Evaluating the validity of the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form--parent version.
The NCBRF parent form is still useful, but its Problem Behavior section needs an update already in the pipeline.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sipes et al. (2011) checked if the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form still works. They looked at both the Social Competence part and the Problem Behavior part.
Kids in the study had intellectual disability or developmental delay. Parents filled out the same form we use in clinics today.
What they found
The Social Competence side held up well. The Problem Behavior side did not fit as neatly.
Bottom line: you can trust the scores for social skills, but be cautious when using the problem behavior numbers for big decisions.
How this fits with other research
LeSage et al. (1996) first showed the form was solid. Sipes et al. (2011) is a later health check that finds a small crack in one section.
Northrup et al. (2022) took the warning seriously. They used expert consensus to rewrite the problem items so they match DSM-5 language. Their update now waits for a new validity study.
Adriaanse et al. (2026) kept the good parts and built a self-report version for teens. All three studies together move us from parent-only to multi-view assessment.
Why it matters
If you use the NCBRF now, lean on the Social Competence scores and double-check problem behavior results with ABC, BPI-S, or direct observation. Watch for the revised DSM-5 version coming soon and plan to switch when data support it.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull your last three NCBRF reports and note whether big decisions rested on Problem Behavior raw scores; if yes, re-check with an alternate tool.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) experience high rates of emotional and behavior problems. The Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form (NCBRF) is one of the few tools developed to assess these problems in this population. It consists of a 10-item Social Competence section and a 66-item Problem Behavior section. The goal of this study was to examine the factorial, criterion, and convergent validity of the NCBRF. Data from individuals aged five to 18 years (n = 399) were submitted to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In addition, scores of different clinical groups (disruptive behavior disorders, mood/anxiety disorders, taking psychotropic medicines) were compared to youth with no significant clinical concerns and associations with Developmental Behavior Checklist (DBC) scores were examined in a subsample of participants. Results of the CFA indicated that the Social Competence subscales better fit the data (RMSEA = .056), than the Problem Behavior subscales (RMSEA = .086). Comparisons across clinical groups and correlations with DBC scores were significant and in the expected directions. This study supports the use of the NCBRF in youth with IDD, though the factor structure of the Problem Behavior section may need to be revisited.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.015