Charlop-Christy, M. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Papers Edit Anderson, V. Recovery of memory function following traumatic brain injury in pre-school children: Brain Injury Vol 14 8 Aug , Bensberg, G.
|Published (Last):||17 March 2008|
|PDF File Size:||17.79 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.21 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Today, fulfillment of these personal and social responsibilities, as well as the per- This chapter contains material drawn from an unpublished paper commissioned by the committee from Sharon Borthwick-Duffy, Ph. Page Share Cite Suggested Citation:"4. The Role of Adaptive Behavior Assessment. By the close of the 19th century, medical practitioners diagnosing mental retardation relied on subjective or unsystematic summaries of such factors as age, general coordination, number of years behind in school, and physiognomy Scheerenberger, These practices persisted over that century because of the absence of standardized assessment procedures.
And many individuals who would currently be considered to have mild mental retardation were not included in these early definitions. Professionals voiced early caution about diagnosing mental retardation solely through the use of intelligence testing, especially in the absence of fuller information about the adaptation of the individual.
In addition, mitigating current circumstances not speaking English or past history absence of schooling were often ignored in the beginning years of intelligence testing Kerlin, ; Wilbur, At the turn of the century, intelligence assessment placed primary emphasis on moral behavior which largely comports with the current construct of social competence and on the pragmatics of basic academics.
Chapter 3 provides details on the development of intelligence assessment. Alternative measures to complement intelligence measures began to appear as early as Edger Doll produced form board speeded performance tests, which were analogues to everyday vocational tasks. During the s, Doll, Kuhlmann, and Porteus sought to develop assessment practices consistent with a definition of mental retardation that emphasized adaptive behavior and social competence.
Their work in this area sparked broadened interest in measurement of adaptive behavior among practitioners serving people with mental retardation Doll, ; Kuhlman, ; Porteus, ; Scheerenberger, Doll emerged as a leader in the development of a psychometric measure of adaptive behavior, called social maturity at that time. His work emphasized social inadequacy due to low intelligence that was developmentally arrested as a cardinal indication of mental retardation Page Share Cite Suggested Citation:"4.
Doll objected to the definition of mental retardation in terms of mental age, which had proven problematic in IQ testing because it resulted in classification of a significant proportion of the population. The VSMS, which measured performance of everyday activities, was the primary measure used to assess adaptive behavior, social competence, or social maturity for several decades.
One concern that emerged over time was that it was developed and normed for use with children and youth. It did not cover adults and had a limited range of items tapping community living skills Scheerenberger, The assessment of adaptive behavior became a formal part of the diagnostic nomenclature for mental retardation with the publication of the manual of the American Association of Mental Deficiency Heber, , distributed in The manual Heber, discussed adaptive behavior with respect to maturation, learning, and social adjustment.
The manual characterized the tasks or activities encompassed by adaptive behavior and, plausibly social competence as: In infancy and early childhood: sensorimotor development, communication skills, self-help skills, socialization, and interaction with others; In childhood and early adolescence: application of basic academic skills in daily life activities, application of appropriate reasoning and judgment in mastery of the environment, and social skills—participation in group activities and interpersonal relations; and In adolescence and adult life: vocational and social responsibilities.
During the s, a wider variety of adaptive behavior measures was developed and disseminated e. Indeed, by the late s, the number of available adaptive behavior measures, largely interview or Page Share Cite Suggested Citation:"4. Measures developed in the s have typically been updated in subsequent editions with enhanced psychometric characteristics and scoring e. Over the past 25 years there has also been further refinement of the parameters and structure of tests of adaptive behavior and social competence.
Finally, the difficulties and complexities of differentiating mild mental retardation from its absence or from other disabling conditions e. At first glance, current definitions seem to be quite similar; however, there are subtle differences in the conceptualization of adaptive behavior that may affect the outcomes of diagnostic decisions for individuals with mental retardation, particularly those in the mild range.
The definition speaks to the presence of significant limitations in intellectual functioning and significant limitations in adaptive behavior, which exist concurrently. In this definition, the order of the constructs can be switched without affecting the validity of the definition. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition DSM-IV , published by the American Psychiatric Association , definition of mental retardation also has a cutoff of two standard deviations below the mean for intelligence, making an IQ cutoff of 70 to 75 acceptable for a diagnosis of mental retardation.
The implicit rationale for not providing any statistical criteria for adaptive behavior testing is based on the existing limitations in instruments that measure adaptive behavior, specifically in terms of the comprehensiveness of measuring all domains and the reliability of measuring individual domains. For example, adaptive behavior is defined in terms of effectively coping with common life demands and the ability to meet the standards of personal independence for a particular age group with a specific sociocultural background.
No mention is made of the degree of severity of adaptive deficits for each of these levels, nor of the number or types of impaired adaptive behavior domains at each level.
ICD views the relationship between intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior as causal, with deficits in adaptive behavior resulting from deficits in intellectual functioning. In their most recent classification system American Association on Mental Retardation, , AAMR defines mental retardation as subaverage intellectual functioning existing concurrently with limitations in adaptive skills. These limitations in adaptive skills are operationally defined as limitations in two or more of ten applicable adaptive skill areas e.
AAMR no longer differentiates, either qualitatively or quantitatively, differences in intellectual or adaptive functioning of individuals with mild, moderate, severe, and profound mental retardation.
Instead, they differentiate individuals with mental retardation based on the supports they need. The result is that the unique aspects and characterization of individuals with mild mental retardation are no longer the basis for differentiating them from more moderately and severely involved individuals.
In so doing, AAMR ignores the substantial theoretical and empirical foundation that validates the difference between individuals with mild mental retardation and other individuals with mental retardation MacMillan et al.
Among these four definitions, there is little variation in the intelligence construct for individuals with mental retardation. The differences occur rather in their consideration of the contributing role of adaptive behavior. In some definitions Division 33 and AAMR , adaptive behavior is construed as distinct from intellectual functioning and of equal importance, while in other definitions it is considered a result of deficits in intellectual functioning.
With regard to identifying decision-making criteria, Division 33 presents the only definition that employs a statistical cutoff based on standard norms. In contrast, the other definitions employ more qualitative terms, which are open to interpretation in describing deficits and limitations in adaptive behavior.
Answers to this question have been mixed. Meyers et al. Their view has been both supported and disputed in the past two decades, and there are currently firm adherents on each side of this issue. McGrew and Bruininks and Thompson et al. They also found that it was not the selection of the instrument that determined the number of factors.
This important finding has direct implications for definitions that require limitations to be observed in a specific number of areas. If not, diagnosticians would have to consider a profile of adaptive behavior deficits that takes all domain scores into account.
Widaman et al. The review by Thompson et al. The three most common dimensions found were in these broad categories: 1 personal independence, 2 responsibility, i. Thompson et al. It is clear that different scales place different levels of emphasis on different adaptive behavior domains.
Breadth of Domains. The domains assessed by adaptive behavior scales, and thus the individual items included on them, depend in part on the context, target age group, and purpose of the measure.
Measures used in schools may not need a work domain, for example, if students are too young for employment or the school does not have a work experience program. Conversely, adult scales would not need items on school-related behaviors Kamphaus, a. In their review, Thompson et al.
A consequence of this, according to Thompson et al. Independence of Domains. The AAMR definition requires that an individual show significant limitations in at least 2 of the 10 adaptive skill areas. Thus, characteristics of the factor structure of a measure of adaptive behavior have important implications for diagnosis. They made two important points before summarizing their findings: 1 highly correlated factors may indicate that they do not represent independent dimensions and 2 different methods of factor analysis can support different factor structures.
Domains Missing from Adaptive Behavior Scales Greenspan noted that a drawback to the factor analytic approach to determining the dimensional structure of adaptive behavior is that this statistical method cannot determine whether some domains do not make conceptual sense i.
Social Skills Dimension of Social Competence. Most adaptive behavior scales contain factors addressing interpersonal relationships or social skills, but they do not address overall social competence.
Gresham and Elliott and Greenspan have argued that social competence has received too little attention in the conceptualization and measurement of adaptive behavior Figure Their model divides social competence into two overall dimensions: 1 adaptive behavior, which includes the factors contained on most adaptive behavior scales independent functioning, self-direction, personal responsibility, vocational activity, functional academic skills, physical development and 2 social skills, including domains that are likely to be most key to identifying mental retardation at the borderline levels interpersonal behaviors, self-related behaviors, academic-related skills, assertion, peer acceptance, communication skills.
The dimensions of adaptive behavior and social skills in the Gresham and Elliott model are surprisingly similar to the 10 adaptive skill areas in the AAMR definition of mental retardation. Reprinted with permission.
Very recently Greenspan proposed ideas for assessing vulnerability in a comprehensive assessment of adaptive behavior or social competence. As there is no research yet on credulity in people with mental retardation, these proposals for assessment are unlikely to be found in practice in the next several years. Nevertheless, there is merit to the idea of considering these subtle indicators of social competence, i.
ABS-RC:2 : AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale : residential and community
Today, fulfillment of these personal and social responsibilities, as well as the performance of many other culturally typical behaviors and roles, constitutes adaptive behavior. By the close of the 19th century, medical practitioners diagnosing mental retardation relied on subjective or unsystematic summaries of such factors as age, general coordination, number of years behind in school, and physiognomy Scheerenberger, These practices persisted over that century because of the absence of standardized assessment procedures. And many individuals who would currently be considered to have mild mental retardation were not included in these early definitions. Professionals voiced early caution about diagnosing mental retardation solely through the use of intelligence testing, especially in the absence of fuller information about the adaptation of the individual.
AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-School: Second Edition (Abs-S:2)
Today, fulfillment of these personal and social responsibilities, as well as the per- This chapter contains material drawn from an unpublished paper commissioned by the committee from Sharon Borthwick-Duffy, Ph. Page Share Cite Suggested Citation:"4. The Role of Adaptive Behavior Assessment. By the close of the 19th century, medical practitioners diagnosing mental retardation relied on subjective or unsystematic summaries of such factors as age, general coordination, number of years behind in school, and physiognomy Scheerenberger, These practices persisted over that century because of the absence of standardized assessment procedures. And many individuals who would currently be considered to have mild mental retardation were not included in these early definitions.
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale