Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
K. Shogren, J. Rojahn (2003)
Convergent Reliability and Validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function and the Motivation Assessment Scale: A Replication StudyJournal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 15
J. Matson, J. Bamburg, K. Cherry, T. Paclawskyj (1999)
A validity study on the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) Scale: predicting treatment success for self-injury, aggression, and stereotypies.Research in developmental disabilities, 20 2
C. Kinch, T. Lewis-Palmer, Shanna Hagan-Burke, G. Sugai (2001)
A Comparison of Teacher and Student Functional Behavior Assessment Interview Information from Low-Risk and High-Risk ClassroomsEducation and Treatment of Children, 24
Tim Knoster (2000)
Practical Application of Functional Behavioral Assessment in SchoolsResearch and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 25
J. Matson, J. Boisjoli (2007)
Multiple versus single maintaining factors of challenging behaviours as assessed by the QABF for adults with intellectual disabilitiesJournal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 32
Kathy Lowe, David Allen, David Allen, Edwin Jones, Edwin Jones, Sam Brophy, Kate Moore, W. James (2007)
Challenging behaviours: prevalence and topographies.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 51 Pt 8
R. O'neill (1996)
Functional Assessment and Program Development for Problem Behavior: A Practical Handbook
D. Campbell, D. Fiske (1959)
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological bulletin, 56 2
Richard Arndorfer, R. Miltenberger, Scott Woster, A. Rortvedt, T. Gaffaney (1994)
Home-based Descriptive and Experimental Analysis of Problem Behaviors in ChildrenTopics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14
Carie English, C. Anderson (2006)
Evaluation of the Treatment Utility of the Analog Functional Analysis and the Structured Descriptive AssessmentJournal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8
S. Toogood, K. Timlin (1996)
The Functional Assessment of Challenging Behaviour: A Comparison of Informant-based, Experimental and Descriptive MethodsJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 9
Sally-Ann Cooper, E. Smiley, Alison Jackson, J. Finlayson, L. Allan, D. Mantry, Jillian Morrison (2009)
Adults with intellectual disabilities: prevalence, incidence and remission of aggressive behaviour and related factors.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 53 3
J. Rojahn, J. Matson, Denise Lott, A. Esbensen, Yemonja Smalls (2001)
The Behavior Problems Inventory: An Instrument for the Assessment of Self-Injury, Stereotyped Behavior, and Aggression/Destruction in Individuals with Developmental DisabilitiesJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31
S. Johnston, R. O'neill (2001)
Searching for Effectiveness and Efficiency in Conducting Functional AssessmentsFocus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16
S. Yarbrough, E. Carr (2000)
Some relationships between informant assessment and functional analysis of problem behavior.American journal of mental retardation : AJMR, 105 2
J. Nicholson, E. Konstantinidi, F. Furniss (2006)
On some psychometric properties of the questions about behavioral function (QABF) scale.Research in developmental disabilities, 27 3
S. Hall (2005)
Comparing descriptive, experimental and informant-based assessments of problem behaviors.Research in developmental disabilities, 26 6
Knoster Knoster (2000)
Practical application of functional behavioral assessment in schoolsThe Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25
Richard Weatherman, R. Bruininks, B. Hill, Richard Woodcock (1986)
Inventory for client and agency planningRural Special Education Quarterly, 6
D. Cicchetti (1994)
Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology.Psychological Assessment, 6
J. Matson, D. Kuhn, Dennis Dixon, Stephen Mayville, R. Laud, Christopher Cooper, C. Malone, N. Minshawi, Ashvind Singh, Melissa Luke, J. Lott, M. Matson (2003)
The development and factor structure of the Functional Assessment for multiple causaliTy (FACT).Research in developmental disabilities, 24 6
S. Cooper, E. Smiley, L. Allan, Alison Jackson, J. Finlayson, D. Mantry, J. Morrison (2009)
Adults with intellectual disabilities: prevalence, incidence and remission of self-injurious behaviour, and related factors.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 53 3
S. Ellingson, R. Miltenberger, E. Long (1999)
A survey of the use of functional assessment procedures in agencies serving individuals with developmental disabilitiesBehavioral Interventions, 14
K. Freeman, Michael Walker, Jeremy Kaufman (2007)
Psychometric properties of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale in a child sample.American journal of mental retardation : AJMR, 112 2
C. Anderson, E. Long (2002)
Use of a structured descriptive assessment methodology to identify variables affecting problem behavior.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 35 2
Heather Applegate, J. Matson, K. Cherry (1999)
An evaluation of functional variables affecting severe problem behaviors in adults with mental retardation by using the Questions about Behavioral Function Scale (QABF).Research in developmental disabilities, 20 3
T. Paclawskyj, Johnny Matson, K. Rush, Yemonja Smalls, T. Vollmer (2001)
Assessment of the convergent validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale with analogue functional analysis and the Motivation Assessment Scale.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 45 Pt 6
V. Durand, D. Crimmins (1988)
Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behaviorJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18
O. Hove, O. Havik (2008)
Mental Disorders and Problem Behavior in a Community Sample of Adults with Intellectual Disability: Three-Month Prevalence and ComorbidityJournal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 1
B. Holden, J. Gitlesen (2008)
The relationship between psychiatric symptomatology and motivation of challenging behaviour: a preliminary study.Research in developmental disabilities, 29 5
P. Shrout, J. Fleiss (1979)
Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.Psychological bulletin, 86 2
N. Wieseler, R. Hanson, Chamberlain Tp, Travis Thompson (1985)
Functional taxonomy of stereotypic and self-injurious behavior.Mental retardation, 23 5
Johnston Johnston, O’Neill O’Neill (2001)
Searching for effectiveness and efficiency in conducting functional assessments: a review and proposed process for teachers and other practitionersFocus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16
J. Dawson, J. Matson, K. Cherry (1998)
An analysis of maladaptive behaviors in persons with autism, PDD-NOS, and mental retardation.Research in developmental disabilities, 19 5
E. Cunningham, R. O'neill (2000)
Comparison of Results of Functional Assessment and Analysis Methods with Young Children with Autism.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35
T. Paclawskyj, J. Matson, K. Rush, Yemonja Smalls, T. Vollmer (2000)
Questions about behavioral function (QABF): a behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior.Research in developmental disabilities, 21 3
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 of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2011
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.