r

DOCONENT'RESWIE

1ED 155 202 TM 007 114

AUTHOR Boyd, Lenore A.; Chissom, BradTITLE The AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale--Pdblic School

Version: A Normative Study.INSTITUTION' Texas A and M Univ., College Station. Coll. of

Education.-PUB DATE 77NOTE 40p.; Appendix may be marginally legible due to small

type

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postige.DESCRIPTORS *Adjustment (to Environment); *Behavior Rating

Scales; Educable Mentally Handicapped; ElementaryEducation; Handicapped Children; Item Analysis;'Learning Disabilities; Maturity Tests; *MentallyHandicapped; Norms; *Screening Tests; SpecialEducation; *Student Placement; Test Reliability;*Test Validity; Trainable Mentally,Handicapped

IDENTIFIERS *Adaptive Behavior Scale; Test Length

ABSTRACTThis normative study of tlie American Association on

Mental Deficiency (AAMD) Adaptive Behavior Scale -- Public SchoolVersion was based on 291 Texas public school children.flivided into 12categories. The categories were: age, ethnic, or racial groupwhiteor non-whiteWand assignment to regular classes cr special educationclasses for the educable mentally retarded, trainable mentallyretarded, or learning disabledPart-I-of-the-scile was emphasized inthis-;cport;--it-gf-ovides measures of independent functioning,physical development, economic activity, language development, numberand time concepts, vocational activity, self-direction,reponsitility, and socialization. Reliability estimates were based onthe total group includipg eight, tenl'and twelve -yea; old children. ,

Item validity analysis was based on the discrimination betweenregular and special education groups, although it appears tiat theraters ew the ,group membership of the children at the time theymade th-A;j,tings. The norms from this study were found to be similaito the or gindl,AAMD norms for this-scale. The authors suggeit thatthe construction and validation of a shortened version of the scalewould be useful; and that it has potential for screening children for'placement in special education classes.' (CTM)

4:0

************************************************************************ Reproductions supaied by EDRS are the best that'can be aide * \* from the original document. , ************************************************************************

. ,,

1111116,

toto

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,'ft ,,.,

EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

I

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCE 0 EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OP)4IIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY RERRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

4

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) ANDUSERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM '

S

A

/,

I

1'

izr

The AAMO Aldaptive Behavior Scale--Public

School Version: A Normative Study

by

Lenore A. Boyd and Brad Chissom

9

Final Report of a Research Project Funded by= The College,of EdUcation

Texas AM UniversityCollege Station, Tex4S' -77843

3

St.a

1977

a,

Acknowledgements

c' We sincerely appreciate the efforts and assistance of many teachers

and other school personnel in the recording and collection of information.

We wish to acknowledge the direct contributions Of the following school

districts and cooperatives and express our appreciation to, for

sharing their data:

A&M,Consolidated Independent School District, Special Services;

Brenham Independent School District, Special Services;

Bryan Independent School District, Special Services;

Giddings Special Services Cooperative:

Lamar Consolidated Independent School District, Rosenberg, Texas;

Navasota- Anderson - Shiro - Richards Special Services Cooperative;

Robertson County Special Services Cooperative.

in addition we wish to acknowledge with sincere appreciation the

time and effort contributed by the following graduate assistants,

//

DermTtmem4of Educational Psychology: Richard Baither, Gary Elkins,

Shirley Gruen, Robert Henry, Frank Miller and Robert Rios.

4

Lenore BoydBrad Chissom

THE AAMD ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE--PUBLIC SCHOOL VERSION:

A NORMATIVE STUDY

ABSTRACT

,.Many state agencies have ruled that assignment of students to

special education classes for the mentally retarded must be determined

by assessment of verbal, performance, and, adaptive behaviors. The AAMD

Adaptive Belfavior Scale -- Public School Version was subjected to a'

normative and validation study using 291 subjects from the southcentral

area of Texas. Normative and validity data were collected and analyzed

from groups of regular and special education students, both white and

non-white, at 8, 10, and 12 years of age. Results were compared to the

original normative data provided in the AAMD Manual and, ndicated that

(1) the instrument is effective in discriminating between regular and

special education groups; (2) a shortened version may be feasible and

more practical; and ..(3) the derived total score may be useful and

effective when used as a cut-off score for placement in special education

.... for the mentally retarded.

A

ve.

.Th Adaptive Behavior Scale--yublie School Version:

A Normative Study

The oconcep f adaptive behavior as a criterion for judging degree

or. extent of mental retardation is not new. The requirement for its

formal assessment, however, is a current issue of much interest. Since

the publication of the Stanford-Billet Increasing emphasis has been

plaCed on standardized intelligence test scores to define mental retard-

ation. Such scores, namely IQ's, have often been the major criterion

fbr determining mental deficiencies in school-aged Children with sub-

sequent classification, labeling, and placement in special education '

programs for the retarded.

Use of the LQ as the primary or sole criterion for defining

retardation has proved to'be less than satisfactory. Most of the tests

available were standardized on white, middle-class populations and are

increasingly viewed as biased and discriminatory when used with minority

. groups who are culturally or economically different. Emphasis on IQ's-,

has resulted in the inappropriate classification and placement of many

children whose learning difficulties were in fact due to differences in

4

language, cultural, or economic background (Mercer, 1973), Because of

the` disproportionate number o-children from minority groups in 'classro*

for the mentally retarded, the use'of a measure of adaptive behavior has

been added to the requi4ements for assessment of mental retardation.

'Texas Education Agency Guldelines (TEA 1976) s'tate specific

regulations for determination ot pupil eligibility for placement in 'a

special education program, for theyntall retarded. A comprehensive

appraisal must now include the assessMe of'verbal

41

6 ,4

2 el.

performance abilities, and adaptive behaviors. Classification and

placement in an educational program for the mentally retarded is

merited only when scores on all three scales are two or mere standard

...deviations below the mean for the general population. As is true in

.many other states, these Guidelines also provide lists of approved

tests Ito be used in the evaluation of verbal, performance, and adaptive

behaviors.

A ,recent survey by Morrow and Coulter (1977) identified a number

of measures of adaptive behaviors available to the practitioner. Only

two, however, were placed on the approved Texas list: Mercer's

Adaptive Behavior Inventory for Children (ABIC) and the AAMD Adaptive

BehaviorScale --'Public School Version (ABS-PSV). Since Mercerrs scale

will not be available to the general public 'until its release by the

Psychological Corporation, the ABS-PSV is being widely used in Texas.

. ° The ABS-PSV gists of two parts. Part One organized along

4 developmental lines, is made up of.56items. It, is designed to evaluate

-an individual's competencies in nine domains: Independent Functioning,

Physical Development, Economic Activity, Language Development, Number and

Time, Vo ational 4Ctifity, Self-direction, Responsibility, and Social-

ization. Part Two is desjgned to measure or evaluate maladaptjve

behaviors closely related to personality and emotional disorders. Part

II is yieWed as less important in the assessment of mental retardation

and of limited usefulness. The present study, therefore, is concerned

with# j

data collected by use of Part One of the ABS-PSV.

The ABS-PSV is primarily restandardized.version of an instrument

)kv

I3

widely used with severely handicapped, institutionalized retardate's:

Normative data available in the Manual (Lambert, Windmiller, Cole &

Figueroa, 1974).were obtained from teacher ratings QT. approximately

'2600 children from 14 California schoOl districts.,-The standardization.1

sample included an equal number of boys and girl% ages 7 to 13 from

three ethnic groups in regular and special education programs.

The purposesof this study were to collect normative.data for the

ABS-PSV for children in Texas schools and to determine the validity of

the instrument in disp'iminating between children in special education_

and those io regular education programs. Data collected in this-tudy

may then be compared to the California' data provided in the AAMD Manu'al.

Specific objectives for this study were: 4

\

'1) To establish normative data forthe AAMD. Adaptive Behavior

Scale--Public School Version for Texas children in three age groups, 8;

10; and 12c from three ethnic groups in regular and special education

programs;

2) To determine the,validity of the instrument in discriminating,

I ,

between children identified as special education and those in the.regular

curriculum. An item analysis will be conducted "to assess the discrimina-

tion ability of each item.

3) To.compare normative data obtained fromthis study Texas4

childrenwith norms provided by the AAMD.

4) To determine the feasibility of establishing a shortened

version of the scale based on normative and validity data obtained from

o'

'I.

-

the investigation.

PROCEDURES

'ects

The Region VI Educational Service Center area served as the focal

point for the data collection procedures, and subjects were selected

from an area within a sixty mile radius of Texas A&M University. A-

total of 291 subjects were included in the sample. The ABS -PSV forms

were completed for each subject by classroom teachers. This represents

'an important aspect of the data collection process. If adaptive

behavior can be adequately assessed by a classroom teacher, then it may

not be necessary to collect data from parent interviews and other sources

that are not as readily available.

A workshop was held at Texas A&M University to assist teachers in

. data collection techniques and procedures for the Adaptive Behavior

Scale. In addition to the workshop, consultantskere available to

assist teachers with problems encountered in the data collection process.

The subjects for the study were divided into three age groups, 8,

10% and 12-year olds. For comparison purposes, age ranges for each group,

were calculated in months as follows: Age 8: 84-108 months;:Age 10:

109-132 months; and Age 12: 133- 1.57' months.

The stratified sampling procedure of the original proposal called

for subdivision by ethnicity into groups of white, black, and Mexican-

American subjects. Due to the difficulty in obtaining subjects in the

5

Mexican-American category,dthe sample was classified, only as white and

non-white groups. In addition, subjeCts were selected from the categories

of regular and special education. Any subject classified by the school

as Educable or Trainable Mentally Retarded (EMR or TMR)o;' Learning

Disabled (LD) was assigned.to the Special Education category.

Table 1 indicates the number of subjects forpach of the

categories described. Of the totarsample of 291 subjects 41% (119) were

TABLE 1

Table of Subject Groups byAge, Ethnic Group, and School Classification

Regular Special

Age 1hite Non-white Total White Non-white Total

8

10

12

Total

11 51 62 18 47 65

14 23 . 37 20 49' % 69',

2 10- 12 9 37 46

27 84 111 47 133 180

female and. 59% (172) were male. These percentages Were approximately the

same for, most of the categories previously described.

Data Collection .

The ABS-PSV forms were completed for each subject by classroom

teachers. Demographic data was used tb calculate a measure of socio-,

economic status (SES) and IQ's were obtained when available. SES

.10

. ..4.0.- -

.0

_ *

3

'information was collected for 162 subjects and IQ scores were available

for 170. The.data were collected from public Schools who valunteeed to

participate in the Spring of 1977 following the workshop previously

described.

Results.

Data were analFzed first to determine the reliability of eachlof the

nine subscales. These reliabilities were internal consistency estimates

calculated through thezaverage correlation among scale items. As shown

in Table 2,.these tenability estimates were'sat;isfactory for most of

the suebscaleS with .the,lowest reliability coefficient Of .68 ia.the

PhysicalDevelopment domain.

TABLE 2 ft

INTRASCALE RELIABILITIES -

Scale Reliability

I. Independent Functioning .916- .92

II. Physical Development .681 .68

III. Economic Activity ,.810 r .81

IV. Language Development .872 .87

Ir.. Number and Time Concepts. . -

.786' .79

VI. Vocational Activity .859 .86

VII. Self Direction .779 .78

VIII. Responsibility .796 .80

IX. Socialization .779 .78

,

Objective One as modifiekwaS to establish normativ0 data for the.

s

1

k

4

t

4

7

ABS-PSV for white and non-white gyps And for regular and special.--,

. ;,s

education classificAations. Norm tables (Appendix) are presented_with. . . ..t

percentile equivalents for the raw scores for each subscale and for a

derived total score. The norm tables were constructed to resemble the

formatused in the AAMD Manual' for ease of comparability with the-.

original data.- The major deviation from the preVious norm tables is the

IncTusion'Of the derived total score.

Objective Two of this-project was to etermine'the ability of each

of the 56 items and the total scores from nine'domains to discriminate

between groupS of subjects identified as regular or special education11.

students. In addition to the item validity inforMation and domain.

. 0

score.lidity data, it was important to determine whether or notk

items in the scale were related to. the subjeCt characteristics of

.ethnIcity, sex, or SES: The results of,the correlational analyse

between items and ethnic group, se, and SES are shown in Tables 3,.4, cz,

and 5 respectively. (See pages 8'thrul0).

An inspection of the tables shows little indication df discrimination

on the part of scale items for any of the three variables of concern. No

pattern is apparent in the data, and items Were seldom repeated as

discriminating among. the 18 categories of analysis. Thus only a few

specific, unrelated items in the total scale appear to discriminate on

the basis of ethnic group, sex or SES.

Results of the final analysis, the correlations between items and

classification (regular vs special education) and correlations between

domain total scores and classification are contained in Table 6. (See

1 .2-Na

,

01.

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ITEMSAND ETHNIC GROUP (WHITE VS. NON:WHITE)

BY AGE AND CLASSIFICATION

Number of -

Domains Items Items which were significantly correlated with ethnic'group

I. Independent

, 8

Age Group and Classification

10 . 12

Reg. Spec, E291 Pfe, Rs, Spec.

Functioning 17 % N$* 17- NS 14 NS NS

II. Physical

Development 6 NS 23 NS '24 NS NS

III. EconomicActivity 4 NS NS NS, 31 NS NS

IV. LanguageDevelopment '9 , NS NS 32 NS NS NS'

V. Number and TimeConcepts 3 NS , NS NS. NS NS NS

VI. Vocational Activ. 3 NS NS NS.

50 , 'NS NS)

'VII. Self Direction 5 - NS 56 NS 55, 57 NS NS

VIII. Responsibilitya2

NS NS. NS NS 58 NS

IX. Socialization 7 62** NS NS NS NS

T tal Number of 56 1 3 1 6 1 0

S gnificant Items

*NS= None Significant **Actual Item NuMber.from Scale7

3

.

t

-' TABLE 4

- SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS OF ITEMS WITHSIGNIFICANCE OF SEX BY AGE AND CLASSIFICATION,

DomainsNumber of-Items Itebs which were significantly correlated with sex

Age Group and Classification

10 . 12

Reg. Spec. Reg. spec. Ea, Spec.

I. IndependentFunctioning ' 17 NS* NS NS NS NS NS

II. Physical

,Development.

6 ,NS NS NS NS NS NS

III. EconomicActivity

IV. 'Language .

41 NS NS NS NS NS ' NS

Development 9 NS NS.

NS NS 32 NS

V. Number andConcepts 3 NS. NS NS NS NS NS

VI: Vocational Attiv. 3 NS NS ' NS NS NS NS

VII. 'Self Dir'ection 5 'NS .. NS '.NS NS NS NS

yin. Responsibility 2 NS NS NS NS NS

IX. Socialization 7 NS 59** NS NS NS NS

Total Number of

Significant Items 56 ° 0 1 0 0 1 0

15

*NS = None Significant **Actual Item from Scale

16

- TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF CORKLATEAS OF ITEMS WITHSOCIO - ECONOMIC STATUS BY,AGE AND CLASSIFICATION

.

Domains

I. Independent 'Functioning 17 NS 17 NS 3, 15 NS NS

./

II. PhysicalDevelopment 6 NS 26 NS 24 NS NS

III. Economic.

Activity 4 11S NS NS NS NS NS

IVLanguage,.Development" . 9 NS NS 32, 40 'NS 4 NS NS

l' I

V: Number andTime Concepts 3 NS NS NS NS

VI. Vocational Activ. 3 NS NS NS NS

VII. Self Direction 5 V NS NS NS

VIII, Responsibility 2 NS NS NS NS

IX. Socialization 7 62 ** NS 0 NS 65

Total Number of'

..Significant Items 56 1 2

Number ofItems

Items which were significantly correlated withSocio-ecOnomic status

Aige Group and Classification .

8 10 125 Reg, Spec. Reg. Spec. Reg. .Spec.

4

17

2 4.

NS NS

NS NS

NS NS

NS NS

NS NS

*NS = None Significant **Actual Item Number from Scale

O

18

0.4 0

de

ao 00 4

pages12 --14.).' It should be noted that a major portion of the 56 items

. within the Hite domains discriminate satisfactorily betwe n regular and.4

special education groups at each of the three age levels , 10, and 12,

and fOr the total population. There he a few items that do not appear

to be functioning as intended, however, most of them at the upper age

level. Their deletion from the scale might aid in the Tevision of the

procedure.

Obj ctive Three was to compare the normative data obtained from

this st dy 'of Texas children With the norms provided by he AAMD. A

visual inspection of the two sets of norms indicates a h igh degree of

agreement, between the norms obtained from the present study and the1

original California.data. No further comparison was considered

Inecessary once it was established that there were no major discrepancies

between the two sets of norms. . A total score was calculated for theI

instrumentIand norms provided for subjects-in this study. \De originalI

normative dta did not provide a pleasure like this, and fur her research

. -

seems warra\

ted concerning. its usefulness.

The fin 1 objective of this project'was to examine the- possibility

of shortening the Scale by discarding items that are not funqioning

well within the scale. One of the problems with the ABS-PSV W been

the amount of time required to record the )-if rmation. If theIscdle

can be shortened by deleting itenis,it would e more practical \for use

by'classroom teachers. Theresults of ,this project indicate tht

several items may be discarded from the scale without changing 10s.

overall effectiveness. IA shortened; version will need to be valiatedI°

19

rr

i.

F

TABLE 6 ,

ITEM VALIDIY'ANALYSIS'ITEM,CORRELATION WITH GROUP CLASSIFICATION

(REGULAR VS.'SPECIAL)0,

12

Domain I :Independent Functioning, (1!)'"..\<

Age Level.

Item 8 10 Total

1. .32 .46 .41 . .372: .56 '.50 .58, .493. .16* .18* .15* .15*4. .30 .27 ..-31*' .295. .30 .27 .14* -.256. .17* .22* .17* .15*7. .34 .31 :25* .288. .28 .1,6* .30* .23

9. .37 .33 .28* .3410. .31 .32 .32* .31

11. .14* .32 .60 .2912. .32 .33 .21* .2713. .28 .27 .25* .25

14.

15.

.37

.20

.36

.61

.24*

.48

.32

.38a

16. ,.52 .68 .71 .5717. .34 .66 .69 .47

Total. .5p .56 .57 .51

(es

Domain II Physical Development (6)

Age Level

Item 8 12 Total

1. .28 .08* .232. .23 ;1604 .14*3. .28 26 .26* .254. .27 .29 .19* .255. .00* .413* .17* .07*.6. .17*- :16* "ts .07* .13*Total .30 .35 .22* .30

*Not Significant; p<.01

)

2Q

0

13

Domain III Economic Activity (4)

Age Level

Item 8 10 12- Total

1. .43 .73 .70 . .572. .37 f- .55 .67 .463. .34 '.46 .33* .32-4. .57 .44 . .46 .43.

Total -7-56 .65- .65 7 , .55

Domain IV Language Development (9)'

Age Level

Item / 8 10 'Total .

1.

2.

.55

-.09*

.53

-.11*

.55

.06*

.51

-.08*.3. .28 . .31 .35 .32

.4. .37 .35to

.32* :355. .206. .67 .60 .57 -.607.. .35 .20* .41 .,298. :44 .29 .25* .32

9. .48 .50 ..65 .49

Total .55 .49 .53 .49

Domain .V Numbers and Time (3)

Age LeVel

Item 8 10 12 Total

1.. .37 .27( .20* .29'2. :52 ' ..40k .42 .453. . ..57 .40 .42 .45Total .60. - .56.--,, .59

,75T7--.

* Not significant; p<.01

ow.

,

o \

0

1

DoMain of - Vocational Activity (3)

Age Level,

.

Item 8 10 . 12

i~

TOtal1.. .11* , .29 .58 ;23

.35 .30 444 1 .353.

,,

.30 .33 .38 .32

Total - .33 .34 .46 .35,1-

dmain VII Self Direction. (5)'

Age LevelI

Item' 8 10 12 Total

. .31 .22* .45 .30

2,. .37 ,.31 .45 , . :,373. .23 .39 .28*/ .27

4. .29 .38 .44 .355. .35 A0 .41 \ .37

Total .41 :47 .54 , .45

Domain VIII Responsibility (2)

Age Level

Item 8 aall 12 Total

1. .22* .18* .47 , .22'

:31 .30

.29 .27 .52 .31

Domain IX , SoCialization (7)-

Age Level4

Item g 8 10 12 Total

1. .32..

".29 .,7* .322. .16* .35 .33* .24

3. .10* .39 .34 .20_

4. .32 .18* .16* .225. .22* .40 .50 p.31

.22* -.22* .29* .247. .28 .24* .25* .27

Total .34 741 .44 . .38

*Not Significant; p<.01

22

I

15

with' Other samples of subjects, but the results indicate that such an

effdrt may be feasible.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

''A review of the findings of this investigation indicates that the

ABS-PSV seems to.bea suitable and effective instrument for measuring

adaptive behavior within the limits of the AAMD definition. The

majority of the items lied adequate discriminatory power to differentiate

between regularand special education groups. However, since a.few

specific items do not appear to be adequate discriminators, it is

°yecommended that a shortened version of the instrument be devised and

validated Deletion of such items could save data collection time and

effort, which are concerns often expressed by those using the Adaptive,

Behavior Scale in its preSent form....

.Further attentjon should be devoted to the use of the derived total

score since it seems to be a satisfactory discriminator between groups

of regular and special ed6cation students. It appears to have potential

yse.in screening children who are being 'considered for possible placement

.. " .0%tpeti41,3 education classes. 65",,

, . , .`f '',.,, -. .. ..--- Further replication of this study is:recommended to add more

,:information to the present bank of normative data. With additional

information about the instrument available to educators"faced w4th the

-prgblems of assessing adaptive behaviors, the AAMD Adaptive Behavior

Scale-Public School Version may p;dve to be an effective procedure.

23

,e0.411"

A.

.4

References

6

16. .

Lambert,,N., WindMiller, M., Cole, L., & Figueroa, R. AAMDAdaptive Behavior Scale: Public School Version." Washington, D.C.:American Association on Mental Deficiency, 1974.

Mercer, J.R. Labeling the mentally retarded: Clinical and socialsystem perspectives on mental retardates. Los Angeles: Universityof California Press,1973.

Morrow, H.W. & Coulter, W.A. A collection of adliAve behavior measures.In Coulter, W.A. & Morrow, H.W. (Eds). The concept and measurement ofadaptive behavior within the scope of psychological assessment. Austin,Texas: Texas Regional Resource Center, 1977.

Texas Education Agency. Administrative Guide and'Handbook for SpecialEducation (Revised). Austin, Tx.: 1976.

10-

r.

24

,.

P-""-.....".."..'".,"..........'"A .... .4.. .... 00000000000.0,0,00.0,0,0.0,0.

JMCOCOMM0,0,000,0000000000

NO

0...J4.00-4.40-.J4aWMJ2470,-.J4aW0J0,00-.J4.00,J0,00-.J4.00,200-.J4aWCAJm00-6J4a0smJm0.+j,,,,,,,m0orJ4a010,00

2

~'1

Ul

U,

CA

CA

r7,

C7,

4MN

J J

411A,

J. 0

"

Ut

N N N

Q.48

N 00,

Ut

CO

O

0a

U,

rs

0 J

CO

O

-a

CO

0,

cy,

NCO

CO

mm

CO

0,

U,

LI,

Ne

0a

1.11

-0

On.

1I.

r0 0 0

000

0 0

JJ

a0,

.)

NN

0 4

0 V.

0

rr-

1)1

PART I

Class 5pidEthnic Al

PROFILE SUPMARY -- ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE Sox TAIAge

r.ou

o..aC

ka

I,

a, 0c C...0 CC00 .CL1.713 CC 7..1..

II

IatC0

.-. a01.70..0»

, r .'CI. 0

III

u ->..6.40C.0a+

1.7

t./ 0

IV

.C

CO00110Z.00C>

IIEW40

V

u.0C U

c0

li. I-06 E3,4a k

VII

-oc C.0. .40.1.70>.0

VIII

co.I u4.4

.... la0.C00

IX

5............0

C00II0

X

co...

a;0N

..a

oom

....S

12

.

.4,

:

999897969594939291

908988878685 ,

84838281

8079787776 '7574

3237271

70. 6968676665646362

416059585756

, 555453 ,

--,5251504948474t,4544434241

40 1

39383736353433323130'

29.28

2726252423 "222120'i1918171615141.5

1711100

Y. .

7 '

6

543

2

1

0

75

a y

Sit

72

70

69

-

68

67

66 \_..

65

64,

.62

61

56

'55

54

5251

50 ,

47 ,

46

'

44

.

42l'

40

38

36,

35

28

27

26

25

24 -,

-

24

C?

.

,

'----.,

ary.

...

23 '..

.

22

21

.

.

20 .

'"19

18

17

16

*.

15

14

9

1110

9

7

-

6

5

. .

q

3

, 2

-

0

0

r

.

36

34

33

32

-

31

30

-

?9 .""

28

-27

26,

'

25

24'

23

i22

21

.

20

1$.

18

17

1615

1413

12.

11

108

7

1211

109

8

.

.

7

..

5

.

g

3

'2

1

0

11

10

-

9

-

8

7

6

5

3

2

1

0

q

201918

.

.

17

/

16

, .

41.c.,

15,

1

.

14

13

12 4

11y

.

10

-..

9.

8

1

7

6. .

5

4

6

.

1

.

4

%

3

,

1

2

1

0

26

25

..

24

23

22

21

20

19

.

18

17

16

15

14

13

11

9

,.

.

212209204

.

200

199

195

194

193

191.

190

189

184

181 -

180

172

170

168

167

162

.

158 .

153

146

145

143

139

138

137

129

124

121

114

111

108

02

98

94

90

89

87

77

43

66

N -865

27 _

0

t I

u .41.

."

........

,0 017,0 MO. 00,,,,,,,,,,M 00/000020202 0 .15.0.0000.0.1.1013

0,NWO.J1M,.00,,,OMM,MCC1,,WOMM,M4117,1,1.40MM,M00,,U0MM,WC17,,W0MM,.....,,,,a0/0m,m..,,o/...../0m,mcp,,,a0mm,m.0,1,401AM,M.

_-

.4,

Per

cent

ile,,......

.,...,.

m sm

m mm ,

m . .

, _., 44

, ., m

, m.

, ,, .

, .o. o

,

. _.. "

Independent

runctioning

,

1.7 ...

1.7 ,s,

..-...

.. ...

..--

''',

1.4 0

PhY

0iC

alDevelopment

..

..

,.1.1O

_. 0

... +

a_.

to

_. W

_. 0

_.

.1"

_.

-4 -Economic

Activity

..

..

.

_. w

1.7 m

19 . ,

1... o

to ..,,

,..1.

4c.

a1.

.. ut.

W M-(... ,

m co'

m .. 0

Language

Development

<

.

o,

,

m'

`0

.., 0

.

.., -

- "- 'n

umber end

Tim

eConcectsi

c

oOD

05.

.

,

M: )

4,-

-.. o

-

_. r

Vocational

Act

ivity

-

......

.,W

0M

..

...1

.

_,..

.

...

.:1:.

...,

`0

A.'

5014::

Dirrction

C .4 ....,

2-

...,

(-

----

A.

im

mco

a_.

Responsibility

x

--

-...

,N

IP

...

...,

-.-

*7-

4-..4

-t

..." m

Socialization

t

x

to

o0 ca

. a-',,o

'0- -

a

.) 0 NI

.. 0 co

... ao

1.7

1.7 -

IV IV {A

1,1

1.4 .

K1

1.4 (A

1,1

1.4 M

1.7 . 0

1.7 w M

Part I

Total

A

z

0

>W

M1-

100

I...

OX7070

.3 OR

......

.... .

41.4

0414

.7...

......

NN

UE

.144

4444

440.

A...

A...

.000

0000

0000

0MM

MM

M00

0.4.

4.4.

4,1,

7.4.

4.4.

4070

707M

CO

MM

CO

MM

43,1

2474

343.

4747

47.3

1410

01T

.SC

ON

4 00

M70

.0N

4ALA

T40

,10+

44A

001,

0,10

+N

UA

00.4

0,10

+04

4000

,4.,.

+44

0,10

4.%

0.+

440

,p0J

.,.+

440p

0),.,

.+44

010,

00.

p °Menu".s

ppre

+04 -..

r..1

IV0

m04

4v3

o4 N

J4 fll

4 M4 .

0 0

O+

0 47u' 0

U, -.

M.

...)

U, 4

U, U

,00

.U

, -4U

,O

aIn .o

Cr, -.

Cr, u

Cr, .

Cr, ci

m ITm -4

m 03m 43

..,, 0

...,

......,

,...,

.4 U

..2 0

Inde

pend

ent

func

tioni

ng...

-.-.

O,..

-....

.a.

cr.

_. .-.

-. 41...

3.

0IV ...

1.4

...3

IV Lar4

04

0-4

Phy

sica

lD

evel

opm

ent

at .

c-,

._.

...3

(.1

0U

,M

.03

..o_. 0

-' ...3

Eco

nom

itA

ctiv

ity... ... _

-. -

.43

r4C

4-. ti,

_. M- 03

...3 -

04 NN

J 4...

3 0...

3 M' -

,

IV...

3 .IV co

,

IV .otA .

La ...tA

uN

Juca .

,

4 CA

,44 0'

.Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t...

O,..

),..

..

0cm

._m

.03

..o

-. ca...

...+

^lN

umbe

r en

dT

ime

Con

cect

s<

O...

..).

win

,...

.1

.m

vl_ o

_, -.V

ocat

iona

lA

ctiv

ity< ... .

O{1

M.

03.0

... 0... ...

....

IV... 4

... 0... U

,...

.M .

... .... M

- ..°Self-

11.

Dir0

CtiO

r1- ...

..4

O_.

...3

ua, .

wm

.

gesp

one$

bilit

y...

N...

...m

-. N

J... (.

1... 0

... M., M

... ....

.03

IV ...IV IV

IV (.1

IV 0IV M

"S

ocia

lizat

ion

,X

NJ

-.lo

,02

10V

"0

.0ke.

Om

-. 0 ca

-. -

.O

',0

rtt

-. -. La

-. -

.N

J (.

1ca

a-. 4 co

-. 4 V,

... ..

.00 -4

03

... U, 0

-. U, -.

-. M ..,

-. U, 4

-. U, A

-....

.M

M 0+...

...

0.0

1. -

1,

-0 . -.- . ..1

... ..

. .. Olt

... . 03

... 03 4...

a

Oa IT

... Oa .

- -

.0 .0

O+

.... .0 4

43 0-/

70U

,

......

.0.0

.43

k, 0 0...

) ...

1o. 1.

. 01,

Par

t IT

otal

e.

V 3-

V 9 0' 0 C 3 3 1 0 V 2 r.

r

A

I

-.

' 2N.

M.

'-

e.

...

,-

-,,,

NIes

" n.

, 4 ..

n.,,,

.. (A

u L

A L

A C

A <

A L

. (.1

LA

(.1

s. J

t.x4

Jt.

o $4

4. O

.tn

an

Ln 0

C. 0

, C. f

p(I

n c.

n a+

c a

+0,

0ce

. cr.

cr.

cr.

0 -4

-4-7

-.1

-.I

-.I

-.I

-.1

-4-_

.1 0

3au

aa

0ee

.y, O

ps a

s 22

. .1,

, isg

.±3.

2 n

Ven

,e, .

4 ke

. :2

.4,4t.....m-iscc-,4,.....immo440.....m.immo.........)mmo+4up..-Imm04.)...m-4mm04?...c.-.4e,o. au.c.no-smm04r4m.

..

,

Percentile seore

.

-.)

.3

.,

.

-.)

-.)

.^1 ,

..

m ,m .

Independent

runctiontng

... .

..

e4 U

1.., aPhysical

Development

....

....

.. .

. 1.4

. ..

. .

..

. u, ,

. .Economic

Activity

....

....

4

4, 1.1

.

.N

4..

..4

LA

42

, oLanguage

Development

..4

.

, "',lumber end

Time Concects

.

CAI)

C.:)

.

..

. 4

0_. .Vocational

Activity

..$

c 4 ...

,

4 -.)

... m

N °Self- 4

Direction

c ....

...

...

-

..

,neeponeibility

ce

0.

_

-

x: ..)

N

,

4

r.:

..

" ..

J

Socialization

x

'2. o

4

.., , m

..)

..) ,

..,

r.:

c..4

r.:

r.: m

--..-

---4

.

,..,

r.0

,..,

(.4 o

J o ,. cn

Dart I

Totill

Z 4'0

V 0 .1[ 0 C 9 rr

5

I

4."

PART I

Cl.., SpEdEthnic All

PROFILE SUMMARY ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE Sex i3731.11.-

Age rr

0

eC

C0

aCC.

CC 0.

0C

C

9998979695

' 94939291908988878685848382818079787776757473727170

.68676665646362616059585756555453525150494847464544434241403938, 3736353433323130292827262524.232221201918'1716151413121110

765432

o

78

73

72

70

69

68

67

64

62

61

60

59

58

57

55

53

51

49

48

44

42

40

38

35

6

II

-Ca*>.).0MCI

2524

23

III

E.004.0 0LJC

IV

OasCoDo.C

'111

VII

00C

0C C0 Oa,

1.1.5

.0 10.E 0a.Z. 0 0

D4C

VIII

0.s

1 0.LOCI

IX

a

X

0

aa

11

9

8

7

6

3736

35

34

33

32

31

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22 22

521 0

214

20 3' 20

19

192

18

1 . 130 11

1017

3

5 0

12 10

1 0'

9

9

8

7

4

1

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

6

5

4

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

17

16

15

14

13

12

1

0

215202

200

195

191

189

188

1 87

186

185

183

182

180

177

175

173

171

1 68

167

1 66

164

162

161

159

158

154

152

51

46

41

33

29

122

119

112

89

62/

14

N

46

PART

Class Ertl

Ethnic mr- 4PROFILE SUPMARr -- ADAPTIVE BEHAVICR SCALE' Sex '90th

Ann

I ( I 1 I I I IV V VII VIII IX . X

o -r.O S.u a1/' a ... 8 7« rr « . - -e c c C C. a c .... a fS'o . o 0. o c u o eDC .-*E UT. OE OC'. C T. , 0.0 CO 00 4 . 00 0 0.4 . 0C 0... 0 0 E .1 0 0 14 0 . . . C .V 00 . 4.) 0 0 3_1 0 14 S I U 0 0P.

ADODC 0 C . 0,>.0 0 0 CD

.0 0 . 4. a CIE E Dal ...6 I.. 0.

0 CD GO LIU 00 3. OU Oft. 0 \E0 .I... ao I..)C ,0 <. >.c coo cr 01

99 75 24 11 33 . 12 11 20 6 26 2049897 10 , 11 19 2596 7D95 74 .200949,3 9 9

9291, 72y

1 8,

90 8 3289 1938887 '%rt, 5 2486 6885 191848382 - 2381 3080 8

1907978 17 2277 6576757s

14

189

73 62.

72 287170 6

69 16 21180

68 61-

6766 - 27 4

65 17064 5863 266261 .

5 760 16759 555857 - .56 23 2455 158.54 ,53 4 20525150 52 , 8 15 3 534948 -....

446

51

1947 23

14644 . 14'4342 741 47 .22 1340 6 1383938 . 537 3 5 . \....---'"36 463534 183332 ' ' 1231 21 21 1730 2 13729 428 2027 44 4 ,2625 0 11 1112423 42 S.

22 20, .,21 .1

.20' 10819 19 18 1018 38 3

.1716 1615 1-02a14 .1.3 17 16 3 8 1511 ...1110 \ t 2 ' 98

28 16 14 7 ? 14`3

7 0 1 '5 14 13 6 1 95 944 25

filf''

1 9 122 .

01

34"_

. N . la.

0

k

2 Z.

il...

......

. AN

NN

NN

N V

N N

N 4

44J

4 4

4 4

4. .

D. t

......

.(ft tr

UlC

. t. N

I U3

N c

omas

Os

0, M

0, 0

, 0, 0

, 0, 0

, -4

-4 -

4 -4

-4

-4 -

4 -4

N -

4C

o O

a C

o C

o 03

Co

Co

Co

03 C

O .0

.0 .0

.0 J

3 .0

.0 J

3 D

`330

0-N

tAt.,

74.c

C0-

.4.t3

30,4

0.00

-N4.

OM

N0.

00-4

4.00

".0,

32-N

.NM

403.

00-r

O4.

4410

,400

0-4.

WM

-o.0

0-N

433.

010,

4000

-.4.

.CO

No.

00-4

..CO

NoN

..

n..,.

. 33,

..

N iN o

.---

N -.)

lo)

cplo

) c. N

t. .01 N

-.7 °

Inde

pend

ent

Fun

ctio

ning

....

.. vn.. o.

-. -3.. C

ov.

, aN _.

....."

--7

N 4N 'P

hysi

cal

Dev

elop

men

t,..

. -

-

.. '

._.

N4

''''.

'''E

cono

mic

Act

ivity

.., - ...,

.,- ts

't0,

-. co-. s,

- ul-. -3

N lo)

N tae

s, mLa

ngua

geD

evel

opm

ent

c4.)

.---

----

--

.c,

_.'

.

D.

-o

Num

ber

end

Tim

e C

onco

cts

'o

._

s.+

uo

a,-

so

-- _

. 0V

ocat

iona

lA

ctiv

ity,c ...

, -

.cn

.

cr

.m

'0.

-. 0S

elf-

Dire

ctio

n.. - .

.-.

NL

A,

onsi

bilit

e py

.

.-. x

6

41.

r rr 4

r ar o

r 0 1....

....

1:3

Soc

ializ

atio

n-

x

o ON

4.

-3 -30 -3

C° .0

.0 0-. o N

_. N ....

. N 33

,, a 4.0

0 U

.

.P

art 1

7 T

otal

.on

rt

0 x

i 33

.2 0

1241

4.1

0

a'.2.

.......... ,,,,, .......... a..4Paaaaaana. mmmmmmmmmmm,,,N,,,,,,,mmommommom.o.o...........,u....m,..c.-,,aam,coon.ace,meao-,,A.ulm,m tbam,a .ma,,.. ..,,,..- m,..0 -.mo.,m.0.-.,rnm,m.1

, 1

, .

percentile

.

. a. ul-.

a. ul. m

_.m.

mo' m-4

mm a.q

,0

,.

,.

.

IndependentFunctioning ..

ef

..)

as . _. ..J

e

u.

PhyaccalDevelopment ..

I

I

'

,

,

u a v, .,

-4

-

. -.°

EconomicActivity

..

...

Ilk

CA..,

_.004, ,u .,. ,. ,

o.,, ,m , u

_.u,

&

u.

,,,

os

LanguageDevelopment

...

c

kt.,.

-a an a ...., a .

r0 'A.. Number end

Time Concecta

o ann m m ..o_.0 ..

-A

VocationalActivity

a...

1

. u, ..

, m .0_.

u_.

._.

"'

_.

°`

..

''m

.

Sale-Direction

c...

..

. ex

. .

u. .

a . reeaponalbility...x

.

_.. ...

tn

,

. .,o.

...

-.1

4

_.en ;::

n.,-. ..Jn.,

n.,n n.,m

n.,o. Socialization

i

x

O

...

n.,m...

{Am

'

...

0.m

. 17.

.

...

0,e..,

_.

ONm

_.

....

e..,

_.

0_.

...

m.

a.

..a.

-.am

n.,0.

na°

.m

P...'Ae..,

Part I Total

I

a

Va

rC

'

3a

00

a

.WMO0%7070

W.0

020

.....0

CA

a ..7

1-

I0

..,1

" "

" "

. G 0

-. N

1./.

Ji.

I, C

h . 0

1C43

ii.

-. n

i EA

40

..

..

" "

" "

L° L

° L°

L°

L° 4

4 L°

L°

L° I.

I. I.

. I. .

. S.

I. .

.t t

o t''

to to

to to

I,tr

l to

mm

cn

as c

n cn

cr.

a. c

n cn

.. ..

. Oa

. 0 -

. ni E

A .

. en

-0 C

O 0

3 0

-. n

i CA

M .

ON

0 C

O .

0 -.

ni C

A .

... 0

4, 0

. 3

wo.

p, 0

. 0

4, p

. 3

-.3

-.3

01,..

. p, 0

-.3

n11.

.3 0

0 C

O C

O O

a C

O O

a C

O O

a 0>

... 0

,,, 0

-. N

j L.,,

, co

c, ,,

. ,.,.

. . 0

3.....

i... 3

03 .

03 .

., .

.g.

. (1,

.:...

,

1

123

. .toPe et, the Score

LA C7,

S. 0

.tr

11 0

01 -a

"4

02... .

4. co

CT ...

En tn

En

0.,

...1

En

.cp

-.1 o

-.1

10.

-.1

(...

-.1 lIndependent

Fun

ctio

ning

....

-. a

. .n3 .

n3 ..n3 ".3

an3 La

,.

N s....3 -.Physical

Development

....

.-.

-.,

.E..,

aLn

as01

.

to03

-..

.-.Economic

Activity

....

.....

....

.. 0.

....3

LA10 11

.LA

n Mni 01

N Co

N I.t., -.

to toto LA

LA . .to .

.C

o .1.

4 'Language

-

Development

.-. c

,...3

ato

mN

..0_. 0

Number and

Time Concepts

0...

En

010

11'

,

.°-

m.-

s

.. 0

Vocational

Activity

c ....

....

a-.1

Cla

.0g v

,

- ..

_- .

- ..

- ...

CO

,- .°Self-

Direction

c ....

....

..

...3

E..,

:.

a.

vecr

.mesponsibility

....

x

- 140

......

fllC

O

... N... .

... .., ...

t!,*

ts) N

.

0.1

(..1

ni .ni .

P.,1,Socialization

.

x

O-.

E.., I.

-.

E..,

03

-. a

.. (A

.0

...

U.,

..

01 10

.. . CA

.. 01 I.

...

cr, 0

.. cr, I.

... a, 01

.. 01 .

....

na...

,a

.. 01 m

.. 0 m

..

.. . .

.. 03 -.

.. 03 a

.. . m

".. 03 .4

.....3 . m

....3 . m

Per

tI

Total

_

(

atv

ti A O to C 3 3 3n to

ti

I

2-. M

e04

024.

.10.

..A.7

.4.1

,

.-

..4...

......

.

r

AN

-

40

o

..........

Percentile Score

zcn

'0

Independent

Functioning

NJ

physical

Development

Economic

Activity

NJ

CA

DLanguage

Development

0Number end

rift Concepts

C

OVocational

'Activity

UN

- a,Self-

Direction

Responsibility

C

NJ

0Socialization

-0

CO

CPil.rt

ITatell

O

171

o

1

e+eJeJe,,,,,,,uu.auuuouuu ..........

Percentile Score

Independent

OW functioning

C-

o " Physical

Development

rn

CO

NEconomic

Activity

1,3

1,3 N

>0

L,

u language

o' Development

O

'umber end

Vocational

00 Activity

-

1'

Self-

"A"e

Direction

in

Pesponsibility

co

L.

Socialization

Part I

Total

s.--

ti V 2

2 O

r O

el

a

-.. z

uk-s

t0 ..1\11.4......

'...

a

NNNNNNNNNNWEAULICAUWWW(.1..........NNUINNIAMOMM0MMMM0000M....'......01070,03.7.0000..........

tr

to 6

a.,

,

ir

IwYbi 1 1:eq co1,,' u _

. S

x uoTlpzit.i.os .g a.

N,. . , . , IN.

V AlT/Tcilstmclip,V M

4

1

-

I

: ...

00T:palTa-.nee

-.....

.2 ..... _w . 4. .

....

... AlT0T40Vleu011e00A

.

cv m.

1

.

.....

1

..sl7s0uo0 awn

pug locIdinN

1.

.....

-v..

....

i

.

.

. luawdatim010abenbuel

,

,

. ,',',

c..

,

.

c..

c..

.

.

.

lipi0 1

'

AliA720yOTWOU073

0, .0

v

1

t.

I

... luawdotonso100140(40 v.

.,... .

.......-

m...,

614E0110101jluspusdapui

. 2.'0 , .

.

MLI,

.

.."...

""S 9 I 1 4 ki a 3 I a d g Vc74. PP VT C7 g g mm ro eg tli 2 O r1; gi n. t9 iZ it.' IC g. IT Z. n: P.Vos; ro tg 02 to si;

.

ttg =a.:444;

....-

2 Z T.:7 Vs' Z .;2: .; :', g. :11 % keg A r4 g ev,-, 2 g T./ rc- sga '12 ;a P iv is F C'''''''' ",

'. "I

c'', ... '' ' r. ' """'"' '-^ C' . i., ---1

2