems much fairersince it deals with adaptive behavior (or social competency), anantidote to narrow IQ testing.(As an illustration, see Grossman,1973, pp. 13-14.)Scatter and ProfilesWhat of scatter analysis in the Vineland?As an analogy, Rapaport,Gill, and Schafer (1945, pp. 48-78, 551-558, et passim; Holt, 1968,pp. 161-171, et passim) discuss various kinds of scatter analyses inthe Wechsler Scales.Cronbach (1960) warns that "Only unusually largedifferences between subtests (greater than 3 scaled-score units) shouldbe taken seriously."Wechsler (1944, pp. 149, 152-153; 1958, p. 170)discusses the computation of deviations from a mean as well as "hard"and "soft" signs.Seybold and Pedrini (1964) discuss the problemsof applying these criteria to protocols of persons with borderlineor retarded intelligence.Wechsler in his earlier hook (1944, p. 149)shows how to compute the deviation scores for borderlines and retardates,but in his later book (1958), he does not include the procedure.Nor is it included by Matarazzo (1972).

14The fame analogous problems arc apparent for the Binet Scales(Rapaport, (ill, &Schafer, I '45, pn. 42-43, 548-552; Holt, 1968,PP. 74-80, 158-160) and the Vineland, only in terms cf nuotient scores(IQ or SQ) rather than subtest scores.Dol! (1953, p. 500)mentions theconvention of considering ".less than 1 SD as not significcntmore than 2 SD as significant, with due regard for sampling and otherallowances."(SD means standard deviation.)But, the SD varies yearby year on the Vineland (though not on the S-B L-'4), as mentionedpreviously. What point values should one consider?the point values for the separate life ages?points for 1 SD following the S-B L-M?Binet for life-age computation:month.)Should it beShould one assume 16(Doll already follows thefor 16 days, one gives the nextShould one assume 15 points for 1 SD following the WechslerScales?Again, the problems are even more complicated in working with theretarded.The retardate's overall scores are much lower in value.If one needs 30 or 32 points for 2 SD's, significant deviations willThere would be few rejections of thein most cases be eliminated.null hypothesis (between extreme items and the mean of the person'sscores) and this might be unrealistic.One could, if the year-by-yearSD's were the same for SQ's (as in the S-B L-M and the Wechsler Scales),\scramble, compute a ratio, and thereby theoretically arrive at asignificant-deviation value.On the S-B le-M, for example, theobtained IQ is to 100, as X (unknown 2 SD) is to 32 (2 SD).an illustration, suppose we obtained an IQ of 60 on the L-74:X/32, therefore X 19.Using0/100For 20 or more points, then, we would have

15a significant deviation (more than 2 SD) of that subtest versus theWe are, in effect, assuming linearity and this iscumulative IQ.unwarranted.And, the S-B L-M subtests within-age-levels are not inorder of difficulty, though one could list them as such in terms ofitem standardization (Terman & Merrill, 1960, pp. 342-347; see alsoT & M, 1973).At a minirum, the Vineland does not even have the same SD valuebetween life ages and therefore we are heaping Pelion upon Ossa.These techniques are "not acceptable witchcraft."tie suspect thatthe true value of significant-deviation for the person would be somewhere between the absolute -grout -mean and the relative-individual-meandiscussed above.What we need is statistical-clinical "accentablewitchcraft." We need mathematical statisticians Who are interestedin and understand individual tests and measurements.Some combinationof description and inference, sampling and probability, experimentaldesign and statistical methodology, mathematics and reasonablenessIs called for.This should not be too difficult a task if themathematical statisticians logically follow the theoretical C.aussiandistribution and the calculus of probability.The notion of profile analysis is not new as a general conceptfor psychometric and projective testing or as a snecific concept forthe Vineland.In his book, Doll (1953, p. 577) lists a profile thatwas developed by Myer.Pedrini and Pedrini (1966) have rearrangedcategories into areas.The word "areas" is used since the Self Kelpgeneral-activities category has been eliminated and items shifted(see Table 1).The area and item sequences follow logic and reasonable-ness as we see it.What is needed, however, is probability.

16Pedrini and Pedrini (1973b) also presented an efficient, short,summary profile.A detail profile is now included (different from theabove) in Tables 3 and 4.Table 4 can fit under Table 3 to make onecontinuous record, combining point scale and age scale characteristics.Note that the first and last columns list the social age (SA) eauivalents.Space is available to record the snecific scores for eachapplicable item.This allows ready reference to variability within,between, and among areas.At this time, one should not attempt toquantify such variability because of all the vagaries noted above.Nonetheless, the listing can be very helpful in noting the minuseswithin pluses or vice versa, the no-opportunity or plus -minus scores,within and between areas.This kind of information could be veryhelpful in counseling, in therapy, in teaching, in programming, etc.The beauty of the VSNS is that it lends itself directly to adaptive orcompetency behavior.Table 2 is a listing of the Vineland iters (and eventuallyscores) as an age scale rather than as a point scale.This kind oflisting could be helpful for general and normative information.Hopefully, however, the focus of the Vineland will be losativetreatment.

17PeferencesPsychological testing.Anastasi, Anne.New York:"acrillan, 1 68,pp. 250-254.Yearbook.The nineteen tbirtv eir.bt rental reasurerentsBuros, 0. K. (Ed.)New Brunswick, N. J.:Putg,ers Univ., 1 38.The third rental reaqurerents Yearhoob.Buros, 0. K. (Ed.)Brunswick, N. J.:PutpersNeu191t9.HighlandThe fourth rental neasurerents Yearbook.Buros, 0. K. (Ed.)rryphon, 1 53.Park, N. J.:The fifth rental reasurcrents yearbook.Buros, 0. K. (Ed.)Highlandrrvilbon, 195 .Park, N. J.:Buros, 0. K. (Ed.)Tests in Print.Fighland Park, V. J.:vearbool.Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The sixth rental measurerentscryphon, 1961.PiPhlandrryphon, 1965.Park, N. J.:yearbook.Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The seventh rental measurementsCrynhon, 1972.Park, N. J.:Cronbach, L. J.Essentials of PsvcholoPical testing.Harper, 1960, p. 201.Doll, E. A.Neu York:See also the 3rd ed., 1970, D. 224.A genetic scale of social maturity.Orthoisvchiatrv, 1935, 5, 1R0-1R8.Doll, E. A.HiPhlandAmerican Journal of(a)The measurement of social competence.Proceedings of1935, 40,the American Association on "ental Deficiency,103-123.Doll, E. A.(b)The Vineland Social Maturity Scale.Bulletin, 1935, 32, 1-7, 25 -32, 4R -55, 6P-74.Doll, E. A.Scale.TraininP School(c)"aturityPreliminary standardization of the Vineland Social2P3-2 3.American Journal of 0rthorsvchlatrv, 1936, 6,(a)

18Doll, r. A.The Vineland Social Maturity Scale.tawoi.11 of directions.1936.Doll, E. A.Vineland, N.J.:Revised condensedThe Training School,(b)Vineland Social Maturity Scale.Manual of directions.Educational Test Bureau, American Guidance Service,Minnoanolis:1047.Doll, E. A.The measurerent of social competence.Minneapolis:1953.Educational Test Bureau, American Guidance Service,Doll, E. A.Personal communication, 1964.Poll, E. A.Vineland Social Maturity Scale.Minneapolis:Directions.Condensed Manual ofEducational Tgst Bureau, AmericanGuidance Service, 1965.Grossman, H. J.rentalManual of terminology and classification inWashington, D. C.:retardation.American Association on MentalDeficiency, 1973.Guilford, J. P.The structure of intellect.Psychological Bulletin,1956, 53, 267-293.Heber, R. (Ed.)retardation.mentalA manual on terminology and classification in(1sted.)American Journal of Mental Deficiency,Monograph Supplement, 1959.Heber, R.Modification in the manual on terminology and classificationin mental retardation.1961, 65, 499-500.Heber, R. (Ed.)American Journal of. Mental Deficiency,(a)A manual on terminology and classification inmental retardation.(2nd ed.)American Journal of MentalDeficiency, Monogranh Sunplement, 1961.(b)

19Diagnostic nsveholwricalPolt, P. R. (Ed.)(Rev. ed.)Schafer./felemar, /1.New York: International UniversitiesPress, 1968.of adult intelliWechsler's measurement and annralsalmatarazzo, J. D.pence.testily by rananort, (ill, andWilliams &Baltimore:Wi3lcins,1972.Boston:scale.The revision of the Stanford-TlinetHoughtonMifflin, 1942.Classifying excentionalT.Pedrini, Bonnie C., & Pedrini, D.adolescents.1972.8 napes.children andEDPS order nunber ED n64 nr.EC 042 573.Clearinghouse on Excentional Children,ERICAbstract inFIE, 1972.Intelligent intelligence testing.T.Pedrini, Ronnie C., & Pedrini, D.1973.7 pages.EDPS order number ED n60 694.on Tests, measurement, and1973.EPIC ClearinghouseEvaluation, Tm nn2 145.Abstract in PIE,(a)Vineland social maturity scalePedrini, D. T., & Pedrini, Bonnie C.profile.Unpublished paper, 1973.Pedrini, D. T., & Pedrini, tura N.(b)Scale:The Vineland Social maturityand analysis.Recommendations for administration, scoringJournal5, 14-20.of School Psychology, 1966,Pinneau, S. R.Boston:Changes in intelligenceHoughton Mifflin, 1961.Rapaport, D., (ill, u., & Schafer, R.Vol. 1.nuotient, infancy to maturity.Diagnostir nc.,:nolonical testing.Chicago: Year Book Publishers, 194;Sevhold, r. R., & Pedrini, D. T.The relation 'ietveen Wechsler-Bellevueusing institutionalized retardates.subtests and academic ahicevementPsychiatric Quarterly,1Q64, 38, 635-650.4

20Terman, L. M.The measureoent of intellirence.Boston:BoughtonMifflin, 1916.Terman, L. M.,& Merrill, Maud A.measuring intelli,,ence.Boston:Boughton Mifflin, 1937.Terman, L. M., & Merrill, Maud A.Boston:Wechsler, D.Stanford-Binet Tntelligence Scale.Uougbton Mifflin, 196n.Nevely norred in 1173.The nensuremnt of adult intelligence.Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins, 1944.Wechsler, D.The neasurerent and annraisal of adult intelligence.Baltinore:Williams &Wilkins, 1955.

71Table 1AMONG VSKS AREASSUGGESTED ORDER OF DISCUSSION WITHIN ANDinformant and works with the client in an1. 11n1 examiner talks with theof the interaction is recorded.informal setting. A verbatim accountshould be less directive rather thanAs much as possible, the examinermore directive.should be administered as a point2. Tn lieu of method one, the Vinelandorder:scale with the areas in the followingadolescentor adult:(a) For a child,VIII.V,VI,VII,I, II, III, IV,(b) For an infant:III, IV, VI, V, I, II, VII, VIII.has togeneral terms. If an examinerThe discussion should begin inandmechanical.of data is forcedhe specific too often, the collectionbecomes question -andRather than conversational, the data collectionfor srontaneitv. A verbatim accountanswer, and this does not allowexaminer'sshould be recorded and this includes theof the interactionA "short-hand" systemstatements, not just the informant's answers.AreaVIIIdoes not exist rer se;helpful.or recording would be veryother things that you wishit is a reminder to ask "Are there anyDoes he present any (other) special?to mention aboutproblems?"I. Drinking, Eating; twelve items: 38, 62, 67, 7511, 25, 39, 16, 20, 28, 30, 33,II. Dressing, Cleansing; fifteen items:47, 54, 70, 86, 64, 74, 6521, 37, 35, 51, 50, 52, 40, 42,III. Moving, Walking; sixteen items:23, 26, 29, 32, 45, 412, 5, 3, 6, 13, 8, 12, 9, 15, 18,Reading, Writing; sixteen items:Understanding,Speaking,IV. Communicating;79, 73, 78, 81, 84, SO, 911, 10, 17, 31, 34, 44, 58, 63, 66,V. Playing, Working; twenty -two items:24, 48, 72, 80, 89, 98, 106,7, 36, 19, 55, 22, 43, 57, 71, 82,108, 111, 113, 114, 116, 107items:V/. Relating, Socializing; seventeen109, 110,59,68,69,85, 88, 103, 104,4, 14, 27, 46, 49, 56,115, 117items:102, 97,VII. Self-Directing, Buying; ninetten76, 87, 94, 95, 100,53, 61, 77, 83, 92, 93, 96, 99, 60,101, 105, 112VIII. I

22Table 2ITEMS AND SCORESVINELAND AGE SCALE:Sex:NAME:Date:year month dayBorn:Informant:

*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