Assessment & Research

Measuring support needs in children with motor disability: Validity and utility of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS-C).

Aguayo et al. (2019) · Research in developmental disabilities 2019
★ The Verdict

SIS-C is sound for motor disability, yet loses steam at the severe-motor ceiling.

✓ Read this if BCBAs doing intake or triennial reviews for students with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, or muscular dystrophy.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only assess verbal children with mild motor issues.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Carter Leno et al. (2019) tested the SIS-C with kids who have motor disabilities. They wanted to know if the seven support areas still hold up when movement is limited.

The team ran the numbers to see if scores stay reliable at the severe end. They also checked if the scale still tells kids apart when impairments are profound.

02

What they found

The seven-factor structure stayed solid. The scale is trustworthy for most children with motor disability.

But once motor limits hit the highest level, scores bunch at the top. The tool stops showing small differences among the most involved kids.

03

How this fits with other research

Hagiwara et al. (2019) looked at the same scale in the same year. They found teachers mark support needs lower than parents do. Together the papers show the SIS-C is psychometrically sound, yet you must note who filled it out.

Berkovits et al. (2014) built the Ease of Caregiving scale for young kids with cerebral palsy. Both studies prove we can measure caregiver load in motor disability, but each tool hits ceiling issues when impairments are severe.

McClain et al. (2025) created the SCIPS for social communication. Like Virginia, they confirm new scales can be reliable, yet each tool has limits at extreme scores.

04

Why it matters

Use the SIS-C with confidence for most students on your caseload who have cerebral palsy or similar conditions. When you see top-level scores, add a short parent interview or direct observation to catch small but important differences the scale might miss.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

If a child's SIS-C scores are maxed out, add one open-ended parent question: 'What extra help would make tomorrow easier?'

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
210
Population
intellectual disability, developmental delay
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the Supports Intensity Scale-Children's version (SIS-C) is valid and useful to assess support needs for children with motor and intellectual disabilities. AIMS: (a) To assess the structural validity of the SIS-C using factor analyses in a sample of children with motor disabilities; and (b) to analyze the SIS-C's reliability and its discriminative capacity in children with different levels of motor function. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A cross-sectional design was used to assess 210 children (aged 5-16 years). Among them, 88% had an intellectual disability and 84% had cerebral palsy, with variations in mobility (Gross Motor Function Classification System; level V: 56.19%), handling of objects (Manual Ability Classification System; level V: 38.09%), and communicating (Communication Function Classification System; level V: 42.86%). OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The model with seven support needs factors and three method factors showed the best fit. The support needs model was reliable and indicated high convergent validity. However, the SIS-C scores showed a strong ceiling effect in children with more significant limitations in gross and fine motor functions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The seven-dimensional model of support needs could be replicated in children with motor disabilities. However, the usefulness of SIS-C is limited in discriminating between children with greater restrictions in mobility and handling of objects.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2019 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103509