Factor validity and reliability for the Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Community in a Japanese population with mental retardation.

Researchers translated the Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Community into Japanese. They gave the form to staff in facilities that serve adults with intellectual disability. Staff rated the same adults twice, two weeks apart, to see if scores stayed steady.

The Japanese form held together well. Internal consistency was strong, meaning items that should match did match. Test-retest and interrater numbers were also high, so different staff and different days gave similar scores.

Bacon et al. (1998) ran a similar check on the Spanish Social Behaviour Schedule. They also found good test-retest and interrater numbers, yet warned that two different informants often disagreed. The Japanese ABC study did not test that wrinkle, so you may still want a second rater or a file review.

Hogg et al. (1995) showed the K-ABC keeps its factor shape in older adults with severe ID. Ono (1996) adds proof that translated tools can keep their psych legs when moved to new languages and cultures.

Cohen-Almeida et al. (2000) tracked the same Japanese residential cohort that Ono (1996) sampled. Their work shows many adults stay put for decades; a stable behavior metric like the ABC-Community is therefore vital for long-term care plans.

If you serve Japanese adults with ID, you can trust the ABC-Community to flag behavior changes without extra pilot work. Use it at intake, annual reviews, and before placement moves. One caveat: still cross-check with other staff or records, because Bacon et al. (1998) showed single-rater reports can drift.