Department of Neuropsychology, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Intellect Disabil Res. 2021 Mar;65(3):283-295. doi: 10.1111/jir.12810. Epub 2021 Jan 6.
Adaptive functioning is an important area of assessment with implications for differential diagnosis, educational placement, service eligibility and criminal sentencing. While periodic normative and content updates of adaptive functioning measures are necessary to keep measures relevant, knowledge of equivalence between versions is also required if adaptive measures are to be used to track the stability of adaptive functioning skills over time.
This paper presents two studies that used between-group and within-group comparison designs to examine the equivalence of the second and third editions of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS) in a mixed clinical sample. In study 1, ABAS-2 scores for children assessed between 2014 and 2015 (n = 1036; mean age = 10.24, SD = 3.44) were compared with ABAS-3 scores for children assessed between 2015 and 2016 (n = 1291; mean age = 10.51, SD = 3.70). Study 2 examined a separate sample of clinically referred children (n = 572) for whom parent ratings had been obtained on both the ABAS-2 (mean age = 9.65, SD = 2.80) and ABAS-3 (mean age = 13.33, SD = 2.95) in the course of repeated assessment.
For Study 1, while no intelligence quotient score differences were observed between the ABAS-2 group (mean Verbal Comprehension Index = 93.67, SD = 16.95) and the ABAS-3 group (mean Verbal Comprehension Index = 93.08, SD = 17.42), ABAS-2 scores were lower than ABAS-3 scores on the Conceptual, Practical, and General Adaptive Composite scales. In study 2, a similar pattern was observed (ABAS-2 < ABAS-3 on the Conceptual, Practical, and General Adaptive Composite scales), and concordance correlation coefficients ranged from 0.54 [0.49, 0.58] (Practical composite) to 0.68 [0.64, 0.72] (Conceptual composite). The Practical composite had the lowest concordance correlation coefficient value and the largest mean score difference between ABAS versions.
The ABAS-3 scores may be higher than ABAS-2 scores in clinical populations. Knowledge of these potential discrepancies will be critical when interpreting standard score changes across ABAS versions in the course of clinical, educational and forensic assessments.
适应功能是评估的一个重要领域，对鉴别诊断、教育安置、服务资格和刑事量刑都有影响。虽然定期对适应功能的衡量标准进行规范和内容更新是必要的，以保持衡量标准的相关性，但如果要使用适应衡量标准来跟踪适应功能技能随时间的稳定性，还需要了解版本之间的等效性。
本文介绍了两项研究，这些研究使用组间和组内比较设计，在混合临床样本中检验了适应行为评估系统（ABAS）第二版和第三版之间的等效性。在研究 1 中，对 2014 年至 2015 年接受评估的儿童（n=1036；平均年龄=10.24，SD=3.44）的 ABAS-2 评分与 2015 年至 2016 年接受评估的儿童（n=1291；平均年龄=10.51，SD=3.70）的 ABAS-3 评分进行了比较。研究 2 考察了一个单独的临床转介儿童样本（n=572），这些儿童在重复评估过程中接受了 ABAS-2（平均年龄=9.65，SD=2.80）和 ABAS-3（平均年龄=13.33，SD=2.95）的家长评定。
对于研究 1，虽然 ABAS-2 组（平均言语理解指数=93.67，SD=16.95）和 ABAS-3 组（平均言语理解指数=93.08，SD=17.42）之间没有观察到智商评分差异，但 ABAS-2 评分低于 ABAS-3 评分在概念、实践和一般适应综合量表上。在研究 2 中，观察到了类似的模式（ABAS-2<ABAS-3 在概念、实践和一般适应综合量表上），而一致性相关系数范围从 0.54（0.49，0.58）（实践综合）到 0.68（0.64，0.72）（概念综合）。实践综合量表的一致性相关系数值最低，ABAS 版本之间的平均评分差异最大。
在临床人群中，ABAS-3 评分可能高于 ABAS-2 评分。在临床、教育和法医评估过程中，解释 ABAS 版本之间的标准分数变化时，了解这些潜在差异至关重要。
