Linda Moore

The Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI-01) in Community-Based Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Reliability and Concurrent Validity vis-a-vis the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP).

Reliability and concurrent validity of the Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI-01; Rojahn et al., 2001) was examined in a sample of 130 community residing adults with mild to profound intellectual disabilities with high rates of behavior problems and concurrent mental health problems. The BPI-01 and the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP; Bruininks et al., 1986) were administered twice within a mean time interval of 7.8 weeks by 20 trained and experienced staff members. All three BPI-01 subscales had high inter-rater agreement (Self-Injurious Behavior [SIB]: mean ICC=.84; Stereotyped Behavior: mean ICC=.75; Aggressive/Destructive Behavior: mean ICC=.82), and stable test-retest reliability (SIB, mean ICC=.91; mean Stereotyped Behavior, mean ICC=.89, and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior, mean ICC=.88); internal consistency ranged from poor (SIB: alpha=.61) to excellent (Stereotyped Behavior, alpha=.90). Using the ICAP as criterion measure, the BPI-01 showed robust convergent validity. Solid relationships between BPI-01 subscales and corresponding ICAP subscales corroborated the concurrent validity of the BPI-01.

Psychometric Properties of the "Aberrant Behavior Checklist," the "Anxiety, Depression and Mood Scale," the "Assessment of Dual Diagnosis" and the "Social Performance Survey Schedule" in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities.

Progress in clinical research and in empirically supported interventions in the area of psychopathology in intellectual disabilities (ID) depends on high-quality assessment instruments. To this end, psychometric properties of four instruments were examined: the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), the Assessment of Dual Diagnosis (ADD), the Anxiety, Depression and Mood Scale (ADAMS), and the Social Performance Survey Schedule (SPSS). Data were collected in two community-based groups of adults with mild to profound ID (n = 263). Subscale reliability (internal consistency) ranged from fair to excellent for the ABC, the ADAMS, and the SPSS (mean coefficient α across ABC subscales was .87 (ranging from fair to excellent), the ADAMS subscales .83 (ranging from fair to good), and the SPSS subscales .91 (range from good to excellent). The ADD subscales had generally lower reliability scores with a mean of .59 (ranging from unacceptable to good). Convergent and discriminant validity was determined by bivariate Spearman ρ correlations between subscales of one instrument and the subscales of the other three instruments. For the most part, all four instruments showed solid convergent and discriminant validity. To examine the factorial validity, Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were attempted with the inter-item covariance matrix of each instrument. Generally, the data did not show good fits with the measurement models for the SPSS, ABC, or the ADAMS (CFA analyses with the ADD would not converge). However, most of the items on these three instruments had significant loadings on their respective factors.

Functional properties of behaviour problems depending on level of intellectual disability

BACKGROUND Behaviour problems are common among individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) especially in those with more severe forms. The determination of the functional profile of a targeted behaviour has important implications for the design of customised behavioural interventions. METHOD We investigated the relationship between the level of ID and the functional profile of aggression, stereotypy and self-injurious behaviour (SIB) using the Questions about Behavioural Function (QABF). Two staff members at two time points completed the QABF for each of 115 adults with varying levels of ID participating in a day training and habilitation programme. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that there is a differential relationship between the functions of behaviour problems and level of ID. While SIB is more often seen by raters to be maintained by escape of social demands and by attaining access to tangible items with the decline of the intellectual level, aggressive and stereotypic behaviours were identified more often as serving multiple functions equally across functioning level.

The Behaviour Problems Inventory‐Short Form: Reliability and Factorial Validity in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities

BACKGROUND The Behaviour Problems Inventory-Short Form (BPI-S) is a spin-off of the BPI-01 that was empirically developed from a large BPI-01 data set. In this study, the reliability and factorial validity of the BPI-S was investigated for the first time on newly collected data from adults with intellectual disabilities. METHODS The sample consisted of 232 adults with intellectual disabilities who represented all levels of intellectual functioning. They were recruited at several day programs in the USA (n = 148) and the UK (n = 84). RESULTS We found acceptable reliability in terms of internal consistency, inter-rater agreement and test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis validated the three BPI-S subscale structure. CONCLUSIONS We corroborated the factor structure underly-ing the three subscales and found the BPI-S to have adequate to good psychometric properties in a newly collected sample of adults with intellectual disabilities.

Functions of maladaptive behavior in intellectual and developmental disabilities: behavior categories and topographies.

Research has shown that different maladaptive behavior categories may be maintained by different contingencies. We examined whether behavior categories or behavior topographies determine functional properties. The Questions about Behavioral Function with its five subscales (Attention, Escape, Nonsocial, Physical, and Tangible) was completed by direct care staff for one target behavior for each of 115 adults with varying degrees of intellectual disabilities. In the first step we examined the functional properties of three broad behavior categories (self-injurious behavior [SIB], stereotypic behavior, and aggressive/destructive behavior). Consistent with previous research stereotyped behaviors and SIB had significantly higher QABF Nonsocial (i.e., automatic positive reinforcement or self-stimulation) subscale scores than aggressive behavior, while none of the other subscales showed differences across the three behavior categories. Contrary to earlier studies, escape (or negative social reinforcement) was an important function not only for aggressive behavior, but also for SIB and stereotypies. A second analysis examined functional properties depending on two factors: the behavior topography (hitting vs. non-hitting behaviors) and their respective behavior category (SIB vs. aggression). SIB topographies had higher ratings than aggressive behavior on the QABF Nonsocial subscale. Of the five QABF subscales, only the subscale Nonsocial differed between categories of maladaptive behavior. Furthermore it was the behavior categories rather than the topographies that determined functional properties.

An Independent Investigation Into the Psychometric Properties of the Adult Scale of Hostility and Aggression (A-SHARP)

ABSTRACT Background: The Adult Scale of Hostility and Aggression (A-SHARP) rating scale assesses the frequency/severity (problem scale) and the reactive-proactive motivation (provocation scale) of aggressive behaviors in adults with intellectual disabilities (ID). Items are assigned to five subscales (Verbal Aggression, Physical Aggression, Hostile Affect, Covert Aggression, and Bullying). Although psychometric properties reported by the scale’s developers were very good, we wanted to corroborate them independently. We were also interested in whether the reactive-proactive distinction of aggressive behavior is related to a behavioral/functional classification. Method: Staff at a day-treatment program for adults with ID completed ratings for 155 clients using the A-SHARP, the Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01), and the Questions about Behavioral Function (QABF). Results: Internal consistency was found to be excellent, and the A-SHARP Physical Aggression subscale had good congruent and clinical validity. Confirmatory factor analysis showed sufficient evidence toward the factorial validity of the A-SHARP’s problem scale. The reactive-proactive classification of aggressive behavior motivation by the A-SHARP’s provocation scale was independent of the functional classification. Conclusions: The A-SHARP is a useful addition to a small number of existing instruments for assessing aggressive behavior in adults with ID, especially its problem scale. We discuss how the A-SHARP provocation scales might provide therapy-relevant information. Empirical evidence for the clinical utility of the A-SHARP provocation scale will have to be established by future research.