Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 367–375

Convergent Reliability and Validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function and the Motivation Assessment Scale: A Replication Study

  • Karrie A. Shogren
  • Johannes Rojahn
Article

Abstract

This study compared key psychometric properties of the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) and explored their convergent validity. Twenty adults with mental retardation and problem behaviors (aggression, self-injury, or property destruction) and 31 respondents participated. Test–retest reliability of the subscales in both scales was good to excellent (Cicchetti, D. V., 1994, Psychol. Assess. 6: 284–290), and—except for 1 QABF subscale—internal consistency was good considering the small number of items and the purpose of the scale. Consistent with some earlier studies, interrater reliability was less satisfactory with both scales falling only into the fair to good range.Correlations between functionally equivalent subscales were statistically significant and were generally higher than correlations between nonequivalent subscales. The QABF and the MAS were found to be comparable in terms of the assessed reliabilities, and both instruments appear to be measuring very similar constructs.

Functional assessment behavior problems mental retardation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bihm, E. M., Kienlen, T. L., Ness, M. E., and Poindexter, A. R. (1991). Factor structure of the Motivation Assessment Scale for persons with mental retardation. Psychol. Rep. 68: 1235-1238.Google Scholar
  2. Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychol. Bull. 84: 800-816.Google Scholar
  3. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol. Assess. 6: 284-290.Google Scholar
  4. Duker, P. C., and Sigafoos, J. (1998). The Motivation Assessment Scale: Reliability and construct validity across three topographies of behavior. Res. Dev. Disabil. 19: 131-141.Google Scholar
  5. Durand, M. V., and Crimmins, D. B. (1983). A preliminary report on an instrument which assesses the functional significance of children's deviant behavior. Paper Presented at the Berkshire Association for Behavior Analysis and Therapy, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Durand, M. V., and Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 18: 99-117.Google Scholar
  7. Hauck, F. (1985). Development of a behavior-analytic questionnaire precising four functions of self-injurious behavior in the mentally retarded. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 8: 350-352.Google Scholar
  8. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., and Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Anal. Intervention Dev. Disabil. 2: 3-20.Google Scholar
  9. Matson, J. L., and Vollmer, T. R. (1995). The Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) User's Guide, Scientific Publishers, Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
  10. Newton, J. T., and Sturmey, P. (1991). The Motivation Assessment Scale: Interrater reliability and internal consistency in a British sample. J. Ment. Deficiency Res. 35: 472-474.Google Scholar
  11. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., and Vollmer, T. R. (2000). Questions about behavior function (QABF): A behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior. Res. Dev. Disabil. 21: 223-229.Google Scholar
  13. Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., and Vollmer, T. R. (2001). Assessment of the convergent validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale with analogue functional analysis and the Motivation Assessment Scale. J. Intellectual Disabil. Res. 45: 484-494.Google Scholar
  14. Reiss, S. (1988). Test Manual for the Reiss Screen for Maladaptive Behavior, International Diagnostic Systems, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  15. Shrout, P. E., and Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 86: 420-428.Google Scholar
  16. Sigafoos, J., Kerr, M., and Roberts, D. (1994). Interrater reliability of the Motivation Assessment Scale: Failure to replicate with aggressive behavior. Res. Dev. Disabil. 15: 333-342.Google Scholar
  17. Spreat, S., and Connelly, L. (1996). Reliability analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale. Am. J. Ment. Retard. 100: 528-532.Google Scholar
  18. Sturmey, P. (1994). Assessing the functions of aberrant behaviors: A review of psychometric instruments. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 24: 293-304.Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, S., and Emerson, E. (1995). Inter-observer agreement on the Motivation Assessment Scale: Another failure to replicate. Ment. Handicap Res. 8: 203-208.Google Scholar
  20. Van Houten, R., and Rolider, A. (1991). Applied behavior analysis. In Matson, J. L., and Mulick, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Mental Retardation, 2nd edn., Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 569-585.Google Scholar
  21. Wieseler, N. A., Hanson, R. H., Chamberlain, T. P., and Thompson, T. (1985). Functional taxonomy of stereotypic and self-injurious behavior. Ment. Retard. 23: 230-234.Google Scholar
  22. Zarcone, J. A., Rodgers, T. A., Iwata, B. A., Rourke, D. A., and Dorsey, M. F. (1991). Reliability analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale: A failure to replicate. Res. Dev. Disabil. 12: 349-360.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karrie A. Shogren
    • 1
  • Johannes Rojahn
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of KansasLawrence
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityFairfax

Personalised recommendations