Psychology help ASAP

Final Analysis of the Vineland-II

Abstract

The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition is a widely-used assessment of adaptive behavior for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Vineland-II possesses exceptional validity and reliability scores for its Survey Interview Form, Expanded Interview Form, and the Teacher Rating Form. The assessment purports to assess adaptive behavior in individuals from birth to 90 years of age. The efficacy of the Vineland-II for adult populations and severely disabled populations is a limitation of the Vineland-II that should be examined. Test items should also be updated to account for advances in technology.

Element 1. Purpose

The purpose of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition (Vineland-II) is to assess adaptive behavior skills to measure self-sufficiency across an individual’s lifespan and support diagnosis of intellectual or developmental disabilities (Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Balla, 2008). The Vineland-II measure adaptive behavior in four domains: communication, socialization, daily living skills, and motor skills. The test also contains a maladaptive behavior survey, an expanded interview form, and a teacher rating form for measuring adaptive behavior necessary in school environments (Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Balla, 2008). The Vineland-II measures adaptive behavior in individuals from birth to ninety years with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual and developmental disabilities, ADHD, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, post-traumatic brain injuries and hearing impairments (Vineland-II, 2016). The inclusion of a teacher rating form and a maladaptive behavior form are strengths of the Vineland-II as they give the test user more pertinent information regarding an individual’s adaptive behavior in various environments and problem behaviors that are barriers to adaptive functioning. A weakness of the Vineland-II is the age range it purports to measure adaptive behavior as it does not account for changes in socialization and societal expectations of adaptive behavior in adults (Matthews, Smith, Pollard, Ober-Reynolds, Kirwan, & Malligo, 2015).

Element 2. Appropriateness

The Vineland-II contains test items based on the definitions of adaptive behavior provided by American Association on Mental Retardation, the American Psychological Association, and the National Academy of Sciences and the test items show high content validity. The content validity of the Vineland-II is independently examined based on the World Health Organization’s definitions of adaptive behavior and shown to have strong content validity (Gleason and Coster, 2012). Thus, the test items are appropriate for measuring adaptive behavior and are a strength of the Vineland-II. The Vineland-II was standardized in 2004 before its release in 2005 and test items relating to an individual’s use of technology are not appropriate in 2016. For example, one test item asks whether the child can open a program on a computer and rates this as a skill for seven-year-olds. Another test item asks if an individual can use a home phone to make phone calls. (Sparrow, Balla, Cicchetti, & Doll, 2005). Due to advances in technology, these questions are outdated; kids as young as 2 years of age can open a program on an iPad or touch screen computer and many kids have never seen or used a home phone line as cell phones are more prevalent; these test items, therefore, are not appropriate in measuring adaptive behavior in 2016. Furthermore, the exclusion of social media and electronic communication in the Vineland-II represents another weakness of the assessment in regards to appropriate test items as socialization and communication increasingly involve technology that is not included in the Vineland-II’s four domains (Tomanik, Pearson, Loveland, Lane, & Shaw, 2007).

Element 3. Materials

The materials provided for the administration of the Vineland-II include two survey forms; the Survey Interview form and the Parent or Caregiver Rating Form. In addition, there is an Expanded Interview Form, the purpose is to “provide a more comprehensive measure of adaptive behavior as well as a basis for treatment planning”. Finally, the Vineland-II includes a Teacher Rating Form for children ages three to twenty-one (Sparrow et. al, 2008). The inclusion of the setting specific Teacher Rating Form and the age appropriate Expanded Interview form make the Vineland-II’s materials superior in the thoroughness of test materials for individuals under 21. This strength of the Vineland-II does not translate to adult populations, however, as the TRF are meant for individuals ages 3 to 21 and the expanded interview form is for individuals 0-5 (Viezel and Zibulsky, 2013). It is recommended that future versions of the Vineland-II include forms assessing the adaptive behavior of individuals in group homes, nursing homes, and psychiatric facilities.

Element 4. Training

The Vineland-II recommends test administrators possess a master’s degree in psychology, education, or a field related to mental health or certification by a professional organization or formal training in mental health assessments (Vineland-II, 2016). These qualifications are minimal and reflect the ease of administration and scoring of the Vineland-II, a strength of the Vineland for this code. An experienced administrator of the Vineland-II, however, is more familiar with test items that are commonly misunderstood and can explain questions before the parent or caregiver scores the test question and therefore avoids confusion on behalf of the parent or caregiver (de Bildt, Kraijer, Sytema, and Minderaa, 2005). Despite the Vineland-II’s recommendations for the qualifications of test administrators, a more experienced administrator with a higher degree and more credentialing in the field of behavior analysis is preferred as this increases the reliability of the assessment as a measurement tool (Sparrow et. al, 2008). Thus, the qualifications for administering the test is a weakness of the Vineland-II in this code and the authors of the test should increase the minimum requirements for administering the assessment.

Element 5. Technical Quality

Element 5 of the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education evaluates the technical quality of a test and the findings for a test’s reliability and validity. The Vineland-II’s findings for reliability and validity come from the administration of the parent/caregiver rating form to 3,695 individuals selected from a pool of 25,000 individuals, administration of the Expanded Interview Form to 2,151 individuals from the same pool of 25,000 and administration of the Teacher Rating Form (TRF) to 2,570 teachers and care providers from a pool of 19,000 (Sparrow et. al, 2008).

Internal consistency reliability for the four domains of the parent/caregiver rating form, the TRF, and the expanded interview is between .9 and .95 using the reliability coefficient and is therefore quite strong. Test-retest reliability for the three forms is found to be between .8 and .9 and is considered good. Interrater reliability for the parent/caregiver rating form and expanded interview form is between .7 and .8, a reliable coefficient that is moderately strong (Sparrow et. al, 2008). Independent research using Cronbach’s alpha to determine internal consistency of the Vineland-II produced scores across the four domains above .95, showing significantly high internal consistency reliability (de Bildt et. al, 2005). The assessment also receives high inter-rater reliability scores between .93 and .99 in the four domains, which are also significantly high and support the Vineland-IIs reliability scores (p. 59). The exceptional reliability of the Vineland-II is a major strength of the assessment. This strength is relegated to individuals under the age of 21; interrater reliability in the adult population is weak at .39 to .6 and indicates improvements to the Vineland-II need to be made to make it a viable assessment of adaptive behavior in adult populations (Sparrow et. al, 2008).

Content Validity for the Vineland-II is found through examining the correlation of test items to the definitions of adaptive behavior from the American Association on Mental Retardation, the American Psychological Association, and the National Academy of Sciences; content validity is found to be strong based on these organizations definitions (Sparrow et. al, 2008). The exceptional content validity of the Vineland-II’s test items is supported by research that shows strong content validity based on the World Health Organizations ICF-CY definitions of adaptive behavior and therefore, content validity is another strength of the Vineland-II (Gleason and Coster, 2012). Concurrent and construct validity of the Vineland-II is strong and represents another strength of the Vineland-II (Viezel and Zibulsky, 2013).

Element 6. Test Items and Format

The Vineland-II consists of a survey interview form, expanded interview form, TRF, and a maladaptive behavior survey. The test items are administered through an informal interview of the parents of the individual or the teacher in the TRF. Test items are read aloud by the administrator and answered with “usually”, “sometimes”, or “never” (Sparrow et. al, 2008). The scores from the four domains produce an adaptive behavior composite (ABC) standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The ABC scores generate percentile rankings for adaptive behavior as well as an adaptive level. The scoring of the subdomain produce V- scale scores with a mean of 15 and a standard deviation of 3. The subdomain scores give percentile rankings, adaptive level, and an age equivalence for one’s adaptive behavior. The maladaptive behavior interview survey produces a maladaptive behavior level for the individual’s behaviors (Vineland-II, 2016). The Vineland-II’s age equivalents or mental age should be used with caution, if at all, because it does not relate to the test’s purpose and does not aid in treatment planning for interventions. Thus, it is recommended that the age equivalency portion of the score report be removed. (Cohen, Swerdlik, and Sturman, 2013; Kanne, Gerber, Quirmbach, Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Saulnier, 2011).

Element 7. Test Procedures and Materials

The Vineland-II is administered as an interview to the parent or caregiver of the individual being assessed or to the individual’s teacher for the TRF. The caregiver, or teacher for the TRF, answer pre-written questions read to them by the test administrator about the individual’s adaptive behavior with “usually”, “sometimes”, or “never”. The test administrator obtains a composite score and validity scale scores using the ASSIST software program (Vineland-II, 2016). The survey interview form takes less than an hour to complete and scoring of the Vineland-II takes 30 minutes or less.

Element 8. Modifications and Accommodations

The Vineland-II allows for the modifications to the assessment by cutting off test questions in the subdomains when an individual’s behaviors produce four consecutive “never” answers from the parent or caregiver and a ceiling has been reached for the subdomain. The test is also modified for individuals over six years of age by excluding the Motor domain. Accommodations for the interviewee are included in the test directions and allow the administrator of the Vineland-II to explain test questions that the parent or caregiver do not understand (Sparrow et. al, 2008). The modifications allowed are a strength of the Vineland-II, however, more modifications should be added to allow for dated test questions that do not consider advances in technology (Kanne et. al, 2011).

Element 9. Group Differences

The utilization of the Vineland-II across subgroups is problematic in adult populations and in populations severely impacted by a disability. In the adult population, the domains of communication and socialization in the Vineland-II do not adequately consider the absence of school and the social interactions school provided by attending school (Matthews et. al, 2015). In addition, adult populations have much more refined communication skills as compared to children, adolescents, and young adults. The nuances of adult conversation are not factored into the Vineland-II’s assessment and is therefore a weakness of the assessment in measuring adaptive behavior in adults (Matthews et. al, 2015). Also, the severity of an individual’s developmental disability is seen to contribute to their adaptive behavior repertoire. It is not definitively known whether a negative correlation in adaptive behavior with age is due to the severity of the disability, quality, or lack of behavior intervention, or due to extraneous variable not taken into consideration by the researchers (Kanne et. al, 2011). The Vineland-II does possess diagnostic accuracy; the scores for subgroups of individuals with autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, mental disabilities and visual or hearing impairments accurately differentiate the individuals in the subgroups (Sparrow et. al, 2008). Although this is a strength of the Vineland-II, variations in scores in different age groups of the subgroups should be addressed by the test makers.

Summary and Recommendation

The high validity and reliability of the Vineland-II is a major strength, as it assures practitioners that the measurements obtained are true indicators of adaptive behavior as defined by professional organizations such as the World Health Organization and the American Psychologists Association. Furthermore, the inclusion of the TRF and the expanded interview form make the Vineland-II a recommended assessment tool for individuals 21 and under. Furthermore, reliability and validity of the assessment is stronger in this age group and allow the scores to properly guide the formulation of interventions for deficits in adaptive functioning and the tracking of progress in the interventions (Viezel and Zibulsky, 2013).

Reliability of the Vineland-II is weak in adult populations and is a major reason the Vineland-II is not recommended for adult populations. In addition, the test items on the Vineland-II do not measure true adaptive functioning for adults. The nuances of communication in adults is different than that of adolescents and children and requires much higher cognitive skills to determine meaning and purpose of what is being said based on tone, subject matter, and societal events that contribute to normal adult communication (Matthews et. al, 2015). Future editions of the Vineland-II should not only include separate forms for adults in assisted living environments; it should also include test questions representative of communication, socialization, and daily living skills necessary for adults to succeed in job interviews, maintain employment, and communicate effectively based on the adults age (Matthews et. al, 2015).

Another concern in using the Vineland-II with all populations is the assessments questions relating to communication and daily living skills that deal with technology. Advances in technology have made many test items outdated and problematic for scoring the assessment since it relies on basal and ceiling rules that cannot be modified when using computer based scoring software provided by the test makers (Sparrow et. al, 2005). It is recommended that the test makers include modifications in the test directions that allow administrators of the test to alter the question to make it relevant to current technology or give the administrator the option of omitting test questions that are outdated and not germane to adaptive function skills for all populations (Matthews et. al, 2015).

It is also recommended that test items be updated to reflect the prevalence of credit and debit cards in modern society and the decrease in use of paper money and coins. While the use of paper money and coins is still important, adolescent, and adult populations are more likely to use debit or credit cards and they should therefore be included as an adaptive behavior skill for daily living in the Vineland-II. The test should also be updated to reflect the role of social media and electronic communication in the socialization, communication, and daily living skills domains of the Vineland-II (Kanne et. al, 2011).

Finally, further research is needed to determine whether the composite scores obtained from the administering of the Vineland-II for adolescents and young adults produce interventions that help individuals transition into adulthood. Since self-sufficiency is the goal of adaptive behavior, the results of interventions based on scores produced by the Vineland-II should be examined to determine if the purpose of the Vineland-II to aid in formulating interventions is being upheld through the creation of effective interventions that address individual adaptive behavior deficits that result in skill acquisition leading to higher quality of life for the individual.

References

Cohen, R. J., Sturnman, E.D. & Swerdlik, M. E. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill

de Bildt, A., Kraijer, D., Sytema, S., & Minderaa, R. (2005). The Psychometric Properties of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in Children and Adolescents with Mental Retardation. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 35(1), 53-62. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-1033-7

Gleason, K., & Coster, W. (2012). An ICF-CY-based content analysis of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II. Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 37(4), 285-293. doi:10.3109/13668250.2012.720675

Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/fair-testing.pdf

Kanne, S. M., Gerber, A. J., Quirmbach, L. N., Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Saulnier, C. A. (2011). The Role of Adaptive Behavior in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Implications for Functional Outcome. Journal Of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 41(8), 1007-1018. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1126-4

Matthews, N., Smith, C., Pollard, E., Ober-Reynolds, S., Kirwan, J., & Malligo, A. (2015). Adaptive Functioning in Autism Spectrum Disorder During the Transition to Adulthood. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 45(8), 2349-2360. doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2400-2

Sparrow S, Cicchetti D, Balla D. (2008) Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition. [serial online]. January 1, 2008;Available from: Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 4, 2016.

Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., Cicchetti, D. V., & Doll, E. A. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition Survey Interview Form Record Booklet. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

Tomanik, S. S., Pearson, D. A., Loveland, K. A., Lane, D. M., & Shaw, J. B. (2007). Improving the Reliability of Autism Diagnoses: Examining the Utility of Adaptive Behavior. Journal Of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 921-928. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0227-6

Viezel, K. and Zibulsky, J. (2013). Vineland adaptive behavior scales, second edition. In E. Fletcher-Janzen, K. Vannest & C. Reynolds (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education: A reference for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individuals. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from http://library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileyse/vineland_adaptive_behavior_scales_second_edition/0

Vineland-II. (2016). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000668/vineland-adaptive-behavior-scales-second-edition-vineland-ii-vineland-ii.html