UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Maladaptive behavior of mentally retarded adults : a comparison of two measures Gardner, JoAnne Marie 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 G37.pdf [ 10.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055732.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055732-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055732-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055732-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055732-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055732-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055732-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055732-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055732.ris

Full Text

MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR OF MENTALLY RETARDED ADULTS: A COMPARISON OF TWO MEASURES  by  JOANNE MARIE GARDNER B.Sc,  THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, 1977  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (FACULTY OF EDUCATION)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  THE  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA OCTOBER 1981  0  JOANNE MARIE GARDNER, 1981  DE-6  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t  the L i b r a r y s h a l l make  it  and  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  department or by h i s o r her  granted by  the head of  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not  be  allowed without my  permission.  Department The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  (2/79)  Columbia  written  ABSTRACT  Since 19 73, Adaptive Behavior has been recommended by the American A s s o c i a t i o n of Mental D e f i c i e n c y as an important measure f o r c l a s s i f y i n g mentally retarded subjects.  Recently, the l i t e r a t u r e has supported  use of maladaptive b e h a v i o r measures t o improve f u r t h e r t h i s tion.  However, problems r e s u l t when attempting to assess  behavior.  the  classifica-  maladaptive  The AAMD Behavior S c a l e P a r t I I (ABS) has a recorded i n t e r -  rater r e l i a b i l i t y  of .57.  The Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e ,  (MBP)  a  r e c e n t l y developed s c a l e , has no v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y i n f o r m a t i o n . The purpose of  the ABS  of t h i s study was  to attempt  to i n c r e a s e the  P a r t I I by modifying the s c o r i n g procedure.  reliability  For example,  the terms "none", " o c a s s i o n a l l y " , and " f r e q u e n t l y " were r e p l a c e d w i t h "none", " d a i l y " , "weekly", "monthly", " y e a r l y " . t h i s study was ing to  to estimate the r e l i a b i l i t y  to assess i t s v a l i d i t y .  of the MBP  along w i t h  of  attempt-  A l s o , the items of both s c a l e s were analyzed  p r o v i d e f u r t h e r suggestions f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the s c a l e s which  serve to enhance t h e i r u t i l i t y .  Finally,  the r e l a t i o n s h i p maladaptive b e h a v i o r had w i t h placement, age, and  t h i s study attempted  (as measured by ABS  t o t a l scores) sex,  etiology.  i n s t i t u t i o n were assessed u s i n g the ABS  a d u l t s r e s i d i n g i n an  P a r t I I (modified) and the  r a t e r s f a m i l i a r w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t independently  both s c a l e s .  MBP.  completed  A sample of 32 s u b j e c t s , s e l e c t e d from the 97 i n sample 1,  had the o r i g i n a l ABS raters.  will  t o estimate  i n t e l l i g e n c e , l e n g t h of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ,  A sample of 97 mentally r e t a r d e d ambulatory  Two  The second purpose  Part I I rated independently by two  Observations were conducted  additional  on these 32 s u b j e c t s i n an  attempt  to v a l i d a t e the f i n d i n g s with the MBP. sex,  e t i o l o g y , etc.) was obtained The  r e s u l t s of t h i s study  Biodemographic i n f o r m a t i o n (age,  from the r e s i d e n t ' s  files.  r e v e a l e d an i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  of .706  for  the m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n and a .448 i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  coefficient  for  the o r i g i n a l ABS.  coefficient  A r a t h e r low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  of .336 ( s e v e r i t y ) and .324 ( I n t e r v e n t i o n ) was found f o r the MBP. item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS m o d i f i e d  The  and o r i g i n a l and MBP  r e v e a l e d that many of the items were not d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a d u l t s i n the sample. Because of the low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y Behavior was  Observation  n o t conducted.  of the MBP and the  Checklist, a predictive criterion validity However, a content  g u i d e l i n e s f o r modifying  study  v a l i d i t y summary p r o v i d e d  the s c a l e .  Reason f o r admittance and placement were the only two biodemographic v a r i a b l e s that reached s i g n i f i c a n c e when c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  Maladaptive  behavior. In c o n c l u s i o n , the m o d i f i c a t i o n s made t o the ABS P a r t I I g r e a t l y enhanced the r e l i a b i l i t y .  The MBP, w h i l e s t i l l  i n the experimental  needs f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s made t o format, s c o r i n g , and the item i n order t o make i t more r e l i a b l e and e f f e c t i v e as a programming ment.  stages, pool  instru-  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract L i s t o f Tables Acknowledgement Chapter I  Introduction  1  Statement o f Problem  1  Background of Problem  3  Statement o f Research  II  Questions  6  Hypotheses  7  Summary  8  Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e  9  AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e : Psychometric Problems AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e : (modified)  10 12  AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e : I n t e r p r e t i v e Problems  III  13  Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e  13  Method  17  Description of Population  17  Sampling  17  Procedure  Description  o f Samples  22  Sample 1  22  Sample 2  22  Purpose of Raters  22  S e l e c t i o n o f Raters  24  Sample 1  24  Sample 2  24  V  Measuring  Instruments  Data C o l l e c t i o n 1  24  Data C o l l e c t i o n 2  28  Summary of Procedure  28  Method of A n a l y s i s  32  Biodemographic  IV  24  Data A n a l y s i s  32  Item and Test A n a l y s i s  32'  Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y  33  Interobserver  33  Agreement  Validity  34  C o r r e l a t i o n a l Study  34  R e s u l t s of A n a l y s i s  35  ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l  35  Item A n a l y s i s  35  Test A n a l y s i s  39  ABS P a r t I I (modified)  43  Item A n a l y s i s  43  Test A n a l y s i s  47  Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e :  Severity  51  Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e :  Intervention  57  Test A n a l y s i s :  MBP  65  Behavior Observation C h e c k l i s t  65  Validity  68  of MBP  C o r r e l a t i o n s of MB with v a r i a b l e s Age  68 -  68  IQ  68  Length of I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n  68  vi  V  Sex  68  Etiology  68  Reason f o r Admittance  70  L e v e l of R e t a r d a t i o n  70  Summary  72  Discussion  74  AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e : I n c r e a s i n g the U t i l i t y  of the ABS  Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e :  Content V a l i d i t y  Reliability  74 76  Reliability  76  Validity  76  of MBP  77  Advantages of MBP  77  Disadvantages  77  of MBP  Correlations  79  Placement  79  IQ  79  Length  of I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n  80  Sex  80  Age  80  Etiology  81  Reason f o r Admittance  81  Recommendations  81  Behavior Observation C h e c k l i s t  81  M o d i f i c a t i o n s to ABS  82  Improving  83  MBP  References  85  Appendix A  88  vii Appendix B  123  Appendix C  129  Appendix D  148  Appendix E  167  viii LIST OF TABLES  Table  Page  1  Ambulatory Information  f o r 304 Permanent Residents  2  Lodges D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r 157 Ambulatory Residents  18  18 years  of Age and Over  20  3  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Males and Females i n SAMPLE 1  21  4  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Males and Females i n SAMPLE 2  23  5  D e s c r i p t i o n of Raters  (1)  25  6  D e s c r i p t i o n of Raters  (2)  26  7  Estimated  T e s t i n g Time f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n 1  27  8  Estimated  T e s t i n g Time f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n 2  29  9  B e h a v i o r a l Observation  10  O u t l i n e per Subject  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that met the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r item t o domain and item to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n by r a t e r  11  of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the c o r r e c t response f o r  both r a t e r s .  38  C o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS P a r t I I O r i g i n a l (1)  13  41  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r Domains of the ABS ( O r i g i n a l ) , P a r t I I (1)  15  40  C o r r e l a t i o n s among Domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS P a r t I I ( O r i g i n a l ) (2)  14  36  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain t h a t had 15% to 85%  12  31  42  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r Domains of the ABS ( O r i g i n a l ) , P a r t I I (2)  44  16  Summary of ABS ( O r i g i n a l ) P a r t I I Test A n a l y s i s  17  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that met the .40  45  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r item to domain and item t o t o t a l test c o r r e l a t i o n s :  by r a t e r  46  ix 18  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that had 15% t o 85% of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the c o r r e c t response range f o r both r a t e r s  19  C o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS P a r t I I (modified)  20  (2)  49  C o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS Part I I (modified)  21  48  (1)  50  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r domains of the ABS ( m o d i f i e d ) , P a r t I I (1)  22  52  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r domains of the ABS ( m o d i f i e d ) , P a r t I I (2)  52  23  Summary of ABS (modified)  24  Subtest  25  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n  26  C o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b t e s t s of the MBP: Rater  27  P a r t I I Test A n a l y s i s  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP: f o r MBP:  53  S e v e r i t y by r a t e r s S e v e r i t y (1) (2) Severity  1  55  2  56  28  C o r r e l a t i o n between r a t e r s of s e v e r i t y f o r each subtest  29  Subtests (1)  a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r MBP:  (2)  58  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r MBP:  31  C o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b t e s t s of the MBP I n t e r v e n t i o n Rater 1  Intervention  C o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b t e s t s of the MBP:  (1) (2)  subtest  60  60  Intervention,  Rater 2 C o r r e l a t i o n between Raters  56  Intervention  30  33  55  C o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b t e s t s of the MBP - S e v e r i t y Rater  32  53  61 of I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r each 61  X  34  C o r r e l a t i o n s between S e v e r i t y and I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r each s u b t e s t (1)  35  C o r r e l a t i o n between S e v e r i t y and I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r each subtest  36  62  (2)  62  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that met  the  .40  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r item to domain and item to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s : 37  by r a t e r .  64  Percentage of Items w i t h i n each s u b t e s t that had 85% of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the c o r r e c t response  15% t o range  f o r both r a t e r s 38  64  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the s u b t e s t s of the  MBP  (1) (2) 39  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r MBP  Raters (1)  (2)  40  Percent agreement between observers f o r the Behavior observation Checklist  41  Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n between maladaptive b e h a v i o r and age and IQ f o r R^,  42  67  69  R2  Oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e p r o b a b i l i t y f o r maladaptive b e h a v i o r and the l i s t  of v a r i a b l e s f o r R^,  R^, and  r a t e r s combined 43  Average ABS  (modified) maladaptive b e h a v i o r scores f o r  each lodge f o r R^ a n d . R 2 44  Average ABS  69  71  ( m o d i f i e d ) maladaptive b e h a v i o r scores f o r  reason f o r admittance  71  xi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would l i k e to thank the f o l l o w i n g people  f o r the c o n t r i b u t i o n s  they made t o my t h e s i s : Dr. J u l i a n n e Conry, Chairperson of the T h e s i s Committee, f o r the assessment s k i l l s  she helped me develop, and h e r c o n t i n u i n g support and  advice throughout  the study;  Dr. Robert  Conry, member of the T h e s i s Committee, f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e  w i t h the a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data; Mr. Bob Poutt, member of the T h e s i s Committee, f o r h i s encouragement Mr. Hayes and the s t a f f and r e s i d e n t s of Glendale Lodge f o r t h e i r cooperation; Dr. B e r n i c e S e y f o r t , p s y c h o l o g i s t a t Glendale, f o r h e r advice and support; and Ms. Susan Mongrain, p s y c h o l o g i s t a t Woodlands, f o r h e r continued a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement. Thanks t o the E d u c a t i o n Research seemingly  endless hours they s u f f e r e d  S p e c i a l thanks  S e r v i c e Centre s t a f f f o r the through.  to Dr. Buff O l d r i d g e f o r the t r a i n i n g I r e c e i v e d ,  and the time he unbegrudgingly Thanks loads to Ivy  gave me.  f o r t y p i n g the t h e s i s along w i t h h e r encourage-  ment and humor. Thanks t o my cohorts Jeanine and Geoff f o r g i v i n g new meaning to the team approach t o l e a r n i n g .  -  1-  INTRODUCTION  The American A s s o c i a t i o n on Mental D e f i c i e n c y (AAMD; Grossman, 1973) d e f i n e s mental r e t a r d a t i o n a s : s i g n i f i c a n t l y subaverage g e n e r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g e x i s t i n g c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h d e f i c i t s i n adaptive b e h a v i o r , and manifested d u r i n g the developmental p e r i o d (p.148). Grossman (1973) goes on t o d e f i n e a d a p t i v e b e h a v i o r a s : the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o r degree w i t h which the i n d i v i d u a l meets the standards o f p e r s o n a l independence and s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s expected of h i s age and c u l t u r a l group (p.122). Although  the term maladaptive b e h a v i o r does n o t appear i n the a c t u a l  d e f i n i t i o n of mental r e t a r d a t i o n , P h i l i p s  (1967) concluded  t h a t i t i s uncommon  f o r a m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d c h i l d t o present "no emotional maladjustment"  (p.29).  N i h i r a e t a l ; (1975) adds that when p l a n n i n g programs f o r the r e t a r d e d person, both adaptive behavior and maladaptive considered.  F o s t e r and N i h i r a  (1980); Spreat  behavior should be c a r e f u l l y  (1969); G u l l y and Hosch (1979);  Roszkowski  (1980) a l l document the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n c l u d i n g  maladaptive  behavior along w i t h adaptive behavior i n o p t i m i z i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n c l a s s i fying mentally retarded subjects. A c c o r d i n g to Congdon (1973), maladaptive b e h a v i o r i s an important measure t o be used  f o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e p o r t s , t r a n s f e r and placement s c r e e n i n g ,  s t a f f i n g , and g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on r e s i d e n t b e h a v i o r .  STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The  d i f f i c u l t i e s of i n c l u d i n g maladaptive  ment stem from the problems i n a s s e s s i n g i t . construction of a scale  behavior i n program developThe AAMD has sponsored the  ( v i z . AAMD Adaptive Behavior  adaptive and maladaptive b e h a v i o r .  Scale) f o r a s s e s s i n g  P a r t I o f the s c a l e , which mainly  - 2 -  e v a l u a t e s adaptive b e h a v i o r , has a recorded i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of  .86.  P a r t I I of t h e s c a l e d e a l s w i t h P e r s o n a l Maladaption and i s not as  r e l i a b l e , f o r the manual records the mean i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y as .57. for  One f a c t o r that may c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s low i n t e r r a t e r  coefficient  reliability  P a r t I I , a c c o r d i n g t o Nathan, Millham, C h i l c u t t , and A t k i n s o n (1980) i s  each r a t e r has a p e r s o n a l r e a c t i o n toward the s u b j e c t that w i l l his  coefficient  ratings.  influence  A l s o , r a t e r s and informants have v a r y i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s to  observe the s u b j e c t .  Marks and Rod-Mark (1980) quote a study by Hays and  Marks (1980) where a poor c o r r e l a t i o n between observed b e h a v i o r and maladapt i v e b e h a v i o r as measured on P a r t I I of the ABS was found. Irvin et.al.  A c c o r d i n g to  (1979), some domains have too few items s e r v i n g , p o s s i b l y to  lower the r e l i a b i l i t y . One of the goals of t h i s study i s to i n c r e a s e t h i s r e l i a b i l i t y by m o d i f y i n g P a r t I I of the s c a l e .  statistic  Although i t i s important t o improve the  s c a l e s p r e s e n t l y i n use, i t i s a l s o important to support the c o n s t r u c t i o n of new measurement d e v i c e s . The Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e  (MBP) i s a new s c a l e t h a t has r e c e n t l y  been c o n s t r u c t e d ; however, no r e l i a b i l i t y ducted. of  or v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s have been con-  Thus, t h i s study w i l l a l s o be concerned w i t h e s t i m a t i n g the u t i l i t y  this scale.  A p r o m i s i n g f u n c t i o n o f t h i s s c a l e over t h e ABS P a r t I I i s the  a d d i t i o n of a p r o f i l e f o r determining the subject's b e h a v i o r programming priorities. When p r e v e n t i o n , i n t e r v e n t i o n , and program p l a n n i n g a r e b e i n g examined, other f a c t o r s i n a d d i t i o n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p a d a p t i v e behavior has to maladaptive b e h a v i o r should be c o n s i d e r e d .  For example, Eyman et a l . , (1977)  examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between b e h a v i o r problems and sex, age, and l e v e l of  retardation.  T h e i r study "confirmed a much h i g h e r prevalence of behavior  - 3 -  problems i n i n s t i t u t i o n s as compared to community placements"  (p.137).  Like-  wise, a h i g h e r prevalence of behavior d i s o r d e r s occur i n those people w i t h a more severe l e v e l of r e t a r d a t i o n  (Eyman e t . a l . ,  Behavior problems were a l s o found were i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d  1977 ; Schroeder  longer (Schroeder,  1978).  Other v a r i a b l e s such as age and e t i o l o g y may Edgerton,  ).  to be more p r e v a l e n t among r e s i d e n t s who F i n a l l y , Eymen et a l . ,  (1977) found more r e t a r d e d males w i t h maladaptive behavior than  behavior.  et a l . , 1978  (1979) summarized:  females.  prove to be r e l a t e d to "Those people who  maladaptive  were i n an  i n s t i t u t i o n appear to have been so p l a c e d because of behavior problems: r e s t l e s s n e s s , h y p e r a c t i v i t y , temper tantrums,  tendencies to harm  running away, d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s , v i o l e n c e s , s e x u a l d e l i n q u e n c y " T h e r e f o r e , t h i s study w i l l a l s o attempt maladaptive behavior has w i t h age,  to estimate the  themselves,  (p.41). relationship  e t i o l o g y , i n t e l l i g e n c e , l e n g t h of  t i o n a l i z a t i o n , r e s i d e n t i a l placement, reason f o r admittance  and  institu-  sex.  BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM The has  i n c l u s i o n of adaptive behavior i n the d e f i n i t i o n of mental r e t a r d a t i o n  spurred c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y .  Many authors support the i n c l u s i o n of  a comprehensive d i a g n o s i s (Grossman, 1964; 1974;  Wilson,  1972).  However, others  s t i l l q u e s t i o n i n g the u t i l i t y mental r e t a r d a t i o n .  MacMillan et a l . , 1972;  (Benedict, 19 72; Clausen,  Sattler,  1972)  are  of adaptive behavior i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  While Benedict  (1972) questions the v a l u e of "supplement-  i n g , a l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n terminology based w i t h an even more vague and l e s s s a t i s f a c t o r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( v i z . , adaptive b e h a v i o r ) , Clausen  on the IQ  principle"  (1972) r e a c t s more s t r o n g l y by  contending  that the a d d i t i o n of adaptive behavior to the d e f i n i t i o n " i n t r o d u c e s an  - 4 -  element of s u b j e c t i v i t y which i s d e t r i m e n t a l to work i n the f i e l d " He adds that one  of the major problems w i t h t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s the l a c k of  adequate instruments One  1975)  f o r measuring adaptive  behavior.  of the most popular a d a p t i v e behavior s c a l e s used today  Adaptive Behavior  S c a l e (ABS).  The authors  have added a t h i r d dimension  Retardation:  (p.52).  i s the AAMD  of t h i s s c a l e ( N i h i r a et a l . ,  to Grossman's 1973  d e f i n i t i o n of  Mental  Personal/Intra-Maladaption.  Items that measure I n t r a - M a l a d a p t i o n These i n c l u d e 265  qualitative  are i n c l u d e d i n P a r t  I I of the  ABS.  d e s c r i p t i o n s of p e r s o n a l i t y and b e h a v i o r a l  d i s o r d e r s which are " r e l e v a n t to the c r i t i c a l demands of the r e t a r d a t e ' s s o c i a l environment" ( N i h i r a ,  1973,  p.870).  However, N i h i r a  that "the p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of I n t r a - M a l a d a p t i o n dimension"  Nihira  as an independent  (p.877) i s q u e s t i o n a b l e s i n c e I n t r a - M a l a d a p t i o n  load with P e r s o n a l Independence. (et a l . , 1975)  concludes  (1973) adds  factors strongly  On the other hand, i n the ABS  Manual,  that:  " I f , t h e main range of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s adaptive d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n P a r t Two, t h i s d i s t u r b a n c e may w e l l be the reason f o r f a i l u r e i n phases of P a r t One, and i f the i n d i c a t i o n s of emotional d i s t u r b a n c e , e t c . , d e r i v e d from P a r t Two can be brought under c o n t r o l , i t i s p o s s i b l e that the P a r t One p r o f i l e w i l l a l s o change as a r e s u l t of that i n t e r v e n t i o n " (p.40). T h i s i m p l i e s that the s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between P e r s o n a l Independence and Intra-Maladaption  r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i f p r e v e n t i o n and/or  d e c r e a s i n g maladaptive  behavior are the g o a l .  A major problem with the ABS In the 1975  P a r t I I i s r a t h e r low i n t e r r a t e r  Manual, N i h i r a et a l . , (1975) shows the r e l i a b i l i t i e s  from .37 to .77 w i t h a mean of .57. these low r e l i a b i l i t y  Mongrain (1975) hypothesizes  estimates of the ABS  Part II r e s u l t  from:  reliabilities. ranging that  - 5 -  l a c k of o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of b e h a v i o r s , (and) the ambiguity of c r i t e r i a f o r a s s e s s i n g the frequency of occurrance of b e h a v i o r s , (p.187) For example, the terms " O c c a s i o n a l l y "  and  " F r e q u e n t l y " are used as  of the frequency of s p e c i f i c behavior problems.  Raters were found t o d i f f e r  c o n s i d e r a b l y i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these terms (Mongrain, T h i s ambiguity  adds s u b j e c t i v i t y to the s c a l e .  estimates  1975).  Before t h i s s c a l e can be  con-  s i d e r e d an o b j e c t i v e assessment t o o l , the r e l i a b i l i t y s t a t i s t i c must be increased. Another problem w i t h the ABS  and other b e h a v i o r a l assessment t o o l s i s  that data from them do not s p e c i f y programming p r i o r i t i e s .  "The  purpose of  the a c t i v e d i a g n o s t i c i a n , however, i s to c a t e g o r i z e m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d i n d i v i d u a l s i n such a way 1972,  p.69).  as to p o i n t to a p p r o p r i a t e r e m e d i a t i o n "  The ABS Manual does s t a t e t h a t a l o g i c a l step a f t e r a s s e s s -  ment i s b e h a v i o r a l programming, f o l l o w e d by r e m e d i a t i o n . berger  (Blackman,  (1975) speaks of the importance  Likewise,  of e s t a b l i s h i n g program p r i o r i t i e s ,  e s p e c i a l l y i n " r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s where resources are extremely when compared to c r i t i c a l programs which have to be developed (p.218).  The ABS was  designed  i n g p r i o r i t i e s can be developed on the s c a l e s p r o f i l e sheets.  Scheeren-  and  to d e s c r i b e and e v a l u a t e b e h a v i o r s .  limited  implemented" Program-  from the i n f o r m a t i o n that has been recorded T h i s programing procedure  as o u t l i n e d by  N i h i r a et a l . , (1975) i s as f o l l o w s : 1. "Determination of i n d i v i d u a l needs as they r e l a t e to community and agency needs; 2.  Establishment of p r i o r i t y rankings of s e t s of behaviors which r e q u i r e work;  3.  Establishment of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d h a b i l i t a t i v e programs based on (1) and (2) above" (p.43).  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the ABS make p r i o r i t i e s  doesn't  i n c o r p o r a t e measures i n t o the s c a l e t h a t w i l l  f o r b e h a v i o r a l management more e v i d e n t .  I f programing  - 6 -  p r i o r i t i e s a r e the aim, perhaps  i t i s time t o look towards s c a l e s that a r e  s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to do so. "The Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e  (MBP) i s designed as a t o o l to a i d  i n the process of d e c i d i n g upon g o a l p r i o r i t i e s (Woodlands, 1979, p.2). t r a t e programing  The purpose  priorities.  behind t h i s s c a l e i s t o c l e a r l y  T h i s s c a l e has j u s t r e c e n t l y been  hence, no d e s c r i p t i v e , r e l i a b i l i t y , Scheerenberger  i n behavior management" illus-  developed;  or v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s have been done.  (1974) s t a t e d that p r o f i l e s of t h i s type can be used by  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as a c c o u n t a b i l i t y measures as w e l l as a method o f communication.  He concludes  that:  "the most e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t f o r e f f e c t i v e communication between a d m i n i s t r a t o r and s t a f f i s a common understanding and acceptance of goals which they a r e mutually attempting to realize. Programmatic p r i o r i t i e s must r e f l e c t the f a c i l i t y ' s o v e r a l l goals and o b j e c t i v e s " ( p . 4 ) . It  i s t h e purpose  of t h i s study to i n c r e a s e the r e l i a b i l i t y  and subsequent-  l y improve t h e u t i l i t y of one of t h e most common b e h a v i o r r a t i n g s c a l e s , the AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e P a r t I I .  T h i s s c a l e has been w i d e l y used f o r  program p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n of maladaptive b e h a v i o r s of m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d people.  A l s o , t h i s study proposes  to estimate the u t i l i t y  oped s c a l e , the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e . to  The purpose  o u t l i n e behavior g o a l p r i o r i t i e s f o r the m e n t a l l y  of a newly d e v e l of t h i s s c a l e i s  handicapped.  STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS The purpose (1)  of t h i s study i s to answer the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :  W i l l the r e l i a b i l i t y  that the ambiguity  of the ABS P a r t I I i n c r e a s e i f i t i s m o d i f i e d so  of terms decreases?  - 7 -  (2)  What i s the r e l i a b i l i t y of the o r i g i n a l AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e s  P a r t I I and the Maladaptive Behaviour  Profile?  (3)  What i s the v a l i d i t y of the Maladaptive Behaviour  (4)  W i l l t h e r e be a r e l a t i o n s h i p  Profile?  between maladaptive b e h a v i o r as measured  by the ABS P a r t I I (modified) and the MBP and: a) placement of the r e t a r d e d person b) measured  ( i n s t i t u t i o n v e r s u s group home),  intelligence,  c) l e n g t h of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , d) sex, e) age, f) etiology,  and  g) reason f o r admittance. HYPOTHESES The f o l l o w i n g hypotheses (1)  were formulated:  the r e l i a b i l i t y of a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of the ABS P a r t I I w i l l be  s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d over the p u b l i s h e d v e r s i o n ; (2)  there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t  relationship  between maladaptive  behavior  relationship  between maladaptive  behavior  relationship  betwen maladaptive  and placement of r e t a r d e d people; (3) and (4)  there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t intelligence; t h e r e w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t  behavior  and l e n g t h of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ; (5)  there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t  relationship  between maladaptive  behavior  relationship  between maladaptive  behavior  and age; (6)  there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t  and sex;  - 8 -  (7) and  there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t  r e l a t i o n s h i p between maladaptive behavior  etiology.  SUMMARY When a s s e s s i n g b e h a v i o r problems t o o l s be used. adequate bility the  i t i s c r u c i a l that v a l i d and  reliable  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , Clausen's (1972) concern that there are no  assessment  on the ABS  t o o l s appears j u s t i f i e d , f o r the mean i n t e r r a t e r  P a r t I I i s r e p o r t e d as .57, and has been a t t r i b u t e d to  ambiguity of the frequency terms. The assessment,  priority profiles  however, i s only the b e g i n n i n g stage, f o r programing  such as the MBP,  must be developed to g i v e v a l i d  and  r e l i a b l e estimates "of a person's maladaptive b e h a v i o r i n such a way p r i o r i t i e s are more e v i d e n t " (Woodlands, 1979, are  relia-  s p e c i f i e d , programing  can be implemented  p.2).  that  Once the p r i o r i t i e s  that w i l l e v e n t u a l l y l e a d to  remediation. F i n a l l y , by measuring placement,  the r e l a t i o n s h i p maladaptive b e h a v i o r has w i t h  IQ, l e n g t h of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ,  can look towards institutionalized  age, sex and e t i o l o g y  i n t e r v e n t i o n and p r e v e n t i o n of b e h a v i o r problems i n mentally retarded subjects.  one  - 9 -  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE  LITERATURE  According t o Grossman and Rowitz (1974), a change i n the care and s e r v i c e s f o r the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d (M.R.) came about Retarded  i n the e a r l y  1960's.  people were no longer regarded as i n c a p a b l e b e i n g s , but r a t h e r  i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a need f o r development. b e h a v i o r problems,  The major area of focus  was  because of h i g h i n c i d e n c e i n t h i s p o p u l a t i o n .  a surge of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n programs r e s u l t e d . inundated w i t h p r i v a t e and f i n a n c i a l support.  Thus,  Program planners were  Grossman et a l . (1974) added  that by the l a t e 1960's, " i t became necessary not only to p l a n programs but to show that e v a l u a t i o n of these programs was  o c c u r r i n g " (p.9).  (1969) concluded that w h i l e program e v a l u a t i o n was i n e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g , so were adequate measuring assessment.  Program e v a l u a t o r s not only had  Clark  a major d e c i s i v e  factor  instruments f o r b e h a v i o r  to contend w i t h  utilizing  behavior s c a l e s , but by the 1970's, a c c o r d i n g to Grossman et a l . (1974), f i n a n c i a l support began t o dwindle. was  Consequently,  program a c c o u n t a b i l i t y  a f a m i l i a r key phrase, and program planners became concerned with  the  c o s t of i n t e r v e n t i o n and i n t e r v e n t i o n p r i o r i t i e s . With the need f o r s p e c i f y i n g p r i o r i t y b e h a v i o r s f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n purposes,  the 1970's brought  continued concern r e g a r d i n g the u t i l i t y  e x i s t i n g s c a l e s f o r a c c u r a t e l y a s s e s s i n g b e h a v i o r problems. (Berdine, W.  et a l . , 1977;  Schachler, M.,  Bhattacharya S.,  et a l . , 1978;  1973;  and J . T a y l o r , 1976)  Many authors  I r v i n , L., et a l . , set out to study  1979;  these  s c a l e s i n the hope to develop b e t t e r b e h a v i o r a l assessment t o o l s . et a l . ,  of  Irvin  (1979) concluded that the problems w i t h r a t i n g s c a l e s i n c l u d e low  r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . scrutiny.  G e n e r a l l y the u t i l i t y  of these s c a l e s was  under  - 10 -  The 1980's f i n d s us i n the p o s i t i o n of developing and improving  reliable  measures .that w i l l adequately assess the i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e h a v i o r and hence a l l o w i n g us t o move toward  e f f e c t i v e b e h a v i o r programming.  AAMD ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE:  Psychometric  Problems  The ABS i s a b e h a v i o r r a t i n g s c a l e used p r i m a r i l y i n i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r the m e n t a l l y handicapped.  I t can a l s o be used f o r e m o t i o n a l l y maladjusted  and developmentally d i s a b l e d i n d i v i d u a l s as w e l l . two p a r t s .  The f i r s t p a r t assesses p e r s o n a l independence and w i l l not be  d e a l t with i n t h i s study.  P a r t Two o f the s c a l e was developed  p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l maladaption. of  T h i s s c a l e c o n s i s t s of  t o measure  T h i s s e c t i o n of the s c a l e " i s the product  e x t e n s i v e survey of the s o c i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s p l a c e d upon r e t a r d e d persons,  both i n r e s i d e n t i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and i n the community" 1975, p.7).  The f o l l o w i n g  ( N i h i r a , et a l . ,  14 domains are i n c l u d e d i n t h i s  section:  I.  V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior  (Vio.Des.Beh.)  II.  Antisocial  Behavior  (Anti.Soc.Beh.)  III.  Rebellious  Behavior  (Reb.Beh.)  IV.  Untrustworthy  V.  Withdrawal  (Withd.)  VI.  Stereotyped Behavior and Odd Mannerisms  (St.Beh.O.Man.)  VII.  I n a p p r o p r i a t e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners  (Inapp. Inter.Mai  VIII.  I n a p p r o p r i a t e V o c a l Habits  (Inapp.Voc.Hab.  IX.  Unacceptable  or E c c e n t r i c Habits  (Unacc.Ecc.Hab.'  X.  Self-Abusive  Behavior  (Self-Ab.Beh.)  XI.  Hyperactive  Tendencies  (Hyper.Tend.)  Behavior  (Untrust.Beh.)  XII.  S e x u a l l y Abherrant Behavior  XIII.  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Disturbances  XIV.  Use of M e d i c a t i o n s  (Sex.Ab.Beh.) (Psych.Dist.) (Use.Med.) ( N i h i r a et a l . , 1975, p.7)  The  domain "Use of M e d i c a t i o n s "  i s h a r d l y a maladaptive behavior; however,  the authors contend that t h i s domain p r o v i d e s i s adapting The decides domain.  information  on how a person  t o h i s environment.  domains of Part Two a r e a l l scored whether or not the s u b j e c t  by the same method.  The r a t e r  d i s p l a y s the l i s t e d behaviors under each  I f the s u b j e c t does d i s p l a y the b e h a v i o r o u t l i n e d , the r a t e r must  then decide whether i t occurs " o c c a s i o n a l l y " or " f r e q u e n t l y " . "'Occasionally'  s i g n i f i e s that the behavior occurs once i n a w h i l e ,  or now and then and ' f r e q u e n t l y ' s i g n i f i e s that the b e h a v i o r occurs q u i t e o f t e n , o r h a b i t u a l l y " ( N i h i r a et a l . , 1974, p.11).  The f o l l o w i n g i s an  example of a subdomain and i t s items: Demands E x c e s s i v e  A t t e n t i o n or P r a i s e Occasionally  Wants e x c e s s i v e p r a i s e Is j e a l o u s of a t t e n t i o n given others Demands e x c e s s i v e reassurance Acts s i l l y to g a i n a t t e n t i o n Other ( s p e c i f y ) : none of above Total  Frequently  1  2  1 1 1  2 2 2  ( N i h i r a et a l . , 1974, p.17) Both Bhattacharya (1973) and Mongrain (1975) concluded t h a t s c o r i n g method i s a r b i t r a r y . considerably  this  Mongrain (1975) found r a t e r s t o overlap  i n t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s of the terms " o c c a s i o n a l l y " and " f r e q u e n t l y "  For example, the r a t e r s s c o r i n g item eleven guage) were found to overlap  (uses Profane or H o s t i l e Lan-  completely i n the s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a .  Their  - 12 -  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r " o c c a s i o n a l l y " ranged every f o u r y e a r s .  from one i n c i d e n t p e r day to one  However, the r a t e r s who s e l e c t e d " f r e q u e n t l y " ranged  from one i n c i d e n t per day to two per month i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  While  Mongrain (1975) found only one of the f o r t y - f o u r subdomains t o o v e r l a p completely overlap.  there were twenty-six w i t h some o v e r l a p and only e i g h t w i t h no With t h i s a r b i t r a r i n e s s i t i s no wonder the r e l i a b i l i t y  of S e c t i o n  Two i s low. Bhattacharya  (1973) recommended i n t r o d u c i n g a 5 p o i n t s c a l e w i t h  " c l e a r - c u t c r i t e r i a f o r each p o i n t " t o r e c t i f y  this arbitrariness  (p.27).  H i s suggestions were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the m o d i f i c a t i o n s made on the ABS i n this  study. Another problem w i t h the ABS t h a t may c o n t r i b u t e to the subdomains  being represented u n e q u a l l y , i s d e s c r i b e d by Mongrain  (1975):  The s u b t e s t s of t h i s s c a l e a r e of unequal l e n g t h ; and items use d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s . For example, i n d i v i d u a l s can o b t a i n scores of 0-10 f o r the item " i s withdrawn or shy". For the item "seems to f e e l p e r s e c u t e d " scores range from 0-14. Thus t h i s p i n - p o i n t i n g of t a r g e t behaviors i s d i f f i c u l t . (p.185)  AAMD ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE (MODIFIED) As w i t h the o r i g i n a l s c a l e , the r a t e r s are t o s e l e c t the statements that are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the s u b j e c t ' s b e h a v i o r . circling  However, i n s t e a d of  " o c c a s i o n a l l y " or " f r e q u e n t l y " the r a t e r s s e l e c t y e a r l y ( Y ) ,  monthly (M), weekly (W), or d a i l y  (D). The r a t e r s a r e to l e a v e the i n -  d i v i d u a l item u r i c i r c l e d i f the behavior does not occur.  I f none of the  behaviors occur i n the subdomain the r a t e r i s a g a i n i n s t r u c t e d to check "None of the above". reliability  of t h i s  T h i s 5 p o i n t s c a l e was developed instrument.  t o i n c r e a s e the  -  The  13 -  f o l l o w i n g i s an example of the s c o r i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s : Demands E x c e s s i v e A t t e n t i o n or P r a i s e  Wants e x c e s s i v e p r a i s e Is j e a l o u s of a t t e n t i o n given others Demands e x c e s s i v e reassurance Acts s i l l y to g a i n a t t e n t i o n Other: ( s p e c i f y ) None of above Total  Y  M  W  D  1 1 1 1  2 2 2 2  3 3 3 3  4 4 4 4  (modified from N i h i r a et a l  AAMD ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE:  1974,  p.17)  I n t e r p r e t i v e Problems  Because t h i s s c a l e purports to be u s e f u l f o r program p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n , i t i s important  f o r one t o be aware of the problems that may  a r i s e when i n t e r p r e t i n g scores from behavior p r o f i l e s . completing  P a r t Two of the ABS, one o b t a i n s a p r o f i l e of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  maladaptive frequency  For example, upon  behavior.  Programing p r i o r i t i e s may not be a f u n c t i o n of  of maladaptive  behavior.  F o r i n s t a n c e , a person  on o c c a s i o n may  "choke others".; however he may have a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of d r o o l i n g and n a i l biting.  Thus he would r e c e i v e a h i g h p r o f i l e peak f o r "Unacceptable or  E c c e n t r i c H a b i t s " and a lower s c o r e f o r " V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e  Behavior".  Which b e h a v i o r , however, i s i n g r e a t e r need of remediation?  MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR PROFILE The  purpose of t h i s s c a l e i s not to g i v e a d e t a i l e d account of the  i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e h a v i o r , but to o u t l i n e goal p r i o r i t i e s f o r b e h a v i o r The  authors  of t h i s s c a l e conclude  that:  programing.  -  14 -  As the P r o f i l e i s t h e r e f o r e n o t h i n g more than organized s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s of broad c l a s s e s of b e h a v i o r , the user should r e c o g n i z e that i t can not s u b s t i t u t e f o r p r e c i s e and o b j e c t i v e measurement i n b e h a v i o r a l programing. (Woodlands Psychology  Dept., 1979,  p.2)  The domain of t h i s p r o f i l e i n c l u d e s : Aggression  (Aggres.)  P r o p e r t y Damage  (Prop.Dam.)  Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n  (Poor Cope.Frus.)  S o c i a l Aggravation  (Soc.Agg.)  S t e r e o t y p i c Mannerisms  (St.Man.)  Uncooperative  (Uncoop.)  Self-Abuse  (Self-Ab.)  S e x u a l l y I n a p p r o p r i a t e Behavior  (Sex.Inapp.Beh.)  I n a p p r o p r i a t e T o i l e t Related H a b i t s  (Inapp.Toil.Rel.Hab.)  Other  (Other) (Woodlands Psychology The  severity  first  step towards completing  Dept., 19 79,  p.2)  t h i s s c a l e i s to decide the problem  (severe, moderate, m i l d or none) f o r each broad c l a s s of b e h a v i o r .  The next step i s to decide how  c r u c i a l i t i s to e l i m i n a t e t h i s b e h a v i o r .  I f a behavior i n t e r f e r e s w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l ' s l e a r n i n g or d i s t u r b s others from l e a r n i n g then i t would have an immediate i n t e r v e n t i o n need. other hand, an i n d i v i d u a l may  possess  interfere with h i s learning.  In t h i s case the r a t e r may  On  the  severe behavior problems that do not d e c i d e the  inter-  v e n t i o n need i s e v e n t u a l or unnecessary.  To o b t a i n a person's  programming p r i o r i t y , one only has  the " s e v e r i t y " and  "intervention"  An example of t h i s  procedure  to sum  need score to r e c e i v e a programing rank. follows:  individual  - 15  -  Problem s e v e r i t y M  Aggression to others ti  Programing Priorities  Intervention  + 3 2 1 X  4 1 X  moderate  = 7 6 5 4 3 2 X  Immediate  2nd  The authors of t h i s p r o f i l e have a l s o i n c l u d e d " S p e c i f i c  Priority  Maladaptive  Behavior P r o f i l e s " that r e l a t e to each of the 10 broad b e h a v i o r c a t e g o r i e s . I f an i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e s a p r i o r i t y i n the f i r s t t o s i x t h category then the r a t e r completes ranking.  a s p e c i f i c p r o f i l e f o r each of the c a t e g o r i e s w i t h .this  T h i s w i l l a l l o w program planners to s p e c i f y the b e h a v i o r g o a l s .  Some p o s s i b l e advantages of the MBP  are that each g e n e r a l b e h a v i o r  ( i . e . , a g g r e s s i o n , p r o p e r t y damage, e t c . ) i s t r e a t e d independently  and  the s p e c i f i c items w i t h i n each category are not added to equal a t o t a l s c o r e . Bhattacharya  (1973) concluded when r e v i e w i n g the ABS  that the a d d i t i v e method  i s s u b j e c t to s k e p t i c i s m s i n c e no r e l a t i o n s h i p has been determined  between  the domains or items. A p o s s i b l e disadvantage of the MBP i n r a t i n g problem ability statistic.  i s t h a t i t s degree of s u b j e c t i v i t y  s e v e r i t y and i n t e r v e n t i o n need may A l s o , the system  r e s u l t i n a low  of adding s e v e r i t y and  intervention  scores to equal programming p r i o r i t i e s has q u e s t i o n a b l e v a l i d i t y . as w i t h the ABS  reli-  Finally,  P a r t I I , the domains are not composed of an equal number of  i terns. In c o n c l u s i o n , the aim of t h i s p r o j e c t i s to study the u t i l i t y AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e , P a r t Two,  of the  and the Maladaptive Behaviour  Profile.  H o p e f u l l y , the changes made to the ABS w i l l a l l o w program planners to more e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e t h i s s c a l e f o r assessment of the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s maladaptive b e h a v i o r .  A r e l i a b l e assessment i s the b a s i s upon  which program p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n are b u i l t .  L i k e w i s e , the  - 16 -  Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e w i l l be i n o u t l i n i n g goal p r i o r i t i e s In summary, the ABS  has  s t u d i e d to determine i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s  f o r the m e n t a l l y  retarded  come under a t t a c k i n recent years  of the concern f o r more e f f e c t i v e program p l a n n i n g main concerns f o r Part Two statistic  and  H o p e f u l l y by  (1973) suggestion  and  the problems with  the r e l i a b i l i t y w i l l decrease.  The  reliability  t a k i n g Bhattachary's  i n c r e a s i n g the s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a  intervention priorities  because  evaluation.  of the s c a l e have been the low  and programing weaknesses.  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s behavior  individual.  to a 5 p o i n t s c a l e ,  However, when deducing from the p r o f i l e ,  consider-  ably more work w i l l have to be done to s o l v e the problem of the unequal lengths  of the subdomains and weighting  of problem  areas.  - 17 -  CHAPTER I I I METHOD This chapter d e f i n e s the p o p u l a t i o n and d e s c r i b e s sampling The purpose Measuring  procedures.  of r a t e r s i n the study and how they were s e l e c t e d i s o u t l i n e d .  instruments are a l s o d e s c r i b e d u s i n g a step procedure  r e l a t e d t o the data c o l l e c t i o n .  as i t  F i n a l l y , methods of a n a l y z i n g the data  are presented.  DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION The p o p u l a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study c o n s i s t e d of the r e s i d e n t s of Glendale Lodge, an i n s t i t u t e f o r the m e n t a l l y handicapped V i c t o r i a , B.C.  located i n  Two hundred and e i g h t y permanent r e s i d e n t s l i v e w i t h i n  the 13 lodges of the i n s t i t u t i o n and 24 r e s i d e n t s l i v e i n a l a r g e group home (Lodge 14) separated from the main f a c i l i t y .  The people i n the group  home were t r a n s f e r r e d from the i n s t i t u t i o n approximately 2 years ago.  SAMPLING PROCEDURE The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t 1.  I t i s important  of the sampling  procedures.  that the p o p u l a t i o n from which the sample was s e l e c t e d  be a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e d . to gather biodemographic  A survey sheet presented i n Appendix A was i n f o r m a t i o n about  lodge by sex, and ambulation  the p o p u l a t i o n .  completed  I n f o r m a t i o n on  c o l l e c t e d on t h i s p o p u l a t i o n are presented i n  Table 1. 2.  A l l the independently ambulatory  males and females  18 years of age and  o l d e r were sampled from the o r i g i n a l 304 i n d i v i d u a l s i n the p o p u l a t i o n . Table 2 i l l u s t r a t e s  the lodge placement  who q u a l i f i e d f o r t h i s sample.  and sex r a t i o of the 157 r e s i d e n t s  TABLE 1 Ambulatory Information f o r 304 Permanent Residents  Lodge  TOTAL  T o t a l Residents  Ambulatory  Males Non-ambulatory  Ambulatory  Females Non-ambulatory  1  22  9  0  12  1  2  25  24  1  0  0  3  22  7  7  2  6  4  23  0  9  0  14  5  22  0  10  1  11  6  25  25  0  0  0  7  19  10  2  6  1  8  24  0  0  24  0  9  25  0  8  0  17  10  24  9  3  8  4  11  21  0  11  0  10  12  23  13  4  3  3  13  5  3  0  1  1  14  24  15  0  9  0  304  115  55  66  68  - 19 -  3.  Because the r e l a t i o n s h i p between maladaptive behavior and i n s t i t u t i o n a l -  i z e d versus group home r e s i d e n t s i s to be i n v e s t i g a t e d , the s e l e c t i o n of the sample must r e p r e s e n t these 2 groups.  A l l of the r e s i d e n t s from Lodge  14 (group home) were s e l e c t e d w i t h another 40 males and 40 females randomly s e l e c t e d from the remaining  157 s u b j e c t s .  As can be seen i n Table 2, Lodges  3. 5, 7, and 13 had too few s u b j e c t s f o r a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study, thus, they were excluded from the sampling. this 4.  Table 3 shows the 103 s u b j e c t s sampled f o r  study. I n c i d e n t s of observed maladaptive b e h a v i o r were to be used  c r i t e r i o n v a l i d a t i o n of the MBP and ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) .  in a practical  Because there  were too many s u b j e c t s i n sample 1 (103) to make 4 hours o b s e r v a t i o n on each s u b j e c t , a s m a l l e r sample of 32 was s e l e c t e d . because Borg, e t a l . ,  The number 32 was chosen  (1979) s t a t e d t h a t " i n c o r r e l a t i o n r e s e a r c h i t i s  g e n e r a l l y d e s i r a b l e t o have a minimum of 30 cases" 5.  (p.195).  There were 3 sampling methods c o n s i d e r e d f o r sample 2. (1)  These i n c l u d e d :  randomly s e l e c t i n g 32 s u b j e c t s from sample 1 and u s i n g 2 r a t e r s  to e v a l u a t e a l l 32.  The problems w i t h t h i s s e l e c t i o n procedure  i s that the  r a t e r s are a s s i g n e d t o one lodge; t h e r e f o r e they a r e not adequately w i t h the b e h a v i o r of r e s i d e n t s on other lodges to complete  familiar  the ABS P a r t I I  and MBP.  The advantage of t h i s method i s that i t would e l i m i n a t e most of  the r a t e r  variability.  (2)  randomly s e l e c t i n g 32 s u b j e c t s from sample 1, but have 2 r a t e r s f o r  each of the lodges represented i n t h i s sampling. of 14 r a t e r s might be r e q u i r e d .  E r r o r a t t r i b u t e d to r a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y would  be too l a r g e t o j u s t i f y u s i n g t h i s (3)  finally,  T h i s would mean a maximum  procedure.  the method chosen was to s e l e c t the three lodges  the main i n s t i t u t i o n ) w i t h the most r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  (within  Table 3 r e v e a l s that  TABLE 2 Lodge d i s t r i b u t i o n  Lodge  TOTAL  f o r 157 Ambulatory Residents 18 Years of Age and Over  T o t a l Residents  Males  Females  1  21  9  12  2  23  23  0  3  2  2  0  5  1  0  1  6  25  25  0  7  4  4  0  8  23  0  23  ~ 10  17  9  8  12  15  13  2  13  3  2  1  14  23  14  9  157  101  56  TABLE 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Males and Females i n SAMPLE 1  TOTAL  Lodge  T o t a l Subjects  Males  Females  1  20  8  12  2  7  7  0  6  13  13  0  8  18  0  18  10  14  6  8  12  8  6  2  14  23  14  9  103  54  49  - 22 -  lodges 1, 8, and 14 met t h i s c r i t e r i a . homes each w i t h i t s own r a t e r s . would have  been  However, lodge 14 c o n t a i n e d 3 group  T h i s would mean 6 r a t e r s i n s t e a d of 2  s e l e c t e d ; thus i n c r e a s i n g r a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y .  Lodge 10 was  s e l e c t e d i n s t e a d , because i t s frequency of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was the next strongest.  Next, 32 s u b j e c t s were randomly s e l e c t e d from these 3 lodges i n  a way that would correspond to the these lodges.  Table 4 i l l u s t r a t e s  p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s represented i n the p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d  from  each of the 3 lodges i n sample 2.  DESCRIPTIONS OF SAMPLES Sample 1:  T h i s sample c o n s i s t e d of 103 ambulatory  years of age and over.  r e s i d e n t s who were 18  E i g h t y of these s u b j e c t s r e s i d e d w i t h i n 6 lodges of  the i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h 23 s u b j e c t s l i v i n g i n a group home i n the community ( v i z . , lodge 14). Table 3 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of these s u b j e c t s by lodge and sex. Sample 2:  L i k e w i s e , t h i s sample c o n s i s t e d of 32 ambulatory r e s i d e n t s  who were 18 years of age and over.  Three lodges were r e p r e s e n t e d by lodges  1, 8, and 10 contained w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n .  Table 4 i n d i c a t e s the  d i s t r i b u t i o n of the s u b j e c t s i n Sample 2.  PURPOSE OF RATERS The method chosen person assessment.  to complete  N i h i r a et a l . ,  the ABS Part I I and MBP was by f i r s t (1975) d e f i n e s t h i s method as:  When the i n d i v i d u a l making the e v a l u a t i o n i s both s u f f i c i e n t l y f a m i l i a r w i t h the handicapped person i n v o l v e d and has had enough p r o f e s s i o n a l or on-thejob t r a i n i n g to judge the r e l e v a n c e of the s c a l e items, the e v a l u a t o r should f i l l out the s c a l e item, h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f (p.10).  TABLE 4 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Males and Females i n SAMPLE 2  TOTAL  Lodge  Sample 1 Subjects  1  20  12  7  5  8  18  11  0  11  10  14  9  3  6  52  32  10  22  Total  Subjects  Sample 2 Males  Females  - 24 -  SELECTION OF RATERS Sample 1:  Two  r a t e r s from each of the seven lodges p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n  the study were s e l e c t e d from the a f t e r n o o n s h i f t A p r i l 1980.  (1500 h r s to 2300 h r s ) of  I t was important that the r a t e r s be f a m i l i a r w i t h the s u b j e c t s  on t h e i r lodge, so a minimum of two months lodge working stipulation.  experience was  A l s o , i t was necessary that the r a t e r s have s i m i l a r  so the experimenter  attempted  a  training,  to s e l e c t C h i l d Care A i d s as r a t e r s .  Tables  5 and 6 i l l u s t r a t e the D e s c r i p t i o n of Raters 1 and Raters 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Sample 2:  Two  C h i l d Care A i d s were s e l e c t e d from each of the 3 lodges  represented i n t h i s sample. afternoon s h i f t  These new  r a t e r s were a l s o s e l e c t e d from the  (1500 hrs to 2300 h r s ) of May  made f o r the sample 1 r a t e r s was  1980.  The same s t i p u l a t i o n s  a l s o made f o r sample 2 r a t e r s ; however,  those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n sample 1 were not allowed to r a t e i n sample 2, to prevent b i a s i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y  estimate.  MEASURING INSTRUMENTS Data C o l l e c t i o n 1, Test Package A:  Two  t e s t packages f o r each of the  103 s u b j e c t s p l u s one t r a i n i n g package f o r each of the r a t e r s was to gather i n f o r m a t i o n .  used  The f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l s were i n c l u d e d i n each  package: (1)  s u b j e c t i n f o r m a t i o n sheet,  (2)  I n s t r u c t i o n sheet f o r ABS  P a r t I I (modified) and the m o d i f i e d AAMD  Adaptive Behavior S c a l e P a r t I I ,  The  (3)  I n s t r u c t i o n sheet and the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e ,  (4)  Rater Information sheet  and  (adopted from Mongrain, 1975).  i n f o r m a t i o n sheets and s c a l e s were p l a c e d i n the t e s t package  envelope  TABLE 5 D e s c r i p t i o n of Raters (1)  Age  N  Sex  N  20  3  F = 9  21-30  3  M = 0  31-40  Education  N  Length of Emp. Years  N  Length of time on present lodge-Yrs.  1  0-1  4  Health Care Worker I *  4  Health Care Worker I I * 8  1-2  1  1-2  1  2 Years C o l l e g e  7  2-3  1  2-3  41-50  0  Elementary  3-4  i  3-4  51-60  2  Unknown  4-5 5- 6 6- 7  2  7- 8 8- 9  * Health Care Worker I I  N  3  1  * Health Care Worker I  Job C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  0-1 4 Years C o l l e g e  1  N  1  1  r  TABLE 6 D e s c r i p t i o n of Raters (2)  Age  N  Sex  N  Education  N  Length of Emp. Years  N  Length of time on present lodge-Yrs.  N  Job C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  N  20  1  F = 7  4 Years C o l l e g e  2  0-1  1  0-1  3  Health Care Worker I  21-30  7  M = 3  2 Years C o l l e g e  7  1-2  2  1-2  5  Health Care Worker I I 9  31-40  1  Secondary  1  2-3  2  2-3  41-50 51-60  1  School  Elementary  3-4  Unknown  4-5  1  5- 6  2  6- 7 7- 8 8- 9  1  unknown  1  3-4  1  unknown  1  1  TABLE 7 Estimated T e s t i n g Time f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n 1  Lodge  Subjects  1  20  2  X Time/Test Package  X Nos. Raters/Lodge  = T o t a l time (hrs)  25 Minutes  2  16.7  7  25  2  5.8  6  13  25  2  10.8  8  18  25  2  15.0  10  14  25  2  11.7  12  8  25  2  6.7  14  23  25  2  19.1  103  25  2  85.8  TOTAL  - 28 -  i n the order  they were to be completed.  counter balance attributed  order.  The ABS and MBP appeared i n  T h i s procedure c o n t r o l l e d f o r b i a s that might be  to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n order.  Contents of t h i s t e s t package appear  i n Appendix A. Data C o l l e c t i o n 2, Test Package B:  Two t e s t packages f o r each of the  32 s u b j e c t s p l u s one t r a i n i n g t e s t package f o r each of the 6 r a t e r s were organized  as f o l l o w s :  (1)  subject information  (2)  I n s t r u c t i o n s and AAMD Adaptive  (3)  Rater  information  sheet, Behavior  Scale P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) ,  sheet.  An example of t h i s t e s t package i s a l s o presented  i n Appendix A.  SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE 1.  In February, 1980, biodemographic i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d on the 304  permanent r e s i d e n t s of Glendale 103  r e s i d e n t s was  Lodge.  From t h i s p o p u l a t i o n , a sample of  s e l e c t e d to represent ambulatory a d u l t s of the p o p u l a t i o n .  Sample 2, c o n s i s t i n g of 32 s u b j e c t s was s e l e c t e d from these N  2.  In March, c l e a r a n c e from the Human Subjects  3.  A l s o i n March, the r a t e r s were s e l e c t e d .  103 r e s i d e n t s .  Committee was obtained.  The s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a were  as f o l l o w s : (1)  they must be C h i l d Care Aid,  (2)  they must be working the 1500 h r s t o 2300 h r s s h i f t f o r the month of A p r i l ,  (3)  they must be p r e s e n t l y working on the lodges p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study, and  (4)  they must have worked at l e a s t the two p r e v i o u s months on the lodge they were r e p r e s e n t i n g .  TABLE 8 Estimated T e s t i n g Time f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n 2  TOTAL  X  Time/Test Package  X  Nos. Raters/ Lodge  = T o t a l Time (hrs)  Lodge  Subjects  1  12  15 min.  2  6.0  8  11  15 min.  2  5.5  10  9  15 min.  2  4.5  15  2  16.0  32  -  4.  30 -  The t r a i n i n g of the r a t e r s f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n  of A p r i l .  Each r a t e r p r a c t i c e d by completing the t e s t package on one of the  r e s i d e n t s not r e p r e s e n t e d i n the Time:  1 began the f i r s t week  sample.  T h i s t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n l a s t e d approximately 1 hour f o r each r a t e r . time took about  Since t h e r e were 17 r a t e r s , 17 hours.  training  The r a t e r s were t r a i n e d  i n d i v i d u a l l y and, i n a few cases, i n groups of 2.  The  experimenter d i d the t r a i n i n g . 5.  Data C o l l e c t i o n 1 was  c a r r i e d out i n A p r i l .  the lodges w h i l e the r a t e r s completed Time:  the s c a l e s .  Table 7 shows the estimated time each lodge devoted to Data C o l l e c t i o n Note: to  6.  The experimenter worked on  1.  the t e s t packages  took approximately 25  minutes  complete.  The i n f o r m a t i o n f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n 2 was  c o l l e c t e d i n May.  menter a g a i n worked on the lodges w h i l e these r a t e r s completed Time:  The  experi-  the s c a l e s .  Table 8 i l l u s t r a t e s the estimated time each lodge c o n t r i b u t e d t o the study.  Test package B took  about 15 minutes t o complete per person. These 6 r a t e r s a l s o underwent a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n b e f o r e they completed scales.  The experimenter a l s o t r a i n e d these r a t e r s at an estimated time of  40 minutes per r a t e r . 7.  the  A t o t a l time of 4 hours  resulted.  B e h a v i o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s were a l s o conducted on these 32 s u b j e c t s .  i n f o r m a t i o n was  to be used as a p r a c t i c a l v a l i d a t i o n measure f o r the  P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) , ABS  P a r t I I (modified) and the MBP.  completed  o b s e r v a t i o n s on  6,  10 minute  the 32 s u b j e c t s .  The  This  ABS  experimenter  4 d i f f e r e n t occasions on each of  T h i s was a t o t a l of 128 hours of o b s e r v a t i o n time.  All  TABLE 9 B e h a v i o r a l Observation O u t l i n e per Subject  Time Activity Nos.  Observed  of o b s e r v a t i o n s  Observation time observation  (min.)/  T o t a l O b s e r v a t i o n time/ a c t i v i t y (min.) T o t a l o b s e r v a t i o n time/ subject (min.) (hours)  D a y s h i f t 0700 - 1400 h r s .  Afternoon S h i f t  1400 - 2300 h r s .  A c t i v i t y randomly s e l e c t e d  Meal or snack  Washroom r o u t i n e  6  6  6  10  10  10  60  60  60  240 4  Structured a c t i v i ty or f r e e p l a y 6 10 60  - 32 -  o b s e r v a t i o n s took p l a c e between 0700 and 2300 hours. were taken over the whole day to get a comprehensive behavior.  The o b s e r v a t i o n s view of the s u b j e c t s  Although the r a t e r s were working the a f t e r n o o n s h i f t the month  they r a t e d each subject, they a l t e r n a t e d between a f t e r n o o n and day monthly.  shifts  Thus, they were a l s o informed of the subject's b e h a v i o r over the  whole day.  Table 9 shows a more d e t a i l e d b e h a v i o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n o u t l i n e .  Since these o b s e r v a t i o n s were scheduled f o r the months of June, J u l y , and August,  the 32 s u b j e c t s were each observed at equal i n t e r v a l s  throughout  the 3 months. 8.  To a i d i n the r e c o r d i n g of o b s e r v a t i o n s , a maladaptive b e h a v i o r c h e c k l i s t  was  developed.  The domains of the MBP  for this checklist.  c o n s t i t u t e the b e h a v i o r d e s c r i p t i o n s  An example of t h i s c h e c k l i s t can be found i n Appendix  A.  Method of A n a l y s i s Biodemographic  Data A n a l y s i s :  p o p u l a t i o n of ambulatory i t was  adults, was  of t h i s t o t a l ambulatory  used was  the SPSS ( v e r s i o n 8.00)  Sample 1, s e l e c t e d from the G l e n d a l e analyzed to determine how  adult population.  representative  The a n a l y s i s program  ( K i r k , 1980), which i s supported by the Com-  p u t i n g Centre at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  The f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s  were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s :  l e n g t h of i n s t i t u t i o n a l -  i z a t i o n , placement,  and sex.  f r e q u e n c i e s were determined. Item and Test A n a l y s i s : was  age, e t i o l o g y , I.Q.,  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the mean, median, and a b s o l u t e T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d i n Appendix  B.  The LERTAP t e s t a n a l y s i s package (Nelson,  e s p e c i a l l y designed f o r i t e m / t e s t a n a l y s i s .  1974)  T h i s program, which i s  a v a i l a b l e i n the Computing Centre at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, used to analyze both the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e and the o r i g i n a l  was and  - 33 -  m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of the AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e . mation  to be sought  from t h i s program i n c l u d e d :  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  infor-  mean, range, standard d e v i a -  t i o n , i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y and Cronbach's alpha  stratified. A l l e n and Yen (1979) observed  that when d e v e l o p i n g a new instrument, "the  t e s t developer d e s i r e s to c o n s t r u c t a t e s t that d i s c r i m i n a t e s w e l l among examinees w i t h v a r y i n g l e v e l s of the t r a i t " c o r r e l a t i o n of .40, as s e t by Nunnally  (p.120).  An item t o t o t a l  (1967), was s e l e c t e d as the c r i t e r i o n  f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g versus n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i n g items.  The s t r i n g e n t  t e r i o n , a l s o supported by Mongrain (1975), was used i n t h i s  Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y : items on the s c a l e s .  test  .40 c r i -  study.  Two r a t e r s per s u b j e c t independently scored the  An i n t e r s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t  (Pearson  coeffi-  c i e n t ) was computed between the t o t a l s c o r e s f o r r a t e r 1 and r a t e r 2 of the ABS o r i g i n a l and m o d i f i e d s c a l e s .  T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n was computed u s i n g the  SPSS Program. I n t e r o b s e r v e r Agreement: the observers "watching  i s a form of r e l i a b i l i t y used to determine i f  the same b e h a v i o r a t the same time w i l l r e c o r d the  same d a t a " ( M i t c h e l l ,  1979, p.377).  The i n t e r o b s e r v e r agreement  a c c o r d i n g to M i t c h e l l  (1979), " i s the most common index of the q u a l i t y of  data c o l l e c t e d i n o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s " (p.377).  The s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d were  heterogeneous i n that t h e i r behavior d i f f e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l y . Mitchell  percentage,  A c c o r d i n g to  (1979) there are problems w i t h the i n t e r o b s e r v e r agreement.  example, i t t r e a t s agreement as an a l l - o r - n o n e happening; i n an underestimate  For  thus i t can r e s u l t  of the t r u e agreement between o b s e r v e r s .  Another  problem  i s that i t can overestimate the r e a l agreement when behaviors have very h i g h  - 34 -  and very low f r e q u e n c i e s .  In order to g i v e a c l e a r e r i n d i c a t i o n of observer  agreement the b e h a v i o r s t h a t both observers r a t e d as not o c c u r r i n g were c a l c u l a t ed s e p a r a t e l y i n order that an agreement on the a c t u a l frequency of o c c u r r i n g b e h a v i o r s could be computed. Validity: of  outcomes.  The e v e n t u a l method of v a l i d a t i n g the MBP  depended on a number  For example, i f the r e l i a b i l i t y of the s c a l e i s moderately  high  along w i t h a s t r o n g i n t e r o b s e r v e r agreement percentage, the B e h a v i o r a l Observ a t i o n a l C h e c k l i s t c o u l d serve as a p r a c t i c a l v a l i d a t i o n check a g a i n s t the s u b t e s t s of the MBP. it  i s not f e a s i b l e t o use the ABS  validity of  Because the MBP  check.  was  not designed as an a d d i t i v e s c a l e ,  (which i s an a d d i t i v e s c a l e ) as a c r i t e r i o n  The content v a l i d i t y of the MBP  w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n terms  the u t i l i t y of the s c a l e , r e l i a b i l i t y , problems w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and  comments from the r a t e r s . C o r r e l a t i o n a l Study:  A c o r r e l a t i o n a l study t o determine  the r e l a t i o n -  ship maladaptive behavior has w i t h age, e t i o l o g y , IQ, l e n g t h of a l i z a t i o n , placement and sex was selected. to  Pearson  conducted.  Again the SPSS program  C o r r e l a t i o n s and Oneway A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e was  analyze the v a r i a b l e s t o determine  behavior.  institution-  their relationship with  was used  maladaptive  - 35 CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF ANALYSIS T h i s chapter p r o v i d e s the item and t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS  P a r t I I o r i g i n a l and m o d i f i e d along w i t h the MBP.  Also described i s  the r e l i a b i l i t y of the Behavior O b s e r v a t i o n C h e c k l i s t and the v a l i d i t y the MBP.  Finally,  the c o r r e l a t i o n s between Maladaptive Behavior and  of  the  biodemographic v a r i a b l e s are presented. ABS  Part II  (original)  Item A n a l y s i s :  Table CI through C12,  found i n Appendix C, p r o v i d e item  a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each of the 13 domains of the ABS al) .  The  14th domain, Use  of M e d i c a t i o n , was  Part II  (origin-  not analyzed because the  r a t e r s were not nurses; hence they d i d not a d m i n i s t e r medication to the subjects.  The c o r r e l a t i o n s between items and domains are g i v e n i n l i e u of  the s u b t e s t domains to t o t a l t e s t domain c o r r e l a t i o n s , so f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the s c a l e can be made by d e l e t i n g items that don't d i s c r i m i n a t e among s u b j e c t s .  A l s o , these s u b t e s t domain c o r r e l a t i o n s can be found i n  Mongrain's (1975) study. An item to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n c r i t e r i o n of .40 was (1964) as showing adequate d i s c r i m i n a t i o n among s u b j e c t s . p r o v i d e s the percentage .40  criterion.  s e t by Table  of items w i t h i n each domain t h a t met  this  Nunnally 10 stringent  Both item/domain and i t e m / t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r both  r a t e r s are g i v e n .  Appendix C c o n t a i n s the a c t u a l c o r r e l a t i o n f o r each  item w i t h i n each domain.  A l s o p r o v i d e d i n Appendix C i s the ABS  original  w i t h the d i s c r i m i n a t i n g items coded d i r e c t l y on the s c a l e . As can be seen from Table 10, the percentage .40 w i t h the t o t a l t e s t scores v a r i e s from 0% typed Behavior to 60%  of items that c o r r e l a t e  f o r both r a t e r s of S t e r e o -  on the H y p e r a c t i v e domain f o r Rater 1.  Note t h a t  - 36 -  TABLE 10 Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that met the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c r i t e r i a f o r item to domain and item to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n by r a t e r  Domain  Item/Domain %R^ %R-2  Item/Total Test /oR^ /^R-2  V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior  41. 9  19.4  39.0  39.0  A n t i s o c i a l Behavior  17. 1  34.4  28.6  17.1  Rebellious  21. 2  3.0  27.3  12.1  54. 5  72.7  9.1  9.1  Withdrawal  35. 3  52.9  17.6  Stereotyped Behavior  20. 0  0  I n a p p r o p r i a t e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners  25. 0  Behavior  Untrustworthy  Behavior  Unacceptable  Vocal Habits  Unacceptable  or E c c e n t r i c H a b i t s  0  75.0 0  0  0 0  12.5  50.0  25.0  25.0  27. 3  21.2  33.3  15.2  S e l f - A b u s i v e Behavior  30. 0  20.0  50.0  50.0  Hyperactive  60. 0  60.0  60.0  0  30. 0  20.0  50.0  50.0  12.,2  26.8  7.3  17.1  S e x u a l l y Aberrant  Behavior  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Disturbance  - 37 -  Rater 2 f o r t h i s same domain had 0% items that met the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n index.  When c o n s i d e r i n g the item to domain c o r r e l a t i o n s  V o c a l H a b i t s was found w i t h 0% items meeting However, the domain Untrustworthy  Unacceptable  the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  index.  Behavior showed 72.7% of i t s items f o r  Rater 2 were d i s c r i m i n a t i n g at the .40 l e v e l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d the percentage of s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g 0 on each item i n every domain.  A s c o r e of 0 i n d i c a t e d  the maladaptive b e h a v i o r i n q u e s t i o n was not p r e s e n t . c o n s i d e r e d the c o r r e c t or d e s i r e d response.  Thus, t h i s was  A l l items that had between  15% and 85% of the s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g zero can be c o n s i d e r e d t o d i s c r i m i n a t e adequately between s u b j e c t s .  Table 11 p r o v i d e s the percentage  of items  w i t h i n each domain f o r both r a t e r s that f e l l w i t h i n t h i s 15% t o 85% c o r r e c t responses range.  F o r Untrustworthy  items w i t h i n t h i s range.  Behavior Rater 1 found 0% o f i t s  When l o o k i n g at the a c t u a l data on Table C4, i n  Appendix C, a l l the items w i t h i n t h i s domain f o r Rater 1 had at l e a s t 90% of  i t s s u b j e c t s w i t h a zero s c o r e .  items w i t h i n t h i s  .15 to .85 range  f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h i s range.  Rater 2 showing 18.2 percent of i t s r e v e a l e d 2 out of a p o s s i b l e 11 items  However, f o r the domain H y p e r a c t i v e , Table 11  shows that 60% and 80% of i t s items f o r Rater 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y within this percentage 93.9%  .15 t o .85 range.  of s u b j e c t s w i t h a zero score ranged  (item 5) f o r Rater 1.  100.0% (item 5 ) . of  Table C10 (Appendix  C) shows  fell  that the  from 66.7% (item 2) t o  Rater 2 had a range of 43.1% (item 4) t o  Appendix C not only l i s t s  the percentages  f o r each  each domain, but a l s o p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n  i n c l u d i n g means and standard d e v i a t i o n s .  item  - 38 -  TABLE 11 Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that had 15% to 85% of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the c o r r e c t response range f o r both r a t e r s  Domain  % Discriminating R  l  R  2  V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior  32. 3  41.,9  A n t i s o c i a l Behavior  22. 9  37.,1  Rebellious  27. 3  33.,3  Behavior  Untrustworthy  Behavior  0  18..2  Withdrawal  29. 4  64.,7  Stereotyped Behavior  60. 0  26.,7  I n a p p r o p r i a t e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners  25. 0  62..5  Unacceptable V o c a l H a b i t s  62. 5  87..5  Unacceptable  or E c c e n t r i c H a b i t s  27. 3  21..2  Self-Abusive  Behavior  40. 0  60,.0  60. 0  80,.0  9. 1  1,.4  17. 1  29,.3  Hyperactive S e x u a l l y Aberrant  Behavior  Psychological Disturbance  - 39 -  Test A n a l y s i s :  ABS P a r t I I ( O r i g i n a l ) .  Tables 12 and 13 show the c o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l s c o r e s f o r Rater 1 and Rater 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  Rater 1 (Table 12) w i t h a  sample s i z e of 32 had a c r i t i c a l index of .349. domains ranged  test  The c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r  from -.24 f o r Withdrawal Behavior c o r r e l a t e d w i t h U n t r u s t -  worthy Behavior t o .70 f o r A n t i s o c i a l Behavior c o r r e l a t e d w i t h V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior.  The c o r r e l a t i o n s between domains and t o t a l  scores f o r Rater 1 ranged R e b e l l i o u s Behavior.  from .17 f o r Untrustworthy  test  Behavior t o .86 f o r  A l l the c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r domain scores w i t h  total  t e s t scores reached s i g n i f i c a n c e a t .05 l e v e l except f o r Withdrawal and Stereotyped Behavior and Odd Mannerisms. Rater 2 (Table 13) w i t h a sample s i z e of 32, a l s o w i t h an r , . , c r i t i c a l inde of  .349 showed c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r domains ranging from -.32 f o r Stereotyped  Behaviors and Odd Mannerisms c o r r e l a t e d with Untrustworthy for  Behavior to .69  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Disturbances c o r r e l a t e d w i t h A n t i s o c i a l Behavior.  range o f domain s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the t o t a l t e s t s c o r e ranged .07 f o r Withdrawal t o .78 f o r V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior.  The from  A l l the  c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r domain scores with t o t a l t e s t scores reached  significance  at  T h i s was the  .05 l e v e l except f o r Withdrawal and Stereotyped Behavior.  same as f o r Rater 1. The t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the domains f o r Rater 1 can be found i n Table 14.  Information g i v e n i n c l u d e s mean, range, standard d e v i a t i o n ,  Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , and standard e r r o r of measurement. The mean scores ranged  from .64 (Untrustworthy Behavior) t o 6.15  and D e s t r u c t i v e B e h a v i o r ) . items.  (Violent  Note that domains do n o t have equal numbers of  Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y ranged  from .19 (Unacceptable  Vocal H a b i t s ) t o .79 ( V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e B e h a v i o r ) .  TABLE 12 C o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS P a r t I I O r i g i n a l (1) 1  Domains  1 V i o l . Des. Beh.  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  1.00  2 A n t i - S o c . Beh.  . 70  1.00  3 Reb. Beh.  .69  .55  1.00  4 Un. Beh.  .04  .17  .21  1.00  5 With.  .09  -:03  .19  -.24  1.00  -03  .03  .21  -.08  .36  1.00  .41  .63  .36  .05  -.22  .03  1.00  8 Unacc. Voc. Hab.  .20  .25  .40  -13  .41  .29  .27  1.00  9 Unadd. Ecc. Hab.  .69  .51  .64  .05  .27  .27  .09  .26  1.00  10 S e l f - A b . Beh.  .70  .58  .52  .01  .17  .19  .29  . 18  .65  1.00  11 Hyper.  .52  .67  .58  .01  .04  .43  .48  .30  .44  .34  1.00  Sex. Ab. Beh.  .27  .32  .36  .07  .03  .09  .29  .26  .36  .13  .37  1.00  13 Psycho. D i s t .  .30  .51  .51  .39  -?18  -719  .45  .32  . 12  .28  .26  .22  1.00  14 ABS P t . I I (1)  .80  .78  .86  .17  .28  .39  .49  .49  .78  .71  .70  .47  .51  6 St.  Beh., 0. Man.  7 Inapp. I n t e r p e r .  12  Man.  Tend.  N = 32;  r  . = .349 critical  (p - .05) '  TABLE 13 C o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) (2) Domains  1 io  1. V i o l . Des. Beh. 2. A n t i - S o c .  n  n  n  IT  1.00  Beh.  .62  1.00  3. Reb. Beh.  .61  .47  1.00  4. Un. Beh.  .21  .68  .25  -21  -T35  -.06  -rl4  6. St. Beh., 0. Man.  .00  -r38  -09.  -.32  7. Inapp. I n t e r p e r . Man.  .47  .39  .02  8. Unacc. Voc. Hab.  .25  .11  .50  10. S e l f - A b . Beh.  5. With.  1.00 1.00 i .32  1.00  .26  ^29  -04  1.00  .07  T17  .19  .13  .18  1.00  .11  .05  T10  .07  .42  .42  .31  1.00  .60  .38  .35  .05  vl9  .14  .31  .49  .42  1.00  11. Hyper. Tend.  .23  .38  .39  . 16  -16  -r20  .26  .28  -02  .38  1.00  12. Sex. Ab. Beh.  .40  .22  .01  .13  -10  .07  .57  .42  .43  .18  .19  1.00  13. Psycho. D i s t .  .40  .69  .29  .43  -06  -24  .24  .44  .25  .55  .32  .11  1.00  14. ABS P t . I I (2)  .78  .69  .53  .38  .07  .09  .51  .54  .59  .69  .43  .46  .74  .  9. Unacc. Ecc. Hab.  N = 32 ;  r  critical  = .349 (p =* .05) ' K  1.00  - 42 -  TABLE 14 Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r domains of the ABS  Domains  * Mean  Range  nos. items  ( o r i g i n a l ) , P a r t I I (1)  St.  Dev.  Hoyt  SEM  V i o l . Des. Beh.  6.15  0-23  31  5.72  .79  2.58  A n t i s o c . Beh.  3.88  0-15  35  4.27  .70  2.32  Reb. Beh.  5.30  0-18  33  4.78  .73  2.44  Un. Beh.  0.64  0-10  11  1.82  .76  0.85  Withd.  3.55  0-15  17  3.63  .66  2.07  St.  4.64  0-14  15  4.45  .69  2.39  Inapp. I n t e r . Man.  1.36  0-  6  8  1.98  .52  1.28  Unacc. Voc. H a b i t s  2.12  0-  7  8  1.96  .19  1.65  Unacc. Ecc. H a b i t s  4,94  0-25  33  5.61  .78  2.61  S e l f - A b . Beh.  2.33  0-11  10  2.76  .63  1.58  Hyper. Tend.  1.58  0-6  5  2.12  .59  1.22  Sex.  1.67  0-14  22  2.78  .70  1.48  5.85  0-15  41  5.85  .67  2.65  Beh. 0. Man.  Ab. Beh.  Psych. D i s t .  * The f o l l o w i n g i s an example of the score weights. 2 -  Frequently  1 - Occasionally 0 - none n = 32  - 43 -  T h i s same t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r Rater 2 can be found on Table 15.  Here the mean scores ranged  from 1.09 (Untrustworthy Behavior) to  6.41 ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l D i s t u r b a n c e s ) . ranged from  Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y  .22 ( S e x u a l l y Aberrant Behavior) t o .77 (Withdrawal).  The Summary f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n can be found i n Table 16.  The Hoyt e s t i m a t e of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y  t r e a t e d each domain as a sample t e s t from the t o t a l t e s t and g i v e s an average  c o r r e l a t i o n between a l l sample t e s t s .  Hoyt of .93 w h i l e Rater 2 had .88.  Rater 1 was found with a  The r e l i a b i l i t y  of the t o t a l t e s t f o r  Rater 1 was .82 (<*. s t r a t i f i e d ) w h i l e Rater 2 had .75 (oC s t r a t i f i e d ) . Finally,  the t o t a l scores f o r a l l s u b j e c t s and f o r both r a t e r s were  c o r r e l a t e d to g i v e an i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y II  ( o r i g i n a l ) the f i n a l  estimate.  F o r the ABS P a r t  outcome i s .448.  ABS P a r t I I (modified) The m o d i f i c a t i o n s made to the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) i n c l u d e d changing it  from a 3 p o i n t s c a l e :  f i v e point scale: Item A n a l y s i s :  "none", " o c c a s i o n a l l y " , and " f r e q u e n t l y " t o a  "none", " y e a r l y " , "monthly", "weekly", and " d a i l y " .  Tables D l through D12, found i n Appendix D, p r o v i d e item  a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each of the 13 domains of the ABS P a r t I I (modified).  As w i t h the o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n , the 14th domain, Use of M e d i c a t i o n ,  was not analyzed.  As w i t h the ABS o r i g i n a l , an item t o t o t a l t e s t  t i o n of .40 was used as the d i s c r i m i n a t i n g index. percentage  correla-  Table 17 p r o v i d e s the  of items w i t h i n each domain f o r each r a t e r that met t h i s  cri-  t e r i a and hence appear to d i s c r i m i n a t e between s u b j e c t s i n the sample. Item to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s that met the .40 c r i t e r i o n v a r i e d from 0% for  both r a t e r s of Withdrawal,  Stereotyped Behavior, and H y p e r a c t i v e  - 44 -  TABLE 15 Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n  f o r domains of the ABS ( o r i g i n a l ) , P a r t I I (2)  Domains  Mean  Range  V i o l . Des. Beh.  5. 94  A n t i s o c . Beh.  *  St. Dev.  Hoyt  SEM  0 - 19  4 .44  .70  2.37  4.91  o - 19  4,.69  .76  2.25  Reb. Beh.  5. 81  0 - 13  3,.23  .47  2. 31  Un. Beh.  1.09  0 - 14  2..53  .85  •95  Withd.  5. 50  0 - 18  5,.03  .77  2. 33  St. Beh. 0. Man.  2. 66  0- 8  2..29  .27  1.90  Inapp. I n t e r . Man.  1. 78  0- 9  2..43  .71  1.22  Unacc. Voc. Habits  3. 47  0- 9  2..78  .54  1. 77  Unacc. E c c . Habits  6. 06  0 - 18  4.,25  .55  2. 80  Self-Ab. Beh.  2.53  0 - 9  2. 76  .63  1.58  Hyper. Tend.  1. 84  0 - 8.  2. 08  .64  1. 11  Sex. Ab. >Beh.  1.59  0 - 6  1.66  .22  1.43  Psych. D i s t .  6. 41  0 - 19  4. 98  .73  2. 56  * Number of items per domain are found  i n Table 14.  2  frequently  1  occasionally  0  none  N = 32  - 45 -  TABLE 16 Summary of ABS ( o r i g i n a l ) P a r t I I t e s t  ABS  Part II o r i g i n a l  (1)  N=32  ABS  Part II o r i g i n a l  (2)  N=32  Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n  analysis  Hoyt  Strat  SEM  .93  .82  7.70  .88  .74  7.58  f o r t o t a l t e s t s c o r e s f o r Rater 1 c o r r e l a t e d  with  Rater 2 N = 32  r  .448  (interrater  reliability)  - 46 -  TABLE 17  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that met the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r item to domain and item to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s : by r a t e r  Domain  Item/Domain % R^ % R2  Item/Total T e s t % R % R 2  V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior  18.2  61.3  12.9  32.3  Antisocial  Behavior  49.9  54.3  45.7  34.3  Rebellious  Behavior  15.2  27.3  9.1  24.2  54.5  36.4  18.2  18.2  35.3  47.1  0  0  6.7  6.7  0  0  0  37.5  0  62.5  12.5  12.5  0  12.5  6.1  48.5  0  3.0  20.0  20.0  0  20.0  40.0  40.0  0  0  Behavior  4.5  9.1  4.5  0  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Disturbances  46.3  48.8  22.0  Untrustworthy  Behavior  Withdrawal Stereotyped  Behavior  I n a p p r o p r i a t e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners Unacceptable  Vocal Habits  Unacceptable  or E c c e n t r i c H a b i t s  Self-Abusive  Behavior  Hyperactive S e x u a l l y Aberrant  17.1  - 47 -  to 62.5% f o r Rater 2 of I n a p p r o p r i a t e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners. 1, 7 out o f 13 domains d i d not meet the .40 c r i t e r i a . c o r r e l a t i o n s that met t h i s  .40 c r i t e r i a ranged  For Rater  The i t e m t o domain  from 0% ( I n a p p r o p r i a t e  I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners, Rater 1) t o 61.3% ( V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior, Rater 2 ) . The item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n Appendix D p r o v i d e s the percentage of s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g 0 on each item i n every domain. dered t h e c o r r e c t o r d e s i r e d response.  A score of 0 was c o n s i -  The .15 t o .85 c o r r e c t  response  c r i t e r i a was s e l e c t e d as adequately d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between s u b j e c t s . 18 p r o v i d e s the percentage  of items w i t h i n each domain that f e l l w i t h i n  t h i s c o r r e c t response range.  Appendix D a l s o c o n t a i n s the i n d i v i d u a l  items and t h e i r a c t u a l percentage the a c t u a l s c a l e .  Table  s c o r e s along w i t h the items coded on  A l s o , a d d i t i o n a l item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d i n g  means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s can be found i n t h i s Appendix. Test A n a l y s i s :  ABS Part I I ( m o d i f i e d ) .  Tables 19 and 20 i l l u s t r a t e the c o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l t e s t s c o r e s f o r Rater 1 and Rater 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . s i z e of 98 had a r  Rater 1 w i t h a sample  , index a t .205 f o r .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e . crxtical °  c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r domains ranged  from -.22 (Withdrawal versus  The  Antisocial  Behavior) t o .67 ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l D i s t u r b a n c e s v e r s u s A n t i s o c i a l B e h a v i o r ) . A l l the c o r r e l a t i o n s of domain s c o r e s w i t h t o t a l t e s t scores reached s i g n i f i c a n c e at .05 l e v e l except f o r Withdrawal. ranged from .15 f o r Withdrawal  These c o r r e l a t i o n s  t o .78 f o r V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior.  Rater 2 (Table 21) c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r domains range  from -.23 (Psycho-  l o g i c a l Disturbances versus Stereotyped Behavior) t o .71 ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l Disturbances versus Untrustworthy  Behavior).  A l l the c o r r e l a t i o n s of  domain scores w i t h t o t a l t e s t s c o r e s reached s i g n i f i c a n c e at .05 l e v e l  - 48 -  TABLE 18  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that had 15% to 85% of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the c o r r e c t response range f o r both r a t e r s .  Domains  %  discriminating % % R 2  V i o l e n t and D e s t r u c t i v e Behavior  22. 6  25 .8  Antisocial  Behavior  11. 4  20 .0  R e b e l l i o u s Behavior  18. 2  18 .2  Untrustworthy  Behavior  9. 1  0  Withdrawal  35. 3  41 .2  Stereotyped Behavior  26. 7  20 .0  I n a p p r o p r i a t e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners Unacceptable V o c a l H a b i t s Unacceptable  or E c c e n t r i c H a b i t s  Self-Abusive  Behavior  Hyperactive S e x u a l l y Aberrant  Behavior  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Disturbance  0  12 .5  37. 5  50 .0  6. 1  9 .1  10. 0  10 .0  20. 0  10 .0  0 17. 1  4 .5 17 . 1  TABLE 19 Correlations  Domains  1  2  among domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS Part I I (modified)  (2)  3  14  4  1. V i o l . Des. Beh.  1.00  2. A n t i - S o c . Beh.  .62  1.00  3-Reb. Beh.  .52  .55  1.00  4. Un. Beh.  .41  .58  .46  1.00  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  -T04  -22  .02  -.09  1.00  6 . S t . Beh., 0. Man.  .11  -rl4  -13  -16  .32  1.00  7.Inapp. I n t e r p e r . Man.  .47  ..53  .47  .27  Tl6  .17  1.00  8. Unacc. Voc. Hab.  .38  .36  .32  .23  .02  .18  .42  1.00  9. Unacc. Ecc. Hab.  .45  .07  .11  .04  .24  .53  .32  .18  1.00  10.Self-Ab. Beh.  .56  .28  .31  .11  -02  .36  .44  .23  .52  1.00  11.Hyper. Tend.  .23  .32  .15  .17  -r09  .25  .40  .31  .33  .31  1.00  12.Sex. Ab. Beh.  .27  .04  .19  .10  .10  .33  .25  .19  .42  .38  .30  1.00  13. Psycho. D i s t .  .41  .67  .60  .59  -16  -20  .40  .39  -02  .16  .21  .06  1.00  14. ABS P t . I I (2)  .78  .74  .71  .55  .15 . .26  .64  .44  .54  .57  .45  .40  .68  5. With.  N=9 85  Critical'  -  2 0 5  %  <P = - > 05  1.00  TABLE 20 C o r r e l a t i o n s among domains and t o t a l t e s t scores of the ABS Part I I (modified) (1) Domains l.Viol.  Des. Beh.  1  2  3  4  5  8  7  9  10  11  12  13  14  1.00  2.Anti-Soc. Beh.  .55  1.00  3.Reb. Beh.  .29  .64  1.00  4.Un. Beh.  .35  .63  .54  1.00  -19  -04  —19'  1.00  5.With.  6  -T07  6. St. Beh., 0. Mad.  .07  -19  -15  —19  .23  7.Inapp. I n t e r p e r . Man.  .42  .32  .15  .06  -06  .24 1.00  8.Unacc. Voc. Hab.  .20  .45  .34  .10  -01  .20  .28 1.00  9.Unacc. E c c . Hab.  .38  .08  .01  -06  .34  .24  .29 1.00  l O . S e l f - A b . Beh.  .38  . 16  .05  .05  -08  .36  .29  .02  .36  11.Hyper. Tend.  .17  .22  .13  .15  -17  .34  . 17  .37  .16  .11 1.00  12.Sex. Ab. Beh.  .21  .25  .41  .21  . 10  .08  . 10  .36  .26  .11  13.Psycho. D i s t .  .26  .62  .59  .71  -7-12  T23  .08  .15  .01  -rOO  .06  .28 1.00  14.ABS P t . I I (1)  .67  .77  .68  .58  .11  .20  .43  .53  .48  .36  .33  .49  N = 98  ;  1.00  . 16  'critical  =  -  205  (P  =-°  5)  1.00  .11 1.00  .65 1.00  - 51 -  except The  f o r Withdrawal and Stereotyped  Behaviors.  t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the domains f o r Rater  i n Table 21.  Information given i n c l u d e s :  mean, range,  1 can be found  standard d e v i a t i o n ,  Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , and standard e r r o r of measurement. The mean s c o r e s ranged  from 1.41 (Untrustworthy Behavior)  t o 9.84  (Psycho-  l o g i c a l D i s t u r b a n c e s ) ; however the domains do not have equal numbers of items.  The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y ranged  from  .36  (Inapprop-  r i a t e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Mannerisms) to .86 ( A n t i s o c i a l Behavior and P s y c h o l o g i cal Disturbances). The 22.  same t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r Rater 2 can be found i n Table  Here the mean scores ranged  10.63  from 1.53 (Untrustworthy  (Psychological Disturbances).  tency ranged  from  .38 (Unacceptable  Behavior) t o  The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s V o c a l H a b i t s ) t o .87 ( A n t i s o c i a l  Behavior). The  Summary f o r the ABS P a r t I I (modified) t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n  can be found i n Table 23.  Rater 1 had a Hoyt estimate o f i n t e r n a l c o n s i s -  tency of .90 w h i l e Rater 2 had .93. for  The r e l i a b i l i t y  f o r the t o t a l  test  Rater 1 was .70 ( o C s t r a t i f i e d ) and .75 ( oC s t r a t i f i e d ) f o r Rater 2. F i n a l l y , the t o t a l scores f o r a l l s u b j e c t s and both r a t e r s were c o r r e -  l a t e d t o g i v e an i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  estimate.  For the ABS P a r t I I  (modified) t h e f i n a l outcome was .706.  Maladaptive  Behaviour  Profile:  S e v e r i t y Subtest A n a l y s i s  Table 24 p r o v i d e s mean s c o r e s , standard d e v i a t i o n s , along w i t h t i o n s of each s u b t e s t w i t h the t o t a l t e s t of " S e v e r i t y " f o r both  correlaraters.  The mean scores were c a l c u l a t e d with a score of one (1) denoting no (none) problem s e v e r i t y .  A l s o i n c l u d e d i s the percentage  of s u b j e c t s r e c e i v i n g  - 52 TABLE 21 Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r domains of the ABS ( m o d i f i e d ) , P a r t I I (1) Domains  Mean  Range  V i o l . Des. Beh.  8.37  0-38  A n t i s o c . Beh.  7.42  0-51  Reb. Beh.  7.69  0-34  Un. Beh.  1.41  Withd. St.  St. Dev.  Hoyt  SEM  8.47  .76  4.13  11.14  .86  4.16  7. 78  .69  4.27  0-19  3.35  .73  1.67  6.65  0-40  8.12  .75  3.91  4.91  0-24  5.84  .55  3.79  Inapp. I n t e r . Man.  1.65  0-12  2.85  .36  2.13  Unacc. Voc. H a b i t s  4.07  0-19  4.55  .49  3.05  Unacc. E c c . H a b i t s  7.73  0-39  8.65  .68  4.79  S e l f - A b . Beh.  2.42  0-18  3.71  .56  2.33  Hyper Tend.  2.02  0-12  3.38  .60  1.91  Sex. Ab. Beh.  1.93  0-16  3.41  .52  2.30  Psych. D i s t .  9.84  0-77  12.32  .86  4.56  Beh. 0. Man.  TABLE 22 Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r domains of the ABS ( m o d i f i e d ) , P a r t I I (2) Domains  Mean  Range  St. Dev.  Hoyt  SEM  V i o l . Des. Beh.  7.85  0-41  8.17  .77  3.86  A n t i s o c . Beh.  9.28  0-76  13.03  .87  4.60  Reb. Beh.  7.86  0-45  9.66  .81  4.19  Un. Beh.  1.53  0-14  3.09  .65  1.74  Withd.  9.16  0-48  9.24  .75  4.46  St.  5.27  0-21  5.36  .42  3.94  Inapp. I n t e r . Man.  2.20  0-16  3.85  .63  2.19  Unacc. Voc. Habits  3.90  0-16  4.16  .38  3.05  Unacc. E c c . Habits  9.11  0-68  10.56  .76  5.08  S e l f - A b . Beh.  2.17  0-18  3.35  .53  2.19  Hyper. Tend.  1.97  0-12  3.40  .56  2.01  Sex. Ab. Beh.  2.01  0-18  3.45  .53  2.31  10.63  0-66  12.99  .85  4.89  Beh. 0. Man.  Psych. D i s t .  - 53 TABLE 23 Summary of ABS (modified)  Part II Test Analysis  Rater  Hoyt.  Strat  SEM  ABS Part II (modified)  1  .90  .70  13.37  ABS Part II (modified)  2  .93  .75  13.91  Pearson Correlation for t o t a l test scores for Rater 1 correlated with Rater 2 N = 97  r  = .706  (interrater r e l i a b i l i t y )  TABLE 24 Subtest information for the MBP: Mean Subtests  R  l  Severity by raters Standard Dev. r  R  2  R  l  Tib  R  2  R  ._ severity l  R  2  P  R  l  R  2  1.01  .40  .37  41.1  40.0  1.04  .94  .39  .31  58.9  66.7  1.63  .89  .92  .46  .40  57.8  62.2  2.34  2.22  1.07  1.15  .44  .36  28.9  36.7  Soc. Aggrav.  1.77  2.01  .84  1.10  .36  .52  46.7  44.4  Stereo. Man.  2.18  2.19  .99  1.20  .23  .40  31.1  41.1  Uncoop.  2.20  2.27  .91  .98  .49  .50  25.6  24.4  Sexual  1.30  1.29  .59  .71  .23  .20  75.6  71.1  Toilet/Elim.  1.72  1.62  1.02  .94  . 14  .32  58.9  63.3  Aggression  2.09  2.0  i  Self-Ab.  1.76  1.54  Dam.  Prop.  1.66  Poor Cop. Frus.  *  4 Severe  3  Moderate  2  Mild  P score of "none" for problem severity  1  None  - 54 -  a s c o r e of 1 (none).  As w i t h the ABS, a c o r r e c t response  .85 was used t o d i s c r i m i n a t e among s u b j e c t s . percentages w i t h i n t h i s range.  range of .15 t o  A l l of the s u b t e s t s r e p o r t e d  The percentages  of "none" s c o r e s  ranged  from 24.4 (Uncooperative, Rater 2) t o 75.6 (Sexual, Rater 1). The c o r r e l a t i o n s between each s u b t e s t and t o t a l t e s t of " S e v e r i t y " i s a l s o given i n Table 24.  Again the c r i t e r i o n of .40, s e t by Nunnally  as showing adequate d i s c r i m i n a t i o n among s u b j e c t s was used. that met t h i s c r i t e r i o n f o r one or both r a t e r s i n c l u d e d :  (1967)  The s u b t e s t s  Aggression,  Damages P r o p e r t y , Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n , S o c i a l A g g r a v a t i o n ,  Stereo-  typed Mannerisms, and Uncooperative. Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r "MBP: i n Table 25. Rater 2.  from 9 t o 31 f o r Rater 1 and 9 t o 32 f o r  Note that there were n i n e s u b t e s t s and a score of 1 r e f e r r e d to  "none". .70  The scores ranged  S e v e r i t y " f o r both r a t e r s i s given  The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y f o r Rater  1 was .67 and  f o r Rater 2. C o r r e l a t i o n s among the 9 s u b t e s t s of the "MBP:  Tables 26 and 27 f o r Rater  1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  S e v e r i t y " i s given i n Rater 1 w i t h a sample  s i z e of 89 had a r _ . , index o f .217 at .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e . crxtxcal c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged  The s u b t e s t  from -.08 ( S o c i a l Aggravation v s . T o i l e t / E l i m i n a t i o n )  to .38 (Aggression v s . Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n ; Uncooperative v s . S o c i a l Aggravation).  Of the p o s s i b l e 36 across s u b t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s , 15  showed s i g n i f i c a n c e a t .05 l e v e l . For Rater 2, the c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged  from -.13 (Sexual vs. Poor  Coping  w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n ) t o a h i g h of .49 (Aggression v s . Poor Coping w i t h Frustration) . subtest  S i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l was found f o r 52.8% of the between  correlations.  - 55 -  TABLE 25 Test analysis information for MBP:  Severity,(1) (2)  Rater  Hoyt.  SEM  1  .67  2.43  2  .70  2.53  .  TABLE 26 Correlations among subtests of the MBP: Severity Rater 1 Subtests  2  1  3  4  5  6  7  8  1. Aggres.  1.00  2. Self-Ab.  0.14  1.00  3. Dam. Prop.  0.31  0.31  1.00  4. Poor Cop. Frus.  0.3.8  0.28  0.33  1.00  5. Soc. Aggrav.  0.28  0.31  0.16  0.27  1.00  6. Stereo. Man.  0.02  0.21  0.23  0.06  0.03  1.00  7. Uncoop.  0.30  0.18  0.30  0.37  0.38  0.30  1 .00  8.  Sexual  0.25  0.14  0.07  0.15  0.20  0.03  0 .10  1.00  9.  Toil./Elim.  0.15  0.10  0.19  0.03  10.08  0.12  0 .08  0.08  N = 89  r  critical  217  (P =  .05)  9  1.00  - 56 -  TABLE 27 C o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b t e s t s of the MBP - S e v e r i t y R a t e r 2 >  Subtests  1  2  3  4  5  7  6  8  1. Aggres.  1.00  2. S e l f - A b .  0.24  1.00  3. Dam.  0.13  0.16  1.00  4. Poor Cop. Frus.  0.49  0.24  0.17  1.00  5. Soc. Aggrav.  0.35  0.23  0.25  0.34  1 .00  6. Stereo.  0.08  0.16  0.27  0.05  0 .32  1 .00  0.32  0.13  0.23  0.22  0 .45  0 .28  1.00  8. Sexual  -0.02  0.11  0.07  -0.13  0 .07  0. .32  0.30  1.00  9. T o i l . / E l i m .  -0.01  0.00  0.38  0.07  0 .14  0,.34  0.19  0.28  Prop.  Man.  7. Uncoop.  N = 89  r  critical  217  05)  (p  TABLE 28 C o r r e l a t i o n between r a t e r s of s e v e r i t y f o r each s u b t e s t . K e n d a l l ' s Tau B  Significance 2-Tailed  1. Aggres.  .645  < .001  2. S e l f - A b .  .456  < .001  3. Dam.  .349  < .001  4. Poor Cop. Frus.  .272  .002  5. Soc.  .324  .001  .228  .012  7. Uncoop.  .275  .002  8. Sexual  .249  .015  9. T o i l . / E l i m .  .477  Prop.  Aggrav.  6.: Stereo.  Man.  N = 89  <  .001  9  1.00  - 57 -  Interrater r e l i a b i l i t y  i s provided  t e s t s of "Problem S e v e r i t y " .  i n Table  28 f o r each of the 9 sub-  K e n d a l l ' s Tau B c o e f f i c i e n t was  because the v a r i a b l e s were o r d i n a l and a square t a b l e was c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from a low of .228 high of .645  Maladaptive Subtest standard  for  ate  produced.  These  f o r S t e r e o t y p i c Mannerisms to a  Aggression.  Behaviour P r o f i l e :  Intervention  A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n covered  i n Table 29 i n c l u d e s :  d e v i a t i o n s , c o r r e l a t i o n s of the 9 s u b t e s t s w i t h  "Intervention".  computed  the t o t a l t e s t  For the purpose of a n a l y s i s , the s c o r i n g was  (3), E v e n t u a l l y  (2) and none (1).  T h i s was  means, of  coded Immedi-  i n order to make i t an  equal i n t e r v a l s c a l e . A l s o i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n was s c o r i n g "none".  the percentage of s u b j e c t s  Again a c o r r e c t response range of .15  to .85 was  d i s c r i m i n a t e among s u b j e c t s on each of the 9 s u b t e s t s . a l l of the s u b t e s t s  f o r both r a t e r s f e l l w i t h i n t h i s range.  of "none" scores ranged from 25.6 Rater  (Uncooperative,  Rater  found t h a t  The  percentages  2) to 81.1  (Sexual,  1).  F u r t h e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n among s u b j e c t s was i n a t i o n index l e v e l of .40.  Any  s u b j e c t s i n the sample. both r a t e r s i n c l u d e d :  The  Aggression,  Test a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r f o r Rater  considered  s u b t e s t s that met  F r u s t r a t i o n , S o c i a l Aggravation  t o t a l scores  obtained by u s i n g the d i s c r i m -  subtest that c o r r e l a t e d .40  w i t h " I n t e r v e n t i o n " as t o t a l t e s t was  The  I t was  used to  as d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among  t h i s c r i t e r i a f o r one  Damaging Property,  and  or b e t t e r  or  Poor Coping w i t h  Uncooperative.  MBP:  Intervention  1 ranged from 9 to 25 and  i s found i n Table 9 to 32 f o r Rater  30. 2.  - 58 -  TABLE 29 Subtests  a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP: Mean  Subtests 1.  R  Aggression  l  Standard Dev.  R  2  R  l  R  2  Intervention r  (1) (2)  . Intervention R  l  R  2  P  R  l  R  2  1.84  2.09  .89  1.10  .34  .40  47.8  41.1  2. S e l f - A b .  1.38  1.76  .68  1.04  .39  .39  73.3  58.9  3. Dam.  1.49  1.66  .71  .89  .33  .46  63.3  57.8  4. Poor Cop. Frus.  1.89  2.34  .79  1.07  .56  .44  37.8  28.9  5. Sbc. Aggrav.  1.50  1.77  .66  .84  .42  .36  58.9  46.7  6. Stereo.  1.49  2.18  .66  .99  .34  .23  60.0  31.1  7. Uncoop.  1.74  2.20  .66  .91  .41  .49  37.8  25.6  8. Sexual  1.22  1.30  .49  .59  .34  .23  81.1  75.6  9. T o i l . / E l i m .  1.58  1.72  .81  1.02  .18  .14  62.2  58.9  Prop.  Man.  Intervention  3 2 1  immediately eventually none  - 59 -  The Hoyt e s t i m a t e of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y f o r Rater 1 was .69 and f o r Rater 2, .70. C o r r e l a t i o n s among the 9 s u b t e s t s of the "MBP:  I n t e r v e n t i o n " i s given  i n Tables 31 and 32 f o r Raters 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . t i o n s ranged of  The s u b t e s t c o r r e l a -  from a low of -.03 (Sexual vs. Damaging P r o p e r t y ) t o a h i g h  .43 (Uncooperative vs. Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n ) .  sample s i z e of 89 had a r  .  1  Rater 1 w i t h a  index of .217 at .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e .  the p o s s i b l e 36 a c r o s s s t u b t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s ,  Of  17 showed s i g n i f i c a n c e a t  the .05 l e v e l . For Rater 2, the c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from -.05 ( T o i l e t / E l i m i n a t i o n v s . Aggression) t o .57 (Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n v s . A g g r e s s i o n ) .  Signifi-  cance at the .05 l e v e l was reached f o r 50% of the between s u b t e s t c o r r e l a tions. Interrater r e l i a b i l i t y found on Table 33. .150  f o r the 9 s u b t e s t s o f " I n t e r v e n t i o n " can be  The K e n d a l l ' s Tau B c o e f f i c i e n t  ranged  from a low of  f o r S t e r e o t y p i c Mannerisms t o a h i g h of .632 f o r A g g r e s s i o n .  C o r r e l a t i o n s between " S e v e r i t y " and " I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r Rater 1 f o r each s u b t e s t i s g i v e n i n Table 34.  K e n d a l l ' s Tau C c o e f f i c i e n t  ranged  from a  low of .444 f o r both S t e r e o t y p i c Mannerisms and Sexual Behavior t o a h i g h of  .807 f o r A g g r e s s i o n . The same i n f o r m a t i o n f o r Rater 2 i s l o c a t e d i n Table 35.  K e n d a l l ' s Tau C ranged  Here the  from a low of .421 (Sexual) to a h i g h of .848 (Poor  Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n ) . The for  c o r r e l a t i o n between " S e v e r i t y " and I n t e r v e n t i o n " across a l l s u b t e s t s  Rater 1 and 2 i s .88 and .91 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  Item A n a l y s i s :  Tables E l t o E9, found i n Appendix E, p r o v i d e d e t a i l e d item  a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each of the 9 s u b t e s t s of the MBP.  As with the  - 60 TABLE 30 st analysis information for MBP:  Rater  Intervention (1)  (2)  Hoyt.  SEM  1  69  1.81  2  70  1.85  *Note  3 2 1  Immediately Eventually none  TABLE 31 Correlations among Subtests of the MBP Intervention Rater 1 Subtest  1  1. Aggression  1.00  2.  0.17  1.00  3. Dam. Prop.  0.34  0.27  4. Poor Cop. Frus  0.34  0.30  0.24  1.00  0.21  0.13  0.10  0.42  -0.02  0.34  0.16  0.27  0.39  0.26  0.22  0.10  0.43  0.32  0.14  0.16  0.08  -0.03  0.24  0.31  0.20  0.31  0.03  0.17  0.17  0.11  0.0  0.12  0.05  Self-Ab.  „5. Soc. Aggrav. 6. Stereo. Man. 7. Uncoop. 8. Sexual 9. T o i l / E l i m .  N = 89  "critical  1.00  =  -  2  1  7  1.00 1.00  (p = .05)  1.00 1.00 0.24  1.00  - 61 -  TABLE 32 Correlations  among s u b t e s t s of the MBP:  Subtest  1  2  3  I n t e r v e n t i o n . Rater 2  4  5  6  7  8  1. Aggres.  1.00  2. S e l f - A b .  0.21  1.00  3. Dam.  0.19  0.01  1.00  0.57  0.23  0.17  1.00  0.36  0.26  0.36  0.42  1.00  -0.03  0.17  0.28  0.03  0.21  1.00  7. Uncoop.  0.37  0.15  0.07  0.44  0.42  0.16  1.00  8. Sexual  0.04  0.02  0.21  0.05  0.10  0.35  0.22  1.00  -0.05  0.02  0.39  0.05  0.01  0.34  0.20  0.42  Prop.  4. Poor Cop.  Frus.  5. Soc. Aggrav. 6. Stereo.  Man.  9. T o i l . / E l i m .  N = 89  critical  =  .217  9  1.00  (P - • 05)  TABLE 33 C o r r e l a t i o n between r a t e r s of i n t e r v e n t i o n f o r each s u b t e s t  Subtest  K e n d a l l ' s Tau B  Significance  1. Aggres.  .632  < .001  2.  .351  < .001  .361  < .001  .332  < .001  5. Soc. Aggrav.  .256  .010  6. Stereo.  .150  .142  7. Uncoop.  .201  .041  8. Sexual  .199  .067  9. T o i l . / E l i m .  .435  < .001  Self-Ab.  3. Dam.  Prop.  4. Poor Cop.  Frus.  Man.  - 62  TABLE  -  34  C o r r e l a t i o n between s e v e r i t y and i n t e r v e n t i o n  Subtest  K e n d a l l ' s Tau  C  f o r each s u b t e s t  (1)  Significance 2-Tailed  1.  Aggression  .807  .001  2.  Self-Ab.  .508  .001  .713  .001  .541  .001  .667  .001  .444  .001  7. Uncoop.  .679  .001  8.  .444  .001  9. T o i l . / E l i m .  .773  .001  Across  .88  3. Dam.  Prop.  4. Poor Cop. 5. Soc.  Frus.  Aggrav.  6. Stereo.  Man.  Sexual  a l l subtests  TABLE 35 C o r r e l a t i o n between s e v e r i t y and  Subtest  i n t e r v e n t i o n f o r each s u b t e s t  K e n d a l l ' s Tau  C  (2)  Significance 2-Tailed  1.  Aggression  .787  .001  2.  Self-Ab.  .561  .001  .636  .001  .848  .001  .778  .001  .696  .001  7. Uncoop.  .725  .001  8.  .421  .001  9. T o i l . / E l i m .  .627  .001  Across  .91  3. Dam.  Prop.  4. Poor Cop. 5. Soc.  Frus.  Aggrav.  6. Stereo.  Man  Sexual  a l l subtests  - 63 -  ABS, both o r i g i n a l and m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n s , an item t o t o t a l t e s t of .40 was used as the d e s c r i m i n a t i o n index.  Table 36 c o n t a i n s the percen-  tage of items f o r each s u b t e s t f o r both r a t e r s that met t h i s and hence appear  correlation  criterion;  t o d i s c r i m i n a t e among s u b j e c t s i n the sample.  The item  to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s that met t h i s c r i t e r i a ranged from 0%  (Self-  Abusive, Rater 2; Damaging P r o p e r t y , Rater 1; S t e r e o t y p i c Manners, both r a t e r s ; T o i l e t R e l a t e d , both r a t e r s ; Sexual, both r a t e r s ) t o 90.0% (Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n , Rater 2 ) . was observed.  Note:  S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b i l i t y between r a t e r s  The item " o t h e r " which i s the l a s t item w i t h i n  s u b t e s t was i n c l u d e d i n these c o r r e l a t i o n s .  each  None of the " o t h e r " items f o r  both r a t e r s c o r r e l a t e d more than .30 w i t h the t o t a l t e s t ; thus i t was i m p o s s i b l e f o r a s u b t e s t t o have 100% of i t s items d i s c r i m i n a t i n g at the .40 l e v e l . The item t o s u b t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s that met t h i s be found i n Table 36. correlated  .40 c r i t e r i o n can a l s o  The percentage of items w i t h i n each s u b t e s t that  .40 or g r e a t e r w i t h the t o t a l t e s t ranged  from 0% ( T o i l e t R e l a t e d ,  Rater 2) t o 80% (Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n , Rater 2 and Uncooperative, Rater 2 ) .  Appendix E c o n t a i n s the a c t u a l item t o domain and t o t a l  test  c o r r e l a t i o n s along w i t h the items coded d i r e c t l y on to the s c a l e . The item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d the percent of s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g 0 on each item of every s u b t e s t .  A l l items w i t h i n the c o r r e c t  response  range of .15 t o .85, and hence appearing to d i s c r i m i n a t e among s u b j e c t s , can a l s o be found i n Appendix E from Table E l to E9.  Table 37 summarizes  the r e s u l t s f o r each s u b t e s t p r o v i d i n g the percentage of items w i t h i n each s u b t e s t that had 15% t o 85% of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the c o r r e c t range.  response  The range was from 0% ( T o i l e t R e l a t e d , both r a t e r s ) t o 71.4%  - 64 -  TABLE 36  Percentage of items w i t h i n each domain that met the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c r i - ^ t e r i o n f o r item to domain and item to t o t a l t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s : by r a t e r .  Subtests  Item/Subtest R2  Item/Total Test % R^ % R2  %  /a  Aggression  42. 9  42. 9  57.,1  Self-Abusive  20. 0  20. 0  20..0  Damaging P r o p e r t y  14. 3  42. 9  60. 0  80. 0  30.,0  90.,0  S o c i a l Aggravation  33. 3  66. 6  66. 0  83..0  S t e r e o t y p i c Manners  16. 7  16. 7  Uncooperative  60. 0  80. 0  Toilet  25. 0  Poor Coping with  Frustration  Related  Sexual  20. 0  0 40. 0  0  0 80.,0  42..9 0 42.,9  0 40. 0  0  0  0  0  TABLE 37  Percentage of items w i t h i n each s u b t e s t t h a t had 15% to 85% of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the c o r r e c t response range f o r both r a t e r s .  Subtests  % Discriminating  Aggression  71..4  71. 4  Self-Abusive  10..0  10. 0  Damaging Property  14..3  14. 3  40..0  30. 0  S o c i a l Aggravation  16..7  33. 3  S t e r e o t y p i c Manners  16.,7  16. 7  Uncooperative  60.,0  80. 0  Poor Coping w i t h  T o i l e t Related Sexual  Frustration  0 20.,0  0 20. 0  - 65 -  (Aggression, both r a t e r s ) .  Appendix E, Table E8 shows t h a t the T o i l e t  Related s u b t e s t percentages  ranged  from 87.6 (item 4, Rater 2) t o 99.0  (item 2, Rater 1); thus no item f e l l w i t h i n the .15 t o .85 c o r r e c t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n range. items coded  Appendix E a l s o c o n t a i n s the MBP s c a l e w i t h the  directly.  Test A n a l y s i s : The  MBP  t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the s u b t e s t s f o r both Rater 1 and 2  i s given i n Table 38.  Information given i n c l u d e s :  mean, range,  standard  d e v i a t i o n , Hoyt estimates of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , and the standard of measurement. it  response  error  Because the s u b t e s t s do not have equal item r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,  i s i r r e l e v a n t t o compare mean s c o r e s , standard d e v i a t i o n s and ranges.  The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y ranged (Poor Coping w i t h The 39.  from  .26 (Sexual) t o .78  Frustration).  summary f o r the MBP t e s t a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s given i n Table  A Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of .84 f o r Rater  w h i l e Rater 2 had a c o e f f i c i e n t of .85.  The r e l i a b i l i t y  1 resulted,  f o r the t o t a l  t e s t f o r Rater 1 was .70 ( oC s t r a t i f i e d ) and .69 ( o£ s t r a t i f i e d ) f o r Rater 2. Behavior Observation  Checklist:  The percent agreement between Observer Observer list  1 and the Examiner ( P a i r 1) and  2 and the Examiner ( P a i r 2) f o r the Behavior Observation Check-  can be found i n Table 40.  For P a i r 1, the percent agreement f o r the  f r e q u e n c i e s of observed b e h a v i o r s was 67.0. agreed upon for  However, when the mutually  nonobserved behaviors were i n c l u d e d , the percent agreement  the t o t a l c h e c k l i s t was 90.9.  L i k e w i s e f o r P a i r 2, the percent  agree-  ment f o r observed behaviors only was 71.0; however, t h i s agreement percentage  i n c r e a s e d t o 94.7 when the nonobserved behaviors were i n c l u d e d .  - 66 -  TABLE 38 Test analysis information for the subtests of the MBP (1) Mean Subtests 1.  R  Aggression  l  Range  R  2  R  l  (2)  St. Dev. R  2  R  l  R  2  Hoyt R  l  R  SEM 2  R  l  R  2  1.26  1.31  0-5  0-6  1.52  1.58  .67  .69  .81  .81  2. Self-Ab.  .08  .09  0-4  0-4  .75  .79  .44  .47  .50  .52  3. Dam. Prop.  .60  .53  0-3  0-5  .98  1.01  .53  .64  .62  .56  1.69  1.81  0-9  0-9  1.88  2.15  .71  .78  .96  .97  1.0  0-5  0-5  1.08  1.35  .58  .67  .64  .71  4. Poor Cop. Frus. 5.. Soc. Aggrav.  .72  6. Stereo. Man  .67  .84  0-3  0-4  .98  1.11  .47  .50  .65  .71  1.03  1.26  0-4  0-4  1.19  1.41  .61  .70  .67  .70  7. Uncoop. 8.  Sexual  .16  .27  0-2  0-2  .47  .55  .38  .26  .32  .41  9.  Toil./Elim.  .59  .53  0-3  0-3  .89  .84  .45  .48  .59  .54  TABLE 39 Test analysis information for MBP Raters (1)  (2)  Rater  Hoyt.  SEM  Strat.  1  .84  2.19  .70  2  .85  2.30  .69  TABLE 40 Percent agreement between observers f o r the B e h a v i o r a l Observation  Absolute Frequency of Observed Behaviors  P  l  P  2  % Agreement of Observed Behaviors  P  l  P  2  T o t a l number of Behaviors Observers agreed were non existent  P  l  P  2  Checklist  T o t a l Behaviors  P  l  P  2  T o t a l % Agreement  P  l  P  2  5 i  101  67  67.0  71.0  259  297  * P a i r 1 = Observer 1 v s .  Examiner  P a i r 2 = Observer 2 v s .  Examiner  N = 32 s u b j e c t s randomly  observed  360  364  90.9  94.7  - 68 -  V a l i d i t y of the Maladaptive Behaviour Initially  Profile:  i t was planned to v a l i d a t e  the MBP  against  the observed  behaviors recorded on the Behavior Observation C h e c k l i s t ; however, due to the low r e l i a b i l i t y Percentages,  the computation  A detailed discussion the MBP  of the MBP  and the. moderate Observer Agreement  of a v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t was  inappropriate.  of the f i n d i n g s along w i t h the content v a l i d i t y of  can be found i n Chapter 5.  Correlations  of Maladaptive Behaviour with the V a r i a b l e s  Behaviour w i t h Age:  Maladaptive  Age, when c o r r e l a t e d w i t h Maladaptive Behaviour  had a -.165 c o r r e l a t i o n (Rater 1) and -.078 not reached at the s e l e c t e d  .05  Maladaptive Behavior with 10:  (Rater 2 ) .  (MB)  Significance  was  level. Table 41 shows that t h e r e was a .069  c o r r e l a t i o n between MB and IQ f o r Rater 1 and .015 c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r Rater 2.  S i g n i f i c a n c e was not reached i n both cases.  T h i s i n d i c a t e d that the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between IQ and MB was i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s p o p u l a t i o n . Maladaptive Behavior w i t h Length of I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n : Length of I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n when c o r r e l a t e d with MB had a -.013 and -.003 c o r r e l a t i o n f o r Raters 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  S i g n i f i c a n c e was not reached at  the .05 l e v e l s u g g e s t i n g an i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between MB and length  of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n f o r t h i s p o p u l a t i o n .  Maladaptive Behavior with Sex:  Sex was a nominal s c a l e ; thus a oneway  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed with the r e s u l t s found i n Table 42. S i g n i f i c a n c e was not reached at the .05 l e v e l f o r e i t h e r Rater 1 or 2 or r a t e r s combined. Maladaptive Behavior w i t h E t i o l o g y : s c a l e , a oneway a n a l y s i s  Because e t i o l o g y was a 9 p o i n t  nominal  of v a r i a n c e was s e l e c t e d t o analyze t h i s r e l a t i o n -  - 69 TABLE 41  Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n between maladaptive b e h a v i o r and age and IQ f o r R.., R„  R  l  R  2  Age  -.165 P = .055  -.078 P = .228  IQ  .069 P = .263  .015 P = .445  -.013 P =.457  -.003 P = .489  Length of Institutionalization  TABLE 42  Oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e p r o b a b i l i t y f o r maladaptive behavior and the l i s t of v a r i a b l e s f o r R.., R„ and Raters combined.  Variables  R  l  R  2  Both Raters  Sex  .172  .503  .286  Etiology  .449  .149  .247  Reason f o r Admittance  .032*  .442  .115  L e v e l of R e t a r d a t i o n  .790  .156  .336  Lodge - a l l  .002*  .085  .032*  .001*  .046*  .011*  - within i n s t i t u t i o n  * reaches s i g n i f i c a n c e  at .05 l e v e l  - 70 -  ship.  Table 42 shows t h a t s i g n i f i c a n c e between MB  reached at the .05  and e t i o l o g y was  l e v e l suggesting t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p was  not  insignificant  for this population. Maladaptive Behavior w i t h Reason f o r Admittance: of v a r i a n c e was  conducted  reason f o r admittance  to determine  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between MB  (3 p o i n t nominal s c a l e ) .  1 reached s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .032  Table 42 shows that  level.  raters  Table 44 shows the  For both Rater 1 and 2, the s u b j e c t s who  admitted because of b e h a v i o r problems had the h i g h e s t maladaptive  were  behavior  However, because the v a r i a b i l i t y between Rater 2 s c o r e s was  as great as was not  Rater  (modified) maladaptive b e h a v i o r s c o r e s f o r each of the 3 l e v e l s  f o r Reason f o r Admittance.  scores.  and  l e v e l ; however, Rater 2 and both  combined d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 average ABS  Again a oneway a n a l y s i s  the d i f f e r e n c e between Rater 1 s c o r e s , s i g n i f i c a n c e  not was  reached.  Maladaptive Behavior with L e v e l of R e t a r d a t i o n :  L e v e l of r e t a r d a t i o n i s  a 5 p o i n t s c a l e c o n s i s t i n g of b o r d e r l i n e , m i l d , moderate, severe and profound l e v e l s .  However, because the b o r d e r l i n e , m i l d , and moderate l e v e l s  had only 2.08%, 3.13%, and 9.48%  of the s u b j e c t s from the sample respec-  t i v e l y , these three l e v e l s were c o l l a p s e d i n t o one category of 14 s u b j e c t s . jects. MB was  consisting  Severe had 26 s u b j e c t s f o l l o w e d by profound with 54  Table 42 r e v e a l s t h a t s i g n i f i c a n c e between these three l e v e l s not reached at the .05 l e v e l .  d i f f e r e n t r a t e r s was  not c o n s i d e r e d .  and  The v a r i a b i l i t y a t t r i b u t e d t o the As can be seen from Table 42, when  the " w i t h i n i n s t i t u t i o n " lodges were c o n s i d e r e d , s i g n i f i c a n c e was f o r Rater 1 (.001), Rater 2 (.046) and both r a t e r s combined suggests that v a r i a b i l i t y  sub-  reached  (.011).  This  of maladaptive b e h a v i o r e x i s t s between s u b j e c t s  p l a c e d on the lodges w i t h i n the  institution.  -  71 -  TABLE 43  Average ABS (modified) maladaptive b e h a v i o r scores f o r each lodge f o r R & R  Rater  Lodge 1  2  6  8  10  12  14  1  63.18  72.1  61.0  43.9  108.9  77.3  53.1  2  71.24  95.0  45.4  57.5  96.2  49.9  83.0  TABLE 44  Average ABS (modified) maladaptive b e h a v i o r s c o r e s f o r reason f o r admittance  Rater  Reason Not Given  Behavior  Other than Behavior  1  58.93  83.39  62.12  2  66.32  83.06  74.08  - 72 -  SUMMARY  The f o l l o w i n g i s a summary of the r e s u l t s  of the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s  asked. 1.  The m o d i f i e d ABS  coefficient. reliability  P a r t I I was  found w i t h a .706  The ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) was coefficient  interrater  found w i t h a .448  compared to the .57 c o e f f i c i e n t  reliability interrater  reported  i n the  manual. 2.  The MBP  interrater  v e n t i o n s u b t e s t was 3.  reliability  .336  and  A validity coefficient  interrater  reliability  b e h a v i o r and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p There was  was  not computed due t o the low  Checklist. of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  to the biodemographic  a significant relationship  maladaptive b e h a v i o r and the lodge placement b) and  There was  Inter-  respectively.  f o r the MBP  The f o l l o w i n g i n c l u d e s a l i s t  a)  S e v e r i t y " and  of the S c a l e and the moderate observer agreement  on the Behavior Observation 4.  .324,  f o r the "Problem  between maladaptive  variables.  at the .05 l e v e l between of the r e t a r d e d people.  no s i g n i f i c a n t  relationship  between maladaptive b e h a v i o r  no s i g n i f i c a n t  relationship  between maladaptive b e h a v i o r  intelligence. c)  There was  and l e n g t h of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . d) and  relationship  between maladaptive b e h a v i o r  There was  no s i g n i f i c a n t  relationship  between maladaptive b e h a v i o r  There was  no s i g n i f i c a n t  relationship  between maladaptive b e h a v i o r  sex. f)  and  no s i g n i f i c a n t  age. e)  and  There was  etiology.  - 73 -  g)  There was  a significant  relationship  at the .05  maladaptive b e h a v i o r and reason f o r admittance.  l e v e l between  - 74 -  CHAPTER V  DISCUSSION AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e :  Reliability  Congdon (1973) s t r e s s e d the importance  of measuring  maladaptive  b e h a v i o r f o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e p o r t s , s c r e e n i n g , s t a f f i n g , and g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on r e s i d e n t behavior. 1975)  The manual f o r the ABS ( N i h i r a e t a l ,  records the mean i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  as .57.  However, t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t i s lower  coefficient  than the o r i g i n a l  which recorded a mean i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  edition  c o e f f i c i e n t of .67.  no s i g n i f i c a n t changes were made to the s c a l e b o o k l e t s were redesigned)  f o r Part I I  Because  (only the answer sheets and  the authors of the ABS ( r e v i s e d ) a t t r i b u t e d  t h i s r e d u c t i o n t o v a r i a b l e s other than the s c a l e i t s e l f ;  f o r example,  r a t e r s , s i t u a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between morning and evening s h i f t s , and/ or  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample. . In  the present study, the ABS P a r t I I was found t o have an i n t e r r a t e r  reliability  c o e f f i c i e n t of .448.  Reasons why t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t was  lower  than that recorded i n the manual may i n c l u d e : 1)  The r a t e r s were combined i n t o two groups even though a d i f f e r e n t r a t e r p a i r was found on each lodge.  Thus, d i f f e r e n c e s between r a t e r  p a i r s were not c o n s i d e r e d . 2)  Even though attempts were made t o have the r a t e r p a i r s as s i m i l a r as p o s s i b l e , there s t i l l e x i s t e d v a r i a b i l i t y  i n t h e i r age, years o f  work experience, and years of experience with the s u b j e c t s they evaluated. 3)  Although  the r a t e r p a i r s completed  the s c a l e s on the a f t e r n o o n s h i f t ,  they d i d not a l l work the same days or the same p r e v i o u s s h i f t s ;  thus  t h e i r exposure to the b e h a v i o r s observed were not n e c e s s a r i l y  the  same. W i t h i n the r e c o r d i n g p e r i o d , which l a s t e d approximately  one month,  the r a t e r p a i r s d i d not have the same amount of time to observe work w i t h the s u b j e c t s .  and  For example, on some lodges the s t a f f mem-  bers were f u r t h e r a s s i g n e d to work w i t h s m a l l groups of r e s i d e n t s and may  not have been f a m i l i a r w i t h a s u b j e c t ' s b e h a v i o r i n another  group w i t h i n the same lodge. Nathan, Millham,  C h i l c u t t , and A t k i n s o n (1980) concluded  have a p e r s o n a l r e a c t i o n to s u b j e c t s . present study.  observed a l s o i n the  For example, some s u b j e c t s and s t a f f members  have p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s . justify  T h i s was  that raters  A l s o , many r a t e r s f e l t  compelled  (raters) to  the s u b j e c t s ' behavior; f o r example, one r a t e r commented  t h a t p a c i n g should not be c o n s i d e r e d maladaptive because i t i s an " i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d b e h a v i o r " r e s u l t i n g from the r e s i d e n t ' s environment. Other  comments i n c l u d e d " s u b j e c t x i s only a g g r e s s i v e i f provoked  by  s u b j e c t y, t h e r e f o r e he i s not r e a l l y a g g r e s s i v e " , or "x only s t e a l s if  the o f f i c e door i s l e f t unlocked,  of  the s u b j e c t but r a t h e r the s t a f f ' s  In  this  present  domain was  study r e l i a b i l i t y  t h e r e f o r e i t i s not the fault."  f o r the "Use  of M e d i c a t i o n s "  not computed because the r a t e r s were not nurses; hence  they were not a l l f a m i l i a r w i t h the medications. r e v i s e d ABS  fault  However, the 19 75  d i d i n c l u d e t h i s domain when computing the mean i n t e r -  rater r e l i a b i l i t y  coefficient.  P r e d i c t a b l y , i t was  w i t h the h i g h e s t recorded r e l i a b i l i t y  a l s o the domain  coefficient.  The sample s i z e contained only 32 s u b j e c t s u n l i k e the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n sample of  133.  - 76 -  8)  F i n a l l y , there was  more homogeneity i n t r o d u c e d  because the range of s u b j e c t s was  i n the present  study  reduced to i n c l u d e only the ambula-  tory adults.  Increasing  the U t i l i t y  The ABS  of the  ABS  has been c r i t i c i z e d  by Semmel (1972) because some items  i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d people. t h a t there i s r a t e r b i a s , low r a r y , the s u b t e s t s the context  ducing  I t was  s p e c i f i c , the manual does not s p e c i f y  are to be  observed, and  hypothesized  was  reduced and  Hoyts i n t e r n a l appreciably  coefficient  consistency  reliability obtained  coefficient  The  the  modified  of .706,  from the 19 75 E d i t i o n .  an The  Reliability  c o n s i s t e n c y was  found f o r the S e v e r i t y  I n t e r v e n t i o n s u b t e s t s , a r a t h e r poor i n t e r r a t e r  The  the ambiguity of  affected.  While moderate i n t e r n a l  and  intro-  and Cronbach's Alpha S t r a t i f i e d were not  Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e :  of .336  19 73)  the r e l i a b i l i t y would i n c r e a s e .  found to have an i n t e r r a t e r  i n c r e a s e from the .448  there e x i s t s  i n t h i s study that by  a 5 p o i n t s c o r i n g system (Bhattacharya,  terms would be ABS  are too long and  terms.  A l s o Mongrain (1975) added  item d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , the s c o r i n g i s a r b i t -  i n which behaviors  ambiguity w i t h  are  .324  reliability  f o r S e v e r i t y and  reliability  coefficient  I n t e r v e n t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y was  of t h i s s c a l e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d  and  observed.  i n more d e t a i l i n the  following section.  Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e : The  Behavior Observation  Validity C h e c k l i s t was  o r i g i n a l l y to be used as a  p r e d i c t i v e c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y check f o r the MBP.  However, due  to  the  -  77 -  moderate r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s c h e c k l i s t and low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y the MBP method.  i t i s not f e a s i b l e to c a l c u l a t e a v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t u s i n g t h i s A l s o i t was  not f e a s i b l e t o use the ABS  v a l i d i t y check w i t h the MBP the ABS  of  as a congruent  because of the design of the MBP.  i s a frequency s c a l e w h i l e the MBP  criterion For example,  i s a problematic scale.  Severity  i s viewed i n terms of the p r o b l e m a t i c nature of the b e h a v i o r , not i n terms of i t s frequency of occurrence. a d d i t i v e s c a l e w h i l e the ABS  A l s o , the MBP  was.  the c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y of the MBP,  was  not designed as  an  Because of these problems i n a s s e s s i n g i t s content v a l i d i t y w i l l be d i s c u s s e d  instead.  Content  V a l i d i t y of  Advantages of 1)  MBP MBP  T h i s s c a l e d e f i n e s b e h a v i o r i n terms of i t s p r o b l e m a t i c nature, not frequency.  2)  O p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s have been p r o v i d e d .  3)  Good f o r use i n team meetings f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and n u r s i n g s t a f f .  4)  Looks at a l l the behaviors of the i n d i v i d u a l and decides which of h i s / h e r b e h a v i o r s are i n g r e a t e r need of i n t e r v e n t i o n .  5)  The s c a l e p r o v i d e s an account  of the l o c a t i o n where b e h a v i o r s were  observed. 6)  The s c a l e i s q u i c k l y administered; thus e c o n o m i c a l l y  Disadvantages 1)  The MBP  of the was  feasible.  MBP  designed t o a i d i n " d e c i d i n g upon g o a l p r i o r i t i e s i n  b e h a v i o r management" (Woodlands, 1979,  p.1).  I t was  not designed  as  a d e t a i l e d o b j e c t i v e measure; however the s c a l e i n t r o d u c e s more subjectivity  than i s needed.  For example, the items are scored as  prob-  - 78 -  l e m a t i c only i f the s u b t e s t was thought by the r a t e r t o be severe and i n need of i n t e r v e n t i o n .  For program p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n an  i n v e n t o r y o f the s u b j e c t ' s b e h a v i o r r e p e r t o i r e i s needed because one b e h a v i o r may be e l i m i n a t e d through programming w h i l e o t h e r s may occur in i t s place. 2)  When S e v e r i t y and I n t e r v e n t i o n were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each other, a .88 and .91 c o e f f i c i e n t obtained.  f o r r a t e r 1 and r a t e r 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y was  T h i s h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d that the same t r a i t was  b e i n g measured. 3)  The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r adding S e v e r i t y and I n t e r v e n t i o n was not founded.  4)  I n t e r v e n t i o n was assigned the numbers 4 f o r "immediately"  and 1 f o r  " e v e n t u a l l y " because when added w i t h S e v e r i t y a 7 p o i n t i n t e r v a l s c a l e f o r programming P r i o r i t i e s r e s u l t e d . statistically 5)  T h i s w e i g h t i n g i s not  justified.  Confusion r e s u l t e d w i t h the p r o f i l e sheet  ( S e v e r i t y and I n t e r v e n t i o n )  when scored s e p a r a t e l y from the a c t u a l items.  Often the items were  l e f t blank, although a score between 1 and 7 f o r programming ties 6)  resulted.  The l a s t s u b t e s t "Other" was l e f t w i t h a mixture i n c l u d e d i n the p r e v i o u s s u b t e s t s . of  7)  priori-  additional  of b e h a v i o r s not  Appendix E c o n t a i n s the l i s t  items.  Two problems were noted with the s c o r i n g of the " o t h e r " items. many r a t e r s used t h i s s e c t i o n t o l i s t  First,  the behavior problem, even  though the b e h a v i o r may have been l i s t e d  on the s c a l e .  Second, i t  - 79 -  was an item that was o f t e n i g n o r e d .  As an example, when l o o k i n g  over the p r o t o c o l s of " t h e r e g u r g i t a t o r s " , v e r y few of the r a t e r s wrote down " r e g u r g i t a t i o n " even though they scored i t on the ABS.  Correlations Maladaptive Behavior  (MB) c o r r e l a t e d with,Placement:  For one or  both r a t e r s a .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e c r i t e r i a was obtained when MB was r e l a t e d to lodge placement.  However, t h e r e was a great d e a l o f v a r i a b i l i t y b e t -  ween t h e average MB s c o r e s f o r s u b j e c t s on the lodges even w i t h i n the institution.  When comparing the average MB scores f o r lodges there does  not appear t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between w i t h i n - i n s t i t u t i o n and group home placement.  While Eyman e t a l (1977) s t a t e d that there  was a h i g h e r prevalence of b e h a v i o r problems w i t h i n i n s t i t u t i o n s versus community placements,  i t i s suggested by the t o t a l s c o r e s from the ABS  (modified) that the p r e v a l e n c e of b e h a v i o r problems v a r i e s f o r the lodges w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n as w e l l .  A l s o , these t o t a l scores do not p r o v i d e  d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n on the types of behaviors o c c u r r i n g .  I t c o u l d be  expected that r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n probably experience h i g h e r p r e v a l e n c e of c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r s when compared w i t h t h e i r peers i n t h e community and v i c e v e r s a .  A l s o , i t i s probable that the s i g n i f i c a n c e  reached c o u l d have been r e l a t e d t o r a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y , r a t e r s per lodge  since different  resulted.  Maladaptive Behavior  (MB) c o r r e l a t e d with IQ:  the recorded l e v e l of mental  Both measured IQ and  r e t a r d a t i o n were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h MB and  s i g n i f i c a n c e was not reached f o r e i t h e r v a r i a b l e .  Eyman et a l (1977) and  Schroeder et a l (1978) both recorded a h i g h e r prevalence of MB the more  - 80 -  severe the r e t a r d a t i o n .  P o s s i b l e reasons why  the present study d i d not  conclude the same r e s u l t s c o u l d be because the m a j o r i t y of s u b j e c t s were at the severe and profound only ambulatory  l e v e l of r e t a r d a t i o n and the sample i n c l u d e d  adults.  Maladaptive Behavior c o r r e l a t e d w i t h Length S i g n i f i c a n c e was  of  Institutionalization:  not reached at the .05 l e v e l when MB was  l e n g t h of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .  Schroeder  correlated with  (1978) commented that a h i g h e r  p r e v a l e n c e of maladaptive b e h a v i o r o c c u r r e d the l o n g e r the r e s i d e n t institutionalized. present study.  T h i s was  was  not the case w i t h the i n s t i t u t i o n i n the  While t h e r e may  be a h i g h e r prevalence of some b e h a v i o r s  ( v i z . s t e r e o t y p i c ) , o t h e r maladaptive behaviors may  be d e c r e a s i n g due  to  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of programming.  Maladaptive Behavior c o r r e l a t e d w i t h Sex: d i f f e r e n c e was  Again, no  significant  found between males and females when c o r r e l a t e d with  Eyman et a l (1977) concluded t h a t t h e r e are more males w i t h MB females. more MB  While on the average, males were not found w i t h  MB.  than  significantly  than females perhaps i f the items and domains were looked at  s e p a r a t e l y , i t might be found that the types of maladaptive b e h a v i o r might vary.  Maladaptive Behavior c o r r e l a t e d with Age: w i t h age a -.165 at  the .055  behavior.  When MB was  c o r r e l a t i o n for rate 1 resulted.  T h i s was  correlated significant  l e v e l i n d i c a t i n g that age i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o maladaptive I t should again be noted that c h i l d r e n were not represented i n  the p o p u l a t i o n .  - 81 -  Maladaptive Behavior c o r r e l a t e d w i t h E t i o l o g y :  No r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t -  ween MB and e t i o l o g y was e v i d e n t w i t h t h i s p o p u l a t i o n .  I t i s also possible  t h a t some d i s o r d e r s had t o o few s u b j e c t s t o achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e .  Maladaptive Behavior c o r r e l a t e d w i t h Reason f o r Admittance:  Signifi-  cance was reached a t the .032 l e v e l  (Rater 1) when MB was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  reason f o r admittance.  t o t a l score was 20 p o i n t s h i g h e r f o r  the r e s i d e n t s admitted reasons.  The average  f o r b e h a v i o r problems than those admitted f o r other  T h i s suggests that the r e s i d e n t s admitted f o r b e h a v i o r problems  continue t o e x h i b i t MB w h i l e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d .  S i g n i f i c a n c e was not  achieved f o r Rater 2.  RECOMMENDATIONS  The f o l l o w i n g i s an o u t l i n e of recommendations f o r improving the Behavior Observation c h e c k l i s t , ABS P a r t I I and the MBP. Behavior Observation C h e c k l i s t : 1)  Problems and Improvement  Suggestions  The major problem with the s c a l e was the time s c h e d u l i n g of the observations.  A 10 minute o b s e r v a t i o n was too lengthy f o r the amount o f  behaviors the r a t e r was t o observe at one time.  A l s o there was no  scheduled time f o r r e c o r d i n g , so one r a t e r may have been r e c o r d i n g w i t h the other r a t e r o b s e r v i n g ; hence behaviors might have been missed. An improvement would be to have both r a t e r s observe f o r 30 seconds and r e c o r d f o r 10 seconds. 2)  Most of the i n c o n s i s t e n c y between observers occurred with the frequency counts. seconds  Perhaps h a v i n g t h e b e h a v i o r s t h a t o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the 30 checked  o f f and not the f r e q u e n c i e s might i n c r e a s e the i n t e r -  rater r e l i a b i l i t y .  Because of the s h o r t e r o b s e r v a t i o n time and sub-  - 82  sequently  -  i n c o r p o r a t i n g more o b s e r v a t i o n o c c a s i o n s , a frequency  could be obtained more r e l i a b l y t h i s 3)  By attempting  count  way.  to observe a l l of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n the same time  frame ( v i z . meal) a g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y study c o u l d be conducted u s i n g occasions as a f a c e t . schedule was  The problem w i t h the 10 minute o b s e r v a t i o n  that the meal may  have been completed w i t h i n 40 minutes  only g i v i n g time to observe 4 s u b j e c t s . 4)  A c h e c k l i s t of behaviors  corresponding  to the items  and not j u s t  the  s u b t e s t would p r o v i d e the r a t e r s w i t h a more e f f i c i e n t s c o r i n g method. A l s o i t would draw the observers  a t t e n t i o n to s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r s ( v i z .  pacing and rocking) which were overlooked i n a number of behaviors F u r t h e r Suggestions 1)  The  at one  study  f o r M o d i f i c a t i o n s to the ABS  Part II include:  i n Mongrain's  In Appendix D the items  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r item to domain and can be found.  A l s o the items  response are a l s o coded. to  2)  i n the ABS  that met  institutionalized  i n f o r m a t i o n was  The ABS  scale.  i s e s s e n t i a l l y a frequency  and u l t i m a t e l y program p l a n n i n g i s to be  another  should be recorded.  .40 test  46  population.  given.  However, when i n t e r v e n t i o n considered the s e v e r i t y of  For example, a r e s i d e n t may  r e s i d e n t only twice a year, but  that  combined  Congdon (1973) dropped a l l but  P a r t I f o r the profound  the  to .85 c o r r e c t  are p r e s e n t l y being  However, no i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y  the b e h a v i o r  the  item to t o t a l  that f e l l w i t h i n the .15  These items  form a more c o n c i s e s c a l e .  items  (1975) study and  i s perhaps j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r d e l e t i n g the items  are not d i s c r i m i n a t i n g .  engaging  time.  low item d i s c r i m i n a t i o n found  present  i f the s u b j e c t was  choke  t h i s c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d  a  - 83 -  more severe b e h a v i o r than i f he b i t e s h i s n a i l s d a i l y . weighting system can be 3)  developed.  More work needs to be undertaken arbitrary.  Perhaps a  i n making the s c o r i n g even l e s s  For example, i f a person engages i n a b e h a v i o r , perhaps  10 times i n one week out of the y e a r , how  should t h i s be  scored?  C y c l i c b e h a v i o r s gave r a t e r s d i f f i c u l t y when having to s c o r e them. 4)  While  o b s e r v i n g the r a t e r s complete the s c a l e , i t was  found t h a t  many of the items were not read, but r a t h e r the domains scanned. i s undoubtedly  a f u n c t i o n of the l e n g t h of the s c a l e .  Reducing  length of the s c a l e should h e l p and a l s o by having the r a t e r s a zero f o r each item r a t h e r than l e a v i n g i t b l a n k may  Th the  circle  f o r c e them to  read and c o n s i d e r each item.  Suggestions 1)  f o r Improving  Changing the format  the  MBP:  of the MBP  c o u l d serve to i n c r e a s e i t s u t i l i t y .  By having the r a t e r mark the behaviors i n the s u b j e c t ' s r e p e r t o i r e a f a i r l y o b j e c t i v e account lected.  of the b e h a v i o r s o c c u r r i n g c o u l d be  col-  T h i s would p r o v i d e u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r program p l a n n e r s  as w e l l as a method of m o n i t o r i n g changes i n the s u b j e c t ' s b e h a v i o r repertoire. 2)  The  recorded s e v e r i t y of each subtest should be completed  items of each s u b t e s t .  T h i s w i l l ensure  after  the  that the r a t e r s are a s s o c i -  a t i n g the g e n e r a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i t h the s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r s . 3)  Because " I n t e r v e n t i o n " c o r r e l a t e d so h i g h l y (.88  r a t e r 1 and  r a t e r 2) w i t h " S e v e r i t y " i t c o u l d be s u g g e s t i n g that these two  .91 areas  are, at l e a s t i n the r a t e r ' s judgement, measuring the same t h i n g . 4)  The "Programming P r i o r i t y P r o f i l e " i s an i n f o r m a t i v e p a r t of the  - 84 -  scale.  However, i n s t e a d of adding " S e v e r i t y " and  "Intervention",  which are measuring s i m i l a r t r a i t s as w e l l as being weights, the r a t e r could order  the s u b t e s t s  assigned a r b i t r a r y  i n terms of programming  priorities. 5)  Consideration  of adding a few  e x t r a items o u t l i n e d i n Appendix E  might make the s c a l e more complete. .40  The  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n index should not be  m o d i f i c a t i o n s might be  i n order.  items that d i d not meet  d e l e t e d at t h i s time.  Some  Perhaps w i t h a change i n the  of the s c a l e , namely s c o r i n g the behaviors  that occur and  removing much of the s u b j e c t i v i t y , these items may  be  the  format  therefore  found to  dis-  c r i m i n a t e among s u b j e c t s . 6)  With the m o d i f i c a t i o n s made to the s c a l e , i t would be p o s s i b l e to develop a more r e l i a b l e Behavior Observation  C h e c k l i s t to enable  programmers to o b t a i n frequency counts on the Behaviors as w e l l  as  serve to v a l i d a t e the s c a l e .  In c o n c l u s i o n , the m o d i f i c a t i o n s made to the ABS enhance i t s i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y .  P a r t I I served  Suggestions have been provided  to to  encourage f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s to t h i s s c a l e to i n c r e a s e the s c a l e s utility.  The MBP,  a new  instrument,  changes to i n c r e a s e i t s r e l i a b i l i t y  a l s o needs format, s c o r i n g and and u l t i m a t e l y i t s v a l i d i t y .  item  REFERENCES  ALLEN, M. and Yen, W. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Measurement Theory, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooke/Cole P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1979. BENEDICT, N. A change i n terms o r i n concepts? A s m a l l step forward or a g i a n t step backward? J o u r n a l o f S p e c i a l Education, 1972, j>, 61-64. BERDINE, W.H., Murphy, M. and R o l l e r , J.D. A c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t r a i n i n g program based on the ABS: The Oakwood Resident s c a l e f o r t r a i n i n g and e v a l u a t i n g programs, Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1977, 14_, 19-22. BHATTACHARYA, S. A d a p t i v e Behavior Scale-Refinement. 1973, U j _ 27.  Mental  Retardation,  BLACKMAN, L.S. An a c t i v e - p a s s i v e dimension i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of mental retardation. J o u r n a l of S p e c i a l Education, 1972, 6_, 67-70. BORG, W. and G a l l , M. Longman, 19 79. CLARK, A. 1969,  E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 3rd E d i t i o n , New York:  Program e v a l u a t i o n - The i n s i d e r s concern. 6, 61-62.  CLAUSEN, J .  Quo V a d i s , AAMD?  J o u r n a l of S p e c i a l Education,  CONGDON, D.M. The Adaptive Behavior Scales m o d i f i e d retarded. Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1973, _1_1, 20-1. EDGERTON, R.  Mental  Mental R e t a r d a t i o n .  Cambridge:  Retardation,  1972,  _6, 51-60.  f o r the profoundly  Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  EYMAN, R. and C a l l , T. Maladaptive Behavior and community placement of mentally r e t a r d e d persons. American J o u r n a l of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 19 77, 82, 137-144. FOSTER, R. and N i h i r a , K. Adaptive Behavior as a measure of p s y c h i a t r i c impairment. American J o u r n a l of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1969, 7_4_, 401-404. GROSSMAN, H.J. Comprehensive d i a g n o s t i c s e r v i c e s i n mental r e t a r d a t i o n . Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , Scheerenberger, R.G. (ed.), I l l i n o i s : D i v i s i o n of Mental R e t a r d a t i o n S e r v i c e s , 1969. GROSSMAN, H.J. Manual on Terminology and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n Mental Retardation. American A s s o c i a t i o n on Mental D e f i c i e n c y , S p e c i a l P u b l i c a t i o n S e r i e s #2, 1973 ( r e v i s e d ) . GROSSMAN, H.J. and Rowitz, L. Program a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n mental r e t a r d a t i o n . Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1974, 12, 8-11. GULLY, K. and Hosch, H. Adaptive Behavior S c a l e : development as a diagnost i c t o o l v i a d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s . American J o u r n a l of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1979, 85, 518-523.  - 86 -  IRVIN, L., C r o w e l l , F. , and Bellamy, G.T. M u l t i p l e assessment e v a l u a t i o n o f programs f o r s e v e r e l y r e t a r d e d a d u l t s . Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1979, 17, 123-128. KITA, S. U.B.C. SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l Package For S o c i a l Sciences Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980.  V e r s i o n 8:00.  MacMillan, D.L. and Jones, R.L. L i o n s i n search of more C h r i s t i a n s . J o u r n a l o f S p e c i a l Education, 1972, 6, 81-89. MARKS, H.E. and Rodd-Marks, J . On an attempt t o assess and p r e d i c t behavior i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d mentally retarded c l i e n t s . American J o u r n a l of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1980, _85, 195. MITCHELL, S. I n t e r o b s e r v e r agreement, r e l i a b i l i t y , and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of data c o l l e c t e d i n o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86, 376-390. MONGRAIN, S.L. A comparative study of two measures of adaptive behavior f o r mentally r e t a r d e d a d u l t s . Unpublished t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. NATHAN, M., Millham, J . and A t k i n s o n , B. M e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d i n d i v i d u a l s as informants f o r the AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e . Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1980, _18, 82-84. NELSON, L.R. Guide t o Lertap Use and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . s i t y o f Otago, 1974.  New Zealand:  Univer-  NIHIRA, K. F a c t o r i a l dimensions of adaptive behavior i n a d u l t r e t a r d a t e s . American J o u r n a l o f Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1969, J7_3, 868-878. NIHIRA, K., F o s t e r , R., S h e l l h a s s , M. and Leland, H. AAMD Adaptive Behavior S c a l e , C. Fogelman (ed.) Washington, DC: American A s s o c i a t i o n of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1975, ( r e v i s e d ) . NUNNALLY, J.C. Psychometric Theory.  New York:  McGraw H i l l Book Co.,  PHILLIPS, I . Psychopathology and mental r e t a r d a t i o n . P s y c h i a t r y , 1967, L24, 29-35.  1967.  American J o u r n a l o f  R0SZK0WSKI, M.J. Concurrent v a l i d i t y o f the Adaptive Behavior S c a l e as assessed by the V i n e l a n d S o c i a l M a t u r i t y S c a l e . American J o u r n a l of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1980, 85, 86-89. SATTLER, J.M. Assessment of C h i l d r e n ' s W.B. Saunders Company, 1974.  Intelligence, (revised).  Philadelphia:  SCHACHLER, M., R i c e , J.A., Cormier, H.G., C h r i s t e n s e n , P.M. and James, N.J. A process f o r i n d i v i d u a l program p l a n n i n g based on t h e A d a p t i v e Behavior S c a l e . Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1978, J_6, 259-263.  - 87 -  SCHEERENEERGER, R.C. Managing R e s i d e n t i a l F a c i l i t i e s f o r the Developmentally Disabled. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas P u b l i s h e r , 1975. SPREAT, S. The Adaptive Behavior S c a l e : A study of c r i t e r i o n American J o u r n a l of Mental D e f i c i e n c y , 1980, 85_, 61-68.  validity.  SCHROEDER, S.R. Prevalence of s e l f - i n j u r i o u s b e h a v i o r s i n a range s t a t e f a c i l i t y f o r the r e t a r d e d : A three-year follow-up study. J o u r n a l of Autism and Childhood S c h i z o p h r e n i a , 1978, 8^, 261-269. TAYLOR, J.R. H a b i l i t a t i o n . 1976, LL, 56-64.  E d u c a t i o n and T r a i n i n g of the M e n t a l l y  Retarded.  WILSON, J.B. Is the term "adaptive b e h a v i o r " e d u c a t i o n a l l y r e l e v a n t ? J o u r n a l of S p e c i a l Education, 1972, 6, 93-95. WOODLANDS PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT, Maladaptive m i n s t e r , B.C.: Woodlands School, 1979.  Behaviour  P r o f i l e , New West-  - 88 -  APPENDIX A  - 89 -  BIODEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHEET  SUBJECT'S NUMBER:  LODGE:  SEX:  BIRTHDATE:  AGE:  IQ:  DATE:  TEST ADMINISTERED:  LENGTH OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION:  ETIOLOGY:  REASON FOR ADMITTANCE:  - 90 -  TEST PACKAGE A  SUBJECT INFORMATION SHEET  HOSPITAL NUMBER:  .  SEX:  BIRTHDATE:  RATER'S NAME:  DATE OF COMPLETION:  COMMENTS:  .  - 91 -  INSTRUCTIONS  Part an  Two  contains  only  one  FOR  type  PART TWO  of  item.  (REVISED)  The  foI lowing  is  exampIe. (2)  Damages  Rips,  tears  Spoils  own  Personal  Property  Y  or  own  1 2 3 4  chews  clothing  up own m a g a z i n e s , possessions  Other  (specify;  D  1 2 ^3 4  property  Tears other  M W  books,  None o f t h e  or 1 2 3 4 )  above  1 2 3 4 -r- , , Total  S e l e c t t h o s e of t h e statements which are t r u e of the i n d i v i d u a l b e i n g e v a l u a t e d , and c i r c l e ( l ) i f t h e b e h a v i o r o c c u r s d u r i n g y e a r ( y ) , but not e v e r y month, or (2) i f i t o c c u r s from I t o 3 t i m e s a month (m), o r ( 3 ) i t i t occurs I to 6 times a week ( w ) , o r ( 4 ) i f t h e b e h a v i o r o c c u r s on a d a i l y ( d ) b a s i s . C h e c k "None o f t h e A b o v e " where a p p r o p r i a t e . In s c o r i n g , t o t a l e a c h c o l u m n on t h e b o t t o m ( t o t a l ) l i n e , a n d e n t e r t h e sum of these t o t a l s in the c i r c l e t o the r i g h t . When " N o n e o f t h e above" is checked, enter 0 in the c i r c l e t o the r i g h t . Use to ed  the  1. The those c i r 2. The by a n y o f  space  f o r "Other"  when:  p e r s o n has r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s i n a d d i t i o n cled. p e r s o n has b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s t h a t a r e not c o v e r t h e examples listed.  The b e h a v i o r l i s t e d under " O t h e r " example o f t h e b e h a v i o r problem s t a t e d  must be a s p e c i f i c in the item.  Some o f t h e i t e m s i n P a r t Two d e s c r i b e b e h a v i o r s w h i c h n e e d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d m a l a d a p t i v e f o r v e r y y o u n g c h i l d r e n ( f o r example, p u s h i n g o t h e r s ) . The q u e s t i o n of whether a g i v e n b e h a v i o r i s a d a p t i v e o r m a l a d a p t i v e d e p e n d s on t h e way t h a t p a r t i c u a l r b e h a v i o r i s v i e w e d by p e o p l e i n o u r s o c i e t y . Nonetheless, i n c o m p l e t i n g t h i s S c a l e you a r e a s k e d t o r e c o r d a p e r s o n ' s b e h a v i o r a s a c c u r a t e l y a s p o s s i b l e , f o r t h e moment, i g n o r i n g y o u r p e r s o n a l b i a s e s ; t h e n , when y o u l a t e r interpret t h e impact o f t h e r e p o r t e d b e h a v i o r s , you s h o u l d t a k e into consideration societal attitudes.  - 92 -  /. VIOL!  N1 AND Dt S1RLK  IIYI  HI  IIAVIOR  PART TWO  Y M W D [1|  Y M W D |5] Has Violent Temper, or Temper Tantrums  Threatens or Does Physical Violenrp  Uses threatening cositiir-s lndire<.llv (Muses injury In nlhers SpHS on others Pushes, scrjW hes or pinches diners Pulls oihers' hair, ears, etc Biles others Kicks, strikes or slaps oihprs Throws obiPCls at others Choke* others Uses obiects as weapons against others Hurts animals Other ( s p e c i f y . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ None of the above Tot  o  Cries and streams Si,imps f»-H while l..iru:>fm objeits or sl,iitimin|> dmirs. r'h St.mips tri-t. st riMimrm <in<i vrlltnc 1 hrows sell on door. srrt-.inungrfndyelling Other (specify ) -None of the above Total /. VIOLENT  BEHAVIOR  II. ANTISOCIAL [2] Damages Personal Property  o  -None of the above  Damages Others' Property  Rips. lears, or chews others' cloth.nu Soils others' property Tears up others' m a g j / m « , books. or personaf possessions Other [specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -None of the above  1 2 1 2  o  |4| Damages Public Property Tears up magazines, books or other publ property Is overlv rough with furniture (kicks." mutilates, knocks it down) Breaks windows Slut's toilet with paper, towels or other • objects that cause an overflow Aitempis to set fires Other (specify ) None of the above  o  Gossips aboul others I P I I S untrue Of e»agE*r a ted slories about i.lhprs 1 eases others Puks on others Mak**s kin of Oltwr s Other (specify 1 -None of the above Total  1 2 1 2  3 U 3 u  1 2  3 u  O  (7) Bosses and Manipulates Others Trifs to tell oiht-rs wh.it to do Demands M T V I I Irom others Pushes others around Causes hunts among oih<T people Manipulates Others to GPI thi-m in trouble Otherispei it'y 1 — — — N o n e of the above T,  1 2 12 12 1 2 1 2 12  3 3 3 3 3 3  u 4 4 u U 1  o  [8| Disrupts Others' Activities Is always m the way Interferes with others' activities, e g . by blocking passage, upsetting wheelchairs, etc Upsets others' work Knocks around articles th.it others .inworking wiih. e g . puzzles, iarri games, etc Snatches things out of others' hands Other (specify _) • None of the above  12  BEHAVIOR  Teases or Gossips About Others  Rips, tears or i, hews own clothing Soils Own proper!v Tears up own magazines, books, or other possessions Other I specifv _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ » _ _ _  [3)  o  2 3  ADO  AND .  DESTRUCTIVE  1  Total  * 2  3 k  12 1 2  3 3  2 12 12  3 it 3 1. 3 1,  1  1. u  o  - 93 -  Rl HI LI H J(/s /{/  III  Y M W D  if.wiOR  [9] Is Inconsiderate o( Other* Keeps temperature in IHIIIIK .m\is un<on>fiirMble (or others, et* . nin-m n closes window, changes lhermnst.il I urns fV. radio or phonograph <>n Itxi Inudlv Makes Imid noises whili' others , « P M'.idii.i; T alks too Inudlv Sprawls over furniture or sp.K» needed hv nth.'fs Olher (spentv ' i . i - None of the above To  112] Ignores Regulations or Regular Routines  1 2 1 2 1 2  3 4 3 it 3 4  1 2 12  3 u 3 4  Has ncq.Hivi' altitude Inward rules hut usually inntnrms I liis to !«' hire nf to i;o ihrmmli waiting lines e luni h luie ti< kei lines, etc Violates rules nr regul.ilions. e ti . eats in restruteo areas, disobeys traffic signals, etc Refuses to participate in required activities, eg . work, school, eti Other (sperilv, ) —• • None of the above Total  O  [10] Shows Disrespect for Others' Property Does not return things that were borrowed Uses others' property without permission Loses oihers' belonging Damaces others' properly Does not recogni/e the difference betwepn own and others' property Other (specify t None of the above Toi  o  Uses Angry Language Uses hostile language, e g , stupid jerk. ' "rfirtv pig." etc Swears, curses, or uses obscene language Yells or screams threats nf violence Verbally threatens others, suggesting physical violence Other(speedy ) ——————None of the above Total  II. ANTISOCIAL  BEHAVIOR  ,  12 12 12 12 12  o  K  v  Y M W D  12  3 4  12  3 4  12  3 4  12  3 4  12  3 4  |13] Resists Following Instructions, Requests or Orders (Jets upset il given a dirci ! order Plavs deal and does not iollow instructions Does not pav attention 10 instructions Rptuses to work on assigned sublet Hesitates for long periods befnre doing assienpd rasks Does ihp opposiir ol what was requested Other Ispecily I — ' None of (he above T  [141 Has Impudent or Rebellious Attitude Toward Authority Resents persons in authority, e e . teachers urnup leaders, ward personnel, etc Is hnshle toward people in authorityMocks people in author.tv Savs thai he can lire people in authonly SavS relative will come to kill or harm (jersons in authnnty Other (specify 1 — — None of the above To(<  [1S1 l» Ab»*n) From, or Late For, the Proper Assignments or Places Is late to required placps or activities ("ails lo return to places where he »S supposed to be aftpr leaving, e.g , going to toilet, running an errand, Ptc Leaves place ot required activity without permission, e g.. work, class, etc. Is absent Irom routine activities, e.g , work, class, elt Slavs out late at night from home, hospital ward, dormitory, etc. Other {specify \ -———•None of the above Total  12  3 4  12  3 4  12  3 4  1 2  3 u  12 3 4 _ 2 2. _  13  - 94 -  |1<>!  Y M W  Kims AV»J> or Attempts l<> Him Aw.it  V  D  \\l  II  IPKAWAl Y M W  Attempt'* tu run .ivv.iv Ironi Imspil.il. Iimui'. or si hooi ground Runs away Irom group activities, e g , picnics, school buses, etc. Runs away from hospitdi. home, or M. hnol ground Other (specify )  12  3 4  - None of the above  o  Interrupts group discussion bv talking about unrelated topics Disrupts games by refusing to tollow rules Disrupts group activities bv making loud noises or by acting up Does not stav in seat during lesson period. lurtch period, or other group sessions Other (specify )  —-—.None of the above  Sits or siands i ' position lor a long period of lime [><w\ nnlhini: but sit .wit watch others I alls asleep m a chair I.ics on the Moor all il.iv Does not seem to reac I to anything Other (specify. , ,, , )  1 1 1 1  2 2 2 2  3 3 3  Seems unaware of surrnundings Is difficult to reach or i ontai t Is apathetic and unresponsive in feelinfi Has it blank stare Has a tised expression  1 1 1 1 1  2 2 2 2 2  3 3 3 3 3  it t+ it ft it  Other Isnerilv  12  J.  it  1 1 1 1  3 it 3 It 3 It  •  {17] Misbehaves in Croup Settings 1 2 1 2  1  2  1  2  o  Total  REBELLIOUS  IV.  BEHAVIOR  121) Is Withdrawn  UNTRUSTWORTHY  Is timid and shv m soi i.il si I Mai inns Hull's f,m- in (-roup situations, e f parties, intormjl gatherings, elc Dot's not mm well with others Prefers to be alone Other (snecriv i  BEHAVIOR  o  THDRAW'AL  AND  o  1 <!  o  1  ODD  BEHAVIOR MANNERISMS  [23] Has Stereotyped Behaviors 12  Twists the truth to own advantage Cheats in games, tests, assignments, etc Lies about situations Lies about self Lies about others Other (specify >  None of the above UNTRUSTWORTHY  \\l  . STEREOTYPED  T  |19| Lies or Cheats  IV.  2 2 2 2  > of the above  H.is been suspected ol stealing Takes others belongings il not kepi in place or locked Takes others' belongings from pockets purses, drawers, etc Takes others' belongiogs bv opening or breaking locks Other (specitv )  None of the above  1  123) Is Shy  [18] Takes Others' Property Without Permission  ———  O  3  None of the above  -None of the above  ///.  D  \'20\ Is Inartivc  BEHAVIOR  A  0  P  3 4  O  Drums fingers Taps feet continually Has hands constantly in motion Slaps, scratches, or rubs self continually Waves or shakes parts o( the body ret>e.itedty Moves or rolls head l>a< k and torth Rocks body back and torth Pares the floor Other (specily )  None oi ine aoove  1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2  3 u  1 2  3 U  J-L  1 1  O  - 95 -  Y M W D  1241 Mas Peculiar Posture or Odd  l\  Mannerisms  H»lrK n<',itl t.lt<-ff Sils wilh knees under chin Walks on tiptoes Lies on floor with ten up m the air Walk's with.lingers in ears or with hands on head Other (specif\ I  — — N o n e of the above V/. STEREOTYPED AND  ODD  BEHAVIOR  O  Smells everything Inappropriately stuffs things i i pockets thirls-, dresses or shues Pulls threads out ol own clothmg Plavs with things he >s• wearing, * e g . shoe string, buttons, • Saves and "ears unusual articles, e g salety pins, botll" ( aps. eti Hoards things, including foods Plavs with spit * Plavs with feces or urine Other (spec i!\ . )  .  MANNERISMS  INTERPERSONAL  -None of the above  (2S) Has Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners  1 2 1 2 1 2  Q  1 2 1 2  -None of the above  VIII  INAPPROPRIATE MANNERS  UNACCEPTABLE  1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1  3 u  2 2 2 2 2  Drools Cnnds teeth audibly Spits on the floor Hites fingernails ( hews or surks hneef. o other parts nt the hodv (hews or sucks clothing i mcdihles E ats inedihles Drinks trom toilet steal Puts everything in mouth Other (spet ity _  1 2 1 2 1 2  [29] Removes or Tears Off Own Clothing  HABITS  (26j Has Disturbing Vocal or Speech Habits Giggles hysterically Talks loudk or veils at others Talks to self loudly Laughs inappropriately Makes growling, humming, or other unpleasant noises Repeats a word or phrase over and over Mimics others' speech Other f speed _)  1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2  v>  V///. UNACCEPTABLE  1 2  -None of the above  VOCAL  -None of the above  Y M W D  [28] Has Unacceptable Oral Habits  Talks too close to others' laces Blows on others' fates Burps at others Kisses or licks others Hugs or squeezes others Touches others inappropriately Hangs on to others and does not let go Other (specify i  INTERPERSONAL  ()H HABITS  127] Has Strange And Unacceptable Habits  1  VII. INAPPROPRIATE " MANNERS  VII.  UNA((iriAKU I Ca.NIRIC  Tolal  3 it 3 it 3 k 3 it  1 2 1 2  3 it 3 it 3 it  1 2  3 it  Tears off buttons or zippers Inappropriately removes shoes or socks Undresses at the wrong times lakes off all clothing while on the toilet Tears otf own clothing Refuses to wear clothmc Other (si ispenfv..  •None of the above  1 2 1 2  1 2 1 2 1 2  (  —  VOCAL  HABITS  15  - 96 -  \//  S/  V ,\/(/ I1KANI  HI  IIAVIOK  j.U>! H J S Other Idnthir Habits and Tendencies ts overly par In ul.t'f ,il t plates 1. .,f sl.'vp Stands in ,i l.ivnnie spot, e a . I)v by door rl( Sits bv anything that vihi.ites Is afraid tn < limb stairs or In go down stairs Does not want to be tooi hed Screams it touched Other (spe< if\ i None of the above  /X. UNACCEPTABLE ECCENTRIC  1.131 Ene.ae.cs in Inappropriate Masturbalinn  12 12  3 4 3 4  12 12 12 12  3 3 3 3  4 4 4 4  O  I l.is .HN'mpt'-d In ni.tslurli.ite oiienlv M.islurhatcs in Imiit ul iitliers M.iMurb.iles in crimp Other iMK'dfv ) I of the above  K ».poses body unnecessarily after using toilet Slands in public places with pants down or with dress up Rxposes hodv excessively during activities. e g . playing, dancing, sitting, etc Undresses in public places, or in front of lighted windows Other (specify ) -None of the above  OR _  BEHAVIOR  131) Does Physical Violence to Sett  Slaps or strikes sell Banes head or other parts ol the body agamsi ub.ects Pulls own hair. ears, eti Scratches or picks sell causing iniurv Soils and smears selt Purposed provokes abuse from others Picks at any sores he might have Pokes objects in own ears. eves. nose, or mouth Other (specify ) — .i— None of the above  XI. HYPERACTIVE  BEHAVIOR  1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3  \\  E  N  T  E  o  <t  u U •*  R  i  TENDENCIES  1 2  Will not sit still for any length of time Constantly runs or jumps around the room or hall Moves or fidgets constantly Other tspeoly 1 _ N o n e ol the above TWal  16  12  3 4  12  3 4  12 1 2  3 4 3 u  12 12  3 4 3 4  O  TENDENCIES  [35| Has Homosexual Tendencies Is sexually attracted to members of the same sex Has approached others and attempted homosexual acts Has engaged in homosexual activity Other (specify 1 • None of the above  O  (36| Sexual Behavior That Is Socially Unacceptable  Talks-excesstvely  HYPERACTIVE  i.  1 2 3 u 1 2 3 k  [321 Has Hyperactive Tendencies  X/.  1)  1 2  Bites Or Cuts self  X. SELF-ABUSIVE  3 i*•»  1 2 3 1 2 3 12 3  [34] Exposes Body Improperly  HABITS  X. SELF-ABUSIVE  1 2  lii.  1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2  o  Is overly seductive in appearance or artmns Hugs or caresses too intensely in public Needs watching with regard to sexual behavior Lifts or unbuttons others clothing-to tou< h intimately Has sexual relations in public places Is overly aggressive sexually I las rai>ed others.. Is easily taken advantage of sexually Other (specify • 1. . None of the above XII. SEXUALLY  ABERRANT BEHAVIOR  1 2  3 it  12  3  1.  12 12  3 U x 3 1.  12 12  3 3  1. 1.  J 2 3 U 1 2 3  I—J'  - 97 -  XIII.  f'SW  IIOKH.U  A/. l)tSUlKH-\Ni  ts i-lit  [37] Tends to Overestimate Own Abilities Docs nut recognize Own Has too Inch an opinion ni -rli Talks .iltoul future plans th.it are unrealistic Other (snecilv ' .None of the above  1 2 3 12 12  1 2 3  3 4 3 4  12  o  1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3  [39] Reads Poorly to Frustration  :o  12 3 4 1 2 3 1 2  1 2 3 •*  Changes mood without apparent reason Complains ol bad dreams Cries out while asleep Cries (or no apparent reason Seems to have no emotional control Vomits when upset Apjwars inset ure or frightened in daily ai tivities Talks about people or thiol's lh.il i ause unr'\ilish( tears 1 ,ilks about suo >de 11.is ni.ide .in attempt at sun irle Other (speedy ) — None of the above  1 2 3 U 1 2  3 •*  1 2 3 ii 12  3  12  3  1 2  1. 1*  o  1 2 1 2 1 2  3 u  PSYCHOLOCtCAL  X//J.  DISTURBANCES  [40] Demands Excessive Attention or Praise Wants excessive praise Is |ealous ot attention given to others Demands excessive reassurance Acts sillv to gam attention Otherispeedy 1 > of the above  3  (431 Has Other Signs of Emotional Instabilities  t of the above  Blames own mistakes on other*. Withdraws or pouts when thwarted Becomes upset when thwarted Throws temper tantrums when does not get own wav Other (spetity 1 • None of the above  o  1 2 3  [38j Reacts Poorly to Criticism Does not talk w hen cnrrected Withdraws or pouts when criticized Becomes upset when criticized Screams and cries when corrected Other (spetifv )  H.IN Itypsmlmmlri.K.il I r  Y M W D  XIV.  USE OF  MEDICATIONS  O  |44| Use of Prescribed Medication  Uses tramiuili/crs Uses sedatives Uses anticonvulsant drucs Uses stimulants Other (specify 1 -None of the above  1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3  O  [41) Seems To Feel Persecuted Complains of unfairness, even when equal shares or privileges have been given Complains. Nobody loves me" Saw "Everybody picks on me" Says. "Peopletalk about me". Saw People are against me" Acts suspicious of people Other (specify 1 _____ None of the above Tc  XIV.  USE Ol  MFniCAimNS  ENTER  O 17  - 98  MAI-ADAPTIVE  -  BEHAVIOUR PlfFILb'  PURPOSE  The I-'aladaptive 3ehaviour Profile is designed to be a tool to aid in the process of deriding upon goal priorities in behaviour management. For this reason, i t does not provide the user with a detailed, objective record of an individual's behaviour. Rather, i t helps organize the user's subjective impressions of a person's maladaptive behaviour in such a way that priorities are more clearly evident. As the Profile is therefore nothing more than organized subjective evaluations of broad classes of behaviour, the user should recognize that it can not be a substitute for precise and objective measurement in behavioural programming. nrsTHUcnons Kaladarrtive behaviours have been categorized into ten broad classes including OTHER. These are listed and defined as follows: l.  Aggression: By means of threatening, verbal or physical behaviour acting hostile toward or hurting another person.  2. Property Damage: Through rough usage, peculiar habit patterns or maliciousness, damaging one's own or other's personal possessio-s, or public furnishings or property. Poor Conir.g with Frustration: Responds by either passively withdravring, excessively complaining or actively tantmming when behaviour or work are corrected, or whrn activities are restricted or interrupted. £.. Social Aggravati?-:  Is cither unpleasant or rrovocotive in interactions with others by demeaning or manipulatir.r; them, disrupting their activities or di^olaying irritating vocal or physical interpersonal habits.  5. Stereotypic ti-mr.erisns: In a ritualistic or repetitive way, displ?ys a peculiar personal habit that is either disruptive, unproductive or socially unacceptable. These behaviours might involve body movements, object manipulation, mouthing, hoarding, posturing or frequenting certain locations. 6.  Uncooperative: Disobeys rules or guidelines. Docs not re pond to comands or Instructions in either a group or one—to-one situation.  7.  Self-Abuse: S<?lf-inflicted injuries or behaviours which have the potential to cause an injury.  3.  Sexually Inappropriate Behaviour: Approaches or attempts to impose sexual acts on others and/or public displays of sexual activity or nudity.  2  - 99  -  9.  Inappropriate toilet related habits: Eliminating elsewhere than on the toilet, handling of feces or using the toilet in a manner not associated with its usage.  10.  Other: Please write out as clearly as possible a general description of the maladaptive behaviour of the individual i f i t is not covered by any of the nine categories above.  On the sheet labelled "General Maladaptive Profile", each of these behaviour categories are listed on the left hand side of the page. After filling in the heading information of resident's name, date of rating, and area in which the resident's behaviour is to be rated, systematically rate each of the behaviour categories. Keeping in mind the above definitions determine: to be A. The degree the resident's behaviour in a particular sphere is seen/a problem. This can be Judged to be severe, moderate, mild or none. Having made this judgment, circle the nunber that best describes the degree of the problem. B.  How important it is that the maladaptive behaviour be eliminated. This may be evaluated in terms of the resident's development (does i t inhibit his learning?) or the smooth functioning of the area (does i t disrupt others around him?). The judgment to be made is whether programming intervention should be immediate; should eventually be done but not necessarily at this time or, despite the severity level of the behaviour problem, no intervention should be implemented.  C. Once the two ratings have been made the progranr.ins priority profile i.- drawn in the following way. Within each category add the number circled under "PR0BLE-: SEVERITY" to the number circled under "INTS-WENTI*! UEF.D". Then circle the sum result of these two nnmhers under "?H0OiiAt*'I?r. PRIORITIES". As indicated by the headings the higher the sum the greater the programming priority. In addins the scores please note that any category that has been given a rating of "X" under either "PRCBL3: SEVERITY" or "It.'TZHraiTia! NEED" is automatically given a "PRCC-RAIiMING PRIORITY" rating of "none" (X). D.  After completing the flenerol Profile, the "SPSCtFTC MALADAPTIVE SEHAVIO'JR PROGRAM PROFILES" are completed for any category that received a priority rating of 1st to 6th. A separate sheet is provided for each of these cstegories. The area is broken down into a number of more specific types. Having filled out the informational heading, the rater should now check off under "PR03LEM AREA" the specific type of problem exhibited by the resident. This profile can then be us»d as a guide to more clearly pinpoint the goals for behaviour change programming. Atain, let i t be noted, that this does not serve as a substitute for observing and recording behaviours of concern in objective and systematic ways. It only gives indications as to where such recording should be directed.  -  100 -  .••natAl - iiAUPAPTI-VrS HHIAVIO'm PIUKIIF. RESIDENT HATE: _ DATS OF RATINC:  Mor.th  AiQA OF PATP'O: WARD  OOHM'JVTTY  Day  Year  SCHOOL  HS(P.%TT«!A1. .  VOCATIONAL .  OVERALL PROBLEM SEVERITY  H'TERVENTIO! i IFEED  P^IO^P.A* I! U"?!0 PRIORITIES  <  §  HONE  MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  M  £  Aggression to Others  JX Self-Abusive H I Damaging Property  L  1  X  L  1  X  U  1  X  1  X  U  1  X  L  1  X  1:  1  X  L  1  X .  L  1  X  U  1  X  IV Poor Coping vith Frustration V  Social Aggravation  VI Stereotypic ilanners VII uncooperative VlllSexual K  Toilet/HLiraination  X Other COMMENTS:  3j2  -  101 -  SPECIFIC - MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR PHOMHAH PlflFILE RESIDEHT NAME:  .  DATS OF RATING: 1 I I I Month Day AREA OF RATTI.'G: WARD COMMUNITY  I I 1 Year  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  OVERALL  TYPE OF AGGRESSIVE MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  Uses Hostile language toward others (swears| curses, etc.) Threatens others \rith physical hern (verbally, physically) Pushes or shoves others around '  Strikes out at others (hits, kicks, slaps, headbutts, etc.) Mauls others (bites, pinches, scratches, grasps, etc.) Uses objects as we?pons arainst others (throws at, hits with) Other:  RECREATIONAL  CHECK OFF THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED A3 PROBLEMATIC  -  102 -  SPECIFIC - MALADAPTIVE DfflVv'IOUR PROGRAM. P POTTLE RESIDENT NAME: I  1 I I  I  Month  Day  Year  DATE OF RATING: I  AREA OF RATING: WARD COMMUNITY  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL  TYPE OF SELF-ABUSIVE MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  [ j | I 1 |  CHECK OFF ( l/$ . THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  7se of hands, legs and feet (slapping, poking, hair nulling, pinching, scratching, picking), kicking tjse of mouth and vocal cords (biting, sucking, {screaming until hoarse). Use of objects (hits, pokes, cuts, aggravates skin pr throvcs oneself or bangs one's head against an object). jpunosely provokes abuse from others. 1 jcther (specify) i  »  1  -  spKcunr: -  103 -  v..XADAPTIT•:  DRi!Avroni' Piiry:n;,;-'. ••;s)Ft[,5  RESIDEMT NAME: DATE OF RATI HC:  I  . I i Month Day  AREA' OF RATI HO: WARD CaiMUUITY  1 i I Year  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL  CHECK OFF ( v) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS i n&jhiiuuAj  TYPE OF PROPERTY DAMAGING- MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  DESTRUCTIVE TO OWN PROPERTY (rips, chews, soils, breads, etc., own clothing and/or personal possessions) DESTRUCTIVE TO OTHER'S PROPERTY (rips, chews, soils, breaks, etc., other's clothing and/or personal possessions) DESTRUCTIVE TO FURNITURE (kicks, mutilates, knocks down, takes apart, etc., bureaus, tables, beds, chairs, etc.) !  DESTRUCTIVE TO APPLIANCES (fiddles with, takes apart, breaks, etc., T.V., phonograph, toaster, coffee maker, etc.) DESTRUCTIVE TO BUILDING (breaks windows, pulls drapes, writes on or peels walls, stuffs toilets, etc.) ATTEMPTS OR SETS FIRES OTHER:  AS  PROBLEMATIC  ! j  - 104 -  SPECJFfC - MALADAPTIVE IIKHAVTOUH i'hWu/ij: RESIDENT DATS  v\VHl.?,  HAKE:  OF R A T I N G :  Month .AREA O F R A T I N G :  Bay  WARD  Year  SCHOOL  Ca-IIUNITY  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL .  OVERALL  CHECK O F F ( / ) n  ?  E  0  F  POOR  P O P I N G WITH F R U S T R A T E  MALADAPTIVE  BEHAVIOUR  THE  AREAS  THE  PERSON'S  WHERE  BEHAVIOUR I S  R35ARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  REACTS  TO C O R R E C T I O N  OR C R I T I C I S M  B Y WITHDRAWAL  (pout,, does not taJ.k, become? moc-y, rtays apart from others? [REACTS TO C O R R E C T I O N  OR C R I T I C I S I  3Y E X C E S S I V E  COMPLAINING  (argues about fairness, blames others, claims to be picked on etc [REACTS TO C O R R E C T I O N  OR C R I T I C I S M  BY  TANTRUMING  (yells, cries, screams, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.) (REACTS TO P R O H I B I T I O N S , O P P O S I T I O N , OR R E S T R I C T I O N S B Y WITHDRAWAL  (pouts, does not talk, becomes moody, stays apart from others etc &£l%:™™ ™ '' mEI  r  0 ? P 0 S  l ™ OR RESTRICTIONS BY EXCESSIVE  Kargues about fairness, blames others, claims to be oickeri on etc R E A C T S T O P R O H I B I T I O N , O P P O S I T I O N OR R E S T R I C T I O N S B Y  TANTRUMING  [(yells, cries, screams, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.)  'Sl^  °  IUTEmjlni0U5  R  D  ,  T  S  A  F  E  S  E  F  !  C  S  O F A C T I V I T I E S BY  [(pouts, becomes moody, silent, stays apart, etc.) S D ^ G ™ ^  1  0  ' '  3  °  R I  B  T  E  8  F  ^ C E  OF ACTIVITIES  BY E X C S S S I V  (argues about fairness, blames others, claims to be picked on etc) ™S.mG  mTEHR!;?TIOi!S  °  S  I  H  R  A  !  F  F  S  -  !  » « = OF  ACTIVITIES  BY  (yells, cries, screams, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.) OTHER  - 105 -  S P E C r F f C - K A L A D A P T W : TOIAVTOUR PHQORAM PROFtLR  RESIDENT NAME: DATE OF RATINC: I  i I ! I I I Month Day Year  AREA OF RATING: WARD CCHMUNTTY  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL  TYPE OF AGGRAVATING SOCIAL MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  CHECK OFF ( V) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS R?n AP-DFiD AS PROBLEMATIC  DEMEANING OTHERS OUT OF SPITE OR MISCHIEVOUSHESS (taunting, teasing, making fun of, telling exaggerated stories about, gossiping about others) i MANIPULATING OTHERS TO GAIN OWN ENDS OR CAUSES OTHERS HARM (tells others what to do, demands service from othpr-o, causes fights among others, sets others up for trouble, etc.) | DISRUPTDiG OTHERS ACTIVITIES (always in the nay, upsets others work, knocks about articles others using, snatches things from others, etc.) VEXATTNO TO OTHERS IN VOCAL HA3IT3 (makes irritating noises, talks too loud, mimics others, laughs or giggles inappropriately, etc.) VEXATING TO OTHERS IN INTERPtP.SO.NAL HABITS | (talking or standing too close to others, excessive touching ! or hanging onto others, hugs, kisses or squeezes others, burps or blows at others, etc.) OTHER  i  - 106 -  SPKCtKlC - n.l'.'.IWWe tlKHAVTOll!'. RSSIDI3IT DATE  OF  AREA O F  NAME: RATIN.".:  RATING:  lW.UAI.  UK  1Month, 1Day1 1Year1 1  WARD COMMUNITY  SCHOOL  VCCATIOI!AT.  RECRF.ATT O N A L  OVERALL  C H E C K OFF  (  A R E A S WHERE  THE  PERSON'S  BEHAVIOUR I S TYPE OF  STEREOTYPICAL MALADAPTIVE  BEHAVIOUR  REGARDED  AS  P FOSLEMATI C  BODY MOVE'Ei.TS (body rocking, head weaving, hand flapping, finger motions tics, pacing patterns, etc.)  REPETITIVE/RITUALISTIC  REPETITIVE/RITUALISTIC  MANIPULATION  OF O B J E C T S  (Twirling shiny objects, tv.istin; string, shaking, banking objects for sound, stroking, etc.) MOUTHING CP "BJECT3 (sucks finders, chevs clothing, ?ic'-s objri-ts, ctr.)  REPETITIVE/RITUALISTIC  PARTTOJLVl OR VARIOUS O-WiTfS (stuffs items in clothns, ^r.vns anrl hi'.inr,  HOARDS  iinurv;- ! 1  it.-nr)  ADOPTS ?BCT*tIAR P O S T U R E S OR ?A»rtCCT.'j> P L A C E S TO FtC.^.T (vrclks or. toes, tilts head, v:al>a :n.th har.ri on haad, stands by favorite snot, sits by anyt.hjn- that vibrates, etc.) OTHER  /)  THE  -  107 -  RESIDENT NAME: Month _HSA OF RATING: WARD COHIUNTTY  Dry  fear"  SCHOOL  VOCATIOIiAL  WSCaSATIOHAL  OVERALL  TYPE OF WJC£XJ?E?_vnVE KAUU*?Tm B2HAVI0UP.  Does not respond to requests (does the opposite, ignores it, hesitates, refuses, etc.). Uncooperative in Group Situation (dees not stay in assigned place, talks about unrelated tonics, does not take turns, not follow rules.) Uncooperative in a one-to-one situation (doss not st-:<y in seat, throws objects, does not nay attention, etc."). Cot reliable to follow rules or carry cut resnonsibUUlca (needs to be reminded or corrected often, fails to return on tine, late, leaves without e-ermission, etc.). Other (specify)  CHECK OFF ( /) ' THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  i  i  - 108 -  SPECCF1C - 'iAI.ADAPT.tVE HaiAVTOUR HtTnitAjl. PljOFILE RESiDErrr  NAMEJ_  DATE OF RAT PIG:  | Month  AREA OF RATING: .WARD COMiUNITY  | Day  | | Year  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL  TYPE OF TOILET RELATED MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR Use of toilet (drinking from i t , washing in i t , ' sticking head in i t or plugging i t ) . Feces (eliminating on the floor despite the fact the individual is toilet trained completely or to a routine; eating, smearing, digging, etc., feces whether trained or not). Urine (urinating or the floor, in radiators, etc., or while still clothed despite the fact the individual is toilet trained either co-pletcly or to a routine). Other  CHECK OFF ( </ ) i THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PKOULEMATIC  - 109 -  SPECIFIC^ MALADAPTIVE BMIAVIOUP. PROGRAM PROFILE RESIDENT NAME: DATE OF RATING: I i I i 1 I I Month Day Year AREA OF RATING: WARD COMMUNITY  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  _ OVERALL CHECK OFF ( THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSOK'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  TYPE OF SEXUAL MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  1 Masturbates in public (individually or with others openly) Inappropriate homosexual behaviour (engages in public hombsercual actj aproaches and attempts homosexual acts Iwith others who are either unwilling or defenseless).  |  .  •  'inappropriate heterose::ual acts, (hugs or caresses intensely,'removes other's clothing to touch intimately, has raped pothers, has had sexial relations in public.) ] i — — — — — — — — — [Exposes self unnecessarily (undresses in nublic places, 'lifts dress up, after using the toilet walks into a living jarea without fully redressing.) jOther (specify)  1  -  '  - no -  Si'KCtFrc - MAT.ADA.'Tiyr; UiaiAVIQIIu HPNiAM PIDFILS RESIDENT NAME: DATE OF RATING: Month AS/'. OF_RWINO 2  i  WARD  Day  SCHOOL  COMMUNITY  |  Year  TYPE OF OTHER ( MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL CHECK OFF ( ) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  )  1 ! i  1 • •"  ! ———  I  - Ill -  RATER INFORMATION SHEET  NAME:  AGE:  JOB CLASSIFICATION:  EDUCATION LEVEL: ( S p e c i f y )  OTHER RELEVANT TRAINING:  LENGTH OF TIME WORKING AT GLENDALE LODGE: (to A p r i l 1, 1980)  LENGTH OF TIME ON PREVIOUS LODGE:  SEX:  -  112 -  TEST PACKAGE B  SUBJECT INFORMATION SHEET  HOSPITAL NUMBER:  SEX:  BIRTHDATE:  RATER'S NAME:  DATE OF COMPLETION:  COMMENTS:  —  ,  -  -  I'M  two  HI 0  J m J B  „mu,m  113  INMKIH  IIIW.IOUrAKI  ,mly  type  one  ;i  r s Hrriwul Pro^rt,  Kipv tr-Jry nr i he  -  II clolhinR  item  MVI>  The  lnll,m;,  m  OcMwmjII,  ,  s  ,„,  ,,  xatnplc.  r,» ,„|| qo  y  2  Soils own properly Tears up own m.ic.i/ines, hooks, or Other (WH,M>SMI>P>S  Other (specify  _ None of the above  Select those of the statements which are true of the individual being evaluated, and circle (1) if the behavior occurs occasionally, or (2) if it occurs frequently. Check "None of the A b o v e " where appropriate In scoring, total each column on the bottom (Total) line, and enter the sum of these totals in the circle to the right W h e n "None of the a b o v e " is checked, enter 0 in the circle to the riuht In the above example, the first statement is true occasionally, and the last two stalements are true frequently; therefore, a score of 5 has been entered. "Occasionally' signifies that the behavior occurs once in a while, or now and then, and " f r e q u e n t l y " signifies that the behavior occur*, quite often, or habitually  Use 1 2  the space for " O t h e r "  when.  The person has related behavior problems in addition to those circled. The person has behavior problems thai are not covered by any of the examples listed  The behavior listed under " O t h e r " behavior problem stated in the item  must be a specific example of the  Some of the items in Part Two describe behaviors which need not be tonsidered maladaptive (or very young children (for example, pushing others). 1 he question of whether a given behavior is adaptive or maladaptive depends on the way th.tt particular behavior is viewed by people m our society. Nonetheless, in completing this Scale you are asked to record a person's behavior as accurately as possible, ignoring, (or the moment, your personal hiases, then, when you later interpret the impact of the reported behaviors, you should take into consideration societal attitudes.  - 114 -  I.VIOU.NI  AND Dl.SIKiH  IIIIIAVIOR  1/1/  ()<rj<.Minjn>  Frequently  [1| Threatens or Does Physical VtwlrpiiiUses threatening gestures Indirectly t .nisei infury to olhers Spits on others Pushes, scratches or pinches other s Pulls others' hair, ears, etc Bites others Kicks, strikes or slaps others Throws obieits At others Chokes ollii-is Uses ol>|ci'ls ,is weapons Jn-iuisl otli.rs Hurts animals Other (specify. -None of (he above  Occasionally [S| Has Violent lemprr. or Temper Tantrums  \ 1 1 l  J J J _  iO  ("nes ami screams St.imps l<>el while h.tni',i"H iil]|c<ts or S 1.11tunHi|> (kmri, rti Sl.unps tri'i, s< reantmu and yelling 1 brows silf on Mow sire.lining and yelling Olh.-r ls|»-< ily ) -None of (he above J VIOLENT  ADD  IUHAVIOR  !  //. |2| Damages Personal Property  ANTISOCIAL  BEHAVIOR  |6} Teases or Gossips About Others  Hips, tears or chews own clothing Soils own property Tears up own magafinps. books. ( possessions Other (-.net itv.  Gossips ahoid olhers  o  -None of the above  Tells untrue or exaggerated stones about others Te.ises others P H ks on others Makes lun ol olhers Other (s|». .ly _ i (  — None of the above  |3| Damages Olhers' Property  :0  Rips, tears, or chews others' clothing Soils others' property Tears up others' magazines, books. or personal possessions Other (specify • -None of the above  [41 Damages Public Property Tears up magazines, books or othi-f public projierty Is overly rough with furniture fkirk-..' mutilates, knocks it down) Breaks windows Stulfs toilet with paper, towels or ollirr solid objects that cause an overflow Attempts to set fires Other (specify i -None of the above  12  Tolal  1 1 1 J_  Tolal  AND  DESIRtlCIIVt  1  |7] Bosses and Manipulates Others Tries to tell othcrswti.il I D I I M Demands srrvti es Iroin olln-rs Pushes others around (.auses lights among ntln-c people Manipulates oilier-, in net lln-m in (rouble (lltier Ispei ily ) — • Norte of Ihe above T.  [8| Disrupts Olhers' Activities Is .ilw.iys in the way Interferes wilh others' activities, e g , by Working passage, upsetting wheelchairs, etc Upsets others' work Kntuks an Mind armies |h,n others are working with, e g . puzzles, card games, etc Sn.ilrhes (lungs out ol olhers' hands. Other Ispenfy ) ... Nocw of the above Total  i-s  - 115 -  it.til)  | rei|uenlly  ///  l\'l HI I I KHIS  Hf  IIAVUiR  |9| Is Inconsiderate of Others  Occasionally  Keens IPmperaiure in puhl" .IMMS uncomfortable lor-otherv e c , opens closes window, chamjes lhermosl.il Turns IV, radio or phonograph on lo>> loudly Makes loud noises while others are rv.idini; Talks too loudly Sprawls ovfr furniture or space needed by others Other (specify > — • None of the above T  iO  |10| Shows Disrespect (or Others' Property Does not return thincs that were borrowed Uses olhers' property without permission Loses others' belongings Damages others' property Does not recogni/e the difference between own and Others' property Other (specify i -None of (he above  o  |111 Uses Angry Language Uses hostile language, e g , "stupid |erk," "dirty pic. ' etc Swears, curses, or uses obscene language Yells or screams threats ot violence Verbally threatens others, suggesting p|i violence Other (specify  )  -None of the above  //.  ANTISOCIAL  BEHAVIOR  ,  V  Frequently  |12( Ignores Regulations or Regular Routines  :0  Has neg.ttive .illiluile tnw.ird rules hut usM.<llv""'iiirins I las In lie Inn i-d to go lluoiiuli waiting lutes, e g . lunch lines, tic kel lines, etc Violates rules or regulaimns. e g , ejts in restricted areas, disobeys traffic signals. etc •quired activities, Wefuses to panicipaie i e c . »\nrk. s. honl. i-l< Oilier (spei il\ _ _ _ _ _ -None o( the above  o  1U| Resists rollowing Instructions, Requests or Orders O t s upset d Risen a dtret t order IMays deal and does not follow instructions [Joes not pay attention to inslnu turns Refuses to work on assigned suhtei 1 Hesilates for long periods before doing assiuned tasks Ones |he opposite ol wh.n was requested Olher (S|>ei.ify | -None ol the almve  114) Has Impudent or Rebellious Attitude Toward Authority Hesrnts persons in authority, e n , teachers, group leaders, ward personnel, eir Is hostile toward people m aitlhnnly M i K k s people m author it v Savs thjl he ( an fire tieople in aulhnrity Savs relative will come to kilt or harm persons m authority Other (specify > None oi the above ToU  ;0  115) Is Absent From, or Late For, the Proper Assignments or Places Is late to required places or activities I ails to return (o plaies where lie is supiinsert* In tie alter leaving, e g , going lo toilet, runmmt an errand, en Leaves plan <>t require*! activity without permission, e g , work, class, en Is absent from routine activities, p g , work, class, etc. Slays mil I.He at infill IMHII home, hospiinl w.ird. (hirniiitwv, elc ' Olher (spefily ) — None of the above Total 1  o  - 116 -  V  [161 Runs Awy or Attempts to Kim Away Attempts tu run away horn hospital '» sdionl enmnit . Runs away 'runt umup .11 tivmes, picnics, school buses etc Runs away from hospital, home, nr scliool ground Other (specify )  Will  II>l\.\\VAt.  U0| Is Inaitivr  Occasionally Frequently  ;  o  Sits or sl.inds in one [KJMII period lit tunc IWs running hut sit .mil wall h others I alls aslitj 110 a 1 hair I lesnn die llmir all day Does not seem (u real I tn .inythmg Oilier (spvtily J None ol the ahove  -None of the above [17] Misbehaves in Croup Sellings Interrupts group discussion by t.illune. about unrelated tnpics Disrupts games by relusmg tn follow nil--. Disrupts group activities bv making tout I noises or bv acting up Does not stay in seat during lesson [..•nod. lunch period, or other group session. Other (specify ___________)  — None ol the above  Total  [211 Is Withdrawn Seems unaware of surrounding;, Isdilfiiult tu reai h ormniai t Is apalhelu and tinrespnnsive m feeling Has a blank stare Has a fi«ed expression Olher (specify I  o  Total  - None ol the above III. REBELLIOUS  IV.  UNTRUS  BEHAVIOR  Is timid and shy m social Mtu.ilmns Hides f.iie in group situations, e g parties informal uafhermijs, etc. lines not mivvsellw.lh others FVelers to be alone Olher ts(ienf\ j  Itl-HAVIOR  -None ol the abnn  [18| Takes Others' Properly VVilhnul Permission Has been suspected of stealing Takes others' belongings il not kepi 1 place or locked Takes others' belongings from poiketpurses, drawers, etc Takes Others' belongings by opening ,  V.  WITHDRAWAL  Total  V/.  STtRt AND  U  OJYPl-D ODD  BEHAVIOR MANNERISMS  [19| Lies or Cheats  [21\ Has Stereotyped Behaviors  Twists the truth toown advantage Cheats in games, tests, assignmen etc  Drums lingers 1 aps ii-et 1 imtinuatlv Has hands constantly in 11 Slaps, scrait hey. or rubs ielt 1 1 Minimally Waves or shakes parts of the IXKIV  Lies about situations Lies about self Lies about others Other (speiiiy  None of the above /V. UNTRUSTWORTHY  iO  o  j  -None of the above  IO  [22] Is Shy  IWORIIh  breaking locks Other (specify  o  o  Moves or rolls head l>a< k and lorlh Kmks l»xly bai k and forth s (be I U H Olhei (s|Hiify I None 01 me aimve  1'  BEHAVIOR.  ;o  - 117 -  Oiasimi.dly  frequently  [2<| I Us Peculiar Posture or Odd Mannerisms  IX. UNA( ( I PIAliU I (CI NIKK  Holds head nlied Sits with kmes under dun Walks on tiptoes Lies on Moor wuh (eet up m (lie .ur Walks will> (..oners in ,.,us ur with hands on head Other (specily i  :0  -None ol the above VI. STERLOlYPED AND  BLHAVIOR  ODD MANNERISMS  A l  2  VII. INAPPROPRIATE MANNERS |2S| Has Inappropriate Interpersonal  ">  1  2  . 1  INIF.RI't-RSONAL  OR IIAltltS Occasionally Frequently  1271 Has Strange And Unacceptahle Habits Smells I'vcrytliuiU In.ipfifiipri.Ui'lv siulls dungs in | H shirts, dresses ur -Inns Pulls threads (ml ol i m n . Indium Play- with tllm«S lit- is wearing, i siting, Illilll'IIS I'll S . u i s anil we.us unusual ...li.lvs, salely pin-. Imlll.- < au% i-u I tiiai ds things, ini hiding n» ids flays willi spil Plays with tct i's n( urine Other is|n' itv 1  o  t  -None of the above  Manners  128] Has Unacceptable Oral Habits Talks toorlose toothers" faces Blows on olhers' faces Burps at others Kisses or licks olhers Hugs or sciuee/es olhers Touches Others inappropriately Hangs on to others and does nul lei Other |speof\  Drools  o  - None of the above  VII.  INAPPROPRIATE  INTERPERSONAL  Crmds leelh audibly Spits on tin- ilnor Mitt*% tingern.uls ("hevvs , sutks doners u "I ihebotlv ( hews or suits rlutlnni! i "i<-dihl,.s I .its .nedib.es Drinks hum toilei sli«l Puts everything , mouth Oilier (sper.ty l r  o  n  MANNERS  -None of th* ihovr  VIII  UNACCEPTABLE  VOCAL  (26! Has Distuning Vocal Or Speech Habits  HABITS  1291 Removes or Tears Off Own Clothing I t-.irs ml but Ions or zippers Inappropriately removes shoes ur sinks Undresses al the wrung tiii,.-s I akes off alUlothint; while on the toilet I ears olt own i Inihing  Giggles hystenr.ill, T jlks loudly or sells a: others Talks to self loudly Lauehs ina()|»npM.i(el\ Makes grow hug humming. unpleasant noises Repeats J word »* phrase over Mimics others' spei-cli Other (speedy  Q ^  o  Inihing  fspet il\ • None of Ihe above Total  None of the above V///.  UNACCLPIABLI  VOCAL  HAB I TS  is  - 118 -  13(11 Has Olher !<n<nlri< Itahils and Tendencies K overly p.irlii olar .IIMIII' plates In Stands in a lavonle S|H>I. n « , by  iO  by door, rti Sits by .inythinu lh.it vibrates ly afraid tn (limb stairs ot I D en down stairs Oies nol want to be touched Screams rl touched Other (speedy ) None ol the above  1331 Engages in Inappropriate Masturbation  Occasionally frequently  I Lis attempted In mast HI 11.ili* openly Masturbates in h u m < >t ulhets Masturbates in group Ulliei iMWtily 1  — i.  — None of the above  IO  t  /X. UNACCEPTABLE ECCENTRIC  X.  |J4| Exposes Body Improperly t xpnscs l»nly tinnii esN.n I K aliei  OR  IISIMI; tmlel  HABITS  SELF-ABUSIVE  St.iixK in publn plates vtilh pants down or with dress up l.x|Mises I M H I V e*< essively during activities, • • it , playing, dam mi;. silling, el. Undresses in puhlu plai es, nr m I unit ol lighted vsindotss Other (speolv ) —- None of the above  BEHAVIOR  |311 Does Physical Violence to Self Biles nr i ills self Slaps or strikes sell Gangs head or other parts nl the lmd\ against ohiects Pulls own hair, ears, etc Scrairhes or p« ks sell causing intuiy Sods and smears self Purposely provokes abuse (mm others Picks at any sores he might hase Pokes ob|ects in own ears, eves nnse, ' mouth Other(specdv 1 ' - None of ihe above  o  [351 Has Homosexual Tendencies  lo  Is sexually attiacted to members ol the same ses Has approached others and attempted  o  t las engaged in homosexual activity Othei (s|H-tity ) ' None of the above  |3b| Sexual Behavior Thai Is Socially Unacceptable X.  S£LF-ABL/S/Vt  X/.  HYPERACTIVE  BEHAVIOR  *-»  ;  ENI  Is overly seductive in appearance or ai turns Hugs or (aiesses too intensely in  TENDENCIES  (32) Has Hyperactive Tendencies Talks excessively Will not sit slill lor any length of lime Constanlly runs or jumps around the room or hall Moves or fidgets constantly Other (specify ) None ot the above  o  Needs watching with regard to seiual behavior l.ifts ot unbuttons others' Hothing-to touth intimately Has sexual relations in public places Is overly acgressive sexual^ f las raped rubers Is easily taken advantage •>! sexually Other (spc-.ly ) .. _____ None ol the above X//. SEXUALLY  X/. HYPERACTIVE  16  TENDENCIES  1 N  "  R  •  AIM  RRANT  BEHAVIOR  o A  -  X///.  PS V( / /OU)(."/('At  DISIUKH\N(  119 -  IS Od.tviiin.dlv  |3?| Tends to Overestimate Own Abilities  O  -None of the above  ! iO  ••••»•'• ahnui iniai.'Mi.uy pli\ si. .  (  Docs not recogni/o own limn at tons r(as ton high .in opinion nl sell Talks .IIJOIH future plans ih.jt are unrealisiu Other (specify )  I renuetilly  H J S llypnthondriai.il I cndeii  t.isHMi.ill> ( fi-qm-nliy  I ' . . l e n d s l u b e .11 A. Is s.i k after illness is ..v. I Ml..-, ( s , » t . |  V  -Nono'nl the atmv  I43| Has Other Signs of Emotional Instabilities  |38J Reacts Poorly lo Criticism  nl Willi. , , H . . , , „ .  Does not talk when ,orrected Withdraws or pools when mm i/ed (Jecoines upset when cr.lici/ed Screjms and cnes when corrected Other (specify I None of the above  ( "Kipl.ll  o  J, J_  < I'M's out while asl. ( i les tin no appare Ul.ll I' Hill.,I  Seems lo have n Vninils when upset Appear s msei utc i  o  in  daily a d i v i l i e s talks about iMiiple or things tl  [39| Reads Poorly to Frusiration  ' aus.i unn-alisln l.-ai s l a l k s . i b o o l stiK.de  Blames own mistakes on others Withdraws or pours when thwarted Becomes upset when thwarted Throws lemper tanirums when does not gel own wav Other {specify -None of the above  I las made an attempt al sun id.Other Ispeniy  j  -None of Ihe above  Tuljl  o  X///.  PSYCHOLOCK.Al. DISTURBANCES  [40| Demands Excessive Attention or Praise Wanis excessive praise Is lealnus nf attention given to others Deman<fs excessive reassurance Acts silly to gain attention Other(speedy 1 -None of the above  MV.  o  USl Of  MEDICATIONS  |44| Use of Prescribed Medication i tranquilizers sedatives  Total  anlii o m ulsant drugs >ther Ispei i i \ - N o n * of Ihr j h o t r  |4T| Seems To Feel Persecuted  lol.l  Complains of unfairness, even when equal shares or privileges have bet Complains. 'Nobody loves me" Says, Tvefybudv picks un me" Saw, "People talk about me' Says. "People are against me' Acts suspicious of people Other (specify 1 ^ None ol Ihe above m m m m m m  \IV.  o  USl: or  MI:.I)ICA  I IONS  IO r  - 120 -  RATER INFORMATION SHEET  NAME:  AGE:  SEX:  JOB CLASSIFICATION:  EDUCATION LEVEL: ( S p e c i f y )  OTHER RELEVANT TRAINING:  LENGTH OF TIME WORKING AT GLENDALE LODGE: (to A p r i l  1, 1980)  LENGTH OF TIME ON PREVIOUS LODGE:  -  Behavioral Checklist:  121 -  Maladaptive Behaviour  Profile  Administration:  1.  Observer must f a m i l i a r i z e s e l f w i t h o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s and items on the MBP S c a l e .  2.  Complete Information a t top of c h e c k l i s t b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g .  3.  Observe s u b j e c t a t 10 minute i n t e r v a l s .  4.  Record b e h a v i o r observed under " s p e c i f y " i n a p p r o p r i a t e category.  5.  Record  6.  I f b e h a v i o r occurs more than 15 times i n 10 minutes,  the frequency of each b e h a v i o r .  "continual".  r e c o r d "C" f o r  -  122 -  BEHAVIORAL  CHECKLIST  Subject's nos.  Lodge  Sex  Date Time  Occasion day  shift  supper Afternoon  routine activity  DOMAINS Nos. of Occurrance 1.  Aggression t o Others specify:  2.  Self-Abusive specify:  3.  Damaging P r o p e r t y specify:  4.  Poor Coping w i t h  Frustration  specify; 5.  S o c i a l Aggravation specify:  6.  S t e r e o t y p i c Manners specify:  7.  Uncooperative specify:  8.  Sexual specify:  9.  Toilet/elimination specity:  10.  Other  - 123 -  APPENDIX B  - 124 -  TABLE B,  Sex Frequency  Absolute Frequency Population Sample  R e l a t i v e Frequency Population Sample  Male  96  52  63.6  53.6  Female  55  45  36.4  46.4  p o p u l a t i o n , N = 151 sample,  ambulatory a d u l t s  N = 97  TABLE B  Age D i s t r i b u t i o n i n Years  Population 18.00-73.00  18.08-73.00  mean  32.5  33.71  medium  27.45  28.25  r  ange  Sample  -  125 -  TABLE B  3  IQ D i s t r i b u t i o n  Population  Sample  range  1-72  4-72  mean  19.29  21  median  15.94  17.50  missing  cases  9  6  untestable  3  3  not r e l i a b l e  1  0  TABLE B  IQ T e s t s Given and Frequency  Population not  given  Sample  7.9  8.24  31.8  34.02  wise  0.7  1.03  WAIS  2.0  3.09  Cattel  42.4  38.14  Leiter  11.9  12.37  PPVT a  2.0  2.06  WAIS V e r b a l  1.3  1.03  Stanford-Binet  -  126 -  TABLE B  D i s t r i b u t i o n by E t i o l o g y  R e l a t i v e frequency Population Sample 0  Following  I n f e c t i o n s and i n t o x i c a t i o n s  8. 7  7.29  1  Following  trauma or p h y s i c a l agen  6. 0  6.25  2  With d i s o r d e r s  3. 3  3.13  3  Associated  2. 0  3.13  4  Unknown p r e n a t a l  22. 7  29.17  5  With chromosomal abnormality  19. 3  16.67  6  Gestational  disorders  5. 3  5.21  7  Psychiatric  disorder  2. 0  2.08  8  Environmental  0  0  9  Other  of metabolism or n u t r i t i o n  w i t h gross b r a i n d i s e a s e influences  (postnatal)  30. 7  27.08  - 127 -  TABLE B  L e v e l of Mental R e t a r d a t i o n by Frequency  Relative Population B o r d e r l i n e mental M i l d mental  retardation  retardation  Moderate mental r e t a r d a t i o n Severe mental  retardation  Profound mental  retardation  Frequency Sample  1.3  2.08  2.0  3.13  7.3  9.48  23.3  27.08  66.0  58.33  TABLE B  Length of I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n  range  i n months by Frequency  Population  Sample  1 - 671.0  2 - 660.0  mean  138.40  161.75  median  104.00  113.50  -  128 -  TABLE B 8 D  Reason f o r Admittance  R e l a t i v e Frequency Population Sample i n f o r m a t i o n not given  30.5  behavior  13.2  other than  behavior  56.3  32.7 19.4 48.0  - 129 -  APPENDIX C  - 130 -  TABLE CI Item a n a l y s i s information f o r the ABS Part I I ( o r i g i n a l ) o b y r a t e r s : and Destructive Behavior. Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  1  .73  .31  R  r total test  r domain  l  *2  .84  .64  .67  .26  .57  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  Violent  P* 2  .44  R  l  R  2  51..5  78.1  2  .09  .22  .29  .49  .07  .50  .08  .45  90.9  81.3  3  .00  .06  -.00  .25  .00  .37  .00  .44  100..0  93.8  4  .55  .63  .75  .71  .53  .33  .43  .41  60..6  50.0  5  .15  . 16  .51  .45  .46  .55  .42  .44  90.9  87.5  6  .12  .19  .33  .54  .65  .06  .45  .01  87.9  87.5  7  .76  .50  .79  .67  .53  . .57  .32  .52  45.5  8  .06  .22  .24  .49  .09  .11  .03  .06  93.9  9  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  10  .06  .03  11  .0  .0  12  .09  .0  .38  13  .46  .56  .75  .76  .54  14  .33  .41  .69  .62  .60  15  .24  ' .31  .56  .64  .58  .46  .52  .42  81..8  78.1  16  .03  .06  .17  .25  -.13  -.14  -.21  -.11  97..0  93.8  17  .06  .06  .25  .65  .04  .62  18  .0  .09  .30  .0  19  .12  .22  20  .0  .03  21  .12  .19  .42  .47  .51  .28  22  .36  .06  .74  .25  .41  .04  23 . .03  .03  .17  .18  -.10  24  .09  .03  .38  .18  -.0 .24 -.0  .24 -.0  -.0  -.0  81.3 100.0  .34  .21  .27  .09  93,.9  96.9  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100..0  100.0  -.0  -.16  .0  .09  .0  93..9  100.0  .35  .62  .38  69..7  59.4  .33  .55  .48  78..8  65.6  .18  .42 ' .49 -.0  59.4 .  .18  .18  93..9  93.8  -.06  100..0  90.6  .56  .49  90..9  81.3  .0  .23  100..0  96.9  .56  .06  90..9  84.4  .50  .40  78..8  93.8  -.04  -.06  .00  97..0  96.9  -.17  -.04  -.15  -.07  93..9  96.9  .51 .0  -.06 .50 -.04  .0  25  .0  .03  .18  .0  -.04  .0  .23  100..0  96.9  26  .06  .03  .35  .18  .12  -.12  .10  -.24  97..0  96.9  27  .61  .78  .86  .83  .29  .49  .34  .53  63..6  46.9  28  .30  .06  .68  .25  .02  .13  -.10  -.01  81..8  93.8  29  .27  .19  .67  .47  .12  .23  .12  .11  84..8  84.4  30  .21  .34  .60  .65  .63  .07  .69  .12  87..9  75.0  31  .24  .13  .66  .42  .16  .31  .38  .40  87..9  90.6  P " Percentage of subjects s c o r i n g zero  - 131 -  TABLE C2 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original): Mean Item  R  Standard Dev. 2  Rj  R  2  domain  r  Rj  R  2  r  Antisocial Behavior P  t o t a l test Rj  R  2  KY  R  2  1  .0  .13  -.0  .42  .0  .37  .0  .13  100.0  90.6  2  .0  .25  -.0  .62  .0  .20  .0  .11  100.0  84.4  '3  .27  .25  .63  .44  .44  .16  .42  -.07  81.8  75.0  4  .27  .22  .63  .49  .49  .07  .47  .07  81.8  81.3  5  .03  .03  .17  .18  .01  .08  -.06  .03  97.0  96.9  6  .06  .09  .35  .39  .14  .55  .09  .25  97.0  93.8  7  .30  .28  .68  .52  .12  .45  -.13  .18  81.8  75.0  8  .27  .22  .63  .55  -.04  .48  .06  .62  81.8  84.4  9  .36  .34  .67  .70  .63  .24  .69  .43  75.8  78.1  10  .0  .09  .30  .0  . 18  .0  .34  100.0  90.6  .18  .14  .52  .09  .23  97.0  96.9  .25  .0  .57  .0  84.8  100.0  .74  90.9  71.9  -.0  11  .06  .03  .35  12  .27  .0  .67  13  .15  .34  .51  .60  .55  .71  .43  .17  -.0  14  .03  .22  .55  .26  .40  .34  .65  97.0  84.4  15  .0  .16  -.0  .52  .0  .35  .0  .52  100.0  90.6  16  .0  .03  -.0  .18  .0  .16  .0  .29  100.0  96.9  17  .27  .47  .72  .45  .17  .61  .34  84.8  64.6  18  .0  .06  -.0  .35  .0  .49  .0  .23  100.0  96.9  19  .0  .09  -.0  .29  .0  -.06  .0  -.08  100.0  93.8  20  .06  .0  .24  .23  .0  -.01  .0  93.9  100.0  21  .18  .16  .53  .37  .11  .02  .11  -.21  87.9  84.4  22  .0  .16  .37  .0  .02  .0  -.10  100.0  84.4  23  .30  .13  .68  .42  .41  .11  .65  .18  81.8  90.6  24  .12  .03  .46  .18  .27  .20  .40  .09  93.9  96.9  25  .0  .03  .18  .0  .52  .0  .23  100.0  96.9  26  .09  .09  .30  .11  .64  .32  .60  93.9  90.6  27  .0  .06  .0  28  .03  .06  .17  29  .18  .34  .58  30  .12  .03  .49  31  .15  .09  .44  32  .15  .19  33  .06  .13  34  .12  .06  35  .0  .03  .55  -.0  -.0 .38 -.0  -.0  .53  .0  .23  100.0  93.8  ' -.04  .38  .06  .33  97.0  93.8  .60  .23  .07  .44  .12  90.9  71.9  .18  .36  .20  .53  .09  93.9  96.9  .30  .09  .25  -.02  .15  87.9  90.6  .44  .40  .16  .41  -.05  .18  87.9  81.3  .35  .34  .22  .27  .04  .17  97.0  87.5  .42  .25  .25  .27  -.04  .26  90.9  93.8  .18  .0  .01  .0  .22  100.0  96.9  -.0  .25 .25  - 132 -  TABLE C3 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original): Mean Items  h  R  2  Standard Dev. R  l  R  2  domain  r  R  l  R  2  r  Rebellious Behavior P  t o t a l test R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .79  .28  .82  .52  .53  .23  .48  .22  45.5  2  .09  .16  .38  .37  .09  .22  . 11 -.11  93.9  84.4  3  .18  .03  .58  .18  .68  -.04  .66  -.25  90.9  96.9  4  .42  .31  .66  .54  .36  .14  .50  .01  66.7  71.9  5  .06  .03  .35  .18  .07  . 18  .07  .09  97.0  96.9  6  .55  .31  .62  .54  .20  -.11  .15  .15  51.5  71.9  7  .15  .59  .44  .76  .47  -.18  .40  .01  87.9  56.3  8  .39  .81  .79  .82  .47  -.04  .63  .08  78.8  43.8  9  .06  .16  .24  .45  .12  .20  .02  .08  93.9  87.5  10  .59  .53  .80  .57  .40  .06  .35  -.07  69.7  50.0  11  .24  .13  .66  .34  .55  .32  .67  .12  87.9  87.5  12  . 12 .13  .49  .42  .24  .31  .24  .42  93.9  90.6  13  .06  .06  .24  .25  .07  .31  .13  .49  93.9  93.8  14  .21  .19  .55  .47  .19  .34  .57  .34  84.8  84.4  15  .0  . 13  .34  .0  .19  .0  .02  100.0  87.5  16  .03  .0  -.0  .03  .0  -.03  .0  97.0  100.0  17  .0  .0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  18  .06  .0  -.0  .30  .0  .30  .0  97.0  100.0  19  .06  .13  .24  .34  .21  .04  .23  -.14  93.9  87.5  20  .03  .03  .17  .18  .07  .36  .10  .45  97.0  96.9  21  .09  .28  .38  .52  .34  .53  .23  .29  93.9  75.0  22  .0  .0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  23  .06  .0  .35  -.0  -.05  .0  -.06  .0  97.0  100.0  24  .06  .09  .35  .30  .07  .10  -.01  .07  97.0  90.6  25  .24  .13  .56  .34  -.09  .07  -.07  .13  81.8  87.5  26  .09  .06  .38  .25  .02  .04  -.26  93.9  93.8  27  .0  .06  .25  .0  .12  100.0  93.8  28  .09  .16  .52  .34  -.00  93.9  90.6  29  .0  .16  -.0  .45  .0  -.12  .0  .13  100.0  87.5  30  .0  .06  -.0  .25  .0  .19  .0  .39  100.0  93.8  31  .39  .04  .66  .62  .26  .33  .29  .58  69.7  65.6  32  .27  .22  .57  .42  .48  .05  .64  .18  78.8  78.1  33  .0  .19  .59  .0  .33  .0  .32  100.0  90.6  -.0 .17 -.0 .35  -.0  -.0 .38  -.0  . 10 -.02 .01  .0 .58  75.0  - 133 -  TABLE C4  Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n  f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( O r i g i n a l ) :  Untrustworthy  Behavior.  Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  r  total test  r domain R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  P R  l  R  2  1  .061  .34  .35  .75  .89  .35  -.03  .30  97.0  81.3  2  .15  .24  .51  .51  .56  .65  .10  .65  90.9  78.1  3  .09  .06  .38  .35  .78  .91  .00  .23  93.9  96.9  4  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  5  .15  .16  .51  .35  -.08  .91  .48  .23  90.9  96.9  6  .03  .13  .17  .42  .91  .73  -.03  .23  97.0  90.6  7  .0  .13  .34  .0  .45  .0  .06  100.0  87.5  8  .09  .03  .38  .18  .37  .92  .08  .23  93.9  96.9  9  .03  .06  .17  .25  .91  .72  -.03  .23  97.0  93.8  10  .03  .03  .17  .18  .91  .92  -.03  .23  97.0  96.9  11  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  -.0  -.0  -.0  -.0  -.0  .0  .0  - 134 -  TABLE C5  Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( O r i g i n a l ) :  Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  r r domain R  l  R  2  R  total test  l  1  .70  .88  .92  .94  . 13  .59  -.40  2  .52  .50  .83  .76  .03  .50  3  .49  .34  .75  .60  .48  4  .18  .06  .53  .25  5  .15  .28  .51  6  .06  . 16  7  .09  8  R  2  Withdrawal  P R  l  R  2  -. 15  60.6  50.0  .02  -.06  69.7  65.6  .00  .40  .03  66.7  71.9  .24  . 14  .54  . 14  87.9  93.8  .58  .66  .75  .40  .11  90.9  78.1  .35  .52  .13  .11  -.01  -.01  97.0  90.6  .19  .38  .47  .34  .53  -.02  -.23  93.9  84.4  .21  .34  .55  .70  .59  .47  .23  -.06  84.8  78.1  9  .06  .25  .35  .62  .44  .56  -.01  97.0  84.4  10  .06  .16  .35  .52  .44  .60  -.01  97.0  90.6  11  .09  .31  .38  .69  .08  .06  .30  . 15  93.9  81.3  12  .12  . 13  .49  .49  .23  .19  .16  . 12  93.9  93.8  13  .12  .47  .42  .76  .07  .30  -. 14  . 12  90.9  68.8  14  .03  .22  .17  .61  .53  .28  .32  .09  97.0  87.5  15  .15  .59  .51  .80  .34  .45  .11  .14  90.9  59.4  16  .46  .63  .79  .87  .22  .43  .25  .21  72.7  62.5  17  .06  .0  .35  .13  .0  .0  97.0  100.0  -.0  -.01  . 12 -.15  - 135 -  TABLE C6  Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) : Behavior and Odd Mannerisms.  Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  R  r  1  .12  .09  .49  2  .21  .0  .60  3  .58  .44  .87  4  .55  .16  5  .42  6  R  2  l  R  2  .18  -.20  .32  .0  .76  .57  .87  .45  .22  .79  . 18  .13  7  .39  8  R  l  -.22  R  2  P R  l  R  2  -.18  93.9  93.8  . 14  .0  87.9  100.0  .19  .11  .30  66.7  71.9  .58  .08  .28  .22  69.7  87.5  .61  .60  .34  .20  .03  75.8  87.5  .58  .42  .29  .32  .33  .02  90.9  90.6  .34  .79  .70  .32  .27  .09  -.20  78.8  78.1  .52  .28  .83  .63  .17  -.32  .18  .05  69.7  81.3  9  .52  .50  .87  .88  .19  .10  .12  -.19  72.7  75.0  10  .27  .03  .67  .18  .31  .28  .08  .01  84.8  96.9  11  .33  .13  .74  .42  .19  .17  .26  .08  81.8  90.6  12  .12  .09  .42  .39  .15  -.06  .23  -.07  90.9  93.8  13  .0  .0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  14  .06  .0  .35  -.0  .10  .0  .34  .0  97.0  100.0  15  .36  .0  .78  -.0  .28  .0  .07  .0  81.8  100.0  -.0  .29  r total test  r domain R  Stereotyped  -.0  - 136 -  TABLE C7 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners  Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  R  f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) :  2  1  . 12  .25  2  .0  .03  3  .06  .16  4  .18  5  R  l  .49  R  r  total test  r domain  2  R  l  R  2  R  Inappropriate  l  R  P  2  R  l  R  2  .57  .25  .48  .01  .23  93.9  81. 3  .18  .0  .49  .0  .29  100.0  96. 9  .35  .52  .26  .22  .34  - .03  97.0  90. 6  .19  .53  .47  .23  .49  .14  .41  87.9  84. 4  .30  .31  .68  .59  .52  .63  .26  .42  il.8  75. 0  6  .03  .25  .17  .57  -.12  .60  -.21  .42  97.0  81. 3  7  .55  .44  .87  .67  .56  .68  .57  .50  69.7  65. 6  8  .12  .16  .49  .52  .04  -.13  .30  .10  93.9  90. 6  -.0  TABLE C8 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n Habits  Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) :  R  2  R  l  R  2  r total test  r domain R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  Unacceptable V o c a l  P R  l  R  2  1  .33  .47  .74  .76  .06  .12  .54  .07  81.9  68.8  2  .21  .34  .55  .65  .15  .25  -.08  .30  84.8  75.0  3  .12  .41  .49  .76  .37  .38  -.04  .45  93.9  75.0  4  .24  .59  .61  .80  .14  .42  .39  .29  84.8  59.4  5  .64  .66  .93  .90  -.10  .19  .48  .14  66.7  62.5  6  .27  .59  .63  .76  .01  .38  .03  .35  81.8  56.3  7  .18  .41  .53  .71  -.08  .24  -.13  .40  87.9  71.9  8  .12  .0  .49  .0  -.01  .0  93.9  100.0  -.0  .22  - 137 -  TABLE C9 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original):  Unacceptable or  Eccentric Habits Mean Item  R  R  x  Standard Dev. 2  R  r, domain R  1  1  R  2  r  , total  Rj  R  2  ^  ^  1  .09  .22  .29  .61  .34  .13  .41  .16  90.9  87.5  2  .09  .06  .38  .25  .30  .13  .27  .15  93.9  93.8  3  .03  .31  .17  .54  .62  .54  .53  .40  97.0  71.9  4  .46  .59  .83  .84  .50  .45  .51  •21  75.8  62.5  5  .09  .03  .38  .18  .38  .22  .32  .27  93.9  96.9  6  .21  .19  .60  .59  .80  -.07  .64  .40  87.9  90.6  7  .0  .09  .39  .0  .26  .0  .54  100.0  93.8  8  .09  .06  .38  .35  .53  .45  .43  .29  93.9  96.9  -.0  9  .18  .19  .58  .45  -.14  -.07  -.03  .20  90.9  87.5  10  .09  .13  .38  .50  .38  -.15  .32  -.01  93.9  93.8  11  .0  .25  -.0  .67  .0  -.05  .0  -.03  100.0  87.5  12  .0  .0  -.0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  13  .0  .0  -.0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  14  .21  .13  .600  .42  -.10  .32  .06  .33  87.9  90.6  15  .09  .19  .38  .54  .20  .70  .17  .41  93.9  87.5  16  .06  .13  .35  .49  .60  .29  .53  .18  97.0  93.8  17  .12  .06  .49  .25  .49  .35  .34  .02  93.9  93.8  18  .06  .06  .35  .35  -.06  -.04  -.06  -.04  97.0  96.9  19  .21  .19  .60  .54  .38  -.27  .49  .07  87.9  37.5  20  .12  .25  .42  .57  .37  .30  .33  .30  90.9  81.3  21  .33  .53  .69  .88  .37  .23  .52  .23  78.8  71.9  22  .33  .28  .74  .52  .70  .62  .73  .37  81.8  75.0  23  .09  .0  .29  .54  .0  .58  .0  90.9  100.0  24  .09  .16  .29  .45  .05  .20  25  .21  .13  .55  .42  .23  .01  26  .03  .09  .17  .39  .10  .51  27  .52  .75  .87  .92  .24  28  .27  .19  .64  .54  .16  29  .0  .0  .0  30  .091  .22  .28  .61  -.02  31  .27  .41  .63  .71  .16  .03  32  .18  .13  .58  .34  .25  33  .30  .06  .73  .35  .46  -.0  -.0  -.0  -.04  .47  90.9  87.5  .11  84.8  90.6  -.06  .33  97.0  93.8  .00  .24  -.14  72.7  56.3  -.14  .20  .13  84.8  87.5  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  -.14  .0  -.24  93.9  87.5  .00  .01  81.8  71.9  .01  .12  -.03  90.9  87.5  .45  .57  .22  84.8  96.9  .25 '  - 138 -  TABLE CIO Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) : Behavior  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  Standard Deviation R  l  R  r total test  r domain  2  R  l  R  Self-Abusive  2  l  R  R  P  2  R  l  R  2  1  .18  .25  .53  .62  .18  .37  .44  .26  87.9  84.4  2  .52  .47  .83  .72  .43  .40  .50  .46  69.7  65.6  3  .39  .22  .75  .49  .59  .12  .58  . 17  75.8  81.3  4  .12  . 16  .42  .52  .39  .30  .49  .42  90.9  90.6  5  .42  .53  .71  .76  .27  .39  .94  .27  69.7  62.5  6  .33  .22  .69  .49  .55  .22  .66  .47  78.8  81.3  7  .09  .09  .38  .39  .29  .48  .32  .50  93.9  93.8  8  .15  .47  .44  .80  .22  .36  .14  .36  87.9  71.9  9  .06  .0  .35  .0  97.0  100.0  10  .06  .124  .35  .40  97.0  93.8  -.0  -.15 . 12  .49  .0  -.06  .32  .07  TABLE C l l Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) :  Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  r r domain R  l  R  2  R  total test l  R  2  Hyperactive  P R  l  R  2  1  .18  .38  .53  .66  -.01  .17  .00  .26  87.9  71.9  2  .64  .53  .93  .84  .70  .66  .59  .36  66.7  68.8  3  .27  .28  .63  .58  .46  .59  .52  .37  81.8  78.1  4  .36  .66  .78  .79  .54  .53  .58  .25  81.8  53.1  5  .12  .0  .49  .07  .0  .35  .0  93.9  100.0  -.0  - 139 -  TABLE C12 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( o r i g i n a l ) : Behavior  Standard Deviation  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  r r domain R  l  R  2  R  S e x u a l l y Aberrant  total test  l  R  2  P R  l  R  2  1  .12  .28  .42  .68  -.01  .21  .13  .18  90.9  84.4  2  .27  .53  .67  .80  .52  .15  .45  .01  84.8  65.6  3  .0  .06  -.0  .35  .0  -. 17  .0  -. 15  100.0  96.9  4  .0  .0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  5  .24  .28  .56  .58  -.05  -.06  .63  .45  81.8  78.1  6  .18  .03  .53  .18  .50  .16  .48  .27  87.9  96.9  7  .06  .03  .35  . 18  .74  -.06  .20  .03  97.0  96.9  8  . 18  .03  .53  .18  .50  .16  .41  .27  87.9  96.9  9  .03  .13  .17  .49  .09  .01  -.06  .23  97.0  93.8  10  .15  .06  .51  .35  .62  . 17  . 11  .11  90.9  96.9  11  .15  .0  -.44  -.0  .71  .0  .03  .0  87.9  100.0  12  .06  .0  .35  -.0  .16  .0  -.06  .0  97.0  100.0  13  .09  .0  .38  -.0  .13  .0  -.08  .0  93.9  100.0  14  .0  .0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  15  .09  .13  .66  .19  . 16  .38  93.9  87.5  16  .0  .0  -.0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  17  .0  .0  -.0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  18  .0  .0  .0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  19  .0  .0  -.0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  20  .0  .0  -.0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  21  .03  .0  -.0  -.04  .0  -.06  .0  97.0  100.0  22  .0  .03  .0  .29  100.0  96.9  -.0 .38  .17 -.0  -.0  .34  .18  .0  .40  - 140 TABLE C13 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original): Disturbance.  Item  R  l  R  2  R  l  1  .06  .13  2  .0  .0  -.0  3  .0  .09  -.0  4  .0  .0  -.0  5  .0  .13  -.0  6  .09  .47  7  .55  8  .35  R  2  .42 -.0 .39  R  l  R  .24 .0  2  .48 - .0  R  l  R  2  Psychiatric  R  l  R  2  .04  .37  97.0  90.6  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  .0  .41  .0  .26  100.0  93.8  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  .42  .0  -.05  .0  .04  100.0  90.6  .38  .67  .37  .22  .05  .29  93.9  62.5  .47  .75  .62  .47  .58  .11  .37  60.6  59.4  .09  .28  .38  .46  .23  .17  9  . 12  .0  .59  .21  .0  -.0  -.0  .35 -.01  . 15  93.9  71.9  .0  93.9  100.0 93.8  10  .06  .09  .35  .39  .24  .43  .04  .42  97.0  11  .15  .19  .51  .40  .17  .26  .27  .22  90.9  81.3  12  .82  .53  .92  .72  .43  .45  .71  .48  51.5  59.4  .72  -.01  .27  .29  .23  63.6  59.4  13  .52  .53  14  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  15  . 12 .16  .42  .45  .40  .55  .04  .64  90.9  87.5  16  . 18  .19  .53  .47  .22  .58  -.06  .60  87.9  84.4  17  .27  .16  .67  .45  .40  .64  .09  .55  84.8  87.5  18  .36  .44  .65  .76  . 15  .32  .43  .35  72.7  71.9  19  .42  .16  .83  .52  .02  -.15  .24  -.10  78.8  90.6  20  .06  .06  .24  .25  .23  .58  -.09  .36  93.9  93.8  21  .03  .03  .17  .18  .32  -.23  -.03  -.15  97.0  96.9  22  .06  .03  .24  .18  .21  .36  -.06  .23  93.9  96.9  23  .06  .06  .24  .35  .21  .33  -.06  .23  93.9  96.9  24  .03  .03  .17  .18  .32  .36  -.03  .23  97.0  96.9  .0  .36  .0  .23  100.0  96.9  -.03  .0  -.06  .0  97.0  100.0  .76 -.0  -.0  25  .0  .03  26  .03  .0  . 17 -.0  27  .15  .28  .44  .63  .13  .14  -.10  .20  87.9  81.3  28  .18  .13  .53  .34  .18 .  . 15  -.03  .12  87.9  87.5  29  .03  .03  .17  .18  .12  .28  -.06  .32  97.0  96.9  30  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  31  .79  .94  .89  .95  .58  .40  .54  .54  51.5  46.9  32  .0  .03  -.0 .  .18  .0  .36  .0  .23  100.0  96.9  33  .0  .06  -.0  .35  .0  -.05  .0  -.02  100.0  96.9  34  .15  .41  .76  .10  -.10  .26  -.00  90.9  75.0  35  .03  .06  .25  .16  .52  .04  .52  97.0  93.8  36  .0  .0  -0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  37  .12  .19  .42  .03  -.18  .16  -.22  90.9  84.4  38  .06  .0  .24  .01  .0  .0  93.9  100.0  39  .06  .03  .35  .24  .43  .04  .27  97.0  96.9  40  .0  .0  -.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  41  .18  .0  -.0  .29  .0  . 16  .0  90.9  100.0  -.0  -.0  .51 .17 -.0  -.0 .58  .18  -.0  -.0 .47 -.0 .18  -.18  -  141 -  PART  /. VIOLENT  AND DESTRUCTIVE  TWO  BEHAVIOR Occasionally  Frequently  Occasionally  [i] Threatens or Does Physical Violence  Q  if *  Use* threatening gestures Incirectlv causes iniury to olhers Spit* on others Pushes, scratches or pinches others Pullf- others' hair, ears. etc. 3ne» others Kicks, strikes or slap* others Throv. * obiects at others Chukes other* Use* ODiec'.s as weapons against others Hurts animals Other [specify -None of the above  # * if *  Cries and screams Stamps feet while banging objects or slamming doors, etc Stamps feet, screaming and yelling Throws self on floor, screaming and veiling Other tsDecitv 1 .„•— None of the above Total /- VIOLENT  * *  Damages Personal Property  A  P  T 1 1 1 « ~~* D  BEHAVIOR  ANTISOCIAL  BEHAVIOR  |6] Teases or Gossips About Others  R.;-.? :r=rs or chew sown clothing Soils own properts Tear' up own magazines, books, or other possessions 0:ner f?r*Ci;\ -None of the above  Con.ps about others Tells untrue or exaggerated stones about Olhers  *  |3] Damages Others' Property Rips, tears, or chews others' clothing Sods others'property . Tears up others' magazine;, books, or personal possessions Other (speedy _ -None of the above  Teases others Picks on olhers Makes tun oi others Other (speeds ) - None of the above  iO  (7] Bosses and Manipulates Others * i) * {3 if @ if @ if  (4] Damages Public Property Tears up magazines, books or other public property . . IS overk rough with furniture (kicks,* mutilates, knocks it down) Breaks windows Stu'ts toilet with paper, towels or other solid obiects that cause an overflow Attempts to set fires Other Isnecitv: ' , • • None of the above Total  AND  DESTRUCTIVE  //. \2]  Frequently  Has Violent Temper, or Temper Tantrums  Tries to tell others what to do Demands services from others Pushes others around Causes fights among other people Manipulates others to get them m trouble Other{speedy. ) None of the above  T.  iO  [8] Disrupts Others' Activities  o  Is always in the way Interteres with others activities, e.g . b\ blocking passage, upsetting wheelchairs, etc Upsets others' work Knocks around articles that others are working with, e g , puzzles, card games, etc if * Snatches things out oi others'hands Other(speedy ] -None of the Above Total , f  iO  @ • item to domain correlations that meet the .40 discrimination index # • item to total test correlations that meet the .40 discrimination index * = items that fall vithin the .15 to .85 difficulty range  -  INSTRUCTIONS  Part  Two  contains  only  one  -  142  FOR  type of  [2] Damages Personal Property  PART  item.  The  TWO  following  Occasionally  Rips, tears, or chews own clothing  is an  example.  Frequently  0  Soils own property Tears up Own magazines, books, or other possessions Other (specify  ±  Total \  None of Ihe above  2_  n  Select those of the statements which are true ot the inc'Kiduai being evaluated, and circle (1) if the behavior occurs occasionally, or {2) if it occurs frequently. Check " N o n e of the A b o v e " where appropriate. In scoring, total each column on the bottom (Total) line, and enter the sum ot these totals in the circle to the right. W h e n "None of the a b o v e " is checked, enter 0 in the circle to the right. In the above example, the first statement is true occasionally, and the last two statements are true frequently; therefore, a score of 5 has been entered. " O c c a s i o n a l l y " signifies that the behavior occurs once in a while, or now and . then, and " F r e q u e n t l y " signifies that the behavior occurs quite often, or habitually.  Use the space for " O t h e r "  when:  1. The person has related behavior problems in addition 2. The person has behavior problems that are nor covered examples listed. The behavior listed under " O t h e r " behavior problem stated in the item.  must be  to those circled. by any of the  a specific example of the  Some of the items in Part Two describe behaviors which need not be considered maladaptive for very young children (for example, pushing others). T h e question of whether a given behavior is adaptive or maladaptive depends on the way that particular behavior is viewed bv people in our society. Nonetheless, in completing this Scale you are asked to record a person's behavior as accurately as possible, ignoring, for the moment, \our personal biases; then, when you later interpret the impact of the reported behaviors, you should take into consideration societal attitudes.  - 143  Occasionally  Frequently  III: REBELLIOUS  BEHAVIOR  !9| Is Inconsiderate of Others Occasionally Keeos temperature in public areas uncomfortable for others, e.g , opens or closes window, changes thermostat Turns TV. radio or phonograph on too loudlv. „ Makes loud noises while others are reading Talks too loudlv Sprawls over furniture or space needed bv others Other (specify ^ )  ff  -None of the above  C? 9 *  o  Total  Do.-* not return things that were borrowed L -r> others property without permission lo-<?s others' belongings Damages others' property $ce«. nc: recognize the difference between C.\ nine oir.ers' property 0:if— i;pecif\  - None of the above  i l l ! Uses Angry Language  -None of the above  //.  ANTISOCIAL  BEHAVIOR  Q  Total  t  o  Total  [13] Resists Following instructions. Requests or Orders Ce:< uoset n given a direct orcer Pla\ s dea; anc ri:es no: follot-. .ns'.rurtic-ns  < a # * Does not Das atte-.tion to instructions  (3 #  t *t*s hostile language, e g.. terk." "dirty pig,'' @ # Swears, curses, or uses obscene language @ ff ^eils or screams threats of violence @ # frerbalh threatens others, suggesting physical violence Other (specify )  Has negative attitude toward rules but usually conforms Has to be forced to go through waiting lines, e g , , lunch lines, ticket lines, etc Violates rules or regulations, e g . eats m restriaeo areas, disobeys traffic signals, «c. . . . . Refuses to participate in required activities. e g . work, school, etc. Other (specify _j -None of the above  ;'10] Shows Disrespect for Others' Property 11 3 " #  Frequently  [12] Ignores Regulations or Regular Routines  Refuses to work o i assigned <-biect Hesitates for lor.; periods berore doing assigned tasks Does the opposite ol what was requested Other (specify i None oi Ihe above  lo  [14} Has Impudent or Rebellious Altitude Toward Authority Resents persons in authority, e.g., teachers, group leaders, ward personnel, etc Is hostile toward people in authority Mocks people in authority Savs that he can lire people in authority Savs relative will come to kil! or harm persons m authority Other (specify -None of the above  iO  (15{ I* Absent From, or Ute For, the Proper Assignments or Places Is late to reauired p'.aces or acii-ities Fails to return to places where he is supposed to be after leaving, e.g.. going to toilet, running an errand, etc (.eaves plat* ol required activity without peftmssion. e.g . «vork. class, etc Is absent from routine activities, e g . work, class, etc Suvs out late at night from home, hospital ward, dormttorv. etc Other (specify I .,. • — • None of the above Total  :0  -  144 -  Occasionally Frequently V.  |16| Runs A»ay or Attempts to Run Away *  Attempts to run awav from hospital, home, or school ground Run? awav from group activities, e g., picnics, school buses, etc. Runs awav from hospital, home, or school ground Other (specify i — —None of the above  120J Is Inactive  Sits or stands in one position tor a long period of time Does nothing but sit and watch others' Falls asleep in a chair Lies on the floor all day Does not seem to react to anything Other (specify  Misbehaves in Croup Settings @ // » *  if *  WITHDRAWAL  -None of the above  Interrupts group discussion by talking •about unrelated topics Disrupts games bv refusing to follow rules Disrupts group activities bv making loud noises or bv acting up Does nor stav in sea: during lesson penod. lunch period, or other group sessions 0 : V r (specitv i -None of the above Total  (21! Is Withdrawn Seems unaware of surround^, is difficult to 'each or comae: Is apathetic and unresponsive Has a blank stare Has a fued expression Other (spear-. - None of the above  REBELLIOUS  BEHAVIOR  122]  Is Shv  !* umid and shv m social situation* Hide; race in group situations, e.j  UNTRUSTWORTHY  BEHAVIOR  @  |18i Takes Others' Property Without Permission  0  if if  Has been suspected o* stealing Takes others' belongings if not kept in place or locked Takes others' belongings from pockets. Purses, drawers, etc Takes others' belongings by opening or breaking locks Other: (specify ) -None of the above Total  Parties, informal gatherings, etc. Does not mix well with others Preters to be alone Other (speor's i — — — N o n e of the above  V.  WITHDRAWAL:  o VI. STEREOTYPED AND  119) Lies or Cheats  14  BEHAVIOR MAWERISMS  [23] Has Stereotyped Behaviors  Twists the truth to own advantage Cheats in games, tests, assignments, etc. Lies .ibout situations Lies about self Lies about others Other (specify: ) None of the above  IV. UNTRUSTWORTHY  ODD  BEHAVIOR  iO Total  D 18-19 A p  Drums ringers Taps feet continuallv Has hands constantly in motion Slaos. scratches, or rubs sel: continuallv Waves or shakes parts of the body repeaiedls Moves or rolls head back and torth Rocks bocv back and torth Paces the r'ioor Omer (specify '•. None oi me aoovc _._ T  -  Occasionally  145 -  Frequent I > /X.  124 J Has Peculiar Posture or Odd Mannerisms  AND  |27] Has Strange And Unacceptable Habits  BEHAVIOR  ODD  OR HABITS Occasional^ Frequently  Holds head tilted Sits «ith knees under chin Walks on tiptoes Lies on tloor with feet up in the air Walk* with lingers in ears or with hands on head Oiher (specify J -None of the above 17. STEREOTYPED  UNACCEPTABLE ECCENTRIC  ,  MANNERISMS  VII. INAPPROPRIATE MANNERS  INTERPERSONAL  Smells everything Inapproorlatelv siuits things in pocWi shirts, dresses or shoes Pulls threads out of ov»n clothing Plass with things he is wearing, e g string, buttons, etc Saves and wears unusual articles safety pins, bottle caps, etc Hoards things, including foods Plavs w,th spit Plov s with leces or urine Other (specify )  (  -None of the above  Has inappropriate Interpersonal Manners  ,36; Has Unacceptable Oral Habits  L.»e \o others' faces r.rr> laces  Drools  Crmds :f-eth audibly Sp'ts r. the tloor 5n^ iineernails . Cht-ws or SUC-.S tingerj or other parts oi the bod\ Chews or sucks clothing or other  hers  0  icks others  @ ii <? it  s  ureses others K T S inappropriately Hang; on IO others and does not let go Other ;*pecifv ) -None of the above VII.  ENTER  INAPPROPRIATE  INTERPERSONAL  medibles Eats medibles Onnks from IOIlet Stool Puis everything in mouth Other (specify — — N o n e of the above  Total  MANNERS  UNACCEPTABLE  VOCAL  HABITS  [26] Has Disturbing Vocal or Speech Habits Oeeles hysterically sCalks loudU or veils a: others  1 1 1  T ;•'«.» :O selt ioudlv  * au?hs inappropriately v.c>es B r o « l m E . humming, or other unpleasant noises Repeats a wore or phrase over and,Over .Mimics others' speech Other sspecify _) -None of the above Ylll.  UNACCEPTABLE HABITS  VOCAL  1 1 1 Total  2  2 2 2 2  2 ~  )  |29[ Removes or Tears Off Own Clothing Tears off buttons or zippers Inappropriately removes shoes or socks Undresses at the wrong times Takes oft all clothing while on the toilet Tears oft own clothing Ret uses to wear clothing Other (specify i - None of the above  K  - 146 -  Occasionally  X / / . SEXUALLY  Frequently  ABERRANT  [30! Has Other Eccentric Habits and Tendencies  BEHAVIOR  Occasionally  Frequ  [33| Engages in Inappropriate Masturbation  ^- ose'U OJrtu i.l.ir .lrxjul Diaces (o Sit <>r sleep  Standi m a r,nont>' spot, e g . bs windnn bs ooor Sits bs ansthmc sibrjtes Is airjid to climb stairs or tc go down s-t.urs Does not want to be touched Sc.'r.inT* n touch*-*; Other i specits _None of the above  ' Has attemoted to masturbate openk .Masturoates in front Ol others Masturbates m group Other (specify ^ " of the above  [34|  Exposes Body Improperly  Exposes bodv unnecessarily after \\.  UNACCEPTABLE ECCENTRIC  using'toilet Stands >n public places with pants down or with dress up Exposes body excessively during activities. e g . playing, dancing, sitting, etc Undresses in public places, or in  OR , HABITS  X . SELF-ABUSIVE  front of lighted windows Other (specify, -None ol the above  BEHAVIOR  [31) Does Physical Violence to Self Bites or cuts self *Slaos or strikes seh # *Bangs head or other parts ot the bods against obiects @ # Pulls own hair ears, etc (3 Scratches or picks selt causing miury Soiis and smears self Purposely provokes abuse from others Picks at any sores he might have Po-.es objects in own ears. eves. nose, or  [351  SELF-ABUSIVE  Total  Has Homosexual Tendencies  Is sexually attracted to members of the same sex Has approached others and attempted homosexual acts Has engaged m homosexual activity Other IT—''" None of the above  o  1  Other iipecit .None of the above  X  )  Total  [36j Sexual Behavior That Is Socially Unacceptable  BEHAVIOR — E N T E R 51  Is overly seductive m appearance or action^  >  Hu»js or caresses too mtenseK m  XI. H Y P E R A C T I V E  public Needs watching with regard to sexual behavior Lifts or unbuMOns others" ctothinj-to  TENDENCIES  (32! Has Hyperactive Tendencies Talks excessively •twill not s.t still for anv length ot time Constantly runs or jumos around the room or hail * Moves or lidsets constantly Other (soecitv _ ' None oi the above Total HYPERACTIVE  16  TENDENCIES  E  N  o  touch mtimatelv Has sexual relations in public places is overk aggressive sexually Has raped others Is easily taken advantage of sexually Other tscwcifv _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ______ None of the above X//. SEXUALLY  ^  R  »  ABERRANT ,„^o BEHAVIOR  Total A  p  p  33.36  -  X///. PSYCHOLOGICAL  147 -  DISTURBANCES Occasional!*  Frequently  [42j Has Hypochondriacal Tendencies  Occasionally Frequently |3Tj Tends lo Ovcreslimate Own Abilities  •Complains about imaginary physical ailments Pretends to be ill Acts sick after illness is over Othtr (specify )  Doe- • not recognize own j limitations @ Has too high an opinion ot sell @ # Taiks about future plans that are unrealistic Other (specify ) -None of the above :  None of the above  1  [43] Has Other Signs of Emotional Instabilities  !38| Reacts Poorly to Criticism  Changes mood without apparent reason Complains ot bad creams Cries out while asleep Cries for no apparent reason Seems to have no emotion.! control \omns when upset Appears insecure or inchtcned daily acm mes  Does not talk when corrected •withdraws or pouts when criticized ftt-tume- unset when criticized Screams and cries when corrected Other-suecm ) — — N o n e 01 the above  1  7.:",s ahoyr peo:>te or thmgs thai  ( 3 9 ] Reacts PoorK to Frustration  •'au-e unrealistic l^ars  9 * T.'lks a!*>u! suit -de 9  « n misrjKeS On otl'ers ^ //  rL-ir;:;.w ? or pouis when thwarted  has marie an attempt at suicide  C"ner ivp»-ii!\ .  *>:<ori,-> jpset when thwarted  #  icmrter tantrums when does  o  tjtner ispecify _  - None of the above  )  None of the above  XIII.  Total  PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTURBANCES  140] Demands Excessive Attention or Praise XIV.  Wants e»cessive praise % tealous of attention given to others Demands excessive reassurance Acts silly to gam attention Other (soecifv j -None of the above  \ o Total  USE OF  MEDICATIONS  [44J Use of Prescribed Medication Uses tranquilizers Uses sedatives Uses anticonvulsant drugs L'jes stimulants Other (specify  o  1  - None of the above  |41) Seems To Feel Persecuted Complains ot unfairness, even when eaual shares or privileges have been Given  XIV.  Complains. "Nobody loves me" Savs. "Everybody picks on me" Savs "People talk about me" Saw Peoo'e are against me" Act* suspicious of people Olher (spetrfv ) ,  None of the above  Tu  io  USE OF MEDICATIONS  ENTER  - 148 -  APPENDIX D  - 149 -  TABLE D l Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I (modified): V i o l e n t and Destruct i v e Behavior  1  Mean Item  R  l  R  Standard Dev. 2  R  l  1  .45  .57  .97  2  .26  .21  .78  3  .09  .09  4  .67  5  R  2  1.1  r„ . Domain R  l  R  2  r  P  total test R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  .38  .49  .50  .55  79.6  75.5  .69  .44  .44  .27  .42  88.8  88.8  .46  .43  .34  .27  .20  .28  95.9  94.9  .71  1.23  1.25  .36  .32  .25  .31  73.5  72.4  .36  .25  1.01  .78  .40  .40  .23  .32  87.8  89.9  6  . 17  .27  .64  .73  .31  .32  . 11  .17  92.9  85.7  7  .78  .81  1.19  1.15  .34  .45  .24  .44  92.9  85. 7  8  .28  .13  .78  .51  .30  .34  .22  87.8  92.9  9  .05  .03  .30  .23  .34  .37  .29  .28  96.9  98.0  10  .04  .02  .32  . 14  .38  .30  .31  .49  98.0  98.0  11  .0  .01  .0  .10  .0  .40  .0  .49  100.0  99.0  12  .06  .10  .35  .53  -.12  -.13  -.03  -.04  96.9  95.9  13  .65  .50  1.21  1.06  .45  .33  .39  .33  74.5  77.6  14  .55  .62  1.27  1.21  .23  .27  .23  .18  82.7  75.5  15  .31  .30  .92  .93  .41  .36  .41  .44  88.8  89.8  16  .06  .0  .35  .0  96.9  100.0  17  .20  .18  .73  .71  .38  .23  .31  .28  91.8  91.8  18  .04  .12  .40  .65  .14  .25  .19  .26  99.0  95.9  19  .25  .24  .84  .79  .30  .30  .32  .36  90.8  90.8  20  .04  .0  .28  .0  98.0  100.0  21  .26  .13  .80  .55  .45  .23  .45  . 18  89.8  92.9  22  .27  .16  .75  .53  .42  .36  .34  .25  86.7  90.8  23  .01  .09  .10  .43  -.02  .03  -.03  .14  99.0  94.9  24  .11  .18  .47  .37  .03  .20  .01  .17  93.9  94.9  25  .01  .01  .10  .10  -.00  .40  .15  .49  99.0  99.0  26  .11  .0  .54  .0  94.9  100.0  27  .92  .96  28  .29  29  -  -  -  -  .0  .0  -.4'  -.01  -.06  .0  .0  -.09  -.08  .0  .09  .0  1.33  1.41  .26  .46  .40  .48  64.3  65.3  .28  .85  .74  .29  .35  .36  .37  88.8  86.7  .52  .50  1.09  .98  .32  .43  .30  .40  79.6  76.5  30  .33  .38  .86  .93  .31  .46  . 18  .50  86.7  84.7  31  .25  .11  .80  .52  -.08  -.04  90.8  93.9  -.08 '  -.04  -.04  - 150 -  TABLE D2 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Mean Item  \  Standard Dev. R  2  R  l  R  r„ Domain  2  R  l  R  2  Antisocial Behavior  r total test R  l  R  2  P R  l  R  2  1  .26  .22  .89  .84  .28  .39  .22  .25  91.8  92.9  2  .26  .27  .88  .78  .56  .55  .43  .43  91.8  88.8  3  .50  .69  1.18  1.33  .32  .48  .28  .34  83.7  76.5  4  .24  .27  .86  .83  .49  .43  .53  .44  92.9  89.8  5  .06  .19  .43  .74  . 10 .31  .12  .18  98.0  92.9  6  .03  .0  .30  .01  .0  .02  .0  99.0  100.0  7  .41  .51  1.24  1.16  .66  .58  .51  .46  84.7  82.7  8  .37  .47  1.05  1.20  .48  .45  .41  .36  88.8  85.7  9  .41  .25  1.02  .84  .37  .15  .43  . 16  84.7  90.8  10  . 14 .17  .64  .63  .50  .53  .38  .37  94.9  91.8  11  .19  .14  .74  .59  .58  .62  .54  .45  92.9  93.9  12  .02  .08  .20  .57  -.00  .10  .08  .11  99.0  98.0  13  .35  .20  1.02  .85  .28  .36  .26  .32  88.8  93.9  14  .11  .19  .59  .74  .43  .16  .29  .26  95.9  92.9  15  . 14 .14  .59  .59  .52  .43  .50  .29  93.9  93.9  16  .12  .12  .56  .56  .36  .26  .27  .21  94.9  94.9  17  .41  .48  1.03  1.14  .28  .38  .46  .50  84.7  83.7  18  .04  .12  .40  .69  -.03  .00  .05  -.04  99.0  96.9  .72  0.0  .22  .12  100.0  94.9  19  0.0  .15  -0.0  - .0  0.0  20  .12  .30  .61  .99  .30  .52  .24  .29  95.9  90.8  21  .26  .34  .88  1.05  .15  .39  .17  .28  91.8  89.8  22  .31  .34  1.07  .66  .50  .52  .34  90.8  89.8  23  .27  .17  .82  .76  .36  .42  .30  .37  89.8  93.9  24  .06  .12  .43  .69  -.06  .09  .00  .15  98.0  96.9  25  .20  .26  .75  .93  .39  .46  .44  .40  92.9  91.8  26  .35  .31  .98  .97  .59  .45  .49  .37  87.8  88.8  27  .07  .14  .41  .70  .65  .52  .47  .43  96.9  94.9  28  .12  .18  .54  .69  .52  .55  .44  .50  94.9  91.8  29  .34  .82  1.10  1.60  .09  .25  .14  .39  90.8  78.6  30  .05  .0  .36  .0  98.0  100.0  31  .26  .52  .78  1.08  .17  .51  .07  .41  89.8  78.6  32  .36  .43  .91  .90  .62  .59  .49  .43  85.7  78.6  .27  .32  .78  .82  .57  .59  .47  .49  88.8  85.7  .82  .50  .68  .50  .54  89.8  81.6  .0  .04  .0  99.0  100.0  33  •  1.0  34  .23  .36  .73  35  .02  .0  .20  - .0  - .0  -.05  -.02  .0  - .01  - 151 -  TABLE D3 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Mean Item  R  l  R  2  Standard Dev. R  l  R  2  r R  r  D o m a i n  l  R  2  t o t a l  R  l  Rebellious Behavior  t e s t  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .41  .50  1.09  1.11  .50  .66  .50  .45  86.7  80.6  2  .09  .13  .54  .62  .20  .27  .31  .24  96.9  94.9  3  .02  .09  .20  .52  .30  .29  . 13 .30  99.0  95.9  4  .69  .45  1.26  1.08  .41  .64  .30  .35  74.5  82.7  5  .12  .03  .69  .30  .04  .13  .12  .01  96.9  99.0  6  .52  .80  1.15  1.37  .45  .60  .52  .52  81.6  69.4  7  .58  .62  1.21  1.30  .35  .61  . 18 .50  79.6  79.6  8  .93  .93  1.5  1.46  .27  .48  .18  .33  70.4  67.3  9  .34  .28  .93  .81  .27  .46  .26  .34  87.8  87.8  10  .50  .69  1.17  1.39  .19  .28  .12  .24  83.7  78.6  11  .21  .33  .80  .95  .04  .43  .29  .44  92.9  87.8  12  .14  .0  . 72 0 .0  .0  95.9  100.0  13  .13  .21  .67  .79  .30  .35  .41  . 19  95.9  91.8  14  .27  .21  .83  .65  .30  .23  .34  .21  89.8  88.8  99.0  99.0 96.9  -.06  .0  -.03  15  .03  .03  .30  .30  .06  -.05  .05  .02  16  .06  .05  .38  .30  .41  .25  .21  .31  96.9  17  .03  .04  .30  .32  .28  .21  .13  . 14  99.0  98.0 100.0  18  .06  .0  .35  19  .14  .14  .63  .16  .0  .26  .0  96.9  .66  .34  .19  .16  .16  94.9  94.9  .24  .43  .18  .17  92.9  95.9  - .0  20  .21  .12  .80  .63  21  .20  .19  .70  .71  .38  .46  .11  .26  91.8  91.8  22  .07  .10  .41  .49  .18  .39  .02  .23  96.9  94.9  23  .0  .0  - .0  - .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  24  .0  .04  - .0  .40  .0  .16  .0  .12  100.0  99.0  .05  .18  88.8  85.7  -.07  .14  .46  .17  .03  .05  .05  98.0  96.9  .14  -.05  .18  -.00  .49  99.0  98.0  .45  .55  .11  -.00  .14  .04  98.0  95.9  1.04  .87  .40  .22  .37  .46  87.8  92.9  .64  .34  .22  .28  .36  87.8  92.9 79.6  25  .18  .26  .58  .71  26  .02  .07  .14  27  .01  .02  .10  28  .06  .10  29  .36  .24  30  .31  .16  .85  31  .60  .61  1.19  1.28  .05  .32  .26  .41  77.6  32  .38  .37  .99  1.03  .13  .21  .26  .40  85.7  87.8  100.0  99.0  33  .0  .03  - .0  .30  .0  .37  .0  .13  - 152 -  TABLE D4  Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) :  Untrustworthy  Behavior  Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev.  R  2  R  l  R  2  r  R  Domain  l  R  2  r  P  t o t a l test R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .18  .25  .63  .83  .56  .38  .43  . 19  90.8  90.8  2  .37  .29  .96  .85  .28  .38  .49  .35  85.7  88.8  3  . 15  .17  .62  .67  .51  .24  .33  .52  93.9  92.9  4  .0  .01  .10  .0  .28  .0  .49  100.0  99.0  5  .04  .18  .40  .77  -.04  .04  .11  .07  99.0  93.9  6  .06  .08  .43  .42  .65  .47  .36  . 18  98.0  95.9  7  . 12  .15  .62  .62  .26  .38  .30  .35  95.9  92.9  8  .05  .09  .36  .41  .65  .47  .33  .22  98.0  94.9  9  .18  .11  .69  .47  .58  .51  .33  .26  92.9  93.9  10  .11  .11  .57  .52  .58  .41  .21  .36  95.9  94.9  11  . 13  .08  ' .67  .47  .24  .20  .20  .21  95.9  96.9  -.0  - 153 -  TABLE D5 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) :  Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev.  R  2  R  l  R  2  r . Domain R  l  R  2  r  total R  l  Withdrawal  P  test R  2  R  l  R  2  1  1.50  1.75  1.88  1.96  .37  .55  -.08  -.03  60.2  55.1  2  .56  .78  1.31  1.48  .47  .36  .09  .08  83.7  77.6  3  .70  .67  1.39  1.34  .30  . 18  .15  . 17  78.6  77.6  4  .08  .14  .57  .63  -.02  .07  . 17  .38  98.0  93.9  5  . 15  .35  .75  1.09  .47  .47  .09  .07  95.9  89.8  6  .06  .22  .45  .89  .00  . 11  .01  -.03  98.0  93.9  7  .18  .38  .82  1.12  .39  .45  -.05  .11  94.9  88.8  8  .63  .59  1.35  1.31  .67  .43  .17  . 17  80.6  81.6  9  .31  .20  .99  .79  .57  .35  .10  .09  90.8  92.9  10  .29  .28  .93  .95  .53  .43  .04  .23  90.8  91.8  11  . 12  .62  .61  1.39  .34  .45  -.02  .14  95.9  82.7  12  .03  .18  .30  .80  .06  .10  .01  -.05  99.0  94.9  13  .34  .37  1.01  1.05  .30  .27  .00  -.01  88.8  87.8  14  .03  .08  .30  .51  .07  .37  -.10  . 11  99.0  96.9  15  .65  .89  1.42  1.57  .37  .37  .17  .08  81.6  74.5  16  .93  1.61  1.65  1.90  .42  .41  .04  -.12  74.5  57.1  17  .08  .06  .57  .45  .26  .42  -.04  .14  98.0  98.0  -  154 -  TABLE D6 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) : Behavior  and Odd Mannerisms  Mean Item  Stereotyped  R  l  R  Standard Dev.  2  R  l  1  .12  .17  2  .0  .09  3  .59  .57  1.41  4  .27  .38  .97  5  .34  .37  6  .28  7  R  2  r  R  Domain  l  R  2  r  P  t o t a l test R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  .80  .22  .13  .00  .06  96.9  94.9  .58  .0  .06  .0  .05  100.0  96.9  .46  .44  .01  .09  84.7  85.7  1.11  .39  .23  . 12  .22  92.9  88.8  1.07  1.13  .34  .32  .21  . 18  90.8  89.8  .33  1.00  1.07  .38  . 19  .14  .21  92.9  90.8  .64  .61  1.43  1.38  .21  .15  .16  .09  82.7  82.7  8  .66  .55  1.42  1.33  .25  .13  .01  .13  80.6  84.7  9  .67  .81  1.48  1.60  -.04  -.20  .09  -.14  82.7  79.6  10  .29  .33  1.04  1.04  .26  .20  .10  .15  92.9  90.8  11  .30  .18  1.01  .77  .13  .33  .07  . 16  91.8  93.9  12  .12  .19  .69  .81  .05  .18  -.11  .00  96.9  92.9  13  .0  .05  .42  .0  .12  .0  .31  100.0  98.0  14  .14  .19  .72  .75  .21  .21  .01  .04  95.9  92.9  15  .49  .44  1.32  1.23  .14  -.08  .15  -.01  87.8  87.8  .69 - .0  - .0  1.41  - 155 -  TABLE D7 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) :  Inappropriate  I n t e r p e r s o n a l Manners Mean Item  l  R  R  Standar Dev.  2  R  l  R  r„ . Domain  2  R  l  R  r  2  total R  P  test  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .18  .28  .80  .91  .26  .16  .24  .41  94.9  90.8  2  .08  .01  .47  . 10  .02  .29  .04  .49  98.0  99.0  3  . 12  .07  .61  .46  -.06  .25  .13  .33  95.9  96.9  4  .20  .27  .82  .87  .32  .37  .35  .41  93.9  90.8  5  .43  .48  1.18  1.20  .28  .62  .24  .47  87.8  85.7  6  .16  .35  .80  1.04  . 12  .53  .01  .50  95.9  88.8  7  .20  .58  .77  1.32  .25  .41  .17  .35  92.9  82.7  8  .27  .17  .97  .76  -.01  . 13  .21  .03  92.9  94.9  TABLE D8 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) :  Unacceptable V o c a l  Habits Standard Dev. Item  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  r  R  . Domain  l  R  2  r  total R  l  test R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .10  .20  .58  .76  .31  .06  .13  .14  96.9  91.8  2  .52  .54  1.25  1.25  .30  .29  .36  .43  84.7  82.7  3  .44  .29  1.19  1.01  .40  .23  .33  .07  87.8  91.8  4  .48  .78  1.20  1.46  .32  .45  .17  .38  85.7  75.5  5  .97  .92  1.62  1.57  -.03  -.03  .16  .36  72.4  71.4  6  1.07  .66  1.69  1.39  .46  .09  .36  .12  70.4  79.6  7  .37  .43  1.06  1.22  .19  .20  .31  .17  88.8  88.8  8  . 12  .08  .69  .57  -.05  .01  .13  .11  96.9  98.0  - 156 -  TABLE D9 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified):  Unacceptable or  Eccentric Habits Mean Item  R  l  R  2  Standard Dev. R  l  R  2  r Domain R  l  R  2  r total test R  P  2  R 1  .10  -.23  96 .9  l  R  R  2  1  .09  .18  .54  .77  .04  2  .03  .18  .30  .71  .22  .19  .23  .14  99.0  92.9  3  .16  .15  .73  .63  .39  .59  .32  .34  94 .9  93.9  -.50  93.9  A  .28  .48  1.00  1.39  .48  .37  .27  .22  92 .9  84.7  5  .18  .13  .80  .67  .26  .11  .34  .37  94 .9  95.9  6  .35  .26  1.10  .97  .13  .06  . 18  .26  90 .8  92.9  7  .18  .13  .80  .70  .24  .43  .09  .19  94 .9  95.9  8  .19  .25  .73  .85  .33  .37  .24  .21  92 .9  90.8  9  .32  .40  1.03  1.13  .13  -.08  .14  .09  90 .8  87.8  . 15  .09  .05  -.01  93 .9  88.8  .16  -.06  .08  95 .9  95.9  .07  .30  94..9  94.9 95.9  10  .22  .37  .89  1.09  11  .14  .12  .72  .65  .10  12  .16  .15  .73  .'71  .17  .44  13  .07  . 10  .50  .55  .10  .40  .02  .17  98..0  14  .27  .32  .97  1.07  .14  .65  .10  .35  92..9  91.8  15  .12  .27  .69  .95  .28  .43  .08  .23  96..9  91.8  16  .17  .18  .77  .78  .35  .64  .15  .29  94..9  93.9  17  .13  .16  .67  .76  .47  .53  .16  .32  95..9  94.9  18  .15  .26  .75  .97  .25  .40  .03  . 16  95.,9  92.9  19  .20  .45  .89  1.23  .29  -.03  . 14  .01  94.,9  87.8  .17  82. 7  88.8  20  .37  .25  .88  .80  .20  .46  .35  21  .25  .53  .89  1.24  .26  .45  .21  .31  91. 8  82.7  22  .40  .40  1108  1.06  .32  .47  .19  .46  86. 7  86.7  23  .14  .21  .63  .83  .23  .56  . 17  .31  94. 9  92.9  24  .22  .25  .71  .83  .28  .49  .14  .19  89. 8  89.8  25  .27  .20  .83  .80  .24  .51  .17  .22  89.8  92.9  .64  .24  .0  26  .11  .0  .23  .0  96. 9  100.0  27  .80  .92  1.55  1.67  .25  .03  .31  .25  78. 6  76.5  28  .41  .57  1.22  1.41  .04  .16  -.06  .23  89. 8  85.7  29  .04  .05  .40  .42  .19  .10  .14  .11  99. 0  98.0  .07  -.03  .06  .03  93.9  92.9  - .0  30  .25  .18  .96  .75  31  .48  .40  1.25  1.16  .11  .07  .20  .02  86. 7  88.8  32  .29  .36  .94  1.12  .15  -.04  .08  .02  91. 8  89.8  33  .29  .15  1.04  .66  .14  -.06  .03  -.07  92.9  93.9  -  157 -  TABLE D10 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) :  Self-Abusive  Behavior Mean Etem  R  l  R  Standard Dev.  2  l  R  R  2  r^ . Domaxn R  l  R  r total  2  l  R  P  test R  2  l  R  R  2  1  .20  .14  .72  .66  .20  .36  .33  .36  90.8  94.9  2  .45  .44  1.22  1.13  .15  .11  .23  .21  82.7  84.7  3  .37  .27  .97  .74  .31  .35  . 19  .43  95.7  86.7  4  .31  .10  .96  .55  .40  .38  .18  .58  89.8  95.9  5  .34  .36  .98  1.01  .26  .45  .10  .34  87.8  87.8  6  .14  .27  .64  .79  .26  .23  .21  .22  94.9  87.8  7  .17  .11  .67  .47  .32  .12  .22  .21  92.9  93.9  8  .22  .12  .86  .95  .35  .19  .18  .11  92.9  88.8  9  .02  .05  .20  .42  .04  .23  -.08  .31  99.0  98.0  10  .10  .12  .58  .63  .23  -.02  -.10  -.05  96.9  95.9  TABLE D l l Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) : Mean Item  R  l  R  Standard Dev.  2  R  l  R  2  r„ . Domain R  l  R  2  r  total R  l  Hyperactive P  test R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .42  .37  1.16  1.10  .18  .29  .35  .39  87.8  88.8  2  .71  .45  1.37  1.19  .70  .61  .20  .33  76.5  85.7  3  .21  .21  .85  .84  .34  .27  .09  .23  93.9  92.9  4  .67  .82  1.41  1.60  .53  .48  .26  .34  80.6  J8.6  5  .0  .12  .0  . 10  .0  -.05  100.0  1 .0  .69  96.9  - 158 -  TABLE D12 Item a n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the ABS P a r t I I ( m o d i f i e d ) :  S e x u a l l y Aberrant  Behavior Mean Item  R  l  R  Standard Dev.  2  R  l  R  2  r  R  Domain l  R  2  r  P  t o t a l test R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .27  .53  .91  1.28  .36  .25  .20  .20  91.8  84.7  2  .30  .43  .97  1.13  .35  .34  .17  .08  90.8  86.7  3  .18  .11  .75  .64  .41  .46  .13  .22  93.9  96.9  4  .04  .0  .40  .0  99.0  100.0  5  .40  .30  1.09  .92  .14  .21  .24  .22  86.7  89.8  6  .07  .15  .33  .62  .00  . 16  .02  .21  94.9  92.9  7  .07  .01  .44  .10  .23  .45  .34  .49  96.9  99.0  8  .08  .11  .51  .55  .34  .25  .23  .20  96.9  94.9  9  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  10  .01  .02  . 10  . 14  .00  .39  .02  .39  99.0  98.0  11  .04  .02  .25  .14  -.02  .39  .13  .39  96.9  98.0  12  .02  .02  . 14  . 14  .07  .39  -.05  .39  98.0  98.0  13  .01  .0  .10  14  .01  .04  .10  .40  15  .09  .15  .52  16  .16  .03  .74  17  .0  .0  - .0  18  .0  .0  -  19  .04  .0  20  .0  .0  21  .09  .08  .58  22  .04  .0  .40  - .0  - .0  .0  -.11  .0  .05  .0  99.0  100.0  .18  .12  .23  .13  99.0  99.0  .68  .21  .15  .37  .16  96.9  94.9  .30  .32  .15  .42  .04  94.9  99.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  .0  - .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  .40  - .0  .22  .0  .20  .0  99.0  100.0  .0  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  .59  .13  .22  . 17  .07  96.9  96.9  .06  .0  .04  .0  99.0  100.0  - .0  - .0  -.03  - .0  -.06  - 159 -  TABLE D13 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified) Psychiatric Disturbance Mean Item 1  R  l  .15  R  Standard Dev. 2  .18  2  .12  .18  R  l  R  .68 .69 .65  r_ . Domain l  2  r„ . . . total test l  2  l  2  2  R  .75  .44  .58  .32  .46  94.9  93.9  .78  .23'  .59  -.01  .35  96.9  93.9  .80  .54  .56  .50  .46  93.9  92.9  .0  .0  .0  .0  100.0  100.0  R  R  R  R  R  3  . 15  .21  4  .0  .0  5  . 14 .46  .57  1.19  .45  .32  .23  .27  93.9  86.7  6  .35  .49  .91  1.12  .39  .32  .22  .31  86.7  82.7  7  .78  .61  1.26  1.21  .58  .63  .45  .42  70.4  76.5  - .0  - .0  8  .67  .29  1.22  .93  .32  .15  .39  .33  74.5  89.8  9  .02  .03  .20  .30  .02  -.05  .05  -.08  99.0  99.0  10  .29  .32  .92  .93  .54  .65  .40  .42  90.8  88.8  11  .34  .37  .91  .97  .38  .45  .17  .30  86.7  85.7  12  .79  .96  1.28  1.40  .52  .43  .54  .32  69.4  62.2  61.2  64.3  1.23  .29  .28  .47  .47  .36  .30  -.04  -.05  .09  -.05  98.0  99.0  .99  1.10  .62  .68  .38  .51  89.8  90.8 85.7 88.8  13  1.05  .83  1.42  14  .05  .03  15  .33  .35  1.20  1.13  .57  .57  .29  .36  83.7  .39  .85  1.11  .61  .69  .44  .54  91.8  .69  1.31  1.35  .14  .24  .21  .20  79.6  77.6  16  .51  .44  17  .25  18  .64  19  .06  .02  .45  .50  .09  -.01  .20  -.07  98.0  98.0  20  .14  .21  .64  .75  .74  .60  .35  .36  94.9  91.8  .06  96.9  98.0  21  .09  .04  .52  .28  .63  .31  .27  22  .12  .16  .60  .60  .58  .49  .21  .30  95.9  92.9  23  .14  .09  .63  .46  .68  .48  .24  .29  94.9  95.9  24  .09  .07  .52  .41  .71  .43  .29  .24  96.9  96.9  25  .12  .17  .61  .73  .37  .41  .19  .25  95.9  93.9  .0  .03  100.0  99.0  26  .0  .04  27  .40  .42  28  .13  .29  29  .09  .06  30  .0  .05  - .0  .40  .0  -.02  1.01  1.04  .47  .42  .29  .32  85.7  83.7  .60  .84  .34  .39  .12  .38  94.9  87.8  .48  .35  .61  .43  .25  .34  95.9  96.9  .30  .0  .06  .0  .01  100.0  96.9  .41  .42  71.4  68.4  - .0  .36  .50  .32  .06  -.05  .13  -.07  95.9  98.0  .00  -.04  .00  -.02  .00  94.9  100.0  31  .81  .93  1.36  1.47  32  .11  .04  .57  33  .12  .00  .58  34  .32  .21  .93  .73  -.01  -.04  .10.  .08  88.8  90.8  35  .13  .24  .60  .84  .56  .20  .44  .18  94.9  91.8  .07  98.0  96.9  36  .03  .07  .23  .41  .28  .19  .08  37  .19  .36  .81  1.13  -.08  .18  .14  .12  93.9  90.8  38  .06  .13  .35  .67  .45  .30  .26  .21  96.9  95.9  39  .04  .01  .28  .10  .49  .43  .44  .20  98.0  99.0  40  .0  .01  .10  .0  .43  .0  .20  100.0  99.0  .0  .01  .0  .06  100.0  96.9  41  .0  .09  - .0 - .0  .54  -  INSTRUCTIONS  Part an  Two  contains only  one  160  FOR  type  of  -  PART TWO  item.  (REVISED)  The  following  is  exampIe. (2)  Damages P e r s o n a l  Rips,  t e a r s or  Spoils Tears other  own  chews  Property  Y  own  1 2 3  D A  1 2 3 4  property  up own m a g a z i n e s , possessions  Other  c l o t h i ng  M W  books, or  (specify; None o f t h e  1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4  ) above  ._  S e l e c t t h o s e of the statements which are t r u e of t h e i n d i v i d u a l b e i n g e v a l u a t e d , anci c i r c l e ( I ) i f t h e b e h a v i o r o c c u r s d u r i n g y e a r ( y ) , but not e v e r y month, or (2) i f i t occurs from I t o 3 t i m e s a m o n t h (m), o r ( 3 ) i t i t occurs I t o 6 times a week ( w ) , o r ( 4 ) i f t h e b e h a v i o r o c c u r s on a d a i l y ( d ) b a s i s . C h e c k "None o f t h e A b o v e " w h e r e appr-opr i a t e . In s c o r i n g , t o t a l e a c h c o l u m n on t h e b o t t o m ( t o t a l ) l i n e , a n d e n t e r t h e sum of t h e s e t o t a l s in t h e c i r c l e t o the r i g h t . When "None o f t h e above" is checked, enter 0 in the c i r c l e t o the r i g h t . Use to ed  the  space  f o r "Other"  when:  1. The p e r s o n h a s r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s i n a d d i t i o n those c i r c l e d . 2. The p e r s o n h a s b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s t h a t a r e n o t c o v e r by a n y o f t h e e x a m p l e s listed.  The b e h a v i o r l i s t e d under " O t h e r " example o f t h e b e h a v i o r problem s t a t e d  must be a s p e c i f i c in the item.  Some o f t h e i t e m s i n P a r t Two d e s c r i b e b e h a v i o r s w h i c h n e e d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d m a l a d a p t i v e f o r v e r y y o u n g c h i l d r e n ( f o r example, p u s h i n g o t h e r s ) . The q u e s t i o n o f whether a g i v e n b e h a v i o r i s a d a p t i v e o r m a l a d a p t i v e d e p e n d s on t h e way t h a t p a r t i c u a l r b e h a v i o r i s v i e w e d by p e o p l e i n o u r s o c i e t y . N o n e t h e l e s s , i n c o m p l e t i n g t h i s S c a l e you a r e a s k e d t o r e c o r d a p e r s o n ' s b e h a v i o r a s a c c u r a t e l y a s p o s s i b l e , f o r t h e moment, i g n o r i n g y o u r p e r s o n a l b i a s e s ; t h e n , when y o u l a t e r interpret t h e impact o f t h e r e p o r t e d b e h a v i o r s , you s h o u l d t a k e into consideration societal attitudes.  -  161 -  I'ARI  / V / O L / Nl  AND IV-SIRLK  IIVI  HI I  1W0  IAVIOR  M  y  ft} Threatens or Does  Physical  Violence  Use* threaienmc fiesiutes @ II * Indirectly du*es ni|ury tn nlhers  I5j Has Violent Temper, or Temper Tantrums :  Spits on others Pushes, scratches or pinches others Pulls olher*' hair, ears, etc Bites others # * Kicks, strikes or slaps others Throws obiects at others Chokes others # Uses objects as weapons against other* Hurts animals Othertspecn\ -None of the above  @ it  2  1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2i 11  1 2  slai intj dnors. en t? # "b,..mps (3 0 *Thrnws I'll on floor, sen Other|< -None ol the above  o  /. VIOLENT DESTRUCTIVE  w  D  o  3  1 2 3  If 1  AND . BEHAVIOR  Total ADD  1  2  3  j. //.  \2] Damages Personal Property  ANTISOCIAL  BEHAVIOR  !61 Teases or Gossips About Others  *Rips tears or chews own clothing *Soils own property Tears up Own magazines books, or othei possessions Other (specify _________________ —Hoot ol the above  1 2 1 2  3 u 3 it  1 2 1 2  3 u 3 t.  9 II  Gossips about others Tells untrue or exaggerated stones about others leases others Pirks on others Makes fun ot others Other )Sp*Tifv )  1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 12  3 3 3 3 3  ;0 1*  |3) Damages Other?' Property leari, or chews otivers clothins Soils others oropertv Tears uo others' maoa/inev. books. or personal possessions Other (soecitv -None of Ihe above  1 2 1 2  RIDS,  1 2 1 2  [7] Bosses and Manipulates Others  C^)ii*Tnes tn lell til hers what tn do  Causes nehis among other people Manipulates olhers to e^i Ihem in trouble Other fsix't ily ____________ I • None of the above T.  (4| Damages Public Property  8 II  Tears up magazines, books or other public property Is overly rough with furniture Ikicks." mutilates, knocks it down) Breaks windows Slutls loilet with paper towels or other solid obiects that cause an overflov. Attempts 10 sei ftres Other (supply 1 None of the above <«*l T  o  a it ^Demands wrvii es irom others @ II Pushes others around  1 2 1 2 ^ 2  1 2 ^ _ 2  2  o  |6] Disrupts Others' Activities Is always tn the was Interferes with others' activities, eg. bv hiockinc passage, upsettinc wheelchairs, etc 1 1 Upsets others' work Krwtks around articles thai others are working with, e R . puzzles, card games, etc jj*_-natches things out ol others' hands 1 Other tspecify ) 1 ———None of (he above Total  2 2  3  2 2  3 3  @ = item to domain c o r r e l a t i o n s that meet the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n index // = item to t o t a l test c o r r e l a t i o n s that meet the .40 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n index * - item that f a l l within the .15 to .85 d i f f i c u l t y range  -  Y M W D  |9| Is Inrnn ^derate of Others Kw'ii* if!»i|>iT,iUi'c in iinhln .irc.i urttnmuirt.ibti' inr -others .• _ rlos/** v.inflow . < hdnu'i"- theiii.H lu'"- T\. r.n.m or phnnn_T.iph tin on li.urih M.lkes iiiufl noises while other- .ire n-.idmi; 1 oiks loo loudly Sprawls over furniture or sn.ic needed bv other* Othfr fsnecitv - Norte ol the above  //  BEHAVIOR  I [.is nfc.tuvo .lintiirif.  1  Y'M W D  l  vv.lrrt rule* hut  1 2  3 b  12  3 -  v  s  1 2  3 u  1 2  3  1 2  i.  [13! Resists Following Irtntroclioni, Requests or Orders k @ t  0  .  *  -m '' "> "" "tried lo ijn thrntich «M_! r A Im-'s « i; . I„m h line- in kt'l lines, etc V J V".lull's rulf>s IJI ri-yiil.iiiiins f u *>,ii _ restruteo areas, disobeys traflic signal* _ etc @ * Refuses lo participate m required activities. f fi work, schonf, -ti Other (spffity i None of (he above Total  [111 Uses Angry Language Uses hostile language e g . Muniri |Prk, ' 'dirty pig.' -t( Swears, curses or uses obscene l.,neuAgr> »Hs or screams threats ot violence Verbally threaiens others, suggesting physical violence Other I specify I J ot the above Total  RI in i.i iot ^ HI a \\ loiy  I I S I M I I V i nnliirins  ^  Does not return things that were borrowed Uses others property without r>ermiss.n.i Loses others belonging Damage* others' property Does not recognize the dillerence between own and Others' property Other (specify > -None of Ibe above Total  ANTISOCIAL  in  [12| Ignores Regulations or Regular Roulines  |10] Shows Disrespect for Others' Property  II  162 -  1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2  t  *  Cels upsei if given a direr t order Plavsrieaiand does not folio* instruction* Does not pay attention to instructions Refuses 10 work on assicn»d subieci H-snaies lor long periods betore doing assigned task* Does the opposite of what WHS r»ouf sled Other (specify i — - None of the above Total  :0  (14| Has Impudent or Rebellious Attitude Toward Authority Hesenis persons in authority, e e teachers, group leaders, ward personnel.  Is hostile toward people in authority Mocks pmple in authority Savs that ne can lire people m authontv Sav* retaitv* will tome i© kilt or harm rwrsons m authority Other I specify 1 t of the above  1 1 1 1  2 2 2 2  3 2 1 2  11S1 Is Absent Prom, or Late For, the Proper Assignments or Places t* laie to recurred places or activities rails to return 10 places where he is Mipt*>sed to be after leaving, e g . going to lotlet. running an errand, etc Leave* place of required activity without -etmmmn. e.g . work, class, etc Is absent from routine activities, e.g . *vork. class, etc Stays out late at night from home, hospital ward dormitory, etc Other Ispectfv _ -Nor* of the above Total  12 3 12 3 12 3 ^2 3  (  12 3  -11 A 13  -  163 -  I  Atii'inpis h. nn: .ivsav Hum li.ispii.il or srlumi CMiund Runs a»av irom croup activities, c picnics, school buses. Runs awav Irom hospital home, or school ground Other (specih i • ol the above  1 1  II II *  1 2 1 2 12  Y M V D  !  >  Seems unaware ol surrnundmgs * Is difficult to reach or mniact is anal net.c and unresponsive in teeling H H S a hlank stare  [!  REBELLIOUS  Has a liked expression  Other (specify  BEHAVIOR  IV. UNTRUSTWORlli)  12 1 2 1 2 1 2  3 3 3 3  i* u u u  2 2 2 2  1 2 11 1  i  k  [22| Is Shy Is timid and shv m su< ial situations Htfles l.ne in CfOup Mtiialinns. e £ [tarix's mlormal satherinus. etc * l>>es not mu well with other* Prefers to be atone Other (specifV I None of the above  BEHAVIOR  |18| Takes Others' Property Wiihou Permission Ha* been susoected o' Mealing Takes others' belong.np*) not kepi r place or locked Tak«*s others' belongings trom poiki'ii purses drawers, etc Takes others belongings bv openmu i breaking lock* Other Isfiecitv . j  3** 3 u  1 1 1 1  — — N o n e of the above ///  12 12  [21) Is Withdrawn  1 2 3 1 2 3  —  \l  Sils or stand* in one position lor a It in'nod Ot time IWs nuthinc but M I and watch others I alls asleep m a chair Lies on the floor all (lav Does not seem to react lo anvlhmg Other i specify ) -None of the above  J 2 3 1 2 3  Interrupts groun discussion bv talkme aoout unrelated tooics Disruots games bv refusing I O I O H O W rules Disrupts grouD activities bv making loud noises or bv acting up Does not sta\ m seat during lesson period. lurtth period or other group sessions Other (specify j — None ol the above Total  ll'KAW  \W\ Is Inactive  3 k  1171 Misbehaves in Croup Settings 0  Will  1 2 1 2 1 2  -12.  i_ .  (  WITHDRAWAL  O  1 2 1 2  V/. STEREOTYPED AND ODD  • - None ol Ihe above  |19| Lies or Cheats  14  BEHAVIOR MANNERISMS  (23) Has Stereotyped Behaviors  Twist* the truth to own advaniaee Cheats tn games, lests, assignment* etc lies abou! situations Lies about self Lies about others Other (specify _None of the above  IV. UNTRUSTWORTHY  >  BEHAVIOR  Drums fingers Taps Taps leet leet continuaHv it / * ^ \ *Has hands hand' tonsianUv in mm ion pr rubs sell continually { ) Slaps scratches, scr, I* Waves nrshakes pans of the body reiKMledly Mnv*«s or rolls head Iva* k and lonh Horks f»»K back and innh f*a*«-s Ihe floor Other |st"-cifv 1 Non« oi in* asove u  ] 1  :  C  *PP  18-1*)  ] 2  ToUl  3 u j-i.  - 164 -  V M W D  (24| Has Prti.fijr Posture Of Odd Mannerisms itniriv h.Mil tilled Sn- wdh knees under chin \\ all> on 11men"' Lies on Unor with tret up m the »ir Watte with, lingers in ears or with hands on hparf Other isp*oH j None of the above V/. STEREOTYPED AND  W  /  ODD  i'NA< ( I 1'IAHLI OR I CCCNIRIC hlABITS  1 1 1 1  2 2 2 2  :«o  BEHAVIOR,  INTERPERSONAL  [25] Has Inappropriate interpersonal Manners  it  a #  VII.  D Q  INAPPROPRIATE MANNERS  UNACCEPTABLE  VOCAL  1  unpleasant noises  k k k k  1 2 1 2 1 2 ] 2  3 3 3 3  1 2  3 k  Drools Grinds teeth avidibtv *M)ils on the floor Hues Imgernaik ("hews or suck* fingers or other parts nl the biidv C'ht-ws or sucks clothing or other inedible*. Eais ined'ble* Onnks trom toilet stool Put s evervt hing in moot h Other (st«-i itv 1 — i .— • None of the above  Tears otf buttons or uppers Inappropriately removes shoes or socks L'ndresse* at the wrong times 1 akes off all clothing while on the toilet Tears off own clothing Hefuses to wear clothing Other (siw, .fy j e ol the above  :0  Repeats a word or phrase over and over ] 2 3 k Mimics others speech 1 2 3 k Other ispecifv ) _I 2. 3 k — - None of the above Total VIII. UNACCEPTABLE HABITS  12 3 k 12 12 J 2 1 2 _1 2  s u a u 3 z 3  1  2  :  2  1 2 i  2  1 2  3 u 3 !• 3 k 3  1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 J 2 3  l»| Removes or Tears Off Own Clothing  HABITS  (26) Has Disturbing Vocal Or Speech Habits ^ CiCgle- hvsieni.ilkTalks lourtlv or yells a: others Talks IO sell loudk * Lauflhs inappropriately * Makes growling Kummmc. or other  12 3 u 22 3 u  128} Has Unacceptable Oral Habits  Talks too close to others' laces Blows on others laces Burps at others Kisses or licks others Hugs or squeezes others Tnui hes others inappropriately Hangs on to others ana dn*« not lei go Other (tpeofv i -None of the above  INTERPERSONAL  -  12 3  e  MANNERISMS  'APPROPRIATE MANNERS  Habit i  Smells everythinc In.ipprripriaielv stufts ihing* in pockets shirts dresses or shoes full* threads out ot own clothing Plavs with things ts. is wearing, eg . shoe Mrmg. buttons etc Saves and wears unusual articles, e g safety pins, bottle cans, eit Hoards things, including toocts Plays with spu , Plavs with feces or urine Other (spec its ) -None of the above  1 2 1 2  1  Y M V D  12"! Has Strange And Unacceptable  1 2 1 2  a  1 2 1 2 1 2  VOCAL  is  - 165 -  Y  J.ini Ha» (Mlter I ,.<•.•!•» and Tendencies  M  W  Ml  D  E K ov-rK ii.miMil.tr ,ir...,,i pl.i. .-, :  Stand* tr .1 l.ivn-ilr M*H c h In Ht-r -it Sit* i>s .inytliiui; Mi.il \ rlu.iit". I* .llr.iirl it> i limfi stair* fir tn C" Or**", not «.mi m lie ton. herf S( ream* it I Our. hen Other | srw-r itv ______ r«one ol the above  l\.  UNACCEPTABLE ECCENTRIC  1 2 12 1 2 12 1 2 12  i  3 u 3 4 3 u 3** 3 i* 3 t.  0"  BEHAVIOR  2  3  2  3 *  2 2 2 2 2 2  3 u 3 L u 3 b 3 i.  2 2  3 U 3 k  3 U  o  t-\\t()h-  1.1.11 Engage* in iiuppronriaie Masturbation  Y  M  W  D  12  3  1.  1 2  3  1 2  3  ;0  i L1.  L  ENTER •  BEHAVIOR  TENDENCIES  Talks e«cessivelv Will not Sit still tor am length nf time Const ant h runs Or lumps around the room or hall Moves or fidgets constantly Other | specify ) ______ None of Ihe above  Is se«uallv attracted to members of Ha* approached others and attempted homoseiual act* Has engaged m homoseiual aeiivitv Other (spectts ! • oi the above  12 12  3 3<*  O  Is overlv seduciive m appearance or art inn* Hug* or caresses too intensely in pubhr Needs watching with regard to *eiual behavior Lifts or unbuttons others clothing-to tOt«h intimate's Ha* sexual relations m public places K overly aggressive seiually I las raped Olhprs Ueasik taken advantage ol sexually Other [specify ) ______ None of Ihe above t  X//. S E X U A L L Y TENDENCIES  1 2  3 U  12  3t.  O  12 3 1. 1 2 _3_ u  "- o 1 2  3 «.  1 2  3 L  V  '  [Hi $>>ual Behavior That Is Socially Unacceptable  \Z2] Has Hyperactive Tendencies  16  I  135 [ Has Homoseiual Tendencies  31  X I . HYPERACTIVE  lil  Expose* rvod*. unnecessary atter using toilet Stand* m pubhr place* with pant* down or wilh dress up F":»rx>*#* hody esressivr-K dunnc activities, e C . playing, dancing, sitting, etc Undresses in public places, or in tront ot lighted windows Other (speeds 1 -None of the above  OR _ HABITS  S'les Or tuts sell * Slap* or sir ike* sell * Banc* heart or other pan* oi the tyirtv against ohiects Pull* own hair ears, eu Scratches or picks sell causing miur\ Soils and smears selt Purposely provoke* abuse trom other* Picks at an* sore* he mighi have Pokes obiects in own ears. eves, nose or mouth Other (specify 1 • of the above  HYPERACTIVE  h'KAKt  isiurli.iii' nfn-nk M.lslurl.ali-* in Ir M.lsUirtl.iU's in gr t Kher isiiei its -Non* of the above  {311 Does Physical Violence to Self  X/  Mil  134] Et poses Bodv Improperly  X. S £ L F - A S 0 ' S / V £  X. SELF-ABUSIVE  MM-A/M  HJI.'I*  E  N  ,  E  R  i  ABERRANT BEHAVIOR  1 2  3 L  1 2  3 u  1 2 1 2  3 3  12  3  12 12  3". 3 "  :0  1"  - 166 -  .XI//. I'M ( / /{ 1/ Ol.K M  /HS/I'KH \M I >. <4J!  [37] Tends to Overestimate Own Altiliiie* Drw* not r.nocni/" Own limitation* Has too Inch an .ipiniiiii ol -.'ll Talk* alxM.it luiun' plan* th.ii H f unrc.iliMK  Other (iin-cit\  i  Y M W  1 2 1 2 12 1 2  D  - < •(H[ if.iiii-> .ilmul nil,mm.H ^ | liis .<!  3 u <§ 3 i* 3** 3  -  • of the above  O  Does not talk when corrected * Withdraw* or pout* when cnuci/^ri @ // ABecome* upset when criticized ^Screams and crie* when corrected Other (specif* i  it *  I 2 1 1 1 1  2 2 2 2  • of the above  [39] Reacts Poorly lo Frustration  Ai i- ». k alter illnwNs i* nu-i ' )tlwr (spfl ilv t  -None of ihe above  Blames own mistake* on other* ithdraw* or pouts when thwaned I? it' become* upsei when thwaMer; // AThrows temt>er tantrum* when doe* not gel own wa> Other (specify ]  3 u 3 b  1 2 1 2 1 2  3  1 2 1 2  * 3 1 3 *  U  1 2  3 U  1 2  3 L * 3 1 3 u 3 1.  1 2 1 2 1 2  i  o  None of the above  Mil.  PSYCHOLOGICAL  - None of Ihe above  DISTURBANCES  1401 Demands Excessive Attention or Praise  \IV. 1 1 1 1 1  2 2 2 2 2  USE OF  MEDICATIONS  144) Use of Prescribed Medication •* V ,  >  / '  ' 'l>"'"''  ,r ,l,  U V I MfUlV.'S  HnlrmnviiKflrit druEi \limuliintv  1 2 1 2 1 2  -Noo* oi thf above  141J Seems To Feel Persecuted Complain * of unfairness, even when eoual shares or privilege* have b Complains, "Nobods loves me" Savs. "Everybody picks on me ' Savs. "Peopietalk about me Savs. "'People are against me' Acts suspicious of people Other (specify \ ______ None ol the above  1 2 3 k  Changes mood withnut apt>areni reason Complains ot bad dream* On-* Out while asleep Cries tnr no apparent reason S«t'ms to have no emotional control Vnmil* when upset Apiieflrs insetu'e or frightened m daih anivines Talks about people or tilings that 1 .IUN alxiiii SUM I Lis martf an attempt at suit irir It her !s|Mi iiv 1  (3 //  (3 §  Wants excessive pra<se Is tealoiis nt attention given to ethers Demands excessive r?assuran«e ^Kcts sillv to gain attention Other I spec its I None ol the above  U  1 2 1 2  1431 Has Othrr Signs of Emotional Instabilities  (38j Reacts Poorlv lo Criticism @  Y M V D  M . I N ltt|HHlH»idr....al 1 ••n<ti-i.< ie*  \/V USt 0!  MEDICATIONS  o  ENTER  o 17  - 167 -  APPENDIX E  -  168 -  TABLE E l Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP:  Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev R  2  R  l  R  2  Aggression  subtest R  i  R  r  (1) (2)  P  t o t a l test  2  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .16  .17  .36  .37  .28  .37  .42  .39  84.5  83.5  2  .20  .24  .40  .43  .61  .64  .54  .51  80.4  76.3  3  .28  .25  .45  .43  .59  .52  .43  .48  72.8  25.3  4  .34  .31  .48  .47  . .52  .58  .51  .49  66.0  69.1  5  .16  .23  .36  .42  .30  .27  .32  .34  84.5  77.3  6  .05  .07  .22  .26  .26  .34  .37  .34  94.8  92.8  7  .08  .05  .28  .22  .07  .05  .13  -.03  91.8  94.8  Items scored  0 - behavior  not problematic  1 - behavior  problematic  TABLE E2 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP: Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev  R  2  R  l  R  2  S e l f -Abusive (1) (2)  subtest R  l  R  2  r  P  t o t a l test R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .20  .20  .40  .40  .59  .34  .41  .29  80.4  80.4  2  .09  .09  .29  .29  .12  .46  .28  .28  90.7  90.7  3  .07  .08  .26  .28  .23  .29  .20  .35  92.8  91.8  4  .03  .04  .17  .20  .16  .10  .21  .11  96.9  95.9  5  .02  .03  .14  .17  .12  .06  .06  .09  97.9  96.9  -  169 -  TABLE E3 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP:  Damaging Property  (1) (2) ...  Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev.  R  2  R  l  R  2  r  r  subtest l  R  R  2  t o t a l test R  l  R  \  P  2  R  l  R  2  1  .23  .23  .42  .42  .40  .44  •27  .46  77.3  77.3  2  .08  .10  .28  .31  .26  .64  .29  .52  91.8  89.7  3  .12  .08  .33  .28  .32  .27  .34  .30  87.6  91.8  4  .03  .03  .17  .17  .15  .35  .34  .49  96.9  96.9  5  .06  .05  .24  .22  .34  .51  .28  .35  93.8  94.8  6  .01  .02  .10  .14  . 15  .15  .27  .12  99.0  97.9  7  .06  .01  .24  .10  .23  .26  .22  .25  93.8  99.0  TABLE E4 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP: Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev.  R  2  R  l  R  2  r  R  Poor Coping w i t h F r u s t r a t i o n  _ subtest  l  R  2  r_ ^ , _ t o t a l test R  l  R  2  (1) (2) P  R  l  R  2  1  .17  .22  .37  .41  .39  .52  .37  .56  83.5  78.4  .2  .06  .13  .24  .34  .45  .57  .34  .50  93.8  86.6  3  .36  .30  .48  .46  .62  .49  .69  .60  63.9  70.1  4  .14  .16  .35  .36  .35  .39  .29  .42  85.6  84.5  5  .05  . 10  .22  .31  .50  .52  .36  .40  94.8  89.7  6  .37  .40  .49  .49  .62  .41  .62  .51  62.9  59.8  7  .10  .13  .31  .34  .37  .55  .34  .48  98.9  86.6  8  .04  .10  .20  .31  .42  .55  .36  .44  95.9  89.7  9  .27  .22  .45  .41  .43  .46  .59  .50  73.2  78.4  10  . 12  .05  .33  .22  -.26  -.06  -.07  .01  87.6  94.8  - 170 TABLE E5 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP:  Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev.  R  2  R  l  R  S o c i a l Aggravation  'subtest  2  l  R  total  R  2  R  (1) (2)  test  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .06  .12  .24  .33  .36  .51  .39  .55  93.8  87.6  2  .08  .13  .28  .34  .35  .50  .43  .58  91.8  86.6  3  .14  .13  .35  .34  .48  .32  .58  .41  85.6  86.6  4  .28  .31  .45  .47  .36  .52  .46  .56  72.2  69.1  5  .11  .24  .32  .43  .41  .56  .41  .55  88.7  76.3  6  .04  .06  .20  .24  -.08  -J.05  .03  .05  95.9  93.8  TABLE E6 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP:  Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev.  R  2  R  l  R  2  S t e r e o t y p i c Manners (1) (2)  r , subtest R  l  R  2  r  , t o t a l test R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .23  .22  .42  .41  .42  .44  .19  .31  77.3  78.4  2  .06  .12  .24  .33  .26  .21  .29  .24  93.8  87.6  3  .05  .09  .22  .29  .20  .30  .04  .20  94.8  90.7  4  .06  .09  .24  .30  .21  .12  .30  .24  93.8  90.7  5  .14  .18  .35  .38  .20  .39  .10  . 12  85.6  82.5  6  . 12  .13  .33  .34  .16  .09  .24  .16  87.6  86.6  - 171 -  TABLE E7 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP:  Mean Item  R  l  Standard Dev. R  2  R  l  R  2  Uncooperative (1) (2)  r  r subtest l  R  R  2  P  subtest R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .47  .41  .50  .50  .49  .53  .63  .58  52.6  58.8  2  .13  .26  .34  .44  .51  .66  .53  .46  86.6  74.2  3  .19  .17  .39  .37  .47  .48  .51  .31  81.4  83.5  4  .17  .34  .37  .48  .33  .51  .44  .29  83.5  66.0  5  .07  .08  .26  .28  .05  .07  . 15  .05  92.8  91.8  TABLE E8 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP:  Standard Dev.  Mean Item  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  1  .06  .10  .24  .31  2  .01  .02  .10  . 14  3  .04  .02  .20  4  .05  .12  .22  Toilet  r  R  Related  r  subtest l  R  2  (1) (2)  total R  l  P  test R  2  R  l  R  2  .16  .20  .16  .11  93.8  89.7  -.03  -.07  .29  .01  99.0  97.9  .14  .20  .22  .20  .06  94.9  97.9  .33  .51  .19  .12  .28  94.8  87.6  - 172 -  TABLE E9 Item A n a l y s i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the MBP:  Mean Item  Standard Dev.  r  subtest  P  t o t a l test  V  1  .03  .02  .17  .14  .17  .09  .12  .10  96.9  97.9  2  . 10  .07  .31  .26  . 18  .26  . 17  .21  89.7  92.8  3  .18  .16  .38  .36  .36  .44  .23  .34  82.5  84.5  4  .20  .25  .40  .43  .43  .45  .14  .24  80.4  75.3  5  .08  .03  .28  .17  .04  .04  .30  .01  91.8  96.9  R  l  R  R  l  R  2  r  l  R  2  Sexual (1) (2)  R  l  R  2  R  l  R  2  -  G.-::iyUi. !  173 -  - :;Aua\?mr-,  Piums  BiviAViO'ii?  .RESIDENT 1W.Z:  AZZk OF ?.ATT"~:  i  I Month  I  HARD  SCHOOL  carTTrr  MALADAPTIVE BEHAVTCU?  I  Aggression to Others .  Self-Abusive  n'TF.?.7Frmor! i HEED |j  t  2  a ts 1 o  a  I X  +  2  i  X  +  2  i  X  2  3  3  0 *  A* *  *  I Oar.agins Property Poor Copir.g *..ith Frustration @ * -  j PRIORITIES  I  3  i  3  R2C?.T'<TTC*IAL  .  t03LE-: SEVERT.  1 1 1  1  VOCATTCTAL  OVERALL  1 1  -  I ' , Year  i D-".y  1  <  1  m  X  2  +  1  L  1  X  -  L  1  X  -  I.  1  X  -  1  X  1 /.  |  1  OF ?.ATP'.-,:  FIRST  DA—  tr to P  £  i  !  P  X r-i  Si  °J  7  6  7  6  5  u  3  2  |7  6  5  u  3  2  7  £  5  L  •a  2  2  X [ \ X 1 i i x ; !  -  Social. Aggravation Stereotypic Manners I Uncoooerativ;  i  X  +  2  i  X  +  •>  @*  *  Other  3  2  2  2  (not computed)  U  *  @*  ; Toilet/2.iraination  <•  i  X  i  X  i  X  +  X  +  +  *  > 1  X  -  1  X i  7  6  -  7  £  i  U 3  2  5  U  3  2  X  5  x  i  1  X  -  7  6  5  u 3  2  x ;  i  1  X  -  7  6  5  L  3  2  X  1  X  -  7  6  5  U  3  2  X  7  6  5  U  3  2  X  *  L.  1  x  03-3-nHTS: @ • item to subtest correlations that met the .40 discrimination index * - items that fell within the .15 to .85 difficulty range  -  174 -  i SPECIFIC - MAIAKuPTI/S DSHAVIOUH ?HO.:itAK  r.OFJLS  RESIDENT H»'S: DATE OF RATING: 1 I I I Month Day AREA OF RATING: WARD ca-j-inrrTY  I I I Year  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RiCFEATiaiAL _  OVERALL  TYPE OF AGGRESSIVE l-iALADAPTTVE BEHAVIOUR  CHECK OFF ('-/) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED A3 PROBLEMATIC  Uses Hostile language toward others (sviears, curses, etc.) Threatens others irith nlv/sieal harm (verbally, physically) »  ; f  Pushes or shoves others around  ['  Strike:; out at others (hits, kicks, slaps, head butts, etc.)  \ ! «1 5 !  Msuls others (bites, oinches, scratches, gr?sr.s, etc.)  If * a a * n  n *  3  f * *  Uses objects as weroons against others (throws at, hits with) Other:  @ • item to subtest correlations that met the .40 discrimination index fl - item to total test correlations that met the .40 discrimination index * » items that fell within the .15 to .85 difficulty range  - 175 -  . I I  SPECIFIC - ttttJUMPTPTS i'W WTQUP. P HOG OAT. rFJFtLS RESIDENT NAME: DATS OF RATING: 1  I  Month AREA OF RAT PIG: WARD COMMUNITY  I  I  Day  Year  SCHOOL  I  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL y  TYPE OF SELF-ABUSIVE MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  PROBLEMATIC Use of hands, legs and feet (slapping, poking, hair nulling, pinching, scratching, picking)', kicking — — —  .  Ijse of mouth and vocal cords (biting, sucking, fl screaking until hoarse). I 1 ft ^Jse of objects (hits, pokes, cits, aggravates skin 1 pr throws oneself or banjs one's head arainst an object). | 1 - ....... ~ 1 :rposeiy provokes abuse frcr. others. pther (specify)  !  CHECK OFF ( \/) . THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS  (? # * ?  -  176 -  J11 STtcmn - f.XMMPTiy-. PRnwww RESIDENT KAKE: DATE OF RATI NO:  I • I , Month Day  AREA' 0? RATTiJG: HARD  | , | Year  SCHOOL  COS-rjinTY  WIPSTTOK.-.T  >tr»'~»T  OVERALL  |  |j CHECK OFF ( >/) j THE AP.EAS WHERE j THE PERSON'S || BEHAVIOUR IS ! n„Au„D AS J PROBLEMATIC ;  TYPE OF PROPERTY DAMAC-TJ.'O MALADAPTIVE HffltVTfun? . DESTRUCTIVE TO 7;Td PROPERTY (rips, chews, soils, breeds, etc., own clothinj and/or personal possessions)  1  « # *  DESTRUCTIVE TO OTHER'S PROPERTY jl (rips, chews, soils, breaks, etc., other's clothing and/or personal possessions) DESTRUCTIVE TO FURiriTURE 1 (kicks, mutilates, knocks down, takes ap?rt, etc., bureaus, j tables, beds, chairs, etc.) j DESTRUCTIVE TO A?P_A:!C?S I (fiddles with, takes apart, breaks, etc., T.V., phor.o-jrach, I toaster, coffee maker, etc.) ' j DESTRUCTIVE TO 0.1LDIMG |i (breaks windows, pulls drapes, writes on or peels walls, i! stuffs toilets, etc.) »' ATTEMPTS OR SETS FIRES OTHER:  i  | j l  ll  ? II  i  1  * I.  -  177 -  SPECrFFC - ::/,UmiTI¥E M:-aiAVTf)Ui! V&r,\uz- pij.HU RESIDE;.'? DATS  HAKE:  OF RATING: |  | | i | | 1 Month D-.y Year  AREA OF SATING: WARD COIMUNTTY  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL  | 'i ij TYPE OF POOR COPING WITH FRUSTRATION MALADAPTIVE j  { CHECK OFF ( / ) ] THE ARE,\S i-r RS '• r~ orpine " [ BEHAVIOUR IS J REGARDED AS F, PROBLEMATIC jr  BSHAVXOU?.  TO CORRECTION OR CRITICISM 3Y WITHDRAWAL (poutr, does not ta?k, beccmes mcc'y, rtrys apart from others)  IREACTS  3  1  9 f*  REACTS TO CORRECTION OR CRITTCIS: 3Y EXCESSIVE COMPLAINING | (argues about fairness, blanes others, claims to be picked on ete.;j  ^ "  REACTS TO CORRECTION OR CRITTCIS-: BY TANTRUf-CNG (yells, cries, screa-is, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.)  a It *  REACTS TO PROHIBITIONS, OPPOSITION, OR RESTRICTIONS BY WITHDRAWAL (pouts, does not talk, becomes moody, stays apart from others etc) REACTS TO PROHIBITION, OPPOSITION OR RESTRICTIONS BY EXCESSIVE COMPLAINING (argues about fairness, blames others, claims to be picked on etc)  ft * ? it  REACTS TO REDHIBITION, OPPOSITION OR RESTRICTIONS BY TANTRUMNG \ (yells, cries, screams, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.) )  Q}*  REACTS TO INTERRUPTIONS OR INTERFERENCE OF ACTIVITIES BY WITHDRAWAL (pouts, becomes moody, silent, stays apart, etc.)  @ ft  REACTS TO INTERRUPTIONS OR INTERFERENCE OF ACTIVITIES BY EXCESSIVE COMP LATHING (argues about fairness, blanes others, claims to be picked on etc)  a it  REACTS TO INTERRUPTIONS OR INTE^SRENCE OF ACTIVITIES BY TANTRUMNG (yells, cries, screams, bsnjs things, stamps feet, etc.)  a It *  OTHER  -  178 -  STBClFrS - KALAUAPTTVK OTOAVTOUit PHCKIA!' PilOFCL!" RSSIDSrT KAKEJ  DATS OF RATING: L  1 J Month  AR3A OF RAT1K5: WARD CC* n"JMI TY  i 1 I 1 Day Year SCHOOL  VOCATTOliAL  F?:ns-iTTOMiT.  OVERALL  TYPE OF AGGRAVATING SOCIALfcAUDA?TIVSBEHAVIOUR  / I  CHECK OFF ( V ) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  DB-SAirSlb OTHERS OUT OF SPITE CR I-aSCKIEVOUSMESS (taunting, teasing, making fun of, telling exaggerated stories j about, gossiping about others)  fl  j MAKIPULATKSG OTHERS TO GAIB OSS! EiiDS OR CAU333 0TH5R3 HAB! (tells others what to do, demand: service from othpr-.-,, causes fights among others, sets others up for trouble, etc.)  ?  | DISRUPTING OTOKS ACTIVITIES i (always in the way, upsets others work, knocks rbout articles others using, snatches things from others, etc.) V5XATE1G TO OTHERS I!! VOCAL HA3IT3 (makes irritating ncises, talks too loud, mimics others, laujjhs or giggles inappropriately, etc.) l VEXATIT.'G TO OTHERS IK II-'TERPERSOnAL HA3ITS I (talking or standing too close to others, excessive touching ! or hanging onto others, hugs, kisses or squeezes others, b;rps or blows at others, etc.) OTHER  It  II  (3 /(  % II *  u 1 ! a  if *  *  - 179  StiStHC -;j'..l)AJnVr: ngiSVIW! J>;,v"i;i;.V ,  ,  y  M | . K  F]I ;  RESIDENT HAT'S: DATE OF RATu-iG! [ AREA OF RATING: SAKS  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  OVERALL  ocnuniTY  CHE OK OFF ( /) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S EEHAVT0UR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  TYPt OF SioRSCTYPICAL MALADAPTIVE sffiHiVTOn*  REPETITr/E/RITJ.ALISTIC 503? MOVE'Ei.TS  i  i (boar racking, hea-.: Keevi-. , hand flashing, finger motions tics, pacing patterns, etc.) s  rZPETITiVE/xTTUALIiTIC IWIIWiLATKil' OF OBJECTS (Tvd.rii.-ir shiny objects, t:~stin- string, shaking, objects for sound, st-o':inr, etc.)  |  in'* °  R£?aTI?IvViHTlUilSTIC "C.'--:!!",; f.F -3JECT3 (sue!:? finders, chevs clot'--.ng, l i r : objVots, ctr.) ;  1  HOARDS PARTI CJ.V-.l 03 7AP.107S O-JRTTS (stuffs itens Ln clothes, "rr*s r ) ;, :v  ldr3  -.mus-.'! it.-nj )  f  ADOPTS PE-1TAR 70S-.RTS '= ^ArAfC O'L.'i: PLACES TV' F.-rAJTSir (walks or. toes, tilts held, v.-:i>-, -.,1th Jwnrf on hp-nd, st--nd^ by f.'vonte s-ot, sits by anyt.lrn- th.-t. vibr-.tes, etc.) OTHER  *  1  1  - 180 -  RESIDES?  i'A'iE:  DATS OF RATING: 1  1  I  Itonth AR5A OF RATIiW: WARD  I  |  |  toy  fear"  SCHCCL _ _ VOCATIONAL  CO;-!UI!ITY  RCCREATIONAL  OVERALL _  TYPE OFra{cop?s?.vrT_vjKAUBtfrm  CKiCK OFF ( •/)  !  THE AREAS WHERE TH-. P S S S X ' S BEHAVIOUR IS  BEHAVIOUR  :  i  REGARDED AS  PROBLEMATIC  1  Does not respond to revests (does the opposite, ignores it, hesitates, refuses, etc.).  3  Uncooperative <n Group Situation (ores at* sr.av in assigned place, talks about unrelated topics, does not take turns, not follow rules.)  r,  fcr.cocperetive in a one-to-one situation (n:es not stav m seat, throws objects, does not nsy attention, etc.").  — — —  Other (specify)  •——  .  t  *  <? # *  jNot reliable to follow rules or cirry cut resnor.riiiUi'ir-- I Kneecs to be reminded or corrected often, fails to return ,on tine, late, leaves without perrissicn, " t c . 1 . 1  t*  .  1  j  I  i i  \  at*  t i  - 181 -  VII] SPECIFIC - KALADAPTIVS B'-JIAVIOUP, PROG R A," PROFITE RESIDENT NAME: , DATE OF RATTflG:  _1_  I lonth  AREA OF RATD.'G: WARD COMHUKITY  Day  J  l'ear  SCHOOL  VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL CHECK OFF ( THE AREAS VJHSRS THE PERSOiC'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC  TYPE OF SEXUAL KALADAPTIVZ 23L'.?X0aa  lilasturbates i n p u b l i c ( i n d i v i d u a l l y or with others jopenly) (Inappropriate homosexual behaviour (engages i n p u b l i c Shomoseroiai actj ppro^ches and attempts homose?^i<al acts Swith others who are e i t h e r u n w i l l i n g or defenseless). 'Inappropriate heterose.-raai a c t s , (hugs or caresses inter.sej l y , removes o t h e r ' s c l o t h i n g to touch i n t i m a t e l y , has raped pothers, has had se:cial r e l a t i o n s i n n u b l i c . )  L  -e_;r:oses s e l f unnecessarily (undresses i n Public p l a c e s , • u i f t s dress u? a f t e r usinj; the t o i l e t walks i n t o a L i v i n g Sarea vrithout f u l l y r e d r e s s i n g . ) \ T  \  jOther (specify)  ;  •  -  182 -  iX SPECIFIC: -  Ksjparr  ADAPTIVE  'itiHAVTfHir. -ximiiA'f  pwwnz  SAJIE^.  DATE OF RATPIG: 1 | Month AREA OF RATING: HARD OOftiUHITy  I | [ j Dny year SCHOOL VOCATIONAL  RECREATIONAL  OVERALL  TYPE OF TOILET RELATED MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR  CHECK OFF ( v ) THE AREAS V/HERE THE PERSON'S i BEHAVIOUR IS j REGARDED AS I ."KDilLE-IATIC j  |  Use of toilet (drinking from it, washing in i t , '• sticking head in i t or plugging it). Feces (eliminating on the floor despite the fact the individual is toilet trained completely or to a routine; eating, smearing, digging, etc., feces whether trained or not). Urine (urinating r>r th» floor, ir. radiators, etc., or while still clothed despite the feet thr Lndiviriur.l is toilet trained either completely or to a routine). Other  9  - 183 -  Maladaptive  Behavior P r o f i l e  A d d i t i o n a l Items  Aggressive Self-Abusive P r o p e r t y Damage Damage t o Communal Property Poor Coping w i t h  Frustration  Crys or becomes a g g i t a t e d f o r no apparent  reason  S o c i a l Aggravation Unacceptable  Oral Habits  (drools, grinding teeth, s p i t t i n g ,  r e g u r g i t a t i o n , p l a y i n g with s a l i v a , e t c . ) S t e r e o t y p i c Mannerisms O r a l Behaviours  (chewing motion, tongue p r o t r u s i o n , h y p e r v e n t i l a t e s ,  swallows a i r , e t c . ) Uncooperative Toilet  Related  Sexual Other Untrustworthy  Behaviour  ( l i e s , cheats, s t e a l s , e t c . )  Excentric Habits Eating  ( s p i t t i n g food out, s t u f f i n g  food i n mouth, eats with  mouth open, p i c k s food o f f f i n g e r s , p i c k s food o f f f l o o r , e t c . ) Activity  level  Withdrawn, F i d g i t s , Hypocondrial  Tendencies  Hyperactive  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055732/manifest

Comment

Related Items