Factor analysis of the aberrant behavior checklist in individuals with autism spectrum disorders.

Lillis et al. (2007) ran a factor analysis on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist for clients with autism. They wanted to see if the usual five-factor shape still holds in this group.

A new factor showed up: self-injury. The team checked if this factor stayed steady across the sample.

The five ABC factors stayed intact, but self-injury now stood on its own. This lets you spot clients who self-injure with one quick number.

The stable structure means you can trust ABC scores when you move from general IDD samples to ASD.

Prigge et al. (2013) extends this work to toddlers. They found the five-factor shape breaks down in children under five, so use extra care when you score very young kids.

Freeth et al. (2019) also extends the finding. They show the irritability and lethargy factors inflate in minimally verbal youth. A stable structure does not guarantee fair scores for every subgroup.

Flowers et al. (2020) and Dempsey et al. (2016) back up the need for a clean self-injury flag. Their data show classic predictors miss most SIB variance, so a ready-made factor is handy for quick risk sorting.

You can now use the ABC self-injury factor as a fast screen. If the score is high, move the client to the front of the line for full functional assessment and safety planning. Pair this with age and verbal-level cautions from later studies to avoid false positives in very young or minimally verbal kids.