Psychometric Comparison of the Functional Assessment Instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for Self-injurious, Stereotypic and Aggressive/Destructive Behaviour

Abstract

Background Psychometric properties of three functional assessment rating scales were compared for three types of target behaviours [self-injurious behaviour (SIB), stereotypic behaviour and aggressive/destructive behaviour]. Materials and method The Questions about Behavioural Function (QABF), the Functional Assessment for Multiple Causality (FACT) and the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST) were administered twice by two raters to 130 adults with intellectual disability (total of 29 raters). Results and conclusions The reliability of the FACT and the QABF for estimates across all three behaviours was acceptable to good. Mean inter-rater reliability intra-class correlations across two administrations ranged from 0.63 to 0.68 for the QABF and from 0.65 to 0.78 for the FACT. Mean test-retest reliability for the QABF ranged from 0.81 to 0.82 and for the FACT from 0.86 to 0.87. Internal consistency across the subscales ranged from 0.89 to 0.96 for the QABF and from 0.92 to 0.96 for the FACT. The FAST had generally poorer reliability scores. Convergent and discriminant validity (Spearman ρ) were better between FACT and the QABF than between the FAST and the other two instruments.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 44 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.