Are Type,Frequency,and Daily Time Equally Valid Estimators of Support Needs in Children With Intellectual Disability? A Multitrait–Multimethod Analysis of the Supports Intensity Scale for Children (SIS-C)

Abstract

Support needs represent the intensity of support required by a person with a disability in order to take part in the activities related to normative human functioning. The Supports Intensity Scale for Children (SIS-C) is possibly the most promising tool for assessing and designing individualized support programs in children with intellectual disability. The SIS-C measures support needs across 61 activities, each one assessed along three methods: type of support, frequency, and daily time during which support is to be given. We investigated the impact of method effects in the SIS-C through a bifactor approach to the analysis of multitrait–multimethod matrices. The results suggest that neither intensity nor frequency scales produced method effects that significantly distorted the measurement of support needs. However, the daily support time method had substantial undesirable effects on five of the seven subscales of support needs. Considerations about support needs assessment and future modifications of the scale are discussed.

Keywords

SIS-C support needs validity reliability intellectual disability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al Baghal

. (2014). Is vague valid? The comparative predictive validity of vague quantifiers and numeric response options. Survey Research Methods, 8, 169-179. doi:10.18148/srm/2014.v8i3.5813

Arias

V. B.

Ponce

F. P.

Núñez

D. E.

(2016). Bifactor models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An evaluation of three necessary but underused psychometric indexes. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191116679260

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397-438. doi:10.1080/10705510903008204

Beauducel

Herzberg

P. Y.

(2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186-203. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230-258.

Buntinx

Van Unen

Speth

Groot

(2006). The Supports Intensity Scale in the Netherlands: Psychometric properties and applications in practice. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 19, 245-246.

Campbell

D. T.

Fiske

D. W.

(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi:10.1037/h0046016

Chou

Y. C.

Lee

Y. C.

Chang

S. C.

A. P.

(2013). Evaluating the Supports Intensity Scale as a potential assessment instrument for resource allocation for persons with intellectual disability. Research on Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2056-2063. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.013

Fortune

Levelle

Meche

Severance

Smith

Stern

. . .Campbell

E. M.

(2008). Resource allocation and Supports Intensity Scale™: Four papers on issues and approaches. In Schalock

R. L.

Thompson

J. R.

Tassé

M. J.

(Eds.), AAIDD SIS white paper series. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved from https://aaidd.org/docs/default-source/sis-docs/siswpresourceallocation.pdf?sfvrsn=0

10.

Gignac

G. E.

Watkins

M. W.

(2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 639-662. doi:10.1080/00273171.2013.804398

11.

Giné

Alomar

Balcells

Borràs

Carasa

Carbó

. . . Vidal

(2006). L’Escala d’Intensitat de Suports (EIS): Un instrument per promoure el benestar de les persones amb discapacitat intel∙lectual [Supports Intensity Scale (SIS): An instrument to promote the well-being of people with intellectual disabilities]. Suports, 10, 66-72.

12.

Giné

Alomar

Carasa

Font

García

Gordillo

. . . González

(2007). Escala d’intensitat dels suports. Manual de l’usuari: Traducció i adaptació de Support Intensity Scale [Supports Intensity Scale: Users’ manual: Translation and adaptation]. Barcelona, Spain: Federació Catalana Pro Persones amb Retard Mental.

13.

Giné

Font

Guárdia-Olmos

Balcells-Balcells

Valls

Carbó-Carrete

(2014). Using the SIS to better align the funding of residential services to assessed support needs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 1144-1151.

14.

Gómez

L. E.

Peña

Alcedo

M. A.

Monsalve

Fontanil

Verdugo

M. A.

. . . Arias

(2014). El constructo de calidad de vida en niños y adolescents con discapacidades multiples y profundas: propuestas para su evaluación [The construct of Quality of Life for children and adolescents with multiple and profound disabilities: a proposal for the assessment]. Siglo Cero, 45(1), 57-69.

15.

Gould

(1998). The Service Need Assessment Profile (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: ATG.

16.

Green

S. B.

Akey

T. M.

Fleming

K. K.

Hershberger

S. L.

Marquis

J. G.

(1997). Effect of the number of scale points on chi-square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 108-120. doi:10.1080/10705519709540064

17.

Griffin

(2013). On the use of latent variable models to detect differences in the interpretation of vague quantifiers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 124-144. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs072

18.

Guillén

Verdugo

M. A.

Adam-Alcocer

Giné

(2017). Comparison between the Spanish and Catalan versions of the Supports Intensity Scale for Children (SIS-C). Psicothema, 29, 126-132. doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.200

19.

Guillén

Verdugo

M. A.

Arias

Vicente

(2015). Desarrollo de una escala de evaluación de necesidades de apoyo de niños y adolescentes con discapacidad intelectual [Development of a support needs assessment scale for children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities]. Anales de Psicología, 31, 137-144. doi:10.6018/analesps.31.1.166491

20.

Hennike

J. M.

(2002). NC-SNAP. Exceptional Parent, 32(9), 56-58.

21.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

22.

Jöreskog

K. G.

(1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109-133.

23.

Little

T. D.

(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

24.

Llewellyn

Parmenter

Chan

Riches

Hindmarsh

(2005). I-CAN: Instrument to classify support needs for people with disability. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: University of Sydney.

25.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

(1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364-390. doi:10.1080/00220973.1996.10806604

26.

Marsh

H. W.

Hocevar

(1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait–multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 107-117. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.107

27.

Marsh

H. W.

Lüdtke

Muthén

Asparouhov

Morin

A. J.

Trautwein

Nagengast

(2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491. doi:10.1037/a0019227

28.

Marsh

H. W.

Morin

A. J.

Parker

P. D.

Kaur

(2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700

29.

McDonald

R. P.

(1967). Nonlinear factor analysis (Psychometric Monographs, No. 15). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Corporation.

30.

Morin

A. J.

Arens

A. K.

Marsh

H. W.

(2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116-139. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.961800

31.

Muñiz

Elousa

Hambleton

R. K.

(2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests [Guidelines for the translation and adaptation of the tests] (2nd ed.). Psicothema, 25, 151-157. doi:10.7334/psicothema2013.24

32.

Muñiz

Hambleton

R. K.

(1996). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests [Guidelines for the translation and adaptation of the tests]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 66, 63-70.

33.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2014). Mplus (Version 7.3) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén

34.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

35.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

36.

Reise

S. P.

(2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555

37.

Revelle

Wilt

(2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 493-504. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.012

38.

Rodriguez

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G.

(2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137-150. doi:10.1037/met0000045

39.

Schalock

R. L.

Borthwick-Duffy

S. A.

Bradley

V. J.

Buntinx

W. H. E.

Coulter

Craig

E. M.

. . . Yeager

M. H.

(2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

40.

Schalock

R. L.

Luckasson

Tassé

M. J.

Verdugo

M. A.

(2018). A holistic theoretical approach to intellectual disability: Going beyond the four current perspectives. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56(2): 79-89.

41.

Schalock

R. L.

Thompson

J. R.

Tassé

M. J.

(Eds.). (2008). International implementation of the Supports Intensity Scale. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

42.

Schalock

R. L.

Verdugo

M. A.

Gómez

L. E.

Reinders

H. S.

(2016). Moving us toward a theory of individual quality of life. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121, 1-12.

43.

Seo

Shogren

K. A.

Little

T. D.

Thompson

J. R.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2016). Construct validation of the Supports Intensity Scale–Children and Adult Versions: An application of a pseudo multitrait-multimethod approach. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121, 550-563. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-121.6.550

44.

Stancliffe

R. J.

Keane

(2000). Outcomes and costs of community living: A matched comparison of group homes and semi-independent living. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 25, 281-305. doi:10.1080/13668250020019584

45.

Tassé

M. J.

Craig

E. M.

(1999). Critical issues in the cross-cultural assessment of adaptive behavior. In Schalock

R. L.

(Ed.), Adaptive behavior and its measurement: Implications for the field of mental retardation (pp. 161-180). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

46.

Ten Berge

J. M.

Socan

. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613-625. doi:10.1007/BF02289858

47.

Thompson

J. R.

Bradley

V. J.

Buntinx

W. H. E.

Schalock

R. L.

Shogren

K. A.

Snell

M. E.

. . . Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2009). Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 135-146. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.135

48.

Thompson

J. R.

Bryant

Campbell

E. M.

Craig

E. M.

Hughes

Rotholz

D. A.

. . . Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2004). Supports Intensity Scale user’s manual. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

49.

Thompson

J. R.

Hughes

Schalock

R. L.

Silverman

Tassé

M. J.

Bryant

. . . Campbell

E. M.

(2002). Integrating supports in assessment and planning. Mental Retardation, 40, 390-405. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0390:-ISIAAP>2.0.CO;2

50.

Thompson

J. R.

Viriyangkura

(2013). Supports and support needs. In Wehmeyer

M. L.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp.317-337). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

51.

Thompson

J. R.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Hughes

(2010). Mind the gap! Implications of person-environment fit model of intellectual disability for students, educators, and schools. Exceptionality, 18, 168-181. doi:10.1080/09362835.2010.513919

52.

Thompson

J. R.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Hughes

Shogren

K. A.

Seo

Little

T. D.

. . . Schalock

(2016). Supports Intensity Scale-Children’s Version: User’s manual. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

53.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

54.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of people with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/instruments/docs_en.asp

55.

van Loon

. (2009). Uso de la escala de intensidad de apoyos en la práctica: Asignación de recursos y planificación de apoyos individuales basados en la escala de intensidad de apoyos [Using the Supports Intensity Scale in practice: Resource allocation and planning individual supports based on the Supports Intensity Scale]. Siglo Cero, 40(1), 54-66.

56.

Verdugo

M. A

Arias

Guillén

Seo

Shogren

K. A.

Shaw

L. A.

. . . Thompson

J. R.

(2016). Examining age-related differences in support needs on the Supports Intensity Scale-Children’s Version-Spanish translation. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16, 306-314. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.06.002

57.

Verdugo

M. A.

Arias

Guillén

Vicente

(2014). Escala de Intensidad de Apoyos para Niños y Adolescentes (SIS-C) en el contexto español [The Supports Intensity Scale for children (SIS-C) in the Spanish context]. Siglo Cero, 45(1), 24-40.

58.

Verdugo

M. A.

Arias

Ibáñez

(2007). Escala de Intensidad de Apoyos (SIS) manual: Adaptación española [Supports Intensity Scale-SIS Manual: Spanish Version]. Madrid, Spain: TEA.

59.

Verdugo

M. A.

Arias

Ibáñez

Schalock

R. L.

(2010). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS). American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 115, 496-503. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-115.6.496

60.

Verdugo

M. A.

Arias

Navas

(2014). La Escala de Diagnóstico de la Conducta Adaptativa (DABS): Aplicaciones prácticas [The Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale (DABS): Practical usefulness]. Siglo Cero, 45(1), 8-23.

61.

Verdugo

M. A.

Guillén

Arias

Vicente

Badia

(2016). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Supports Intensity Scale for Children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49-50, 140-152. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.11.022

62.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Chapman

T. E.

Little

T. D.

Thompson

J. R.

Schalock

R. L.

Tasse

M. J.

(2009). The efficacy of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) to predict extraordinary support needs. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 114, 3-14. doi:10.1352/2009.114:3-14

63.

Widaman

K. F.

(1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-26.

64.

Wright

D. B.

Gaskell

G. D.

O’Muircheartaigh

C. A.

(1997). How response alternatives affect different kinds of behavioural frequency questions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 443-456. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01143.x

65.

C. Y.

(2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/Yudissertation.pdf

66.

Zinbarg

R. E.

Revelle

Yovel

(2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω_H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123-133. doi:10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7

67.

Zinbarg

R. E.

Yovel

Revelle

McDonald

R. P.

(2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ω_h. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121-144. doi:10.1177/0146621605278814