Assessment & Research

The Adapted Firesetting Assessment Scale: reliability and validity.

Collins et al. (2022) · Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR 2022
★ The Verdict

A 30-item checklist quickly spots fire risk in adults with developmental delays.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running adult day or residential programs.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only serve young children or non-verbal clients.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team built a 30-item checklist for adults with developmental delays.

It asks how much someone likes fire, sees fire as normal, and knows fire safety.

They gave the scale twice to the same people to see if answers stayed the same.

02

What they found

The scores were steady the second time, showing excellent test-retest reliability.

The scale also told apart people who had set fires from those who had not.

In short, it gives a quick, reliable picture of fire risk in this group.

03

How this fits with other research

Glenn et al. (2013) also tweaked a common scale, the SDQ, for adults with Down syndrome.

Both studies show you can adapt paper tools for people with ID, but you must still check reliability.

Christian et al. (1997) did the same with the DASH-II mania subscale, finding good internal consistency.

Together these papers build a roadmap: modify, re-test, then use.

04

Why it matters

You now have a 5-minute screen that flags fire interest before an incident happens.

Add it to intake packets for adult day programs or group homes.

If the score is high, teach fire safety and watch triggers—no big test battery needed.

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

Hand the scale to new admits; teach safety if any item scores above 2.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
survey
Sample size
59
Population
developmental delay
Finding
positive
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: The Adapted Firesetting Assessment Scale was developed for use with adults with developmental disabilities targeting fire-related factors thought to be associated with deliberate firesetting behaviour (i.e. attitudes towards fire, fire interest, fire normalisation, identification with fire and fire safety awareness). However, the psychometric properties of the scale are yet to be evaluated. METHOD: The reliability, validity, comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness of the Adapted Firesetting Assessment Scale were evaluated. Fifty-nine adults with developmental disabilities, some of whom had a history of firesetting, completed the Adapted Firesetting Assessment Scale on two occasions. Feedback about the questionnaire was sought from both participants and professionals. RESULTS: The AFAS has acceptable internal consistency and excellent test-retest reliability. The attitudes towards fire, fire normalisation, poor fire safety subscales and total scores discriminated firesetters from non-firesetters. Content analysis of feedback indicated items of the AFAS were understood, relevant, accessible and comprehensible. CONCLUSION: A larger study is needed to examine the factor structure of the AFAS.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2022 · doi:10.1111/jir.12950