Vineland-II Running Head: Review of the Vineland-II

Test Review: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition- Survey Interview Form and Parent/ Caregiver Rating Form Pasquale Veleno University of Calgary December 4, 2009

Vineland-II Test Review: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition- Survey Interview Form and Parent/ Caregiver Rating Form Test Description The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II (Vineland-II) is an individually administered measure of adaptive behavior for individuals ranging from birth to ninety years of age (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005). The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II represents a revision and update of the original Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, originally introduced over two decades ago, which itself was based upon Edgar Dolls Vineland Social Maturity Scale (1935, 1965)

(Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984; Sparrow et al., 2005; Stein, 2006). The scales are available in three versions: two survey forms, including the Survey Interview Form (Vineland-II interview) and Parent/Caregiver Rating Form (Vineland-II parent); the Expanded Interview Form (Vineland-II extended), and the Teacher Rating Form (Vineland-II teacher). The two survey forms, which will be the focus of this review, assess adaptive behavior in four broad domains for individuals from birth to six years of age: Communication, Daily Living Skills, Motor Skills, and Socialization, and 11 subdomains. Both the Survey Interview Form and the Parent/Caregiver Rating Form contain 383 items (Sattler and Hoge, 2006; Sparrow et al., 2005). For individuals aged seven to 90 years, only three domains are assessed: Communication, Daily Living Skills, and Socialization. An optional Maladaptive Behavior Domain can also be administered for ages three to 90 years of age on all forms other than the Teacher Rating Form (Sattler and Hoge, 2006). The Vineland-II is equipped with optional scoring software (Vineland-II ASSIST), which assists with calculating derived scores and report generation.

Vineland-II Purpose The Vineland-II was developed based upon the notion that adaptive behavior is measured by assessing an individuals ability to function independently and meet cultural expectations for personal and social responsibility at various ages. This is philosophically congruent with the

views of the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR), which stipulates that adaptive behavior is the collection of conceptual, social and practical skills associated with meeting the demands of the environment (Sattler and Hoge, 2006), and is one of two major domains, in conjunction to low general intellectual functioning, to be assessed when determining mental retardation (Widaman, 2006). Adaptive behavior is influenced by a number of personal, cognitive, social and situational variables (Sattler and Hoge, 2006). As such, it is considered difficult to assess because it is: age-related, insofar as behavioral expectations become more complex and evolve as an individual ages; defined by the expectations and standards of others with whom the individual interacts with regularly; modifiable, since adaptive function can improve or worsen throughout the lifespan depending upon a variety of factors; and is defined by performance rather than ability, and as such, must be demonstrated when required (Sparrow et al., 2005). Administration of the mandatory adaptive behavior composites within the Vineland-II will result in an adaptive behavior composite score that can be used to compare an individuals adaptive functioning to a standardized sample (Sparrow et al., 2005). The measurement of adaptive behavior has been shown to be important for diagnostic, program planning, and research purposes, especially in relation to clinical populations (Perry, Flanagan, Geier & Freeman, 2009). The Vineland-II corresponds closely with the AAMR belief that deficits in adaptive behavior and cognitive function must be confirmed prior to the diagnosis of mental retardation, and is therefore useful in this regard. Secondly, the Vineland-II is helpful for making differential diagnoses

Vineland-II between developmental disabilities, genetic disorders, developmental delays, and emotional and behavioral problems. Finally, this measure can assist in informing placement decisions, treatment planning and performance evaluation for the purposes of research applications (Perry, Flanagan, Dunn Geier, & Freeman, 2009; Sparrow et al., 2005). The revision of the original Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale stemmed from attempts on the part of the authors to improve diagnostic utility and sensitivity while addressing changing

cultural expectations, and incorporate updated research on developmental disabilities, especially as it pertains to least restrictive living environments (Stein, 2006). Item content was improved which has resulted in greater item discrimination (Sparrow et al., 2005; Widaman, 2006). Furthermore, improvements to the test have been made so as to increase the age range for which the test was valid, increasing the upper age limit of the original Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales from 18 years to 90 years in the Vineland-II (Sparrow et al., 2005; Stein, 2006; Widaman, 2006). As such, the Vineland-II is considered a very useful tool in differential diagnosis, distinguishing among developmental disabilities, including autism, and in informing treatment and programming decisions (Widaman, 2006). Major Features The Vineland-II is a measure of adaptive function for infants, children and adults ranging up to 90 years of age (Sattler and Hoge, 2006). Administration of the Vineland-II requires that an individual who is very familiar with the person being assessed answer behavioral questions in a semi-structured interview or questionnaire format across four dimensions: Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills. The Communication domain assesses Receptive, Expressive, and Written Communication. The Daily Living Skills domain assesses Personal Skills, including activities associated with self-care, Domestic, such as the performance of

Vineland-II household tasks, and Community, which includes the performance on tasks such as budgeting, time, job skills, etc. The Socialization domain is comprised of the subdomains of Interpersonal Relationships, Play and Leisure, and Coping Skills. Lastly, the Motor Skills domain, which is intended for children aged six or younger, is comprised of the Gross Motor and Fine Motor subdomains. The composite scores can be interpreted separately to provide information on specific areas of functioning, and/or together to calculate an adaptive behavior composite score. There is an optional Maladaptive Behavior domain that can be administered, except on the Teacher Rating Form, to individuals over the age of 3 years if behavioral challenges are suspected to interfere with adaptive function. This domain does not contribute to the adaptive functioning

composite score but can provide useful information regarding internalizing, externalizing and other problem behaviors (Sparrow et al., 2005). A final major feature of the Vineland- II Interview Form only is that a Spanish version is available (Sparrow et al., 2005; Widaman, 2006). In order to administer the Spanish version, the clinician must be fluent in both languages, since scoring and interpretation information is available in English only. Administration, Scoring and Interpretation The Vineland-II tests can be administered by professionals who have graduate level training in psychology or social work, have training in interview techniques, and experience in individual assessment and test interpretation (Sparrow et al., 2005). The Survey (Interview Form) is administered to parents and/or caregivers through a semi-structured interview, which typically takes 20 to 60 minutes to complete, with an additional 15 to 30 minutes required to hand score the instrument (Sparrow et al. 2005; Stein, 2006; Widaman, 2006). This format does not require the participation of the individual being assessed. Rather, this requires that a third-party provide

Vineland-II responses regarding behaviors for individuals who cannot or will not perform upon command (Sparrow et al., 2005). Furthermore, the semi-structured nature of this survey allows for a collection of rich data, where respondent bias is reduced. The purpose of the semi-structured interview is to establish a normal conversation whereby the respondent describes key developmental milestones or adaptive behaviors and the administrator scores answers while formulating follow up questions aimed at eliciting additional information (Sparrow et al., 2005). The Survey (Parent/Caregiver Rating Form) is a rating scale that is completed

independently by a respondent who is very familiar with the individual. If a secondary respondent participates in completing the rating scale, such as a spouse, for example, one respondent must take the primary role while the other provides occasional input, as required (Sparrow et al., 2005). The starting point is dictated by chronological age on both measures, however clinical judgment can be used to choose a more appropriate start point if necessary. Items on the Survey Rating Form use a three-point scale based on whether the activity described by the item is usually or habitually performed without physical help or reminders, i.e., scored as 2; the activity is performed sometimes or partially without physical help or reminders, i.e., scored as 1; or, the activity is never or very seldom performed without help or reminders, i.e., scored as 0. When an individual has had no opportunity to perform the activity because of limiting circumstances, an item can be scored N/O (no opportunity) and/or D/K (dont know). It is important that the distinction is made to the parent that an item is scored a 2 only when the individual consistently and independently performs the activity in question, in the absence of any prompting form others. The item response score provided should reflect actual performance rather than ability. The basal is established once four consecutive items are scored 2. The highest item in the highest set of four consecutive scores of 2 is deemed the basal. Conversely, the ceiling is

Vineland-II established once four consecutive items are scored 0. The lowest item in the lowest set of four

consecutive scores of 0 is determined to be the ceiling. The interviewer must ensure that the basal and ceiling have been established before moving to the next subdomain. Raw scores are not directly interpretable and are therefore tabulated and converted into one of six different normative scores, including standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) and percentile ranks for the four domains and the Adaptive Behavior Composite (Sattler and Hoge, 2006). The subdomain raw scores are converted to v scores (M = 15, SD = 3) and to age-equivalent scores (Sattler and Hoge, 2006; Sparrow et al., 2005), adaptive levels or stanines. Once the subdomain scores have been calculated, the general adaptive functioning is examined. Administrators must be careful when interpreting the Vineland-II parent and interview scores because v-scale scores for the subdomains, domains, and adaptive behavior composite differ by age. As well, the ranges of standard scores for the respective domains also differ by age (Stein, 2006). The range of standard scores on every domain is approximately 20-160 but this range is not available at every age and this is most noticeable when assessing people who have very good adaptive functioning. It is therefore very important that the scorer is familiar with the standard score range available for the age of the individual they are assessing to prevent misinterpretation of scores. The interpretation of the results gleaned from the Vineland-II parent and interview forms follows a very specific protocol. Relative strengths and weaknesses are determined by comparing differences among the individual domain scores to the standardized sample. To do this the administrator must first calculate the Adaptive Behavior Composite standard score and the confidence interval to use as the measure of global adaptive functioning. The domain standard scores and confidence intervals are then reported, followed by reporting of the subdomain v-scale

Vineland-II scores, confidence intervals, adaptive levels, and age equivalents, as appropriate. The administrator then scrutinizes the pattern of scores to determine performance across all domains and uses this information, with all other information collected, to generate hypotheses regarding

profile fluctuations. Finally if the maladaptive behavior domain was administered then the v-scores and confidence intervals for the internalizing and externalizing subscales should be reported and considered in the analysis (Sparrow et al., 2005). Generally, administration of the Parent/Caregiver Rating Form will take approximately 30 to 60 minutes to complete. Separate manuals for each aforementioned version help facilitate administration by providing suggestions for interview format and determining basals and ceilings for each subdomain (Stein, 2004). Technical Characteristics As it pertains to the development of the Vineland-II, an initial pool of over 3800 items was reviewed by a panel of experts, resulting in the elimination and/or revision of items included in the measure. The remaining items were then reviewed and subsequently reduced by a select group of experienced clinicians (Sparrow et al., 2005, Stein, 2006). These remaining items were then tested on a random sample consisting of 1843 individuals from the general population and a clinical sample consisting of 392 individuals (Stein, 2006). The sampling plan controlled for ethnicity, gender, SES, geographic region and community size. Outcome data were analyzed at the item level for developmental sequence, item validity, item placement, clinical sensitivity, bias, and redundancy and at the subdomain level of internal consistency, reliability, intercorrelations, and factor structure (Stein, p2). At this point, final items to be included within the Vineland-II were determined. Standardization of the Vineland-II Survey Interview Form and Parent/Caregiver Rating

Vineland-II Form took place from March 2003 to October 2004 across 3695 individuals ranging from birth to 90 years of age, and broken down into 20 different age groups (Sparrow et al., 2005; Stein, 2006). The samples were stratified by gender, race/ethnicity, community size, geographic region, and socioeconomic status (Sattler and Hoge, 2006) and were designed to match the 2001 U.S. Census data. Included within the clinical samples were individuals diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, emotional/behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment,

learning disability, mental retardation (mild, moderate, or severe), and visual impairment (Sparrow et al., 2005; Stein, 2006). Given the rapid developmental changes associated with infancy, in conjunction with the stated importance of early identification however, a relatively higher proportion of the norm sample was clustered within a subgroup consisting of children under the age of five years (approximately 30% for the Survey Interview Form) (Stein, 2006). Criticisms associated with the standardization process include limited diversity of the standardization sample, which did not mimic accurate proportions of diversity in the population (Sparrow et al., 2005). Furthermore, given the extended age range of the test and suggestion that it be used to facilitate least restrictive living arrangements for older individuals, the clinical group was not extended to include individuals not attending school and suffering from disorders associated with aging (Widaman, 2006). Lastly, standardization of the Spanish version of the interview protocol was not considered individually, which serves to confound the Spanish standardization sample with the English standardization sample (Stein, 2006). Reliability data for the Vineland-II are provided for internal consistency, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability. Internal consistency reliability scores were quite strong across the four domains, ranging from .70 to .95, with a median score of .91. Internal consistency reliabilities for the Adaptive Behavior Composite are very good to excellent, ranging from .86 to .98, with a

Vineland-II 10 median score of .97. However, the internal consistency for the subdomains is lower than for the domains, especially on the Survey Forms. Moreover, across all domains, the Socialization subdomains are consistently the most reliable, whereas the Receptive subdomains and the Motor subdomains have only fair reliability. Internal consistency regarding the Maladaptive Behavior subscales and Index are very good, ranging from .70 to .90 on the Survey Forms. Test-retest reliabilities for a sample of 414 individuals retested over a range of 13 to 34 days range from .74 to .95, with a median score of .86 across the four domains (Sattler and Hoge, 2006). The median test-retest reliability score for the Adaptive Behavior Composite is very strong (.94). Test-retest reliabilities on the Maladaptive Behavior subscales and Index are very good to excellent, ranging from .83 to .93, with a median test-retest reliability of .90 (Sattler and Hoge, 2006). Test-retest reliability was lowest for the infant, toddler, and adolescent age ranges (.70s). A likely explanation for this may be related to the difficulties associated with retesting individuals where rapid developmental changes are most likely to occur within short timeframes. Inter-rater reliability scores across the four domains were based on 112 respondents, and varied significantly, with scores ranging from .58 to .82, with a median inter-rater reliability of .67, and were particularly low for the Teacher form (.55) (Widaman, 2006). A possible explanation for this may lie in the fact that different teachers may perceive and/or interpret individual student behavior inconsistently, thereby negatively influencing scores in this regard. The median interrater reliability for the Adaptive Behavior Composite is .73. Inter-rater reliabilities for the Maladaptive Behavior Index of the Survey Interview Form range from .40 to .83, with a median inter-rater reliability score of .55 for a sample of 129 individuals (Sattler and Hoge, 2006). Interrater reliabilities for the Parent/Caregiver Rating Form based on 152 individuals range from .61 to . 82, with a median of .73.

Vineland-II 11 The validity of the Vineland-II focuses on three major areas: construct, content and criterion-related validity. According to Stein (2006), content validity evidence demonstrates a link between test content and the theoretical structure of adaptive behavior. The content of the Vineland-II appears to be representative of the domain of adaptive behavior, demonstrates appropriate developmental acquisition of behaviors and skills with age, and has items that are consistent with their respective domains and subdomains (Stein, 2006). Additionally, as it pertains to test structure, comparisons between the subdomain, domain, and Adaptive Behavior Composite scores on all forms suggest satisfactory correlations. This supports the strong influence of adaptive behavior on the individual domains and subdomains, and confirms the interrelatedness of the adaptive behaviors across subdomains. The Vineland-II was found to accurately differentiate between clinical and nonclinical populations, including individuals diagnosed with ADHD, autism, mental retardation, learning disabilities, emotional/behavioral problems, and/or visual/hearing impairments. In some cases, the Vineland-II was useful in distinguishing between clinical groups and levels of severity within a given group. Finally, evidence for concurrent validity was established by comparing the Vineland-II with other related measures of adaptive behavior. The adjusted correlations between each of the Vineland-II forms and the corresponding Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale form are quite high, typically reaching the .80 to .90s range (Sparrow et al., 2005). Scores from the Vineland-II were also correlated with scores from the Adaptive Behavior Assessment Scale, Second Edition (ABASII). Although scores varied depending upon the Vineland-II form, age group, and type of score, moderately strong correlations were noted between the Survey Forms and the ABAS-II composite scores, yielding a range of .69 to .78, despite strong variances within subdomains (.27 to .95).

Vineland-II 12 Moreover, correlations between the Adaptive Behavior Composite of the Vineland-II and the Verbal, Performance and Full Scale IQ scores from each of the WISC-III, WISC-IV, and WAIS-III were low, giving additional credence to the notion that these instruments assess different measures and therefore provide information that is qualitatively different (Sparrow et al., 2005; Stein, 2006). Similarly, when compared with the BASC-2 Parenting Rating Scales, the Maladaptive Behavior Index of the Survey Forms, which purports to measure similar behaviors, demonstrated a moderately strong correlation. Conclusion Strengths of the Vineland-II include a robust standardization sample, excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Furthermore, the Vineland-II has good construct, content and criterion-related validity (Stein, 2006). Specifically, content was found to adequately measure skills associated with adaptive behavior, and these skills tend to improve with age, consistent with learning and adaptation over time. An additional strength of the Vineland-II is that it is highly correlated with the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), and to a lesser extent, the Adaptive Behavior Assessment Scale (ABAS-II) and Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2), respectively. Finally, the expanded age range of the Vineland-II allows for a wider variety of uses while the increased number of items available at the younger ages increases the possibility of early identification and intervention of clinically significant symptoms (Widaman, 2006). Conversely, the Vineland-II has relatively weak inter-rater reliability, especially as it pertains to the Maladaptive Behavior Index. Additionally, interpretation of results is somewhat difficult given the inconsistent range of scores available by age, and hand scoring can be somewhat time consuming unless the optional scoring software is utilized. Finally, it must be noted that the

Vineland-II 13 Vineland-II relies solely on the observations of third-party respondents, and as such, is susceptible to increased inaccuracies based on respondent biases and perceptions. Additionally, issues exist with respect to the scarcity of scientific research pertaining to the Vineland-II aside from the test manual and the Mental Measurements Yearbook (Perry et al., 2009; Sattler & Hoge; Sparrow et al., 2005; Stein, 2006; Widaman, 2006). As such, caution should be used when interpreting results and making programming decisions. Overall, the Vineland-II should be considered a useful measure for the purposes of the assessment of adaptive behavior, differential diagnoses, and program planning and evaluation, particularly when considering clinical populations including individuals with possible developmental disabilities, autism, and mental retardation.

References Pearson Education Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2000, from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/haiweb/cultures/en-us/productdetail.htm? pid=Vineland-II&Community=CA_Psych_AI_Behavior Perry, A., Flanagan, H. E., Dunn Geier, J., & Freeman, N. L. (2009). Brief report: The Vineland adaptive behavior scales in young children with autism spectrum disorders at different

Vineland-II 14 cognitive levels. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1066-1078, ISSN 0162-3257 Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations (5th ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland-II Vineland adaptive behavior scales second edition: Survey forms manual, a revision of the Vineland social maturity scale by Edgar A. Doll. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing. Stein, S. (2004). Mental Measurements Yearbook: Vineland adaptive behavior scales, second edition. Retrieved on October 1, 2009, from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login? url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=loh&AN=18193482&site=ehost-live Widaman, K. F. (2006). Mental measurements yearbook: Review of the Vineland adaptive beahivor scales, second edition. Retrieved on October 1, 2009, from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=loh&AN=18193482&site=ehost-live