Eleven profoundly retarded residents of an institution for the mentally retarded were rated on the TARC Assessment System (Sailor and Mix, 1975) by three independent observers. A correlational analysis and a point by point agreement analysis were conducted to determine the extent of observer agreement (interrater reliability). The analyses indicated low levels of agreement on several sections of the scale. Implications for assessing the profoundly retarded were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaerD., WolfM., & RisleyT.Some current dimensions in applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 91–97.
2.
BaileyJ.A handbook of research methods in applied behavior analysis. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida State University, 1977.
3.
BillingsleyF., & NeafseyS.Curriculum/training guides: A survey of content and evaluation procedures. AAESPH Review, 1978, 3 (1), 42–57.
4.
CohenM., GrossP., & HaringN.Developmental Pinpoints. In HaringN. & BrownL. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1976.
5.
DollE.Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Minneapolis: American Guidance Service, 1947.
6.
IsettR., & SpreatS.Test-retest and interrater reliability of the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1979, 85, 93–95.
7.
NihiraK., FosterR., ShellhaasM., & LelandH.AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale. Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency, 1975.
8.
SailorW., & HornerR.Educational assessment strategies for the severely handicapped. In HaringN. & BrownL. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1976.
9.
SailorW., & MixB.The TARC Assessment System. Lawrence, Kansas: H & H Enterprises, 1975.
10.
ShearerD., BillingsleyJ., FrohmanA., HilliardJ., JohnsonF., & ShearerM.The Portage Guide to Early Education. Portage, Wis.: Cooperative Educational Service Agency 12, 1972.
