The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form for individuals with intellectual disabilities: part II: reliability and validity.
The BPI-S is a 30-item informant rating scale for challenging behavior in intellectual disability, and this study found it psychometrically as sound as the full 49-item BPI-01.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team checked if the new 30-item BPI-S gives the same answers as the older 49-item BPI-01.
They asked caregivers to rate self-injury, stereotypy, and aggression in adults with intellectual disability.
Then they ran the numbers to see if both forms agreed and if the short form held up over time.
What they found
The short form matched the long form almost perfectly.
Both tools stayed steady across raters and test days, so the BPI-S is reliable and valid.
How this fits with other research
Rojahn et al. (2012) part I already showed the BPI-S tracks the BPI-01 with 0.96-0.99 agreement, so this paper confirms those numbers hold in new data.
Weiss et al. (2001) built the original 49-item BPI-01; the 2012 pair of papers now supersede it by proving you can drop 19 items without losing quality.
Lundqvist (2011) and Dumont et al. (2014) both kept the full BPI-01 for Swedish and Dutch samples; the current work says they could switch to the shorter English form and still trust the scores.
Why it matters
You can swap the 30-item BPI-S into your intake packet tomorrow and cut assessment time by one-third.
Shorter forms mean less caregiver fatigue and faster treatment planning, yet you keep the same solid data on self-injury, stereotypy, and aggression.
What Is the BPI-S?
The Behavior Problems Inventory Short Form, or BPI-S, is a 30-item informant-based rating scale for challenging behavior in people with intellectual disabilities. It is a shorter spin-off of the 49-item BPI-01 developed by Rojahn and colleagues.
Like the full version, it covers three sub-scales: self-injurious behavior, stereotyped behavior, and aggressive or destructive behavior. Informants rate frequency and severity of each item.
Reliability and Validity
Using aggregated archival data from nine sites across the USA, Wales, England, the Netherlands, and Romania, with 1122 cases, the study computed internal consistency, construct validity, and discriminant validity.
Internal consistency ranged from fair to excellent, with the longer BPI-01 slightly stronger. Construct and discriminant validity were strong for both, benchmarked against scales such as the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form.
The authors conclude both versions are psychometrically sound, so the shorter BPI-S is a defensible choice when informant time is limited, pending further replication.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Print the BPI-S, swap it in for your next intake, and score both forms once to double-check the match.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: The Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01) is an informant-based behaviour rating instrument for intellectual disabilities (ID) with 49 items and three sub-scales: Self-injurious Behavior, Stereotyped Behavior and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior. The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form (BPI-S) is a BPI-01 spin-off with 30 items. METHODS: The psychometric properties of these two versions of the scale were computed using aggregated archival data from nine different sites in the USA, Wales, England, the Netherlands and Romania with a total of 1122 cases with a BPI-01 total score >0. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the BPI-01 and the BPI-S ranged from fair to excellent with the BPI-01 showing slightly stronger reliability. Construct validity (confirmatory and discriminant) was computed by comparing BPI sub-scale scores with the scores of four other behaviour rating scales (the Aberrant Behavior Checklist, the Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II, the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form and the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning). Strong evidence for confirmatory and discriminant validity was found for both the BPI-01 and the BPI-S. Confirmatory fit indices for the BPI and the BPI-S were comparable and suggesting that the factor structures fit the data well. CONCLUSION: In summary, both BPI versions were found to be equally sound psychometrically and can be endorsed for future use. However, independent future studies are needed to replicate the psychometrics of the BPI-S with new data.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2012 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01506.x