The Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the Behavior Problems Inventory: convergent and divergent validity

• Published in: Research in developmental disabilities 2003-09, Vol.24 (5), p.391-404
• Main Authors: Rojahn, Johannes, Aman, Michael G, Matson, Johnny L, Mayville, Erik
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aberrant Behavior Checklist; Adaptation, Psychological; Adult; Adult Education; Adults; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aggression; Assessment; Behavior Problems; Behavior Rating Scales; Biological and medical sciences; Challenging behavior; Check Lists; Diagnosis, Differential; Evaluation Methods; Female; Humans; Intellectual Disability - complications; Male; Measures (Individuals); Medical sciences; Mental retardation; Middle Aged; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems; Psychopathology; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Rating scales; Regression Analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Self Injurious Behavior; Self-Injurious Behavior - complications; Self-Injurious Behavior - diagnosis; Severe Mental Retardation; Severity of Illness Index; Stereotypic Movement Disorder - complications; Stereotypic Movement Disorder - diagnosis; Surveys and Questionnaires; Techniques and methods; Test Validity; Validity
• ISSN: 0891-4222; 1873-3379
• DOI: 10.1016/S0891-4222(03)00055-6

This study was designed to compare and cross-validate two rating instruments [the Aberrant Behavior Checklist ( ABC) and the Behavior Problems Inventory ( BPI)] for assessing maladaptive behavior. The BPI assesses three types of behavior problems: Self-Injurious Behavior (SIB), Stereotyped Behavior and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior. The ABC assesses five domains including these three. We collected data on 226 adults, mostly with severe or profound mental retardation, from a medium-sized developmental center. Individuals with elevated BPI scores generally had higher ABC scores; however, the extent of covariation differed across subscales. Similarly, multiple regression analyses showed that BPI subscales significantly but selectively predicted ABC subscale scores. Measures of differential diagnostic value (positive and negative predictive power, sensitivity, specificity and overall correct diagnostic efficiency) confirmed the anticipated partial overlap between instruments. Both instruments were used to rate participants with and without a Diagnosis of Stereotyped Movement Disorder. BPI, SIB and Stereotypy subscale composite had stronger positive predictive power than the ABC Stereotypy scale, while the ABC had higher negative predictive power and greater overall diagnostic efficiency. Thus, the ABC and the BPI cross-validated one another where expected, and they diverged for subscales thought to have little relationship.