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.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

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 i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (FACULTY OF EDUCATION) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA OCTOBER 1981 0 JOANNE MARIE GARDNER, 1981 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 DE-6 (2/79) ABSTRACT Since 19 73, Adaptive Behavior has been recommended by the American Association of Mental Deficiency as an important measure for 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 the use of maladaptive behavior measures to improve further this c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n . However, problems result when attempting to assess maladaptive behavior. The AAMD Behavior Scale Part II (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 recently developed scale, has no v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y information. The purpose of this study was to attempt to increase the r e l i a b i l i t y of the ABS Part II by modifying the scoring procedure. For example, the terms "none", "ocassionally", and "frequently" were replaced with "none", " d a i l y " , "weekly", "monthly", "yearly". The second purpose of this study was to estimate the r e l i a b i l i t y of the MBP along with attempt-ing to assess i t s v a l i d i t y . Also, the items of both scales were analyzed to provide further suggestions for modifications to the scales which w i l l serve to enhance t h e i r u t i l i t y . F i n a l l y , this study attempted to estimate the relationship maladaptive behavior (as measured by ABS t o t a l scores) had with placement, i n t e l l i g e n c e , length of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , sex, age, and etiology. A sample of 97 mentally retarded ambulatory adults residing i n an i n s t i t u t i o n were assessed using the ABS Part II (modified) and the MBP. Two raters familiar with the i n d i v i d u a l subject independently completed both scales. A sample of 32 subjects, selected from the 97 i n sample 1, had the o r i g i n a l ABS Part II rated independently by two additional raters. Observations were conducted on these 32 subjects i n an attempt to validate the findings with the MBP. Biodemographic information (age, sex, etiology, etc.) was obtained from the resident's f i l e s . The results of this study revealed 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 modified version and a .448 i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t for the o r i g i n a l ABS. A rather low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .336 (severity) and .324 (Intervention) was found for the MBP. The item analysis information for the ABS modified and o r i g i n a l and MBP revealed that many of the items were not discriminating among the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d adults i n the sample. Because of the low in t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the MBP and the Behavior Observation Checklist, a predictive c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y study was not conducted. However, a content v a l i d i t y summary provided guidelines for modifying the scale. Reason for admittance and placement were the only two biodemographic variables that reached s i g n i f i c a n c e when correlated with Maladaptive behavior. In conclusion, the modifications made to the ABS Part II greatly enhanced the r e l i a b i l i t y . The MBP, while s t i l l i n the experimental stages, needs further modifications made to format, scoring, and the item pool i n order to 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 i n s t r u -ment. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract L i s t of Tables Acknowledgement Chapter I Introduction 1 Statement of Problem 1 Background of Problem 3 Statement of Research Questions 6 Hypotheses 7 Summary 8 II Review of the Lit e r a t u r e 9 AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale: Psychometric Problems 10 AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale: (modified) 12 AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale: Interpretive Problems 13 Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e 13 III Method 17 Description of Population 17 Sampling Procedure 17 Description of Samples 22 Sample 1 22 Sample 2 22 Purpose of Raters 22 Selection of Raters 24 Sample 1 24 Sample 2 24 V Measuring Instruments 24 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 Analysis 32 Biodemographic Data Analysis 32 Item and Test Analysis 32' Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y 33 Interobserver Agreement 33 V a l i d i t y 34 Correlational Study 34 IV Results of Analysis 35 ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l 35 Item Analysis 35 Test Analysis 39 ABS Part II (modified) 43 Item Analysis 43 Test Analysis 47 Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e : Severity 51 Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e : Intervention 57 Test Analysis: MBP 65 Behavior Observation Checklist 65 V a l i d i t y of MBP 68 Correlations of MB with variables 68 Age - 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 v i Sex 68 Etiology 68 Reason for Admittance 70 Level of Retardation 70 Summary 72 V Discussion 74 AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale: R e l i a b i l i t y 74 Increasing the U t i l i t y of the ABS 76 Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e : R e l i a b i l i t y 76 V a l i d i t y 76 Content V a l i d i t y of MBP 77 Advantages of MBP 77 Disadvantages of MBP 77 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 for Admittance 81 Recommendations 81 Behavior Observation Checklist 81 Modifications to ABS 82 Improving MBP 83 References 85 Appendix A 88 v i i Appendix B 123 Appendix C 129 Appendix D 148 Appendix E 167 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Ambulatory Information for 304 Permanent Residents 18 2 Lodges D i s t r i b u t i o n for 157 Ambulatory Residents 18 years of Age and Over 20 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of 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 Description of Raters (1) 25 6 Description of Raters (2) 26 7 Estimated Testing Time for Data C o l l e c t i o n 1 27 8 Estimated Testing Time for Data Co l l e c t i o n 2 29 9 Behavioral Observation Outline per Subject 31 10 Percentage of items within each domain that met the .40 discrimination c r i t e r i o n for item to domain and item to t o t a l test c o r r e l a t i o n by rater 36 11 Percentage of items within each domain that had 15% to 85% of the subjects within the correct response for both raters . 38 12 Correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II O r i g i n a l (1) 40 13 Correlations among Domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II (Original) (2) 41 14 Test analysis information for Domains of the ABS (Or i g i n a l ) , Part II (1) 42 15 Test analysis information for Domains of the ABS (Original), Part II (2) 44 16 Summary of ABS (Original) Part II Test Analysis 45 17 Percentage of items within each domain that met the .40 discrimination c r i t e r i o n for item to domain and item to t o t a l test correlations: by rater 46 i x 18 Percentage of items within each domain that had 15% to 85% of the subjects within the correct response range for both raters 48 19 Correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II (modified) (2) 49 20 Correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II (modified) (1) 50 21 Test analysis information for domains of the ABS (modified), Part II (1) 52 22 Test analysis information for domains of the ABS (modified), Part II (2) 52 23 Summary of ABS (modified) Part II Test Analysis 53 24 Subtest information for the MBP: Severity by raters 53 25 Test analysis information for MBP: Severity (1) (2) 55 26 Correlations among subtests of the MBP: Severity Rater 1 55 27 Correlations among subtests of the MBP - Severity Rater 2 56 28 Correlation between raters of severity for each subtest 56 29 Subtests analysis information for MBP: Intervention (1) (2) 58 30 Test analysis information for MBP: Intervention (1) (2) 60 31 Correlations among subtests of the MBP Intervention Rater 1 60 32 Correlations among subtests of the MBP: Intervention, Rater 2 61 33 Correlation between Raters of Intervention for each subtest 61 X 34 Correlations between Severity and Intervention for each subtest (1) 62 35 Correlation between Severity and Intervention for each subtest (2) 62 36 Percentage of items within each domain that met the .40 discrimination c r i t e r i o n for item to domain and item to t o t a l test correlations: by rater. 64 37 Percentage of Items within each subtest that had 15% to 85% of the subjects within the correct response range for both raters 64 38 Test analysis information for the subtests of the MBP (1) (2) 39 Test analysis information for MBP Raters (1) (2) 40 Percent agreement between observers for the Behavior observation Checklist 67 41 Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n between maladaptive behavior and age and IQ for R^, R 2 69 42 Oneway analysis of variance p r o b a b i l i t y for maladaptive behavior and the l i s t of variables for R^, R^, and raters combined 69 43 Average ABS (modified) maladaptive behavior scores for each lodge for R^  and . R 2 71 44 Average ABS (modified) maladaptive behavior scores for reason for admittance 71 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank the following people for the contributions they made to my thesis: Dr. Julianne Conry, Chairperson of the Thesis Committee, for the assessment s k i l l s she helped me develop, and her continuing support and advice throughout the study; Dr. Robert Conry, member of the Thesis Committee, for his assistance with the analysis and interpretation of the data; Mr. Bob Poutt, member of the Thesis Committee, for his encouragement Mr. Hayes and the s t a f f and residents of Glendale Lodge for th e i r cooperation; Dr. Bernice Seyfort, psychologist at Glendale, for her advice and support; and Ms. Susan Mongrain, psychologist at Woodlands, for her continued assistance and encouragement. Thanks to the Education Research Service Centre s t a f f for the seemingly endless hours they suffered through. Special thanks to Dr. Buff Oldridge for the tra i n i n g I received, and the time he unbegrudgingly gave me. Thanks loads to Ivy for typing the thesis along with her encourage-ment and humor. Thanks to my cohorts Jeanine and Geoff for giving new meaning to the team approach to learning. - 1 -INTRODUCTION The American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD; Grossman, 1973) defines mental retardation as: s i g n i f i c a n t l y subaverage general i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning existing concurrently with d e f i c i t s i n adaptive behavior, and manifested during the developmental period (p.148). Grossman (1973) goes on to define adaptive behavior as: the effectiveness or degree with which the i n d i v i d u a l meets the standards of personal 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 his age and c u l t u r a l group (p.122). Although the term maladaptive behavior does not appear i n the actual d e f i n i t i o n of mental retardation, P h i l i p s (1967) concluded that i t i s uncommon for a mentally retarded c h i l d to present "no emotional maladjustment" (p.29). Nihira et a l ; (1975) adds that when planning programs for the retarded person, both adaptive behavior and maladaptive behavior should be c a r e f u l l y considered. Foster and Nihir a (1969); Gully and Hosch (1979); Roszkowski (1980); Spreat (1980) a l l document the effectiveness of including maladaptive behavior along with adaptive behavior i n optimizing discrimination i n c l a s s i -fying mentally retarded subjects. According to Congdon (1973), maladaptive behavior i s an important measure to be used for psychological reports, transfer and placement screening, s t a f f i n g , and gathering information on resident behavior. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The d i f f i c u l t i e s of including maladaptive behavior i n program develop-ment stem from the problems i n assessing i t . The AAMD has sponsored the construction of a scale (viz. AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale) for assessing adaptive and maladaptive behavior. Part I of the scale, which mainly - 2 -evaluates adaptive behavior, has a recorded i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .86. Part II of the scale deals with Personal Maladaption and i s not as r e l i a b l e , for the manual records the mean in t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t as .57. One factor that may contribute to this low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y for Part I I , according to Nathan, Millham, C h i l c u t t , and Atkinson (1980) i s each rater has a personal reaction toward the subject that w i l l influence his ratings. Also, raters and informants have varying opportunities to observe the subject. Marks and Rod-Mark (1980) quote a study by Hays and Marks (1980) where a poor co r r e l a t i o n between observed behavior and maladap-tiv e behavior as measured on Part II of the ABS was found. According to Ir v i n e t . a l . (1979), some domains have too few items serving, possibly to lower the r e l i a b i l i t y . One of the goals of this study i s to increase this r e l i a b i l i t y s t a t i s t i c by modifying Part II of the scale. Although i t i s important to improve the scales presently i n use, i t i s also important to support the construction of new measurement devices. The Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e (MBP) i s a new scale that has recently been constructed; however, no r e l i a b i l i t y or v a l i d i t y studies have been con-ducted. Thus, this study w i l l also be concerned with estimating the u t i l i t y of t h i s scale. A promising function of this scale over the ABS Part I I i s the addition of a p r o f i l e for determining the subject's behavior programming p r i o r i t i e s . When prevention, intervention, and program planning are being examined, other factors i n addition to the relationship adaptive behavior has to mal-adaptive behavior should be considered. For example, Eyman et a l . , (1977) examined the relationship between behavior problems and sex, age, and l e v e l of retardation. Their study "confirmed a much higher 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 higher prevalence of behavior disorders occur i n those people with a more severe l e v e l of retardation (Eyman e t . a l . , 1977 ; Schroeder et a l . , 1978 ). Behavior problems were also found to be more prevalent among residents who were i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d longer (Schroeder, 1978). F i n a l l y , Eymen et a l . , (1977) found more retarded males with maladaptive behavior than females. Other variables such as age and etiology may prove to be related to maladaptive behavior. Edgerton, (1979) summarized: "Those people who were i n an i n s t i t u t i o n appear to have been so placed because of behavior problems: restlessness, hyperactivity, temper tantrums, tendencies to harm themselves, running away, destructiveness, violences, sexual delinquency" (p.41). Therefore, t h i s study w i l l also attempt to estimate the relationship maladaptive behavior has with age, etiology, i n t e l l i g e n c e , length of i n s t i t u -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 for admittance and sex. BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM The incl u s i o n of adaptive behavior i n the d e f i n i t i o n of mental retardation has spurred considerable controversy. Many authors support the i n c l u s i o n of a comprehensive diagnosis (Grossman, 1964; MacMillan et a l . , 1972; S a t t l e r , 1974; Wilson, 1972). However, others (Benedict, 19 72; Clausen, 1972) are s t i l l questioning the u t i l i t y of adaptive behavior i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of mental retardation. While Benedict (1972) questions the value of "supplement-ing, a less 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 on the IQ with an even more vague and less 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 p r i n c i p l e " ( v i z . , adaptive behavior), Clausen (1972) reacts more strongly by contending that the addition of adaptive behavior to the d e f i n i t i o n "introduces an - 4 -element of s u b j e c t i v i t y which i s detrimental to work i n the f i e l d " (p.52). He adds that one of the major problems with this d e f i n i t i o n i s the lack of adequate instruments for measuring adaptive behavior. One of the most popular adaptive behavior scales used today i s the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale (ABS). The authors of t h i s scale (Nihira et a l . , 1975) have added a t h i r d dimension to Grossman's 1973 d e f i n i t i o n of Mental Retardation: Personal/Intra-Maladaption. Items that measure Intra-Maladaption are included i n Part II of the ABS. These include 265 q u a l i t a t i v e descriptions of personality and behavioral disorders which are "relevant to the c r i t i c a l demands of the retardate's s o c i a l environment" (Nihira, 1973, p.870). However, Nihi r a (1973) adds that "the p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of Intra-Maladaption as an independent dimension" (p.877) i s questionable since Intra-Maladaption factors strongly load with Personal Independence. On the other hand, in the ABS Manual, Nihir a (et a l . , 1975) concludes that: "If,the main range of an individual's adaptive d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n Part Two, t h i s disturbance may well be the reason for f a i l u r e i n phases of Part One, and i f the indications of emotional disturbance, etc., derived from Part Two can be brought under control, i t i s possible that the Part One p r o f i l e w i l l also change as a result of that intervention" (p.40). This implies that the strong relationship between Personal Independence and Intra-Maladaption requires further investigation i f prevention and/or decreasing maladaptive behavior are the goal. A major problem with the ABS Part II i s rather low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s . In the 1975 Manual, Nihi r a et a l . , (1975) shows the r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging from .37 to .77 with a mean of .57. Mongrain (1975) hypothesizes that these low r e l i a b i l i t y estimates of the ABS Part II r e s u l t from: - 5 -lack of operational d e f i n i t i o n s of behaviors, (and) the ambiguity of c r i t e r i a for assessing the frequency of occurrance of behaviors, (p.187) For example, the terms "Occasionally" and "Frequently" are used as estimates of the frequency of s p e c i f i c behavior problems. Raters were found to d i f f e r considerably i n t h e i r i n t erpretation of these terms (Mongrain, 1975). This ambiguity adds s u b j e c t i v i t y to the scale. Before t h i s scale can be con-sidered an objective 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 with the ABS and other behavioral assessment tools i s that data from them do not specify programming p r i o r i t i e s . "The purpose of the active diagnostician, however, i s to categorize mentally retarded i n d i -viduals i n such a way as to point to appropriate remediation" (Blackman, 1972, p.69). The ABS Manual does state that a l o g i c a l step a f t e r assess-ment i s behavioral programming, followed by remediation. Likewise, Scheeren-berger (1975) speaks of the importance of establishing 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 limited when compared to c r i t i c a l programs which have to be developed and implemented" (p.218). The ABS was designed to describe and evaluate behaviors. Program-ing p r i o r i t i e s can be developed from the information that has been recorded on the scales p r o f i l e sheets. This programing procedure as outlined by Nihi r a et a l . , (1975) i s as follows: 1. "Determination of i n d i v i d u a l needs as they relate to community and agency needs; 2. Establishment of p r i o r i t y rankings of sets of behaviors which require 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). Unfortunately, the ABS doesn't incorporate measures into the scale that w i l l make p r i o r i t i e s for behavioral management more evident. If programing - 6 -p r i o r i t i e s are the aim, perhaps i t i s time to look towards scales that are 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 too l to aid in the process of deciding upon goal p r i o r i t i e s i n behavior management" (Woodlands, 1979, p.2). The purpose behind t h i s scale i s to c l e a r l y i l l u s -trate programing p r i o r i t i e s . This scale has just recently been developed; hence, no descriptive, r e l i a b i l i t y , or v a l i d i t y studies have been done. Scheerenberger (1974) stated that p r o f i l e s of this type can be used by administrators as accountability measures as well as a method of communica-tion. He concludes that: "the most e s s e n t i a l ingredient f o r e f f e c t i v e communication between administrator and s t a f f i s a common understanding and acceptance of goals which they are mutually attempting to r e a l i z e . 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 objectives"(p.4). It i s the purpose of this study to increase the r e l i a b i l i t y and subsequent-ly improve the u t i l i t y of one of the most common behavior rating scales, the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale Part I I . This scale has been widely used for program planning and evaluation of maladaptive behaviors of mentally retarded people. Also, this study proposes to estimate the u t i l i t y of a newly devel-oped scale, the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e . The purpose of th i s scale i s to outline behavior goal p r i o r i t i e s for the mentally handicapped. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS The purpose of this study i s to answer the following questions: (1) W i l l the r e l i a b i l i t y of the ABS Part II increase i f i t i s modified so that the ambiguity 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 Scales Part II and the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e ? (3) What i s the v a l i d i t y of the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e ? (4) W i l l there be a relationship between maladaptive behavior as measured by the ABS Part II (modified) and the MBP and: a) placement of the retarded person ( i n s t i t u t i o n versus group home), b) measured i n t e l l i g e n c e , c) length 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 for admittance. HYPOTHESES The following hypotheses were formulated: (1) the r e l i a b i l i t y of a modified version of the ABS Part II w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased over the published version; (2) there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and placement of retarded people; (3) there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and i n t e l l i g e n c e ; (4) there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship betwen maladaptive behavior and length 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 and age; (6) there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and sex; - 8 -(7) there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and etiology. SUMMARY When assessing behavior problems i t i s c r u c i a l that v a l i d and r e l i a b l e tools be used. Unfortunately, Clausen's (1972) concern that there are no adequate assessment tools appears j u s t i f i e d , for the mean i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a -b i l i t y on the ABS Part II i s reported as .57, and has been attributed to the ambiguity of the frequency terms. The assessment, however, i s only the beginning stage, for programing p r i o r i t y p r o f i l e s such as the MBP, must be developed to give v a l i d and r e l i a b l e estimates "of a person's maladaptive behavior in such a way that p r i o r i t i e s are more evident" (Woodlands, 1979, p.2). Once the p r i o r i t i e s are s p e c i f i e d , programing can be implemented that w i l l eventually lead to remediation. F i n a l l y , by measuring the relationship maladaptive behavior has with placement, IQ, length of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , age, sex and etiology one can look towards intervention and prevention of behavior problems i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d mentally retarded subjects. - 9 -CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE According to Grossman and Rowitz (1974), a change in the care and services for the mentally retarded (M.R.) came about i n the early 1960's. Retarded people were no longer regarded as incapable beings, but rather individuals with a need for development. The major area of focus was behavior problems, because of high incidence i n this population. Thus, a surge of behavior modification programs resulted. Program planners were inundated with private and f i n a n c i a l support. Grossman et a l . (1974) added that by the l a t e 1960's, " i t became necessary not only to plan programs but to show that evaluation of these programs was occurring" (p.9). Clark (1969) concluded that while program evaluation was a major decisive factor in e f f e c t i v e planning, so were adequate measuring instruments for behavior assessment. Program evaluators not only had to contend with u t i l i z i n g behavior scales, but by the 1970's, according to Grossman et a l . (1974), f i n a n c i a l support began to dwindle. Consequently, program accountability was a f a m i l i a r key phrase, and program planners became concerned with the cost of intervention and intervention p r i o r i t i e s . With the need for specifying p r i o r i t y behaviors for intervention purposes, the 1970's brought continued concern regarding the u t i l i t y of existing scales for accurately assessing behavior problems. Many authors (Berdine, W. et a l . , 1977; Bhattacharya S., 1973; I r v i n , L., et a l . , 1979; Schachler, M., et a l . , 1978; and J. Taylor, 1976) set out to study these scales i n the hope to develop better behavioral assessment tools. I r v i n et a l . , (1979) concluded that the problems with rating scales include low r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Generally the u t i l i t y of these scales was under scrutiny. - 10 -The 1980's finds us in the position of developing and improving r e l i a b l e measures .that w i l l adequately assess the individual's behavior and hence allowing us to move toward e f f e c t i v e behavior programming. AAMD ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE: Psychometric Problems The ABS i s a behavior rating scale used primarily i n i n s t i t u t i o n s for the mentally handicapped. It can also be used for emotionally maladjusted and developmentally disabled individuals as well. This scale consists of two parts. The f i r s t part assesses personal independence and w i l l not be dealt with i n this study. Part Two of the scale was developed to measure personal and s o c i a l maladaption. This section of the scale " i s the product of extensive survey of the s o c i a l expectations placed upon retarded 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" (Nihira, et a l . , 1975, p.7). The following 14 domains are included i n this section: I. Violent and Destructive Behavior (Vio.Des.Beh.) II. A n t i s o c i a l Behavior (Anti.Soc.Beh.) III. Rebellious Behavior (Reb.Beh.) IV. Untrustworthy Behavior (Untrust.Beh.) V. Withdrawal (Withd.) VI. Stereotyped Behavior and Odd Mannerisms (St.Beh.O.Man.) VII. Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners (Inapp. Inter.Mai VIII. Inappropriate Vocal Habits (Inapp.Voc.Hab. IX. Unacceptable or Eccentric Habits (Unacc.Ecc.Hab.' X. Self-Abusive Behavior (Self-Ab.Beh.) XI. Hyperactive Tendencies (Hyper.Tend.) XII. Sexually Abherrant Behavior (Sex.Ab.Beh.) XIII. Psychological Disturbances (Psych.Dist.) XIV. Use of Medications (Use.Med.) (Nihira et a l . , 1975, p.7) The domain "Use of Medications" i s hardly a maladaptive behavior; however, the authors contend that this domain provides information on how a person i s adapting to his environment. The domains of Part Two are a l l scored by the same method. The rater decides whether or not the subject displays the l i s t e d behaviors under each domain. If the subject does display the behavior outlined, the rater must then decide whether i t occurs "occasionally" or "frequently". "'Occasionally' s i g n i f i e s that the behavior occurs once i n a while, or now and then and 'frequently' s i g n i f i e s that the behavior occurs quite often, or ha b i t u a l l y " (Nihira et a l . , 1974, p.11). The following i s an example of a subdomain and i t s items: Demands Excessive Attention or Praise Occasionally Frequently Wants excessive praise 1 2 Is jealous of attention given others 1 2 Demands excessive reassurance 1 2 Acts s i l l y to gain attention 1 2 Other (specify): none of above Total (Nihira et a l . , 1974, p.17) Both Bhattacharya (1973) and Mongrain (1975) concluded that this scoring method i s arb i t r a r y . Mongrain (1975) found raters to overlap considerably i n their d e f i n i t i o n s of the terms "occasionally" and "frequently" For example, the raters scoring item eleven (uses Profane or Hostile Lan-guage) were found to overlap completely i n the scoring c r i t e r i a . Their - 12 -interpretations for "occasionally" ranged from one incident per day to one every four years. However, the raters who selected "frequently" ranged from one incident per day to two per month in t h e i r interpretations. While Mongrain (1975) found only one of the forty-four subdomains to overlap completely there were twenty-six with some overlap and only eight with no overlap. With this arbitrariness i t i s no wonder the r e l i a b i l i t y of Section Two i s low. Bhattacharya (1973) recommended introducing a 5 point scale with "clear-cut c r i t e r i a for each point" to r e c t i f y this a r b i t r a r i n e s s (p.27). His suggestions were incorporated into the modifications made on the ABS i n this study. Another problem with the ABS that may contribute to the subdomains being represented unequally, i s described by Mongrain (1975): The subtests of this scale are of unequal length; and items use d i f f e r e n t scales. For example, individuals can obtain scores of 0-10 for the item " i s withdrawn or shy". For the item "seems to f e e l persecuted" scores range from 0-14. Thus this pin-pointing of target behaviors i s d i f f i c u l t . (p.185) AAMD ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE (MODIFIED) As with the o r i g i n a l scale, the raters are to select the statements that are representative of the subject's behavior. However, instead of c i r c l i n g "occasionally" or "frequently" the raters select yearly (Y), monthly (M), weekly (W), or d a i l y (D). The raters are to leave the i n -d i v i d u a l item uricircled i f the behavior does not occur. If none of the behaviors occur i n the subdomain the rater i s again instructed to check "None of the above". This 5 point scale was developed to increase the r e l i a b i l i t y of this instrument. - 13 -The following i s an example of the scoring modifications: Demands Excessive Attention or Praise Y M W D Wants excessive praise 1 Is jealous of attention given others 1 Demands excessive reassurance 1 Acts s i l l y to gain attention 1 Other: (specify) 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 None of above Total (modified from Nih i r a et a l 1974, p.17) AAMD ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE: Interpretive Problems Because t h i s scale purports to be useful for program planning and evaluation, i t i s important for one to be aware of the problems that may arise when interpreting scores from behavior p r o f i l e s . For example, upon completing Part Two of the ABS, one obtains a p r o f i l e of an individual's maladaptive behavior. Programing p r i o r i t i e s may not be a function of frequency of maladaptive behavior. For instance, a person on occasion may "choke others".; however he may have a high incidence of drooling and n a i l b i t i n g . Thus he would receive a high p r o f i l e peak for "Unacceptable or Eccentric Habits" and a lower score for "Violent and Destructive Behavior". Which behavior, however, i s i n greater need of remediation? MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR PROFILE The purpose of this scale i s not to give a detailed account of the individual's behavior, but to outline goal p r i o r i t i e s for behavior programing. The authors of this scale conclude that: - 14 -As the P r o f i l e i s therefore nothing more than organized subjective evaluations of broad classes of behavior, the user should recognize that i t can not substitute for precise and objective measurement i n behavioral programing. (Woodlands Psychology Dept., 1979, p.2) The domain of this p r o f i l e includes: Aggression (Aggres.) Property Damage (Prop.Dam.) Poor Coping with Frustration (Poor Cope.Frus.) Social Aggravation (Soc.Agg.) Stereotypic Mannerisms (St.Man.) Uncooperative (Uncoop.) Self-Abuse (Self-Ab.) Sexually Inappropriate Behavior (Sex.Inapp.Beh.) Inappropriate T o i l e t Related Habits (Inapp.Toil.Rel.Hab.) Other (Other) (Woodlands Psychology Dept., 19 79, p.2) The f i r s t step towards completing this scale i s to decide the problem severity (severe, moderate, mild or none) for each broad class of behavior. The next step i s to decide how c r u c i a l i t i s to eliminate this behavior. If a behavior interferes with the individual's learning or disturbs others from learning then i t would have an immediate intervention need. On the other hand, an i n d i v i d u a l may possess severe behavior problems that do not i n t e r f e r e with h i s learning. In this case the rater may decide the i n t e r -vention need i s eventual or unnecessary. To obtain a person's i n d i v i d u a l programming p r i o r i t y , one only has to sum the "severity" and "intervention" need score to receive a programing rank. An example of this procedure follows: - 15 -Problem severity Intervention Programing P r i o r i t i e s M Aggression to others ti + 3 2 1 X 4 1 X = 7 6 5 4 3 2 X moderate Immediate 2nd P r i o r i t y The authors of this p r o f i l e have also included " S p e c i f i c Maladaptive Behavior P r o f i l e s " that r e l a t e to each of the 10 broad behavior categories. If an i n d i v i d u a l receives a p r i o r i t y i n the f i r s t to s i x t h category then the rater completes a s p e c i f i c p r o f i l e for each of the categories with .this ranking. This w i l l allow program planners to specify the behavior goals. Some possible advantages of the MBP are that each general behavior ( i . e . , aggression, property damage, etc.) i s treated independently and the s p e c i f i c items within each category are not added to equal a t o t a l score. Bhattacharya (1973) concluded when reviewing the ABS that the additive method i s subject to skepticism since no relationship has been determined between the domains or items. A possible disadvantage of the MBP i s that i t s degree of s u b j e c t i v i t y i n rating problem severity and intervention need may r e s u l t i n a low r e l i -a b i l i t y s t a t i s t i c . Also, the system of adding severity and intervention scores to equal programming p r i o r i t i e s has questionable v a l i d i t y . F i n a l l y , as with the ABS Part I I , the domains are not composed of an equal number of i terns. In conclusion, the aim of this project i s to study the u t i l i t y of the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale, Part Two, and the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e . Hopefully, the changes made to the ABS w i l l allow 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 scale for assessment of the mentally retarded individual's maladaptive behavior. A r e l i a b l e assessment i s the basis upon which program planning and evaluation are b u i l t . Likewise, the - 16 -Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e w i l l be studied to determine i t s effectiveness i n o u t l i n i n g goal p r i o r i t i e s for the mentally retarded i n d i v i d u a l . In summary, the ABS has come under attack i n recent years because of the concern for more e f f e c t i v e program planning and evaluation. The main concerns for Part Two of the scale have been the low r e l i a b i l i t y s t a t i s t i c and programing weaknesses. Hopefully by taking Bhattachary's (1973) suggestion and increasing the scoring c r i t e r i a to a 5 point scale, the problems with the r e l i a b i l i t y w i l l decrease. However, when deducing an individual's behavior intervention p r i o r i t i e s from the p r o f i l e , consider-ably more work w i l l have to be done to solve the problem of the unequal lengths of the subdomains and weighting of problem areas. - 17 -CHAPTER III METHOD This chapter defines the population and describes sampling procedures. The purpose of raters i n the study and how they were selected i s outlined. Measuring instruments are also described using a step procedure as i t related to the data c o l l e c t i o n . F i n a l l y , methods of analyzing the data are presented. DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION The population involved i n this study consisted of the residents of Glendale Lodge, an i n s t i t u t e for the mentally handicapped located i n V i c t o r i a , B.C. Two hundred and eighty permanent residents l i v e within the 13 lodges of the i n s t i t u t i o n and 24 residents l i v e i n a large group home (Lodge 14) separated from the main f a c i l i t y . The people i n the group home were transferred from the i n s t i t u t i o n approximately 2 years ago. SAMPLING PROCEDURE The following i s a l i s t of the sampling procedures. 1. It i s important that the population from which the sample was selected be accurately defined. A survey sheet presented i n Appendix A was completed to gather biodemographic information about the population. Information on lodge by sex, and ambulation co l l e c t e d on this population are presented i n Table 1. 2. A l l the independently ambulatory males and females 18 years of age and older were sampled from the o r i g i n a l 304 individuals i n the population. Table 2 i l l u s t r a t e s the lodge placement and sex r a t i o of the 157 residents who q u a l i f i e d for this sample. TABLE 1 Ambulatory Information for 304 Permanent Residents Lodge Total 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 TOTAL 304 115 55 66 68 - 19 -3. Because the relationship between maladaptive behavior and i n s t i t u t i o n a l -ized versus group home residents i s to be investigated, the sel e c t i o n of the sample must represent these 2 groups. A l l of the residents from Lodge 14 (group home) were selected with another 40 males and 40 females randomly selected from the remaining 157 subjects. As can be seen i n Table 2, Lodges 3. 5, 7, and 13 had too few subjects for a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study, thus, they were excluded from the sampling. Table 3 shows the 103 subjects sampled for this study. 4. Incidents of observed maladaptive behavior were to be used i n a p r a c t i c a l c r i t e r i o n v a l i d a t i o n of the MBP and ABS Part II (modified). Because there were too many subjects i n sample 1 (103) to make 4 hours observation on each subject, a smaller sample of 32 was selected. The number 32 was chosen because Borg, et a l . , (1979) stated that " i n c o r r e l a t i o n research i t i s generally desirable to have a minimum of 30 cases" (p.195). 5. There were 3 sampling methods considered for sample 2. These included: (1) randomly selecting 32 subjects from sample 1 and using 2 raters to evaluate a l l 32. The problems with this s e l e c t i o n procedure i s that the raters are assigned to one lodge; therefore they are not adequately familiar with the behavior of residents on other lodges to complete the ABS Part II and MBP. The advantage of this method i s that i t would eliminate most of the rater v a r i a b i l i t y . (2) randomly selecting 32 subjects from sample 1, but have 2 raters for each of the lodges represented i n this sampling. This would mean a maximum of 14 raters might be required. Error attributed to rater v a r i a b i l i t y would be too large to j u s t i f y using this procedure. (3) f i n a l l y , the method chosen was to select the three lodges (within the main i n s t i t u t i o n ) with the most representation. Table 3 reveals that TABLE 2 Lodge d i s t r i b u t i o n for 157 Ambulatory Residents 18 Years of Age and Over Lodge Total 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 TOTAL 157 101 56 TABLE 3 Di s t r i b u t i o n of Males and Females i n SAMPLE 1 Lodge Total 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 TOTAL 103 54 49 - 22 -lodges 1, 8, and 14 met this c r i t e r i a . However, lodge 14 contained 3 group homes each with i t s own raters. This would mean 6 raters instead of 2 would have been selected; thus increasing rater v a r i a b i l i t y . Lodge 10 was selected instead, because i t s frequency of representation was the next strongest. Next, 32 subjects were randomly selected from these 3 lodges i n a way that would correspond to the proportion of subjects represented i n these lodges. Table 4 i l l u s t r a t e s the proportion of subjects selected from each of the 3 lodges i n sample 2. DESCRIPTIONS OF SAMPLES Sample 1: This sample consisted of 103 ambulatory residents who were 18 years of age and over. Eighty of these subjects resided within 6 lodges of the i n s t i t u t i o n with 23 subjects l i v i n g i n a group home in 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 subjects by lodge and sex. Sample 2: Likewise, this sample consisted of 32 ambulatory residents who were 18 years of age and over. Three lodges were represented by lodges 1, 8, and 10 contained within the i n s t i t u t i o n . Table 4 indicates the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the subjects i n Sample 2. PURPOSE OF RATERS The method chosen to complete the ABS Part II and MBP was by f i r s t person assessment. Nihi r a et a l . , (1975) defines this method as: When the in d i v i d u a l making the evaluation i s both s u f f i c i e n t l y f a m i l i a r with the handicapped person involved and has had enough professional or on-the-job t r a i n i n g to judge the relevance of the scale items, the evaluator should f i l l out the scale item, himself or herself (p.10). TABLE 4 Di s t r i b u t i o n of Males and Females in SAMPLE 2 Lodge Sample 1 Subjects Total Subjects Sample 2 Males Females 1 8 10 20 18 14 12 11 9 7 0 3 5 11 6 TOTAL 52 32 10 22 - 24 -SELECTION OF RATERS Sample 1: Two raters from each of the seven lodges p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study were selected from the afternoon s h i f t (1500 hrs to 2300 hrs) of A p r i l 1980. It was important that the raters be f a m i l i a r with the subjects on th e i r lodge, so a minimum of two months lodge working experience was a s t i p u l a t i o n . Also, i t was necessary that the raters have si m i l a r t r a i n i n g , so the experimenter attempted to select Child Care Aids as raters. Tables 5 and 6 i l l u s t r a t e the Description of Raters 1 and Raters 2 respectively. Sample 2: Two Child Care Aids were selected from each of the 3 lodges represented i n this sample. These new raters were also selected from the afternoon s h i f t (1500 hrs to 2300 hrs) of May 1980. The same stipulations made for the sample 1 raters was also made for sample 2 raters; however, those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n sample 1 were not allowed to rate i n sample 2, to prevent biasing 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 test packages for each of the 103 subjects plus one t r a i n i n g package for each of the raters was used to gather information. The following materials were included i n each package: (1) subject information sheet, (2) Instruction sheet for ABS Part II (modified) and the modified AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale Part II , (3) Instruction sheet and the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e , and (4) Rater Information sheet (adopted from Mongrain, 1975). The information sheets and scales were placed in the test package envelope TABLE 5 Description of Raters (1) 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 3 F = 9 0-1 3 0-1 4 Health Care Worker I* 1 21-30 3 M = 0 4 Years College 1 1-2 1 1-2 4 Health Care Worker I I * 8 31-40 1 2 Years College 7 2-3 1 2-3 41-50 0 Elementary 3-4 i 3-4 1 r 51-60 2 Unknown 1 4-5 5- 6 6- 7 2 7- 8 8- 9 1 * Health Care Worker I * Health Care Worker II TABLE 6 Description 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 College 2 0-1 1 0-1 3 Health Care Worker I 1 21-30 7 M = 3 2 Years College 7 1-2 2 1-2 5 Health Care Worker II 9 31-40 1 Secondary School 1 2-3 2 2-3 41-50 Elementary 3-4 3-4 1 51-60 1 Unknown 4-5 1 unknown 1 5- 6 2 6- 7 7- 8 8- 9 1 unknown 1 TABLE 7 Estimated Testing Time for Data Collection 1 Lodge Subjects X Time/Test Package X Nos. Raters/Lodge = Total time (hrs) 1 20 25 Minutes 2 16.7 2 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 TOTAL 103 25 2 85.8 - 28 -in the order they were to be completed. The ABS and MBP appeared i n counter balance order. This procedure controlled for bias that might be attributed to administration order. Contents of this test package appear in Appendix A. Data C o l l e c t i o n 2, Test Package B: Two test packages for each of the 32 subjects plus one t r a i n i n g test package for each of the 6 raters were organized as follows: (1) subject information sheet, (2) Instructions and AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) , (3) Rater information sheet. An example of th i s test package i s also presented i n Appendix A. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE 1. In February, 1980, biodemographic information was collected on the 304 permanent residents of Glendale Lodge. From this population, a sample of 103 residents was selected to represent ambulatory adults of the population. Sample 2,N consisting of 32 subjects was selected from these 103 residents. 2. In March, clearance from the Human Subjects Committee was obtained. 3. Also i n March, the raters were selected. The selecti o n c r i t e r i a were as follows: (1) they must be Child Care Aid, (2) they must be working the 1500 hrs to 2300 hrs s h i f t f o r the month of A p r i l , (3) they must be presently 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 least the two previous months on the lodge they were representing. TABLE 8 Estimated Testing Time for Data Collection 2 Lodge Subjects X Time/Test Package X Nos. Raters/ Lodge = Total Time (hrs) 1 12 15 min. 2 6.0 8 11 15 min. 2 5.5 10 9 15 min. 2 4.5 TOTAL 32 15 2 16.0 - 30 -4. The t r a i n i n g of the raters for Data C o l l e c t i o n 1 began the f i r s t week of A p r i l . Each rater practiced by completing the test package on one of the residents not represented i n the sample. Time: This t r a i n i n g session lasted approximately 1 hour for each rater. Since there were 17 raters, t r a i n i n g time took about 17 hours. The raters were trained i n d i v i d u a l l y and, in a few cases, i n groups of 2. The experimenter did 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 experimenter worked on the lodges while the raters completed the scales. Time: Table 7 shows the estimated time each lodge devoted to Data C o l l e c t i o n 1. Note: the test packages took approximately 25 minutes to complete. 6. The information for Data C o l l e c t i o n 2 was collected i n May. The experi-menter again worked on the lodges while these raters completed the scales. Time: Table 8 i l l u s t r a t e s the estimated time each lodge contributed to the study. Test package B took about 15 minutes to complete per person. These 6 raters also underwent a tr a i n i n g session before they completed the scales. The experimenter also trained these raters at an estimated time of 40 minutes per rater. A t o t a l time of 4 hours resulted. 7. Behavioral observations were also conducted on these 32 subjects. This information 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 for the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) , ABS Part II (modified) and the MBP. The experimenter completed 6, 10 minute observations on 4 d i f f e r e n t occasions on each of the 32 subjects. This was a t o t a l of 128 hours of observation time. A l l TABLE 9 Behavioral Observation Outline per Subject Time A c t i v i t y Observed Nos. of observations Observation time (min.)/ observation Total Observation time/ a c t i v i t y (min.) Total observation time/ subject (min.) (hours) Dayshift 0700 - 1400 hrs. A c t i v i t y randomly selected Meal or snack 6 6 10 60 Afternoon Shift 1400 - 2300 hrs. Washroom routine 6 10 60 240 4 10 60 Structured a c t i v i -ty or free play 6 10 60 - 32 -observations took place between 0700 and 2300 hours. The observations were taken over the whole day to get a comprehensive view of the subjects behavior. Although the raters were working the afternoon s h i f t the month they rated each subject, they alternated between afternoon and day s h i f t s monthly. Thus, they were also informed of the subject's behavior over the whole day. Table 9 shows a more detailed behavioral observation outline. Since these observations were scheduled for the months of June, July, and August, the 32 subjects were each observed at equal i n t e r v a l s throughout the 3 months. 8. To aid i n the recording of observations, a maladaptive behavior che c k l i s t was developed. The domains of the MBP constitute the behavior descriptions for t h i s checklist. An example of t h i s checklist can be found in Appendix A. Method of Analysis Biodemographic Data Analysis: Sample 1, selected from the Glendale population of ambulatory adults, was analyzed to determine how representative i t was of t h i s t o t a l ambulatory adult population. The analysis program used was the SPSS (version 8.00) (Kirk, 1980), which i s supported by the Com-puting Centre at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The following variables were included i n this analysis: age, etiology, I.Q., length of i n s t i t u t i o n a l -i z a t i o n , placement, and sex. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the mean, median, and absolute frequencies were determined. This information i s provided i n Appendix B. Item and Test Analysis: The LERTAP test analysis package (Nelson, 1974) was e s p e c i a l l y designed for item/test analysis. This program, which i s available i n the Computing Centre at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, was used to analyze both the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e and the o r i g i n a l and - 33 -modified version of the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n f o r -mation to be sought from this program included: mean, range, standard devia-tion, 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 consistency and Cronbach's alpha s t r a t i f i e d . A l l e n and Yen (1979) observed that when developing a new instrument, "the test developer desires to construct a test that discriminates well among examinees with varying le v e l s of the t r a i t " (p.120). An item to t o t a l test c o r r e l a t i o n of .40, as set by Nunnally (1967), was selected as the c r i t e r i o n for discriminating versus non-discriminating items. The stringent .40 c r i -terion, also supported by Mongrain (1975), was used i n this study. Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y : Two raters per subject independently scored the items on the scales. An interscorer r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t (Pearson c o e f f i -cient) was computed between the t o t a l scores for rater 1 and rater 2 of the ABS o r i g i n a l and modified scales. This c o r r e l a t i o n was computed using the SPSS Program. Interobserver Agreement: i s a form of r e l i a b i l i t y used to determine i f the observers "watching the same behavior at the same time w i l l record the same data" (Mitchell, 1979, p.377). The interobserver agreement percentage, according to M i t c h e l l (1979), " i s the most common index of the quality of data collected i n observational studies" (p.377). The subjects selected were heterogeneous i n that t h e i r behavior d i f f e r e d considerably. According to M i t c h e l l (1979) there are problems with the interobserver agreement. For example, i t treats agreement as an all-or-none happening; thus i t can res u l t i n an underestimate of the true agreement between observers. Another problem i s that i t can overestimate the r e a l agreement when behaviors have very high - 34 -and very low frequencies. In order to give a clearer i n d i c a t i o n of observer agreement the behaviors that both observers rated as not occurring were c a l c u l a t -ed separately i n order that an agreement on the actual frequency of occurring behaviors could be computed. V a l i d i t y : The eventual method of v a l i d a t i n g the MBP depended on a number of outcomes. For example, i f the r e l i a b i l i t y of the scale i s moderately high along with a strong interobserver agreement percentage, the Behavioral Obser-va t i o n a l Checklist could serve as a p r a c t i c a l v a l i d a t i o n check against the subtests of the MBP. Because the MBP was not designed as an additive scale, i t i s not f e a s i b l e to use the ABS (which i s an additive scale) as a c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y check. The content v a l i d i t y of the MBP w i l l be discussed i n terms of the u t i l i t y of the scale, r e l i a b i l i t y , problems with administration and comments from the raters. 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 to determine the r e l a t i o n -ship maladaptive behavior has with age, etiology, IQ, length of i n s t i t u t i o n -a l i z a t i o n , placement and sex was conducted. Again the SPSS program was selected. Pearson Correlations and Oneway Analysis of Variance was used to analyze the variables to determine t h e i r relationship with maladaptive behavior. - 35 -CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF ANALYSIS This chapter provides the item and test analysis information for the ABS Part II o r i g i n a l and modified along with the MBP. Also described i s the r e l i a b i l i t y of the Behavior Observation Checklist and the v a l i d i t y of the MBP. F i n a l l y , the correlations between Maladaptive Behavior and the biodemographic variables are presented. ABS Part II (original) Item Analysis: Table CI through C12, found i n Appendix C, provide item analysis information for each of the 13 domains of the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n -al) . The 14th domain, Use of Medication, was not analyzed because the raters were not nurses; hence they did not administer medication to the subjects. The correlations between items and domains are given i n l i e u of the subtest domains to t o t a l test domain correlations, so further modifi-cations to the scale can be made by deleting items that don't discriminate among subjects. Also, these subtest domain correlations can be found i n Mongrain's (1975) study. An item to t o t a l test c o r r e l a t i o n c r i t e r i o n of .40 was set by Nunnally (1964) as showing adequate discrimination among subjects. Table 10 provides the percentage of items within each domain that met t h i s stringent .40 c r i t e r i o n . Both item/domain and item/total test correlations for both raters are given. Appendix C contains the actual c o r r e l a t i o n for each item within each domain. Also provided i n Appendix C i s the ABS o r i g i n a l with the discriminating items coded d i r e c t l y on the scale. As can be seen from Table 10, the percentage of items that correlate .40 with the t o t a l test scores varies from 0% for both raters of Stereo- typed Behavior to 60% on the Hyperactive domain for Rater 1. Note that - 36 -TABLE 10 Percentage of items within each c r i t e r i a for item to domain and domain that met the .40 discrimination item to t o t a l test c o r r e l a t i o n by rater Domain Item/Domain Item/Total Test %R^  %R-2 /oR^  /^R-2 Violent and Destructive 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 Behavior 21. 2 3.0 27.3 12.1 Untrustworthy Behavior 54. 5 72.7 9.1 9.1 Withdrawal 35. 3 52.9 17.6 0 Stereotyped Behavior 20. 0 0 0 0 Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners 25. 0 75.0 12.5 50.0 Unacceptable Vocal Habits 0 0 25.0 25.0 Unacceptable or Eccentric Habits 27. 3 21.2 33.3 15.2 Self-Abusive Behavior 30. 0 20.0 50.0 50.0 Hyperactive 60. 0 60.0 60.0 0 Sexually Aberrant Behavior 30. 0 20.0 50.0 50.0 Psychological Disturbance 12. ,2 26.8 7.3 17.1 - 37 -Rater 2 for this same domain had 0% items that met the .40 discrimination index. When considering the item to domain correlations Unacceptable  Vocal Habits was found with 0% items meeting the .40 discrimination index. However, the domain Untrustworthy Behavior showed 72.7% of i t s items for Rater 2 were discriminating at the .40 l e v e l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the item analysis information provided the percentage of subjects scoring 0 on each item i n every domain. A score of 0 indicated the maladaptive behavior i n question was not present. Thus, this was considered the correct or desired response. A l l items that had between 15% and 85% of the subjects scoring zero can be considered to discriminate adequately between subjects. Table 11 provides the percentage of items within each domain for both raters that f e l l within this 15% to 85% correct responses range. For Untrustworthy Behavior Rater 1 found 0% of i t s items within this range. When looking at the actual data on Table C4, i n Appendix C, a l l the items within this domain for Rater 1 had at least 90% of i t s subjects with a zero score. Rater 2 showing 18.2 percent of i t s items within t h i s .15 to .85 range revealed 2 out of a possible 11 items f a l l i n g within this range. However, for the domain Hyperactive, Table 11 shows that 60% and 80% of i t s items for Rater 1 and 2 respectively f e l l within this .15 to .85 range. Table C10 (Appendix C) shows that the percentage of subjects with a zero score ranged from 66.7% (item 2) to 93.9% (item 5) for Rater 1. Rater 2 had a range of 43.1% (item 4) to 100.0% (item 5). Appendix C not only l i s t s the percentages for each item of each domain, but also provides further item analysis information including means and standard deviations. - 38 -TABLE 11 Percentage of items within each domain that had 15% to 85% of the subjects within the correct response range for both raters Domain % Discriminating R l R2 Violent and Destructive Behavior 32. 3 41. ,9 A n t i s o c i a l Behavior 22. 9 37. ,1 Rebellious Behavior 27. 3 33. ,3 Untrustworthy Behavior 0 18. .2 Withdrawal 29. 4 64. ,7 Stereotyped Behavior 60. 0 26. ,7 Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners 25. 0 62. .5 Unacceptable Vocal Habits 62. 5 87. .5 Unacceptable or Eccentric Habits 27. 3 21. .2 Self-Abusive Behavior 40. 0 60, .0 Hyperactive 60. 0 80, .0 Sexually Aberrant Behavior 9. 1 1, .4 Psychological Disturbance 17. 1 29, .3 - 39 -Test Analysis: ABS Part II ( O r i g i n a l ) . Tables 12 and 13 show the correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores for Rater 1 and Rater 2 respectively. Rater 1 (Table 12) with a sample siz e of 32 had a c r i t i c a l index of .349. The correlations for domains ranged from -.24 for Withdrawal Behavior correlated with Untrust- worthy Behavior to .70 for A n t i s o c i a l Behavior correlated with Violent and  Destructive Behavior. The correlations between domains and t o t a l test scores for Rater 1 ranged from .17 for Untrustworthy Behavior to .86 for Rebellious Behavior. A l l the correlations for domain scores with t o t a l test scores reached sign i f i c a n c e at .05 l e v e l except for Withdrawal and Stereotyped Behavior and Odd Mannerisms. Rater 2 (Table 13) with a sample s i z e of 32, also with an r , . , c r i t i c a l inde of .349 showed correlations for domains ranging from -.32 for Stereotyped  Behaviors and Odd Mannerisms correlated with Untrustworthy Behavior to .69 for Psychological Disturbances correlated with A n t i s o c i a l Behavior. The range of domain scores correlated with the t o t a l test score ranged from .07 for Withdrawal to .78 for Violent and Destructive Behavior. A l l the correlations for domain scores with t o t a l test scores reached sign i f i c a n c e at .05 l e v e l except for Withdrawal and Stereotyped Behavior. This was the same as for Rater 1. The test analysis information for the domains for Rater 1 can be found i n Table 14. Information given includes mean, range, standard deviation, Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency, and standard error of measurement. The mean scores ranged from .64 (Untrustworthy Behavior) to 6.15 (Violent  and Destructive Behavior). Note that domains do not have equal numbers of items. Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency ranged from .19 (Unacceptable  Vocal Habits) to .79 (Violent and Destructive Behavior). TABLE 12 Correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II O r i g i n a l (1) Domains 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 V i o l . Des. Beh. 1.00 2 Anti-Soc. 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 6 St. Beh., 0. Man. -03 .03 .21 -.08 .36 1.00 7 Inapp. Interper. Man. .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 Self-Ab. Beh. .70 .58 .52 .01 .17 .19 .29 . 18 .65 1.00 11 Hyper. Tend. .52 .67 .58 .01 .04 .43 .48 .30 .44 .34 1.00 12 Sex. Ab. Beh. .27 .32 .36 .07 .03 .09 .29 .26 .36 .13 .37 1.00 13 Psycho. Dist. .30 .51 .51 .39 -?18 -719 .45 .32 . 12 .28 .26 .22 1.00 14 ABS Pt. II (1) .80 .78 .86 .17 .28 .39 .49 .49 .78 .71 .70 .47 .51 N = 32; r . = .349 (p - .05) c r i t i c a l ' TABLE 13 Correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II (original) (2) Domains 1 io n n n I T 1. V i o l . Des. Beh. 1.00 2. Anti-Soc. Beh. .62 1.00 3. Reb. Beh. .61 .47 1.00 4. Un. Beh. .21 .68 .25 1.00 5. With. -21 -T35 -.06 -rl4 1.00 6. St. Beh., 0. Man. .00 -r38 -09. -.32 .32 1.00 7. Inapp. Interper. Man. .47 .39 .02 .26 ^29 -04 1.00 8. Unacc. Voc. Hab. . .25 .11 .07 T17 .19 .13 .18 1.00 9. Unacc. Ecc. Hab. .50 .11 .05 T10 .07 .42 .42 .31 11. Hyper. Tend. .23 .38 .39 . 16 -16 -r20 .26 .28 1.00 10. Self-Ab. Beh. .60 .38 .35 .05 vl9 .14 .31 .49 .42 1.00 -02 .38 1.00 i 12. Sex. Ab. Beh. .40 .22 .01 .13 -10 .07 .57 .42 .43 .18 .19 1.00 13. Psycho. Dist. .40 .69 .29 .43 -06 -24 .24 .44 .25 .55 .32 .11 1.00 14. ABS Pt. II (2) .78 .69 .53 .38 .07 .09 .51 .54 .59 .69 .43 .46 .74 1.00 N = 32 ; r = .349 (p =* .05) c r i t i c a l K ' - 42 -TABLE 14 Test analysis information for domains of the ABS ( o r i g i n a l ) , Part II (1) Domains * Mean Range nos. items St. Dev. Hoyt SEM V i o l . Des. Beh. 6.15 0-23 31 5.72 .79 2.58 Antisoc. 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. Beh. 0. Man. 4.64 0-14 15 4.45 .69 2.39 Inapp. Inter. Man. 1.36 0- 6 8 1.98 .52 1.28 Unacc. Voc. Habits 2.12 0- 7 8 1.96 .19 1.65 Unacc. Ecc. Habits 4,94 0-25 33 5.61 .78 2.61 Self-Ab. Beh. 2.33 0-11 10 2.76 .63 1.58 Hyper. Tend. 1.58 0 - 6 5 2.12 .59 1.22 Sex. Ab. Beh. 1.67 0-14 22 2.78 .70 1.48 Psych. Dist. 5.85 0-15 41 5.85 .67 2.65 * The following i s an example of the score weights. 2 - Frequently 1 - Occasionally 0 - none n = 32 - 43 -This same test analysis information for Rater 2 can be found on Table 15. Here the mean scores ranged from 1.09 (Untrustworthy Behavior) to 6.41 (Psychological Disturbances). Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency ranged from .22 (Sexually Aberrant Behavior) to .77 (Withdrawal). The Summary for the ABS Part II (ori g i n a l ) test analysis information can be found i n Table 16. The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency treated each domain as a sample test from the t o t a l test and gives an average c o r r e l a t i o n between a l l sample tests. Rater 1 was found with a Hoyt of .93 while Rater 2 had .88. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the t o t a l test for Rater 1 was .82 (<*. s t r a t i f i e d ) while Rater 2 had .75 (oC s t r a t i f i e d ) . F i n a l l y , the t o t a l scores for a l l subjects and for both raters were correlated to give 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 Part II (original) the f i n a l outcome i s .448. ABS Part II (modified) The modifications made to the ABS Part II (original) included changing i t from a 3 point scale: "none", "occasionally", and "frequently" to a f i v e point scale: "none", "yearly", "monthly", "weekly", and " d a i l y " . Item Analysis: Tables Dl through D12, found i n Appendix D, provide item analysis information for each of the 13 domains of the ABS Part II (modi-f i e d ) . As with the o r i g i n a l version, the 14th domain, Use of Medication, was not analyzed. As with the ABS o r i g i n a l , an item to t o t a l test c o r r e l a -tion of .40 was used as the discriminating index. Table 17 provides the percentage of items within each domain for each rater that met this c r i -t e r i a and hence appear to discriminate between subjects i n the sample. Item to t o t a l test correlations that met the .40 c r i t e r i o n varied from 0% for both raters of Withdrawal, Stereotyped Behavior, and Hyperactive - 44 -TABLE 15 Test analysis information for domains of the ABS ( o r i g i n a l ) , Part II (2) Domains Mean Range * St. Dev. Hoyt SEM V i o l . Des. Beh. 5. 94 0 - 19 4 .44 .70 2. 37 Antisoc. Beh. 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. Inter. Man. 1. 78 0 - 9 2. .43 .71 1. 22 Unacc. Voc. Habits 3. 47 0 - 9 2. .78 .54 1. 77 Unacc. Ecc. 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. Dist. 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 (original) Part II test analysis Hoyt Strat SEM ABS Part II o r i g i n a l ( 1 )N=32 .93 .82 7.70 ABS Part II o r i g i n a l ( 2 )N=32 .88 .74 7.58 Pearson Correlation for t o t a l test scores for Rater 1 correlated with Rater 2 N = 32 r .448 (i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ) - 46 -TABLE 17 Percentage of items within each domain that met the .40 discrimination c r i t e r i o n for item to domain and item to t o t a l test correlations: by rater Domain Item/Domain % R^  % R 2 Item/Total Test % R % R 2 Violent and Destructive Behavior 18.2 61.3 12.9 32.3 A n t i s o c i a l Behavior 49.9 54.3 45.7 34.3 Rebellious Behavior 15.2 27.3 9.1 24.2 Untrustworthy Behavior 54.5 36.4 18.2 18.2 Withdrawal 35.3 47.1 0 0 Stereotyped Behavior 6.7 6.7 0 0 Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners 0 37.5 0 62.5 Unacceptable Vocal Habits 12.5 12.5 0 12.5 Unacceptable or Eccentric Habits 6.1 48.5 0 3.0 Self-Abusive Behavior 20.0 20.0 0 20.0 Hyperactive 40.0 40.0 0 0 Sexually Aberrant Behavior 4.5 9.1 4.5 0 Psychological Disturbances 46.3 48.8 22.0 17.1 - 47 -to 62.5% for Rater 2 of Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners. For Rater 1, 7 out of 13 domains did not meet the .40 c r i t e r i a . The item to domain correlations that met this .40 c r i t e r i a ranged from 0% (Inappropriate  Interpersonal Manners, Rater 1) to 61.3% (Violent and Destructive Behavior, Rater 2). The item analysis information i n Appendix D provides the percentage of subjects scoring 0 on each item i n every domain. A score of 0 was consi-dered the correct or desired response. The .15 to .85 correct response c r i t e r i a was selected as adequately discriminating between subjects. Table 18 provides the percentage of items within each domain that f e l l within t h i s correct response range. Appendix D also contains the i n d i v i d u a l items and the i r actual percentage scores along with the items coded on the actual scale. Also, additional item analysis information including means and standard deviations can be found i n t h i s Appendix. Test Analysis: ABS Part II (modified). Tables 19 and 20 i l l u s t r a t e the correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores for Rater 1 and Rater 2 respectively. Rater 1 with a sample size of 98 had a r , index at .205 for .05 sig n i f i c a n c e . The c r x t i c a l ° correlations for domains ranged from -.22 (Withdrawal versus A n t i s o c i a l Behavior) to .67 (Psychological Disturbances versus A n t i s o c i a l Behavior). A l l the correlations of domain scores with t o t a l test scores reached significance at .05 l e v e l except for Withdrawal. These correlations ranged from .15 for Withdrawal to .78 for Violent and Destructive Behavior. Rater 2 (Table 21) correlations for domains range from -.23 (Psycho- l o g i c a l Disturbances versus Stereotyped Behavior) to .71 (Psychological  Disturbances versus Untrustworthy Behavior). A l l the correlations of domain scores with t o t a l test scores reached sign i f i c a n c e at .05 l e v e l - 48 -TABLE 18 Percentage of items within each domain that had 15% to 85% of the subjects within the correct response range for both raters. Domains % discriminating % % R 2 Violent and Destructive Behavior 22. 6 25 .8 A n t i s o c i a l Behavior 11. 4 20 .0 Rebellious Behavior 18. 2 18 .2 Untrustworthy Behavior 9. 1 0 Withdrawal 35. 3 41 .2 Stereotyped Behavior 26. 7 20 .0 Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners 0 12 .5 Unacceptable Vocal Habits 37. 5 50 .0 Unacceptable or Eccentric Habits 6. 1 9 .1 Self-Abusive Behavior 10. 0 10 .0 Hyperactive 20. 0 10 .0 Sexually Aberrant Behavior 0 4 .5 Psychological Disturbance 17. 1 17 . 1 TABLE 19 Correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II (modified) (2) Domains 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. V i o l . Des. Beh. 1.00 2. Anti-Soc. Beh. .62 1.00 3-Reb. Beh. .52 .55 1.00 4. Un. Beh. .41 .58 .46 1.00 5. With. -T04 -22 .02 -.09 1.00 6 .St. Beh., 0. Man. .11 -rl4 -13 -16 .32 1.00 7.Inapp. Interper. 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. Dist. .41 .67 .60 .59 -16 -20 .40 .39 -02 .16 .21 .06 1.00 14. ABS Pt. II (2) .78 .74 .71 .55 .15 . .26 .64 .44 .54 .57 .45 .40 .68 1.00 N = 9 8 5 Critical' - 2 0 5 <P =- 0 5> TABLE 20 Correlations among domains and t o t a l test scores of the ABS Part II (modified) (1) Domains 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l . V i o l . Des. Beh. 1.00 2.Anti-Soc. Beh. .55 1.00 3.Reb. Beh. .29 .64 1.00 4.Un. Beh. .35 .63 .54 1.00 5.With. -T07 -19 -04 —19' 1.00 6. St. Beh., 0. Mad. .07 -19 -15 —19 .23 1.00 7.Inapp. Interper. Man. .42 .32 .15 .06 -06 .24 1.00 8.Unacc. Voc. Hab. .20 .45 .34 .10 -01 .20 .28 1.00 9.Unacc. Ecc. Hab. .38 .08 .01 -06 . 16 .34 .24 .29 1.00 lO.Self-Ab. Beh. .38 . 16 .05 .05 -08 .36 .29 .02 .36 1.00 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 .11 1.00 13.Psycho. Dist. .26 .62 .59 .71 -7-12 T23 .08 .15 .01 -rOO .06 .28 1.00 14.ABS Pt. II (1) .67 .77 .68 .58 .11 .20 .43 .53 .48 .36 .33 .49 .65 1.00 N = 98 ; 'critical = -205 (P =-°5) - 51 -except for Withdrawal and Stereotyped Behaviors. The test analysis information for the domains for Rater 1 can be found i n Table 21. Information given includes: mean, range, standard deviation, Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency, and standard error of measurement. The mean scores ranged from 1.41 (Untrustworthy Behavior) to 9.84 (Psycho- l o g i c a l Disturbances); however the domains do not have equal numbers of items. The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency ranged from .36 (Inapprop- r i a t e Interpersonal Mannerisms) to .86 (A n t i s o c i a l Behavior and Psychologi- c a l Disturbances). The same test analysis information for Rater 2 can be found i n Table 22. Here the mean scores ranged from 1.53 (Untrustworthy Behavior) to 10.63 (Psychological Disturbances). The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consis-tency ranged from .38 (Unacceptable Vocal Habits) to .87 ( A n t i s o c i a l  Behavior). The Summary for the ABS Part II (modified) test analysis information can be found i n Table 23. Rater 1 had a Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consis-tency of .90 while Rater 2 had .93. The r e l i a b i l i t y for the t o t a l test for 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 ) for Rater 2. F i n a l l y , the t o t a l scores for a l l subjects and both raters were corre-lated to give 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 Part II (modified) the f i n a l outcome was .706. Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e : Severity Subtest Analysis Table 24 provides mean scores, standard deviations, along with correla-tions of each subtest with the t o t a l test of "Severity" for both raters. The mean scores were calculated with a score of one (1) denoting no (none) problem severity. Also included i s the percentage of subjects receiving - 52 -TABLE 21 Test analysis information for domains of the ABS (modified), Part II (1) Domains Mean Range St. Dev. Hoyt SEM V i o l . Des. Beh. 8.37 0-38 8.47 .76 4.13 Antisoc. Beh. 7.42 0-51 11.14 .86 4.16 Reb. Beh. 7.69 0-34 7. 78 .69 4.27 Un. Beh. 1.41 0-19 3.35 .73 1.67 Withd. 6.65 0-40 8.12 .75 3.91 St. Beh. 0. Man. 4.91 0-24 5.84 .55 3.79 Inapp. Inter. Man. 1.65 0-12 2.85 .36 2.13 Unacc. Voc. Habits 4.07 0-19 4.55 .49 3.05 Unacc. Ecc. Habits 7.73 0-39 8.65 .68 4.79 Self-Ab. 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. Dist. 9.84 0-77 12.32 .86 4.56 TABLE 22 Test analysis information for domains of the ABS (modified), Part II (2) Domains Mean Range St. Dev. Hoyt SEM V i o l . Des. Beh. 7.85 0-41 8.17 .77 3.86 Antisoc. 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. Beh. 0. Man. 5.27 0-21 5.36 .42 3.94 Inapp. Inter. Man. 2.20 0-16 3.85 .63 2.19 Unacc. Voc. Habits 3.90 0-16 4.16 .38 3.05 Unacc. Ecc. Habits 9.11 0-68 10.56 .76 5.08 Self-Ab. 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 Psych. Dist. 10.63 0-66 12.99 .85 4.89 - 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 total 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: Severity by raters Mean Standard Dev. r ._ P severity Subtests R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 Aggression 2.09 2.0 i T i b 1.01 .40 .37 41.1 40.0 Self-Ab. 1.76 1.54 1.04 .94 .39 .31 58.9 66.7 Dam. Prop. 1.66 1.63 .89 .92 .46 .40 57.8 62.2 Poor Cop. Frus. 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 Toi le t /El im. 1.72 1.62 1.02 .94 . 14 .32 58.9 63.3 * 4 Severe 3 Moderate 2 Mild 1 None P score of "none" for problem severity - 54 -a score of 1 (none). As with the ABS, a correct response range of .15 to .85 was used to discriminate among subjects. A l l of the subtests reported percentages within this range. The percentages of "none" scores ranged from 24.4 (Uncooperative, Rater 2) to 75.6 (Sexual, Rater 1). The correlations between each subtest and t o t a l test of "Severity" i s also given i n Table 24. Again the c r i t e r i o n of .40, set by Nunnally (1967) as showing adequate discrimination among subjects was used. The subtests that met this c r i t e r i o n for one or both raters included: Aggression, Damages Property, Poor Coping with Frustration, S o c i a l Aggravation, Stereo- typed Mannerisms, and Uncooperative. Test analysis information for "MBP: Severity" for both raters i s given in Table 25. The scores ranged from 9 to 31 for Rater 1 and 9 to 32 for Rater 2. Note that there were nine subtests and a score of 1 referred to "none". The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency for Rater 1 was .67 and .70 for Rater 2. Correlations among the 9 subtests of the "MBP: Severity" i s given i n Tables 26 and 27 for Rater 1 and 2 respectively. Rater 1 with a sample size of 89 had a r _ . , index of .217 at .05 sig n i f i c a n c e . The subtest crxtxcal correlations ranged from -.08 (Social Aggravation vs. Toilet/Elimination) to .38 (Aggression vs. Poor Coping with Frustration; Uncooperative vs. Social Aggravation). Of the possible 36 across subtest correlations, 15 showed signif i c a n c e at .05 l e v e l . For Rater 2, the correlations ranged from -.13 (Sexual vs. Poor Coping  with Frustration) to a high of .49 (Aggression vs. Poor Coping with Frus- tration) . Significance at the .05 l e v e l was found for 52.8% of the between subtest 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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. T o i l . / E l i m . 0.15 0.10 0.19 0.03 10.08 0.12 0 .08 0.08 1.00 N = 89 r c r i t i c a l 217 (P = .05) - 56 -TABLE 27 Correlations among subtests of the MBP - Severity >Rater 2 Subtests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Aggres. 1.00 2. Self-Ab. 0.24 1.00 3. Dam. Prop. 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. Man. 0.08 0.16 0.27 0.05 0 .32 1 .00 7. Uncoop. 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 1.00 N = 89 r c r i t i c a l 217 (p 05) TABLE 28 Correlation between raters of severity for each subtest. Kendall's Tau B Significance 2-Tailed 1. Aggres. .645 < .001 2. Self-Ab. .456 < .001 3. Dam. Prop. .349 < .001 4. Poor Cop. Frus. .272 .002 5. Soc. Aggrav. .324 .001 6.: Stereo. Man. .228 .012 7. Uncoop. .275 .002 8. Sexual .249 .015 9. To i l . / E l i m . .477 < .001 N = 89 - 57 -Interrater r e l i a b i l i t y i s provided i n Table 28 for each of the 9 sub-tests of "Problem Severity". Kendall's Tau B c o e f f i c i e n t was computed because the variables were ordinal and a square table was produced. These c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from a low of .228 for Stereotypic Mannerisms to a high of .645 for Aggression. Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e : Intervention Subtest Analysis information covered i n Table 29 includes: means, standard deviations, correlations of the 9 subtests with the t o t a l test of "Intervention". For the purpose of analysis, the scoring was coded Immedi-ate (3), Eventually (2) and none (1). This was i n order to make i t an equal i n t e r v a l scale. Also included i n the analysis information was the percentage of subjects scoring "none". Again a correct response range of .15 to .85 was used to discriminate among subjects on each of the 9 subtests. I t was found that a l l of the subtests for both raters f e l l within this range. The percentages of "none" scores ranged from 25.6 (Uncooperative, Rater 2) to 81.1 (Sexual, Rater 1). Further discrimination among subjects was obtained by using the discrim-ination index l e v e l of .40. Any subtest that correlated .40 or better with "Intervention" as t o t a l test was considered as discriminating among subjects i n the sample. The subtests that met t h i s c r i t e r i a for one or both raters included: Aggression, Damaging Property, Poor Coping with  Frustration, S o c i a l Aggravation and Uncooperative. Test analysis information for MBP: Intervention i s found i n Table 30. The t o t a l scores for Rater 1 ranged from 9 to 25 and 9 to 32 for Rater 2. - 58 -TABLE 29 Subtests analysis information for the MBP: Intervention (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev. r . P Intervention Subtests R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1. Aggression 1.84 2.09 .89 1.10 .34 .40 47.8 41.1 2. Self-Ab. 1.38 1.76 .68 1.04 .39 .39 73.3 58.9 3. Dam. Prop. 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. Man. 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 Intervention 3 immediately 2 eventually 1 none - 59 -The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency for Rater 1 was .69 and for Rater 2, .70. Correlations among the 9 subtests of the "MBP: Intervention" i s given i n Tables 31 and 32 for Raters 1 and 2 respectively. The subtest correla-tions ranged from a low of -.03 (Sexual vs. Damaging Property) to a high of .43 (Uncooperative vs. Poor Coping with Frustration). Rater 1 with a sample siz e of 89 had a r . 1 index of .217 at .05 sig n i f i c a n c e . Of the possible 36 across stubtest correlations, 17 showed significance at the .05 l e v e l . For Rater 2, the correlations ranged from -.05 (Toilet/Elimination vs. Aggression) to .57 (Poor Coping with Frustration vs. Aggression). S i g n i f i -cance at the .05 l e v e l was reached for 50% of the between subtest c o r r e l a -tions. Interrater r e l i a b i l i t y for the 9 subtests of "Intervention" can be found on Table 33. The Kendall's Tau B c o e f f i c i e n t ranged from a low of .150 for Stereotypic Mannerisms to a high of .632 for Aggression. Correlations between "Severity" and "Intervention for Rater 1 for each subtest i s given i n Table 34. Kendall's Tau C c o e f f i c i e n t ranged from a low of .444 for both Stereotypic Mannerisms and Sexual Behavior to a high of .807 for Aggression. The same information for Rater 2 i s located i n Table 35. Here the Kendall's Tau C ranged from a low of .421 (Sexual) to a high of .848 (Poor  Coping with Frustration). The c o r r e l a t i o n between "Severity" and Intervention" across a l l subtests for Rater 1 and 2 i s .88 and .91 respectively. Item Analysis: Tables E l to E9, found i n Appendix E, provide detailed item analysis information for each of the 9 subtests of the MBP. As with the - 60 -TABLE 30 st analysis information for MBP: Intervention (1) (2) Rater Hoyt. SEM 1 2 69 70 1.81 1.85 *Note 3 Immediately 2 Eventually 1 none TABLE 31 Correlations among Subtests of the MBP Intervention Rater 1 Subtest 1. Aggression 2. Self-Ab. 3. Dam. Prop. 4. Poor Cop. Frus „5. Soc. Aggrav. 6. Stereo. Man. 7. Uncoop. 8. Sexual 9. T o i l / E l i m . 1 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.34 0.27 1.00 0.34 0.30 0.24 1.00 0.21 0.13 0.10 0.42 1.00 -0.02 0.34 0.16 0.27 0.39 1.00 0.26 0.22 0.10 0.43 0.32 0.14 1.00 0.16 0.08 -0.03 0.24 0.31 0.20 0.31 1.00 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.0 0.12 0.05 0.24 1.00 N = 89 " c r i t i c a l = - 2 1 7 (p = .05) - 61 -TABLE 32 Correlations among subtests of the MBP: Intervention. Rater 2 Subtest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Aggres. 1.00 2. Self-Ab. 0.21 1.00 3. Dam. Prop. 0.19 0.01 1.00 4. Poor Cop. Frus. 0.57 0.23 0.17 1.00 5. Soc. Aggrav. 0.36 0.26 0.36 0.42 1.00 6. Stereo. Man. -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 9. T o i l . / E l i m . -0.05 0.02 0.39 0.05 0.01 0.34 0.20 0.42 1.00 N = 89 c r i t i c a l = .217 (P - • 05) TABLE 33 Correlation between raters of intervention for each subtest Subtest Kendall's Tau B Significance 1. Aggres. .632 < .001 2. Self-Ab. .351 < .001 3. Dam. Prop. .361 < .001 4. Poor Cop. Frus. .332 < .001 5. Soc. Aggrav. .256 .010 6. Stereo. Man. .150 .142 7. Uncoop. .201 .041 8. Sexual .199 .067 9. T o i l . / E l i m . .435 < .001 - 62 -TABLE 34 Correlation between severity and intervention for each subtest (1) Subtest Kendall's Tau C Significance 2-Tailed 1. Aggression .807 .001 2. Self-Ab. .508 .001 3. Dam. Prop. .713 .001 4. Poor Cop. Frus. .541 .001 5. Soc. Aggrav. .667 .001 6. Stereo. Man. .444 .001 7. Uncoop. .679 .001 8. Sexual .444 .001 9. T o i l . / E l i m . .773 .001 Across a l l subtests .88 TABLE 35 Correlation between severity and intervention for each subtest (2) Subtest Kendall's Tau C Significance 2-Tailed 1. Aggression .787 .001 2. Self-Ab. .561 .001 3. Dam. Prop. .636 .001 4. Poor Cop. Frus. .848 .001 5. Soc. Aggrav. .778 .001 6. Stereo. Man .696 .001 7. Uncoop. .725 .001 8. Sexual .421 .001 9. T o i l . / E l i m . .627 .001 Across a l l subtests .91 - 63 -ABS, both o r i g i n a l and modified versions, an item to t o t a l test c o r r e l a t i o n of .40 was used as the descrimination index. Table 36 contains the percen-tage of items for each subtest for both raters that met th i s c r i t e r i o n ; and hence appear to discriminate among subjects i n the sample. The item to t o t a l test correlations that met this c r i t e r i a ranged from 0% (Self- Abusive, Rater 2; Damaging Property, Rater 1; Stereotypic Manners, both raters; T o i l e t Related, both raters; Sexual, both raters) to 90.0% (Poor  Coping with Frustration, Rater 2). Si g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b i l i t y between raters was observed. Note: The item "other" which i s the l a s t item within each subtest was included i n these correlations. None of the "other" items for both raters correlated more than .30 with the t o t a l test; thus i t was impossible f o r a subtest to have 100% of i t s items discriminating at the .40 l e v e l . The item to subtest correlations that met this .40 c r i t e r i o n can also be found i n Table 36. The percentage of items within each subtest that correlated .40 or greater with the t o t a l test ranged from 0% (Toi l e t Related, Rater 2) to 80% (Poor Coping with Frustration, Rater 2 and Uncooperative, Rater 2). Appendix E contains the actual item to domain and t o t a l test correlations along with the items coded d i r e c t l y on to the scale. The item analysis information provided the percent of subjects scoring 0 on each item of every subtest. A l l items within the correct response range of .15 to .85, and hence appearing to discriminate among subjects, can also be found i n Appendix E from Table E l to E9. Table 37 summarizes the results for each subtest providing the percentage of items within each subtest that had 15% to 85% of the subjects within the correct response range. The range was from 0% (Toilet Related, both raters) to 71.4% - 64 -TABLE 36 Percentage of items within each domain that met the .40 discrimination cri-^ terion for item to domain and item to t o t a l test correlations: by rater. Subtests Item/Subtest Item/Total Test % /a R 2 % R^  % R 2 Aggression 42. 9 42. 9 57. ,1 42. .9 Self-Abusive 20. 0 20. 0 20. .0 0 Damaging Property 14. 3 42. 9 0 42. ,9 Poor Coping with Frustration 60. 0 80. 0 30. ,0 90. ,0 Soci a l Aggravation 33. 3 66. 6 66. 0 83. .0 Stereotypic Manners 16. 7 16. 7 0 0 Uncooperative 60. 0 80. 0 80. ,0 40. 0 T o i l e t Related 25. 0 0 0 0 Sexual 20. 0 40. 0 0 0 TABLE 37 Percentage of items within each subtest that had 15% to 85% of the subjects within the correct response range for both raters. Subtests % Discriminating Aggression 71. .4 71. 4 Self-Abusive 10. .0 10. 0 Damaging Property 14. .3 14. 3 Poor Coping with Frustration 40. .0 30. 0 Social Aggravation 16. .7 33. 3 Stereotypic Manners 16. ,7 16. 7 Uncooperative 60. ,0 80. 0 T o i l e t Related 0 0 Sexual 20. ,0 20. 0 - 65 -(Aggression, both r a t e r s ) . Appendix E, Table E8 shows that the T o i l e t  Related subtest percentages ranged from 87.6 (item 4, Rater 2) to 99.0 (item 2, Rater 1); thus no item f e l l within the .15 to .85 correct response discrimination range. Appendix E also contains the MBP scale with the items coded d i r e c t l y . Test Analysis: MBP The test analysis information for the subtests for both Rater 1 and 2 i s given i n Table 38. Information given includes: mean, range, standard deviation, Hoyt estimates of i n t e r n a l consistency, and the standard error of measurement. Because the subtests do not have equal item representation, i t i s ir r e l e v a n t to compare mean scores, standard deviations and ranges. The Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency ranged from .26 (Sexual) to .78 (Poor Coping with Frustration). The summary for the MBP test analysis information i s given i n Table 39. A Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency of .84 for Rater 1 resulted, while 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 for the t o t a l test for 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 ) for Rater 2. Behavior Observation Checklist: The percent agreement between Observer 1 and the Examiner (Pair 1) and Observer 2 and the Examiner (Pair 2) for the Behavior Observation Check-l i s t can be found i n Table 40. For Pair 1, the percent agreement for the frequencies of observed behaviors was 67.0. However, when the mutually agreed upon nonobserved behaviors were included, the percent agreement for the t o t a l checklist was 90.9. Likewise for Pair 2, the percent agree-ment for observed behaviors only was 71.0; however, this agreement per-centage increased to 94.7 when the nonobserved behaviors were included. - 66 -TABLE 38 Test analysis information for the subtests of the MBP (1) (2) Mean Range St. Dev. Hoyt SEM Subtests R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1. Aggression 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 4. Poor Cop. Frus. 1.69 1.81 0 -9 0 - 9 1.88 2.15 .71 .78 .96 .97 5.. Soc. Aggrav. .72 1.0 0 - 5 0 - 5 1.08 1.35 .58 .67 .64 .71 6. Stereo. Man .67 .84 0 - 3 0 - 4 .98 1.11 .47 .50 .65 .71 7. Uncoop. 1.03 1.26 0 -4 0 -4 1.19 1.41 .61 .70 .67 .70 8. Sexual .16 .27 0 -2 0 -2 .47 .55 .38 .26 .32 .41 9. T o i l . / E l i m . .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 for the Behavioral Observation Checklist Absolute Frequency of % Agreement of Total number of Behaviors Total Behaviors Total % Agreement Observed Behaviors Observed Behaviors Observers agreed were non existent P l P2 P l P2 P l P2 P l P2 P l P2 5 i 101 67 67.0 71.0 259 297 360 364 90.9 94.7 * Pair 1 = Observer 1 vs. Examiner Pair 2 = Observer 2 vs. Examiner N = 32 subjects randomly observed - 68 -V a l i d i t y of the Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e : I n i t i a l l y i t was planned to validate the MBP against the observed behaviors recorded on the Behavior Observation Checklist; however, due to the low r e l i a b i l i t y of the MBP and the. moderate Observer Agreement Percentages, the computation of a v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t was inappropriate. A detailed discussion of the findings along with the content v a l i d i t y of the MBP can be found i n Chapter 5. Correlations of Maladaptive Behaviour with the Variables Maladaptive  Behaviour with Age: Age, when correlated with Maladaptive Behaviour (MB) had a -.165 c o r r e l a t i o n (Rater 1) and -.078 (Rater 2). Significance was not reached at the selected .05 l e v e l . Maladaptive Behavior with 10: Table 41 shows that there was a .069 cor r e l a t i o n between MB and IQ for Rater 1 and .015 correlations for Rater 2. Significance was not reached i n both cases. This indicated that the relationship between IQ and MB was i n s i g n i f i c a n t for this population. Maladaptive Behavior with 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 correlated with MB had a -.013 and -.003 co r r e l a -tion for Raters 1 and 2 respectively. Significance was not reached at the .05 l e v e l suggesting an i n s i g n i f i c a n t relationship 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 for this population. Maladaptive Behavior with Sex: Sex was a nominal scale; thus a oneway analysis of variance was performed with the results found i n Table 42. Significance was not reached at the .05 l e v e l for either Rater 1 or 2 or raters combined. Maladaptive Behavior with Etiology: Because etiology was a 9 point nominal scale, a oneway analysis of variance was selected to analyze this 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 behavior and age and IQ for R.., R„ R l R2 Age -.165 -.078 P = .055 P = .228 IQ .069 .015 P = .263 P = .445 Length of I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n -.013 -.003 P =.457 P = .489 TABLE 42 Oneway analysis of variance pr o b a b i l i t y for maladaptive behavior and the l i s t of variables for R.., R„ and Raters combined. Both Variables R l R2 Raters Sex .172 .503 .286 Etiology .449 .149 .247 Reason for Admittance .032* .442 .115 Level of Retardation .790 .156 .336 Lodge - a l l .002* .085 .032* - within i n s t i t u t i o n .001* .046* .011* * reaches significance at .05 l e v e l - 70 -ship. Table 42 shows that s i g n i f i c a n c e between MB and etiology was not reached at the .05 l e v e l suggesting t h e i r relationship was i n s i g n i f i c a n t for this population. Maladaptive Behavior with Reason for Admittance: Again a oneway analysis of variance was conducted to determine the relationship between MB and reason for admittance (3 point nominal scale). Table 42 shows that Rater 1 reached s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .032 l e v e l ; however, Rater 2 and both raters combined did not reach significance at the .05 l e v e l . Table 44 shows the average ABS (modified) maladaptive behavior scores for each of the 3 le v e l s for Reason for Admittance. For both Rater 1 and 2, the subjects who were admitted because of behavior problems had the highest maladaptive behavior scores. However, because the v a r i a b i l i t y between Rater 2 scores was not as great as was the difference between Rater 1 scores, sign i f i c a n c e was not reached. Maladaptive Behavior with Level of Retardation: Level of retardation i s a 5 point scale consisting of borderline, mild, moderate, severe and pro-found l e v e l s . However, because the borderline, mild, and moderate lev e l s had only 2.08%, 3.13%, and 9.48% of the subjects from the sample respec-t i v e l y , these three levels were collapsed into one category consisting of 14 subjects. Severe had 26 subjects followed by profound with 54 sub-j e c t s . Table 42 reveals that significance between these three le v e l s and MB was not reached at the .05 l e v e l . The v a r i a b i l i t y attributed to the d i f f e r e n t raters was not considered. As can be seen from Table 42, when the "within i n s t i t u t i o n " lodges were considered, significance was reached for Rater 1 (.001), Rater 2 (.046) and both raters combined (.011). This suggests that v a r i a b i l i t y of maladaptive behavior exists between subjects placed on the lodges within the i n s t i t u t i o n . - 71 -TABLE 43 Average ABS (modified) maladaptive behavior scores for each lodge for 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 behavior scores for reason for 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 following i s a summary of the results of the research questions asked. 1. The modified ABS Part II was found with a .706 i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t . The ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) was found with a .448 i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t compared to the .57 c o e f f i c i e n t reported i n the manual. 2. The MBP i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y for the "Problem Severity" and Inter-vention subtest was .336 and .324, respectively. 3. A v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t for the MBP was not computed due to the low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the Scale and the moderate observer agreement on the Behavior Observation Checklist. 4. The following includes a l i s t of the relationships between maladaptive behavior and i t s relationship to the biodemographic variables. a) There was a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship at the .05 l e v e l between maladaptive behavior and the lodge placement of the retarded people. b) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and i n t e l l i g e n c e . c) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and length of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . d) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and age. e) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and sex. f) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between maladaptive behavior and etiology. - 73 -g) There was a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship at the .05 l e v e l between maladaptive behavior and reason for admittance. - 74 -CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale: R e l i a b i l i t y Congdon (1973) stressed the importance of measuring maladaptive behavior f o r psychological reports, screening, s t a f f i n g , and gathering information on resident behavior. The manual for the ABS (Nihira et a l , 1975) records the mean i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t for Part II as .57. However, this c o e f f i c i e n t i s lower than the o r i g i n a l e d i t i o n 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 c o e f f i c i e n t of .67. Because no s i g n i f i c a n t changes were made to the scale (only the answer sheets and booklets were redesigned) the authors of the ABS (revised) attributed t h i s reduction to variables other than the scale i t s e l f ; for example, raters, s i t u a t i o n a l differences 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 Part II was found to have an i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .448. Reasons why this c o e f f i c i e n t was lower than that recorded i n the manual may include: 1) The raters were combined into two groups even though a d i f f e r e n t rater pair was found on each lodge. Thus, differences between rater pairs were not considered. 2) Even though attempts were made to have the rater pairs as s i m i l a r as possible, there s t i l l existed v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e i r age, years of work experience, and years of experience with the subjects they evaluated. 3) Although the rater pairs completed the scales on the afternoon s h i f t , they did not a l l work the same days or the same previous s h i f t s ; thus t h e i r exposure to the behaviors observed were not necessarily the same. Within the recording period, which lasted approximately one month, the rater pairs did not have the same amount of time to observe and work with the subjects. For example, on some lodges the s t a f f mem-bers were further assigned to work with small groups of residents and may not have been f a m i l i a r with a subject's behavior i n another group within the same lodge. Nathan, Millham, C h i l c u t t , and Atkinson (1980) concluded that raters have a personal reaction to subjects. This was observed also i n the present study. For example, some subjects and s t a f f members (raters) have personality c o n f l i c t s . Also, many raters f e l t compelled to j u s t i f y the subjects' behavior; for example, one rater commented that pacing should not be considered maladaptive because i t i s an " i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d behavior" r e s u l t i n g from the resident's environment. Other comments included "subject x i s only aggressive i f provoked by subject y, therefore he i s not r e a l l y aggressive", or "x only steals i f the o f f i c e door i s l e f t unlocked, therefore i t i s not the f a u l t of the subject but rather the s t a f f ' s f a u l t . " In t his present study r e l i a b i l i t y for the "Use of Medications" domain was not computed because the raters were not nurses; hence they were not a l l f a m i l i a r with the medications. However, the 19 75 revised ABS did include 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 c o e f f i c i e n t . Predictably, i t was also the domain with the highest recorded r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t . The sample size contained only 32 subjects unlike the standardization sample of 133. - 76 -8) F i n a l l y , there was more homogeneity introduced i n the present study because the range of subjects was reduced to include only the ambula-tory adults. Increasing the U t i l i t y of the ABS The ABS has been c r i t i c i z e d by Semmel (1972) because some items are inappropriate for i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d people. Also Mongrain (1975) added that there i s rater bias, low item discrimination, the scoring i s a r b i t -rary, the subtests are too long and s p e c i f i c , the manual does not specify the context i n which behaviors are to be observed, and there exists ambiguity with terms. It was hypothesized i n this study that by i n t r o -ducing a 5 point scoring system (Bhattacharya, 19 73) the ambiguity of the terms would be reduced and the r e l i a b i l i t y would increase. The modified ABS was found to have an i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .706, an increase from the .448 c o e f f i c i e n t obtained from the 19 75 Edi t i o n . The Hoyts i n t e r n a l consistency and Cronbach's Alpha S t r a t i f i e d were not appreciably affected. Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e : R e l i a b i l i t y While moderate i n t e r n a l consistency was found for the Severity and Intervention subtests, a rather poor i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .336 and .324 for Severity and Intervention respectively was observed. The r e l i a b i l i t y of this scale w i l l be discussed i n more d e t a i l i n the following section. Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e : V a l i d i t y The Behavior Observation Checklist was o r i g i n a l l y to be used as a predictive c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y check for the MBP. However, due to the - 77 -moderate r e l i a b i l i t y of this checklist and low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the MBP i t i s not feasible to calculate a v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t using this method. Also i t was not feasible to use the ABS as a congruent c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y check with the MBP because of the design of the MBP. For example, the ABS i s a frequency scale while the MBP i s a problematic scale. Severity i s viewed i n terms of the problematic nature of the behavior, not i n terms of i t s frequency of occurrence. Also, the MBP was not designed as an additive scale while the ABS was. Because of these problems i n assessing the c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y of the MBP, i t s content v a l i d i t y w i l l be discussed instead. Content V a l i d i t y of MBP  Advantages of MBP 1) This scale defines behavior i n terms of i t s problematic nature, not frequency. 2) Operational d e f i n i t i o n s have been provided. 3) Good for use i n team meetings for administrators and nursing 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 his/her behaviors are i n greater need of intervention. 5) The scale provides an account of the location where behaviors were observed. 6) The scale i s quickly administered; thus economically f e a s i b l e . Disadvantages of the MBP 1) The MBP was designed to aid i n "deciding upon goal p r i o r i t i e s i n behavior management" (Woodlands, 1979, p.1). It was not designed as a detailed objective measure; however the scale introduces more sub-j e c t i v i t y than i s needed. For example, the items are scored as prob-- 78 -lematic only i f the subtest was thought by the rater to be severe and i n need of intervention. For program planning and evaluation an inventory of the subject's behavior repertoire i s needed because one behavior may be eliminated through programming while others may occur i n i t s place. 2) When Severity and Intervention were correlated with each other, a .88 and .91 c o e f f i c i e n t for rater 1 and rater 2 respectively was obtained. This high co r r e l a t i o n indicated that the same t r a i t was being measured. 3) The j u s t i f i c a t i o n for adding Severity and Intervention was not founded. 4) Intervention was assigned the numbers 4 for "immediately" and 1 for "eventually" because when added with Severity a 7 point i n t e r v a l scale for programming P r i o r i t i e s resulted. This weighting i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y j u s t i f i e d . 5) Confusion resulted with the p r o f i l e sheet (Severity and Intervention) when scored separately from the actual items. Often the items were l e f t blank, although a score between 1 and 7 for programming p r i o r i -t i e s resulted. 6) The l a s t subtest "Other" was l e f t with a mixture of behaviors not included i n the previous subtests. Appendix E contains the l i s t of a dditional items. 7) Two problems were noted with the scoring of the "other" items. F i r s t , many raters used this section to l i s t the behavior problem, even though the behavior may have been l i s t e d on the scale. Second, i t - 79 -was an item that was often ignored. As an example, when looking over the protocols of "the regurgitators", very few of the raters wrote down "regurgitation" even though they scored i t on the ABS. Correlations Maladaptive Behavior (MB) correlated with,Placement: For one or both raters a .05 signif i c a n c e c r i t e r i a was obtained when MB was related to lodge placement. However, there was a great deal of v a r i a b i l i t y bet-ween the average MB scores for subjects on the lodges even within the i n s t i t u t i o n . When comparing the average MB scores f o r lodges there does not appear to be a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between w i t h i n - i n s t i t u t i o n and group home placement. While Eyman et a l (1977) stated that there was a higher prevalence of behavior problems within 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 scores from the ABS (modified) that the prevalence of behavior problems varies for the lodges within the i n s t i t u t i o n as well. Also, these t o t a l scores do not provide detailed information on the types of behaviors occurring. It could be expected that residents within the i n s t i t u t i o n probably experience higher prevalence of c e r t a i n behaviors when compared with t h e i r peers i n the community and vice versa. Also, i t i s probable that the signif i c a n c e reached could have been related to rater v a r i a b i l i t y , since d i f f e r e n t raters per lodge resulted. Maladaptive Behavior (MB) correlated with IQ: Both measured IQ and the recorded l e v e l of mental retardation were correlated with MB and sign i f i c a n c e was not reached f o r eit h e r variable. Eyman et a l (1977) and Schroeder et a l (1978) both recorded a higher prevalence of MB the more - 80 -severe the retardation. Possible reasons why the present study did not conclude the same results could be because the majority of subjects were at the severe and profound l e v e l of retardation and the sample included only ambulatory adults. Maladaptive Behavior correlated with Length of I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n : Significance was not reached at the .05 l e v e l when MB was correlated with length of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . Schroeder (1978) commented that a higher prevalence of maladaptive behavior occurred the longer the resident was i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . This was not the case with the i n s t i t u t i o n i n the present study. While there may be a higher prevalence of some behaviors (vi z . stereotypic), other maladaptive behaviors may be decreasing due to the effectiveness of programming. Maladaptive Behavior correlated with Sex: Again, no s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found between males and females when correlated with MB. Eyman et a l (1977) concluded that there are more males with MB than females. While on the average, males were not found with s i g n i f i c a n t l y more MB than females perhaps i f the items and domains were looked at separately, i t might be found that the types of maladaptive behavior might vary. Maladaptive Behavior correlated with Age: When MB was correlated with age a -.165 co r r e l a t i o n for rate 1 resulted. This was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .055 l e v e l i n d i c a t i n g that age i s inversely related to maladaptive behavior. It should again be noted that children were not represented in the population. - 81 -Maladaptive Behavior correlated with Etiology: No relationship bet-ween MB and etiology was evident with t h i s population. It i s also possible that some disorders had too few subjects to achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e . Maladaptive Behavior correlated with Reason for Admittance: S i g n i f i -cance was reached at the .032 l e v e l (Rater 1) when MB was correlated with reason for admittance. The average t o t a l score was 20 points higher for the residents admitted for behavior problems than those admitted for other reasons. This suggests that the residents admitted for behavior problems continue to exhibit MB while i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . Significance was not achieved for Rater 2. RECOMMENDATIONS The following i s an outline of recommendations for improving the Behavior Observation che c k l i s t , ABS Part II and the MBP. Behavior Observation Checklist: Problems and Improvement Suggestions 1) The major problem with the scale was the time scheduling of the obser-vations. A 10 minute observation was too lengthy for the amount of behaviors the rater was to observe at one time. Also there was no scheduled time f o r recording, so one rater may have been recording with the other rater observing; hence behaviors might have been missed. An improvement would be to have both raters observe f o r 30 seconds and record for 10 seconds. 2) Most of the inconsistency between observers occurred with the frequency counts. Perhaps having the behaviors that occurred during the 30 seconds checked off and not the frequencies might increase the i n t e r -rater r e l i a b i l i t y . Because of the shorter observation time and sub-- 82 -sequently incorporating more observation occasions, a frequency count could be obtained more r e l i a b l y this way. 3) By attempting to observe a l l of the subjects within the same time frame (viz. meal) a g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y study could be conducted using occasions as a facet. The problem with the 10 minute observation schedule was that the meal may have been completed within 40 minutes only giving time to observe 4 subjects. 4) A checklist of behaviors corresponding to the items and not just the subtest would provide the raters with a more e f f i c i e n t scoring method. Also i t would draw the observers attention to s p e c i f i c behaviors (viz. pacing and rocking) which were overlooked i f the subject was engaging i n a number of behaviors at one time. Further Suggestions for Modifications to the ABS Part II include: 1) The low item discrimination found i n Mongrain's (1975) study and the present study i s perhaps j u s t i f i c a t i o n for deleting the items that are not discriminating. In Appendix D the items that met the .40 discrimination c r i t e r i o n f o r item to domain and item to t o t a l test can be found. Also the items that f e l l within the .15 to .85 correct response are also coded. These items are presently being combined to form a more concise scale. Congdon (1973) dropped a l l but 46 items i n the ABS Part I for the profound i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d population. However, no i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y information was given. 2) The ABS i s e s s e n t i a l l y a frequency scale. However, when intervention and ultimately program planning i s to be considered the severity of the behavior should be recorded. For example, a resident may choke another resident only twice a year, but this could be considered a - 83 -more severe behavior than i f he bi t e s his n a i l s d a i l y . Perhaps a weighting system can be developed. 3) More work needs to be undertaken i n making the scoring even less a r b i t r a r y . For example, i f a person engages i n a behavior, perhaps 10 times i n one week out of the year, how should this be scored? C y c l i c behaviors gave raters d i f f i c u l t y when having to score them. 4) While observing the raters complete the scale, i t was found that many of the items were not read, but rather the domains scanned. Th i s undoubtedly a function of the length of the scale. Reducing the length of the scale should help and also by having the raters c i r c l e a zero for each item rather than leaving i t blank may force them to read and consider each item. Suggestions for Improving the MBP: 1) Changing the format of the MBP could serve to increase i t s u t i l i t y . By having the rater mark the behaviors i n the subject's repertoire a f a i r l y objective account of the behaviors occurring could be c o l -lected. This would provide useful information for program planners as well as a method of monitoring changes i n the subject's behavior repertoire. 2) The recorded severity of each subtest should be completed after the items of each subtest. This w i l l ensure that the raters are associ-ating the general c l a s s i f i c a t i o n with the s p e c i f i c behaviors. 3) Because "Intervention" correlated so highly (.88 rater 1 and .91 rater 2) with "Severity" i t could be suggesting that these two areas are, at least i n the rater's judgement, measuring the same thing. 4) The "Programming P r i o r i t y P r o f i l e " i s an informative part of the - 84 -scale. However, instead of adding "Severity" and "Intervention", which are measuring s i m i l a r t r a i t s as well as being assigned a r b i t r a r y weights, the rater could order the subtests i n terms of programming p r i o r i t i e s . 5) Consideration of adding a few extra items outlined i n Appendix E might make the scale more complete. The items that did not meet the .40 discrimination index should not be deleted at this time. Some modifications might be i n order. Perhaps with a change i n the format of the scale, namely scoring the behaviors that occur and therefore removing much of the s u b j e c t i v i t y , these items may be found to d i s -criminate among subjects. 6) With the modifications made to the scale, i t would be possible to develop a more r e l i a b l e Behavior Observation Checklist to enable programmers to obtain frequency counts on the Behaviors as well as serve to validate the scale. In conclusion, the modifications made to the ABS Part II served to 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 . Suggestions have been provided to encourage further modifications to this scale to increase the scales u t i l i t y . The MBP, a new instrument, also needs format, scoring and item changes to increase i t s r e l i a b i l i t y and ultimately i t s v a l i d i t y . REFERENCES ALLEN, M. and Yen, W. Introduction to Measurement Theory, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooke/Cole Publishing Company, 1979. BENEDICT, N. A change i n terms or i n concepts? A small step forward or a giant step backward? Journal of Special Education, 1972, j>, 61-64. BERDINE, W.H., Murphy, M. and Roller, J.D. A criterion-referenced t r a i n i n g program based on the ABS: The Oakwood Resident scale for training and evaluating programs, Mental Retardation, 1977, 14_, 19-22. BHATTACHARYA, S. Adaptive Behavior Scale-Refinement. Mental Retardation, 1973, Uj_ 27. BLACKMAN, L.S. An active-passive dimension i n the d e f i n i t i o n of mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 1972, 6_, 67-70. BORG, W. and G a l l , M. Educational Research, 3rd Edition , New York: Longman, 19 79. CLARK, A. Program evaluation - The insi d e r s concern. Mental Retardation, 1969, 6, 61-62. CLAUSEN, J. Quo Vadis, AAMD? Journal of Special Education, 1972, _6, 51-60. CONGDON, D.M. The Adaptive Behavior Scales modified for the profoundly retarded. Mental Retardation, 1973, _1_1, 20-1. EDGERTON, R. Mental Retardation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979. EYMAN, R. and C a l l , T. Maladaptive Behavior and community placement of mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 19 77, 82, 137-144. FOSTER, R. and N i h i r a , K. Adaptive Behavior as a measure of psy c h i a t r i c impairment. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1969, 7_4_, 401-404. GROSSMAN, H.J. Comprehensive diagnostic services i n mental retardation. Mental Retardation, Scheerenberger, R.G. (ed.), I l l i n o i s : D i v i s i o n of Mental Retardation Services, 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 Retarda- tion. American Association on Mental Deficiency, Special Publication Series #2, 1973 (revised). GROSSMAN, H.J. and Rowitz, L. Program accountability i n mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 1974, 12, 8-11. GULLY, K. and Hosch, H. Adaptive Behavior Scale: development as a diagnos-t i c t o o l v i a discriminant analysis. American Journal of Mental Defi- ciency, 1979, 85, 518-523. - 86 -IRVIN, L., Crowell, F. , and Bellamy, G.T. Multiple assessment evaluation of programs for severely retarded adults. Mental Retardation, 1979, 17, 123-128. KITA, S. U.B.C. SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l Package For Social Sciences Version 8:00. Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980. MacMillan, D.L. and Jones, R.L. Lions i n search of more Christians. Journal of Special Education, 1972, 6, 81-89. MARKS, H.E. and Rodd-Marks, J. On an attempt to assess and predict 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 Journal of  Mental Deficiency, 1980, _85, 195. MITCHELL, S. Interobserver 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 observational studies. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86, 376-390. MONGRAIN, S.L. A comparative study of two measures of adaptive behavior for mentally retarded adults. Unpublished thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. NATHAN, M., Millham, J. and Atkinson, B. Mentally retarded i n d i v i d u a l s as informants for the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale. Mental Retardation, 1980, _18, 82-84. NELSON, L.R. Guide to Lertap Use and Interpretation. New Zealand: Univer-s i t y of Otago, 1974. NIHIRA, K. F a c t o r i a l dimensions of adaptive behavior i n adult retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1969, J7_3, 868-878. NIHIRA, K., Foster, R., Shellhass, M. and Leland, H. AAMD Adaptive Behavior  Scale, C. Fogelman (ed.) Washington, DC: American Association of Mental Deficiency, 1975, (revised). NUNNALLY, J.C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw H i l l Book Co., 1967. PHILLIPS, I. Psychopathology and mental retardation. American Journal of  Psychiatry, 1967, L24, 29-35. R0SZK0WSKI, M.J. Concurrent v a l i d i t y of the Adaptive Behavior Scale as assessed by the Vineland Social Maturity Scale. American Journal of  Mental Deficiency, 1980, 85, 86-89. SATTLER, J.M. Assessment of Children's Intelligence, (revised). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1974. SCHACHLER, M., Rice, J.A., Cormier, H.G., Christensen, P.M. and James, N.J. A process for i n d i v i d u a l program planning based on the Adaptive Behavior Scale. Mental Retardation, 1978, J_6, 259-263. - 87 -SCHEERENEERGER, R.C. Managing Residential F a c i l i t i e s for the Developmentally  Disabled. I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1975. SPREAT, S. The Adaptive Behavior Scale: A study of c r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y . American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1980, 85_, 61-68. SCHROEDER, S.R. Prevalence of s e l f - i n j u r i o u s behaviors i n a range state f a c i l i t y f o r the retarded: A three-year follow-up study. Journal of  Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1978, 8^, 261-269. TAYLOR, J.R. H a b i l i t a t i o n . Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded. 1976, LL, 56-64. WILSON, J.B. Is the term "adaptive behavior" educationally relevant? Journal of Special Education, 1972, 6, 93-95. WOODLANDS PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT, Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e , New West-minster, B.C.: Woodlands School, 1979. - 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 FOR PART TWO (REVISED) P a r t Two c o n t a i n s o n l y one t y p e o f i t e m . The f o I l o w i n g i s an exampIe. ( 2 ) Damages P e r s o n a l P r o p e r t y Y M W D R i p s , t e a r s or chews own c l o t h i n g 1 2 3 4 S p o i l s own p r o p e r t y 1 2 3^ 4 T e a r s up own m a g a z i n e s , books, or o t h e r p o s s e s s i o n s 1 2 3 4 Other ( s p e c i f y ; ) 1 2 3 4 None o f t h e above -r- , , T o t a l S e l e c t t h o s e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s which a r e t r u e o f 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 , 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), or ( 3 ) i t i t o c c u r s I t o 6 t i m e s a week (w), or ( 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 . Check "None o f t h e Above" 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 each column on t h e bottom ( t o t a l ) l i n e , and e n t e r t h e sum o f t h e s e t o t a l s i n t h e c i r c l e t o t h e r i g h t . When "None o f t h e above" i s c h e c k e d , e n t e r 0 i n t h e c i r c l e t o t h e r i g h t . Use t h e space f o r " O t h e r " when: 1. The 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 t o t h o s e c i r c l e d . 2 . The 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 -ed by any o f t h e examples l i s t e d . The b e h a v i o r l i s t e d under " O t h e r " must be a s p e c i f i c example o f t h e b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s t a t e d in t h e i t e m . Some o f t h e items i n P a r t Two d e s c r i b e b e h a v i o r s which need not 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 young 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 or m a l a d a p t i v e depends 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 our 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 as a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e , f o r t h e moment, i g n o r i n g your p e r s o n a l b i a s e s ; t h e n , when you l a t e r i n t e r p r e t 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 i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o c i e t a l a t t i t u d e s . - 92 -/. VIOL! N1 AND Dt S1RLK IIYI HI IIAVIOR PART TWO Y M W D Y M W D [1| 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 |5] Has Violent Temper, or Temper Tantrums 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-.inung rfnd yelling Other (specify ) Total ADO -None of the above 1 2 3 /. VIOLENT AND . DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR o [2] Damages Personal Property Rips, tears or i, hews own clothing Soils Own proper!v Tears up own magazines, books, or other possessions Other I specifv _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ » _ _ _ -None of the above [3) Damages Others' Property Rips. lears, or chews others' cloth.nu Soils others' property Tears up others' magj /m«, books. or personaf possessions Other [specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -None of the above |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 1 2 1 2 o o o II. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR Teases or Gossips About Others 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 Total -None of the above (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 G P I thi-m in trouble Otherispei it'y 1 ———None of the above T, [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 .in-working wiih. e g . puzzles, iarri games, etc Snatches things out of others' hands Other (specify _) • None of the above Total 1 2 3 U 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 U 1 2 3 1 O * 2 3 k 1 2 3 1. 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 1. 1 2 3 1, o o 12 - 93 -[9] Is Inconsiderate o( Other* Keeps temperature in IHI I I IK .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 [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 Y M W D 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 4 O Uses Angry Language Uses hostile language, e g , stupid jerk. ' "rfirtv pig." etc 1 2 Swears, curses, or uses obscene language 1 2 Yells or screams threats nf violence 1 2 Verbally threatens others, suggesting physical violence 1 2 Other(speedy ) 1 2 ——————None of the above Total II. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR , III Rl HI LI H J(/s /{/ if.wiOR 112] Ignores Regulations or Regular Routines Has ncq.Hivi' altitude Inward rules hut usually inntnrms I liis to !«' hire nf to i;o ihrmmli waiting lines e K luni h luie v 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 o |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 authority-Mocks 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(< Y M W D 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 [1S1 l» Ab»*n) From, or Late For, the Proper Assignments or Places Is late to required placps or activities 1 2 3 4 ("ails lo return to places where he »S supposed to be aftpr leaving, e.g , going to toilet, running an errand, Ptc 1 2 3 4 Leaves place ot required activity without permission, e g.. work, class, etc. 1 2 3 4 Is absent Irom routine activities, e.g , work, class, elt 1 2 3 u Slavs out late at night from home, hospital ward, dormitory, etc. 1 2 3 4 Other {specify \ _ 2 2. _ -———•None of the above Total 13 - 94 -|1<>! Kims AV»J> or Attempts l<> Him Aw.it 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 ) - None of the above {17] Misbehaves in Croup Settings Y M W D 1 2 3 4 V \\l II IPKAWAl \'20\ Is Inartivc o ' position lor a long Sits or siands i 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. , ,, , ) • None of the above Y M W D 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 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 Total 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 121) Is Withdrawn o Seems unaware of surrnundings 1 2 3 it Is difficult to reach or i ontai t 1 2 3 t+ Is apathetic and unresponsive in feelinfi 1 2 3 it Has it blank stare 1 2 3 ft Has a tised expression 1 2 3 it Other Isnerilv 1 12 J . it o -None of the above ///. REBELLIOUS BEHAVIOR IV. UNTRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR [18] Takes Others' Property Without Permission 123) Is Shy 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 > of the above 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 it 3 It 3 It 1 <! o 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 T o \\l THDRAW'AL 1 . STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR AND ODD MANNERISMS |19| Lies or Cheats 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 1 2 3 4 O IV. UNTRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR A 0 P [23] Has Stereotyped Behaviors 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 -1241 Mas Peculiar Posture or Odd 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 1 V/. STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR . AND ODD MANNERISMS Y M W D VII. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPERSONAL " MANNERS (2S) Has Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners 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 -None of the above 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 O VII. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPERSONAL MANNERS l\ UNA((iriAKU ()H I Ca.NIRIC HABITS 127] Has Strange And Unacceptable Habits i pockets • wearing, eg . shoe Smells everything Inappropriately stuffs things i thirls-, dresses or shues Pulls threads out ol own clothmg Plavs with things he >s * 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!\ . ) Q -None of the above [28] Has Unacceptable Oral Habits Drools Cnnds teeth audibly Spits on the floor Hites fingernails ( hews or surks hneef. o nt the hodv (hews or sucks clothing i mcdihles E ats inedihles Drinks trom toilet steal Puts everything in mouth Other (spet ity _ other parts Y M W D 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 u 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 -None of the above VIII UNACCEPTABLE VOCAL 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 v > _) -None of the above 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 k 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 it Tolal — Other (si [29] Removes or Tears Off Own Clothing 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 i penfv.. •None of the above 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 ( V///. UNACCEPTABLE VOCAL HABITS 15 - 96 -j.U>! H J S Other Idnthir Habits and Tendencies \ / / S/ V ,\/(/ I1KANI HI IIAVIOK 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 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 O /X. UNACCEPTABLE OR _ ECCENTRIC HABITS X. SELF-ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR 131) Does Physical Violence to Sett Bites Or Cuts self 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 1 2 1 2 1 2 \\ 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 i. 3 <t 3 u 3 U 3 •* 3 u 3 k X. SELF-ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR E N T E R i XI. HYPERACTIVE TENDENCIES [321 Has Hyperactive Tendencies Talks-excesstvely 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 X/. HYPERACTIVE TENDENCIES l i i . 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1.131 Ene.ae.cs in Inappropriate Masturbalinn 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 ) o I of the above 1 2 3 •» 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1) i* [34] Exposes Body Improperly 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 ) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 u O -None of the above o [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 (36| Sexual Behavior That Is Socially Unacceptable 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 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 O 1 2 3 it 1 2 3 1. 1 2 3 U I J 1 2 3 1. x — ' 1 2 3 1. 1 2 3 1. J 2 3 U 1 2 3 XII. SEXUALLY ABERRANT BEHAVIOR 16 - 97 -XIII. f'SW IIOKH.U A/. l)tSUlKH-\Ni t s i-lit H.IN Itypsmlmmlri.K.il I r [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 [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 ) t of the above [39] Reads Poorly to Frustration 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 Y M W D 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 o 1 2 3 u :o (431 Has Other Signs of Emotional Instabilities 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 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 X//J. PSYCHOLOCtCAL DISTURBANCES o 3 •* 3 U 3 •* 3 ii 1 2 3 1. 1 2 3 1* o [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 O XIV. USE OF MEDICATIONS |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 -l . 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, it does not provide the user with a detailed, objective record of an individual's behaviour. Rather, it 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: 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 res-tricted 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 if it 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 it inhibit his learning?) or the smooth functioning of the area (does it 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 it 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:  AiQA OF PATP'O: Mor.th Day Year WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL . OVERALL HS(P.%TT«!A1. . OOHM'JVTTY PROBLEM SEVERITY MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR £ Aggression to Others JX Self-Abusive HI Damaging Property IV Poor Coping vith Frustration V Social Aggravation VI Stereotypic ilanners VII uncooperative VlllSexual K Toilet/HLiraination X Other H'TERVENTIO! i IFEED < § M HONE 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 P^IO^P.A* I! U"?!0 PRIORITIES 3j2 COMMENTS: - 101 -SPECIFIC - MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR PHOMHAH PlflFILE RESIDEHT NAME: . DATS OF RATING: 1 I I I I I 1 Month Day Year AREA OF RATTI.'G: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY OVERALL TYPE OF AGGRESSIVE MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR CHECK OFF THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED A3 PROBLEMATIC 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: - 102 -SPECIFIC - MALADAPTIVE DfflVv'IOUR PROGRAM. P POTTLE RESIDENT NAME: DATE OF RATING: I I 1 I I I Month Day Year AREA OF RATING: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY OVERALL [ CHECK OFF ( l/$ j . THE AREAS WHERE TYPE OF SELF-ABUSIVE MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR | THE PERSON'S I BEHAVIOUR IS 1 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 - 103 -spKcunr: - v..XADAPTIT•: DRi!Avroni' Piiry:n;,;-'. ••;s)Ft[,5 RESIDEMT NAME: DATE OF RATI HC: I . I i 1 i I Month Day Year AREA' OF RATI HO: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL CaiMUUITY OVERALL TYPE OF PROPERTY DAMAGING- MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR CHECK OFF ( v) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS i n&jhiiuuAj AS PROBLEMATIC 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 j OTHER: - 104 -SPECJFfC - MALADAPTIVE IIKHAVTOUH i'hWu/ij: v\VHl.?, RESIDENT HAKE:  DATS OF RATING: Month Bay Year .AREA OF RATING: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL . Ca-IIUNITY OVERALL n ? E 0 F POOR POPING WITH F R U S T R A T E MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR REACTS TO CORRECTION OR CRITICISM BY WITHDRAWAL (pout,, does not taJ.k, become? moc-y, rtays apart from others? CHECK O F F ( / ) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR I S R35ARDED AS PROBLEMATIC [REACTS TO CORRECTION OR C R I T I C I S I 3Y EXCESSIVE COMPLAINING (argues about fairness, blames others, claims to be picked on etc [REACTS TO CORRECTION OR CRITICISM BY TANTRUMING (yells, cries, screams, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.) (REACTS TO PROHIBITIONS, OPPOSITION, OR RESTRICTIONS BY 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 REACTS TO PROHIBITION, OPPOSITION OR RESTRICTIONS BY TANTRUMING [(yells, cries, screams, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.) 'Sl^IUTEmjlni0U5 °R D , T S A F E S E F ! C S OF 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 A C T I V I T I E S BY E X C S S S I V (argues about fairness, blames others, claims to be picked on etc) ™S.mG m T E H R ! ; ? T I O i ! S ° S I H R A ! F F S - ! » « = O F ACTIVITIES BY (yells, cries, screams, bangs things, stamps feet, etc.) OTHER - 105 -SPECrF fC - KALADAPTW: TOIAVTOUR PHQORAM PROFtLR RESIDENT NAME:  DATE OF RATINC: I i I ! I I I Month Day Year AREA OF RATING: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL CCHMUNTTY 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!'. lW.UAI. RSSIDI3IT NAME: DATE OF RATIN.".: 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 Month Day Year AREA OF RATING: WARD SCHOOL VCCATIOI!AT. RECRF.AT COMMUNITY OVERALL TYPE OF STEREOTYPICAL MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR UK TONAL CHECK OFF ( /) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR I S REGARDED AS P FOSLEMATI C R E P E T I T I V E / R I T U A L I S T I C BODY MOVE'Ei.TS (body rocking, head weaving, hand flapping, finger motions tics, pacing patterns, etc.) R E P E T I T I V E / R I T U A L I S T I C MANIPULATION OF OBJECTS (Twirling shiny objects, tv.istin; string, shaking, banking objects for sound, stroking, etc.) R E P E T I T I V E / R I T U A L I S T I C MOUTHING CP "BJECT3 (sucks finders, chevs clothing, ?ic'-s objri-ts, ctr.) HOARDS PARTTOJLVl OR VARIOUS O-WiTfS (stuffs items in clothns, r^.vns anrl hi'.inr, iinurv;-1! it.-nr) ADOPTS ?BCT*tIAR POSTURES OR ?A»rtCCT.'j> PLACES 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 - 107 -RESIDENT NAME: Month Dry fear" _HSA OF RATING: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIOIiAL WSCaSATIOHAL COHIUNTTY OVERALL TYPE OF WJC£XJ?E?_vnVE KAUU*?Tm B2HAVI0UP. CHECK OFF ( /) ' THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC Does not respond to requests (does the opposite, ignores it, hesitates, refuses, etc.). i Uncooperative in Group Situation (dees not stay in assigned place, talks about unrelated tonics, does not take turns, not follow rules.) i 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) - 108 -SPECCF1C - 'iAI.ADAPT.tVE HaiAVTOUR HtTnitAjl. PljOFILE RESiDErrr NAMEJ_ DATE OF RAT PIG: | | | | Month Day Year AREA OF RATING: .WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL COMiUNITY OVERALL TYPE OF TOILET RELATED MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR CHECK OFF ( </ ) i THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PKOULEMATIC Use of toilet (drinking from it, washing in i t , ' sticking head in it 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 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 - 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 SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY _ OVERALL TYPE OF SEXUAL MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR 1 CHECK OFF ( THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSOK'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC 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 intense-ly,'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 - ' - n o -Si'KCtFrc - MAT.ADA.'Tiyr; UiaiAVIQIIu HPNiAM PIDFILS RESIDENT NAME:  DATE OF RATING: Month Day Year AS2/'. OF_RWINOi WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY OVERALL TYPE OF OTHER ( ) | MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR CHECK OFF ( ) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC 1 ! i 1 ! • •" — — — I - I l l -RATER INFORMATION SHEET NAME: AGE: SEX: JOB CLASSIFICATION: EDUCATION LEVEL: (Specify) OTHER RELEVANT TRAINING: LENGTH OF TIME WORKING AT GLENDALE LODGE: (to A p r i l 1, 1980) LENGTH OF TIME ON PREVIOUS LODGE: - 112 -TEST PACKAGE B SUBJECT INFORMATION SHEET HOSPITAL NUMBER: SEX: — BIRTHDATE: , RATER'S NAME: -DATE OF COMPLETION: COMMENTS: - 113 -INMKIH IIIW.IOUrAKI M V I > I'M two „mu,m ,mly one type ;i item The lnll,m;,m ,s ,„, ,, xatnplc. HI 0 J m J Brs Hrriwul Pro^rt, OcMwmjII, r,»qo,„||y II clolhinR 2 Kipv tr-Jry nr i he 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 Above" 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 When "None of the above" 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 "frequently" signifies that the behavior occur*, quite often, or habitually Use the space for "Other" when. 1 The person has related behavior problems in addition to those circled. 2 The person has behavior problems thai are not covered by any of the examples listed The behavior listed under "Other" must be a specific example of the behavior problem stated in the item 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 1/1/ IIIIIAVIOR ()<rj<.Minjn> Frequently [1| Threatens or Does Physical Vtwlrpiii-Uses threatening gestures \ J Indirectly t .nisei infury to olhers 1 J Spits on others 1 J Pushes, scratches or pinches other s l _ 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. ! iO Occasionally [S| Has Violent lemprr. or Temper Tantrums ("nes ami screams 1 St.imps l<>el while h.tni',i"H iil]|c<ts or S 1.11tunHi|> (kmri, rti 1 Sl.unps tri'i, s< reantmu and yelling 1 1 brows silf on Mow sire.lining and yelling 1 Olh.-r ls|»-< ily ) J _ Tolal ADD -None of (he above J VIOLENT AND DESIRtlCIIVt IUHAVIOR i-s -None of (he above |2| Damages Personal Property Hips, tears or chews own clothing Soils own property Tears up own magafinps. books. ( possessions Other (-.net itv. -None of the above |3| Damages Olhers' Property 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 Tolal o :0 //. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR |6} Teases or Gossips About Others Gossips ahoid olhers 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 |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, eg , 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 12 - 115 -it.til) | rei|uenlly |9| Is Inconsiderate of Others 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 |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 |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|iV violence Other (specify ) -None of the above //. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR , iO o : 0 /// l\'l HI I I KHIS Hf IIAVUiR Occasionally Frequently |12( Ignores Regulations or Regular Routines 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 Wefuses to panicipaie i e c . »\nrk. s. honl. i-l< Oilier (spei il\ _ _ _ _ _ •quired activities, -None o( the above 1U| Resists rollowing Instructions, Requests or Orders Ots 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 o ;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 plan1 <>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 ) Total o — None of the above - 116 -[161 Runs Awy or Attempts to Kim Away V Will II>l\.\\VAt. 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 ) -None of the above o [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 o U0| Is Inaitivr 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 [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 Occasionally Frequently Total o IO - None ol the above III. REBELLIOUS BEHAVIOR IV. UNTRUS IWORIIh Itl-HAVIOR [18| Takes Others' Properly VVilhnul Permission [22] Is Shy 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 -None ol the abnn iO Has been suspected of stealing Takes others' belongings il not kepi 1 place or locked Takes others' belongings from poiket-purses, drawers, etc Takes Others' belongings by opening , breaking locks Other (specify j -None of the above [19| Lies or Cheats Twists the truth toown advantage Cheats in games, tests, assignmen etc Lies about situations Lies about self Lies about others Other (speiiiy None of the above Total /V. UNTRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR. o o V. WITHDRAWAL U V/. STtRt OJYPl-D BEHAVIOR AND ODD MANNERISMS [21\ Has Stereotyped Behaviors 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 Moves or rolls head l>a< k and lorlh Kmks l»xly bai k and forth 1' s (be I U H Olhei (s|Hiify I None 01 me aimve ; o - 117 -[2<| I Us Peculiar Posture or Odd Mannerisms 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 Oiasimi.dly frequently :0 -None ol the above VI. STERLOlYPED BLHAVIOR A l "> . AND ODD MANNERISMS 2 1 2 1 VII. INAPPROPRIATE INIF.RI't-RSONAL MANNERS |2S| Has Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners 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\ - None of the above VII. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPERSONAL MANNERS o IX. UNA( ( I PIAliU OR I (CI NIKK 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 imn . Indium Play- with tllm«S lit- is wearing, i siting, Illilll'IIS I'll S.uis 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't itv 1 -None of the above o 128] Has Unacceptable Oral Habits Drools Crmds leelh audibly Spits on tin- ilnor Mitt*% tingern.uls ("hevvs , l r sutks doners u "I ihebotlv ( hews or suits rlutlnni! i "i<-dihl,.s I .its .nedib.es Drinks hum toilei sli«l Puts everything , n mouth Oilier (sper.ty o -None of th* ihovr VIII UNACCEPTABLE VOCAL HABITS (26! Has Distuning Vocal Or Speech Habits 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 None of the above V// / . UNACCLPIABLI VOCAL HAB I TS Q ^ 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 Inihing fspet il\ • None of Ihe above Total o 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 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 t) None ol the above i O 1331 Engages in Inappropriate Masturbation I Lis attempted In mast H I 11.ili* openly Masturbates in hum <>t ulhets Masturbates in group Ulliei iMWtily 1 — i. — None of the above |J4| Exposes Body Improperly Occasionally frequently IO /X. UNACCEPTABLE OR ECCENTRIC HABITS X. SELF-ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR |311 Does Physical Violence to Self t xpnscs l»nly tinnii esN.n I K aliei IISIMI; tmlel St.iixK in publn plates vtilh pants down or with dress up l.x|Mises IMHIV 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 o 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 X. S £ L F - A B L / S / V t BEHAVIOR ENI*-» ; l o X/. HYPERACTIVE 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 [351 Has Homosexual Tendencies Is sexually attiacted to members ol the same ses Has approached others and attempted t las engaged in homosexual activity Othei (s|H-tity ) ' None of the above |3b| Sexual Behavior Thai Is Socially Unacceptable Is overly seductive in appearance or ai turns Hugs or (aiesses too intensely in 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/. HYPERACTIVE TENDENCIES 1 N " R • X//. SEXUALLY AIM RRANT BEHAVIOR o o A 16 - 119 -X// / . PS V( / /OU)(."/( 'At DISIUKH\N( I S Od.tviiin.dlv I renuetilly t.isHMi.ill> ( fi-qm-nliy |3?| Tends to Overestimate Own Abilities Docs not recogni/o own limn at tons r(as ton high .in opinion nl sell Talks . I IJOIH future plans ih.jt are unrealisiu Other (specify ) -None of the above |38J Reacts Poorly lo Criticism 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 [39| Reads Poorly to Frusiration 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 Tuljl [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 Total |4T| Seems To Feel Persecuted 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 ^ m m m m m m None ol Ihe above H J S llypnthondriai.il I cndeii ( ••••»•'• ahnui iniai.'Mi.uy pli\ si. . I ' . . lends lube .11 O A. Is s.i k after illness is ..v. I Ml..-, (s ,» t . | V -Nono'nl the atmv ! iO J, J_ I43| Has Other Signs of Emotional Instabilities o ( "Kipl.ll nl Willi. , ,H . . , , „ . Ul.ll I' Hill . ,I in o o < I'M's out while asl. ( i les tin no appare Seems lo have n Vninils when upset Appear s msei utc i daily adivi l ies talks about iMiiple or things tl ' aus.i unn-alisln l.-ai s la lks. ibool stiK.de I las made an attempt al sun id.-Other Ispeniy j o -None of Ihe above X// / . PSYCHOLOCK.Al. DISTURBANCES MV. USl Of MEDICATIONS |44| Use of Prescribed Medication i tranquilizers sedatives anlii o m ulsant drugs >ther Ispei i i \ IO -Non* of Ihr j h o t r lol.l \IV. USl: or MI:.I)ICA I IONS r o - 120 -RATER INFORMATION SHEET NAME: AGE: SEX: JOB CLASSIFICATION: EDUCATION LEVEL: (Specify) OTHER RELEVANT TRAINING: LENGTH OF TIME WORKING AT GLENDALE LODGE: (to A p r i l 1, 1980) LENGTH OF TIME ON PREVIOUS LODGE: - 121 -Behavioral Checklist: Maladaptive Behaviour P r o f i l e Administration: 1. Observer must f a m i l i a r i z e s e l f with operational d e f i n i t i o n s and items on the MBP Scale. 2. Complete Information at top of chec k l i s t before beginning. 3. Observe subject at 10 minute i n t e r v a l s . 4. Record behavior observed under "specify" i n appropriate category. 5. Record the frequency of each behavior. 6. If behavior occurs more than 15 times i n 10 minutes, record "C" for "continual". - 122 -BEHAVIORAL CHECKLIST Subject's nos. Lodge Sex Date Time Occasion day s h i f t supper Afternoon routine a c t i v i t y DOMAINS Nos. of Occurrance 1. Aggression to Others specify: 2. Self-Abusive specify: 3. Damaging Property specify: 4. Poor Coping with Frustration specify; 5. Social Aggravation specify: 6. Stereotypic Manners specify: 7. Uncooperative specify: 8. Sexual specify: 9. T o i l e t / e l i m i n a t i o n specity: 10. Other - 123 -APPENDIX B - 124 -TABLE B, Sex Frequency Male Female Absolute Frequency Population Sample 96 55 52 45 Relative Frequency Population Sample 63.6 36.4 53.6 46.4 population, N = 151 ambulatory adults sample, N = 97 TABLE B Age D i s t r i b u t i o n i n Years Population Sample range 18.00-73.00 18.08-73.00 mean 32.5 33.71 medium 27.45 28.25 - 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 Tests Given and Frequency Population Sample not given 7.9 8.24 Stanford-Binet 31.8 34.02 wise 0.7 1.03 WAIS 2.0 3.09 Cat t e l 42.4 38.14 Le i t e r 11.9 12.37 PPVT a 2.0 2.06 WAIS Verbal 1.3 1.03 - 126 -TABLE B Di s t r i b u t i o n by Etiology Relative frequency Population Sample 0 Following Infections and intoxications 8. 7 7.29 1 Following trauma or physical agen 6. 0 6.25 2 With disorders of metabolism or n u t r i t i o n 3. 3 3.13 3 Associated with gross brain disease (postnatal) 2. 0 3.13 4 Unknown prenatal influences 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 30. 7 27.08 - 127 -TABLE B Level of Mental Retardation by Frequency Relative Frequency Population Sample Borderline mental retardation Mild mental retardation Moderate mental retardation Severe mental retardation Profound mental retardation 1.3 2.0 7.3 23.3 66.0 2.08 3.13 9.48 27.08 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 i n months by Frequency Population Sample range 1 - 671.0 2 - 660.0 mean 138.40 161.75 median 104.00 113.50 - 128 -TABLE B D 8 Reason for Admittance information not given behavior other than behavior Relative Population 30.5 13.2 56.3 Frequency Sample 32.7 19.4 48.0 - 129 -APPENDIX C - 130 -TABLE CI Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original)oby raters: Violent and Destructive Behavior. Standard r to t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P* Item R l R2 R l *2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .73 .31 .84 .64 .67 .26 .57 .44 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 59.4 8 .06 .22 .24 .49 .09 .11 .03 .06 93.9 . 81.3 9 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 10 .06 .03 .24 .18 .34 .21 .27 .09 93, .9 96.9 11 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100. .0 100.0 12 .09 .0 .38 -.0 -.16 .0 .09 .0 93. .9 100.0 13 .46 .56 .75 .76 .54 .35 .62 .38 69. .7 59.4 14 .33 .41 .69 .62 .60 .33 .55 .48 78. .8 65.6 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 .24 .25 .65 .04 .62 .18 93. .9 93.8 18 .0 .09 -.0 .30 .0 -.06 .0 -.06 100. .0 90.6 19 .12 .22 .42 ' .49 .51 .50 .56 .49 90. .9 81.3 20 .0 .03 -.0 .18 .0 -.04 .0 .23 100. .0 96.9 21 .12 .19 .42 .47 .51 .28 .56 .06 90. .9 84.4 22 .36 .06 .74 .25 .41 .04 .50 .40 78. .8 93.8 23 . .03 .03 .17 .18 -.10 -.04 -.06 .00 97. .0 96.9 24 .09 .03 .38 .18 -.17 -.04 -.15 -.07 93. .9 96.9 25 .0 .03 -.0 .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 scoring zero - 131 -TABLE C2 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original): Antisocial Behavior Mean Standard Dev. rdomain rtotal test P Item R2 Rj R2 Rj R2 Rj R2 KY R2 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 -.0 .30 .0 . 18 .0 .34 100.0 90.6 11 .06 .03 .35 .18 .14 .52 .09 .23 97.0 96.9 12 .27 .0 .67 -.0 .25 .0 .57 .0 84.8 100.0 13 .15 .34 .51 .60 .55 .71 .43 .74 90.9 71.9 14 .03 .22 .17 .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 .55 .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 -.0 .23 .0 -.01 .0 93.9 100.0 21 .18 .16 .53 .37 .11 .02 .11 -.21 87.9 84.4 22 .0 .16 -.0 .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 -.0 .18 .0 .52 .0 .23 100.0 96.9 26 .09 .09 .38 .30 .11 .64 .32 .60 93.9 90.6 27 .0 .06 -.0 .25 .0 .53 .0 .23 100.0 93.8 28 .03 .06 .17 .25 ' -.04 .38 .06 .33 97.0 93.8 29 .18 .34 .58 .60 .23 .07 .44 .12 90.9 71.9 30 .12 .03 .49 .18 .36 .20 .53 .09 93.9 96.9 31 .15 .09 .44 .30 .09 .25 -.02 .15 87.9 90.6 32 .15 .19 .44 .40 .16 .41 -.05 .18 87.9 81.3 33 .06 .13 .35 .34 .22 .27 .04 .17 97.0 87.5 34 .12 .06 .42 .25 .25 .27 -.04 .26 90.9 93.8 35 .0 .03 -.0 .18 .0 .01 .0 .22 100.0 96.9 - 132 -TABLE C3 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original): Rebellious Behavior Mean Standard Dev. rdomain r t o t a l test P Items h R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .79 .28 .82 .52 .53 .23 .48 .22 45.5 75.0 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 -.0 .34 .0 .19 .0 .02 100.0 87.5 16 .03 .0 .17 -.0 .03 .0 -.03 .0 97.0 100.0 17 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 18 .06 .0 .35 -.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 .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 . 10 .04 -.26 93.9 93.8 27 .0 .06 -.0 .25 .0 -.02 .0 .12 100.0 93.8 28 .09 .16 .38 .52 .34 .01 .58 -.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 -.0 .59 .0 .33 .0 .32 100.0 90.6 - 133 -TABLE C4 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (Or i g i n a l ) : Untrustworthy Behavior. Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 .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 -.0 .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 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 - 134 -TABLE C5 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (O r i g i n a l ) : Withdrawal Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .70 .88 .92 .94 . 13 .59 -.40 -. 15 60.6 50.0 2 .52 .50 .83 .76 .03 .50 .02 -.06 69.7 65.6 3 .49 .34 .75 .60 .48 .00 .40 .03 66.7 71.9 4 .18 .06 .53 .25 .24 . 14 .54 . 14 87.9 93.8 5 .15 .28 .51 .58 .66 .75 .40 .11 90.9 78.1 6 .06 . 16 .35 .52 .13 .11 -.01 -.01 97.0 90.6 7 .09 .19 .38 .47 .34 .53 -.02 -.23 93.9 84.4 8 .21 .34 .55 .70 .59 .47 .23 -.06 84.8 78.1 9 .06 .25 .35 .62 .44 .56 -.01 . 12 97.0 84.4 10 .06 .16 .35 .52 .44 .60 -.01 -.15 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 -.0 .13 .0 -.01 .0 97.0 100.0 - 135 -TABLE C6 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) : Stereotyped Behavior and Odd Mannerisms. Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R r R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .12 .09 .49 .29 .18 -.20 -.22 -.18 93.9 93.8 2 .21 .0 .60 -.0 .32 .0 . 14 .0 87.9 100.0 3 .58 .44 .87 .76 .57 .19 .11 .30 66.7 71.9 4 .55 .16 .87 .45 .58 .08 .28 .22 69.7 87.5 5 .42 .22 .79 .61 .60 .34 .20 .03 75.8 87.5 6 . 18 .13 .58 .42 .29 .32 .33 .02 90.9 90.6 7 .39 .34 .79 .70 .32 .27 .09 -.20 78.8 78.1 8 .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 .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 - 136 -TABLE C7 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) : Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 . 12 .25 .49 .57 .25 .48 .01 .23 93.9 81. 3 2 .0 .03 -.0 .18 .0 .49 .0 .29 100.0 96. 9 3 .06 .16 .35 .52 .26 .22 .34 - .03 97.0 90. 6 4 .18 .19 .53 .47 .23 .49 .14 .41 87.9 84. 4 5 .30 .31 .68 .59 .52 .63 .26 .42 i l . 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 TABLE C8 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) : Unacceptable Vocal Habits Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 .22 .0 -.01 .0 93.9 100.0 - 137 -TABLE C9 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original): Unacceptable or Eccentric Habits Mean Standard Dev. r, r , domain total Item Rx R2 R1 R1 R2 Rj R2 ^ ^ 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 -.0 .39 .0 .26 .0 .54 100.0 93.8 8 .09 .06 .38 .35 .53 .45 .43 .29 93.9 96.9 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 -.0 .54 .0 .58 .0 90.9 100.0 24 .09 .16 .29 .45 .05 .20 -.04 .47 90.9 87.5 25 .21 .13 .55 .42 .23 .01 .25 ' .11 84.8 90.6 26 .03 .09 .17 .39 .10 .51 -.06 .33 97.0 93.8 27 .52 .75 .87 .92 .24 .00 .24 -.14 72.7 56.3 28 .27 .19 .64 .54 .16 -.14 .20 .13 84.8 87.5 29 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 30 .091 .22 .28 .61 -.02 -.14 .0 -.24 93.9 87.5 31 .27 .41 .63 .71 .16 .03 .00 .01 81.8 71.9 32 .18 .13 .58 .34 .25 .01 .12 -.03 90.9 87.5 33 .30 .06 .73 .35 .46 .45 .57 .22 84.8 96.9 - 138 -TABLE CIO Item analysis information for the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) : Self-Abusive Behavior Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 -.15 .0 -.06 .0 97.0 100.0 10 .06 .124 .35 .49 . 12 .32 .07 .40 97.0 93.8 TABLE C l l Item analysis information for the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) : Hyperactive Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 -.0 .07 .0 .35 .0 93.9 100.0 - 139 -TABLE C12 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II ( o r i g i n a l ) : Sexually Aberrant Behavior Standard r t o t a l Mean Deviation r domain test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 .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 .0 100.0 100.0 15 .09 .13 .38 .34 .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 .17 -.0 -.04 .0 -.06 .0 97.0 100.0 22 .0 .03 -.0 .18 .0 .40 .0 .29 100.0 96.9 - 140 -TABLE C13 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (original): Psychiatric Disturbance. Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .06 .13 .35 .42 .24 .48 .04 .37 97.0 90.6 2 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 .0 - .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 3 .0 .09 -.0 .39 .0 .41 .0 .26 100.0 93.8 4 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 5 .0 .13 -.0 .42 .0 -.05 .0 .04 100.0 90.6 6 .09 .47 .38 .67 .37 .22 .05 .29 93.9 62.5 7 .55 .47 .75 .62 .47 .58 .11 .37 60.6 59.4 8 .09 .28 .38 .46 .23 .17 .35 . 15 93.9 71.9 9 . 12 .0 .59 -.0 .21 .0 -.01 .0 93.9 100.0 10 .06 .09 .35 .39 .24 .43 .04 .42 97.0 93.8 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 13 .52 .53 .76 .72 -.01 .27 .29 .23 63.6 59.4 14 .0 .0 -.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 25 .0 .03 -.0 .18 .0 .36 .0 .23 100.0 96.9 26 .03 .0 . 17 -.0 -.03 .0 -.06 .0 97.0 100.0 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 .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 .51 .76 .10 -.10 .26 -.00 90.9 75.0 35 .03 .06 .17 .25 .16 .52 .04 .52 97.0 93.8 36 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 -0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 37 .12 .19 .42 .47 .03 -.18 .16 -.22 90.9 84.4 38 .06 .0 .24 -.0 .01 .0 -.18 .0 93.9 100.0 39 .06 .03 .35 .18 .24 .43 .04 .27 97.0 96.9 40 .0 .0 -.0 -.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 41 .18 .0 .58 -.0 .29 .0 . 16 .0 90.9 100.0 - 141 -P A R T T W O Q if * /. VIOLENT AND DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR [i] Occasionally Threatens or Does Physical Violence 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 Frequently # * if * Occasionally Frequently Has Violent Temper, or Temper Tantrums Cries and screams T Stamps feet while banging objects or slamming doors, etc 1 Stamps feet, screaming and yelling 1 Throws self on floor, screaming and veiling 1 Other tsDecitv 1 « .„•— None of the above Total ~~* /- VIOLENT AND A P D DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR -None of the above \2] Damages Personal Property * 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 |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 (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 //. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR |6] Teases or Gossips About Others Con.ps about others Tells untrue or exaggerated stones about Olhers * Teases others Picks on olhers Makes tun oi others Other (speeds ) - None of the above (7] Bosses and Manipulates Others * Tries to tell others what to do i) * Demands services from others {3 if Pushes others around @ if Causes fights among other people @ if Manipulates others to get them m trouble Other{speedy. ) None of the above T. o [8] Disrupts Others' Activities Is always in the way Interteres with others activities, e.g . b\ blocking passage, upsetting wheelchairs, etc , f 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 ] Total iO iO iO -None of the Above @ • 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 - 142 -INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART TWO Part Two contains only one type of item. The following is an example. [2] Damages Personal Property Rips, tears, or chews own clothing Soils own property Tears up Own magazines, books, or other possessions Other (specify None of Ihe above 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 "None of the Above" 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. When "None of the above" 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. "Occasionally" signifies that the behavior occurs once in a while, or now and . then, and "Frequently" signifies that the behavior occurs quite often, or habitually. Use the space for "Other" when: 1. The person has related behavior problems in addition to those circled. 2. The person has behavior problems that are nor covered by any of the examples listed. The behavior listed under "Other" must be a specific example of the behavior problem stated in the item. Some of the items in Part Two describe behaviors which need not be considered maladaptive for very young children (for example, pushing others). The 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. Occasionally Frequently 0 ± 2_ Total \ n - 143 Occasionally Frequently !9| Is Inconsiderate of Others 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 ff Talks too loudlv Sprawls over furniture or space needed bv others Other (specify ^ ) -None of the above Total ;'10] Shows Disrespect for Others' Property 11 Do.-* not return things that were borrowed 3 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 ill! Uses Angry Language 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 ) -None of the above Total C? 9 * o Q <a # * (3 # //. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR t III: REBELLIOUS BEHAVIOR Occasionally Frequently [12] Ignores Regulations or Regular Routines Has negative attitude toward rules but usually conforms Has to be forced to go through waiting lines, eg, , lunch lines, ticket lines, etc Violates rules or regulations, eg . eats m restriaeo areas, disobeys traffic signals, «c. . . . . Refuses to participate in required activities. e g . work, school, etc. Other (specify _j Total -None of the above [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 Does not Das atte-.tion to instructions Refuses to work oi assigned <-biect Hesitates for lor.; periods berore doing assigned tasks Does the opposite ol what was requested Other (specify i None oi Ihe above [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 o l o iO -None of the above (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, eg . 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 |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 Misbehaves in Croup Settings @ // 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 if * Does nor stav in sea: during lesson penod. lunch period, or other group sessions 0 :Vr (specitv i -None of the above Total V. WITHDRAWAL 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 -None of the above (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 0 if if |18i Takes Others' Property Without Permission 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 119) Lies or Cheats Twists the truth to own advantage Cheats in games, tests, assignments, etc. Lies .ibout situations Lies about self Lies about others Other (specify: ) Total None of the above Total IV. UNTRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR A pD 18-19 14 UNTRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR @ o iO 122] Is Shv !* umid and shv m social situation* Hide; race in group situations, e.j Parties, informal gatherings, etc. Does not mix well with others Preters to be alone Other (speor's i ———None of the above V. WITHDRAWAL: VI. STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR AND ODD MAWERISMS [23] Has Stereotyped Behaviors 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_._ - 145 -Occasionally Frequent I > @ ii <? it 124 J Has Peculiar Posture or Odd Mannerisms 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 BEHAVIOR , AND ODD MANNERISMS VII. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPERSONAL MANNERS Has inappropriate Interpersonal Manners L.»e \o others' faces r.rr> laces hers icks others ureses others K T S inappropriately Hang; on IO others and does not let go Other ;*pecifv ) -None of the above VII. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPERSONAL MANNERS Total ENTER /X. UNACCEPTABLE OR ECCENTRIC HABITS Occasional^  Frequently |27] Has Strange And Unacceptable Habits 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 ,36; Has Unacceptable Oral Habits Drools Crmds :f-eth audibly Sp'ts 0r. the tloor 5n^ s iineernails . Cht-ws or SUC-.S tingerj or other parts oi the bod\ Chews or sucks clothing or other medibles Eats medibles Onnks from IOIlet Stool Puis everything in mouth Other (specify ) — — N o n e of the above ( UNACCEPTABLE VOCAL HABITS [26] Has Disturbing Vocal or Speech Habits Oeeles hysterically sCalks loudU or veils a: others 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 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Total ~ |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 Ylll. UNACCEPTABLE VOCAL HABITS - 146 -Occasionally Frequently X// . SEXUALLY ABERRANT BEHAVIOR [30! Has Other Eccentric Habits and Tendencies ^- 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 \ \ . UNACCEPTABLE OR , ECCENTRIC HABITS X. SELF-ABUSIVE 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 Occasionally Frequ [33| Engages in Inappropriate Masturbation ' 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 using'toilet Stands >n public places with pants down or with dress up Exposes body excessively during activities. eg . playing, dancing, sitting, etc Undresses in public places, or in front of lighted windows Other (specify, ) -None ol the above Total o [351 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—''" 1 None of the above Total Other iipecit .None of the above X SELF-ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR — E N T E R > 51 XI. H Y P E R A C T I V E 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 TENDENCIES E N ^ R » o [36j Sexual Behavior That Is Socially Unacceptable Is overly seductive m appearance or action^ Hu»js or caresses too mtenseK m public Needs watching with regard to sexual behavior Lifts or unbuMOns others" ctothinj-to 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 Total X//. SEXUALLY ABERRANT A p p ,„^o 33.36 BEHAVIOR 16 - 147 -X///. PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTURBANCES Occasionally Frequently |3Tj Tends lo Ovcreslimate Own Abilities 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 !38| Reacts Poorly to Criticism 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 ( 3 9 ] Reacts PoorK to Frustration « n misrjKeS On otl'ers ^ rL-ir;:;.w ? or pouis when thwarted // *>:<ori,-> jpset when thwarted # icmrter tantrums when does tjtner ispecify _ - None of the above Occasional!* Frequently 9 * 9 o [42j Has Hypochondriacal Tendencies •Complains about imaginary physical ailments Pretends to be ill Acts sick after illness is over Othtr (specify ) None of the above 1 [43] Has Other Signs of Emotional Instabilities Changes mood without apparent reason Complains ot bad creams Cries out while asleep Cries for no apparent reason Seems to have no emotion.!1 control \omns when upset Appears insecure or inchtcned daily acm mes 7.:",s ahoyr peo:>te or thmgs thai •'au-e unrealistic l^ ars T.'lks a!*>u! suit -de has marie an attempt at suicide C"ner ivp»- i i ! \ ) . None of the above Total XIII. PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTURBANCES 140] Demands Excessive Attention or Praise 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 Total |41) Seems To Feel Persecuted Complains ot unfairness, even when eaual shares or privileges have been Given 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 \ o XIV. USE OF MEDICATIONS [44J Use of Prescribed Medication Uses tranquilizers Uses sedatives Uses anticonvulsant drugs L'jes stimulants Other (specify 1 i o o - None of the above XIV. USE OF MEDICATIONS ENTER - 148 -APPENDIX D - 149 -TABLE Dl Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Violent and Destruc-t i v e Behavior 1 Mean Standard Dev. r„ . r P Domain t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .45 .57 .97 1.1 .38 .49 .50 .55 79.6 75.5 2 .26 .21 .78 .69 .44 .44 .27 .42 88.8 88.8 3 .09 .09 .46 .43 .34 .27 .20 .28 95.9 94.9 4 .67 .71 1.23 1.25 .36 .32 .25 .31 73.5 72.4 5 .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 -.4' .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 -.01 .0 -.09 .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 -.06 .0 -.08 .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 .09 .0 -.04 .0 94.9 100.0 27 .92 .96 1.33 1.41 .26 .46 .40 .48 64.3 65.3 28 .29 .28 .85 .74 .29 .35 .36 .37 88.8 86.7 29 .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 -.08 ' -.04 -.04 90.8 93.9 - 150 -TABLE D2 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Antisocial Behavior Mean Standard Dev. r„ r P Domain total test Item \ R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 - .0 .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 19 0.0 .15 -0.0 .72 0.0 .22 0.0 .12 100.0 94.9 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 1.0 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 -.05 .0 - .01 .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 33 • .27 .32 .78 .82 .57 .59 .47 .49 88.8 85.7 34 .23 .36 .73 .82 .50 .68 .50 .54 89.8 81.6 35 .02 .0 .20 - .0 -.02 .0 .04 .0 99.0 100.0 - 151 -TABLE D3 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Rebellious Behavior Mean Standard Dev. r D o m a i n r t o t a l t e s t Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 -.06 .0 -.03 .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 15 .03 .03 .30 .30 .06 -.05 .05 .02 99.0 99.0 16 .06 .05 .38 .30 .41 .25 .21 .31 96.9 96.9 17 .03 .04 .30 .32 .28 .21 .13 . 14 99.0 98.0 18 .06 .0 .35 - .0 .16 .0 .26 .0 96.9 100.0 19 .14 .14 .63 .66 .34 .19 .16 .16 94.9 94.9 20 .21 .12 .80 .63 .24 .43 .18 .17 92.9 95.9 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 25 .18 .26 .58 .71 -.07 .14 .05 .18 88.8 85.7 26 .02 .07 .14 .46 .17 .03 .05 .05 98.0 96.9 27 .01 .02 .10 .14 -.05 .18 -.00 .49 99.0 98.0 28 .06 .10 .45 .55 .11 -.00 .14 .04 98.0 95.9 29 .36 .24 1.04 .87 .40 .22 .37 .46 87.8 92.9 30 .31 .16 .85 .64 .34 .22 .28 .36 87.8 92.9 31 .60 .61 1.19 1.28 .05 .32 .26 .41 77.6 79.6 32 .38 .37 .99 1.03 .13 .21 .26 .40 85.7 87.8 33 .0 .03 - .0 .30 .0 .37 .0 .13 100.0 99.0 - 152 -TABLE D4 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Untrustworthy Behavior Mean Standard Dev. r Domain r t o t a l test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 -.0 .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 - 153 -TABLE D5 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Withdrawal Mean Standard Dev. r . r P Domain t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Stereotyped Behavior and Odd Mannerisms Mean Standard Dev. rDomain r t o t a l test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .12 .17 .69 .80 .22 .13 .00 .06 96.9 94.9 2 .0 .09 - .0 .58 .0 .06 .0 .05 100.0 96.9 3 .59 .57 1.41 1.41 .46 .44 .01 .09 84.7 85.7 4 .27 .38 .97 1.11 .39 .23 . 12 .22 92.9 88.8 5 .34 .37 1.07 1.13 .34 .32 .21 . 18 90.8 89.8 6 .28 .33 1.00 1.07 .38 . 19 .14 .21 92.9 90.8 7 .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 - .0 .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 - 155 -TABLE D7 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Inappropriate Interpersonal Manners Mean Standar Dev. r„ . r P Domain t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Unacceptable Vocal Habits Standard Dev. r . r Domain t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Standard Dev. r r P Domain total test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R 1 R2 1 .09 .18 .54 .77 .04 -.50 .10 -.23 96 .9 93.9 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 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 10 .22 .37 .89 1.09 . 15 .09 .05 -.01 93 .9 88.8 11 .14 .12 .72 .65 .10 .16 -.06 .08 95 .9 95.9 12 .16 .15 .73 .'71 .17 .44 .07 .30 94. .9 94.9 13 .07 . 10 .50 .55 .10 .40 .02 .17 98. .0 95.9 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 20 .37 .25 .88 .80 .20 .46 .35 .17 82. 7 88.8 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 26 .11 .0 .64 - .0 .24 .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 30 .25 .18 .96 .75 .07 -.03 .06 .03 93.9 92.9 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 analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Self-Abusive Behavior Mean Standard Dev. r ^ . r P Domaxn t o t a l test Etem R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Hyperactive Mean Standard Dev. r„ . r P Domain t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 1 .0 .69 .0 . 10 .0 -.05 100.0 96.9 - 158 -TABLE D12 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified): Sexually Aberrant Behavior Mean Standard Dev. rDomain r t o t a l test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 -.03 .0 -.11 .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 .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 - .0 -.06 .0 .05 .0 99.0 100.0 14 .01 .04 .10 .40 .18 .12 .23 .13 99.0 99.0 15 .09 .15 .52 .68 .21 .15 .37 .16 96.9 94.9 16 .16 .03 .74 .30 .32 .15 .42 .04 94.9 99.0 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 .04 .0 .40 - .0 .22 .0 .20 .0 99.0 100.0 20 .0 .0 - .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 21 .09 .08 .58 .59 .13 .22 . 17 .07 96.9 96.9 22 .04 .0 .40 - .0 .06 .0 .04 .0 99.0 100.0 - 159 -TABLE D13 Item analysis information for the ABS Part II (modified) Psychiatric Distur-bance Mean Standard Dev. r_ . r„ . . . Domain total test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .15 .18 .68 .75 .44 .58 .32 .46 94.9 93.9 2 .12 .18 .69 .78 .23' .59 -.01 .35 96.9 93.9 3 . 15 .21 .65 .80 .54 .56 .50 .46 93.9 92.9 4 .0 .0 - .0 - .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 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 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 13 1.05 .83 1.42 1.23 .29 .28 .47 .47 61.2 64.3 14 .05 .03 .36 .30 -.04 -.05 .09 -.05 98.0 99.0 15 .33 .35 .99 1.10 .62 .68 .38 .51 89.8 90.8 16 .51 .44 1.20 1.13 .57 .57 .29 .36 83.7 85.7 17 .25 .39 .85 1.11 .61 .69 .44 .54 91.8 88.8 18 .64 .69 1.31 1.35 .14 .24 .21 .20 79.6 77.6 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 21 .09 .04 .52 .28 .63 .31 .27 .06 96.9 98.0 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 26 .0 .04 - .0 .40 .0 -.02 .0 .03 100.0 99.0 27 .40 .42 1.01 1.04 .47 .42 .29 .32 85.7 83.7 28 .13 .29 .60 .84 .34 .39 .12 .38 94.9 87.8 29 .09 .06 .48 .35 .61 .43 .25 .34 95.9 96.9 30 .0 .05 - .0 .30 .0 .06 .0 .01 100.0 96.9 31 .81 .93 1.36 1.47 .36 .50 .41 .42 71.4 68.4 32 .11 .04 .57 .32 .06 -.05 .13 -.07 95.9 98.0 33 .12 .00 .58 .00 -.04 .00 -.02 .00 94.9 100.0 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 36 .03 .07 .23 .41 .28 .19 .08 .07 98.0 96.9 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 - .0 .10 .0 .43 .0 .20 100.0 99.0 41 .0 .09 - .0 .54 .0 .01 .0 .06 100.0 96.9 - 160 -INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART TWO (REVISED) P a r t Two c o n t a i n s o n l y one t y p e o f item. The f o l l o w i n g i s an exampIe. ( 2 ) Damages P e r s o n a l P r o p e r t y Y M W D R i p s , t e a r s or chews own c l o t h i ng 1 2 3 A S p o i l s own p r o p e r t y 1 2 3 4 T e a r s up own magazines, books, or o t h e r p o s s e s s i o n s 1 2 3 4 Other ( s p e c i f y ; ) 1 2 3 4 None o f t h e above ._ S e l e c t t h o s e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s which a r e t r u e o f 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 o c c u r s from I t o 3 t i m e s a month (m), or ( 3 ) i t i t o c c u r s I t o 6 t i m e s a week (w), or ( 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 . Check "None o f t h e Above" where appr-opr i a t e . In s c o r i n g , t o t a l each column on t h e bottom ( t o t a l ) l i n e , and e n t e r t h e sum o f t h e s e t o t a l s in t h e c i r c l e t o t h e r i g h t . When "None o f t h e above" i s c h e c k e d , e n t e r 0 in t h e c i r c l e t o t h e r i g h t . Use t h e space f o r " O t h e r " when: 1. The p e r s o n has r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r problems in a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e c i r c l e d . 2 . The p e r s o n has b e h a v i o r problems t h a t a r e not c o v e r -ed by any o f t h e examples l i s t e d . The b e h a v i o r l i s t e d under " O t h e r " must be a s p e c i f i c example o f t h e b e h a v i o r problem s t a t e d in t h e i t e m . Some of t h e items in P a r t Two d e s c r i b e b e h a v i o r s which need not 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 young 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 or m a l a d a p t i v e depends 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 viewed by p e o p l e in our s o c i e t y . N o n e t h e l e s s , in c o m p l e t i n g t h i s S c a l e you a r e asked t o r e c o r d a p e r s o n ' s b e h a v i o r as a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e , f o r t h e moment, i g n o r i n g your p e r s o n a l b i a s e s ; t h e n , when you l a t e r i n t e r p r e t 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 i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o c i e t a l a t t i t u d e s . - 161 -I ' A R I 1W0 / V /OL/ Nl AND IV-SIRLK IIVI HI I IAVIOR @ II # * # ft} Threatens or Does Physical Violence * Use* threaienmc fiesiutes Indirectly du*es ni|ury tn nlhers 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\ : 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 -None of the above 1 i j. I5j Has Violent Temper, or Temper Tantrums @ it slai t? # "b,..mps (3 0 *Thrnws Other|< intj dnors. en I'll on floor, sen o y M w D 1 2 3 1 2 3 If 1 1 2 3 -None ol the above o /. VIOLENT AND . Total ADD DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR \2] Damages Personal Property *Rips tears or chews own clothing *Soils own property Tears up Own magazines books, or othei possessions Other (specify _________________ 8 II —Hoot ol the above |3) Damages Other?' Property R I D S , 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 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 u 3 it 3 u 3 t. 9 II C^)ii a it @ II (4| Damages Public Property Tears up magazines, books or other public property 1 2 Is overly rough with furniture Ikicks." mutilates, knocks it down) 1 2 Breaks windows ^ 2 Slutls loilet with paper towels or other solid obiects that cause an overflov. 1 2 Attempts 10 sei ftres ^ 2 Other (supply 1 _ 2 None of the above T<«*l //. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR !61 Teases or Gossips About Others Gossips about others Tells untrue or exaggerated stones about others leases others Pirks on others Makes fun ot others Other )Sp*Tifv ) o [7] Bosses and Manipulates Others *Tnes tn lell til hers what tn do D^emands wrvii es irom others Pushes others around Causes nehis among other people Manipulates olhers to e^ i Ihem in trouble Other fsix't ily ____________ I • None of the above T. |6] Disrupts Others' Activities Is always tn the was Interferes with others' activities, eg. bv hiockinc passage, upsettinc wheelchairs, etc Upsets others' work Krwtks around articles thai others are working with, e R . puzzles, card games, etc jj*_-natches things out ol others' hands Other tspecify ) ———None of (he above Total 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 12 3 1* ;0 o 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 @ = item to domain correlations that meet the .40 discrimination index // = item to total test correlations that meet the .40 discrimination index * - item that f a l l within the .15 to .85 d i f f i c u l t y range - 162 -i i.H |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"- thei 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 Y M W D - Norte ol the above |10] Shows Disrespect for Others' Property 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 > Total -None of Ibe above [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 II ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR . Total in RI in i.i iot ^ HI a \\ loiy [12| Ignores Regulations or Regular Roulines / / * I [.is nfc.tuvo .lintiirif. I I S I M I I V i nnliirins vv.lrrt rule* hut ^ - m 1 ' ' l v "> "" "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 *>,iis _ 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 [13! Resists Following Irtntroclioni, Requests or Orders k @ t * 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 t :0 Cels upsei if given a direr t order Plavs rieai and 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 W H S r»ouf sled Other (specify i — - None of the above Total (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 Y'M W D 1 2 3 b 1 2 3 -1 2 1 2 1 2 3 u 3 i. t of the above 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 11S1 Is Absent Prom, or Late For, the Proper Assignments or Places t* laie to recurred places or activities 1 2 3 rails to return 10 places where he is Mipt*>sed to be after leaving, e g . going to lotlet. running an errand, etc 1 2 3 Leave* place of required activity without -etmmmn. e.g . work, class, etc 1 2 3 Is absent from routine activities, e.g . *vork. class, etc ^ 2 3 Stays out late at night from home, hospital ward dormitory, etc 1 2 3 Other Ispectfv _ ( -Nor* of the above Total -11 A 13 - 163 -I Will ll'KAW \l 0 II II * 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 1171 Misbehaves in Croup Settings 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 1 1 3 k \W\ Is Inactive J 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 ! > [ ! 1 2 3 1 2 3 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 [21) Is Withdrawn Seems unaware ol surrnundmgs * Is difficult to reach or mniact is anal net.c and unresponsive in teeling H H S a hlank stare Has a liked expression Other (specify i — — N o n e of the above Y M V D 1 2 3 * * 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 i* 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 u 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 11 1 k /// REBELLIOUS BEHAVIOR IV. UNTRUSTWORlli) BEHAVIOR |18| Takes Others' Property Wiihou Permission [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 1 2 1 2 1 2 -12. i_ . 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 • - None ol Ihe above |19| Lies or Cheats 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 1 2 1 2 O WITHDRAWAL > Taps leet it /*^\ *Has hand' u { ) Slaps scr, I* Waves nr IV. UNTRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR * P P 18-1*) 14 V/. STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR AND ODD MANNERISMS (23) Has Stereotyped Behaviors Drums fingers  leet continuaHv s tonsianUv in mm ion ratches, pr rubs sell continually shakes pans of the body reiKMledly Mnv*«s or rolls head Iva* k and lonh CHorks f»»K back and innh f*a*«-s Ihe floor Other |st"-cifv 1 Non« oi in* asove ToUl ] 1 : ] 2 3 u j - i . - 164 -it a # (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 1 V/. STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR, AND ODD MANNERISMS V M W D 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 :«o W / 'APPROPRIATE INTERPERSONAL MANNERS [25] Has Inappropriate interpersonal Manners 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 VII. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPERSONAL MANNERS 12"! i'NA< ( I 1'IAHLI OR I CCCNIRIC hlABITS Has Strange And Unacceptable Habit i -None of the above Q D 128} Has Unacceptable Oral Habits 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 Y M V D Smells everythinc 1 2 3 -In.ipprripriaielv stufts ihing* in pockets shirts dresses or shoes 1 2 3 u full* threads out ot own clothing 2 2 3 u Plavs with things ts.e is wearing, eg . shoe Mrmg. buttons etc Saves and wears unusual articles, e g 1 2 3 k safety pins, bottle cans, eit 1 2 s u Hoards things, including toocts 1 2 a u Plays with spu , J 2 Plavs with feces or urine 1 2 3 z Other (spec its ) _1 2 3 1 2 : 2 1 2 i 2 3 u 3 !• 3 k 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 J 2 3 UNACCEPTABLE VOCAL HABITS (26) Has Disturbing Vocal Or Speech Habits ^ CiCgle1- hvsieni.ilk-Talks lourtlv or yells a: others Talks IO sell loudk * Lauflhs inappropriately * Makes growling Kummmc. or other unpleasant noises Repeats a word or phrase over and over Mimics others speech Other ispecifv ) — - None of the above VIII. UNACCEPTABLE VOCAL HABITS Total 1 2 3 k 1 2 3 k 1 2 3 k ] 2 3 k 1 2 3 k ] 2 3 k 1 2 3 k _I 2. 3 k :0 l»| Removes or Tears Off Own Clothing 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 1 2 1 2 a 1 2 1 2 1 2 is - 165 -J.ini Ha» (Mlter I ,.<•.•!•» H J I . ' I * and Tendencies 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 i ______ r«one ol the above Y M W D 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 * * 1 2 3 i* 1 2 3 t. Ml MM-A/M Mil h'KAKt lil I t-\\t()h-1.1.11 Engage* in iiuppronriaie Masturbation 0" M.lslurl.ali-* in Ir M.lsUirtl.iU's in gr t Kher isiiei its isiurli.iii' nfn-nk -Non* of the above Y M W D 1 2 3 1. 1 2 3 1 2 3 i L 1 .L ;0 134] Et poses Bodv Improperly l\. UNACCEPTABLE OR _ ECCENTRIC HABITS X. S£LF-AS0'S/V£ BEHAVIOR {311 Does Physical Violence to Self 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 2 3 2 3 * 2 3 u 2 3 L 2 u 2 3 b 2 3 i. 2 3 U 2 3 U 2 3 k • of the above X. SELF-ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR ENTER • 31 X/ HYPERACTIVE TENDENCIES \Z2] Has Hyperactive 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 1 2 3 -1 2 3<* O 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 o 135 [ Has Homoseiual Tendencies Is se«uallv attracted to members of Ha* approached others and attempted homoseiual act* Has engaged m homoseiual aeiivitv Other (spectts ! • oi the above [Hi $>>ual Behavior That Is Socially Unacceptable 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 t ) ______ None of Ihe above 1 2 3 U 1 2 3 t . 1 2 3 1. 1 2 _3_ u 1 2 3 «. O " - o 1 2 3 L V ' 1 2 3 L 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1" 1 2 3 " . 1 2 3 " :0 X I . HYPERACTIVE TENDENCIES E N , E R i X//. S E X U A L L Y ABERRANT BEHAVIOR 16 - 166 -.XI//. I'M ( / /{ 1/ Ol.K M /HS/I'KH \M I >. [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 • of the above (38j Reacts Poorlv lo Criticism @ Does not talk when corrected * Withdraw* or pout* when cnuci/^ ri @ // ABecome* upset when criticized S^creams and crie* when corrected Other (specif* i • of the above [39] Reacts Poorly lo Frustration (3 § 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 ] - None of Ihe above Y M W D 1 2 3 u <§ 1 2 3 i* 12 3** 1 2 3 -O it * I 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 (3 // < 4 J ! M . I N ltt|HHlH»idr....al 1 ••n<ti-i.< ie* - < •(H[ if.iiii-> .ilmul nil,mm.H ^  | liis .<! Ai i- ».t k alter illnwNs i* nu-i ' )tlwr (spfl ilv -None of ihe above 1431 Has Othrr Signs of Emotional Instabilities 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 S U M I Lis martf an attempt at suit irir i It her !s|Mi iiv 1 None of the above Mil. PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTURBANCES Y M V D 1 2 1 2 U 1 2 3 k 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 b 1 2 3 U 1 2 3 1* 1 2 3 * 1 2 3 U 1 2 3 L 1 2 3 1* 1 2 3 u 1 2 3 1. o 1401 Demands Excessive Attention or Praise Wants excessive pra<se Is tealoiis nt attention given to ethers Demands excessive r?assuran«e K^cts sillv to gain attention Other I spec its I None ol the 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 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 \IV. USE OF MEDICATIONS 144) Use of Prescribed Medication •* V / ,r',l,'l>"'"'' , > ' U V I MfUlV.'S HnlrmnviiKflrit druEi \limuliintv -Noo* oi thf above 1 2 1 2 1 2 \/V USt 0! MEDICATIONS ENTER o o 17 - 167 -APPENDIX E - 168 -TABLE E l Item Analysis information for the MBP: Aggression (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev subtest r t o t a l test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R i R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Analysis information for the MBP: Self -Abusive (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev subtest r t o t a l test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Analysis information for the MBP: Damaging Property (1) (2) ... \ Mean Standard Dev. r subtest r t o t a l test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Analysis information for the MBP: Poor Coping with Frustration (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev. r _ r_ ^ , _ P subtest t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Analysis information for the MBP: Social Aggravation (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev. 'subtest t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Analysis information for the MBP: Stereotypic Manners (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev. r , r , subtest t o t a l test Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Analysis information for the MBP: Uncooperative (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev. r subtest r subtest P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 Analysis information for the MBP: T o i l e t Related (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev. r subtest r t o t a l test P Item R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 1 .06 .10 .24 .31 .16 .20 .16 .11 93.8 89.7 2 .01 .02 .10 . 14 -.03 -.07 .29 .01 99.0 97.9 3 .04 .02 .20 .14 .20 .22 .20 .06 94.9 97.9 4 .05 .12 .22 .33 .51 .19 .12 .28 94.8 87.6 - 172 -TABLE E9 Item Analysis information for the MBP: Sexual (1) (2) Mean Standard Dev. r subtest r t o t a l test P Item R l V R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 R l R2 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 - 173 -G.!-::iyUi. - :;Aua\?mr-, BiviAViO'ii? Piums .RESIDENT 1W.Z: DA— OF ?.ATP'.-,: i I I i I ' , 1 Month D-".y Year AZZk OF ?.ATT"~: HARD SCHOOL VOCATTCTAL R2C?.T'<TTC*IAL carTTrr OVERALL . 1 1 1 S tt03LE-: EVERT. n'TF.?.7Frmor! i HEED |j j PRIORITIES | 1 1 MALADAPTIVE BEHAVTCU? 2 I a t-s 1 o a 3 I < 1 m I 1 FIRST 1 to tr P £ i P X r-i °J 1 ! Si Aggression to Others - 0 * 3 2 i X + A* L 1 X - 7 6 2 X [ . Self-Abusive * 3 2 i X + * L 1 X - 7 6 5 u 3 2 \ X 1 i I Oar.agins Property 3 2 i X I. 1 1 X - |7 6 5 u 3 2 i Poor Copir.g *..-ith Frustration @ * 2 X + /. 1 X 7 £ 5 L •a 2 x ; ! Social. Aggravation - <• i X + U > 1 X - 7 6 5 U 3 2 x i Stereotypic Manners @ * 2 i X + * 1 X i - 7 £ 5 U 3 2 X I Uncoooerativ; @ * •> i X + i 1 X - 7 6 5 u 3 2 x ; ; 2 i X * i 1 X - 7 6 5 L 3 2 X Toilet/2.iraination * 3 2 i X + * 1 X - 7 6 5 U 3 2 X Other (not computed) 2 X + L. 1 x 7 6 5 U 3 2 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 I I I Month Day Year AREA OF RATING: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RiCFEATiaiAL _ ca-j-inrrTY 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.) If * Threatens others irith nlv/sieal harm (verbally, physically) a a * » ; Pushes or shoves others around f n n * [' Strike:; out at others (hits, kicks, slaps, head butts, etc.) 3 f * \ Msuls others ! (bites, oinches, scratches, gr?sr.s, etc.) « * 1 5 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 I I I Month Day Year AREA OF RAT PIG: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY OVERALL TYPE OF SELF-ABUSIVE MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR y ! CHECK OFF ( \/) . THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S BEHAVIOUR IS 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 ? J^se 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) - 176 -J11 STtcmn - f.XMMPTiy-. PRnwww RESIDENT KAKE: DATE OF RATI NO: I • I , | , | Month Day Year AREA' 0? RATTiJG: HARD SCHOOL WIPSTTOK.-.T > t r » ' ~ » T COS-rjinTY OVERALL | |j CHECK OFF ( >/) j THE AP.EAS WHERE j THE PERSON'S || BEHAVIOUR IS TYPE OF PROPERTY DAMAC-TJ.'O MALADAPTIVE HffltVTfun? . !; n„Au„D AS J PROBLEMATIC 1 i DESTRUCTIVE TO 7;Td PROPERTY (rips, chews, soils, breeds, etc., own clothinj and/or personal possessions) « # * DESTRUCTIVE TO OTHER'S PROPERTY jl (rips, chews, soils, breaks, etc., other's clothing and/or personal possessions) ? II DESTRUCTIVE TO FURiriTURE 1 (kicks, mutilates, knocks down, takes ap?rt, etc., bureaus, j tables, beds, chairs, etc.) j i 1 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 * I. DESTRUCTIVE TO 0.1LDIMG |i (breaks windows, pulls drapes, writes on or peels walls, i! stuffs toilets, etc.) »' ATTEMPTS OR SETS FIRES | OTHER: j l l l - 177 -SPECrFFC - ::/,UmiTI¥E M:-aiAVTf)Ui! V&r,\uz- pij.HU RESIDE;.'? HAKE: DATS OF RATING: | | | i | | 1 Month D-.y Year AREA OF SATING: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL COIMUNTTY OVERALL | { CHECK OFF ( / ) 'i ] THE ARE,\S i-rjrRS ij TYPE OF POOR COPING WITH FRUSTRATION MALADAPTIVE BSHAVXOU?. '• r~ orpine " j [ BEHAVIOUR IS J REGARDED AS F, PROBLEMATIC IREACTS TO CORRECTION OR CRITICISM 3Y WITHDRAWAL 3 (poutr, does not ta?k, beccmes mcc'y, rtrys apart from others) 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) ft * REACTS TO PROHIBITION, OPPOSITION OR RESTRICTIONS BY EXCESSIVE COMPLAINING (argues about fairness, blames others, claims to be picked on etc) ? 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 i 1 I 1 Month Day Year AR3A OF RAT1K5: WARD SCHOOL VOCATTOliAL F?:ns-iTTOMiT. CC* n"JMI TY OVERALL TYPE OF AGGRAVATING SOCIAL fcAUDA?TIVS BEHAVIOUR / 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 It 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.) ? II | DISRUPTING OTOKS ACTIVITIES i (always in the way, upsets others work, knocks rbout articles others using, snatches things from others, etc.) (3 /( V5XATE1G TO OTHERS I!! VOCAL HA3IT3 (makes irritating ncises, talks too loud, mimics others, laujjhs or giggles inappropriately, etc.) % II * l VEXATIT.'G TO OTHERS IK II-'TERPERSOnAL HA3ITS u 1 I (talking or standing too close to others, excessive touching ! or hanging onto others, hugs, kisses or squeezes others, ! a if * * b;rps or blows at others, etc.) OTHER - 179 StiStHC -;j,'.,.l)AJynVr: ngiSVIW! J>;,v"i;i;.V M K | F]I.;  RESIDENT HAT'S:  DATE OF RATu-iG! [ AREA OF RATING: SAKS SCHOOL VOCATIONAL ocnuniTY OVERALL TYPt OF SioRSCTYPICAL MALADAPTIVE sffiHiVTOn* CHE OK OFF ( /) THE AREAS WHERE THE PERSON'S EEHAVT0UR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC REPETITr/E/RITJ.ALISTIC 503? MOVE'Ei.TS i (boar racking, hea-.: Keevi-.s, hand flashing, finger motions tics, pacing patterns, etc.) i rZPETITiVE/xTTUALIiTIC IWIIWiLATKil' OF OBJECTS (Tvd.rii.-ir shiny objects, t:~stin- string, shaking, in-objects for sound, st-o':inr, etc.) '* ° | 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 I | | Itonth toy fear" AR5A OF RATIiW: WARD SCHCCL _ _ VOCATIONAL RCCREATIONAL CO;-!UI!ITY OVERALL _ TYPE OF ra{cop?s?.vrT_vj KAUBtfrm BEHAVIOUR CKiCK OFF ( •/) THE AREAS WHERE TH-. P S SSX ' S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC ! : i Does not respond to revests (does the opposite, ignores it, hesitates, refuses, etc.). 3 t * 1 I Uncooperative <n Group Situation (ores at* sr.av in assigned place, talks about unrelated topics, does not take turns, not follow rules.) r, t * fcr.cocperetive in a one-to-one situation (n:es not stav m seat, throws objects, does not nsy attention, etc."). <? # * i 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, "tc .1. — — — 1 • — — . . at* i \ t i Other (specify) 1 j - 181 -VII] SPECIFIC - KALADAPTIVS B'-JIAVIOUP, PROG R A," PROFITE RESIDENT NAME: , DATE OF RATTflG: _1_ J I lonth Day l'ear AREA OF RATD.'G: WARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL COMHUKITY OVERALL RECREATIONAL TYPE OF SEXUAL KALADAPTIVZ 23L'.?X0aa CHECK OFF ( THE AREAS VJHSRS THE PERSOiC'S BEHAVIOUR IS REGARDED AS PROBLEMATIC lilasturbates i n public ( i n d i v i d u a l l y or with others jopenly) (Inappropriate homosexual behaviour (engages i n public Shomoseroiai actj ppro^ches and attempts homose?^ i<al acts Swith others who are either u n w i l l i n g or defenseless). 'Inappropriate heterose.-raai acts , (hugs or caresses inter.se-j ly , removes other 's clothing to touch intimately, 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 places, • u i f t s dress u?T af ter usinj; the t o i l e t walks into a L i v i n g Sarea vrithout f u l l y redressing.) \ \ ; • jOther (specify) - 182 -iX S P E C I F I C : - A D A P T I V E 'itiHAVTfHir. -ximiiA'f pwwnz Ksjparr SAJIE^. DATE OF RATPIG: 1 | I | [ j Month Dny year AREA OF RATING: HARD SCHOOL VOCATIONAL RECREATIONAL OOftiUHITy 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 it, '• sticking head in it 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 Additional Items Aggressive Self-Abusive Property Damage Damage to Communal Property Poor Coping with Frustration Crys or becomes aggitated for no apparent reason Soc i a l Aggravation Unacceptable Oral Habits (drools, grinding teeth, s p i t t i n g , regurgitation, playing with s a l i v a , etc.) Stereotypic Mannerisms Oral Behaviours (chewing motion, tongue protrusion, hyperventilates, swallows a i r , etc.) Uncooperative T o i l e t Related Sexual Other Untrustworthy Behaviour ( l i e s , cheats, s t e a l s , etc.) 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, picks food off fingers, picks food off f l o o r , etc.) A c t i v i t y l e v e l Withdrawn, F i d g i t s , Hyperactive Hypocondrial Tendencies 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055732/manifest

Comment

Related Items