BACKGROUND: The Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01) is an informant-based behaviour rating instrument for intellectual disabilities (ID) with 49 items and three sub-scales: Self-injurious Behavior, Stereotyped Behavior and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior. The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form (BPI-S) is a BPI-01 spin-off with 30 items. METHODS: The psychometric properties of these two versions of the scale were computed using aggregated archival data from nine different sites in the USA, Wales, England, the Netherlands and Romania with a total of 1122 cases with a BPI-01 total score >0. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the BPI-01 and the BPI-S ranged from fair to excellent with the BPI-01 showing slightly stronger reliability. Construct validity (confirmatory and discriminant) was computed by comparing BPI sub-scale scores with the scores of four other behaviour rating scales (the Aberrant Behavior Checklist, the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II, the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form and the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning). Strong evidence for confirmatory and discriminant validity was found for both the BPI-01 and the BPI-S. Confirmatory fit indices for the BPI and the BPI-S were comparable and suggesting that the factor structures fit the data well. CONCLUSION: In summary, both BPI versions were found to be equally sound psychometrically and can be endorsed for future use. However, independent future studies are needed to replicate the psychometrics of the BPI-S with new data.
BACKGROUND: The Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01) is an informant-based behaviour rating instrument for intellectual disabilities (ID) with 49 items and three sub-scales: Self-injurious Behavior, Stereotyped Behavior and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior. The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form (BPI-S) is a BPI-01 spin-off with 30 items. METHODS: The psychometric properties of these two versions of the scale were computed using aggregated archival data from nine different sites in the USA, Wales, England, the Netherlands and Romania with a total of 1122 cases with a BPI-01 total score >0. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the BPI-01 and the BPI-S ranged from fair to excellent with the BPI-01 showing slightly stronger reliability. Construct validity (confirmatory and discriminant) was computed by comparing BPI sub-scale scores with the scores of four other behaviour rating scales (the Aberrant Behavior Checklist, the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II, the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form and the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning). Strong evidence for confirmatory and discriminant validity was found for both the BPI-01 and the BPI-S. Confirmatory fit indices for the BPI and the BPI-S were comparable and suggesting that the factor structures fit the data well. CONCLUSION: In summary, both BPI versions were found to be equally sound psychometrically and can be endorsed for future use. However, independent future studies are needed to replicate the psychometrics of the BPI-S with new data.
Authors: Emily M Becker-Haimes; Alexandra R Tabachnick; Briana S Last; Rebecca E Stewart; Anisa Hasan-Granier; Rinad S Beidas Journal: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol Date: 2019-12-11
Authors: Johannes Rojahn; Stephen R Schroeder; Liliana Mayo-Ortega; Rosao Oyama-Ganiko; Judith LeBlanc; Janet Marquis; Elizabeth Berke Journal: Res Dev Disabil Date: 2013-03-16
Authors: Laura García-Domínguez; Patricia Navas; Miguel Ángel Verdugo; Víctor B Arias; Laura E Gómez Journal: J Appl Res Intellect Disabil Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Andrew Jahoda; Richard Hastings; Chris Hatton; Sally-Ann Cooper; Dave Dagnan; Ruiqi Zhang; Alex McConnachie; Nicola McMeekin; Kim Appleton; Rob Jones; Katie Scott; Lauren Fulton; Rosie Knight; Dawn Knowles; Chris Williams; Andrew Briggs; Ken MacMahon; Helen Lynn; Ian Smith; Gail Thomas; Craig Melville Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Elizabeth Randell; Richard P Hastings; Rachel McNamara; Roseanna Knight; David Gillespie; Zachary Taylor Journal: Trials Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kate Wolfe; Andrew McQuillin; Viola Alesi; Elise Boudry Labis; Peter Cutajar; Bruno Dallapiccola; Maria Lisa Dentici; Anne Dieux-Coeslier; Benedicte Duban-Bedu; Tina Duelund Hjortshøj; Himanshu Goel; Sara Loddo; Deborah Morrogh; Anne-Laure Mosca-Boidron; Antonio Novelli; Laurence Olivier-Faivre; Jennifer Parker; Michael J Parker; Christine Patch; Anna L Pelling; Thomas Smol; Zeynep Tümer; Olivier Vanakker; Arie van Haeringen; Clémence Vanlerberghe; Andre Strydom; David Skuse; Nick Bass Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 3.568