Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Psychometric Comparison of the Functional Assessment Instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for Self‐injurious, Stereotypic and Aggressive/Destructive Behaviour

Psychometric Comparison of the Functional Assessment Instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for... Background Psychometric properties of three functional assessment rating scales were compared for three types of target behaviours (self‐injurious behaviour (SIB), stereotypic behaviour and aggressive/destructive behaviour). Materials and method The Questions about Behavioural Function (QABF), the Functional Assessment for Multiple Causality (FACT) and the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST) were administered twice by two raters to 130 adults with intellectual disability (total of 29 raters). Results and conclusions The reliability of the FACT and the QABF for estimates across all three behaviours was acceptable to good. Mean inter‐rater reliability intra‐class correlations across two administrations ranged from 0.63 to 0.68 for the QABF and from 0.65 to 0.78 for the FACT. Mean test‐retest reliability for the QABF ranged from 0.81 to 0.82 and for the FACT from 0.86 to 0.87. Internal consistency across the subscales ranged from 0.89 to 0.96 for the QABF and from 0.92 to 0.96 for the FACT. The FAST had generally poorer reliability scores. Convergent and discriminant validity (Spearman ρ) were better between FACT and the QABF than between the FAST and the other two instruments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities Wiley

Psychometric Comparison of the Functional Assessment Instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for Self‐injurious, Stereotypic and Aggressive/Destructive Behaviour

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/psychometric-comparison-of-the-functional-assessment-instruments-qabf-UldxX4PFsf

References (36)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
ISSN
1360-2322
eISSN
1468-3148
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00569.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background Psychometric properties of three functional assessment rating scales were compared for three types of target behaviours (self‐injurious behaviour (SIB), stereotypic behaviour and aggressive/destructive behaviour). Materials and method The Questions about Behavioural Function (QABF), the Functional Assessment for Multiple Causality (FACT) and the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST) were administered twice by two raters to 130 adults with intellectual disability (total of 29 raters). Results and conclusions The reliability of the FACT and the QABF for estimates across all three behaviours was acceptable to good. Mean inter‐rater reliability intra‐class correlations across two administrations ranged from 0.63 to 0.68 for the QABF and from 0.65 to 0.78 for the FACT. Mean test‐retest reliability for the QABF ranged from 0.81 to 0.82 and for the FACT from 0.86 to 0.87. Internal consistency across the subscales ranged from 0.89 to 0.96 for the QABF and from 0.92 to 0.96 for the FACT. The FAST had generally poorer reliability scores. Convergent and discriminant validity (Spearman ρ) were better between FACT and the QABF than between the FAST and the other two instruments.

Journal

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.