Reliability and Validity of a New Comprehensive Tool for Assessing Challenging Behaviors in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Korean Comprehensive Scale for the Assessment of Challenging Behavior in Developmental Disorders (K-CSCB).MethodsIn total, the parents of 189 patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 168 controls completed the K-CSCB, the Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI) and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The reliability and validity of the K-CSCB was investigated.ResultsThe K-CSCB was found to be a reliable instrument (Cronbach's α=0.97). There was a significant difference between the ASD and control groups in all subscale scores. Scores on the K-CSCB subscales were significantly correlated with those on the BPI and CBCL. The diagnostic validity was 97.7%, and the cut-off score with the highest sensitivity and specificity was 12.5 points.ConclusionThe K-CSCB is the first tool in Korean to assess problematic behavior in individuals with ASD, and this study shows that it is a valid and reliable instrument. We expect the K-CSCB to be widely used in clinical and research settings.

Applicability and Psychometric Properties of General Mental Health Assessment Tools in Autistic People: A Systematic Review

“…The large majority of papers (n = 148) reported on informant-based measures (e.g., parent/caregiver reports), while 16 papers used self-report instruments, in which autistic participants' intellectual functioning was in the normal range (self-report instruments reported in more than one study: ASEBA: Hurtig et al, 2009;Jepsen et al, 2012, Mazefsky et al, 2014Pisula et al, 2017;RCADS: Khalfe et al, 2023;Sterling et al, 2015;SDQ: Findon et al, 2016;Khor et al, 2014) (see Appendix G for study characteristics). Moreover, all of the instruments used in the studies were originally developed in English, except for the Korean Comprehensive Scale for the Assessment of Challenging Behavior in Developmental Disorders (Kim et al, 2018) and the PAC (Norwegian; Helverschou et al, 2009).…”