Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 28, No.

4, 1998

The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Supplementary

Norms for Individuals with Autism

Alice S. Carter/'^ Fred R. Volkmar,^ Sara S. Sparrow,^ Jing-Jen Wang,^ Catherine Lorcl,^
Geraldine Dawson,^ Eric Fombonne,^ Katherine Loveland,^ Gary Mesibov,^ and Eric Schopler^

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Special Population norms are presented for four groups
of individuals with autism: (a) mute children under 10 years of age; (b) children with at
least some verbal skills under 10 years of age; (c) mute individuals who are 10 years of age
or older; and (d) individuals with at least some verbal skills who are 10 years of age or
older. The sample included 684 autistic individuals ascertained from cases referred for the
DSM-IV autism/PDD field trial collaborative study and five university sites with expertise
in autism. Young children had higher standard scores than older individuals across all
Vineland domains. In the Communication domain, younger verbal children were least im-
paired, older mute individuals most impaired, and younger mute and older verbal individuals
in the midrange. Verbal individuals achieved higher scores in Daily Living Skills than mute
individuals. The expected profile of a relative weakness in Socialization and relative strength
in Daily Living Skills was obtained with age-equivalent but not standard scores. Results high-
light the importance of employing Vineland special population norms as well as national
norms when evaluating individuals with autism.
KEY WORDS: Vineland Behavior Scales; special population norms; autism.

INTRODUCTION als with autism. Additional analyses within the spe-

This paper presents special population norms on
the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales for individu-
'Department of Psychology and Yale School of Medicine Child
Study Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
^Yale School of Medicine Child Study Center and Yale University
Department of Psychology, New Haven, Connecticut.
American Guidance Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
"Department of Psychiatry, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
'Department of Psychology, University of Seattle, Seattle, Wash-
ington.
Medical Research Council, University of London, London,
United Kingdom. Formerly at the INSERM, Centre de Alfred
Binet, Paris, France.
'Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, University of
Texas, Houston, Texas.
^Division TEACCH, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
'Address all correspondence to Alice S. Carter, Yale University,
Department of Psychology, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven,
Connecticut 06520-8205.
cial population normative sample address some of
the limitations of employing standard and age
equivalent scores from the Vineland national stand-
ardization sample with individuals with autism. Autis-
tic individuals show a unique pattern or profile of
scores across dimensions of adaptive behavior rela-
tive to age- and mental age-matched peerT (Ando,
Yoshimura, & Wakabayashi, 1980; Freeman, Ritvo,
Yokota, Childs, & Pollard, 1988; Jacobson & Acker-
man, 1990; Loveland & Kelley, 1988, 1991; Rodrigue,
Morgan, & Geffken, 1991; Sloan & Marcus, 1981;
Volkmar et al., 1987). Studies of adaptive behavior
consistently demonstrate that individuals with autism
evidence significant deficits in socialization, relative
strengths in daily living skills, and intermediate
scores in communication (e.g., Loveland & Kelley,
1991; Volkmar et al., 1987). In addition, recent evi-
dence suggests that children with autism show
greater intradomain scatter when eompared to typi-

287
0162-3257/98/0800-0287$15.00/0 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporalion
288
cally functioning and retarded children (VanMeter,
Fein, Morris, Waterhouse, & Allen, 1997). In light of
the unique pattern of adaptive functioning observed
in individuals with autism (cf. Carter, Gilham, Spar-
row, & Vblkmar, 1997), comparing individuals with
autism to a similarly affected normative group rather
than relying on national norms may provide a more
appropriate context for understanding a particular
autistic individual's current adaptive functioning.
The assessment of adaptive behavior in individu-
als with autism has traditionally been employed along
with standardized measures of intellectual function-
ing to determine whether or not to assign a diagnosis
of mental retardation. Approximately three fourths
of individuals with autism obtain verbal IQ scores in
the mentally retarded range of cognitive functioning
(Ritvo et al., 1989) with estimates of mental retarda-
tion among individuals with autism as high as 85%
(Volkmar & Cohen, 1986, 1988). In addition to the
central role of adaptive behavior in diagnosing men-
tal retardation, the assessment of adaptive behavior
is clinically informative for educational and voca-
tional planning for individuals with autism through-
out the spectrum of intellectual functioning. The
traditional inclusion of adaptive behavior assess-
ments to diagnose or rule out mental retardation
contributed to the current recognition that it is im-
portant to assess adaptive skills across the spectrum
of cognitive functioning within autism. To maximize
the clinical utility of the assessment of adaptive be-
havior for individuals with autism, this paper presents
new supplemental norms for individuals with autism.
These norms enable clinicians and researchers to
compare an individual with autism's adaptive func-
tioning to a peer group of similarly affected individu-
als as well as to national normative data.
Diagnosing or ruling out the presence of mental
retardation is an essential component of a compre-
hensive evaluation for an individual with autism
(Klin, Carter, & Sparrow, 1997). The most widely ac-
cepted definition of mental retardation involves the
presence of subaverage cognitive functioning and
deficits in adaptive behavior with onset prior to age
18 (American Psychiatrie Association [APA], 1994;
Grossman, 1983). Significant deficits in adaptive be-
havior are demonstrated by significant impairments
in the performance of daily activities required for
personal and social sufficiency (Sparrow, Balla, &
Cicchetti, 1984) as measured by standardized instru-
ments designed to assess adaptive behavior. Al-
though there are state and local differences in the
Carter et al.
adoption of specific criteria for deficits in adaptive
behavior, the development of instruments that pro-
vide national norms such as the Comprehensive Test
of Adaptive Behavior (Adams, 1984) and Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow et al., 1984) has
facilitated the use of specific quantifiable guidelines.
For example, to assign a diagnosis of mental retar-
dation, some states require performance that falls ap-
proximately below the fourth percentile (e.g.,
Standard Score below 70-75) in two of the following
adaptive behavior domains: (a) Communication, (b)
Daily Living Skills/Self Help Skills, (c) Socializa-
tion/Social Functioning/Interpersonal Skills, and (d)
Motor Skills.
Although the assessment of mental retardation
is central to a comprehensive assessment of an indi-
vidual with autism (Klin et al., 1997), it is critical to
recognize that individuals who are affected with both
autism and mental retardation differ significantly
from individuals who only meet criterion for mental
retardation in the pattern of acquisition of adaptive
behavior and other competencies. Indeed, significant
progress has been made in the field of mental retar-
dation by recognizing that it is not a homogeneous
entity (Bailey, Phillips, & Rutter, 1996). Thus, when
evaluating an individual with autism and mental re-
tardation, the use of special population norms for
mentally retarded individuals does not provide an
adequate comparison group.
Independent of their level of cognitive function-
ing, individuals with autism have a profound inability
to relate to people as well as language abnormalities
and stereotyped repetitive behaviors (Cohen, Paul, &
Volkmar, 1986; Fein, Pennington, Markowitz, Braver-
man, & Waterhouse, 1986; Frith, 1989; Happe, 1994;
Lord, 1993; Rutter, 1978; Sigman, 1995; Wing &
Gould, 1979). Indeed, Kanner's (1943) original de-
scription of the syndrome of autism emphasized the
social impairment of individuals with autism. This fo-
cus on the eentrality of social deficits has continued
in more recent definitions and descriptions of the
clinical features of autism (Bailey et al., 1996; Cohen
et al., 1986; Fein et al., 1986; Rutter, 1978; Wing &
Gould, 1979). In addition, the most recent edition of
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis-
orders (DSM-IV; APA, 1994) is consistent with Kan-
ner's early conceptualization of autism in highlighting
social deficits. Thus, the deficits observed in social
functioning are far greater than what one would ex-
pect, even given the typically observed cognitive limi-
tations. As the social and linguistic deficits and
Vineland Supplementary Norms for Autism
deviance present in autism impact on the day-to-day
performance of adaptive behaviors, it is not surpris-
ing that even high-functioning individuals with
autism typically show significant deficits in adaptive
behaviors (cf. Carter et al., 1996).
Recently, Volkmar and colleagues argued that so-
cial deficits in individuals with autism can be quanti-
fied by determining the magnitude of the discrepancy
between a standard score in the adaptive domain of
socialization and mental age (Volkmar, Carter, Spar-
row, & Cicchetti, 1993; Gilham, Carter, Volkmar, &
Sparrow, 1998). This conceptual model emphasizes
developmental delay in the acquisition of adaptive so-
cial behaviors in contrast to previous categorical mod-
els that highlighted developmental social, linguistic
and behavioral deviance. They demonstrated that the
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow et al.,
1984) were sensitive to the overall impairments ob-
served in autism and could be used to quantify the
social deficits observed among autistic individuals.
VanMeter et al. (1997) examined intratest scatter
among preschoolers who were carefully matched to
either fypically functioning or mentally deficient chil-
dren on Vineland raw scores to highlight the presence
of deviance as well as delay in the acquisition of adap-
tive behavior in autism. While these studies have im-
plications for research in the area of autism, they also
highlight the clinical utility of the assessment of adap-
tive behavior in autism and more specifically the use
of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in the as-
sessment of adaptive behavior in autism.
Autistic individuals show a unique pattern or
profile of scores across dimensions of adaptive be-
havior relative to age- and mental age-matched peers
(Ando et al., 1980; Freeman et al., 1988; Jacobson &
Ackerman, 1990: Loveland & Kelley, 1988, 1991; Ro-
drigue et al., 1991; Sloan & Mareus, 1981; Volkmar
et al., 1987). Several studies have employed the
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales to document this
unique pattern of adaptive behavior across domains
(i.e.. Communication, Daily Living Skills, and Sociali-
zation) in individuals with autism as compared with
individuals with mental retardation. These studies
consistently indicate that while individuals with men-
tal retardation have relatively flat profiles across
adaptive behavior domains, autistic children and
adults evidence significant deficits in the Socializa-
tion Domain, when compared to relative strengths in
Daily Living Skills, and intermediate scores on Com-
munication (Loveland & Kelley, 1991; Volkmar et al.,
1987). A similar relative deficit in socialization is ap-
289
parent when individuals with autism are matched to
normally developing children on the basis of overall
adaptive behavior scores (Rodrigue et al., 1991).
While the pattern of a relative deficit in sociali-
zation and a relative strength in daily living skills is
apparent early in life (Loveland & Kelley, 1991) and
in older individuals with autism (Volkmar et al.,
1987), it is important to note that adaptive behavior
profiles for individuals with autism may be affected
by age (Jacobson & Ackerman, 1990) and level of
cognitive functioning (Burack & Volkmar, 1992). In-
dividuals with autism with IQ scores in the average
range and higher typically exhibit deficits in adaptive
behavior, especially in the socialization domain, cou-
pled with a high frequency of maladaptive behaviors
(Burack & Volkmar, 1992; Freeman et al., 1988;
Volkmar et al., 1987). While both high- and low-func-
tioning individuals with autism display more scatter
in their adaptive behavior profiles than chronologi-
cally- and mental aged-matched peers (Volkmar et al.,
1987), low-functioning individuals with autism display
greater scatter than high-functioning individuals with
autism (Burack & Volkmar, 1992). Thus, the chrono-
logical and mental age of an individual with autism
must be considered when interpreting the level and
profile of observed adaptive behavior scores.
A number of psychometric issues are relevant to
the interpretation of Vineland Adaptive Behavior
Scale scores for individuals with autism. Specifically,
very low functioning individuals with autism may
show relatively little scatter in standard scores across
domains due to basal effects. Moreover, the use of
age-equivalent scores to examine domain differences
may be misleading due to lack of comparability in
range across domains and subdomains. For example,
several Vineland domains have relatively low ceilings
(e.g., the highest possible age-equivalent scores in re-
ceptive communication is 7 years 10 months). For
this reason, standard scores are recommended for
use in clinical applications while raw scores are rec-
ommended in research applications. When employ-
ing raw scores, statistical analyses can be employed
to control for chronological and/or mental age dif-
ferences.
The clinical management of children and adults
with autism typically requires clinicians to make rec-
ommendations regarding appropriate educational
services, vocational training and eommunity-based
living facilities (Freeman et al., 1991). Adaptive skills
may be more predictive of vocational success and
level of independence achieved than either academic
290
achievement or intellectual abilities. For example,
Rumsey, Rapoport, and Sceery (1985) reported that
14 high-functioning men with relative deficits in so-
cialization as assessed by the Vineland Socialization
domain had considerable difficulty with vocational
adjustment and independent living despite their rela-
tively high IQs and academic achievement.
Thus, independent of cognitive level, the assess-
ment of adaptive behavior is a critical component of
any comprehensive clinical assessment of individuals
with autism (Klin et al, 1997). Specifically, the as-
sessment of adaptive behaviors with standardized in-
struments: (a) is necessary to document a diagnosis
of mental retardation; (b) can inform the diagnosis
of autism; (c) can help to identify an individual's
strengths and weaknesses for planning educational,
vocational, and treatment goals; (d) can serve to
monitor an individual's progress over time and across
settings (Perry & Factor, 1989); and (e) may be used
to document the efficacy of intervention programs.
The unique profile and greater scatter evident
among individuals with autism suggested the need to
develop norms based on autistic samples (Volkmar et
al., 1987). When making educational and vocational
recommendations or when evaluating an individual's
progress over time it is often useful to evaluate an
individual with special needs relative to their own
peer group rather than in contrast to a typically de-
veloping normative group (Sparrow et al., 1984). Suc-
cessful individual intervention efforts and outcome
evaluations require the specification of attainable
goals. Employing the national standardization sample
norms or even special population norms for mentally
retarded individuals may lead to unrealistically high
goals in socialization and an underestimate of poten-
tial within Daily Living Skills. This paper presents
Special Supplemental norms for individuals with
autism in four categories: (a) below age 10-mute; (b)
ages 10 to 59-mute; (c) below age 10-at least some
verbal skills; (d) ages 10 to 59-at least some verbal
skills.
METHOD
Participants
The sample included 684 autistic individuals
from records of evaluations performed either as part
of the DSM-IV autism/PDD field trial collaborative
study (137 cases) (Volkmar et al, 1994) or from five
Carter et al.
different sites: the Yale Child Study Center Devel-
opmental Disabilities Clinic (225 cases). Division
TEACCH (195 cases). University of Texas (42 cases).
University of Washington (43 cases), and the Center
Alfred Binet (42 cases). These 684 individuals (497
male, 157 female, 30 cases missing gender) had par-
ticipated in a comprehensive evaluation that included
the administration of the Vineland (survey or ex-
panded form), psychological testing, and diagnostic
assessment by highly experienced examiners. As the
focus of the majority of the assessments was to docu-
ment a primary diagnosis of Autism, it is possible
that some individuals may have met criteria for dis-
orders that have recently been included in the DSM-
IV, including Childhood Disintegrative Disorder
(Volkmar & Rutter, 1995) or Asperger syndrome. In
42% of the cases the individual was noted to be
largely or entirely mute. The definition of mute, de-
rived verbatim from the DSM-IV field trial, was as
follows: "little or no language, uses language only oc-
casionally; only single words or echolalic language
with limited or no spontaneous speech." The mean
age of cases was 11.17 years {SD = 7.83); cases
ranged from preschool to middle age (ages 2 to 59
years). Assessments of full-scale IQ based on various
assessment instruments were available in 606 cases;
in the remaining 78 cases the individual was noted
to be "untestable."
The total sample was divided into four norming
groups based on age (younger than 10 years of age
or 10 to 59 years of age) and language status (mute
and verbal). The distinction between mute and verbal
is critical for intervention and can be determined
without formal psychological assessment. Although
ideally, special population norms would be available
for smaller chronological and mental age bands (i.e.,
preschool, school-aged, adolescents, adults), sample
size limitations precluded the creation of more re-
fined groups. The decision to divide the sample, at
10 years of age was based on a desire to acknowledge
the different developmental concerns of younger ver-
sus older children and adults with autism as well as
by pragmatic power constraints within the available
sample. Table I presents sample characteristics for
each of the of the four norming groups (i.e., gender,
IQ, and age).
The preponderance of males in each of the autis-
tic norm groups is expected given the increased fre-
quency of the condition in males (Lord & Schopler,
1987; Volkmar, Szatmari, & Sparrow, 1993). In addi-
tion, consistent with the increased severity in affected
Vineland Supplementary Norms for Autism 291

Table I. Sample Characteristics

Verbal Mute
Age 10 and Age 10 and
Age below 10 above Age below 10 above
(n = 141) = 186)
in -- in = 252) (n --= 104)
n % n % n % n %

Gender
Male 86 61 139 75 158 63 64 62
Female 26 18 42 23 57 23 37 36
Missing 29 21 5 3 37 15 3 3

Age
M SD 6.20:t 1.92 19.30 8.18 5.72:t 2.26 14.89 4.73
Range 2.67-9.91 10.0-59.0 2.25-9.92 10.0-33.0

IQ
<25 3 2 24 13 32 13 35 34
25-39 12 9 33 18 42 17 12 12
40-54 12 9 30 16 53 21 13 13
55-69 38 27 31 17 54 21 17 16
70-85 33 23 21 11 17 7 9 9
>85 32 23 43 23 3 1 3 3
Missing 11 8 4 2 51 20 15 14

females as compared to males (Volkmar et al., 1993),
females were more likely to be mute, x^(l) = 4.08, p
< .05, and severely delayed cognitively than males,
X\5) = 11.08, p < .05.
All cases had a primary diagnosis of autism as
assigned by the clinician on the basis of a compre-
hensive assessment. In most cases this diagnosis was
also supported by the results of assessment instru-
ments specifically developed for autism (e.g., the
Children's Autism Rating Scale; Schopler, Reichler,
& Renner, 1988; the Autism Behavior Checklist;
Krug, Arick, & Almond, 1980; Autism Diagnostic In-
terview-Revised; Lord, Rutter, & Le Couteur, 1994).
As both DSM-IV (APA, 1994) and ICD-10 (World
Health Organization [WHO], 1992) diagnoses were
under preparation at the time of the data collection,
it was not always possible to utilize these most recent
categorical diagnostic systems. However, for those
cases provided as part of the DSM-IV autism/PDD
field trial and for all of the Yale cases, the most re-
cent ICD-10 (WHO, 1992) criteria were applied and
only subjects who met the ICD-10 criteria were in-
cluded in the sample. The majority of the cases were
receiving special educational services but were not in
residential placements. Cases did vary significantly in
the distribution of age, sex, 10, and adaptive func-
tioning across sites. However, due to the widely dis-
crepant numbers of cases from each site (e.g., 42 vs.
252), site was not included as a control variable in
analyses.
Measures
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Survey Form
{Sparrow et al., 1984). The Vineland Adaptive Be-
havior Scales evaluate children's personal and social
sufficiency in a semistructured interview with a pri-
mary caregiver. This instrument assesses four areas
of adaptive behavior: Communication, Daily Living
Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills. Communica-
tion refers to those skills required for receptive, ex-
pressive, and written language; Daily Living Skills
includes the practical skills needed to take care of
oneself and contribute to a household and commu-
nity; Sociahzation pertains to those skills needed to
get along with others, regulate emotions and behav-
ior, as well as skills involved in leisure activities such
as play; Motor Skills, comprising both fine and gross
motor items, are typically assessed in individuals be-
low the age of 6 years or when significant difficulty
in motor development is suspected. The Vineland
also contains a Maladaptive Behavior Domain, which
assesses the presence of problematic behaviors that
292
interfere with an individual's functioning. The
Maladaptive Behavior Domain is administered to
children aged 5 and older and includes both behav-
iors that are common in early development but are
less common as children get older and more serious
behaviors that are of concern throughout develop-
ment. Based on a nationally representative sample,
reliabilities for each of four domains (Communica-
tion, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, Motor Skills)
range from .93-.99. In some cases the Expanded
Vineland was administered rather than the briefer
Survey form for which the supplemental norms are
derived. As all of the items on the survey form are
included in the Expanded form, the Survey form was
derived based on the responses to the shared items.
Concurrent validity between Vineland (Sparrow et
al, 1984) and the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale
School Edition (Lambert, Windmiller, Thanringer, &
Cole, 1981) is good (Perry & Factor, 1989).
Statistical Analysis
Percentile ranks corresponding to domain raw
scores were developed separately for each of the four
norming groups. Due to the lack of variability in
standard score distributions for these four samples,
raw score frequency distributions were used to de-
velop the percentile rank norms.
Percentile ranks for the four autism samples were
developed by first determining the cumulative per-
centages for raw scores. Frequency distributions and
the first four moments of the distributions (mean,
standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) were ob-
tained. An algorithm developed by Hill (1976; Hill,
Hill, & Holder, 1976) and Roid (1989) that is based
on systems of frequency curves described by Johnson
(1949) was used to calculate the percentile ranks. This
algorithm provides fitted curves that preserve the first
four moments of the observed raw score distributions
and yields percentile estimates that are smoothed
across the distributions. This method is comparable
to the method that was employed with the Vineland
standardization sample for the development of na-
tional percentiles (Sparrow et al., 1984, p. 23).
RESULTS
Prior to presenting the special norm tables, sev-
eral analyses were conducted to describe similarities
Carter et al.
and differences observed in the pattern of adaptive
functioning across the four groups from which the
special norms were derived: Mute and verbal indi-
viduals with autism who were below 10 years of age
or 10 years of age or older. This large sample allowed
the opportunity to replicate previous findings that
suggested the need to develop special population
norms. Moreover, as this sample was culled from sev-
eral different clinics, it was important to determine
whether there were age differences in the younger
and older samples across mute and verbal subjects.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed an age
group by mute status interaction, F(l, 679) = 24.37,
p < .0001, such that within the older age group, ver-
bal individuals were significantly older than mute in-
dividuals (19.3 vs. 14.9, respectively). Given the lack
of comparability across these two groups, age was in-
cluded as a covariate in subsequent analyses de-
signed to examine group differences in Vineland
domain standard scores and age equivalents, i"
Group Comparisons of Adaptive Behavior Scores
The first set of analyses employed analysis of co-
variance (ANCOVA) to examine differences in
Vineland domain standard scores and age equiva-
lents across the two group factors (mute versus ver-
bal and younger than age 10 vs. 10 years old and
older) with continuous age as a covariate. Means and
standard deviations for raw scores, standard scores,
and age equivalents for Communication, Daily Living
Skills, Socialization, and the Adaptive Behavior
Composite are presented in Table II. Table III pre-
sents age-adjusted standard and age-equivalent
scores for the three Vineland domains that were as-
sessed across the two age groups for mute and verbal
individuals.
Standard Scores. The full model for the Com-
munication domain standard score, which included
continuous age as a covariate and main effects and
the interaction of age group and mute status was sta-
tistically significant, F(4, 678) = 65.84, p < .0001. Age,
F(l, 678) = 18.93, p < .0001; age group, f (1, 678) =
51.44, p < .0001; and mute status, F(l, 678) = 58.09,
p < .0001, were statistically significant but the inter-
action term was not. Children below 10 years of age
As the younger children exhibited much higher standard scores
than the older groups, a decision was made to covary age for
both sets of analyses. A separate set of analyses that did not
include age as a covariate yielded comparable findings.
Vineland Supplementary Norms for Autism 293

Table II. Standard and Age-Equivalent Scores for Vineland Domains"

Verbal Mute
Below 10 Above 10 Below 10 Above 10
years i3f age years 1of age years 1of age years of age
(n = 141) ( = 186) (" = 252) {n = 104)
Vineland domain M SD M SD M SD M SD
Communication
Raw scores 58.90 23.2 81.33 31.2 21.1 26.2 48.37 34.1
Standard scores 62.64 19.8a 38.15 21.6a 50.5 14.8a 30.37 18.2a
Age equivalent 3.20 2.0, 5.66 3.7, 1.98 1.6, 2.89 2.6,

Daily Living
Raw scores 60.19 24.3 99.31 36.9 47.12 27.2 76.97 36.9
Standard scores 55.35 19.3b 38.91 24.4a 50.65 19.1b 32.63 21.0b
Age equivalent 3.19 3.20, 6.36 3.9O2 2.59 I.5O2 4.42 2.6O2

Socialization
Raw scores 45.09 15.5 56.82 23.3 40.14 21.7 45.23 26.3
Standard scores 59.73 12.7, 34.03 16.3b 57.38 13.4b 33.07 20.3b
Age equivalent 2.20 I.3O2 3.50 2.8O3 2.01 1.70) 2.52 2.3O3

Composite
Standard scores 55.00 15.9 34.35 15.8 48.79 14.0 30.23 16.8
"Different letter subscripts indicate significant differences between domains within groups for standard
scores. Different numeric subscripts indicate significant differences between domains within groups
for age equivalents (p < .05).

Table III. Mean Standard and Age-Equivalent Scores for Vineland Domains Adjusted for Age"
Verbal Mute
Below 10 Above 10 Below 10 Above 10
years of age years of age years. of age years of age
(n = 141) (n = 186) (n --= 252) {n --= 104)
Vineland domain M M M M
Communication
Standard scores 59.74a 47.26b 43.31b 32.82c
Age equivalent 3.70a 2.54b 4.76c 2.46b

Daily Living
Standard scores 58.54a 54.16b 33.25c 29.94c
Age equivalent 4.59a 4.17b 3.83b 3.23c

Socialization
Standard scores 59.14a 56.73a 35.08b 33.57b
Age equivalent 3.04a 2.93a 2.01b 1.81b
"Different letter subscripts indicate significant differences between cells within a domain across
groups for standard scores and age equivalents (p < .05).

had higher Communication standard scores than in- pectations, verbal individuals were more likely to
dividuals 10 years of age and older (adjusted means, have higher scores than mute individuals (adjusted
combining mute and verbal subjects were 53.50 and means were 51.52 and 40.04, respectively,/7 < .0001).
38.06, respectively, p < .0001). Consistent with ex- The full model for the Daily Living Skills standard
294
score was statistically significant, F(4, 678) = 30.09,
p < .0001; with age, F(l, 678) = 17.48, p < .0001;
age group, F(l, 678) = 101.48, p < .0001; and mute
status, F(l, 678) = 4.98, p < .05, contributing sig-
nificantly to the model. The interaction term was not
statistically significant. Younger individuals (i.e.,
younger than 10 years of age) had higher standard
scores than older individuals (i.e., those 10 years of
age or older) with autism (adjusted means combining
mute and verbal individuals were 56.35 and 31.59, re-
spectively, p < .0001) and verbal individuals achieved
higher scores than mute individuals (adjusted means,
combining younger and older individuals, were 45.89
and 42.05, respectively, p < .05). The full model for
Socialization standard scores was also statistically sig-
nificant, f(4, 678) = 108.12, p < .0001. Only age
group, F(l, 678) = 169.52, p < .0001, contributed
significant variance to the model. There was no effect
of continuous age as a covariate, main effect of mute
status, or interaction of age group and mute status.
Thus, consistent with findings for Daily Living Skills,
younger children (i.e., younger than 10 years of age)
were more likely to have higher standard scores on
Socialization than older individuals (i.e., 10 years of
age or older; adjusted means, combining mute and
verbal individuals, were 57.93 and 34.33, respectively,
p < .0001), However, in contrast to Communication
and Daily Living Skills, mute and verbal individuals
did not differ in Socialization.
Age Equivalent Scores. The full model for the
Communication age-equivalent scores was signifi-
cant, F(4, 678) = 67.41, p < .0001; with age group
F(l, 678) = 30.84, p < .0001; mute status, F(l, 678)
= 69,42, p < .0001; and the interaction between age
group and mute status, F(l, 678) = 7.51, p < .01,
contributing significantly to the model. There was no
main effect of continuous age as a covariate. A com-
parison of adjusted means across the four groups in-
dicated that younger verbal children were least
impaired, older mute individuals were most im-
paired, and younger mute and older verbal individu-
als were functioning in the midrange (see Table III
for adjusted means). The full model for the Daily
Living Skills age equivalent was statistically signifi-
cant, F(4, 678) = 195.42, p < .0001; with age as a
covariate, F(l, 678) = 371.51, p < .0001; age group,
F(l, 678) = 12.57, p < ,001; and mute status, F(l,
678) = 9,64, p < .01, contributing significant vari-
ance. The interaction term was not significant.
Younger children appeared to be less impaired than
older individuals (adjusted means were 4.37 and 3.53,
Carter et al.
respectively, p < ,001) and verbal individuals were
less impaired than mute individuals (adjusted means
were 4.21 and 3.70, respectively, p < ,01). For the
Socialization age equivalent score, the full model was
significant, F(4, 678) = 53.74, p < .0001; with age
as a covariate, F(l, 678) = 143,50, p < ,0001; and
age group, F(l, 678) = 22.12, p < ,0001, contributing
significantly. Neither mute status or the interaction
term contributed significant variance. Consistent with
the Communication and Daily Living Skills domains,
younger children appeared less impaired than older
individuals (adjusted means, combining mute and
verbal individuals were 2.99 and 1,91, respectively, p
< .001).
Profile Analyses
To examine similarities and differences in the
profiles of domain scores across the four groups, two
repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to
compare standard scores and age equivalents scores
across the three Vineland domains assessed at all
ages (i.e.. Communication, Socialization, and Daily
Living Skills). As the critical comparison was within
group, age was not covaried for this analysis. Parallel
analyses that included age as a covariate provide the
same pattern of results. Specifically, a model was
tested that included main effects of mute status
(mute vs. verbal) and age group (below age 10 years
vs. age 10 or older) and Vineland domain standard
scores and age equivalents as a repeated factor. The
expectation was that there would be a main effect of
the repeated Vineland profile factor such that all in-
dividuals with autism would show highest scores in
Daily Living Skills and poorest performance in So-
cialization. There was also an expectation that due
to basal effects for the older mute group, there would
be an interaction between mute status, age group
and Vineland profile.
Standard Score Profiles. Results for the three do-
main standard scores revealed a main effect for
Vineland profile (Wilks's X = .9877), F(2, 678) =
4.22, p < .05; an interaction between Vineland pro-
file and age group (Wilks's X = .9371), F(2, 678) =
22,74, p < ,0001; an interaction between Vineland
profile and mute status (Wilks's X = ,9187), F(2, 678)
= 30,02, p < .0001); and a trend for a three-way in-
teraction between Vineland profile, age group, and
mute status (Wilks's X = .9929), F(2, 678) = 2.42, p
< .10. Both age grouping and mute status contrib-
Vineland Supplementary Norms for Autism 295

uted significant variance to differences between each
possible pairing of domains (i.e.. Communication vs.
Socialization, Communication vs. Daily Living Skills,
and Socialization vs. Daily Living Skills; all ps <
.001). The interaction term was only statistically sig-
nificant in predicting to differences between Commu-
nication and Daily Living Skills (F = 4.82, p < .05).
Age-Equivalent Profiles. For the age-equivalent
scores, there was a main effect for Vineland profile
(Wilks's X = .4336), F(2, 678) = 442.74, p < .0001;
an interaction between Vineland profile and age
group (Wilks's X = .7481), F{2, 678) = 114.14, p <
.0001; an interaction between Vineland profile and
mute status (Wilks's X = .8711), F(2, 678) = 50.12,
p < .0001; and a significant three-way interaction be-
tween Vineland profile, age group, and mute status
(Wilks's X = .98427), F(2, 678) = 5.42, p < .01. Both
age grouping and mute status contributed significant
variance to differences between each possible pairing
of domains (i.e.. Communication vs. Socialization,
Communication vs. Daily Living Skills, and Socializa-
tion vs. Daily Living Skills; allps < .001). In addition,
the interaction term was statistically significant in pre-
dicting differences between Communication and
Socialization (F = 5.31, p < .05) and Daily Living
Skills and Socialization (F = 6.65, p < .05) but not
for differences in Communication and Daily Living
Skills.
Although each of the four groups (i.e., younger
and older mute and verbal individuals) evidenced a
statistically significant profile effect for both standard
scores and age-equivalent scores, patterns of differ-
ences across standard patterns of differences across
standard scores and age equivalents were not com-
parable. Most groups evidenced the expected pattern
of a relative strength in Daily Living Skills and a rela-
tive weakness in Socialization when profiles of age-
equivalent scores were examined. In contrast,
standard scores revealed inconsistent and unexpected
patterns across the four groups (see Table II that de-
tails significant differences in means across domains
within each group). For example, the younger mute
group exhibited a relative strength on Daily Living
Skills on the age-equivalent scores but evidenced a
relative strength in Socialization when standard
scores were examined.
With respect to the supplementary norms, per-
centile ranks are reported in Tables IV through X.

Table IV. Supplemental Norm Group Percentile Ranks Corresponding Raw Scores:
Ages Less Than 10 Years OldAutism Special Population: Mute
Raw scores
Supplementary
norm group Daily Living
percentile rank Communication Skills Socialization Motor Skills

SP99 100-134 119-184 92-132 72

SP98 98-99 113-118 90-91 70-71
SP95 87-97 96-112 79-89 65-69
SP90 76-86 84-95 70-78 61-64
SP85 65-75 75-83 63-69 58-60
SP80 56-64 67-74 56-62 55-57
SP 75 48-55 61-66 50-55 53-54
SP 70 41-47 55-60 45-49 51-52
SP65 35-40 50-54 40-44 49-50
SP60 30-34 45-49 36-39 47-48
SP55 26-29 41-44 33-35 45-46
SP50 23-25 37-40 30-32 43-44
SP45 20-22 34-36 27-29 41-42
SP40 18-19 31-33 25-26 40
SP35 16-17 28-30 23-24 38-39
SP30 15 25-27 21-22 35-37
SP25 14 22-24 19-20 33-34
SP 20 13 20-21 18 31-32
SP 15 12 17-19 17 28-30
SP 10 10-11 15-16 16 25-27
SP 5 5-9 12-14 15 19-24
SP 2 3-4 11 14 17-18
SP 1 0-2 0-10 0-13 0-16
296 Carter et al.

Table V. Supplemental Norm Group Percentile Ranks Corresponding Raw Scores:

Ages Less Than 10 Years OldAutism Special Population; Verbal
Raw scores
Supplementary
norm group Daily Living
percentile rank Communication Skills Socialization Motor Skills
SP99 118-134 123-184 84-132 69-72
SP 98 112-117 116-122 79-83 67-68
SP 95 97-111 98-115 69-78 63-66
SP90 88-96 89-97 63-68 61-62
SP85 82-87 83-88 59-62 59-60
SP80 76-81 78-82 56-58 58
SP 75 72-75 73-77 54-55 56-57
SP70 68-71 69-72 51-53 55
SP65 64-67 66-68 49-50 54
SP 60 61-63 62-65 47-48 52-53
SP55 58-60 59-61 45-46 51
SP 50 55-57 56-58 43-44 50
SP45 52-54 53-55 42 49
SP40 49-51 50-52 40-41 47-48
SP35 46-48 47-49 38-39 46
SP30 43-45 44-46 36-37 44-45
SP25 40-42 41-43 34-35 43
SP 20 37-39 37-40 31-33 41-42
SP 15 34-36 34-36 29-30 38-40
SP 10 30-33 29-33 25-28 35-37
SP 5 24-29 21-28 19-24 28-34
SP 2 22-23 19-20 16-18 26-27
SP 1 0-21 0-18 0-15 0-25

Table VI. Supplemental Norm Group Percentile Ranks Corresponding Raw Scores:
Ages 10 Years and OlderAutism Special Population: Mute
Raw scores
Supplementary norm
group percentile rank Communication Daily Living Skills Socialization
SP99 115-134 145-184 101-132
SP 98 113-114 142-144 100
SP 95 110-112 130-141 91-99
SP90 105-109 121-129 83-90
SP85 97-104 112-120 74-82
SP 80 84-96 105-111 66-73
SP 75 69-83 98-104 58-65
SP 70 55-68 91-97 51-57
SP65 44-54 84-90 45-50
SP60 35-43 78-83 40-44
SP 55 29-34 72-77 36-39
SP 50 28 67-71 32-35
SP 45 27 61-66 29-31
SP 40 26 56-60 26-28
SP35 25 50-55 24-25
SP 30 24 45-49 22-23
SP 25 23 40-44 20-21
SP20 22 35-39 19
SP 15 20-21 30-34 18
SP 10 19 25-29 17
SP 5 10-18 19-24
SP 2 8-9 18 _
SP 1 0-7 0-17 0-16
Vineland Supplementary Norms for Autism 297

Table VII. Supplemental Norm Group Percentile Ranks Corresponding Raw Scores:
Ages 10 Years and OlderAutism Special Population: Verbal

Supplementary norm Raw scores

group percentile rank Communication Daily Living Skills Socialization
SP99 129-134 174-184 114-132
SP98 128 170-173 108-113
SP95 125-127 156-169 94-107
SP 90 121-124 147-155 86-93
SP85 117-120 139-146 80-85
SP 80 113-116 132-138 76-79
SP 75 108-112 126-131 72-75
SP 70 103-107 121-125 68-71
SP65 98-102 115-120 64-67
SP 60 93-97 110-114 61-63
SP55 87-92 105-109 58-60
SP50 81-86 99-104 55-57
SP 45 76-80 94-98 52-54
SP40 70-75 89-93 49-51
SP 35 64-69 84-88 46-48
SP 30 58-63 78-83 43-45
SP 25 53-57 72-77 40-42
SP20 47-52 66-71 37-39
SP 15 42-46 58-65 33-36
SP 10 37-41 50-57 28-32
SP 5 32-36 37-49 21-27
SP 2 31 33-36 19-20
SP 1 0-30 0-32 0-18

Table VIII. Supplemental Norm Group Percentile Ranks Corresponding to Sum of Raw
Scores: Ages Less Than 10 Years OldAutism Special Population: Mute
Supplementary Sum of 3 domain raw scores Sum of 4 domain raw scores
norm group (Communication -1- Daily Living (Communication -1- Daily Living
percentile rank Skills -1- Socialization) Skills -1- Socialization + Motor)
99 303~Up 366-Up
98 294-302 357-365
95 258-293 319-356
90 227-257 287-318
85 201-226 258-286
80 177-200 232-257
75 157-176 210-231
70 139-156 189-209
65 124-138 171-188
60 111-123 156-170
55 99-110 141-155
50 89-98 129-140
45 80-88 118-128
40 73-79 108-117
35 66-72 100-107
30 61-65 92-99
25 56-60 86-91
20 52-55 60-85
15 48-51 75-79
10 45-47 71-74
5 43-44 67-70
2 42 65-66
1 0-41 0-64
298 Carter et al

Table IX. Supplemental Norm Group Percentile Ranks Corresponding to Sum of Raw Seores:
Ages Less Than 10 Years OldAutism Special Population: Not Mute
Supplementary Sum of 3 domain raw scores Sum of 4 domain raw scores
norm group (Communication + Daily Living (Communication + Daily Living
percentile rank Skills + Socialization) Skills + Socialization + Motor)

99 311~Up 321~Up
98 293-310 306-325
95 251-292 370-305
90 228-250 250-269
85 212-227 236-249
80 199-211 225-235
75 188-198 215-224
70 178-187 206-214
65 170-177 198-205
60 162-169 191-197
55 154-161 184-190
50 146-153 177-183
45 139-145 170-176
40 132-138 163-169
35 125-131 156-162
30 118-124 149-115
25 110-117 142-148
20 102-109 134-141
15 93-101 124-133
10 82-92 113-123
5 65-81 94-112
2 59-64 88-93
1 0-58 0-87

Table X. Supplemental Norm Group Percentile Ranks Corresponding to Sum of Raw

ScoresAges Greater Than or Equal to 10 Years Old: Autism Special Population Sample
Sum of 3 domain raw scores (Communication + Daily
Supplementary
Living Skills + Socialization)
norm prouD
percentile rank Not mute {n = 171) Mute (n = 98)

99 404~Up 348~Up
98 396-403 345-347
95 368-395 327-344
90 347-367 304-326
85 330-346 277-303
80 314-329 249-276
75 300-313 222-248
70 286-299 196-212
65 272-285 172-195
60 259-271 152-171
55 246-258 134-151
50 234-245 120-133
45 221-233 108-119
40 209-220 99-107
35 196-208 92-98
30 183-195 86-91
25 170-182 81-85
20 156-169 78-80
15 141-155 76-77
10 124-140 74-75
5 101-123 73
2 95-100 72
1 0-94 0-71
Vineland Supplementary Norms for Autism
Tables IV and V present the supplementary norm
group percentile ranks corresponding to raw scores
in mute and verbal children with autism less than 10
years old across the four domains assessed by the
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Tables VI and
VII present the supplementary norm group percen-
tile ranks corresponding to raw scores in mute and
verbal individuals with autism who are 10 years of
age or older across three domains assessed by the
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. The motor do-
main was not included in the older samples. Finally,
Tables VIII, IX, and X present supplementary norm
group percentile ranks corresponding to the sums of
raw scores across three or four domains for mute and
verbal younger and older samples.
DISCUSSION
This paper presents special population norms for
four groups of individuals with autism: (a) mute chil-
dren under age 10 years; (b) children with at least
some verbal skills under age 10 (verbal); (c) mute in-
dividuals who are age 10 or older; and (d) verbal in-
dividuals who are age 10 or older. The sample was
ascertained from cases referred for the DSM-IV
autism/PDD field trial collaborative study and five
other university-based sites with expertise in the di-
agnosis of autism. Thus, although the sample is one
of "convenience," the cases that were utilized to gen-
erate these special population norms most likely rep-
resent valid cases of autism that are representative of
the general population of individuals with autism.
Representativeness has been increased by aggregating
individuals across sites that tend to serve slightly dif-
ferent populations of individuals with autism. That
the total sample included the expected higher ratio
of males to females and of mute females relative to
mute males (Volkmar et al, 1993) lends further sup-
port to the likelihood that the sample is repre-
sentative. In addition, it should be noted that the age
range of the older samples is from 10-33 years for
mute and 10-59 years for verbal individuals, with 95%
of the verbal individuals younger than age 35 years
at the time of assessment. Thus, the use of these
norms is most appropriate for individuals with autism
below age 35 years. Differences in cognitive function-
ing across the four groups (e.g., the younger verbal
group achieved the highest IQ scores), although sta-
tistically significant should not interfere with the clini-
cal use of the special population norms across
299
functional levels in each of the four groupings. The
observed pattern of verbal individuals acliieving
higher cognitive and adaptive scores than mute indi-
viduals is not surprising. Previous research would sug-
gest that individuals with autism at all levels of
cognitive functioning would exhibit a distinctive adap-
tive profile (Ando et al., 1980; Freeman et al., 1988;
Jacobson & Ackerman, 1990: Loveland & Keiiey,
1988, 1991; Rodrigue et al., 1991; Sloan & Marcus,
1981; Volkmar et al., 1987). Qf course, when devel-
oping special population norms an epidemiological
sample of individuals with autism would ultimately be
preferable to aggregating across clinical sites.
Consistent with previous research, individuals
with autism demonstrated a unique profile of adaptive
behavior scores across the domains of the Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Composite. Specifically, when age
equivalent scores were employed in profile analyses,
there was a relative strength in Daily Living Skills, a
relative weakness in Socialization, and intermediate
scores on Communication. In contrast, profile analy-
ses employing standard scores were not consistent
with expectations based on previous research. The in-
consistency in these findings is a reflection, in part,
of range restriction due to basal effects in this popu-
lation. The fact that typically employed standard
scores revealed inconsistent patterns highlights the
need for the special population norms presented in
this paper. When examining adaptive behavior pro-
files, the use of age-equivalent scores appear more
appropriate for lower functioning and/or mute indi-
viduals, as basal effects are most likely to obscure ac-
tual differences between adaptive domains.
Scores for the younger and older mute individu-
als were significantly lower than for the individuals
with some verbal skills, suggesting the need for de-
veloping independent norms for these two groups.
Younger children's higher standard scores may in
part reflect a developmental feature of the disorder,
such that the failure to acquire appropriate adaptive
skills contributes to a greater relative deficit with age.
This could be part of a more global developmental
decline in functioning, as younger verbal children
achieved the highest IQ scores. However, it is likely
that floor effects are responsible for the observed
patterns. The basal standard scores for younger chil-
dren are often higher than for older individuals; the
lowest standard score possible at a very young age
may be 40, whereas for the older individuals the low-
est possible standard score is 20. It is important to
note that this problem is not unique to the Vineland
300
Adaptive Behavior Scales. Indeed, the Vineland was
the first standardized instrument of adaptive behav-
ior to develop a normative range that included stand-
ard scores as low as 20. Moreover, the availability of
special supplementary norms for individuals with
autism addresses this psychometric problem in the
Vineland, especially for younger children.
Dividing the sample on the basis of mute status
(i.e., mute vs. at least some verbal skills) rather than
relying on mental age or IQ scores, greatly simplifies
the employment of these special population norms
and extends the norms to individuals who may be la-
beled "untestable." Given the importance of includ-
ing an assessment of adaptive behavior skills for
educational and vocational planning for individuals
with autism and the difficulty inherent in obtaining
an adequate assessment of IQ (cf. Klin et al., 1997),
classification that is independent of a determination
of IQ is advantageous.
The assessment of adaptive behavior in individu-
als with autism is central to a comprehensive, devel-
opmentally sensitive assessment. As noted earlier,
including standardized assessments of adaptive be-
havior: (a) is necessary for documenting mental re-
tardation, a condition that is extremely common
among individuals with autism; (b) can help identity
strengths and weaknesses when planning educational,
vocational, residential, or home-based treatment
goals; and (c) can serve to monitor progress over
time and across settings. In addition, the inclusion
of adaptive behavior can provide important informa-
tion for diagnosing autism. Specifically, individuals
with autism achieve Socialization scores that are
much lower than would be expected on the basis of
their mental age (Gilham et al, 1998; Volkmar et al.,
1993). Finally, the assessment of adaptive behavior
can be used as an outcome measure to document the
efficacy of intervention programs.
The availability of special population norms for
individuals with autism provides an additional point
of comparison that will often be more appropriate
than either national norms for typically developing
individuals or special population norms for individu-
als with mental retardation. In contrast to individuals
with mental retardation, who typically achieve a rela-
tively flat profile of scores across adaptive behavior
domains, individuals with autism show significant
scatter within and across domains. Thus, an evalu-
ation will be able to determine an individual with
autism's percentile relative to national norms, which
may be essential for documenting mental retardation.
Carter et aL
but will also be able to provide more realistic expec-
tations for adaptive behavior skill acquisition based
on the distribution of performance within a more
comparable sample of individuals with autism.
The special population norms provided in this
paper can assist clinicians in assigning appropriate
goals for intervention. Specifically, expectations for
adaptive functioning that are based on the special
populations norms will factor not only cognitive or
linguistic functioning, but also the social delays and
deficits that are a core feature of autism. A high-
functioning 12-year 6-month-old child with autism
achieves a Verbal IQ of 95, a Performance IQ of 112,
a Vineland Communication raw score of 112, which
corresponds to a Standard Score of 68 (2nd percen-
tile), a Daily Living Skills raw score of 138, which
corresponds to a Standard Score of 76 (5th percen-
tile), and a Socialization raw score of 52, which cor-
responds to a Standard Score of 40 (below 0.1
percentile). As this child is not mentally retarded, no
previously available special population norms would
be appropriate. The raw scores that correspond to
these standard scores were obtained in Appendix C
Table B.I of the Vineland manual (Sparrow et al.,
1984, p. 213). Using the special population autism
norms presented in Table VII for individuals 10 years
and older who are not mute, the child's raw scores
correspond to the following percentile scores: SP 75
in Communication, SP 80 in Daily Living Skills, and
SP 45 in Socialization. Thus, Socialization appears to
be a relative weakness and a potential focus for in-
tervention even when employing the special popula-
tion norms. A second 12-year 6-month-old boy with
minimal verbal expression is declared untestable, but
achieves the following Vineland standard scores
based on parent report: a Vineland Communication
raw score of 73, which corresponds to a Standard
Score of 35 (below 0.1 percentile). Daily Living Skills
raw score of 101, which corresponds to a Standard
Score of 37 (0.1 percentile), and a Socialization raw
score of 47, which corresponds to a Standard Score
of 36 (below 0.1 percentile). The new special popu-
lation norms yield the following profile: SP 75 in
Communication, SP 75 in Daily Living Skills, and SP
65 in Socialization. In this case, the profile of scores
does not shift, but expectations for performance can
be modified appropriately.
In contrast to intellectual functioning, adaptive
behavior is modifiable. For all individuals, however,
cognitive functioning will set some constraints on the
level of adaptive functioning that can be achieved.
 Vineland Supplementary Norms for Autism
Specifically, it is not reasonable to expect an individ-
ual to achieve a level of adaptive functioning that is
significantly more advanced than their intellectual
level or mental age. For individuals with autism, so-
cial deviance sets further constraints, especially
within the Socialization domain. As the acquisition
of specific adaptive behavior skills is often a key com-
ponent of intervention for individuals with autism, it
is critical that individuals designing such intervention
programs set attainable goals across domains of
adaptive functioning. When such goals are met, cli-
ents, staff, and family members experience increased
self-efficacy. The availability of the Vineland Adap-
tive Behavior Scales Special population norms pre-
sented in this paper should assist in the evaluation
of individuals with autism, by providing a more proxi-
mal point of reference (i.e., other individuals with
autism) that will facilitate setting realistic recommen-
dations for intervention.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. (1984). Comprehensive test of adaptive behavior. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington DC: Author.
Ando, H., Yoshimura, I., & Wakabayashi, S. (1980). Effects of age
on adaptive behavior levels in autistic an mentally retarded
children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 10
173-183.
Bailey, A., Phillips, W, & Rutter, M. (1996). Autism: Towards an
integration of clinical, genetic, neuropsychological, and neuro-
biological perspectives. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, 37, 89-126.
Burack, J. A., & Volkmar, F. R. (1992). Development of low- and
high-functioning autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 33, 607-616.
Carter, A. S., Gillham, J. E., Sparrow, S. S., & Volkmar, F. R.
(1996). Adaptive behavior in autism. In F Volkmar (Ed.),
Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinic of North America 5
945-961. ' '
Cohen, D. J., Paul, R., & Volkmar, F R. (1986). Issues in the
classification of pervasive and other developmental disorders:
Toward DSM-IV Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 213-220.
Fein, D., Pennington, B., Markowitz, P, Braverman, M., & Water-
house (1986). Toward a neuropsychological model of infantile
autism: Are the social deficits primary? Journal of the Ameri-
can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 198-212.
Firth, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Freeman, B. J., Ritvo, E. R., Yokota, A., Childs, J., & Pollard, J.
(1988). WISC-R and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale
Scores in Autistic Children. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 428-429.
Freeman, B. J., Rahbar, B., Ritvo, E. R., Bice, T L., Yokota, A.,
& Ritvo, R. (1991). The stability of cognitive and behavioral
parameters in Autism: A twelve-year prospective study. Jour-
301
nal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescence Psy-
chiatry, 30, 479-482.
Gilham, J. G., Carter, A. S., Volkmar, F R., & Sparrow, S. S.
(1998). Toward a developmental operational definition of
autism: Replication and extension. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Grossman, H. J. (Ed.). (1983). Classification in mental retardation.
Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Defi-
ciency.
Happe, F (1994). Autism: An introduction to psychological theory.
London: UCL Press.
Hill, I. D. (1976). Normal-Johnson and Johnson-normal transfor-
mations. Applied Statistics, 45, 183-190.
Hill, I. D., Hill, R., & Holder, R. L. (1976). Algorithm AS 99:
Fitting Johnson curves by moments. Applied Statistics, 45, 178-
182.
Jacobson, J. W., & Ackerman, L. J. (1990). Differences in adaptive
functioning among people with autism or mental retardation.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 205-219.
Johnson, N. L. (1949). Systems of frequency curves generated by
methods of translation. Biometrika, 36, 149-176.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nerv-
ous Child, 2, 217-250.
Klin, A., Carter, A. S., & Sparrow, S. S. (1997). Psychological as-
sessment of children with autism. In D. J. Cohen & F R.
Volkmar (Eds.), Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Develop-
mental Disorders (2nd ed., pp. 418-427). New York: Wiley.
Krug, D. A., Arick, J., & Almond, P (1980). Behavior checklist
for identifying severely handicapped individuals with high lev-
els of autistic behavior. Joumai of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, 21, 221-229.
Lambert, N., Windmiller, M., Tharinger, D., & Cole, L. (1981).
AAMD Adaptive Behavior ScaleSchool edition. Monterey.
CA: Publishers' Test Service.
Lord, C. (1993). Complexity of social behavior in autism. In S.
Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Under-
standing other minds: Perspectives from autism (pp. 292-316).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lord, C , Rutter, M., & Le Couteur, A. (1994). Autism Diagnostic
InterviewRevised: A revised version of a diagnostic inter-
view for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive de-
velopmental disorders. Joumai of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 24, 659-685.
Lord, C , & Schopler, E. (1987). Neurobiological implications of
sex differences in autism. In E. Schopler & G. Mesibov (Eds.),
Neurobiological issues in autism (pp. 192-212). New York: Ple-
num Press.
Loveland, K. A., & Kelley, M. L. (1988). Development of adaptive
behavior in adolescents and young adults with autism and
Down syndrome. American Joumai on Mental Retardation, 93
84-92.
Loveland, K. A., & Kelley, M. L. (1991). Development of adaptive
behavior in preschoolers with Autism or Down Syndrome.
American Joumai on Mental Retardation, 96, 13-20.
Perry, A., & Factor, D. C. (1989). Psychometric validity and clinical
usefulness of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and the
AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale for an Autistic Sample. Jour-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 41-55.
Ritvo, E., Freeman, B. J., Pingree, C , Mason-Brothers, A., Jorde,
L., Jenson, W.R., McMahon, W. M., Peterson, P B., Mo, A.,
& Ritvo, A. (1989). The UCLA-University of Utah epidemi-
ologic survey of autism: Prevalence. ^menca Joumai of Psy-
chiatry, 146, 194-199.
Rodrigue, J. R., Morgan, S. B., & Geffken, G. R. (1991). A com-
parative evaluation of adaptive behavior in children and ado-
lescents with autism. Down syndrome, and normal develop-
ment. Joumai of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21 187-
198.
302
Roid, G. H. (1989). Programs to fit skewed distributions and gen-
erate percentile norms for skewed or kurtotic distributions: Con-
tinuous nonning with the first four moments. (Technical Report
No. 89-02). Salem, OR: Assessment Research.
Rumsey, J. M., Rapoport, J. L., & Sceery, W. R. (1985). Autistic
children as adults: Psychiatric, social, and behavioral. Journal
of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 465-473.
Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition. In M. Rutter & E.
Schopler (Eds.), Autism: A reappraisal of concepts and treat-
ment (pp. 1-25). New York: Plenum Press.
Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). The Child-
hood Autism Rating Scale (CARS). Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
Sigman, M. (1995). Behavioral research in childhood autism. In M.
Lenzenweger & J. Haugaard (Eds.), Frontiers of developmental
psychopathology (pp. 190-206). New York: Springer/Verlag.
Sloan, J. L., & Marcus, L. (1981). Some findings on the use of
the Adaptive Behavior Scale with autistic children. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 191-199.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. (1984). Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
VanMeter, L., Fein, D., Morris, R., Waterhouse, L., & Allen, D.
(1997). Delay versus deviance in autistic social behavior. Jour-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 557-569.
Volkmar, F. R., Carter, A. S., Sparrow, S. S., & Cicchetti, D.
(1993). Assessment of autism: Developmental approach. Jour-
nal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychia- .
try, 32, 627-632.
Volkmar, F R., & Cohen, D. J. (1986). Current concepts: Infantile
autism and the pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7, 324-329.
Carter et al.
Volkmar, F R., & Cohen, D. J. (1988). Issues in the diagnosis and
classification of infantile autism. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin
(Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology. New York: Ple-
num Press.
Volkmar, F R., Klin, A., Siegel, B., Szatmari, P, Lord, C, Camp-
bell, M., Freeman, B. J., Cicchetti, D. V, Rutter, M., Kline,
W., Buitelaar, J., Hattab, Y., Fombonne, E., Fuentes, J.,
Werry, J., Stone, W. Kerbeshian, J., Hoshino, Y., Bregman,
J., Loveland, K., Syzmanski, L , & Towbin, K. (1994). Field
trial for autistic disorder in DSM-IV American Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 151, 1361-1367.
Volkmar, F R., Sparrow, S. S., Goudreau, D., Cicchetti, D. V,
Paul, R., & Cohen, D. J. (1987). Social deficits in autism: An
operational approach using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior
Scales. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ado-
lescent Psychiatry, 26, 156-161.
Volkmar, F R., Szatmari, P, & Sparrow, S. S. (1993). Sex differ-
ences in pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 23, 579-591.
Volkmar, F R., & Rutter, M. (1995). Childhood Disintegrative
Disorder: Results of the DSM-IV Autism Field Trial. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
34, 1092-1095.
Wing, L., & Gould, J. (1979). Severe impairments of social inter-
action and associated abnormalities in children: Epidemiology
and classification. Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis-
orders, 9, 11-30.
World Health Organization. (1990). International Classification of
Diseases (draft version: Diagnostic criteria for research) (10th
ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.