Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T19:27:03.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales: Implications of Using the Australian Checknorms for the Diagnosis of Intellectual Disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Clare Roberts
Clare Roberts*
Affiliation:
Curtin University of Technology
*
Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U 1987, Perth Western Australia 6001
Get access

Abstract

This paper reports a comparison between United States norms and the Australian Checknorms of the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales, and the implications for the diagnosis of intellectual disability. One hundred and twenty-five children with developmental disabilities aged between 4 and 10 years received two separate diagnoses relating to intellectual disability. One was based on their level of intellectual functioning plus their Adaptive Behaviour Composite score calculated using the United States norms of the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales. A second diagnosis was based on their level of intellectual functioning and an adjusted Adaptive Behaviour Composite score using the Australian Checknorms. The results indicated that there was a significant difference between scores and that this difference was clinically meaningful in 10.4% of the subjects. For a small and statistically non-significant number of children (five) the difference between scores led to a change in diagnosis from intellectually disabled to not intellectually disabled. Implications for the assessment of children with developmental disabilities are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , May 1993 , pp. 9 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boland, L. (1987). Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales: A review and study of the Interview Edition, Survey Form. ACER Bulletin for Psychologists, 41, 12–14.Google Scholar
de Lemos, M.M. (1988). ACER checknorming of the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales: Proposed adjustments to standard scores based on the results of the NSW checktiorming study. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Evans, L.D., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1988). A review of recently developed measures of adaptive behaviour. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 276–287.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, H.J. (1973). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation (Special Education Publication No. 2). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.Google Scholar
Grossman, H.J. (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Washington DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., McCoy, M., Reidy, D., & Crucitti, F. (in press). A comparison of methods of assessing adaptive behaviour in pre-school children with developmental disabilities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
Sparrow, S.S., Balla, D.A., & Cicchetti, D.V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales. Circle Pines, Mn.: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar