MEASURING ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: ISSUES AND INSTRUMENTS

Ronald L. Taylor

doi:10.17161/fec.v18i2.7476

MEASURING ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: ISSUES AND INSTRUMENTS

Focus on Exceptional Children ◽

10.17161/foec.v18i2.7476 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ronald L. Taylor

Keyword(s):

Adaptive Behavior ◽

Behavior Issues

Download Full-text

Social Communication and Structural Language of Girls With High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder

Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools ◽

10.1044/2020_lshss-20-00004 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 51 (4) ◽

pp. 1139-1155

Author(s):

Jenny M. Burton ◽

Nancy A. Creaghead ◽

Noah Silbert ◽

Allison Breit-Smith ◽

Amie W. Duncan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽

Adaptive Behavior ◽

Social Communication ◽

High Functioning Autism ◽

Autism Spectrum ◽

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales ◽

High Functioning ◽

Expressive Communication ◽

Vineland Adaptive Behavior ◽

Structural Language

Purpose The purpose of this study was to characterize social communication and structural language of school-age girls with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (HF-ASD) compared to a matched group of girls who are typically developing (TD). Method Participants were 37 girls between 7;5 and 15;2 (years;months)—18 HF-ASD and 19 TD. Children completed the Test of Pragmatic Language–Second Edition (TOPL-2) and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition. Parents completed the Children's Communication Checklist–2 United States Edition (CCC-2) and Receptive and Expressive Communication subdomains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–Second Edition. Results In the area of social communication, girls with HF-ASD earned significantly lower scores and were more often classified as having an impairment on the TOPL-2 and the CCC-2. However, 28% and 33% earned average scores on the TOPL-2 and the CCC-2, respectively. In the area of structural language, no significant differences were found between groups on Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition indexes. In contrast, girls with HF-ASD earned significantly lower scores and were more often classified as having an impairment on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–Second Edition. Sixty-one percent and 83% scored below average on the Receptive and Expressive Communication subdomains, respectively. Conclusions It has been argued that girls with HF-ASD, when compared to boys with HF-ASD, may have advantages for social communication and structural language that mask their impairments. However, when compared to girls who are TD, girls with HF-ASD demonstrated impaired social communication and structural language. Clinicians should include and carefully examine multiple sources of information when assessing girls with HF-ASD.

Download Full-text