See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351209868

Adaptive Behavior and Functional Life Skills Across the Lifespan: Conceptual
and Measurement Issues

Chapter · April 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-66441-1_1

CITATIONS READS
0 136

1 author:

Marc J. Tassé
The Ohio State University
129 PUBLICATIONS   3,687 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

National Core Indicators Adult Consumer Survey. Random selection and satisfaction survey and assessment of outcomes of adults receiving DD services in the state of Ohio.
View project

Development of the Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc J. Tassé on 04 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RUNNING HEAD: Adaptive Behavior

Adaptive Behavior and Functional Life Skills Across the Lifespan:

Conceptual and Measurement Issues

Marc J. Tassé, PhD

Nisonger Center
The Ohio State University

[email protected]

File name: AB Chapter - Tasse – PREPRINT VERSION

35 pages (double-spaced)
9,100 words

May 5, 2020

To appear in: Russell Lang & Peter Sturmey (Eds), Evidenced-Based Practices for Teaching Adaptive

Behavior to People with Intellectual and Developmental Disability across the Life Span. New York: Springer

Publishing.
Adaptive Behavior 2

Abstract
Adaptive behavior is an important construct that is involved in diagnosis and determination

of the severity of a number of neurodevelopmental disorders. Adaptive behavior is also associated

with greater independence and overall quality of life. Adaptive behavior is defined as the skills that

are learned and performed to meet the everyday demands of one’s community or society. The

number and complexity of adaptive behaviors needed to meet these demands increase with

chronological age. Higher levels of adaptive behavior are associated with more positive life

outcomes and improved quality of life. This chapter presents a number of conceptual issues

regarding the construct of adaptive behavior, its importance in the field of intellectual disability and

other neurodevelopmental disorders, and presents a review of key measures that can be used to

assess adaptive behavior and inform on the development and evaluation of teaching and

interventions that target increasing adaptive behavior.

Keywords: Adaptive behavior, adaptive skills, adaptive functioning, functional skills, assessment,
testing, teaching.
Adaptive Behavior 3

Adaptive Behavior and Functional Life Skills Across the Lifespan:

Conceptual and Measurement Issues

Adaptive behavior involves skills that people learn throughout their life and put forth to

meet the demands and expectations of their environment and society at large. Adaptive behavior is a

broad construct that encompasses practical skills (e.g., self-care, toileting, cooking, cleaning, caring

for one’s home, money concepts, and work skills), social skills (e.g., interpersonal skills, managing

one’s emotions, ), and conceptual skills (e.g., functional academics, communication skills, concept of

time, money management, and self-direction; American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Schalock et

al., 2010; Tassé et al., 2012). The complexity of the adaptive behavior increases with chronological

age and the onset of diverse social roles and responsibilities (e.g., going to school, participating in

sports and leisure activities, maintaining friendship, dating, independence/interdependence, financial

responsibilities, following rules, social responsibilities, employment, raising children, etc.).

Impairment in adaptive behavior is a crucial diagnostic criterion for a number of

neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (American Psychiatric

Association, 2013) and intellectual disability (APA, 2013; Schalock et al., 2010; World Health

Organization, 2002). The presence of deficits in adaptive behavior is also present in a number of

other conditions, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, emotional and behavioral

disorders, hearing and motor impairments, communication disorders, and learning disabilities

(Harrison & Oakland, 2003). Research has shown that the strength of adaptive skills is a strong

predictor of success of post-high school outcomes for students with disabilities (Dell’Armo & Tassé,

2019). Conversely, the loss of adaptive skills in aging adults is an early indicator of age-related

decline (Takata et al., 2013) and the onset of dementia in persons with Down syndrome (Zigman,

Schupf, Urv, Zigman, & Silverman, 2002; 2009).

Adaptive Behavior 4

Deficits in adaptive behavior are attributable to a number of independent and overlapping

variables. Some of these factors include: (a) opportunities to develop/learn a skill/behavior, (b)

opportunities to perform or practice a learned skill, (c) intrinsic or extrinsic motivation to perform a

learned skill when called upon, (d) the awareness that a particular skill or behavior is needed in a

particular situation, (e) physical or mental health problems, and/or (f) brain disease or impairment.

One’s context also influences significantly a person’s adaptive behavior, situationally (e.g., in a

demand setting where the person is rewarded for emitting a specific adaptive behavior) or

permanently (e.g., growing up in a severely impoverished environment where there was a paucity of

opportunities to learn adaptive skills).

Although the concept of adaptive behavior has evolved over time, it remains remarkably

similar to the definition initially proposed by American Association on Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) more than 50 years ago (see Heber, 1959). Heber (1959),

initially proposed introducing this concept into the diagnostic criteria of intellectual disability in a

draft version of the American Association on Mental Deficiency’s (now AAIDD) terminology and

classification manual. Heber defined this second diagnostic criterion as deficits in at least one of the

following: “maturation, learning, and social adjustment” (see Heber, 1959; p. 3). After receiving

feedback and comments from the field, Heber (1961) revised slightly the AAIDD diagnostic criteria

for intellectual disability proposed in 1959 and formally introduced in the definition of intellectual

disability the concept of “adaptive behavior.” Heber described the concurrent impairments in

adaptive behavior as consisting of deficits in one of the three previously mentioned domains:

maturation, learning, and/or social adjustments (see Heber, 1961; p. 3). The Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) incorporated AAIDD’s (Heber, 1961) proposed

construct of adaptive behavior in its 2nd revision of the DSM, published in 1968 (DSM-II; American

Psychiatric Association, 1968).

Adaptive Behavior 5

Fast forward 50 years, and our current diagnostic definitions of intellectual disability look

surprisingly similar to these two earlier definitions of AAIDD (Heber, 1961) and DSM-II (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013; Tassé et al., 2016). The current AAIDD definition (see Schalock et

al., 2010) and DSM-5 (APA, 2013) both require the presence of significant impairments in adaptive

behavior when diagnosing intellectual disability and operationalize it as the presence of deficits in

one or more of the following: conceptual (aka learning), social (aka social adjustment), and/or

practical adaptive skills (aka maturation).

Disorders Associated with Deficits in Adaptive Behavior

There are a number of conditions and situations in which the assessment and teaching of

adaptive behavior is a critical and essential component of the clinician’s or educator’s responsibility.

Before we discuss some of these specific conditions, it is important to point out that the presence of

problem behavior may at times coexist in a person who has deficits in adaptive behavior. First, we

much mention that problem behavior (e.g., aggression, stereotypy, elopement, etc.) are not

necessarily “maladaptive” or purposeless, nor are problem behavior and adaptive behavior on

opposite sides of the same construct. Problem behavior can, in fact, be very “adaptive” and serve as

an effective response to the person’s environment and the contingencies in the environment (e.g.,

scream to get someone’s attention, hit a teacher to get out of a task, etc.). Problem behaviors most

often serve a function (e.g., get something, avoid something, communicate a desire, sensory

regulation) and a function-based intervention will use teaching and reinforcing of alternative

behaviors to replace the problem behavior. Often, these alternative behaviors are adaptive skills.

For example, if the function of a student’s problem behavior of slapping a classmate is motivated by

a desire to escape the demands of the classroom by being removed from the classroom contingently

on the aggressive behavior, perhaps an alternative behavior to this aggression might be to teach the
Adaptive Behavior 6

student to ask for help, or communicate (e.g., words, picture/symbol, sign language) more

effectively when he/she is feeling overwhelmed by a the task or demand that is too difficult.

Incorporating the teaching of alternative adaptive skills should be considered an essential

component of all behavior change interventions. Research has shown that conducting parent

training that focuses on enhancing adaptive behavior and behavior management strategies results in

improved adaptive behavior and a reduction in challenging behaviors (Scahill et al., 2012; Scahill et

al., 2016). There is a growing body of research that has shown that poor adaptive behavior in

childhood is a barrier to achievements in social relationships, inclusion, independence, and

employment (Bruininks, Hill, & Morreau, 1985; Davis, Shurtleff, Walker, Seode;, & Duguay, 2004:

Papazoglou, Jacobson, & Zabel, 2013).

Developmental Disabilities

Developmental disabilities is an administrative definition at the federal level that defines a

level of human functioning that determines individuals eligible for federal and state disability

benefits (e.g., early intervention, waiver services for community based services, social security

supplemental income, etc.). The definition for developmental disabilities is found in U.S. legislation

entitled Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act; PL 106-402, 2000) that is

operationalized based on the person’s level of functioning rather than on the presence of specific

conditions or disorders (meaning it is largely based on the person presenting certain prescribed

functional deficits). Developmental disabilities is not a condition defined in either the DSM (DSM-5;

American Psychiatric Association, 2013) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10;

World Health Organization, 1992). The DD Act (2000) defines developmental disabilities as

follows:

“(A) … a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:

Adaptive Behavior 7

i. is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical

impairments;

ii. is manifested before the individual attains age 22;

iii. is likely to continue indefinitely;

iv. results in substantial functional limitations in 3 or more of the following areas of major

life activity:

1. Self-care.

2. Receptive and expressive language.

3. Learning.

4. Mobility.

5. Self-direction.

6. Capacity for independent living.

7. Economic self-sufficiency; and

v. reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary,

or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of

lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

(B) Infants and young children. An individual from birth to age 9, inclusive, who has a substantial

developmental delay or specific congenital or acquired condition, may be considered to have a

developmental disability without meeting 3 or more of the criteria described in clauses (i)

through (v) of subparagraph (A) if the individual, without services and supports, has a high

probability of meeting those criteria later in life.” (DD Act, 2000; pp. 1683-1684)

It is important to note that a person’s cognitive ability is not a criterion in diagnosing a

developmental disability. Rather, its determination rests largely on the presence of deficits in

adaptive behavior, or what is called “areas of major life activity” in the DD Act.
Adaptive Behavior 8

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Autism spectrum disorder is a life-long neurodevelopmental disorder that has an onset

during early childhood. It is characterized by significant deficits in social communication skills and

the presence of restrictive and repetitive behavior and/or interests (American Psychiatric

Association, 2013). Deficits in social communication include skills such as social and emotional

reciprocity, interpersonal skills, emotion recognition and sharing, non-verbal communication skills,

eye contact, friendship and relationship skills, etc. Deficits in social skills and communication deficits

are core features of autism spectrum disorder (see DSM-5).

People with autism spectrum disorder present with varying levels of severity in symptoms

and functioning across the social and communication skills continuum as well as the severity of their

stereotypic behavior, behavioral rigidity, restrictive interests and activities, and sensory behaviors.

The DSM-5 proposed three levels of severity of autism spectrum disorder, based on the intensity of

supports needed around the person’s social communication deficits and their restricted and

repetitive behaviors. Hence, interventions almost always focus on teaching and enhancing these

adaptive skills to impact the core features of autism spectrum disorder and directly reduce the

severity of the condition and ameliorate the prognosis.

Intellectual disability

Adaptive behavior is perhaps best associated as a core feature of intellectual disability. The

condition of intellectual disability has long been conceptualized as consisting of problems in

adapting to societal demands and expectations, along with deficits in intellectual abilities. Adaptive

behavior has been an essential diagnostic criterion of intellectual disability for more than 50 years

(see American Psychiatric Association, 1968; Heber, 1961). Even before adaptive behavior was

included as a diagnostic criterion, Tredgold (1937; p. 4) described it as follows: “[Intellectual disability]

Adaptive Behavior 9

is a state of incomplete mental development of such a kind and degree that the individual is incapable of

adapting himself to the normal environment of his fellows in such a way to maintain existence

independently of supervision, control or external support.” [emphasis mine]. Edouard Seguin as early as the

mid-1800s differentiated the severity levels of intellectual disability on the basis of a combination of

deficits in intellectual ability and adaptive functioning (see Scherenberger, 1983).

An important assumption that is defined as essential to the application of the definition of

intellectual disability put forth by AAIDD stipulates the following: “With appropriate personalized

supports, the life functioning of the person with intellectual disability will improve.” (Luckasson et

al., 1992; Schalock et al., 2010; Schalock, Luckasson, & Tassé, in press). We argue that the most

important form of ongoing support is lifelong instruction. People with intellectual disability, as well

as any other disability, are capable of learning new adaptive skills throughout their life.

Relation Between Adaptive Behavior and Intellectual Functioning

It is not surprising that the exact relationship between intelligence and adaptive behavior is

misunderstood and erroneously confounded as causal. In fact, earlier definitions of intelligence

incorporated elements in its definition that included terms such as “adaptation” or “one’s ability to

respond to their environment’s expectations and demands” (see Binet & Simon, 1905; Sternberg et

al., 2000; Thorndike, 1920). Nonetheless, in a study of the relationship between adaptive behavior

and intelligence, Keith and his colleagues (1987) tested three hypotheses of the relationship between

these two constructs: (a) separate but related constructs, (b) completely independent constructs, or

(c) different facets of a unitary construct. Based on their findings, they concluded that adaptive

behavior and intelligence are related but separate constructs. This finding has been supported over

the years by a number of research studies examining the correlational relationship between adaptive

behavior and intelligence that has consistently reported that the correlation between FSIQ and

composite adaptive behavior score is moderate (De Bildt, Kraijer, Systema, & Minderaa, 2005;
Adaptive Behavior 10

Harrison, 1987; Harrison & Oakland, 2003; McGrew, 2012; Papazoglou, Jacobson, McCabe,

Kaufmann, & Zabel, 2014; Sabat, Tassé, & Tenorio, 2019). The correlation between IQ and

adaptive behavior is strongest between the full-scale IQ score and conceptual adaptive skills and to a

lesser extent with social and practical adaptive skills (Carpentieri & Morgan, 1996; Sabat et al., 2019).

There may be concern that the correlation coefficients may be attenuated between these two

constructs on account of range restrictions of scores on the intelligence and adaptive behavior tests.

Alexander (2017) in a large meta-analytic study of 148 samples containing a total of 16,464

participants, after correcting for range restriction and attenuation reported an estimated population

correlation coefficient = 0.51. These results confirmed an overall moderate relationship between

intelligence and adaptive behavior. Alexander also reported that moderator analyses confirmed that

the correlation coefficients between IQ and adaptive behavior were strongest as the IQ score

decreased; Hence, even it is ever more crucial to consider adaptive behavior measures as intellectual

abilities increase.

Meyers, Nihira, and Zetlin (1979) eloquently summarized the differences between these two

related but separate psychological constructs as follows: “(a) adaptive behavior emphasizes everyday

behavior, whereas intelligence emphasizes thought processes; (b) adaptive behavior focuses on common or typical

behavior. whereas intelligence focuses on maximum performance; and (c) adaptive behavior stresses non-abstract, non-

academic aspects of life, whereas intelligence stresses those aspects that are abstract and academic.” (pp. 433-434).

Importance of Adaptive Behavior

The importance of adaptive behavior has only grown over the last century of research and

intervention in the field of intellectual disability. A person’s functioning in terms of adaptive

behavior and intellectual skills must be weighed equally and considered jointly when diagnosing

intellectual disability (Tassé, Luckasson, & Schalock, 2016). In fact, both AAIDD and DSM have

moved to place equal, if not more, importance on adaptive behavior than intellectual functioning in
Adaptive Behavior 11

their conceptualization of intellectual disability. For example, the DSM-5 has abandoned the use of

IQ scores in defining the severity of a person’s intellectual disability and has replaced IQ with the

person’s level of adaptive behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Hence, the

determination of severity of intellectual disability (mild, moderate, severe, profound) is best

determined on the basis of the severity of deficits in adaptive behavior rather than intellectual

functioning, the reason being that deficits in adaptive behavior are a better correlate with intensity of

support needs than deficits in intellectual functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013;

Simoes, Santos, Biscaia, & Thompson, 2016), and, equally important, research has shown that higher

levels of adaptive behavior are strongly correlated with improved quality of life (Chou et al. 2013;

Claes et al. 2012; Nota et al. 2007; Simoes, Santos, Biscaia, & Thompson, 2016).

There is a growing consensus on the importance of focusing our interventions and

treatments on increasing the learning and performance of adaptive behavior. This book has, to that

end, several chapters that present different interventions and approaches to teaching adaptive

behavior and functional skills across the lifespan. In this chapter, we will present the important

elements related to the concepts and assessment of adaptive behavior, which are a critical first step

to the identification of strengths and areas of needed intervention. We will present some of the

tools that exist that can aide in assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of an intervention.

Assessment of Adaptive Behavior

Coulter and Morrow (1978) observed that the field’s interest in the assessment of adaptive

behavior falls into two primary purposes. Adaptive behavior assessment continues to be driven

essentially by these two goals: (1) establish a diagnosis/determine eligibility (i.e., does the person

present with significant deficits in adaptive behavior) and (2) identify areas of deficits and relative

strengths that can inform intervention objectives and strategies (i.e., individual education plan,

individual support plan, identify strengths and weaknesses).

Adaptive Behavior 12

Edgar Doll (1936) was the first recognize the important of adaptive behavior and develop a

standardized measure, called the Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Since the first publication of the

Vineland Social Maturity Scale, more than 200 measures of adaptive behavior and functional skills have

been identified (Reschly, Myers, & Hartel, 2002; Schalock, 1999). Some of these instruments might

consist of a brief inventory, checklist, or questionnaire dealing with a very specific skill area (e.g.,

social skills, communication, motor skills, vocational skills) and most of these 200 assessments are

not comprehensive of adaptive behavior. Some are direct measures, while others are created to

assess the person’s adaptive behavior by getting input from a third-party respondent (e.g., parent,

caregiver, teacher, direct support professional, etc.). Almost all use as rating scales are designed to

allow the respondent to complete the scale on their own by entering their ratings directly onto the

form. A few more rigorous standardized scales, predominantly developed for diagnostic purposes,

rely more heavily on a semi-structured interview procedure between a trained professional and the

respondent (e.g., parent/caregiver, teacher or direct support staff, etc.).

Although there was a time when the validity and psychometric properties of adaptive

behavior scales were viewed with skepticism (see Witt & Martens, 1984; Zigler, Balla, & Hodapp,

1984), this has changed over the last couple of decades. There are currently several existing

standardized adaptive behavior scales that have been robustly developed and have strong

psychometrically properties that rely on comprehensive norm-based evaluations of adaptive

behavior across the lifespan and include well written items that encompass all three critical domains:

conceptual (i.e., communication, functional academics, self-direction, budgeting/paying bills), social

(i.e., interpersonal skills, emotion regulation, social problem solving, wariness, following rules and

laws), and practical (i.e., self-care, domestic skills, money and time concepts, vocational/work skills)

adaptive skills. These are several of these instruments that are considered examples of “gold

standard” measures of adaptive behavior and include: Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, 3rd
Adaptive Behavior 13

edition (Harrison & Oakland, 2015); Adaptive Behavior Diagnostic Scale (Pearson, Patton, &

Mruzek, 2016); Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale (Tassé et al., 2018); and Vineland Adaptive

Behavior Scales (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Saulnier, 2016). We do not include in this list, the Scales of

Independent Behavior, Revised (SIB-R; Bruininks et al., 1996). Despite being a highly respected,

well-constructed, and psychometrically robust measure of adaptive behavior, the SIB-R has become

somewhat outdated since its last revision and re-norming in 1996 (i.e., almost 25 years

ago). Unlike with tests of intelligence, aging norms on scales of adaptive behavior do not cause a

spurious rise in adaptive behavior scores (i.e., the Flynn effect). It remains, nonetheless, important

to periodically revise item content and refresh normative data on these tests. Item content on

measures of adaptive behavior need to be periodically refreshed to keep up with changing societal

norms and expectations. For example, more current adaptive behavior scales may include more

technology items such as using a cell phone or microwave and should have deleted outdated items

such as using a pay phone or using a telephone book to find a phone number. We will briefly

present these four aforementioned standardized adaptive behavior instruments.

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System – 3nd Edition

The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System – 3nd Edition (ABAS-3; (ABAS-3; Harrison &

Oakland, 2015) is in its third edition, having been first published in 2000. The ABAS-3 was the first

comprehensive norm-referenced measure of adaptive behavior to offer standard scores for the three

adaptive behavior domains: conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. The ABAS-3 can be

used for multiple purposes, including: (1) making the determination of intellectual disability,

developmental disabilities, learning disability, and behavioral and emotional disorders; (2) identifying

functional limitations of people with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity

disorder, and Alzheimer disease; (3) establishing an individual’s eligibility for services and supports

under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), social security administration benefits,
Adaptive Behavior 14

and intensity of need for other types of supports and services; (4) identifying and measuring

intervention goals and progress in adaptive behavior and functional limitations interventions, and (5)

being used as an outcome measure in program evaluations and interventions. It has robust norms

drawn from the general population and it can be used to assess adaptive behavior across the

lifespan, including the ages of 0 to 89 years.

The ABAS-3 consists of five distinct survey forms:

o Parent or Primary Caregiver Form (0 – 5 years old): appropriate for the assessment of

adaptive behavior in infants and preschoolers in the home. The respondent providing

adaptive behavior information on this form is the child’s parent or other primary caregiver.

o Teacher or Daycare Provider Form (2 – 5 years old): used for the assessment of adaptive

behavior in toddlers and preschool-aged children in daycare, preschool, and other similar

setting. The respondent for the Teacher or Daycare Provider Form is typically the child’s

daycare or preschool teacher or teacher’s aide, or some other childcare or preschool

personnel.

o Parent Form (5 – 21 years old): appropriate for the assessment of adaptive behavior in

children and adults and observed having been observed at home and other community

settings. The respondent completing the Parent Form is generally the child’s parent or other

caregiver who lives with the child or adult.

o Teacher Form (5 – 21 years old): used to assess adaptive behavior in children or adults in

the context of the classroom and school (Kindergarten to 12th grade). The respondent for

this form is generally the student’s teacher, teacher’s aide, and other school personnel.

o Adult Form (16 – 89 years old): appropriate for the assessment of adaptive behavior in

adolescents and adults in the context of their home and across community settings. The
Adaptive Behavior 15

respondent on the Adult Form is most often a parent/caregiver or other family member but

can also be completed, when the respondent has sufficient knowledge of the person’s

adaptive behavior, a spouse/significant other, co-worker, work supervisor, friend, or other

knowledgeable person who has good familiarity with the individual’s everyday functioning.

The ABAS-3 Adult Form is the only adaptive behavior form that has been developed and

normed for self-report by the individual him or herself. Self-reported adaptive behavior

information is most valuable for the identification and prioritization of teaching and training

goals targeting adaptive skills.

Although the ABAS-3 User’s Manual (Harrison & Oakland, 2015) indicated that the

administration time is approximately 15-20 minutes, a more realistic time of administration is

probably closer to 30 – 40 minutes to complete the adult form. The ABAS-3 continues to be the

only standardized adaptive behavior scale that provides a self-report administration and norms for

self-reported adaptive behavior using the Adult Form.

The ABAS yields standard scores (Mean = 100; standard deviation = 15) presenting an

overall assessment of adaptive behavior (i.e., General Adaptive Composite[GAC}) and the three

adaptive behavior domains: Conceptual, Social, and Practical skills. The ABAS-3 forms also provide

more discrete standard scores (mean = 10 and standard deviation = 3) across the following 10

subscales: (1) communication, (2) functional academics, (3) self-direction, (4) leisure, (5) social, (6)

community use, (7) home/school living, (8) health & safety, (9) self-care, and (10) work (completed

only when assessed person has a part-time or full-time job). These subscale scores are probably the

most informative sources of measurement when looking to assess adaptive behavior/functional

limitations for the purpose of intervention planning and evaluation.

Adaptive Behavior 16

The ABAS-3 has been in use for more than two decades and has good psychometric

properties (Henington, 2017; Wu, 2017). Harrison and Oakland (2015) reported internal consistency

for the ABAS-3 GAC Cronbach alphas ranging from .96 – .99 and from .85 – .99 for Conceptual,

Social, and Practical domains. Harrison and Oakland also reported very good score stability for the

ABAS-3 average GAC correlation coefficient of r = .86, average correlation coefficients of r = .76

for the domain standard scores, and an average r = .70 across the ten adaptive skill areas.

Adaptive Behavior Diagnostic Scale

The Adaptive Behavior Diagnostic Scale (ABDS; Pearson, Patton, & Mruzek, 2016) is one

of the newer standardized adaptive behavior scales. Although an entirely new adaptive behavior

scale, the ABDS was developed by Pro-Ed and is a replacement for the Adaptive Behavior Scale:

School Edition (Lambert, Nihira, & Leland, 1993) and Adaptive Behavior Scale: Residential and

Community (Nihira, Lambert, & Leland, 1993).

The ABDS is an interview-based scale that assesses adaptive behavior with robust general

population norms for individuals from 2 to 21 years. This instrument was specifically developed

using the conceptual model of adaptive behavior domains including: Conceptual, Social, and

Practical skills. The ABDS consists of a total of 150 items, with 50 discrete adaptive skill items

across each of the three domains. Administration of this instruments is approximately 15-20

minutes. The results of the ABDS yields standard scores (mean = 100 and standard deviation = 15)

for each of the three domains: Conceptual, Social, and Practical as well as an overall Adaptive

Behavior Index.

Pearson et al. (2016) reported excellent psychometric properties, including internal

consistency coefficients for all domain and overall index standard scores above .90. Pearson et al.

reported sensitivity coefficient of .85 (accuracy of ABDS to correctly identify people with intellectual
Adaptive Behavior 17

disability) and specificity coefficient of 0.99 (accuracy of ABDS to correctly identify people who do

not have intellectual disability).

Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale

The Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale (DABS; Tassé et al., 2017) is the newest of the

comprehensive adaptive behavior scales available. Like the ABDS, the DABS was developed and

refined to accurately measure adaptive behavior according the conceptual model adopted by

AAIDD (Schalock et al., 2010) and the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The

DABS construction used item response theory (IRT) to select and include the most precise and

relevant items/skills that inform about a person’s adaptive behavior across the ages of 4 to 21 years

(Tassé et al., 2016; 2017). The DABS’s item pool includes items that are often missing from more

traditional adaptive behavior scales, items measuring concepts of higher order social skills such as

gullibility, vulnerability, and social naiveté.

The DABS consists of the fewest number of total items among all the comprehensive

standardized adaptive behavior scales described in this chapter. It consists of a total of 75 items

across all three adaptive behavior domains: Conceptual, Social, and Practical skills (25 items per

domain). The DABS is administered via a semi-structured interview between a professional (i.e.,

DABS interviewer) and a respondent (e.g., parent, grandparent, caregiver, teacher, etc.). The time

needed to administer the DABS is generally estimated to be approximately 20 minutes. Because the

DABS using IRT to score the responses and yield individualized standard error or measurement, the

scoring of the DABS can only be done via online computerized scoring (see

https://aaidd.org/dabs). This scoring provides standard scores (mean = 100 and standard deviation

= 15) for each of the three domains (Conceptual, Social, and Practical) as well as Overall or

Composite Adaptive Behavior score.

Adaptive Behavior 18

The DABS was standardized on a large national sample of the general US population

between the ages of 4 and 21 years (Tassé et al., 2017). The authors of the DABS (Balboni et al.,

2014; Tassé et al., 2017; Tassé, Schalock, Balboni, Spreat, & Navas, 2016) have published several

studies reporting strong psychometric properties, including robust validity and reliability. Tassé,

Schalock, et al. (2016) reported good to excellent concurrent validity between the DABS and the

Vineland-II ranging from r = .70 to .84. They also reported strong DABS test score stability, as

measured using test-retest reliability coefficients, ranging from r = .78 to .95 and good interrater

concordance as measured by intraclass correlation coefficients that ranged from .61 to .87. Balboni

et al. (2014) reported on the DABS sensitivity and specificity. The DABS sensitivity (correctly

identifying someone who has intellectual disability) ranged from 81% to 98% and specificity

(correctly identifying someone who does not have intellectual disability) ranged from 89% to 91%,

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, 3rd Edition

The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, 3rd Edition (Vineland-3; Sparrow, Cicchetti, &

Saulnier, 2016) is the oldest and probably best known comprehensive standardized adaptive

behavior scale. The Vineland-3 has its roots in the Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS; Doll,

1936) and has gone through several revisions since its first edition. The Vineland-3 measures

adaptive behavior in individuals from 0 through 90 years old and consists of three forms: (1)

Interview Form (0 through age 90), (2) Parent/Caregiver Form (0 through age 90), and (3) Teacher

Form (3 to 21 years old). All three forms have two versions, depending on the purpose of the

evaluation, including the Domain-level Form and a longer version called the Comprehensive Form.

The Comprehensive Form is used for the purpose of providing more detailed skill information

needed for intervention planning and evaluation. It yields standard scores (mean = 100 and

standard deviation = 15) for: (a) Composite Score and (b) three domain scores (Daily Living Skills,

Communication, Socialization). It also provides standard scores on a scale of mean = 10 and

Adaptive Behavior 19

standard deviation =3 for nine subdomain scores: personal, domestic, community, receptive

communication, expressive communication, written communication, interpersonal relationships,

play and leisure time, and coping skills. The Domain-level Form is shorter and provides standard

scores (mean = 100 and standard deviation = 15) across the three VABS-3 domains: Daily Living

Skills, Communication, and Socialization (as well as the optional domain of Motor Skills) and is

most useful for the purpose of making diagnostic determinations.

The Vineland-3 can be administered via a semi-structured interview using the Interview

Form or be given directly to the parent or caregiver who complete the instrument directly on their

own (i.e., Parent/Caregiver Form). These different forms consist of approximately comparable

number of items but have slightly different item stem wordings. The Comprehensive Form consists

of 502 items and Domain-Level Form consists of 195 items on the interview form and 180 items on

the parent/caregiver form. The Teacher Form is not usually used in isolation, but is instead often

used in conjunction with the Interview Form or the Parent/Caregiver Form. The Teacher Form:

Comprehensive Form consists of 333 items and Teacher Form: Domain-level Form consists of 149

items. Below is a brief description of the different Vineland-3 forms:

o Interview Form (0 to 90 years old): The Interview Form is administered via a semi-

structured interview between a professional and the respondent (parent or caregiver). The

Vineland-3 uses an interview procedure that encourages the interviewer to engage in a

conversation with the respondent about the assessed person’s adaptive behavior and

encourages the interviewer to avoid directly eliciting ratings from the respondent on the

individual item stems but rather instructs the interviewer complete the item ratings at the

end of the interview with the respondent. The Interview Form has two versions:

Comprehensive Form (502 items) or Domain-level Form (195 items). According to the

Vineland-3 User’s Manual, the time of administration is 25 minutes for the Domain-level
Adaptive Behavior 20

Form (195 items) and 40 minutes for the Comprehensive Form (502 items).

o Parent/Caregiver Form (0 to 90 years old): This form is completed directly by the parent or

caregiver much like a rating scale. The respondent rates the assessed person’s performance

on each of the adaptive skill items. The Parent/Caregiver Form has two versions:

Comprehensive Form (502 items; identical items that are included on the Interview Form) or

Domain-level Form (180 items). The Vineland-3 User’s Manual list the time of

administration for the Domain-level Form at 15 minutes and the Comprehensive Form at 40

minutes.

o Teacher Form (3 to 21 years old): Similar to the Parent/Caregiver Form, the Teacher Form

is completed directly by the teacher, teacher’s aide, or a daycare staff member who assesses

the student’s observed performance on each of the adaptive skill items. The Teacher Form

also consists of two forms: (1) Comprehensive Form (333 items) and (2) Domain-level Form

(149 items). The Vineland-3 User’s Manual reports the administration time for the Teacher

Form: Domain-Level version (149 items) at approximately is 10 minutes and the Teacher

Form: Comprehensive version (333 items) necessitating approximately 25 minutes to

complete.

The Vineland-3 domains are slightly different from the other comprehensive standardized

scales (e.g., ABAS-3, ABDS, and DABS) and not consistent with the recommended domains in the

AAIDD (Schalock et al., 2010) and DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The Vineland-3 provides its items and standard scores (mean = 100 and standard deviation

= 15) aggregated across the following four domains: Daily Living Skills, Communication,

Socialization, and Motor Skills (optional domain for children under 6 years old). These Vineland-3

domain names are the same domain names used in original Vineland scale and the authors have
Adaptive Behavior 21

chosen to maintain these domain names despite their lack of alignment with the current tripartite

model of adaptive behavior (conceptual, social, and practical) used by the existing diagnostic systems

(e.g., AAIDD, DSM-5).

The Vineland-3 has robust and representative norms of the general population. It has good

to excellent psychometric properties, including internal consistency, score stability as measured by

test-retest reliability, and inter-respondent concordance (Pepperdine & McCrimmon, 2017). Sparrow

et al. (2016) reported excellent internal consistency coefficients across all domains, with Cronbach

alphas ranging from .90 to .98. The test-retest reliability of the Vineland-3 scores ranged from r =

.80 to .92 for the adaptive behavior composite standard score. Inter-respondent concordance was

reported at r = .79 for the adaptive behavior composite and ranging from .70 to .81 for the different

domains.

Other Means and Measures

An important source of information about a person’s skills and functional abilities can be

obtained from direct observations of the person or via semi-structured clinical interviews with

people who have lived with, worked with, or had the opportunity to observe the person on a regular

basis and seen how they function at home, school, work, and/or play. These semi-structured

interviews do not need to be based on a standardized measure and can consist of tailored questions

that focus on the skill areas of interest or at the center of an intervention (e.g., self-care, cooking,

home living skills, money concepts, work skills, social skills, etc.).

There exists also a number of school, medical, or other personal records that might provide

valuable information, either as a primary source or as a supplemental or use to corroborate adaptive

behavior or functional skills information obtained through other means. These records include:

social and family history, medical records, school performance, IEPs, educational, psychological, or

neuropsychological evaluations, work records, social security administration evaluations, etc.

Adaptive Behavior 22

There are a number of other comprehensive standardized measures that are more focused

on specific adaptive skills or functional skills that can provide useful information about a person’s

skill levels. These can also serve well to inform on specific skill or domain areas. Below are a couple

of good examples of such instruments.

Social Skills Improvement System – Rating Scales

The Social Skills Improvement System - Rating Scales (SSIS; Gresham & Elliott, 2008) is a revision

of the popular Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The SSIS is a suite of

rating scales that are used to measure the social skills as well as problem behaviors of children and

adolescents between the ages of 3 and 18 years old. The SSIS is particularly focused on social skills

and problem behavior that the authors have identified as especially relevant for school success (Doll

& Jones, 2010).

The SSIS can be completed directly by student on a self-report form or completed by a

third-party respondent (e.g., parent form or teacher form). Students, parents and teachers provide

an individual rating of the frequency and perceived importance of each social skill item. The student

self-report form consists of 46 items, whereas, the parent/teacher forms consist of 46 social skill

items and an additional 33 items identifying problem behaviors for the parent to rate or 30

additional items identifying problem behaviors for the teacher to rate. The administration time of

the SSIS ranges from 10 to 25 minutes.

The SSIS can be scored by hand or using a computerized scoring system. The scoring of the

SSIS yields standard scores (mean = 100, standard deviation = 15) and a criterion-based evaluation

(well-above average, above average, average, below average, well below average) across: social skills,

problem behaviors, and academic competence (teacher ratings only). Perhaps the most practical
Adaptive Behavior 23

information comes in the form of a series of suggested actions and interventions objectives derived

from the results from the SSIS ratings.

In terms of psychometric properties for the SSIS, they are good (Crosby, 2011). The social

skills assessment across all three forms provides practical and psychometrically sound information

(Doll & Jones, 2010) and a useful screening tool to aide teachers in planning interventions targeting

social skills (e.g., the accompanying intervention guide; Crosby, 2011; Lee-Farmer & Meikamp,

2010).

Texas Functional Living Scale

The Texas Functional Living Scale (TFLS; Cullum, Weiner, & Saine, 2009) is a brief

performance-based individually administered screening measure that assesses independent living

skills in the areas of: time, money concepts and calculations, communication, and memory. The

focus of the TFLS items is on the abilities that might be most impacted by age-related cognitive

decline. Although initially developed to assess functional living skills in older adults with dementia,

the FTLS was normed on a larger sample of the general population aged from 16 to 90 years old in

the hopes of expanding its utility to include individuals across the lifespan with other disabilities

(e.g., intellectual disability, traumatic brain injury, and schizophrenia; Lindsay-Glenn, 2010).

The TFLS consists of 24 items that are administered directly to the assessed person and

requires either a verbal or written response. The total administration time requires less than 15

minutes. The TFLS yields t-scores (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10) which are typically more

complicated for most practitioners to use and understand than the more traditional normative scores

with a mean = 100 and a standard deviation = 15. The TFLS has shown some utility in identifying

intervention goals as well as measuring treatment outcomes and effectiveness in the defined

independent living skill areas that it assesses.

Adaptive Behavior 24

The psychometric properties of the TFLS are adequate for a screening instrument (Strang,

2010; Lindsay-Glenn, 2010). The internal consistency reliability ranges from .65 to .81 and

reportedly good test score stability. Its validity evidence was measured using a comparison between

the TFLS and the ABAS, 2nd Edition. These correlation coefficients assessing its concurrent validity

were in the range of .41 to .80. Overall, the range of skills assessed is limited but the TFLS has

shown to be a useful screening tool that can inform on performance across the limited number of

functional skills its measures: time, money and calculations, communication and memory (Lindsay-

Glenn, 2010).

Teaching Adaptive Behavior

A person’s level of adaptive behavior is an indicator of how well an individual typically

functions in everyday life, which is also highly predictive of positive life outcomes and has important

implications for intervention (Farley et al., 2009; Kanne, Gerber, Quirmbach, Sparrow, Cicchetti, &

Saulnier, 2011). Teaching and promoting the acquisition of adaptive behavior should be an essential

goal of any intervention. Gresham and colleagues have described the importance of social skills as

academic enablers and problem behaviors as academic disablers (Gresham, 2015; Gresham &

Elliott, 2008). The outcome of increasing a person’s adaptive behavior will often lead to greater

independence, personal autonomy, likelihood of being in an inclusive setting, self-direction, overall

quality of life as well as a reduced perception among laypeople that the person has a disability. The

DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) embraced using the person’s level of adaptive

functioning as the determinant of severity of intellectual disability, because adaptive behavior is a

better indicator of the person’s overall functioning and intensity of needed supports. With the

proper level of instruction and supports, people with intellectual disability can learn new adaptive
Adaptive Behavior 25

skills throughout their life and as a result, their overall functioning will generally improve (Schalock

et al., 2010).

Henry Leland, a pioneer in the field of intellectual disability, once said that it was a person’s

adaptive behavior deficits that made others in their community take notice of them and identify

them as a person with a disability. Once exited from school, one’s intellectual functioning plays a

lesser role than their adaptive functioning in predicting successful life outcomes. A good illustration

of this is what was once called the “6-hour retarded student.” These were students who, when in

school, were identified as having an intellectual disability and received special education services but

when out of school, they were seen by others in their neighborhood as a regular kid largely because

of their adaptive behavior (President’s Committee on Mental Retardation, 1970).

A fundamental assumption is that with proper instruction and supports, people with

intellectual disability can and will learn new adaptive skills throughout their lifetime and their

functioning will improve (Schalock et al., 2010).

Summary and Conclusions

Adaptive behavior is a separate and independent construct of intellectual functioning and

equally essential in making the determination of intellectual disability. Adaptive behavior is a

complex construct that includes skills in domains such as conceptual, social, and practice skills. It is

an important aspect of human functioning that deficits in adaptive behavior are a core feature of

number of conditions. There are a number of robust and reliable assessment instruments available

to assist clinicians in determining intervention goals geared at increasing adaptive skills. The

presence of adaptive behavior has been shown to be associated with fewer challenging behaviors,

enhanced opportunities across settings and throughout the lifespan as well as being related to

improved overall quality of life. With person-centered interventions and supports, a person will
Adaptive Behavior 26

learn and improve their adaptive skills and ability to meet the expectations and demands. Teaching

and promoting the acquisition of adaptive behavior should be an essential goal of any intervention.

It is important to remember that anyone can learn new adaptive behaviors and functional living

skills, no matter their ability/disability level and these new skills, if selected appropriately, can

contribute to improved functioning, enhanced independence and overall quality of life.

Adaptive Behavior 27

References

Alexander, R. M. & Reynolds, M. R. (in press). Intelligence and adaptive behavior: A meta-

analysis. School Psychology Review.

American Psychiatric Association (1968). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd

Edition; DSM-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition;

DSM-5). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Bertollo, J. R., & Yerys, B. E. (2019). More than IQ: executive function explains adaptive behavior

above and beyond nonverbal IQ in youth with autism and lower IQ. American journal on

intellectual and developmental disabilities, 124(3), 191-205. DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-124.3.191

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des

anormaux. L’Année Psychologique, 11, 191–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/psy.1904.3675

Carpentieri, S., & Morgan, S. B. (1996). Adaptive and intellectual functioning in autistic and

nonautistic retarded children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, 611–620.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02172350

Coulter, W. A., & Morrow, H. W. (1978). A contemporary conception of adaptive behavior within

the scope of psychological assessment. In W. A. Coulter & H. W. Morrow (Eds.), Adaptive

behavior: Concepts and measurements (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Grune and Stratton.

Crosy, J. W. (2011). Test review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 292-296.

Cullum, C. M., Weiner, M. F., & Saine, K. C. (2009). Texas Functional Living Scale: Examiner’s manual.

San Antonio, TX: Pearson Asssessment.

Adaptive Behavior 28

De Bildt A., Kraijer D., Sytema S. & Minderaa R. (2005) The psychometric properties of the

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in children and adolescents with mental retardation.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 53–62.

Dell’Armo, K. A. & Tassé, M. J. (2019). The Role of Adaptive Behavior and Parent Expectations in

Predicting Post-School Outcomes for Young Adults with Intellectual Disability. Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49, 1638-1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3857-

6.

Doll, E. (1936). Preliminary standardization of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 6, 283-293.

Doll, E. (1937). The inheritance of social competence. Journal of Heredity, 28, 37-53.

Doll, E. (1953). The Measurement of Social Competence: A Manual for the Vineland Social Maturity Scale.

Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc.

Doll, B., & Jones, K. (2010). Test review of Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales. In R.

A. Spies, J. F. Carlson, & K. F. Geisinger (Eds.), The Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook.

Retrieved from http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.

Farley, M. A., McMahon, W. M., Fombonne, E., Jenson, W. R., Miller, J., Gardner, M., ... & Coon,

H. (2009). Twenty‐year outcome for individuals with autism and average or near‐average

cognitive abilities. Autism Research, 2(2), 109-118.

Ghezzo, A., Salvioli, S., Solimando, M. C., Palmieri, A., Chiostergi, C., Scurti, M., Lomartire, L.,

Bedetti, F., Cocchi, G., Follo, D., Pipitone, E., Rovatti, P., Zamberletti, J., Gomiero, T.,

Castellani, G., & Franceschi, C. (2014). Age-related changes of adaptive and

neuropsychological features in persons with Down Syndrome. PLoS ONE, 9(11). e113111.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113111.
Adaptive Behavior 29

Gresham, F. M. (2015). Evidence-based social skills interventions for students at risk for EBD.

Remedial and Special Education, 36, 100-104.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson, Inc.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales. Minneapolis,

MN: Pearson Assessments.

Harrison, P. L. & Oakland, T. (2003). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System Second Edition: Manual. San

Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc.

Harrison, P. L. & Oakland, T. (2015). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition (ABAS-3):

Manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

Heber, R. (1959). A manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation: A monograph

supplement. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 64, 1-111.

Heber, R. (1961). A manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation: A monograph

supplement. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 64, 1-111.

Henington, C. (2017). Test review of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, 3rd Edition. In J. F.

Carlson, K F., Geisinger, J. L. Johnson (Eds), The Twentieth Mental Measurement Yearbook.

Retrieved from http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.

Kanne, S. M., Gerber, A. J., Quirmbach, L. M., Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., Saulnier, C. A.

(2011). The role of adaptive behavior in autism spectrum disorders: Implications for

functional outcome. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 41, 1007-1018.

Adaptive Behavior 30

Keith, T. Z., Fehrman, P. G., Harrison, P. L., & Pottebaum, S. M. (1987). The relation between

adaptive behavior and intelligence: Testing alternative explanations. Journal of School Psychology,

25, 31-43.

Lambert, N., Nihira, K., & Leland, H. (1993). Adaptive Behavior Scale—School, 2nd Edition (ABS-S: 2).

Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Lee-Farmer, J., & Meikamp, J. (2010). Test review of Social Skills Improvement System Rating

Scales]. In R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson, & K. F. Geisinger (Eds.), The Eighteenth Mental Measurements

Yearbook. Retrieved from http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.

Lindsay-Glenn, P. (2010). Test review of Texas Functional Living Scale. In R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson,

& K. F. Geisinger (Eds.), The Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Retrieved from

http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.

Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Schalock, R. L.

… Tassé, M. J. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (10th Edition).

Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

Makary, A. T., Testa, R., Tonge, B. J., Einfeld, S. L., Mohr, C., & Gray, K. M. (2015). Association

between adaptive behaviour and age in adults with down syndrome without dementia:

Examining the range and severity of adaptive behaviour problems. Journal of Intellectual

Disability Research, 59(8), 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12172

McGrew, K. S. (2012). What is the typical IQ and adaptive behavior correlation? IAP Applied

Psychometrics 101 Brief Report # 11. Retrieved on 4-13-2018 from

http://www.iqscorner.com/search?q=adaptive+behavior.

Meyers, C. E., Nihira, K., & Zetlin, A. (1979). The measurement of adaptive behavior. In N. R. Ellis

(Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency- Psychological theory and research, 2nd Edition (pp. 215-253).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Adaptive Behavior 31

Nihira, K., Leland, H., & Lambert, N. (1993). Adaptive Behavior Scale-Residential and Community, 2nd

Edition (ABS-RC: 2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Papazoglou, A., Jacobson, L. A., McCabe, M., Kaufmann, W., & Zabel, T. A. (2014). To ID or not

to ID? Changes in classification rates of intellectual disability using DSM-5. Mental

Retardation, 52(3), 165-174.

Papazoglou, A., Jacobson, L. A., & Zabel, T. A. (2013). More than intelligence: Distinct

cognitive/behavioral clusters linked to adaptive dysfunction in children. Journal of International

Neuropsychological Society, 19, 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712001191

Pearson, N. A., Patton, J. R., & Mruzek, D. W. (2016). Adaptive Behavior Diagnostic Scale: Examiner’s

Manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

President’s Committee on Mental Retardation (1970). The six-hour retarded child. Washington, DC: US

Government Printing Office.

Public Law 106-402 (2000, October). Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act: 106th

United States Congress. Washington, DC.

Reschly, D. J., Myers, T. G., & Hartel, C. R. (Eds.). (2002). Mental retardation: Determining eligibility for

social security benefits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sabat, C., Arango, P., Tassé, M. J., & Tenorio, M. (2020). Different abilities needed at home and

school: The relation between executive function and adaptive behaviour in adolescents with

Down syndrome. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58409-5

Sabat, C., Tassé, M. J. & Tenorio, M. (2019). Adaptive behavior and intelligence in Down syndrome:

An exploratory investigation. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 57, 79-94.

https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-57.2.79
Adaptive Behavior 32

Sabat, C., Arango, P., Tassé, M. J., & Tenorio, M. (2020). Different abilities needed at home and

school: The relation between executive function and adaptive behavior in adolescents with

Down syndrome. Scientific Reports, 10, 1683. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58409-5.

Scahill, L., Bearss, K., Lecavalier, L., Smith, T., Swiezy, N., Aman, M. G., ... & Levato, L. (2016).

Effect of parent training on adaptive behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder and

disruptive behavior: Results of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child &

Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(7), 602-609.

Scahill, L., McDougle, C.J., Aman, M. G., Johnson, C., Handen, B…. for the Research Units on

Pediatric Psychopharmacology Autism Network (2012). Effects of risperidone and parent

training on adaptive functioning in children with a pervasive developmental disorders and

serious behavioral problems. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51,

136-146.

Schalock, R. L. (1999). The merging of adaptive behavior and intelligence: Implications for the field

of mental retardation. In R. L. Schalock (Ed.), Adaptive behavior and its measurement: Implications

for the field of mental retardation (pp. 43–59). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental

Retardation.

Schalock, R. L., Buntinx, W. H. E., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bradley, V., Craig, E. M., Coulter, D. L….

Yeager, M. H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th

Edition). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities.

Schalock, R. L., Luckasson, R., & Tassé, M. J. (in press). Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis,

classification, and systems of supports (12th Edition). Washington, DC: American Association on

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Adaptive Behavior 33

Simões, C., Santos, S., Biscaia, R., & Thompson, J. (2016). Understanding the relationship between

quality of life, adaptive behavior and support needs. Journal of Developmental and Physical

Disabilities, 28(6), 849-870. doi:10.1007/s10882-016-9514-0

Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland-II: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd

Edition (VABS-II). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.

Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Saulnier, C. A. (2016). Vineland Adaptive Behvaior Scales, 3rd Edition.

Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.

Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W. M., . . .

Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Strang, J. M. (2010). Test review of Texas Functional Living Scale. In R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson, & K.

F. Geisinger (Eds.), The Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Retrieved from

http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.

Takata, Y., Ansai, T., Soh, I., Nakamichi, I., Akifusa, S., Goto, K. … Sonoki, K. (2013). High-level

activities of daily living and disease-specific mortality during a 12-year follow-up of an

octogenarian population. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 8, 721-728.

Tassé, M. J., Balboni, G., Navas, P., Luckasson, R. A., & Nygren, M. A., Belacchi, C., Bonichini, S.,

Reed, G., & Kogan, C. (2019). Identifying behavioral indicators for intellectual functioning

and adaptive behavior for use in the ICD-11. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 63, 386-

407. DOI: 10.1111/jir.12582

Tassé, M. J., Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L. (2016). The relation between intellectual functioning

and adaptive behavior in the diagnosis of intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities, 54(6), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

Adaptive Behavior 34

Tassé, M. J., Schalock, R. L., Balboni, G., Bersani, H., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Spreat, S., Thissen, D.

T., Widaman, K. F., & Zhang, D. (2012). The construct of adaptive behavior: Its

conceptualization, measurement, and use in the field of Intellectual Disability. American

Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 291-303.

https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.4.291

Tassé, M. J., Schalock, R. L., Balboni, G., Bersani, H., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Spreat, S. Thissen, D.

T., Widaman, K. F., & Zhang, D. (2017). Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale: Manual.

Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-335.

Tredgold, A. F. (1937). Mental deficiency. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1984). Adaptive behavior: Tests and assessment issues. School Psychology

Review, 13, 478-484.

Wu, T. C. (2017). Test review of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, 3rd Edition. In J. F.

Carlson, K F., Geisinger, J. L. Johnson (Eds), The Twentieth Mental Measurement Yearbook.

Retrieved from http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.

World Health Organization (1992). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health

Problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10). Geneva: Author.

Zigler, E., Balla, D., & Hodapp, R. (1984). On the definition and classification of mental retardation.

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89, 215-230.

Zigman, W. B., Schupf, N., Urv, T., Zigman, A., Silverman, W. (2002). Incidence and temporal

patterns of adaptive behavior change in adults with mental retardation. American Journal on

Mental Retardation, 107, 161-174.

 Adaptive Behavior 35

Zigman, W. B., Schupf, N., Urv, T. K., & Silverman, W. (2009). Adaptive behavior change and

dementia in Down syndrome: case classification using the Adaptive Behavior Scale.

In Neuropsychological assessments of dementia in Down syndrome and intellectual disabilities (pp. 90-

105). Springer, London.

View publication stats