Intervention Planning using Adaptive Behavior Instruments

Abstract

Adaptive behavior is defined as those interacScales. A systems approach to assessing adaptive tions of an individual with the environment that behavior is described, and it is argued that the are functionally effective in that environment. multiple functions of adaptive behavior assessUsing this definition it is shown that adaptive ment require a set of carefully interrelated behavior instruments that are environmentally assessment procedures. No single instrument is relevant can be used effectively in intervention sufficient. An example of such a system is preplanning. Five characteristics desirable in such sented and it is shown how using it can lead to instruments are listed. Selected instruments are the production of long-range, annual, monthly, reviewed, including the Adaptive Behavior and short-term goals, as well as to the identificaScale, Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Scales tion of immediate instructional objectives. of Independent Behavior, and The Pyramid It is generally accepted that adaptive behavior assessment is undertaken for a variety of reasons, the two most commonly mentioned of which are (a) classification and (b) program development or intervention planning (Coulter & Morrow, 1978;Holman & Bruininks, 1985;Tucker, 1985). The present paper emphasizes the role of adaptive behavior assessment in intervention planning. Adaptive behavior and some of the functions commonly served by measures thereof will be defined. Then, attention will be directed to the characteristics required of instruments used for program planning purposes. Four widely used measures will then be reviewed. A systems approach to assessment that integrates various types of instruments for different assessment functions will be proposed, and an example will be described in some detail.Step-by-step procedures to follow in using adaptive behavior assessment information to develop individualized education programs will be presented. Finally, suggestions for future research will be offered. DEFINING ADAPTIVE BEHAVIORNumerous definitions of adaptive behavior have been offered over the years and will not be reviewed here. The subject has been treated more extensively in other papers in this issue. Grossman (1983) considered adaptive behavior to be the extent to which a person meets "the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected for age and cultural group" (p. 1, emphasis added). As observed by Coulter and Morrow (1978), the concept of adaptive behavior potentially could include the whole range of human behavior. Operationally, one could define adaptive behavior as the skills/responses assessed by inat UQ Library on July 11, 2015 sed.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Decision Reliability and Validity: Contributions and Limitations of Alternative Assessment Strategies

“…In both models, the overriding concern is with who should receive treatment, and the focus is distinctly on the child. Assessments of molar behavior domains (e.g., academic or social skills) have been recognized widely as an insufficient framework for intervention planning (Cone, 1987;Patterson & Bank, 1986;Snell 8c Smith, 1983). Clearly, a decision that a child has "adjustment problems that warrant treatment," however cost-efficient and empirically derived, leaves much room for clarification and is prone to substantial error rates across numerous facets of generalization.…”

“…With respect to decision validity, assuming that the assessment process is restricted to molar behavior domains, multiple gating will be most effective in situations where treatment options are relatively undifferentiated or "fixed" (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965), for example, primarily linked to the location of service delivery (e.g., a fixed curriculum offered in either Classroom A or B) rather than to adaptive interventions suited to the needs of individual children. Alternatively, assessments of molar behavior domains may serve a "general mapping function" (Cone, 1987, p. 134), directing the assessor toward general target areas in which molecular assessment strategies can be used to identify more specific target behaviors and processes of change (Cone, 1987;Hawkins, 1979;Patterson 8c Bank, 1986). Another potential application of multiple gating procedures is to pre-post outcome evaluation (McConaughy & Achenbach, 1989).…”

Template Matching as a Strategy for Assessment of and Intervention for Preschool Students with Disabilities

“…Template matching is one method of conducting systematic analysis of student behaviors and environmental variables across settings (Cone, 1987;Hoier et al, 1987;Walker & Rankin, 1983). This method involves empirically developing a behavioral profile of an educational environment and then engineering setting and child behaviors to approximate the profile.…”

“…Template matching has been used to quantify both the behavioral responses of successful individuals and the expectations of future environments (Cone, 1987;Cone, Bourland, &c WoodShuman, 1986;Hoier et al, 1987). Barnett and Macmann (1992) described the methodology as one in which the discrepancies between client performance and the performance of successful individuals are used to: (a) predict the likelihood of success in particular settings, and (b) identify targets for intervention to facilitate the transition to less restrictive settings.…”

“…Methods suggested for generating these profiles have included staff interviews (Cone et al, 1986), adaptive behavior instruments (Cone, 1987), inventories and checklists (Walker 8c Rankin, 1983), and direct observation (Hoier et al, 1987). A few researchers have investigated template matching in school settings.…”