Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:40:36.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability of a conductive education rating scale for assessing children with multiple disabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Jeff Sigafoos ,
Donna Couzens  and
Stephanie Gunn
Jeff Sigafoos*
Affiliation:
Fred And Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University Of Queensland
Donna Couzens
Affiliation:
Fred And Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University Of Queensland
Stephanie Gunn
Affiliation:
Fred And Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University Of Queensland
*
Schonell Special Education Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Qld 4072 Australia, Telephone: 07 365-6486, j.sigafoos@mailbox.uq.oz.au
Get access

Abstract

Adaptive behaviour scales represent an alternative to standardised intelligence tests for assessing children with multiple disabilities. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the reliability of an adaptive behaviour scale used in Hungarian Conductive Education programs for children with neurological impairments. Forty-five children with multiple disabilities were assessed on two separate occasions by their teachers and physiotherapists. Scores were compared across raters (interobserver agreement) and across the two assessment occasions (test-retest reliability). Interobserver agreement averaged 55.5%, and the overall test-retest reliability was 75%. Suggestions for improving interobserver agreement and test-retest reliability are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , November 1994 , pp. 12 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruininks, R.H., Hill, B.K., Weatherman, R.F., & Woodcock, R.W. (1986). Inventory for agency planning. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.Google Scholar
Cottam, P.J., & Sutton, A. (Eds.). (1986). Conductive education: A system for overcoming motor disorder. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Duncan, D., Sbardellati, E., Maheady, L., & Sainato, D. (1981). Nondiscriminatory assessment of severely physically handicapped individuals. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 17–22.Google Scholar
Hári, M., & Ákos, K. (1988). Conductive education (Smith, N.H. & Stevens, J. Trans.). London: Tavistock/Routledge. (Original work published 1971.)Google Scholar
Hong Kong Working Group on Conductive Education (1992). Conductive Education in Hong Kong. Focus: Education. Hong Kong: Author.Google Scholar
Hupp, S.C., & Donofrio, M.N. (1983). Assessment of multiply and severely handicapped learners for the development of cross-referenced objectives. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 17–28.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nihira, K., Foster, R., Shellhaas, M., & LeLand, H. (1974). The AAMD Adaptive Behaviour Scale manual. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.Google Scholar
Reuter, J., & Bickett, L. (1985). The manual of the Kent infant development scale (2nd ed.). Kent, OH: Kent Developmental Metrics.Google Scholar
Sailor, W., & Mix, B. (1975). The Topeka association for retarded citizen’s assessment system. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1985). Assessment in special education (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sigafoos, J., Cole, D.A., & McQuarter, R.J. (1987). Current practices in the assessment of students with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar