Sparrow S S, Cicchetti D V
Appl Res Ment Retard. 1984;5(2):219-31. doi: 10.1016/s0270-3092(84)80003-x.
In an earlier investigation (Sparrow & Cicchetti, 1978) the authors assessed the reliability and validity of a new instrument for assessing types and levels of adaptive behaviors. Although there was strong evidence for both, the sample was small (N = less than or equal to 45) and consisted only of institutionalized mentally retarded children. The current investigation included a much larger sample of non-institutionalized mentally retarded and other developmentally disabled subjects. As previously, results indicated reliability levels between "good" and "excellent" for most items (e.g., the criteria of Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981). Also, factor analyses were performed to determine the correlation between the resulting factors and an a priori classification of the BIRD into several areas (subscales) of adaptive behavior (Cognitive Development, Self-Help, Physical Development, Social Behavior, Self-Control). As before, a 4 factor oblique solution was interpretable in terms of a 4 subscale classification of BIRD items (Cognitive Development, Physical Development, Social Behavior, and Self-Control).
在早期的一项调查中（斯帕罗和奇凯蒂，1978年），作者评估了一种用于评估适应行为类型和水平的新工具的信度和效度。尽管有充分证据支持两者，但样本量较小（N≤45），且仅包括机构化的智力迟钝儿童。当前的调查纳入了规模大得多的非机构化智力迟钝及其他发育障碍受试者样本。与之前一样，结果表明大多数项目的信度水平介于“良好”和“优秀”之间（例如，奇凯蒂和斯帕罗，1981年的标准）。此外，还进行了因子分析，以确定所得因子与将《贝利婴幼儿发展量表》（BIRD）先验分类为适应行为的几个领域（分量表）（认知发展、自我帮助、身体发展、社会行为、自我控制）之间的相关性。与之前一样，一个四因子斜交解在《贝利婴幼儿发展量表》项目的四分量表分类（认知发展、身体发展、社会行为和自我控制）方面是可解释的。
