assessing the adaptive behavior of youths - multicultural responsivity

Assessing the Adaptive Behavior of Youths:Multicultural Responsivity

Paula Allen-Meares

Nearly 25 years ago, Allen-Meares and Lane appraised the status of adaptive behaviorassessments in use at the time, citing their usefulness and relevance to the overall assessment ofschool children. This article revisits those instruments and examines select current instrumentsto gauge whether they include the multicultural sensitivity required to fairly assess the growing

diverse populations of school children. Many of the popular adaptive behavior assessmentinstruments have not been normed with a wide array of racial groups or with cultural

considerations in mind. This leads to suggestions of how social workers in particular mayensure that referred students are assessed fairly.

KEY WORDS: adaptive behavior; assessment; children; race and culture; school

Allen-Meares and Lane (1983) authored anarticle in NASWs Social Workourn titled"Assessing the Adaptive Behavior of Chil-dren and Youths," which appraised the status and useof adaptive behavior as a concept and measurementtool that would work in the school iyitem. Adaptivebehavioror the ability of a person to function insociety, in a group, or in a classroom according tospecific standards of behavior and abilityis one fac-tor practitioners consider when completing holisticassessments of the level of care and services necessary.At the time of the Allen-Meares and Lane article,adaptive behavior instruments and theories weregaining recognition and use among school socialworkers as they strove to accurately assess studentsto determine who among them was eligible forspecial education programming.

The use of formal measurement was not anentirely novel concept within the school setting.School psychologists and special resource personnelfrequently presented data from various instrumentsthat measured or quantified performance, IQ, speech,motor skills, and other indicators. Many of theseinstruments were limited to the in-school behaviorsor cognitive abilities of the child. However, at thetime, the ability to assess a child's whole experiencewas trending toward a more comprehensive set ofmeasurements as a complement to those more typi-cally administered. Because school social workers areknowledgeable about the importance of a holisticapproach and understand how environment affectsbehavior, they were ideally suited to assess the adap-

tive behavior of pupils identified as candidates forspecial education services.

As often is the case with trends, whether societal,educational, or professional, it is prudent to examinethe tools that have been developed concomitantlyand the way they have been used. Although severalof the assessment instruments discussed by Allen-Meares and Lane (1983) are still in use, many othershave been developed. In addition, although Allen-Meares and Lane discussed one culturally sensitiveinstrument called the System of Multicultural Plu-ralistic Assessment (SOMPA), the consideration ofcultural and ethnic factors in assessment has gainedmore importance given the increasing ethnic andracial diversity within certain school systems.

Furthermore, cultural and ethnic factors are ofparticular relevance as the overrepresentation ofethnic minority students in special education classeshas been documented by researchers whose workspans the past 40 years (Harry, Sturges, & Klingner,2005; Hosp & Reschly, 2004). In 1998, approxi-mately 1.5 million ethnic minority children wereidentified as mentally retarded, as having emotionalproblems, or as having a specific learning disability(Civil Rights Project,2002), with nearly 60 percentof those children being African American or NativeAmerican.The Children's Defense Fund (2005) citedOsher, Sims, and Woodruff's (2002) report, whichstated that in 39 states, African American childrenare twice as likely to be labeled mentally retarded.Atkins-Burnett (2006) suggested that althoughtroubling, these statistics, taken as a whole and con-

CCC Code: 0037-8046/08 $3.00 2008 National Association of Social Workers 307

textualized in hght of economic status, environment,and so forth, might not be as troubling if those soidentified were then provided with "adequate sup-ports" to bolster their academic success. However,once labeled, ethnic minority children are less likelyto receive instruction in a mainstream classroom,are more likely to face harsher discipline than thatreceived by their peers, and are less likely to gradu-ate. Outside of school, African American students,in particular, face a greater rate of unemploymentand arrest (Children's Defense Fund, 2004),

When ethnic minority population growth andthe information regarding overrepresentation isconsidered in conjunction with the recent reautho-rization of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Improvement Act (IDEA) (U,S, Department ofEducation, 2004), which includes specific languageon preventing this overrepresentation, now is a par-ticularly appropriate time to revisit the status of theseadaptive behavior assessment scales. Not only doesIDEA seek to prevent the overinclusion of ethnicminorities in special education, but also its languageguarantees that all students with potential disabilitiesbe included in the assessment process, with appro-priate accommodation as necessary to "measure theacademic achievement and functional performanceof [any given student]" (IDEA, 1412, 24),

Overrepresentation is not the only reason tonorm assessment instruments with different ethnicand cultural considerations. The face of the UnitedStates is quickly changing to include growing popu-lations of students who reflect a larger Americandiversity. On the basis of the 1990 data, the U,S,Census Bureau (1992) projected that by 2050 thefastest growing population in America will be His-panic, with growth in the Asian or Pacific Islanderpopulations following closely behind. Similarly, theAfrican American population will double in size,whereas the white, non-Hispanic population willremain stagnant (Day, 1996),

With these factors in mind, this article updatesdefinitions, discusses theories and assessment criteria,revisits the different adaptive behavior instrumentspresented in the 1983 Allen-Meares and Lane article,presents several additional instruments used in to-day's schools, and examines important psychometricproperties relevant to the growing diversity of U,S,schools. Furthermore, it appraises the importance ofcultural competence and provides practical sugges-tions for how social workers may ensure culturallysensitive assessments.

DEFINITION OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIORAdaptive behavior literature has regularly pointed toa definition provided by the American Associationon Mental Retardation (AAMR) as the acceptedstandard. It is important to note that adaptive be-havior has been a component of AAMR's definitionof mental retardation since approximately 1961, andthe factors that constitute adaptive behavior assess-ment have evolved over time as the definition itselfhas changed. It is also important to note, relevantto the following discussion, that although AAMR'sdefinitions of mental retardation and adaptive be-havior have changed over the course of additionalresearch, one of the criteria for application has not:In both the 1992 and the 2002 AAMR definitionsof mental retardation, a person's culture is explicitlymentioned as a basic assumption in any assessment(Wehmeyer, 2003),

According to the most recent definitions putforth by AAMR (2002), adaptive behavior is definedas "the collection of conceptual, social, and practicalskills that people have learned so they can functionin their everyday lives," AAMR presents three coreskill groups as a framework for analysis, each withnumerous subcategories,The three core groups in-clude conceptual skills, the basic educational conceptsthat a person acquires over time; social skills, thefriendships, social interactions, and so forth, that aperson forms or experiences over time; and practicalskills, the everyday life skills or events that a personprepares to engage in over a lifetime.

It is common belief within the research commu-nity that to provide successfial assessments at any level,there first must be a clear definition of that whichis being assessed. In this case, a recent investigationinto adaptive behavior scales and their use today hasrevealed the lack of a universal or standard definition.However, the concept of adaptive behavior as self-and social sufficiency runs throughout the literatureand instruments, as does a consistent reference tothe AAMR definition mentioned in the precedingparagraphs,Typically, age is considered in a standardmeasure, specifically in relation to developmentalnorms for a given age group,

THEORETICAL UNDERGIRDINGIn the absence of a set definition of adaptive behavioror a standard set of assessed behaviors, it is impor-tant to draw attention to the supporting theoreticalframeworks and perspectives that undergird adaptivebehavior assessment.

308 SocialWork VOLUME 53, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2008

Ecological PerspectiveIn their article, Allen-Meares and Lane (1983) fo-cused on the ecological perspective as the primarypremise of assessment. The Social Work Dictionary(Barker, 2003) defmes the ecological perspective as "anorientation in social work and other professions thatemphasizes understanding people and their environ-ment and the nature of their transactions. Importantconcepts include adaptation, transactions,goodness of fitbetween people and their environments, reciprocity,and mutuality" (p. 136).

The ecological perspective cannot be discussedwithout reference to Bronfenbrenner's (1979) semi-nal definition of the environments in which a personinteracts.These environments include the microsystem(the child himself or herself), the mesosystem (thechild's interaction with his or her environment),and the macrosystem (the attitudes and ideologies ofthe child's surrounding culture).

As evidenced by the measures for adaptivebehavior listed earlier, the ecological perspectiveremains highly relevant in the assessment process.A child's ability to function at one age, on one day,and in one setting cannot be evaluated withoutalso considering the people and places with whichhe or she comes in contact, as well as the effects ofsociety at large.

Family-Systems PerspectiveThis assessment structure allows for assessment ofthe child within the familial framework, where thefamily's evolution, the family members' interplay,and the members' levels of dependency might becrucial factors in the child's development, behavior,or both.

Both the ecological and family-systems perspec-tives speak directly to the necessity to considerfactors of culture, ethnicity and race, and socioeco-nomic status in assessments. Culture "affects the[individual's] display of language, behaviors, andbeliefs" (Van Acker, 2006, p. 381). When childrenare assessed without consideration of these factors,practitioners run the risk of improper identificationand placement and the resultant potential for ad-ditional behavior and learning problems.

Developmental PerspectiveThe use of a developmental, normative-develop-mental, or cognitivebehavioral framework in theassessment of children focuses on the interplaybetween the child's social and emotional devel-

opment during the formative (and most critical)years of development and on future learned andadaptive behaviors. To describe how children altertheir behavior over a lifetime, researchers and prac-titioners have developed and used several differenttheories, including i:he influential contributions ofJean Piaget, B. F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, and LevVygotsky. In the school environment, where learningis the primary goal for students, the developmentalperspective is critical, and consequently schoolsocial work practitioners should take extra care inunderstanding its implications.

Humanistic PerspectiveThe humanistic approach to assessment allows apractitioner to examine an individual's feelings ofresponsibility and the effects these may have onhis or her behavior. School social workers shoulduse this approach specifically when focusing onthe importance of a student's feeling of ownershipor investment in his or her own education as anaid to reducing problem behaviors. This approachwould prioritize maintaining learning and socialenvironments free of threats to increase individualresponsibility and to reduce behavioral problems(Cohen & Spenciner, 1998).

Eclectic PerspectiveFinally, the eclectic perspective embraces funda-mentals from a variety of perspectives and usesthem as a whole in the assessment process. Family,environment, genetics, and the child's own conceptsof self-determination are all factors that are observedand documented to provide a full assessment.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAGeneral ConsiderationsIn general, adaptive behavior scales are sensitiveenough to assist or inform a practitioner in a globalsense but are less useful for identifying specific areasof deficiency or skills that are lacking or in need ofrefinement (Bieleki & Swender, 2004). Before usingany assessment tool to measure adaptive behavior,the practitioner must address several preliminaryquestions and criteria (a comprehensive list ofquestions may be obtained from the author). TheAllen-Meares and Lane (1983) article hsted foursuch questions:

1. Does the instrument define and operationalizeadaptive behavior in a manner that concurs

A L L E N - M E A R E S / Assessing the Adaptive Behavior of Youths: Multicultural Responsivity 309

with the social worker's own and the school's,district's, or state agency's perception of adap-tive behavior?

2. Does the purpose for which the instrumentwas constructed adequately match the purposefor which the social worker intends to useit?

3. Does the instrument exhibit acceptable nor-mative (the ability to measure the examineeagainst a representative sample) and criterion-based (the ability to measure the examineein relation to stated criteria) referencingcharacteristics?

4. Does the instrument's use require exces-sive expense or reorganization of the socialworker's practice?

These questions remain important and pertinentcriteria in the selection between the instruments inuse today, as evidenced by recent publications bythe Center for Family and Community Partnership(2001), which published two lists of considerationsfor choosing standardized/normative tests or crite-rion-referenced measures as assessment tools, and bythe recent articulation of psychometric propertiesby Sattler and Hoge (2006), including rehability,validity, and population characteristics.

It is imperative to note that the use of one singularassessment process or tool may not be the most ef-fective way for a practitioner to approach any givensituation. Mash and Hunsley (2005) cited Evans andMeyer (1985) and Mash andTerdal (1997) in theirdiscussion of evidence-based assessments, in whichthey stated the following:

Child assessment by its very nature involves theuse of ongoing decision-making processes, oftenrequiring an integration of information obtainedat different ages, from repeated assessments...using multiple methods.. .informants.. .and set-tings, and not just the utilization of psychometricmethods, (p. 364)

Additional ConsiderationsOther factors play a role in the use and relevance ofa given scale. Some factors that may prove criticalto a holistic approach to assessment include culture,ethnicity, gender, language, socioeconomic status,geographic region, family structure, how the studentbehaves outside of the school environment, and thestudent's degree of school readiness.

Particularly relevant to the following discussionare the factors of ethnicity and culture. Althoughethnicity is typically associated with a particulargroup or national origin, culture is dened as "a setof values and beliefs that is learned and adopted as aresult of living with a group of people" and includesthe influence of religion, language, tradition, andaccepted laws (Craig & Tass, 1999, p. 119).

Lewis (1998) suggested the following four stepsto ascertain the appropriateness and reliabihty ofassessment instruments when considering an instru-ment for use with a student who identifies with aspecific culture.

1. Decide whether the content of the test and thenorm or comparison group is appropriate fora linguistically, ethnically, racially, or culturallydifferent client.

2. Evaluate the data available to ascertain whetherthe test performance of a diverse client maybe due to culturally biased characteristics ofthe tests.

3. Determine the reliability and validity oftranslated and adapted instruments with anon-English speaker and other linguisticallydifferent clients.

4. Choose assessment devices that have beendeveloped with the intention of making themas fair as possiblein other words, reliable andvalid.

It is important to mention that test bias hasbeen at the center of many legal disputes on theoverrepresentation of ethnic minorities in specialeducation classes, including Larry P. v. Riles (1979),and Parents in Action on Special Education (PASE)P.Joseph P. Hannon (1980).These cases and othersresulted in the finding that assessment toolscommonly IQ testswere neither necessarilyculturally sensitive nor typically the sole determin-ing tool practitioners used when recommendingspecial education placement. Similarly, the courtsfound that there were factors other than race (forexample, economic status, environment) that hadthe potential to affect a child's recommendationfor placement.

MEASURES OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIORAfter answering some or all of these questions aboutthe best instrument to use, the practitioner shouldfind that he or she has a wide variety of choices


that might meet his or her needs and those of theschool system.

The Allen-Meares and Lane (1983) article pre-sented the following four scales of adaptive behaviorassessment in wide use at that time:

1. The Adaptive Behavior Inventory for Chil-dren (ABIC) (Mercer & Lewis, 1978) is aninstrument designed for use as one part of acomplete assessment procedure, the SOMPA.It is not suitable for use in an assessment forinterventions or programming that requiresdetailed criteria.

2. The American Association on MentalDeficiencies' (AAMD) Adaptive BehaviorScale-Public Schools Version (ABS-PSV)(Lambert,WindmiUer, & Cole, 1975), whichwas subsequently modified into the ABS-School, Second Edition (ABS-S:2) (Lambert,Nihira, & Leland, 1993), began as an adapta-tion of the Adaptive Behavior Scale-StandardVersion (Nihira, Foster, Shellhaas, & Leland,1969) and differed from the original in twoimportant ways: Fifteen items deemed notappropriate for rating by teachers were re-moved, and the tool was normed for use inpublic schools, allowing teachers, rather thanthe child's caregivers, to make the primaryassessments.

3. TheVineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS),designed by Edgar DoU in 1953, is the oldestmodel available.The instrument provides onecomprehensive score, termed social age, whichcan be loosely translated to an IQ-like socialquotient.

4. The Children's Adaptive Behavior Scales(CABS) (Richmond & Kickhghter, 1980)were relatively new and controversial inearly 1980. This instrument allows a trainedrepresentative in psychoeducational testing todirectly administer the assessment in the veinof an IQ test.

(A table highlighting the psychometric propertiesof these instruments and others can be obtainedfrom the author.)

Allen-Meares and Lane (1983) also touched ona then relatively new instrument, the SOMPA, cre-ated by Mercer and Lewis (1978) in response to themisclassification as mentally retarded of childrenwith different cultural backgrounds and language

barriers. On the basis of the Wechsler IntelligenceScale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) (Wechsler,1974), SOMPA was the "first attempt to reducethe stigmatization of minority children and fostermulticultural, multilingual programs" (Lewis, 1998,p. 229).

Drawn on a sample group that represented equalnumbers of Hispanic, African American, and whitestudents, SOMPA assesses the following three aspectsof a student's educational needs: medical, socialsystems, and pluralistic. Opinions on the utility andpsychometric strength of SOMPA were rarely inshades of gray. Although some researchers raisedconcernsparticularly about its psychometricstrengthothers, leaders in their field, thoughtthat the SOMPA hailed the future of multiculturalassessment (Hines, 1981). Although described as "avery promising development in the field of testing"(Nuttall, 1979,p. 289), its greatest potential stemmedfrom its theoretical framework rather than from itscultural sensitivity. A search of recent literature anda discussion with a local practitioner has indicatedthat SOMPA is no longer a leading topic of researchor discussion.

THE EVOLUTION OF ASSESSMENT SCALESOver the past 25 years, the scales mentioned earlierhave either evolved, have been revised, or are nolonger widely used. It is important to note that thetitles of scales may have changed over time, but manyof the psychometric properties have remained thesame. Similarly, many new instruments have beenauthored and found to be useful and effective inassessment.

Of the original four scales discussed in detail inthe Allen-Meares and Lane (1983) article, only tworemain in regular use throughout school systemstoday: The AAMD's ABS-PSV continues to be usedunder the title of the AAMRABS:S2,and theVSMSis now used as theVineland Adaptive Behavior Scales,Second Edition (Vineland-II) (Sparrow, Cicchetti,& Baila, 2005).

In addition, a nevii scale, the Scales of IndependentBehavior-Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks,Woodcock,Weatherman, & HiU, 1996), has emerged as a vi-able tool, as has an instrument that is based on theSIB-Rthe Inventory for Client and AgencyPlanning (ICAP) (Bruininks, Hill, Weatherman,& Woodcock, 1986). Other instruments currentlyused to assess adaptive behaviors include the Adap-tive Behavior Assessment SystemSecond Edition


(ABAS-II) (Harrison & Oakland, 2003) and theBatelle Development Inventory (2nd ed.) (BDI-2)(Newborg,2005).

The AAMR ABS:S2Revisions to the AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale,such as the ABS:S2, drawn in part from new researchdata, have increased its validity and reliability. Thestandardization sample group came from 40 differentstates and was stratified using gender, race, residence,and geographic region, but again there is no indica-tion that the ABS:S2 has been normed for use withspecific cultures or ethnic groups.

The Vineland-llPerhaps the most widely used and popular assess-ment instrument, the Vineland-II, has been usedto validate other assessment tools and scales andto assess a vast array of developmental challenges,such as autism, fragile X syndrome, language delays,psychiatric disorders, and children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Winters, CoUett, &Myers, 2005).

The standardization sample was stratified by race,gender, community size, geographic region, andsocioeconomic status, and the publisher indicatedthat the new norms were based on U.S. censusdata. However, there is no indication that the testhas been normed for use with any specific culturesor ethnicities.

SIB-R and ICAPThe SIB-R assesses both adaptive and maladaptivebehaviors for infants and adults through age 80.Of the available scales, this is the only one with aform specifically for the blind. Note too that theSIB-R is the only one of the instruments discussedherein that specifically lists Hispanic origin in itsstandardization review.

The standardization sample was chosen to repre-sent the 1990 U.S. census data and was stratified onthe basis of gender, race, Hispanic origin, occupa-tional status, geographic region, and type of com-munity. Although the sample was drawn to roughlycorrespond to 1990 U.S. census data, the Midwestregion was overrepresented in the sample.

Unlike most of the instruments discussed, theICAP uses the measure of adaptive behavior as away to directly assess services that students, clients,or patients might need. Parents, teachers, guardians,or other care providers may either complete the as-

sessment themselves or avail themselves of a serviceprovider, such as a social worker (Hill, 2005).

The ICAP was normed with a population of1,764 people ranging in age from 0 to 50. No furthernorming information could be located at the timeof this publication.

ABAS-IIThe ABAS-II maintains the basic structure of itsoriginal version but now consists of five formsinstead of the previous three. It is "the only instru-ment to incorporate current AAMR guidelinesfor evaluating the three general areas of adaptivebehavior (Conceptual, Social, Practical)," and to"assess all 10 specific adaptive skills areas specifiedin the DSM-IV" (Harcourt Assessment, 2006).

The instrument was standardized in two parts:The parent/primary caregiver and teacher/daycareprovider forms were standardized by using 2,100individuals, stratified by race and ethnicity, levelof education, and gender as reflected in 2000 U.S.census data. The teacher, parent, and adult formswere standardized with a sample of 5,270 people,stratified by race and ethnicity, level of education,and gender as reflected in 1999 U.S. census data.Note that there is no indication that the ABAS-IIhas been normed for use with specific cultures orethnic groups.

BDI-2Designed to assess a child's early development, theBDI-2 instrument is available in two formsscreen-ing and full assessment.The BDI-2 was standardizedusing a sample of 2,500 children. Results were strati-fied by age, geographical location, socioeconomicstatus, gender, and race in relation to the 2001 U.S.census data.

The publisher specifically indicated that reviewswere conducted on all items for gender and ethnic-ity concerns (Newborg, 2005). The instrument isavailable in a Spanish version.

Although many of the instruments listed earlierhave been normed with U.S. Census Bureau data, itis imperative to note that this information may notcomplete a comprehensive picture of a given loca-tion. In fact, undercounting of ethnic minorities isan ongoing problem (U.S. Census Bureau, 1992).

Brief Impairment ScaleAchenbach (2005) and Mash and Hunsley (2005)remarked that assessments and the norming, vali-

312 SocialWork VOLUME 53, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER zoo8

dation, and reliability of these assessments must betested among diverse cultural groups to support andadvance the empirical undergirding of the instru-ments. Up to the point of their reviews, they notedthat this has not been the case (Achenbach, 2005;Mash & Hunsley, 2005), However, there appears tobe one exception to their claim.

Bird et al, (2005) discussed their unpublished BriefImpairment Scale (BIS), a "multidimensional scale offunctional impairment for children and adolescents"(p, 699), Although no specific mention is made ofmental retardation or adaptive behavior, the instru-ment "provides a global measure of impairment thatcan complement, not replace, standardized assess-ments that link impairment to specific diagnosis"(p, 700),The instrument was translated and cultur-ally adapted following a specific set of criteria,TheBIS sample was administered in Spanish in PuertoRico and in English in New York, Subsequently,the samples were considered representative of thepopulation from which they were drawn, and find-ings were generalizable to those populations.

Although promising, at this point in time the BISappears to stand alone among assessment instrumentsand may, in fact, be limited in its use. It is not sug-gested for use in clinical diagnosis, although Bird etal. (2005) pointed out that federal requirements forassessment do not require the use of specific assess-ment tools. The authors also noted that, althoughthe BIS was tested in two samples that differed fromone another, each sample consisted of a single ethnicgroup. Bird and fellow authors joined Mash andHunsley (2005) and Achenbach (2005) in advocatingfor testing with other diverse populations,

CULTURAL RESPONSIVITYIn their discussions of fortifying evidence-basedcriteria for child and adolescent assessment, bothMash and Hunsley (2005) and Achenbach (2005)highlighted the lack of cultural consideration inmuch of the assessment realm and not merely in theinstruments discussed earlier, Achenbach pointedout that cultural consideration is necessary for manyreasons, including the growing potential for profes-sionals to serve populations that are different fromtheir own and the rising populations of immigrants,refugees, and native-born ethnic minorities.

Winters and colleagues (2005) joined a grow-ing group of those who advocate testing assess-ment instruments with more culturally diversepopulations

The majority of tests used today are stillstandardized by means of a white, middle-

class perspective.

to assess how variation in expectation for nor-mative behavior (which can also be presentwithin a culture) should influence scale devel-opment, scoring, or recommended cutoffs. Inthe clinician-rated scales, the rater would needto be knowledgeable about these variations toavoid under- or over-rating functional impair-ment, and many clinicians lack this knowledgebase, (p, 334)

In the absence of definitive and comprehensivetesting among varied cultures, some importantquestions for practitioners to consider when usingthese instruments are discussed in the foOowingsubsections.

How Does Culture Affect Behavior?In today's multicultural, economically stratified,global society, it is important for administrators ofassessments to espouse the developmental perspec-tive undergirding assessment theory and thus beconscious of how the design of an instrument maynot take into account either the child's learningcontext during critical stages of development orhis or her cultural norms. Behaviors and learningmechanisms may vary greatly across cultures andethnicities, and consequently that diversity mayaffect the child's performance or the outcome ofthe assessment. In addition, when the child's racialmakeup or socioeconomic status is not representedby the population used in the norming of an instru-ment, it is vital that interpretation of the assessmentscores be considered in light of this fact. Improperclassroom placement can potentially create furtherproblems.

The majority of tests used today are still standard-ized by means of a white, middle-class perspective,"Some social scientists claim that traditional assess-ment measures cannot indicate the true potential ofminorities because those instruments are geared tothe values, information, learning styles, environmen-tal influences, and cognitive structures that are com-mon to the middle-class Hfestyle" (Samuda, 1998, p,4), In addition,"it must be remembered that minoritychildren who do w^ ell on IQ tests as a whole come


from homes that convey the same values, the sameaspirations, the same environmental circumstances,and the same attitudes as the majority white middleclass in America" (Samuda, 1998, p. 6).

According to Lewis (1998), no test "can be consid-ered culture-free, although some can be thought ofas culture-reduced instruments" (p. 222). Several ac-tions may be undertaken to help reduce the culturaleffects of assessment instruments. For example, theKaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC)(Kaufman, 1983), an intelligence test, allows admin-istrators to verbally or nonverbally "communicatethe nature of the task" to the child and to acceptanswers if "they are given in subcultural slang orforeign language" (Lichtenberger, Kaufman, & Kauf-man, 1998, p. 25). Additional actions may includeremoving time restraints, incorporating nonverbalformats, and replacing single procedure and singlescore instruments with those that are more diverse(Lewis, 1998).

What Can Social Woricers Do to Ensurethat Culture Is Being Accounted for in theAssessment Process?Social workers can play a large role in raising thelevels of cultural competence within their schools,particularly in child assessment. One of the main fociof social work is improving the fit of the person inthe environment, and this is one specific instancein which having a comprehensive understanding ofthe student and how he or she behaves in a specificcontext or as a part of a cultural group is requiredto determine the most appropriate placement andprogramming.

If one takes into account the ecological perspec-tive of assessment as discussed earlier, cultural com-petence in this context must include understandinghow culture can affect behavior in each of theecological systems. Assessment of the microsystemtakes into account what individualsspecifically thestudent, the family, and the student's teachersaredoing.The mesosystem then indicates assessment ofthe connection between the student and his or hereducational process. It is at this point that a schoolsocial worker may raise questions such as,"Does ourschool promote cultural identity and expression, ordoes it stress assimilation?" Finally, the macrosystemprompts practitioners to investigate how culturalnorms and school policy can affect the student'sschool community. A social worker can promotechange in this interaction if he or she finds that

those connections lead to the oppression of peoplefrom different cultures, backgrounds, or races. It isimportant to understand the relationship amongall three systems, especially the school's role in thechild's life. As Caple and Salcido (2006) pointedout, the school can act as "a center of culturaldevelopment for children and for the developingcommunity" (p. 301).

Although there is some debate on exactly howcultural competence manifests itself within theprofession. Sue (1981) set the initial criteria forwhat social workers must assess in themselves tobecome successful in evaluating cultural factors inothers, including self-awareness of their own culture,biases that may result, and any particular power thismight give them in a client relationship; awarenessof how a chent's culture affects his or her worldviewand actions; and the ability to use this informationin creating or selecting informed interventionsfor the chent. Sue and Sue (1990) later refinedthe concept of cultural competence, stressing theimportance of the following three factors: beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, and skills.These three factorsare intimately connected to the notion of informedinterventions. It is imperative for social workers toremain cognizant of their local cultures, the socialclimate toward specific populations, demographicsof their area, and cultural norms that differ fromtheir own or from that of the majority.

CONCLUSIONIn the final analysis, it is evident that instruments forthe assessment of adaptive behaviors have, in fact,changed with the times. Although Allen-Mearesand Lane (1983) were on the forefront in review-ing the use of these instruments, especially in regardto special education placement, the past 25 yearshave introduced new and different instrumentsfor social workers to use. However, it is evidentthat the element of culture has not yet become astandard component. Although some instrumentshave been normed with a small sample of ethnicor racial data, most have not. The fact that ethnicminority children are disproportionately referredfor special education suggests that the considerationof culture could help eliminate problems that mayarise from a child being misclassified. As culturecontinues to play a vital role in child and familydevelopment, it is the duty of the social worker toremain vigilant in considering the role of culturein adaptive behavior.


Although the instruments discussed in thisarticle offer valid and reliable measures for use inthe assessment of children, it remains imperativethat social workers use them in addition to, andnot in isolation from, their own education,practicewisdom, observation, and other sources of data,including psychological reports, student grades,teacher and parent observations, and environmentalassessments. When selecting an assessment tool,practitioners should keep in mind that a sensitiveand accurate assessment calls for a holistic approachto evaluation. 053

REFERENCESAchenbach,T. M. (2005). Advancing assessment of children

and adolescents: Commentary on evidence-basedassessment of child and adolescent disorders. Jowma/ ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 541-547.

Allen-Meares, P., & Lane,B. (1983). Assessing the adaptivebehavior of children and youths. Social Work, 28,297-301.

American Association on Mental Retardation. (2002).Mental retardation fact sheet. Retrieved February 8,2006, from http://www.aamr.org/Policies/mental_retardation.shtml

Atkins-Burnett, S. (2006). Children with disabilities. In P.Allen-Meares (Ed.), Social work services in schools (pp.182-221). New York: Oxford University Press.

Barker, R. L. (2003). Tlie social work dictionary (5th ed.).Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Bieleki,J., & Swender, S. L. (2004). The assessment of socialfunctioning in individuals with mental retardation.Behavior Modification, 28, 694-697.

Bird, H. R., Canino, G. J., Davies, M., Ramirez, R.,Chavez, L., Duarte, C , & Shes, S. (2005).The BriefImpairment Scale (BIS): A multidimensional scale offunctional impairment for children and adolescents.Journal of the American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry, 44, 699-707.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Tlte ecology of human develop-ment: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruininks, R. H., Hill, B. K.,Weatherman, R. F, &Woodcock, R.W. (1986). Inventory for Client andAgency Planning. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Bruininks, R. H.,Woodcock, R.W,Weatherman, R.,& Hill, B. K. (1996). Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised. Chicago: Riverside.

Caple, F S., & Salcido, R. M. (2006). A framework forcross-cultural practice in school settings. In R.Constable, C. R. Masst, S. McDonald, &J. P. Flynn,School social work: Practice,policy, and research (6th ed.,pp. 299-320). Chicago: Lyceum Books.

Center for Family and Community Partnership. (2001).Assessment: Criterion-referenced measures. RetrievedAugust 8, 2006, from http://newassessment.org/Public/Channels/document.cfm?ID=77

Children's Defense Fund. (2004). Misidentificationof minority youth in special education: Quick facts.Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/special_ed_misidentification.pdf?docID=898

Civil Rights Project. (2002). Racial inequity in specialeducation: Executive summary for federal policy makers.Retrieved November 15, 2006, from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/specialed/IDEA_paperO2.php

Cohen, L. C , & Spenciner, L.J. (1998). Assessment of chil-dren and youth. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.

Craig, E. M., &Tass, M.J. (1999). Cultural and demo-graphic group comparisons of adaptive behavior. InR. L. Schalock {Bd.), Adaptive behavior and its measure-ment: Implications fyr the field of mental retardation (pp.119135). Washington, DC: American Association onMental Retardation.

Day,J. C. (1996). Population projections of the United Statesby age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050(US. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports,P25-1130). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Doll, E.A. (1953). T/ic measurement of social competence:A manual for the Vineiand Social Maturity Scale.Minneapolis: Educational Publishers.

Evans, I. M., & Meyer, L. H. (1985). /I educative approach tobehavior problems: A practical decision model for interven-tions with severely handicapped learners. Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes.

Harcourt Assessment. (2006). Adaptive Behavior AssessmentSystem-Second Edition. Retrieved October 10,2006,from http://harcourtassessnient.coni/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8004-507

Harrison, P L., & Oakland,T. (IQOS}. Adaptive BehaviorAssessment System-U. San Antonio,TX:ThePsychological Corporation.

Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klinger,J. K. (2005). Mappingthe process: An exemplar or process and challenge ingrounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34,3-13.

Hill, B. (2005). CAP user's group home page. RetrievedOctober 10,2006, from http://www.cpinternet.coni/~bhill/icap

Hines, L. (1981). Nondiscriminatory testing:The state ofthe art. Peabody Journal of Education, 58, 119124.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate rep-resentation of minority students in special education:Academic, demographic, and economic predictors.Exceptional Children, 70, 185-189.

Kaufman, A. S. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery forChildren. Circle Pines, MN: American GuidanceService.

Lambert, N., Nihira, K., & Leland, H. {\993). AAMRAdaptive Behavior ScalesSchool (2nd ed.).Washington,DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

Lambert, N.,Windmiller, M., & Cole, L. (1975). Publicschool version of the AAMD Adaptive BehaviorScale. MeHfl Retardation, 15, 42-45.

Larry P v. Riles, 485 F Supp. 926-992 (1979).Lewis, J. E. (1998). Nontraditional uses of traditional

aptitude tests. In R.J. Samuda, R. Fuerstein, A. S.Kaufman,J. E. Lewis, R.J. Sternberg, & Associates(Eds.), Advances in cross-cultural assessment (pp.218-241).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lichtenberger, E. O., Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L.(1998). Kaufman assessment battery for chil-dren:Theory and application. In R.J. Samuda, R.Fuerstein, A. S. Kaufman,J. E. Lewis, R.J. Sternberg,& Associates (Eds.),/l(fi:es in cross-cultural assessment(pp. 20-55).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mash, E.J., & Hunsley,J. (2005). Developing guidelines forthe evidence-based assessment of child and adoles-cent disorders. Jonma/ of Clinical Child and AdolescentPsychology, 34, 362-379.

Mash, E.J., &Terdal, L. G. (1997). Assessment of child andfamily disturbance: A behavioral-systems approach. InE. J. Mash & L. G.Terdal (Eds.), Assessment of childhooddisorders (3rd ed., pp. 3-68). New York: Guilford Press.

Mercer, J. R., & Lewis, J. F (1978). System of MulticulturalPluralistic Assessment (SOMPA). New York: Psycho-logical Corporation.

ALLEN-MEARES / Assessing the Adaptive Behavior of Youths: Multicultural Responsivity 315

Newborg,J. (2005). Batetk Developmental Inventory (2nded.). tasca, IL: Riverside.

Nihira, K., Foster, R., Shellhaas, M., & Leland, H. (1969).AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale. Washington, DC:American Association on Mental Deficiency.

Nuttall, E.V. (1979).Test review: System of Multi-Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA).JoMma/ of EducationalMeasurement, 6, 285-290.

Osher, D., Sims, A. E., & Woodruff, D. (2002). Schoolsmake a difference:The overrepresentation of African-American youth in special education and the juvenilejustice system. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.),Racial inequality in special education (pp. 93-116).Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Parents in Action on Special Education (PASW) v. JosephP. Hannon, 506 H Supp. 831 N.D.III (1980).

Richmond, B. O., & Kicklighter, R. H. (1980). Children'sAdaptive Behavior Scale. Adanta: Humanics.

Samuda, R.J. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment: Issuesarid alternatives. In R.J. Samuda, R. Fuerstein, A. S.Kaufman,J. E. Lewis, R.J. Sternberg, & AssociatesCds.), Advances in cross-cultural assessment (pp. 119).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sattler,J. M. (1988). Assessment of children. San Diego:Author.

Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of children:Behavioral, social and clinical foundations (5th ed.). LaMesa, CA: Author.

Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D.V., & Baila, D. A. (2005).Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Sue, D.W. (1981). Counseling the culturally different. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Sue, D.W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different:TlKory and practice (2nd ed.). New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1992). Assessment of accuracy of adjustedversus unadjusted 990 Census base for use in intercen-sal estimates. Unpublished technical report of theCommittee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates.Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals withDisabilities Education Improvement Act. Available fromhttp://idea.ed.gov/

Van Acker, R. (2006).The assessment of adaptive behavior.In R. Constable, C. R. Masst, S. McDonald, &J. PFlynn, School social work: Practice, policy, and research (6thed., pp. 379-391). Chicago: Lyceum Books.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Defining mental retardation andensuring access to the general curriculum. Educationand Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 271-282.

Winters, N. C , Collett, B. R., & Myers, K. M. (2005).Ten-year review of rating scales,VII: Scales assessingfunctional impairment. Jouma/ of the American Academyof Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 309-338.

Paula Allen-Meares, PhD, is dean, Norma Radin CollegiateProfessor of Social Work, and professor of education. School ofSocial Work, University of Michigan, 080 South UniversityAvenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106; e-mail: [email protected].

Original manuscript received January 3, 2007Final revision received May 15, 2007Accepted May 15, 2007

Stress Disorder Treatment Unit (SDTU)Program Director

North Chicago VA Medical Center, North Chicago, Illinois

North Chicago VAMC is located on Rt. 137 (Buckley Road) next to theNaval Training Center Great Lakes in Northern Illinois,

approximately 10 miles from the Wisconsin border. Themedical center is an affiliated facility with appropriate

acute care components including primary andsecondary medical care, ambulatory surgery andrehabilitation medicine to support an agingveteran population.

The Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Treatment Programat the North Chicago VA Medical Center is seeking anexperienced clinician-administrator to serve as its ProgramDirector. The PTSD Treatment program includes an outpatientPTSD Clinical Team (PCT) and a well-established 26-bedresidential treatment program with a national reputation fordelivering specialized treatment for PTSD. The PTSDTreatment Program is transforming itself into a Center ofExcellence for the evidence-based treatment of combat-relatedbehavioral disorders, a process in which the Program Directoris expected to provide leadership.

The North Chicago VA Medical Center and its partner institution,the Great Lakes Naval Hospital, are engaged in a dynamicprocess that will transform the two institutions into a single,state-of-the-art, first in the nation Federal Health Care Centerby 2010. The Medical Center, a Dean's Committee Hospital,affiliated with Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine andScience/the Chicago Medical School, offers residency training inpsychiatry and an accredited internship program in psychologyand provides a complete continuum of psychiatric treatments.Academic appointmer)ts are available for eligible car)didates.

The Program Director will be responsible for leading,coordinating and directing the activities of the program'smultidisciplinary clinical team, providing clinical services,participating in educational activities and stimulating andsupporting program-related research. Administrative, clinical, andresearch experience and knowledge of evidence basedinterventions for PTSD are highly desirable.

The qualified Social Worker we seek should have a Master'sdegree in Social Work from a school of Social Work accreditedby the Council on Social Work Education and be a LicensedClinical Social Worker (LCSW).

VA offers a competitive salary and a generous federal benefitspackage including paid vacation, 10 paid holidays, health/lifeinsurance, sick leave, and retirement system plus 401 (k).Applicants selected for these positions may be eligible formaximum award consideration under the Federal EducationDebt Reduction Program.

Forward CV, resume or application to:Carolyn Cass, HR SpecialistHRM Service (05), VA Medical Center5000 W. National AvenueMilwaukee, Wl 53295-1000Ph: (888) 469-6614, X42924Fax: 414-382-5296Email: [email protected]


assessing the adaptive behavior of youths - multicultural responsivity

Documents