Examination of Select Psychometric Characteristics of Independent Living Scales Factors

  • George J. DemakisEmail author


The purpose of this article was to examine select psychometrics of two factors—Performance/Information and Problem Solving—of Managing Money and Health and Safety, two subscales of the Independent Living Scales (ILS). These two factors are designed to assess different cognitive functions. We examined (1) the internal reliability of the subscales and (2) correlations of these subscales with other neuropsychological measures in two samples. One sample consisted of college students (N = 105) and the other of individuals undergoing a court-ordered competency assessment (N = 71) with a range of various developmental, psychiatric, and/or neurological disorders. For both factors on both subscales, we found that the internal reliabilities for the college sample were poor but adequate for the competency-based cases. In contrast, our findings were similar for the correlational analyses for both subscales, where the pattern of correlations was generally not significantly different between both factors and several neuropsychological measures. These tests varied across samples but were assessed a range of abilities including intelligence, attention, processing speed, set shifting, mathematics, verbal fluency, and executive functioning. Implications of these finding are discussed as are ideas for future research.


Independent living scales Activities of daily living Capacity 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (national and institutional).

Animal Rights

No animal studies were carried out by the author of this article.


  1. Baird, A. (2006). Fine tuning recommendation for older adults with memory complaints: Using the independent living scales with the dementia rating scale. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crum, R. M., Anthony, J. C., Bassett, S. S., & Folstein, M. F. (1993). Population-based norms for the mini-mental state examination by age and educational level. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 2386–2391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cullum, C. M., Weiner, M. F., & Saine, K. C. (2009). Texas functional living scale examiner’s manual. San Antonio: Pearson.Google Scholar
  4. Demakis, G. J. (2003). A meta-analytic review of the sensitivity of the Wisconsin card sorting test to frontal and lateralized frontal brain damage. Neuropsychology, 17, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Demakis, G. J., & Reeve, C. L. (2015). Diagnostic differences and demographic predictors of respondents adjudicated civilly incompetent versus competent. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33, 740–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demakis, G. J., Szczepkowski, K., & Johnson, A. (2019). Predictors of financial capacity in young adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 34, 503–510.Google Scholar
  7. Everhart, D. E., Lehockey, K. A., Moran, A. M., & Highsmith, J. M. (2012). Personal care and independence. In G. J. Demakis (Ed.), Civil capacities in clinical neuropsychology: Research findings and practical applications (pp. 139–162). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. M., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). ‘Mini-Mental State’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinical. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaudino, E. Z., Geisler, M. W., & Squires, N. K. (1995). Construct validity in the trail making test: What makes part B harder? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 529–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gladsjo, J. A., Schuman, C. C., Evans, J. D., Peavy, G. M., Miller, S. W., & Heaton, R. K. (1999). Norms for letter and category fluency: Demographic corrections for age, education, and ethnicity. Assessment, 6, 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonzalez, D. A., Soble, J. R., Marceaux, J. C., & McCoy, K. J. M. (2017). An evaluation of the Texas Functional Living Scale’s latent structure and subscales. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greiffenstein, M. F., Baker, J. W., & Gola, T. (1994). Validation of malingering amnesia measures with a large clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 6, 218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin card sorting test manual: Revised and expanded. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  14. Heaton, R. K., Miller, S. W., Taylor, M. J., & Grant, I. (2004). Revised comprehensive norms of an expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: Demographically adjusted neuropsychological norms for African American and Caucasian adults. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  15. Hustyi, K. M., Hall, S. S., Quintin, E. M., Chromik, L. C., Lightbody, A. A., & Reiss, A. L. (2015). The relationship between autistic symptomatology and independent living skills in adolescents and young adults with fragile X syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 45, 1836–1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaufmann, P. (2012). Admissibility of expert opinions based on neuropsychological evidence. In G. J. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach (2nd ed., pp. 70–100). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lange, R. T., Iverson, G. L., Zakrzewski, M. J., Ethel-King, P. E., & Franzen, M. D. (2005). Interpreting the trail making test following traumatic brain injury: Comparison of traditional time scores and derived indices. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 27, 897–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loeb, P. A. (1996). Independent living scales manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. Lowenstein, D. A., Amigo, E., Duara, R., Guterman, A., Hurwitz, D., Berkowitz, N., Wilkie, F., Weinberg, G., Black, B., Gittlelman, B., & Eisdorfer, C. (1989). A new scale for the assessment of functional status in Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 44, 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahoney, F., & Barthel, D. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 12, 61–65.Google Scholar
  21. Mitrushina, M. (2009). Cognitive screening measures. In I. Grant & K. M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychiatric and neuromedical disorders (3rd ed., pp. 101–126). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Quickel, E. J. W., & Demakis, G. J. (2013). The independent living scales in civil competency evaluations: Initial findings and prediction of competency adjudication. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1985). The Halsted-Reitan neuropsychological test battery. Tucson: Neuropsychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Revheim, N., & Medalia, A. (2004). The independent living scales as a measure of functional outcome for schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 55, 1052–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Salmon, D. P., Thomas, R. G., Pay, M. M., Booth, A., Hofstetter, C. R., Thal, L. J., et al. (2002). Alzheimer’s disease can be accurately diagnosed in very mildly impaired individuals. Neurology, 59, 1022–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheehan, T. J., DeChello, L. M., Garcia, R., Fifield, J., Rothfield, N., & Reisine, S. (2000). Measuring disability: Application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL). Journal of Outcome Measurement, 5, 839–863.Google Scholar
  29. Spirrison, C. L., & Pierce, P. S. (1992). Psychometric characteristics of the adult functional and adaptive behavior scale (AFABS). The Gerontologist, 32, 234–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  32. Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler test of adult Reading: WTAR. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  34. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). WRAT4: Wide range achievement test professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological ScienceUniversity of North Carolina CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations