C Farmer1, D Adedipe1, V H Bal2, C Chlebowski1, A Thurm1. 1. Neurodevelopmental and Behavioral Phenotyping Service, Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethsada, MD, USA. 2. Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of its centrality in the conceptualization of intellectual disability, reliable and valid measurement of adaptive behaviour is important to both research and clinical practice. The manual of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, recently released in its third edition, provides limited reliability information obtained from a sample composed primarily of typically developing individuals. The goal of this study was to evaluate the concordance of the Vineland-3 with the Vineland-II in a sample more similar in ability level to those in which the Vineland is commonly used. METHODS: Both editions of the Vineland Interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 106 parents/caregivers of individuals with neurodevelopmental disability, participating at two neurodevelopmental disorder research clinics. Administrations were up to 7 days apart, but most (90%) were simultaneous. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) (95% confidence interval) and mean differences (95% confidence interval) were calculated for domain standard scores and subdomain v-scale scores. RESULTS: Domain-level CCC ranged from 0.78 [0.70, 0.84] (Communication) to 0.86 [0.76, 0.92] (Motor). Subdomain CCC ranged from 0.71 [0.62, 0.78] (Receptive Language) to 0.91 [0.85, 0.95] (Fine Motor). Vineland-3 scores were lower than Vineland-II scores; 77% of participants had lower Adaptive Behavior Composite scores on the Vineland-3 than on the Vineland-II. For the subdomains, the magnitude of this difference depended upon the level of adaptive behaviour. For Communication, the domain with the lowest CCC, the mean difference ranged from -13.70 [-8.03, -19.35] for a Vineland-II score or 85 to a difference of -19.18 [-12.28, -26.87] for a Vineland-II score of 40. DISCUSSION: Amongst individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the Vineland-3 produces lower scores than the Vineland-II, and these clinically significant differences tend to be larger for individuals with lower levels of ability. Thus, care must be taken in interpreting scores from the Vineland-3 relative to those obtained from the previous edition.
BACKGROUND: Because of its centrality in the conceptualization of intellectual disability, reliable and valid measurement of adaptive behaviour is important to both research and clinical practice. The manual of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, recently released in its third edition, provides limited reliability information obtained from a sample composed primarily of typically developing individuals. The goal of this study was to evaluate the concordance of the Vineland-3 with the Vineland-II in a sample more similar in ability level to those in which the Vineland is commonly used. METHODS: Both editions of the Vineland Interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 106 parents/caregivers of individuals with neurodevelopmental disability, participating at two neurodevelopmental disorder research clinics. Administrations were up to 7 days apart, but most (90%) were simultaneous. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) (95% confidence interval) and mean differences (95% confidence interval) were calculated for domain standard scores and subdomain v-scale scores. RESULTS: Domain-level CCC ranged from 0.78 [0.70, 0.84] (Communication) to 0.86 [0.76, 0.92] (Motor). Subdomain CCC ranged from 0.71 [0.62, 0.78] (Receptive Language) to 0.91 [0.85, 0.95] (Fine Motor). Vineland-3 scores were lower than Vineland-II scores; 77% of participants had lower Adaptive Behavior Composite scores on the Vineland-3 than on the Vineland-II. For the subdomains, the magnitude of this difference depended upon the level of adaptive behaviour. For Communication, the domain with the lowest CCC, the mean difference ranged from -13.70 [-8.03, -19.35] for a Vineland-II score or 85 to a difference of -19.18 [-12.28, -26.87] for a Vineland-II score of 40. DISCUSSION: Amongst individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the Vineland-3 produces lower scores than the Vineland-II, and these clinically significant differences tend to be larger for individuals with lower levels of ability. Thus, care must be taken in interpreting scores from the Vineland-3 relative to those obtained from the previous edition.
Authors: Stephen M Kanne; Andrew J Gerber; Linda M Quirmbach; Sara S Sparrow; Domenic V Cicchetti; Celine A Saulnier Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2011-08
Authors: Peter Szatmari; Stelios Georgiades; Eric Duku; Teresa A Bennett; Susan Bryson; Eric Fombonne; Pat Mirenda; Wendy Roberts; Isabel M Smith; Tracy Vaillancourt; Joanne Volden; Charlotte Waddell; Lonnie Zwaigenbaum; Mayada Elsabbagh; Ann Thompson Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Cheryl Klaiman; Eve-Marie Quintin; Booil Jo; Amy A Lightbody; Heather Cody Hazlett; Joseph Piven; Scott S Hall; Lindsay C Chromik; Allan L Reiss Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: A Stewart Campbell; Brittany D Needham; Christopher R Meyer; Joanna Tan; Mary Conrad; Gregory M Preston; Federico Bolognani; Srinivas G Rao; Helen Heussler; Rebecca Griffith; Adam J Guastella; Amy C Janes; Blaise Frederick; David H Donabedian; Sarkis K Mazmanian Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Alisa Mo; Leeanne G Snyder; Owen Babington; Wendy K Chung; Mustafa Sahin; Siddharth Srivastava Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Kimberly L H Carpenter; Naomi O Davis; Marina Spanos; Maura Sabatos-DeVito; Rachel Aiello; Grace T Baranek; Scott N Compton; Helen L Egger; Lauren Franz; Soo-Jeong Kim; Bryan H King; Alexander Kolevzon; Christopher J McDougle; Kevin Sanders; Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele; Linmarie Sikich; Scott H Kollins; Geraldine Dawson Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2022-10-12
Authors: Anne B Arnett; Jennifer S Beighley; Evangeline C Kurtz-Nelson; Kendra Hoekzema; Tianyun Wang; Raphe A Bernier; Evan E Eichler Journal: Autism Res Date: 2020-09-12 Impact factor: 5.216
Authors: Jennifer M Bain; Olivia Thornburg; Cheryl Pan; Donnielle Rome-Martin; Lia Boyle; Xiao Fan; Orrin Devinsky; Richard Frye; Silke Hamp; Cynthia G Keator; Nicole M LaMarca; Alexis B R Maddocks; Marcos Madruga-Garrido; Karen Y Niederhoffer; Francesca Novara; Angela Peron; Elizabeth Poole-Di Salvo; Rachel Salazar; Steven A Skinner; Gabriela Soares; Sylvie Goldman; Wendy K Chung Journal: Neurol Genet Date: 2021-01-29