Abstract
Sums of responses to behaviour checklist items are commonly used as outcome measures. We argue for the use of mean scores. For sets of responses registering absence and presence at different levels of intensity of behaviours we also show that mean scores may usefully be ‘decomposed’ into separate measures of the range and the intensity of problematic behaviours. These separate measures are the proportion of items positively endorsed and the ‘intensity index’ – the proportion of positive scores that are above one. We illustrate their use with primary outcome scores from the Developmental Behaviour Checklist (DBC) in the Australian Child to Adult Development Study. The low mean scores of young people with profound intellectual disability are shown to be a function of the narrow range of behaviours they display rather than of the level of intensity of these behaviours, which is relatively high. Change over time in mean scores is shown to be attributable to change in both the range and the intensity of behaviours as young people age in the study. We show how the technique of measuring these two separate strands contributing to mean scores may be applied to checklists with sets of responses longer than the zero, one, two of the DBC. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: behaviour, checklist, mean, proportion, intensity
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (243.4 KB).
REFERENCES
- Achenbach TM (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. [Google Scholar]
- Aman MG, Singh NN, Stewart AW, Field CJ (1985). The Aberrant Behavior Checklist: a behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects. Am J Ment Defic 89(5): 485–491. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Einfeld SL, Tonge BJ (1995). The Developmental Behaviour Checklist: the development and validation of an instrument to assess behavioural and emotional disturbance in children and adolescents with mental retardation. J Autism Dev Disord 25(2): 81–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Einfeld SL, Tonge BJ (1996a). Population prevalence of psychopathology in children and adolescents with intellectual disability: I. Rationale and methods. J Intellect Disabil Res 40(2): 91–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Einfeld SL, Tonge BJ (1996b). Population prevalence of psychopathology in children and adolescents with intellectual disability: II. Epidemiological findings. J Intellect Disabil Res 40(2): 99–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Einfeld SL, Piccinin A, Mackinnon A et al. (2006). Psychopathology in young people with intellectual disability. JAMA 296(16): 1981–1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lecavalier L, Aman MG, Hammer D et al. (2004). Factor analysis of the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form in children with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord 34(6): 709–721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mohr C, Tonge BJ, Einfeld SL (2005). The development of a new measure for the assessment of psychopathology in adults with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res 49(7): 469–480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taffe JR, Gray KM, Einfeld SL et al. (2007). A short form of the Developmental Behaviour Checklist. Am J Ment Retard 112(1): 31–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tonge BJ, Einfeld SL (2003). Psychopathology and intellectual disability: the Australian Child to Adult longitudinal study In Glidden LM. (ed.) International Review of Research in Mental Retardation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; pp 61–91. [Google Scholar]