Advertisement

An Evaluation of the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale

  • Luc Lecavalier
Article

Abstract

The Gilliam Autism Rating Scale was developed to identify individuals with autism in research and clinical settings. It has benefited from wide use and acceptance but has received little empirical attention. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct and diagnostic validity, interrater reliability, and effects of participant characteristics of the GARS in a large and heterogeneous sample of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. 360 parent and teacher ratings were submitted to factor analysis. A three-factor solution explaining 38% of the variance was obtained. Almost half of all items loaded on a Repetitive and Stereotyped Behavior factor. The Developmental Disturbance subscale did not contribute to the Autism Quotient (AQ) and was poorly related to other subscales. Internal consistency for the three behavioral subscales was good but low for the Developmental Disturbance subscale. The average AQ was significantly lower than what was reported in the test manual, suggesting low sensitivity with the current cutoff criteria. Interrater reliability was also much lower than originally reported by the instrument’s developer. No significant age or gender effects were found. Level of impairment, as measured by adaptive behavior, was negatively related to total and subscale scores. The implications of these findings were discussed, as was the use of diagnostic instruments in the field in general.

Keywords

Autism rating scale construct validity factor analysis diagnosis children 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Luc Lecavalier is with the Department of Psychology and Nisonger Center, Ohio State University. This research was supported in part by funding from the Ohio Department of Education. The author is thankful to the project coordinators, teachers, and parents for their cooperation. He thanks David Hammer, Martha Tzou, Brighton Hammer, Kim Desilvio, and Kathleen Kraft for their assistance with the project. He also thanks James E. Gilliam for responding to his inquiries and Michael G. Aman and James Wiltz for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. Bartko J. J., (1966). The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability Psychological Reports 19: 3–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berument S. B., Rutter M., Lord C., Pickles A., Bailey A., (1999) Autism screening questionnaire: Diagnostic validity British Journal of Psychiatry 175: 444–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brereton A. V., Tonge B. J., Mackinnon A. J., Einfeld S. L., (2002). Screening young people for autism with the Development Behaviour Checklist Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41: 1369–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browne M. W., (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis Multivariate Behavioral Research 36: 111–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruininks R. H., Woodcock R. W., Weatherman R. F., Hill B. K., (1996). Scales of independent behavior – Revised: Manual. Boston: Riverside Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  6. California Departments of Education and Developmental Services Collaborative Work Group on Autistic Spectrum Disorders. (1997). Best practices for designing and delivering effective programs for individuals with autistic spectrum disorders. Available online at www.feat.org Google Scholar
  7. Cohen I. L., Schmidt-Lackner S., Romanczyk R., Sudhalter V., (2003). The PDD Behavior Inventory: A rating scale for assessing response to intervention in children with pervasive developmental disorderJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 33: 31–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen I. L., (2003). Criterion-related validity of the PDD Behavior InventoryJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 33: 47–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cichetti D. V., (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rule of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychologyPsychological Assessment 6: 284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehlers S., Gillberg C., Wing L., (1999). A screening questionnaire for Asperger syndrome and other high functioning autism spectrum disorders in school age childrenJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 29: 129–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Filipek P. A., Accardo P. J., Ashwal S., Baranek G. T., Cook J. R., et al. (2000). Practice parameter: Screening and diagnosis of autism Neurology, 55: 468–479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Filipek P. A., Accardo P. J., Baranek G. T., Cook E. H., Dawson G., et al. (1999). The screening and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29: 439–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Floyd F., Widaman K. F., (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments Psychological Assessment 7: 286–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilliam J. E., (1995). Gilliam autism rating scale. Austin: ProEdGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilliam J. E., (2001). Gilliam asperger’s disorder scale. Austin: ProEdGoogle Scholar
  16. Guadagnoli E., Velicer W., (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns Psychological Bulletin 103: 265–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krug D. A., Arick J. R., Almond P. J., (1980). Behavior checklist for identifying severely handicapped individuals with high levels of autistic behaviorJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 21: 221–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lecavalier, L., Aman, M. G., Scahill, L., McDouble, C. J., McCracken, J. T., Vitiello, B. et al. (2005). The validity of the autism diagnostic interview—Revised. American Journal on Mental Retardation, Manuscript accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  19. Lord C., (1997). Diagnostic instruments in autism spectrum disorders. In: Cohen D. J., Volkmar F. R., (Eds), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (2nd Ed) New York: Willey pp. 460–483Google Scholar
  20. Lord C., Risi S., Lambrecht L., Leventhal B. L., DiLavore P., et al. (2000). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule – Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autismJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 30: 205–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lord C., Rutter M., Le Couteur A., (1994). The Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disordersJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24: 659–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miranda-Linné F. M., Lennart M., (2002). A factor analytic study of the Autism Behavior ChecklistJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 32: 181–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parks S. L., (1983). The assessment of autistic children: A selective review of available instruments Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 13: 255–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schopler E., Reichler R. J., DeVellis R. F., Daly K. (1980). Toward objective classification of childhood autism: Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS)Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 10: 91–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmitt N., (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alphaPsychological Assessment 8: 350–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Streiner D. L., (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 39: 135–140Google Scholar
  27. South M., Williams B. J., McMahon W. M., Owley T., Filipek P. A., et al. (2002). Utility of the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale in research and clinical populationsJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 32: 593–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tassé M. J., Lecavalier L., (2000). Comparing parent and teacher ratings of social competence and problem behaviorAmerican Journal on Mental Retardation 105: 252–259Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc Lecavalier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Nisonger CenterOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations