The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Part II: reliability and validity

Background  The Behavior Problems Inventory‐01 (BPI‐01) is an informant‐based behaviour rating instrument for intellectual disabilities (ID) with 49 items and three sub‐scales: Self‐injurious Behavior, Stereotyped Behavior and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior. The Behavior Problems Inventory‐Short Fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of intellectual disability research Vol. 56; no. 5; pp. 546 - 565
Main Authors Rojahn, J., Rowe, E. W., Sharber, A. C., Hastings, R., Matson, J. L., Didden, R., Kroes, D. B. H., Dumont, E. L. M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2012
Wiley-Blackwell
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background  The Behavior Problems Inventory‐01 (BPI‐01) is an informant‐based behaviour rating instrument for intellectual disabilities (ID) with 49 items and three sub‐scales: Self‐injurious Behavior, Stereotyped Behavior and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior. The Behavior Problems Inventory‐Short Form (BPI‐S) is a BPI‐01 spin‐off with 30 items. Methods  The psychometric properties of these two versions of the scale were computed using aggregated archival data from nine different sites in the USA, Wales, England, the Netherlands and Romania with a total of 1122 cases with a BPI‐01 total score >0. Results  The internal consistency of the BPI‐01 and the BPI‐S ranged from fair to excellent with the BPI‐01 showing slightly stronger reliability. Construct validity (confirmatory and discriminant) was computed by comparing BPI sub‐scale scores with the scores of four other behaviour rating scales (the Aberrant Behavior Checklist, the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped‐II, the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form and the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning). Strong evidence for confirmatory and discriminant validity was found for both the BPI‐01 and the BPI‐S. Confirmatory fit indices for the BPI and the BPI‐S were comparable and suggesting that the factor structures fit the data well. Conclusion  In summary, both BPI versions were found to be equally sound psychometrically and can be endorsed for future use. However, independent future studies are needed to replicate the psychometrics of the BPI‐S with new data.
Bibliography:ark:/67375/WNG-D7DV9G6F-M
ArticleID:JIR1506
istex:885A6F0C1F8B1E40430D2AEAC2F3CD353087D49A
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0964-2633
1365-2788
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01506.x