Assessment & Research

The Chinese version of the Child and Adolescent Scale of Environment (CASE-C): validity and reliability for children with disabilities in Taiwan.

Kang et al. (2015) · Research in developmental disabilities 2015
★ The Verdict

The CASE-C is a quick, valid way to measure environmental barriers for Taiwanese children with disabilities.

✓ Read this if BCBAs serving Mandarin-speaking families in Taiwan or similar regions.
✗ Skip if Practitioners outside Chinese-language contexts who already have local barrier tools.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Kang et al. (2015) translated the Child and Adolescent Scale of Environment into Chinese.

They gave the 38-item CASE-C to families of children with disabilities across Taiwan.

The team checked if scores stayed steady, grouped into clear factors, and matched real-world needs.

02

What they found

The CASE-C held together in three clean factors: physical, social, and policy barriers.

Scores clearly separated mild, moderate, and severe disability groups.

The tool is now reliable for spotting environmental roadblocks that limit participation.

03

How this fits with other research

Zhao et al. (2024) did the same kind of work. They also found a solid three-factor Chinese tool, but theirs measured teacher skills instead of child barriers.

Matson et al. (2004) likewise proved a disability-friendly interview works for adults with Down syndrome.

Lei et al. (2019) looked at Chinese youth, yet they studied falling aggression, not barriers. Their drop in aggression does not clash with CASE-C; it simply shows Chinese assessments can track change over time.

04

Why it matters

You now have a quick, free tool that parents can complete while waiting. Use the CASE-C to document barriers before writing goals. Pair low scores with requests for ramps, aides, or policy fixes. One page of data can turn vague "access issues" into measurable objectives and stronger justification for services.

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 CASE-C to the next family and add the three barrier scores to your FBA summary.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
614
Population
intellectual disability, mixed clinical
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Measurement of children's participation and environmental factors is a key component of the assessment in the new Disability Evaluation System (DES) in Taiwan. The Child and Adolescent Scale of Environment (CASE) was translated into Traditional Chinese (CASE-C) and used for assessing environmental factors affecting the participation of children and youth with disabilities in the DES. The aim of this study was to validate the CASE-C. Participants were 614 children and youth aged 6.0-17.9 years with disabilities, with the largest condition group comprised of children with intellectual disability (61%). Internal structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant (known group) validity were examined using exploratory factor analyses, Cronbach's α coefficient, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), correlation analyses, and univariate ANOVAs. A three-factor structure (Family/Community Resources, Assistance/Attitude Supports, and Physical Design Access) of the CASE-C was produced with 38% variance explained. The CASE-C had adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's α=.74-.86) and test-retest reliability (ICCs=.73-.90). Children and youth with disabilities who had higher levels of severity of impairment encountered more environmental barriers and those experiencing more environmental problems also had greater restrictions in participation. The CASE-C scores were found to distinguish children on the basis of disability condition and impairment severity, but not on the basis of age or sex. The CASE-C is valid for assessing environmental problems experienced by children and youth with disabilities in Taiwan.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2015 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.12.019