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

Abstract

The question as to whether the assessment of adaptive behavior (AB) for evaluations of intellectual disability (ID) in the community meet the level of rigor necessary for admissibility in legal cases is addressed. Adaptive behavior measures have made their way into the forensic domain where scientific evidence is put under great scrutiny. Assessment of ID in capital murder proceedings has garnished a lot of attention, but assessments of ID in adult populations also occur with some frequency in the context of other criminal proceedings (e.g., competence to stand trial; competence to waive Miranda rights), as well as eligibility for social security disability, social security insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, government housing, and postsecondary transition services. As will be demonstrated, markedly disparate findings between raters can occur on measures of AB even when the assessment is conducted in accordance with standard procedures (i.e., the person was assessed in a community setting, in real time, with multiple appropriate raters, when the person was younger than 18 years of age) and similar disparities can be found in the context of the unorthodox and untested retrospective assessment used in capital proceedings. With full recognition that some level of disparity is to be expected, the level of disparity that can arise when these measures are administered retrospectively calls into question the validity of the results and consequently, their probative value.

Cross-cultural preliminary validation of a measure of social vulnerability in people with intellectual disabilities

“…As the same caregiver responded both to ABAS and SIS-F, we cannot suspect a problem with the informant, but rather with the rigour of the information-gathering tool. The rigour of the measures concerning adaptive behaviour is moreover a prevailing topic (Salekin et al, 2018). It should also be noted that the discrepancy between self-report and caregiver (short version of ABAS-3) on social -22 (N = 29).…”

Developing and Piloting a Computerized Adaptive Test for a Culturally Appropriate Measure of Adaptive Behavior

“…In addition to diagnostic utility, since adaptive behavior measures assess the effectiveness and degree to which a person meets the requirements of personal independence and social responsibilities (Salekin et al, 2018), it can provide useful data to inform educators of students’ current adaptive skill levels and develop appropriate individualized education plans. In particular, the dimension of activity/participation, as defined in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF; World Health Organization, 2001), is purported to be closely linked to the construct of adaptive behavior as a system of describing functions and disability.…”

Preventing maltreatment of adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities

“…As the same caregiver responded both to ABAS and SIS-F, we cannot suspect a problem with the informant, but rather with the rigour of the information-gathering tool. The rigour of the measures concerning adaptive behaviour is moreover a prevailing topic (Salekin et al, 2018). It should also be noted that the discrepancy between self-report (TV-22) and caregiver (short version of ABAS-3) on social vulnerability looks very much like the findings of .…”