Gilliam autism rating scale second edition
Download
1 / 24

Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 822 Views
  • Updated On :

Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition. Eric Rozenblat, M.A., BCBA Caldwell College Assessment Project. Overview. Background of GARS II Changes from original GARS to GARS II Peer-reviewed literature about GARS Description/Administration of GARS II Scoring of GARS II

Related searches for Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition' - ellette


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Gilliam autism rating scale second edition l.jpg

Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition

Eric Rozenblat, M.A., BCBA

Caldwell College

Assessment Project


Overview l.jpg
Overview

  • Background of GARS II

  • Changes from original GARS to GARS II

  • Peer-reviewed literature about GARS

  • Description/Administration of GARS II

  • Scoring of GARS II

  • Pros and Cons about GARS II

  • Recommended Usages


Background of gars l.jpg
Background of GARS

  • Originally published in 1995 (Gilliam, 1995)

    • Based on definition of autism in DSM IV and Autism Society of America (1994)

    • Reliable and valid standardized test

  • Goal of GARS

    • Tests for reliability

    • Tests for validity

  • Used in schools and clinics internationally


Background of gars4 l.jpg
Background of GARS

  • 56-items divided into 4 subscales

    • Stereotyped Behaviors

    • Communcation

    • Social Interaction

    • Developmental Disturbances

  • Autism Quotient Scores and probability of having autism

    • Below 69 = very low

    • 70-79 = low

    • 80-89 = below average

    • 90-110 = average

    • 111-120 = above average

    • 120-130 = high

    • 131+ = very high


Revisions from original gars l.jpg
Revisions from original GARS

  • Development Disturbances subscale converted into interview

  • Re-written items

  • Demographic characteristics

  • New norms created

  • Autism Index

  • Guidelines for scores

  • Discrete target behaviors

  • Instructional Objectives for Children Who Have Autism


South et al 2002 l.jpg
South et al. (2002)

  • The purpose of the South et al. study investigated the validity of using the GARS (1st edition) for children with pre-exisisting diagnoses of autism.

  • Examined GARS data for 119 children

  • Results showed mean GARS IQ was 90.10

  • Developmental Disturbances subscale not coorelated

  • Limitation


Lecavalier 2005 l.jpg
Lecavalier (2005)

  • Purpose was to examine construct and diagnostic validity, interrater reliability, and effects of participant characteristics on GARS scores


Lecavalier 20058 l.jpg
Lecavalier (2005)

  • 29 school districts across Ohio

    • Children selected between 3-21 who receive educational services for ASD’s

  • Data collected from parents and teacher

  • Final analysis included two components

    • Possess minimal language skills, expressive language at or above 20-month level

    • Minimum raw score


Lecavilier 2005 l.jpg
Lecavilier (2005)

  • Verify information

    • Parents asked if their child had been diagnosed by physician or psychologist as having an ASD and…

    • Teachers reported students classification as noted in their IEP

  • Final sample:

    • 284 students, 225 male, 47 female, 12 no gender

    • 195 autism, 35 pre-k disability, 29 misc, 25 none


Lecavilier 2005 results l.jpg
Lecavilier (2005) Results

  • Three factor analysis for construct validity

    • Factor 1-Stereotyped Behavior

      • One item did not belong, 7 others did from 2 subscales

    • Factor 2-Communication

      • All but 3 within communication belonged

    • Factor 3-Social Interaction

      • No items coorelated

  • No statistical differences on three behavioral subscales

  • No statistical difference between teacher/parent ratings


Other references l.jpg
Other References

  • Eaves 2006-reliability and validity of GARS

    • Results supported use of GARS as screening tool


Dsm iv tr l.jpg
DSM-IV-TR

  • Important to consider Diagnostic Criteria of Autism in DSM-IV-TR

    • A total of six or more items from 1, 2, and 3 with at least 2 from 1 and one each from 2 and 3

      • Qualitative impairment in social interaction

      • Qualitiative impairment in communication

      • Restricted and repetitive stereotyped patterns of behavior


Description administration of gars ii l.jpg
Description/Administration of GARS II

  • 42 clearly stated items divided into three subscales

  • Parent Interview

  • Most current definitions

  • Normed scale on 1,107 representatives

  • Objective

  • 5-10 min to administer


Description administration of gars ii14 l.jpg
Description/Administration of GARS II

  • Three subscales with 14 items each

    • Stereotyped Behaviors

      • Example includes rocks back and forth

    • Communication

      • Example includes repeats words or phrases over and over

    • Social Interaction

      • Example includes avoids eye contact

  • Examiner/Rater Qualifications


Scoring presentation l.jpg
Scoring Presentation

  • Tables A-1 and A-2


Normative data l.jpg
Normative Data

  • See table 4.1


Reliability and validity l.jpg
Reliability and Validity

  • See back of test


Gars ii and aba l.jpg
GARS II and ABA

  • See Chapter 7 in Examiner Book and Instructional Objectives for Children Who Have Autism


Pros and cons l.jpg
PROS and CONS

Pros Cons

Easy to administer GARS II not enough to DX

Takes little time Anecdotal parent questionnaire

Good reliability Lack of peer-reviewed research on GARSII

Good validity Raters may be subjective

Easy to compute Examiner may not administer test on own

Relation to ABA Does not describe environmental contingencies

Direct Observation Examiner qualifications (need specialists in autism with license)

Easy to score

Uses DSM IV Definition

Large Normative Sample


Recommended usages l.jpg
Recommended Usages

  • Eaves et al. (2006)

    • The analysis of the internal consistency of the GARS supported its use as a screening device

  • California Collaborative Work Group on Autism Spectrum Disorders (1997)

  • The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

  • The Child Neurology Center (Filipek et al. 2000)


Recommended usages21 l.jpg
Recommended Usages

  • Recommended not as primary measure

  • Autism specialists

  • Interpret with skepticism



References l.jpg
References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Boggs, K.M., Gross, A.M., & Gohm, C.L. (2006). Validity of the Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18, 163-182.

Bruininks, R.H., Woodcock, R.W., Weatherman, R.F., & Hill, B.K. (1996). Scales of independent behavior-Revised: Manual. Boston: Riverside Publishing Company.

California Departments of Education and Developmental Services Collaborative Work Group on Autism Spectrum Disorders. (1997). Best practices for designing and delivering effective programs for individuals with autistic spectrum disorders. Available online at www.feat.org.

Eaves, R.C., Woods-Groves, S., Williams Jr., T.O., & Fall, A.M. (2006). Reliability and validity of the pervasive developmental disorders rating scale and the gilliam autism rating scale. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 300-309.


References24 l.jpg
References

Filipek, P.A., Accardo, P.J., Baranek, G.T., Cook, E.H., Dawson, G. et al. (1999). The screening and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 439-484.

Gilliam, J.E. (2006). Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Gilliam, J.E. (1995). Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Lecavalier, L. (2005). An evaluation of the gilliam autism rating scale. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 795-805.

Lopez, B.R., Lincoln, A.J., Ozonoff, S., & Lai, Z. (2005). Examining the relationship between executive functions and restricted, repetitive symptoms of autistic disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 445-460.

South, M., Williams, B.J., McMahon, W.M., Owley, T., Filipek, P.A., Shernoff, E., Corsello, C., Lainhart, J.E., Landa, R., & Ozonoff, S. (2002). Utility of the gilliam autism rating scale in research and clinical populations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 593-599.

Walz, N.C. (2007). Parent reports of stereotyped behaviors, social interaction, and developmental disturbances in individuals with angelman syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 940-947.


ad