Correspondence between correctional staff and offender ratings of adaptive behavior.

Abstract

Although several experts have raised concerns about using correctional officers as informants for adaptive behavior assessments, no studies have compared ratings from correctional officers to those from other informants. We compared Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Second Edition (ABAS-II; Harrison & Oakland, 2003) scores assigned by correctional staff to those assigned by probationers (N = 56) residing in a community corrections facility. Correctional staff assigned markedly lower scores than did probationers on many ABAS-II scales (d = .59 to 1.41 for ABAS-II composite scores). Although none of the probationers qualified for a diagnosis of intellectual disability, 29% received a staff-report ABAS-II composite score that was more than 2 SDs below the normative sample mean, suggesting significant impairment. Correlations between ABAS-II and intelligence measure scores were lower than expected for both types of informants, although they were somewhat stronger for self-report. Lower staff-report scores were associated with higher levels of probationer-reported psychopathology and need for treatment. Overall, these findings highlight limitations of using correctional staff as informants for adaptive behavior assessments. (PsycINFO Database Record

Validity, interrater reliability, and measures of adaptive behavior: Concerns regarding the probative versus prejudicial value.

“…In addition to sound research on how these tools perform retrospectively and with multiple informants, research is also needed on the use of these tools in correctional and forensic contexts. Emerging research suggests that correctional staff members may not be a valid source of information for adaptive behavior assessments, as data show correctional staff may systematically underestimate adaptive behavior abilities in offenders (Boccaccini et al, 2016).…”

“…In addition to sound research on how these tools perform retrospectively and with multiple informants, research is also needed on the use of these tools in correctional and forensic contexts. Emerging research suggests that correctional staff members may not be a valid source of information for adaptive behavior assessments, as data show correctional staff may systematically underestimate adaptive behavior abilities in offenders (Boccaccini et al, 2016). This has been an issue that has been addressed by the AAIDD (2010; Schalock et al, 2010), and the association has been clear in stating their disapproval of this use of adaptive behavior measures though their position is not in line with the findings of Boccaccini et.…”

“…For instance, Doane and Salekin (2009) examined how susceptible the ABAS-II and SIB-R are to feigned adaptive behavior deficits, finding that faking was easily detected by the SIB-R, but not by the ABAS-II. More recently, Boccaccini, Kan, Rufino, Noland, Young-Lundquist, and Canales (2016) examined correspondence between correctional staff ratings and offender ratings of adaptive behavior, using the ABAS-II. They found that correctional staff assigned significantly lower scores than probationers, with other findings suggesting the offenders' self-report scores were likely more valid than the correctional officers' reports.…”

Screening prisoners for cognitive impairment – literature review

“…Performance on tests is affected by environmental factors (noise, distractions), age, education, cultural and linguistic background, gender, physical and mental illness (pain), vision, hearing, speech, motivation/engagement (incentive), fatigue and prescribed and non-prescribed drugs (Coen, 2020). Relationships between offenders and correctional staff can also affect screening processes (Boccaccini et al , 2016).…”