abas_3_chapter_4

Prévia do material em texto

4
Development and Standardization
The ABAS-3 includes five updated and revised rating forms that incorporate 
the research conducted since publication of the previous edition (ABAS-II, 
Harrison & Oakland, 2003). In preparing the ABAS-3 forms and accompanying 
materials, the content and research base of the ABAS-II were reviewed and 
compared to current best practices in adaptive behavior assessment. This 
chapter describes the development of the ABAS-3, beginning with its theoretical 
background and relationship to the ABAS-II. The chapter then details the 
research methodology and samples collected to standardize the ABAS-3.
Theoretical Background
The conceptual structure of the ABAS-3 and its 
predecessors derives from three broad sources of 
information:
 1. Concepts of adaptive behavior promoted by the 
AAIDD (formerly AAMR)
 2. Legal and professional standards applicable to 
special education and disability classification 
systems
 3. Research into the diagnosis and classification of 
individuals with various disabilities
These sources uniformly conclude that every person 
requires a repertoire of functional adaptive skills to 
meet the demands and expectations of their envi-
ronment. The conceptual sources also converge on 
a hierarchical structure for the assessment of adap-
tive behavior. This structure is described in the next 
sections.
56 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization
Hierarchical Structure of 
Adaptive Behavior
Adaptive skill areas. The AAMR (1992) and the 
DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) proposed that adaptive 
behavior comprises the following 10 specific skills:1
 ·Communication
 ·Community Use
 ·Functional Academics
 ·Home/School Living
 ·Health and Safety
 ·Leisure
 ·Self-Care
 ·Self-Direction
 ·Social
 ·Work (for young adults and adults)
The ABAS-3 provides a standardized assessment of 
each of these adaptive skill areas, with scaled scores 
based on the standardization samples described 
below. These adaptive skills can be conceptually 
grouped into the three broad adaptive domains 
(Conceptual, Social, and Practical) measured by 
the ABAS-3 and included in the AAIDD (2010), 
DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000), and DSM-5 (APA, 2013) 
definitions of adaptive behavior.
In addition, the ABAS-3, like the ABAS-II, assesses:
 ·Motor (for young children)
Adaptive domains. Another way of understanding 
adaptive behavior is in terms of a two-level hierar-
chy consisting of broad-based adaptive domains, 
each of which includes several specific skills. His-
torically, two general groupings of adaptive skills 
have been described in the literature and measured 
with adaptive behavior scales: personal indepen-
dence and social responsibility (AAMR 1992, 2002; 
AAIDD, 2010; Horn & Fuchs, 1987). Grossman (1983) 
described these two aspects as “what people do to take 
care of themselves and relate to others” (p. 42).
More recently, the AAMR (2002) and AAIDD (2010) 
concluded that factor analytic research supports 
three adaptive skill domains: Conceptual, Social, and 
Practical. These three adaptive domains are included 
in the following AAIDD (2010), DSM-IV-TR (APA, 
2000), and DSM-5 (APA, 2013) definitions of adaptive 
behavior. The AAIDD (2010, p. 44) describes the three 
domains as follows:
 ·Conceptual skills: language; reading and writing; 
and money, time, and number concepts
 ·Social skills: interpersonal skills, social responsi-
bility, self-esteem, gullibility, naïveté (i.e., wari-
ness), follows rules/obeys laws, avoids being 
victimized, and social problem solving
 ·Practical skills: activities of daily living (personal 
care), occupational skills, use of money, safety, 
health care, travel/transportation, schedules/
routines, and use of the telephone
The ABAS-3 continues to provide standardized 
assessment of these adaptive domains.
According to the AAIDD (2010, p. 45), the concept of 
adaptive skills implies an array of competencies that 
may be distilled into three key points:
 1. The assessment of adaptive behavior is based on 
the person’s typical (not maximum) performance.
 2. Adaptive skill limitations often coexist with 
strengths.
 3. The person’s strengths and limitations in adaptive 
skills should be documented within the context 
of community and cultural environments typical 
of the person’s age peers and tied to the person’s 
need for individualized supports.
Ability Versus Frequency in Adaptive 
Behavior Assessment
A fundamental distinction within adaptive behavior 
assessment is between a person’s ability to display or 
perform a behavior in light of past performance, and 
the frequency of a person’s actual and continued dis-
play or performance of a behavior. The WHO’s Inter-
national Classification of Functioning, Disability and 
Health (World Health Organization, 2001, 2007) under-
scores this distinction between abilities and perfor-
mance (in WHO terms, activities versus performance).
1 The grouping of adaptive skill areas into adaptive domains is based on AAMR (2002) guidelines. Although Health and Safety is listed 
in both the Conceptual and Practical adaptive domains by the AAMR (2002b), based on the ABAS-3 item content, Health and Safety is 
included in the ABAS-3 Practical adaptive domain only. Although the latest editions of the AAMR manual (2002), AAIDD manual (2010), 
and DSM-5 (2013) do not require measurement of the specific adaptive skill areas outlined in the AAMR (1992) guidelines, the latest 
editions describe comparable types of adaptive skills in the description of the Conceptual, Social, and Practical adaptive domain areas.
ABAS-3 57Theoretical Background
This distinction is important when understanding 
and making provisions for adaptive behavior devel-
opment. Some important skills may not have been 
acquired. Thus, efforts are needed to promote their 
development. In contrast, some important skills have 
been acquired, yet are not being displayed when 
needed. Thus, efforts are needed to encourage their 
display, not their development. Still other adaptive 
behaviors are displayed when needed, and thus are 
not targets of intervention.
The ABAS-3 scoring system reflects these differ-
ences between ability and performance. In particu-
lar, adaptive skills that have not been acquired are 
rated “0,” representing a lack of ability. In contrast, 
performance of adaptive behavior skills that have 
been acquired are rated based on whether they 
are displayed when needed: never or almost never 
(rated “1”), sometimes (rated “2”), and always or 
almost always (rated “3”).
Applications of Adaptive Behavior 
Assessment: Intellectual Disability
The ABAS-3 and its predecessors were designed to 
address international requirements for adaptive 
behavior assessment for individuals with intellectual 
or developmental disabilities. Assessment of adap-
tive behavior, along with assessment of intelligence, 
has long been a requirement for classification and 
diagnosis of intellectual disability. The AAMR’s 1959 
definition of mental retardation was one of the first 
to formally acknowledge adaptive behavior deficits, 
along with below-average intelligence, as necessary 
for a classification of mental retardation (Heber, 
1959). Deficits in adaptive behavior have been given 
greater emphasis in subsequent definitions of intel-
lectual disability by the AAIDD (2010), the American 
Psychiatric Association (2013), and IDEA special-
education legislation.
AAIDD. The most recent definition by the AAIDD 
(2010) of intellectual disability emphasizes deficits in 
adaptive behavior as a key component: “Intellectual 
disability is characterized by significant limitations 
both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive 
behavior expressed in conceptual, social, and practi-
cal adaptive skills. This disability originates before 
age 18.” (p. 1). The AAIDD manual further specifies 
that adaptive behavior should be assessed by stan-
dardized measures that have been normed on the 
general population, and that a diagnosis of intellec-tual disability must include a score that is approxi-
mately two standard deviations below the normative 
mean on either the overall score of adaptive function-
ing, or on one of the three adaptive behavior domains 
(Conceptual, Social, or Practical) (AAIDD, 2010).
DSM. The DSM-5 also establishes diagnostic stan-
dards for intellectual disability. “The diagnosis of 
intellectual disability is based on both clinical assess-
ment and standardized testing of intellectual and 
adaptive functions” (APA, 2013, p. 37). Although the 
DSM-5 specifies IQ scores that are “approximately 
two standard deviations or more below the popula-
tion mean,” it is less specific than the AAIDD about 
adaptive behavior scores, indicating that “at least 
one domain of adaptive functioning—conceptual, 
social, or practical—is sufficiently impaired to war-
rant ongoing support in one or more settings” (APA, 
2013, pp. 37–38). Nevertheless, DSM-5 provides 
some guidelines for adaptive behavior assessment, 
including the use of psychometrically sound, stan-
dardized measures, administered to knowledgeable 
informants, and interpreted using clinical judgment 
(APA, 2013, pp. 37–38).
IDEA. In the United States, federal special-education 
legislation and subsequent state regulations have 
required deficits in intelligence and adaptive behavior 
for a classification of intellectual disability. Accord-
ing to the latest federal legislation, the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 
(IDEA), “Mental retardation means significantly 
subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing 
concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and 
manifested during the developmental period, that 
adversely affects a child’s educational performance” 
(IDEA, Final Regulations, 2006, Sec. 300.8).
The ABAS-3 addresses requirements for measure-
ment of the adaptive behavior deficits emphasized in 
the AAIDD, DSM, and IDEA definitions of intellectual 
disability. To do this, the ABAS-3 provides a standard-
ized assessment that yields a broad-based compos-
ite measure (the General Adaptive Composite) that 
includes all facets of adaptive behavior; Conceptual, 
Social, and Practical adaptive domains; and specific 
adaptive skill areas.
Individual agencies and organizations may have 
criteria for adaptive behavior deficits that differ from 
those of the AAIDD, DSM, or IDEA. Professional users 
should consult legal and professional standards 
when using adaptive behavior assessment data for 
diagnosis, classification, or treatment planning.
58 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization
Adaptive Behavior and Other Disabilities
Although the assessment of adaptive skills tradition-
ally has been associated with intellectual disability, 
adaptive skills are vital for all individuals, including 
those with limitations and disabilities other than 
intellectual disability. Adaptive skills should be 
assessed routinely for children or adults who have 
problems that interfere with daily functioning (Har-
rison, 1990; Harrison & Boney, 2002; Reschly, 1990). 
These may include, but are not limited to, persons 
who exhibit the effects of trauma, display attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), disruptive 
behaviors, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, neuro-
cognitive impairments, autism spectrum disorder 
(ASD), developmental delays and disorders, eating 
disorders, health impairment, language disorders, 
learning disabilities and disorders, neurobehavioral 
and neurodevelopmental disorders, motor impair-
ment, physical disabilities, personality disorders, 
psychotic and thought disorders, sensory impair-
ments, sleep disorders, substance-related disorders, 
or traumatic brain injury. The last section of 
Chapter 3 provides examples of how adaptive 
behavior assessment helps those with a variety 
of presenting problems.
Planning the ABAS-3 Revision
The ABAS-3 represents a revision and update of a 
well-established instrument in wide use throughout 
the United States and around the world. The specific 
aims of the revision were to update the normative 
sample, add additional clinical studies, update the 
item sets and include new items as needed, and 
improve upon the ABAS-II by considering develop-
ments in the field of adaptive behavior assessment, 
professional reviews, and user feedback.
The ABAS-3 standardization study, described below, 
was designed to replicate the size and scope of the 
ABAS-II standardization study. In addition, research 
was conducted to document the level of equivalence 
between scores from the two editions, and to show 
that the extensive validity evidence published with 
the ABAS-II is applicable to the new edition. The 
ABAS-3 includes three new validity studies of clinical 
conditions where adaptive behavior is a core focus of 
the assessment process: attention-deficit/hyperactiv-
ity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and intellec-
tual disability. These validity and reliability studies 
are described in Chapter 5.
The ABAS-II item sets were revised for the ABAS-3 
with three goals in mind. First, items were revised to 
clarify or update content (for example, some ABAS-II 
items that referred to outdated technology and other 
daily activities were deleted or revised; others were 
reworded to enhance understanding by respondents). 
Second, items reflecting adaptive behavior deficits 
specific to autism spectrum disorder, attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and gullibility/naïveté 
(a facet of intellectual disability; see Greenspan, 2009; 
AAIDD, 2010) were added to better assess individu-
als with those disorders. Third, items were added at 
higher and lower levels of development to increase 
the difficulty range of each adaptive skill area. A 
detailed description of the steps used in revising the 
item pool appears in “Item Development” below.
Based on input from ABAS-II users, the user experi-
ence for both administrators and respondents was 
improved. For example, the instructions were clari-
fied on all forms of the ABAS-3 so that respondents 
are better able to understand the distinction between 
ratings of zero and one, using the visual design of 
the forms to sharpen the distinction between abil-
ity (item ratings of 0) and frequency (item ratings of 
1, 2, and 3). The new ABAS-3 forms also are easier to 
administer and score. For example, the ABAS-3 Score 
Summary page now folds out to facilitate transfer of 
adaptive skill area raw scores from their respective 
pages, and then folds over to facilitate transfer of 
scaled scores to the Optional Analyses page.
Overall, despite updates to the content and visual 
format of the ABAS-3, experienced users will find 
the essential features of ABAS-II unchanged, includ-
ing overall structure of adaptive skill areas, adaptive 
domains, and General Adaptive Composite; number 
of forms and their basic features; and general proce-
dures for administration, scoring, and interpretation.
ABAS-3 59Planning the ABAS-3 Revision
Item Development
Item revision began with a review of the ABAS-II item 
set (Harrison & Oakland, 2003). Experts in adaptive 
behavior assessment, including the authors and a 
group of doctoral-level test developers, first identified 
items that were candidates for revision and dele-
tion, based either on outdated content or need for 
increased clarity for respondents. Items referring to 
older technology or less contemporary activities of 
daily living were deleted or updated. For example, 
the Leisure item beginning with “Selects television 
programs or videotapes . . .” was changed to “Selects 
television programs or uses the Internet . . .” Some 
items were deleted because users reported that they 
were difficult to rate, such as the Self-Care item “Has 
pleasant breath.” Other items were identified during 
the review process as lacking clarity of specificity in 
terms of observable daily behaviors. For example, the 
Work item “Attends work regularly” was revised to 
“Goes to work at scheduledtimes” to reflect greater 
specificity.
Next, new items were written to assess adaptive 
behavior deficits associated with autism spectrum 
disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, 
and intellectual disability. Although a number of 
previous ABAS-II items relating to these disabilities 
were retained, new items were added to reflect cur-
rent research and practice in these areas. With respect 
to autism, items such as “Engages in a variety of fun 
activities instead of only one or two” were added to 
supplement ABAS-II items such as “Initiates games or 
selects television programs liked by friends or family 
members.” New ADHD-related items such as “Stands 
still when needed, without fidgeting or moving 
around” were added to current items such as “Reads 
and follows instructions for completing classroom 
projects or activities.” Because the ABAS-II included 
few items related to gullibility or naïveté, which are 
important for people with intellectual disability, 
items such as “Checks the accuracy of charges before 
paying a bill” and “Refuses gifts and rides from 
strangers” were added to the ABAS-3.
Finally, new items were added to each adaptive skill 
area to increase the range of development covered 
by each of the five ABAS-3 forms. For example, new 
low-difficulty items—such as the Community Use 
item “Stays with parents or other family members in 
a store and does not wander off ” and the Leisure item 
“Smiles or shows interest when he or she sees a favor-
ite toy”—were added to the Parent/Primary Caregiver 
Form. Similarly, new high-difficulty items—such as 
the Community Use item “Is responsible for his or her 
personal finances, such as bank account, credit card, 
or utility bill” and the Social item “Sends thank-you 
notes or emails after receiving a gift or help with an 
important task”—were added to the Parent Form. 
Likewise, new low-difficulty items were added to 
the Teacher/Daycare Provider Form, and new high-
difficulty items were added to the Teacher Form and 
the Adult Form.
Based on a series of structured ratings for content 
validity and item quality by the test authors, doctoral-
level test developers, and clinical experts, an average 
of 60 new items were added to each research form 
used in the ABAS-3 standardization. An average 
of 220 items per research form were original and 
revised items from the ABAS-II.
The five research forms—Parent/Primary Caregiver 
(Ages 0–5), Parent (Ages 5–21), Teacher/Daycare 
Provider (Ages 2–5), Teacher (Ages 5–21), and Adult 
(Ages 16–89)—were administered to the standardiza-
tion samples, after which those items with the best 
content and psychometric properties (e.g., item-total 
correlations; internal consistency reliability; 
goodness-of-fit to a Rasch model of measurement; 
and differential item functioning) were retained for 
the published ABAS-3 forms, arranged in develop-
mental sequence based on item difficulty. Across all 
forms, the ABAS-3 is composed of an item pool that 
is 65% original ABAS-II items, 18% revised ABAS-II 
items, and 17% new items (see Table 4.1).
60 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization
Table 4.1. Number and Type of Items Included per Form in the ABAS-II and ABAS-3
Parent/Primary 
Caregiver Form 
(Ages 0–5)
Parent Form 
(Ages 5–21)
Teacher/Daycare 
Provider Form 
(Ages 2–5)
Teacher Form 
(Ages 5–21)
Adult Form 
(Ages 16–89)
Number of items in ABAS-II 241 232 216 193 239
Number of original ABAS-II 
items in ABAS-3
177 138 150 121 147
Number of revised ABAS-II 
items in ABAS-3
33 48 40 32 40
Number of new items 
in ABAS-3
31 46 26 40 52
Total number of items 
in ABAS-3
241 232 216 193 239
Percentage of ABAS-3 forms 
composed of original and 
revised ABAS-II items
87% 80% 88% 79% 78%
Standardization Study
The ABAS-3 standardization study included three 
independently collected samples: Infant and Pre-
school (ages 0–5; Parent/Primary Caregiver and 
Teacher/Daycare Provider forms), School (ages 5–21; 
Parent and Teacher forms), and Adult (ages 16–89; 
Adult Form, self-report and rated by others). Taken 
together, these samples consisted of 7,737 research 
forms completed by respondents who reported on the 
adaptive behavior of 4,500 individuals.
For each person included as a case in the standard-
ization sample, one or two respondents completed 
an ABAS-3 research form about that person. For 
example, for most school-age children, a parent 
completed a Parent Form and a teacher completed 
a Teacher Form (see Table 4.5). In every case, respon-
dents were those who had extensive knowledge 
about the daily adaptive skills of the person, as well 
as frequent opportunities of long duration to observe 
the person’s skills and responses to environmental 
demands. Information about the respondent is listed 
in Table 4.6. Respondents for 0- to 5-year-olds com-
pleted the Parent/Primary Caregiver or Teacher/
Daycare Provider forms; respondents for 5- to 
21-year-olds completed the Parent or Teacher forms; 
and respondents for 16- to 89-year-olds completed 
the Adult Form, either as a self-report or as rated by 
others. Additional respondents, as well as certain 
respondents in the standardization sample, com-
pleted multiple forms for the reliability and validity 
studies, which are detailed in Chapter 5. Standardiza-
tion data were collected over an 18-month period, 
from March 2013 to September 2014. The sampling 
methods are designed to include cases with mild 
disabilities, as long as the severity does not preclude 
mainstream activities (such as general education). 
Over a large standardization sample, these methods 
are designed to include these mild problems at their 
population base rate.
Characteristics of the Standardization 
Sample
The standardization samples were obtained by 
recruiting data collectors from across the United 
States who had access to persons ages 0 to 89, and to 
respondents able to report on those persons’ adap-
tive behavior. Standardization data were collected 
at 56 sites in 24 states in all four major U.S. Cen-
sus regions. Each data collector obtained access to 
individuals through schools, clinics, day-care centers, 
or community organizations. The goal was to collect 
a sample representative of the U.S. population in 
terms of ethnicity, gender, and household education 
level (an accepted index of socioeconomic status). 
The demographic characteristics of the ABAS-3 stan-
dardization samples are described in Tables 4.2–4.5. 
In general, deviations from the U.S. Census involved 
some overrepresentation of White individuals and 
those of higher educational attainment. Discrepan-
cies of geographic region, though also present, have 
not been shown to have a consistent effect on scores 
from behavior rating scales.
ABAS-3 61Standardization Study
Table 4.2. Demographic Characteristics of the 
ABAS-3 Standardization Sample: Infant and 
Preschool Forms (Ages 0–5) 
Characteristic n
% of 
sample
U.S. 
Census %a
Gender
Male 723 50.9 49.2
Female 697 49.1 50.8
Race/Ethnicityb
Asian 68 4.8 4.6
Black/African American 198 13.9 13.8
Hispanic Origin 245 17.3 25.7
Native Hawaiian/ 
Pacific Islander
2 0.1 0.2
American Indian/ 
Alaska Native
3 0.2 0.9
White 800 56.3 50.2
Other 104 7.3 4.6
Parents’ educational level
Less than high school 
diploma
60 4.2 12.5
High school graduate 202 14.2 24.8
Some college 340 23.9 31.0
Bachelor’s degree 
or higher
818 57.6 31.7
U.S. geographic region
Northeast 242 17.0 17.9
South 650 45.8 38.1
Midwest 241 17.0 22.3
West 287 20.2 21.8
Note. Total N = 1,420. Due to rounding, total percentages may not 
equal 100.0%.
aU.S. Census Bureau (2012). Race/Ethnicity based on ages 0–5; 
parents’ educational level based on ages 25–44 (those most likely 
to have children ages 0–5); gender and region based on the general 
population.
bIndividuals of Hispanic origin are included in the race/ethnicity 
category under “Hispanic Origin”; the remaining race/ethnicity 
categories include only individualsof non-Hispanic origin. Individuals 
of two or more races (n = 93) are included in the “Other” category.
Table 4.3. Demographic Characteristics of the 
ABAS-3 Standardization Sample: Parent and 
Teacher Forms (5–21) 
Characteristic n
% of 
sample
U.S. 
Census %a
Gender
Male 960 50.6 49.2
Female 936 49.4 50.8
Race/Ethnicityb
Asian 58 3.1 4.6
Black/African American 462 24.4 14.2
Hispanic Origin 422 22.3 22.6
Native Hawaiian/ 
Pacific Islander
2 0.1 0.2
American Indian/ 
Alaska Native
39 2.1 0.9
White 822 43.4 54.2
Other 91 4.8 3.3
Parents’ educational level
Less than high school 
diploma
222 11.7 12.3
High school graduate 466 24.6 26.8
Some college 384 20.3 30.6
Bachelor’s degree 
or higher
824 43.5 30.2
U.S. geographic region
Northeast 196 10.3 17.9
South 1,013 53.4 38.1
Midwest 256 13.5 22.3
West 431 22.7 21.8
Note. Total N = 1,896. Due to rounding, total percentages may not 
equal 100.0%.
aU.S. Census Bureau (2012). Race/Ethnicity based on ages 5–21; 
parents’ educational level based on ages 25–64 (those most likely 
to have children ages 5–21); gender and region based on the general 
population.
bIndividuals of Hispanic origin are included in the race/ethnicity 
category under “Hispanic Origin”; the remaining race/ethnicity 
categories include only individuals of non-Hispanic origin. Individuals 
of two or more races (n = 61) are included in the “Other” category.
62 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization
Table 4.4. Demographic Characteristics of the ABAS-3 Standardization 
Sample: Adult Form (16–89) (Self-Report and Rated by Others)
Characteristic n % of sample U.S. Census %a
Gender
Male 580 49.0 49.2
Female 604 51.0 50.8
Race/Ethnicityb
Asian 55 4.6 5.1
Black/African American 240 20.3 12.0
Hispanic Origin 148 12.5 15.1
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 14 1.2 0.2
American Indian/Alaska Native 15 1.3 0.7
White 659 55.7 65.6
Other 53 4.5 1.4
Adults’ educational level
Less than high school diploma 106 9.0 14.5
High school graduate 294 24.8 28.4
Some college 372 31.4 31.1
Bachelor’s degree or higher 412 34.8 26.0
U.S. geographic region
Northeast 259 21.9 17.9
South 581 49.1 38.1
Midwest 57 4.8 22.3
West 287 24.2 21.8
Note. Total N = 1,184. Due to rounding, total percentages may not equal 100.0%.
aU.S. Census Bureau (2012). Race/Ethnicity based on ages 16–89; educational level based on 
ages 18 and over; gender and region based on the general population.
bIndividuals of Hispanic origin are included in the race/ethnicity category under “Hispanic 
Origin”; the remaining race/ethnicity categories include only individuals of non-Hispanic origin. 
Individuals of two or more races (n = 39) are included in the “Other” category.
Table 4.5. Standardization Sample by Age Group
Infant–Preschool Forms School-Age Forms Adult Form
Age range
Parent/Primary 
Caregiver
Teacher/Daycare 
Provider Age range Parent Teacher Age range Self-report
Rated by 
others
0:0–0:3 117 — 5 179 150 16–21 152 150
0:4–0:7 97 — 6 195 186 22–29 165 167
0:8–0:11 100 — 7 192 173 30–39 211 194
1:0–1:3 94 — 8 167 159 40–49 166 151
1:4–1:7 82 — 9 166 161 50–59 132 115
1:8–1:11 96 — 10 158 166 60–69 111 118
2:0–2:5 94 57 11 135 155 70–79 47 65
2:6–2:11 99 63 12 141 138 80–89 30 41
3:0–3:5 81 61 13–14 203 200
3:6–3:11 103 90 15–16 197 199
4:0–4:5 118 108 17–21 138 136
4:6–4:11 129 121
5:0–5:11 161 157
Total 1,371 657 Total 1,871 1,823 Total 1,014 1,001
Note. In the ages 0–5 sample, 2,028 forms were administered to 1,420 individuals, with 545 individuals rated using both the Parent/Primary Caregiver 
and Teacher/Daycare Provider forms. In the ages 5–21 sample, 3,694 forms were administered to 1,896 individuals, with 1,349 individuals rated using 
both the Parent and Teacher forms. In the ages 16–89 sample, 2,015 forms were administered to 1,184 individuals, with 831 individuals rated by self-
report and by others using the Adult Form.
ABAS-3 63Standardization Study
Table 4.6. Standardization Samples Respondent Characteristics
Parent/Primary Caregiver Sample 
(0–5 years)
Category of respondent Percentage
Mother 63.7
Father 27.1
Grandparent 3.9
Other relative 3.8
Other caregiver 1.4
Unknown 0.1
Parent Sample (5–21 years)
Category of respondent Percentage
Mother 70.5
Father 17.5
Grandparent 5.0
Other relative 4.3
Other caregiver 2.6
Unknown 0.1
Teacher/Daycare Provider Sample 
(2–5 years)
Category of respondent Percentage
General education teacher 6.6
Preschool teacher 70.5
Day-care or child care provider 16.6
Other service provider 5.2
Unknown 1.1
Teacher Sample (5–21 years)
Category of respondent Percentage
General education teacher 96.9
Other teacher 2.2
Unknown 1.0
Adult Sample, Rated by Others 
(21–89 years)
Category of respondent Percentage
Mother 16.2
Father 3.6
Wife 18.4
Husband 16.3
Sister 10.5
Brother 4.6
Daughter 4.7
Son 1.4
Aunt 1.8
Uncle 0.9
Other relative 2.3
Roommate 0.4
Romantic friend 6.2
Non-romantic friend 7.8
Coworker 2.4
Professional caregiver 0.3
Teacher 1.9
Other 0.2
Unknown 0.1
64 ABAS-3 Chapter 4 Development and Standardization
Norms Development
Derivation of Adaptive Skill Area 
Scaled Scores
For each age group, the total raw scores of each 
adaptive skill area were converted into scaled scores 
with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The 
raw score distributions were evaluated separately 
in each age stratum. Meaningful departures from 
normality occurred in most distributions, especially 
in the extreme upper and lower age strata. Therefore, 
instead of calculating linear standard scores, normal-
ized raw score distributions were reconstituted from 
percentile ranks in the original raw score distribu-
tions (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).
The normalized distributions were used to estimate 
means and standard deviations for each age group, 
after which smoothing methods were applied. These 
methods use the stable variance of the entire stan-
dardization sample to adjust for random fluctuations 
in variance due to smaller sample sizes within each 
age stratum.
The estimated smoothing curves for the adaptive skill 
area data conformed to simple growth curve expec-
tations—that is, second-order polynomials (steep 
growth in early years, flattening out in later years) 
or third-order polynomials (slow growth in early 
years, steeper growth in middle years, and flattening 
growth toward maturity). Minor hand-smoothing was 
required at the extremes of the standard score distri-
butions to ensure the expected progression of scores 
when a child transitions from one age stratum to the 
next. The scaled score equivalents of adaptive skill 
area raw scores are provided in Appendix A.
For children younger than 1 year, the ABAS-3 does 
not provide norms for the Community Use, Func-
tional Pre-Academics, and Home Living adaptive 
skill areas, because most behaviors in these areas 
have not yet developed in children this young. The 
Community Use adaptive skill area is not included 
on the Teacher/Daycare Provider Form because most 
teachers do not regularly observe their students out-
side of the classroom. The Motor adaptive skill area, 
which measures fine and gross motor development, 
is included only on the Parent/Primary Caregiver and 
Teacher/Daycare Provider forms. The Work adap-
tive skill area is included on the Parent, Teacher, and 
Adult forms but is only completed by respondents if 
the individual has a part-time or full-time job. The 
ABAS-3 does not provide norms for the Work adap-
tive skill area for ages 5 to 16 years on the Parent and 
Teacher forms or for ages 75 to 89 years on the Adult 
Form, because most individuals in these age ranges 
are not employed.
Derivation of the General Adaptive 
Composite and Adaptive Domain 
Standard Scores
To derive the General Adaptive Composite and adap-
tive domain standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15), the 
adaptive skill area scaled scores comprising each 
adaptive domain were summed. The distributions 
of these summedscores were examined for each age 
group and form. In some age ranges, the distributions 
were approximately normal, but in others, there were 
meaningful departures from normality. In particular, 
the upper tails of these distributions were often com-
pressed by ceiling effects (i.e., a high proportion of 
scores at the top of the possible score range) because 
typical adaptive behaviors are well developed for 
most individuals without disabilities.
ABAS-3 65Norms Development
Therefore, instead of calculating linear standard 
scores, normalized raw score distributions were 
reconstituted from percentile ranks in the original 
raw score distributions, using a process similar to 
that described previously for the adaptive skill area 
norms. In this way, the adaptive domain standard 
scores and General Adaptive Composite scores were 
created by transforming the normalized sums of 
scaled scores into standard scores with a mean of 100 
and standard deviation of 15.
The estimated smoothing curves for the composite 
data were not expected to conform to growth curves 
in the same way as the adaptive skill areas, because 
the composite scores are based on sums of scaled 
scores that are already adjusted for age. Therefore, 
only linear equations and second-order polynomials 
were used for smoothing. As described previously, 
minor hand-smoothing was required at the extremes 
of the standard score distributions to ensure the 
expected progression of scores. The standard score 
equivalents of the adaptive domain and general 
adaptive sums of scaled scores are provided in 
Appendix A.
For the Parent/Primary Caregiver Form, the Gen-
eral Adaptive Composite for children ages birth to 
11 months was calculated using only seven adap-
tive skill areas because three of the ten adaptive 
skill areas are not administered to this age group. 
Although the Motor adaptive skill area is used in 
the GAC calculation, it is not used for the adaptive 
domains in this age group. For ages 1 to 5 years 
using the Parent/Primary Caregiver Form, the GAC is 
calculated using all 10 adaptive skill areas. The sums 
of scaled scores for the Teacher/Daycare Provider 
Form were calculated using all nine of the adaptive 
skill areas included on the form. For the school-age 
Parent and Teacher forms, the sums of the scaled 
scores were calculated using only nine of the ten 
adaptive skill areas. The Work adaptive skill area is 
not included in the GAC because it is irrelevant for 
most school-aged children. For the adult norms, 
the Practical adaptive domain and GAC were calcu-
lated with and without the Work adaptive skill area, 
depending on whether or not the individual being 
rated was employed.
Because many typically developing children and 
adults are competent in all areas of adaptive behav-
ior, ABAS-3 score distributions often show ceiling 
effects, where a number of persons achieve high 
scores on the scale due to normal acquisition of 
adequate adaptive behavior being attained by most 
individuals without disabilities. For this reason, 
ABAS-3 standard score tables are truncated at a maxi-
mum score of 120 (1⅓ SD above the mean). Unlike 
measures of intelligence, achievement, and other cog-
nitive qualities, the ABAS-3 measures typical behav-
iors and is not intended to measure “exceptional” or 
“gifted” adaptive behavior. Thus, truncating ABAS-3 
standard scores at a high of 120 will not affect clinical 
usage. The ABAS-3, like other measures of adaptive 
behavior, is used to assess the adaptive skill develop-
ment of those who are expected to display average 
or below-average adaptive skills. The standard score 
tables continue to a lower limit of 40, facilitating 
assessment of individuals with slight deficits to 
severe impairments in adaptive skills.
Derivation of Test-Age Equivalents for 
Adaptive Skill Areas
The ABAS-3 provides test-age equivalents of adaptive 
skill area raw scores for individuals ages 0 to 21 years 
who are rated using the infant–preschool (Parent/
Primary Caregiver or Teacher/Daycare Provider) 
or school-age (Parent or Teacher) forms. A test-age 
equivalent represents the age in years and months 
at which a particular adaptive skill area’s raw score 
is the average score. The ABAS-3 test-age equivalents 
were developed by identifying the adaptive skill 
area raw score (or scores) corresponding to a scaled 
score of 10 for each age group. If the same raw score 
appeared at multiple age groups, it was assigned to 
the middle age group. Interpolation was used when 
necessary to provide a test-age equivalent for a miss-
ing raw score.