Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 24
About This Presentation
Title:

Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition

Description:

Important to consider Diagnostic Criteria of Autism in DSM-IV-TR ... The screening and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:2749
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: johnb59
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition


1
Gilliam Autism Rating Scale Second Edition
  • Eric Rozenblat, M.A., BCBA
  • Caldwell College
  • Assessment Project

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
Lecavalier (2005)
  • Purpose was to examine construct and diagnostic
    validity, interrater reliability, and effects of
    participant characteristics on GARS scores

8
Lecavalier (2005)
  • 29 school districts across Ohio
  • Children selected between 3-21 who receive
    educational services for ASDs
  • 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

9
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

10
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

11
Other References
  • Eaves 2006-reliability and validity of GARS
  • Results supported use of GARS as screening tool

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
Scoring Presentation
  • Tables A-1 and A-2

16
Normative Data
  • See table 4.1

17
Reliability and Validity
  • See back of test

18
GARS II and ABA
  • See Chapter 7 in Examiner Book and Instructional
    Objectives for Children Who Have Autism

19
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

20
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)

21
Recommended Usages
  • Recommended not as primary measure
  • Autism specialists
  • Interpret with skepticism

22
Questions
23
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.

24
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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com