Concordance of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second and third editions.
Vineland-3 scores run 10–20 points lower than Vineland-II for individuals with ID/DD—adjust your clinical interpretation accordingly.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team gave both Vineland-II and Vineland-3 to the children and adults with intellectual or developmental disability. Each parent or caregiver answered the same questions twice, once on each form, within two weeks.
They wanted to know if the new edition gives the same scores as the old one.
What they found
Vineland-3 scores ran 10–20 points lower than Vineland-II across all three domains. The gap was biggest for people who already had the lowest adaptive scores.
High scores stayed high, but low scores looked even lower on the new form.
How this fits with other research
Dupuis et al. (2021) saw the same pattern when they compared ABAS-II and Vineland-II in kids with ASD. One measure gave lower numbers, yet the two tracked together.
de Bildt et al. (2005) showed Vineland-II itself is solid, so the drop is not about poor quality. It is about stricter questions on Vineland-3.
Dudley et al. (2019) remind us that IQ and Vineland measure different things. Lower adaptive scores do not mean IQ changed—just that the bar moved.
Why it matters
If you retest a child with Vineland-3, expect scores to fall even if nothing in daily life changed. Drop 10–20 points from the old score before you write goals or decide eligibility. Share the reason with parents so they do not think skills vanished overnight.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Subtract 10–20 points from the last Vineland-II summary score before you write the new baseline.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of its centrality in the conceptualization of intellectual disability, reliable and valid measurement of adaptive behaviour is important to both research and clinical practice. The manual of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, recently released in its third edition, provides limited reliability information obtained from a sample composed primarily of typically developing individuals. The goal of this study was to evaluate the concordance of the Vineland-3 with the Vineland-II in a sample more similar in ability level to those in which the Vineland is commonly used. METHODS: Both editions of the Vineland Interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 106 parents/caregivers of individuals with neurodevelopmental disability, participating at two neurodevelopmental disorder research clinics. Administrations were up to 7 days apart, but most (90%) were simultaneous. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) (95% confidence interval) and mean differences (95% confidence interval) were calculated for domain standard scores and subdomain v-scale scores. RESULTS: Domain-level CCC ranged from 0.78 [0.70, 0.84] (Communication) to 0.86 [0.76, 0.92] (Motor). Subdomain CCC ranged from 0.71 [0.62, 0.78] (Receptive Language) to 0.91 [0.85, 0.95] (Fine Motor). Vineland-3 scores were lower than Vineland-II scores; 77% of participants had lower Adaptive Behavior Composite scores on the Vineland-3 than on the Vineland-II. For the subdomains, the magnitude of this difference depended upon the level of adaptive behaviour. For Communication, the domain with the lowest CCC, the mean difference ranged from -13.70 [-8.03, -19.35] for a Vineland-II score or 85 to a difference of -19.18 [-12.28, -26.87] for a Vineland-II score of 40. DISCUSSION: Amongst individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the Vineland-3 produces lower scores than the Vineland-II, and these clinically significant differences tend to be larger for individuals with lower levels of ability. Thus, care must be taken in interpreting scores from the Vineland-3 relative to those obtained from the previous edition.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2020 · doi:10.1111/jir.12691