Download VSMS Profile, Scoring and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED (^080 614) TM 003 133
AUTHOR Pedrini, D. T.; Pedrini, Bonnie C.
TITLE (^) An Evaluation of and a Detail-Profile for the PUB DATE Vineland^ Social^ Maturity^ Scale.
NOTE [73]
24p. EDRS PRICE (^) MF-80.65 BC-83. DESCRIPTORS Behavior Rating Scales; Clinical Diagnosis; Evaluation;Preschool Children;Interviews; Profile *Mentally Evaluation; Handicapped; *Scoring; IDENTIFIERS *Social^ Maturity;^ Test^ Reviews *Vineland Social Maturity Scale ABSTRACT measure of adaptive^ The^ Vinelandbehavior Socialfor the^ Maturitypre-school^ Scale child^ (VSMS) or the^ is^ a^ good retardate of pre-school ability..It is an excellent clinical technqiue. It is more than a questionnaire and more thana rating scale. We recommend it as an interview and behavior-observation scale. We recommend it for treatment (developmental, corrective, remedial, training, and educational) purposes. The VSMS has a long history and appears to have inspired many other scales. Considered in this paper are strengths and weaknesses of the VSMS and a detail
profile to held in interpretation and treatment. (Author/DB)
1
RI^ FILMEDFROMBESTAVAILABLE
COPY
AN EVALUATION OF AND A DETAIL-PROFILE FOR
THE VINELAND SOCIAL MAInITY SCALE
D. T. Pedrini and Bonnie C. Pedrini
USDEPARTMENTOFHEALTH. EDUCATIONWELFARE THISDOCUMENTHAS^ NATIONALINSTITUTEOF^ EDUCATION DUCEDEXACTLYASRECEIVEDTHEPERSONORORGANIZATIONBEENREPROFROM ATINGITPOINTSOFVIEW STATEDDONOTNECESSARILYOROPINIONSORIGIN SENTOFFICIALNATIONALEDUCATIONPOSITIONORPOLICYINSTITUTEOFREPPE
University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska 68101
Abstract The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSTIS) is a goodneasure of adantive behavior for the pre-school child or the retardate of nre-school ability. It is an excellent clinical teChnioue. (^) It is more than a questionnaire and more than a rating scale. We recommend it as an interview and behavior-observation scale. We recommend it for treatment (developmental, corrective, remedial, training, and educational) nurposes. (^) The VSMS has a long history x+4 annears to here inspired rani other scales. (^) Con-
CI) sidered^ in^ this^ naner^ are^ strengthsand^ weaknesses^ of^ the^ VSMS^ and a Ce,.) detail profile to help in i.ternretation and treatment. (^) A Table of Contents follows.
e
AN EVALUATION OF AND A DETAIL-- PROFILE FOR
THE VINELAND SOCIAL MATURITY SCALE
Doll (1947, 1953, 1965) in his Vineland Social Maturity Scale attempts to measure social maturity, intelligence, and competency. This technique has a history of indebteAness (Doll, 1953,4pp. 4-0), but none- theless made a unique contribution in theyear it was first published (Doll, 1935a, 1935b, 1935c). (^) Personal-social maturation is an area of critical importance vhen one works with children and/or retardates. The American Association on Mental Deficiency in earlier Manuals (Heber, 1959, 1961b) and esnecially in its current Manual (Grossman, 1973, pp. 11-21) stresses the imnortance of adaptive behavior inan evaluation of retardation. Heber (1961b, p. 61) further states that "The Vineland Social Maturity Sc%le is perhaps the best single measure of Adantive Behavior currently available." (^) This was undoubtedly true, though other scales are nog available andare being researched (!pros, 1961, 1965, 1972).
Interviewing and Scoring The VSMS may bz. administered according to standard procedures (Doll, 1953, Dn. 266-283, et Passim)or accordinR to special procedures (Doll, 1953, pp. 291-298, 471, et passim). (^) If administered according to special procedures, Doll (1953, n. 291) says, "...such results should be cautiously interpreted since normative data andcorrelative evidence on reliability, validity, and nrobableerror of measurement have not yet been systematically established." (^) Denartures from standard
arlinge...
1
procedures, then, should be avoided if Possible. The^ standard^ procedure mentioned by Doll (1153, nn. 347 -358) in his normative standardization (n = 629) did not appear to include the presence of the subject uncle:: discussion. Therefore,^ Doll^ (1947;^ 1953,^ pn.^ 3,^ 268,^ 449,^ 459; 1965) not only allows the examination of a subject in absentia (also^ called indirect examination), but he recommends it. In^ fact,^ he^ states^ that "...to know or to see the subject...usually nrejudices the examination." (Doll, 1953, p. 268) This^ is^ possible,^ but^ hopefully^ the^ skilled examiner should have had better training and education, and if^ so^ could turn his knowledge to advantage. Also,^ the^ informant^ is^ a^ major^ variable of true and/or error variance. How^ is^ one^ to^ differentiate?^ by ascertaining the Enowledpeabilitv (validity?) and veracity (reliability?) of the informant: flow^ many^ tines^ have^ we^ heard,^ "Oh,^ I^ didn't^ know^ he could do that." And,^ informants^ are^ usually^ emotionally^ involved^ with the subjects and many lose their objectivity. We^ should^ not^ expect otherwise. Internal^ consistency^ procedures^ (within^ the^ Scale)^ are helnful, but external consistency procedures (seeing thesubject^ per- form) are better. The^ informant^ and/or^ the^ interviewer^ can^ work^ with the subject and thereby improve the data collection. After^ all,^ we are interested in what the subject^ does,^ and^ not^ just^ what^ the^ informant says he does. The^ "burden^ of^ nroof"^ is^ on^ the^ intervIew:r. Doll (1953, pn. 271-276) gives a few good examples of interview- discussion, and that format should be followed in questioning.^ A Vineland interviewer would do well to formulate general-discussion questions dealinfl with snecific series of items. This^ technique^ is easier to learn by example, rather than by precept. (See^ Table^ 1.)
consecutive scores +, +NO, +, of course the 4N0 1 in value; -, +NO, -, of course the +NO = 0 in value; or +, +NO, -, of course the +NO .5 in value. (^) But what about +, +NO, +? or -, +NO, 4? or +, +NO, +? Or what about reversals of the examnle, just cited? Or what about multiple consecutive +NO's? (^) Doll (1964) recommends considering the range of scores before assigning a numerical value to +NO. In the protocols of most clients, the nroblems cited would apnear rarely. However, with retardates the +NO score seems to appear more than rarely (Doll, 1953, pp. 409-410). This might also be true of special-education or srecial- psychology problem clients (parents or children). Doll (1953, p. 287) suggests at least two plus scores (basal) and two minus scores (maximal) at the beginning and end of each category, resrectively. (^) We would recommend at least three of each, especially when vorking with retardates (or snecial-prdblem clients?) for as Doll (1953, nn. 412-413) has indicated, they appear to scatter nearly twice as much as his normative group. In Doll's book (1953, p. 290) and condensed manual (1947, 1965), social ages listed in terms of months or years-and-months (base 12) would have been helpful, not just social ages listed in terms of decimals or years-and-decimals (base 10). Doll (1)53, p. 291) gives a rationale for inclusion of decimals rather than months, but months or years-and-months are more comparable to other intelligence scales, measured or adaptive. One can convert the social-age decimal tables to months and then write in the anprorriate values. Social ages of .01, .06, .09, .1 and .12 1 month; .15, .18 and .2 2 months: .21, .24, and .26 3 months; .3, .32, and .35 4 months:^ .38,^ .4,
. 41, and .44 5 months; .47, .5, and .53 =, h months: .5A, .59, .A, and . 62 7 months; .65, .68, and .7 8 months; .71, .74, .77, .79, and 9 months; .8, .83, and .S5 = 10 nontbs: .e9, .9, .nl, .n4 = 11 months: and .97, 1.'), and 1.02 = 1 Year. The condensed manual of directions has a long history (Doll, 193'b, 1947, 1965) and it should he revised and brought further un to date. This could be done, for example, by abstracting parts of Chanters 1, 4, A, and 7 of Doll's (1953) book. At^ a^ minimum,^ the^ more^ detailed^ scoring^ pro- cedures in Chapter 7 should he included in a new condensed manual. This woU14 be very helpful to examiners rho use the condensed manual (Doll, 1947, 1965) during interview procedures and the book (Dori, 1953) as a resource. Standardization There is the problem of cultural bias, but not only for the Vineland Social Maturity Scale (Doll, 1953, pp, 38-389, 487-505). The^ person^ of^ low socio-economic status or from a culturally-disadvantaged family might not do as well on the Vineland. Conversely, a person of high socio-economic status or from a culturally-advantaged family might do better. The^ ,es- tions of cause and effect, capacity and ability, biology and sociology, nature and nurture, basic and apparent differences are important here. No psychological test measures so-called innate intelligence. The^ culture- free tests are a misnomer. The^ culture-fair^ tests^ allot^ higher.,scores for the culturally disadvantaged, relative to the more usual tests. But, the culture-fair tests also allot higher scores for the culturally advan- taged, relative to the culturally disadvantaged (Anastasi, 19S). The problems of cultural bias are being considered, but they have not been solved.
r 9
of ratio intelligence- quotients (Terinn, 1916;^ Terman^ &^ Merrill,^ 1937; McNemar, 1942) finally changed to deviation intelligence-^ quotients^ (Terman & Merrill, 1960, 1973; Pinneau, 1961). The^ Vineland^ in^ its^ next standnrdization should do likewise.
Items and Categories Item inclusion on the Vineland ranpesfrom^ thirty-four^ items^ at^ year 0-I to three items at yerr IX-X to twelve items^ at^ year^ XXV+.^ This^ is true if one evaluates the Vineland as an age scale.^ Doll^ (1953,^ pn.^ 48-53) claims age or year-scale and point-scale^ advantages^ for^ the^ Vineland. A better balance is needed year-by-year in^ terms^ of^ nuMber^ of^ items^ and kind of items. For one Point, the Vineland scoring systemgives^ about^ one-month^ of social age at the lower levels, but about one -veerof^ social^ agl^ at^ the upper levels. In^ other^ words,^ there^ is^ not^ em,uph^ sampling^ of^ ability at the upper levels. Hence^ "...at^ the^ ore^ -^ school level,^ the^ Vineland Social Maturity Scale is fairly adequate as a measure of^ Adantive Behavior." (Heber,^ 1961b,^ p.^ 63)^ It^ may^ need^ sem^ supplementing,^ but not supplanting. But,^ aChievement^ tests^ aredefint%ely^ needed^ and recommended at the school-age level; and^ at^ the^ adult^ level,^ social^ and vocational judgments in a family cadcommunity^ context^ are^ recommended. In essence, then, one can infer that the^ Vineland^ appears^ most^ useful for the pre - school child or the retardate of^ pre-school^ ability. The inclusion of a senarate Self -Helm general-activities^ category is of doubtful value (Pedrini S Pedrini,^ 1966). The^ items^ of^ this category could be included in theother^ categories.^ Herein,^ factor
seventeen), however, are high "hen one considers the retardate's range of abilities. (^) In other ords, for retardates, item analysis above item seventy-five is not as important or adequate as iten analysis of seventy- five and beloy. If the "retardate" scored much higher, would he be retarded? The questionable aspect of this kind of iron analysis is the confotmdinr of criteria and test, input and output, background and fore- ground. Doll^ uses^ social-age^ means^ for^ the^ retarded^ in^ contrasting item difficulty, in assessing item discrimination. The relationship is directly dependent and correlated, yet this is not taken into account statistically. In Jefense, one might say that life age is also related to social age and the Scale items, so what difference does it make if one uses social-age means for the retardates? The dif- ference is that the items directly cumulate to give social age, not life age. External^ criteria^ are^ better^ than^ internal^ criteria. In considering item analysis and validation through between-group procedures, Doll (1953, pp. 401-406) contrasts items for life-age means of "normals" and social-age means of retardates. The criticism mentioned for the item analysis of protocols of retardates applies here. One might question the use of critical ratio (Cr.), a rather old - fashioned and infrequently used statistic, in the various item analyses of the Scale (Doll, 1953, pp. 71-259, 366-367, 372, 402, 406). Despite its limitations, however, CR is still acceptable "witchcraft." Appropriate significant-difference tests of one kind or another should be applied in the item analyses between years, sexes, and other groupings. Correlation coefficients would also add to the analyses, however, and should be included in the next standardization.
The number and quality of studies generated by the scale, or at least the number of studies which include the scale may give some notion as to its value. Some scales (especially self-report techniques) remain vainglorious atterpts to extend the self rather than attempts to con- tribute to the science and art of psychology (not so the Vineland). And some scales seem to markedly penalize subgroups in our culture, without adequate justification. (For a discussion, see Pedrini & Pedrini, 1972, 1973a.) Doll's VSYS (1953, passim) seems much fairer since it deals with adaptive behavior (or social competency), an antidote to narrow IQ testing. (As an illustration, see Grossman, 1973, pp. 13-14.)
Scatter and Profiles What of scatter analysis in the Vineland? As an analogy, Rapaport, Gill, and Schafer (1945, pp. 48-78, 551-558, et passim; Holt, 1968, pp. 161-171, et passim) discuss various kinds of scatter analyses in the Wechsler Scales. (^) Cronbach (1960) warns that "Only unusually large differences between subtests (greater than 3 scaled-score units) should be taken seriously." Wechsler (1944, pp. 149, 152-153; 1958, p. 170) discusses the computation of deviations from a mean as well as "hard" and "soft" signs. (^) Seybold and Pedrini (1964) discuss the problems of applying these criteria to protocols of persons with borderline or retarded intelligence. Wechsler in his earlier hook (1944, p. 149) shows how to compute the deviation scores for borderlines and retardates, but in his later book (1958), he does not include the procedure. Nor is it included by Matarazzo (1972).
The fame analogous problems arc apparent for the Binet Scales (Rapaport, (ill, & Schafer,^ I '45,^ pn.^ 42-43,^ 548-552;^ Holt,^ 1968, PP. 74-80, 158-160)^ and^ the^ Vineland,^ only^ in^ terms^ cf^ nuotient^ scores (IQ or SQ) rather than subtest scores. Dol!^ (1953,^ p.^ 500)mentions^ the convention of considering "...less than 1 SD as not significcnt more than 2 SD as significant, with due regard for^ sampling^ and^ other
allowances." (SD^ means^ standard^ deviation.)^ But,^ the^ SD^ varies^ year by year on the Vineland (though not on the S-B L-'4), as mentioned
previously. What point values should one consider? Should^ it^ be the point values for the separate life ages? Should^ one^ assume^16 points for 1 SD following the S-B L-M? (Doll^ already^ follows^ the Binet for life-age computation: for^ 16+^ days,^ one^ gives^ the^ next month.) Should^ one^ assume^15 points^ for^1 SD^ following^ the^ Wechsler Scales? Again, the problems are even more complicated in working with the retarded. The^ retardate's^ overall^ scores^ are^ much^ lower^ in^ value. If one needs 30 or 32 points for 2 SD's, significant deviations^ will in most cases be eliminated. There^ would^ be^ few^ rejections^ of^ the null hypothesis (between extreme items and the mean of the person's scores) and this might be unrealistic. One^ could,^ if^ the^ year-by-year SD's were the same for SQ's (as in the S-B L-M and the WechslerScales), scramble, compute a ratio, and^ \ thereby theoretically arrive at a significant-deviation value. On^ the^ S-B^ le-M,^ for^ example,^ the obtained IQ is to 100, as X (unknown 2 SD) is to 32 (2^ SD).^ Using
an illustration, suppose we obtained an IQ^ of^60 on^ the^ L-74:^ 0/
X/32, therefore X = 19. For^20 or^ more^ points,^ then,^ we^ would^ have
Pedrini and Pedrini (1973b) also presented an efficient, short, summary profile. A detail profile is now included (different from the above) in Tables 3 and 4. (^) Table 4 can fit under Table 3 to make one continuous record, combining point scale and age scale characteristics. Note that the first and last columns list the social age (SA) eauiva- lents. (^) Space is available to record the snecific scores for each applicable item. (^) This allows ready reference to variability within, between, and among areas. At this time, one should not attempt to quantify such variability because of all the vagaries noted above. Nonetheless, the listing can be very helpful in noting the minuses within pluses or vice versa, the no-opportunity or plus -minus scores, within and between areas. This kind of information could be very helpful in counseling, in therapy, in teaching, in programming, etc. The beauty of the VSNS is that it lends itself directly to adaptive or competency behavior. Table 2 is a listing of the Vineland iters (and eventually scores) as an age scale rather than as a point scale. (^) This kind of listing could be helpful for general and normative information. Hopefully, however, the focus of the Vineland will be losative treatment.
Peferences
Anastasi, Anne. Psychological^ testing.^ New^ York: "acrillan,^ 1°68, pp. 250-254. Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The^ nineteen^ tbirtv eir.bt^ rental^ reasurerentsYearbook. New Brunswick, N. J.: Putg,ers^ Univ.,^ 1°38. Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The^ third^ rental^ reaqurerents Yearhoob.^ Neu Brunswick, N. J.: Putpers^ 191t9. Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The^ fourth^ rental^ neasurerents Yearbook.^ Highland Park, N. J.: rryphon,^ 1°53. Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The^ fifth^ rental^ reasurcrents yearbook.^ Highland Park, N. J.: rrvilbon,^ 195°. Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) Tests^ in^ Print.^ Fighland^ Park,^ V.^ J.:^ cryphon,^ 1961. Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) Thesixth^ rental^ measurerents vearbool..^ PiPhland Park, N. J.: rryphon,^ 1965. Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) Theseventh^ rental^ measurements yearbook.^ HiPhland Park, N. J.: Crynhon,^ 1972. Cronbach, L. J. Essentials^ of^ PsvcholoPical testing.^ Neu^ York: Harper, 1960, p. 201. See^ also^ the^ 3rd^ ed., 1970,^ D.^ 224. Doll, E. A. A^ genetic^ scale^ of social^ maturity.^ American^ Journal^ of Orthoisvchiatrv, 1935, 5, 1R0-1R8.^ (a) Doll, E. A. The^ measurement^ of^ social competence.^ Proceedings^ of the American Association on"ental^ Deficiency, 1935,^ 40, 103-123. (b) Doll, E. A. The^ Vineland^ SocialMaturity^ Scale. TraininP^ School Bulletin, 1935, 32, 1-7,^25 -32,^ 4R^ -55,^ 6P-74.^ (c) Doll, E. A. Preliminary^ standardization of^ the^ Vineland^ Social"aturity Scale. American^ Journal^ of0rthorsvchlatrv,^ 1936,^ 6, 2P3-2°3.^ (a)
Polt, P. R. (Ed.) Diagnostic^ nsveholwrical testily=^ by^ rananort, (ill, and
Schafer. (Rev.^ ed.)^ New^ York: International^ Universities
Press, 1968. matarazzo, J. D. Wechsler's^ measurement and^ annralsal of^ adult^ intelli- pence. Baltimore:^ Williams^ &Wi3lcins, 1972. /felemar, /1. The^ revision^ of the^ Stanford-Tlinetscale.^ Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942. Pedrini, Bonnie C., &^ Pedrini,^ D. T.^ Classifying^ excentional
children and
adolescents. 1972.^8 napes.^ EDPS^ order^ nunber ED n64 nr. ERIC Clearinghouse on Excentional^ Children, EC^042 573.^ Abstract^ in FIE, 1972. Pedrini, Ronnie C., &^ Pedrini,^ D. T.^ Intelligent^ intelligence testing.
- 7 pages.^ EDPS^ order^ number ED^ n60^ 694.^ EPIC Clearinghouse on Tests, measurement,^ andEvaluation,^ Tm^ nn2 145.^
Abstract in PIE,
- (a) Pedrini, D. T., & Pedrini,^ Bonnie^ C.^ Vineland^ socialmaturity^ scale profile. Unpublished^ paper, 1973.^ (b) Pedrini, D. T., &Pedrini,^ tura^ N.^ The^ VinelandSocial^ maturity Scale: Recommendations foradministration,^ scoring and^ analysis.^ Journal of SchoolPsychology,^ 1966, 5,^ 14-20. Pinneau, S. R. Changes^ in^ intelligencenuotient,^ infancy^ tomaturity. Boston: Houghton^ Mifflin, 1961. Rapaport, D., (ill,u.,^ &^ Schafer,^ R.^ Diagnostir nc..,:nolonical^ testing. Vol. 1. Chicago:^ Year^ Book Publishers,^ 194; Sevhold, r. R., &^ Pedrini,^ D.^ T.^ The^ relation^ 'ietveenWechsler-Bellevue subtests andacademic^ ahicevement using^ institutionalized retardates. Psychiatric Quarterly,1Q64,^ 38,^ 635-650.
4
Terman, L. M. The^ measureoent^ of^ intellirence.^ Boston:^ Boughton Mifflin, 1916. Terman, L. M.,& Merrill, Maud A. measuring^ intelli,,ence.^ Boston: Boughton Mifflin, 1937. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, Maud A. Stanford-Binet^ Tntelligence^ Scale. Boston: Uougbton^ Mifflin,^ 196n.^ Nevely^ norred^ in^ 1173. Wechsler, D. The^ nensuremnt^ of^ adult intelligence.^ Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1944. Wechsler, D. The^ neasurerent^ and^ annraisalof^ adult^ intelligence. Baltinore: Williams^ &Wilkins,^ 1955.
