Examining the Impact of Respondent-Level Factors on Scores on the Supports Intensity Scale - Children's Version.

Hagiwara et al. (2019) looked at old SIS-C files. They asked who filled out the form.

Some forms came from parents. Others came from teachers or aides. The team compared the scores.

Family raters marked higher support needs. School staff marked lower needs.

The gap was big enough to change placement and funding.

Vassos et al. (2023) also found bias, but in test items, not people. Their autism flourishing scale flags social items as unfair. Together the papers warn: scores can tilt two ways—bad items or different raters.

Saad (2025) and Chowdhury et al. (2016) show parent tools can be trusted when the parent is the right rater. Their clean stats support keeping family voices in the room.

Mulder et al. (2020) give the teacher side. Their ASSET scale proves educators can rate themselves well. Mixing these views, instead of picking one, gives a fuller picture.

Before you use an SIS-C score, check who filled it out. If only the teacher rated, plan a second interview with the family. Match rater type to the decision being made: school plans can lean on teacher data, but funding and living-support requests should include family ratings. This simple step guards against under-funding and keeps plans truly person-centered.