The factor structure of the Reiss Screen for Maladaptive Behaviors in institutional and community populations.

Sturmey et al. (1996) ran math checks on the Reiss Screen. They looked at three groups of adults with intellectual disability. One group lived in large state centers. Two groups lived in smaller community homes.

They used factor analysis to see if the test’s seven published scales really showed up in the numbers.

The seven-scale structure never appeared. One sample gave a single big factor. The other two samples gave three factors each.

None of these patterns matched the manual’s layout.

Prasher et al. (1995) had already shown the Reiss Screen is reliable. Same test, same year, good numbers. That paper said “use it.” The 1996 paper says “the scales don’t hold.” These two studies sit side-by-side and point in opposite directions.

Straccia et al. (2013) later repeated the factor work in French. They found the original seven factors. The clash looks real, but the French study used a different language and newer stats. The tool may behave differently across cultures.

Other teams moved on to new tools. Willemsen-Swinkels et al. (1998) built the Mini PAS-ADD. Dagnan et al. (2025) checked PHQ-9 and GAD-7 for ID clients. These papers extend the same goal—quick mental-health screens—while the Reiss factor fight stays stuck.

If you still use the Reiss Screen, treat the seven scale scores as rough flags, not truth. Watch for items that cluster differently in your own data. When you write reports, say “elevated score on Reiss item set” instead of “elevated Autism scale.” Keep an eye on newer screeners like the Mini PAS-ADD or PHQ-9 that have cleaner factor proof.