Reliability and validity of teacher ratings on the Adapted Skillstreaming Checklist for children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

This study assessed the reliability and criterion-related validity of teacher ratings on the Adapted Skillstreaming Checklist for a sample of 133 children, aged 6–11 years, with autism spectrum disorder (without intellectual disability). Internal consistency for the total sample was 0.93. For a subsample, test–retest reliability was very good ( r = 0.74; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.85) at a 9-month interval. Child age, intelligence quotient, language abilities, and sex were not associated with the Adapted Skillstreaming Checklist total score. The Adapted Skillstreaming Checklist total score was inversely and strongly related to teacher ratings of autism spectrum disorder symptom severity. Significant positive correlations (moderate-to-high) were found between the Adapted Skillstreaming Checklist and prosocial skills scales and significant negative correlations (low-to-moderate) with problem behavior scales on a broad measure of child functioning. Implications and suggestions for future study are discussed.

Who Gets Identified? The Consequences of Variability in Teacher Ratings and Combination Rules for Determining Eligibility for Gifted Services for Young Children

“…They found that some of the observation instrument scores were psychometrically sound (i.e., favorable interrater reliability), but they caution their continued use because the scales may no longer be aligned to current conceptions of giftedness. Additionally, several other studies have also illustrated adequate validity and reliability of teacher ratings using different types of observation scales (see Hunter et al, 2018;Kettler & Albers, 2013;Lopata et al, 2020;Nordness et al, 2019;Reid et al, 2014;Smith et al, 2018). Further, to identify students for gifted services and to ensure the scores on the measures are reflective of studentobserved behaviors, teachers need to be provided adequate and appropriate training to use the scales (Renzulli et al, 2013;S ¸ahin & Çetinkaya, 2015;Styck et al, 2021;Szymanski & Shaff, 2013).…”