Concordance of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second and third editions. Issue 1 (28th October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Farmer, C.; Adedipe, D.; Bal, V. H.; Chlebowski, C.; Thurm, A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of intellectual disability research. Volume 64:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 18
• Page End: 26
• Publication Date: 2019-10-28
• Subjects: adaptive behaviour -- concordance -- developmental disorder -- intellectual disability -- psychometrics -- reliability; Mental retardation -- Research -- Periodicals; 362.2
• DOI: 10.1111/jir.12691
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0964-2633

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Because of its centrality in the conceptualization of intellectual disability, reliable and valid measurement of adaptive behaviour is important to both research and clinical practice. The manual of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, recently released in its third edition, provides limited reliability information obtained from a sample composed primarily of typically developing individuals. The goal of this study was to evaluate the concordance of the Vineland‐3 with the Vineland‐II in a sample more similar in ability level to those in which the Vineland is commonly used. Methods: Both editions of the Vineland Interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 106 parents/caregivers of individuals with neurodevelopmental disability, participating at two neurodevelopmental disorder research clinics. Administrations were up to 7 days apart, but most (90%) were simultaneous. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) (95% confidence interval) and mean differences (95% confidence interval) were calculated for domain standard scores and subdomain v ‐scale scores. Results: Domain‐level CCC ranged from 0.78 [0.70, 0.84] (Communication) to 0.86 [0.76, 0.92] (Motor). Subdomain CCC ranged from 0.71 [0.62, 0.78] (Receptive Language) to 0.91 [0.85, 0.95] (Fine Motor). Vineland‐3 scores were lower than Vineland‐II scores; 77% of participants had lower Adaptive Behavior Composite scores on the Vineland‐3 than on the Vineland‐II. For the subdomains, the magnitude of this difference depended upon the level of adaptive behaviour. For Communication, the domain with the lowest CCC, the mean difference ranged from −13.70 [−8.03, −19.35] for a Vineland‐II score or 85 to a difference of −19.18 [−12.28, −26.87] for a Vineland‐II score of 40. Discussion: Amongst individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the Vineland‐3 produces lower scores than the Vineland‐II, and these clinically significant differences tend to be larger for individuals with lower levels of ability. Thus, care must be taken in interpreting scores from the Vineland‐3 relative to those obtained from the previous edition.