The Behavior Problem Inventory: a further replication of its factor structure.
The three BPI scales hold steady across samples, giving BCBAs a reliable way to size up problem behavior in adults with ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Prasher et al. (1995) ran a factor analysis on the Behavior Problem Inventory with adults living in a U.S. residential facility.
They wanted to see if the three groups of items—self-injury, stereotypy, and aggression—stayed together in a new sample.
What they found
The same three factors showed up again.
Self-injury items clumped tightly, just like in earlier work.
Internal consistency was high, so the scales held together well.
How this fits with other research
Weiss et al. (2001) built the original 52-item BPI-01; P et al. simply tested its bones again and got the same shape.
Lundqvist (2011) later repeated the factor test in a large Swedish community sample and still found the three factors, showing the pattern travels across countries and settings.
Rojahn et al. (2012) then trimmed the tool to 30 items (BPI-S) and kept the same three factors with even stronger numbers, so you can now save time without losing punch.
Why it matters
You can trust the BPI three-scale snapshot in almost any adult ID setting—residential, community, U.S., or Europe.
If you need a quick screen, grab the 30-item BPI-S; if you want the full picture, the 49-item BPI-01 still works.
Either way, you get clear counts of self-injury, stereotypy, and aggression to guide treatment and track change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start your next assessment with the 30-item BPI-S; score the three subscales and use the highest one to pick your first intervention target.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The Behavior Problem Inventory was administered to a random sample of people living in a state school. The scores from all items and from self-injury items only were factor analysed. The three scales of the Behavior Problem Inventory were highly internally consistent. Factor analysis of all the items showed some similarities to previous studies, and factor analysis of the self-injury items showed a very close correspondence to two previous studies. The results are discussed in terms of the design of this instrument, the possible multi-factorial nature of self-injury and future research on the design of measures of assessments of maladaptive behaviours in people with developmental disabilities.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 1995 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1995.tb00527.x