==== Front J Autism Dev Disord J Autism Dev Disord Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 0162-3257 1573-3432 Springer US New York 35579790 5602 10.1007/s10803-022-05602-2 Original Paper What is the concordance between parent- and education professional-reported adaptive functioning in autistic children using the VABS-II? Moore Heather L. heather.moore@newcastle.ac.uk 1 Couteur Ann Le 2 Charman Tony 3 Green Jonathan 45 Parr Jeremy R 26 Grahame Victoria 6 1 School of Psychology, 4.28, Dame Margaret Barbour Building, Wallace Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4DR England, UK 2 grid.419334.8 0000 0004 0641 3236 Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Level 3, Queen Victoria Road, NE1 4LP Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 3 grid.13097.3c 0000 0001 2322 6764 Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, Box PO77, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, SE5 8AF London, UK 4 grid.5379.8 0000000121662407 Division of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, PACT-G Trial Office, Room 3.312, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, M13 9PL Manchester, UK 5 grid.415910.8 0000 0001 0235 2382 Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, M13 9WL Manchester, UK 6 grid.451089.1 0000 0004 0436 1276 Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Walkergate Park, Benfield Rd, NE6 4QD Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 17 5 2022 17 5 2022 2023 53 8 30773091 2 5 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Adaptive functioning of autistic children is traditionally measured through informant-report, often from parents. Behaviour varies across settings though, and context-specific reports should be considered. Limited and inconsistent results show low parent-education professional concordance, but no research has yet explored item level response variation. We investigated Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales-II concordance using 233 lower ability autistic children from the PACT-G sample. Domain and item level agreement was low, but better on objectively measured behaviours. Higher child nonverbal ability improved concordance. Where disagreements occurred, education professionals identified emergent skills more and parents were more likely to rate present/absent. Parents and education professionals view the adaptive abilities of autistic children differently and both should be considered when developing personalised interventions and support. Keywords Autism Adaptive functioning Concordance Parent-report Education Professional-/Teacher-Report http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272 National Institute for Health Research National Institute for Health Research http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265 Medical Research Council 13/119/18 issue-copyright-statement© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023 ==== Body pmcAutistic people commonly experience difficulties with adaptive functioning (Maskey et al., 2012). Adaptive functioning involves the practical, everyday skills that an individual needs to meet the demands of their environment, including the ability to communicate and interact with others, access education and complete everyday living tasks. These skills are essential for a number of real-world outcomes such as educational attainment, likelihood of independent living, and reliance on support services (De Bildt et al., 2005; Farley et al., 2009; Taylor & Henninger, 2015) and longitudinal follow up of autistic adults indicates low rates of independent living, employment, friendships and romantic relationships (Magiati et al., 2014; Lord et al., 2020; Zimmerman et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important to understand adaptive abilities of autistic individuals and the long-term outcomes related to these skills, in order to better map out personalised support and improve long term outcomes. However, in the context of autism, measurement of adaptive functioning has proven challenging for two main reasons. Firstly, autistic children may lack insight into their abilities, may struggle to communicate about their behaviours, and may not demonstrate their skills when assessed directly. This has been addressed by utilising informant-report for adaptive abilities in autistic children. Informants (e.g. parents, teachers) have observed the child’s skills in daily life (Merrell, 2000), and have the added advantage of being able to report less frequent but potentially important behaviours. A commonly used tool is the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS; (Sparrow et al., 1984a, b, 2005), an informant-report measure that includes domains in Communication, Daily Living Skills (DLS), Socialisation, and Motor Skills, as well as an Adaptive Behaviour Composite (ABC) score that subsumes all domains. Using parent-report, research has identified a broad profile with relative strengths in Motor Skills and weaknesses in Socialisation or Communication (Mouga et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2014; Ventola et al., 2014; Matthews et al., 2015; Nevill et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2016). The second challenge of measurement in all areas of autism is the strongly context-dependent nature of behaviour, and difficulties with generalising learning between contexts (Carruthers et al., 2020). Autistic children often vary in their behaviour over time and across contexts, such as between home and school, and different expectations may be placed on children in these different environments (Ozonoff et al., 2005; McDonald et al., 2016; De Los Reyes, 2011; Achenbach, 2011; Kanne et al., 2009). Very little research has investigated education professional report of adaptive functioning in autistic children, but a similar profile of relative strengths in Motor Skills was recently identified using education professional-report (Moore et al., 2021). However, the profile of abilities across VABS-II domains was consistent in this research, in contrast to the relative weaknesses in Socialisation or Communication found in the parent literature. Despite this variation in reported profiles, the same child factors influenced reporting by education professionals (namely, negative associations with chronological age, parent-reported autism severity and teacher-rated child behaviour, as well as positive associations with nonverbal ability and language ability) as can be seen in the parent literature (e.g. Di Rezze et al., 2019; Farmer et al., 2018; Nevill et al., 2017; Paynter et al., 2018). The variation in the information available to informants may lead to differences in reports of adaptive functioning, complicating our ability to understand the adaptive abilities of autistic children. Understanding and interpretation of items, as well as familiarity with the child and frequency of interactions with them may also impact on reporting of adaptive abilities (Achenbach, 2011). To date, only four studies have investigated concordance between parent- and teacher-reported adaptive functioning and have shown varying results (Dickson et al., 2018; Lane et al., 2013; McDonald et al., 2016; Jordan et al., 2019), although differences exist in sample characteristics between the studies. When comparing overall scores between parents and teachers, a small study by Lane et al., (2013) found no difference using the VABS-II with 28 34–71 month olds, but a subsample of parents rated their children as having significantly better performance than teachers when using the adaptive skills component of the Behaviour Assessment System for Children-2 (BASC-2; (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). A larger study by Dickson et al., (2018) also showed consistently higher parent than teacher ratings on the VABS-II with 246 3–12 year olds (mean cognitive standard score: 68.8, SD: 20.8). Conversely, in two higher functioning samples (IQ > 70), McDonald et al., (2016) and Jordan et al., (2019) both found higher teacher than parent ratings using the BASC-2 and Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-3 (ABAS-3; (Harrison & Oakland, 2015), respectively (McDonald et al.: 118 6–11 year olds; Jordan et al.:103 6–12 year olds). Investigating agreement between parent and teacher scores, Lane and colleagues and Dickson and colleagues found medium to large correlations, whereas McDonald et al. and Jordan et al. found small to medium correlations (Lane et al.: VABS-II ranged from 0.43 to 0.73, though Socialisation subscale scores were not significant in isolation, BASC-2: 0.41, although Adaptability subscale was nonsignificant in isolation; Dickson et al.: 0.44-0.66; McDonald et al.: 0.10-0.29; Jordan et al.: 0.27-0.48). Additionally, McDonald et al. and Jordan et al. identified poor-good intra-class correlations (ICC; McDonald et al.: 0.18-0.43; Jordan et al.: 0.41-0.65). Both also used Bland-Altman plots (plus regression) to determine whether systematic differences emerged across the range of scores, and McDonald et al. found greater parent-teacher difference as the parent-teacher mean score increased on their adaptive skills composite score. Three studies explored predictors of congruence, and while Dickson et al., (2018) identified cognitive ability as a significant predictor for the Social domain, neither McDonald et al., (2016) nor Jordan et al., (2019) found significant correlations with any measured parent or child factors. Combined, these studies show variable concordance, with differences in whether parents or teachers rated child behaviour higher, agreement between raters ranging from small to large, and variation in whether any identified rater or child factors influenced the level of agreement. It may be that this relates to the specific measure, or to the ability level of the children. Less research has explored concordance between parents and teachers of lower ability autistic children, although Dickson’s research had a wider ability range than the studies conducted by McDonald et al. and Jordan et al. and showed a different pattern of results. Indeed, Voelker et al., (2000) found that parents of non-autistic children with low IQ rated them as more advanced than their teachers. In addition, no study to date has examined whether parents and education professionals are reporting the same behaviours. While domain scores may be similar, these are constructed from total scores across multiple subsections, designed to measure different behaviours, and not all items are consistent across parent and teacher forms. Given the context-specific behaviour presented by autistic individuals, it may be that informants are reporting different behaviours entirely, or different capabilities on the same behaviours, which subsequently combine to affect domain-level agreement. Research by Voelker et al., (2000) suggested different reporting patterns where disagreement existed, with parents tending towards more extreme categories in their rankings than teachers (e.g. present/absent vs. emergent/sometimes present; i.e. abilities coming into being). To our knowledge, no research to date has investigated item level agreement between different raters using the VABS-II in autism. Detailed exploration and comparison of item level responses on the parent and teacher VABS-II would provide an opportunity to more fully understand adaptive functioning in each context. In order to address this gap in the literature, we investigated concordance between parent- and education professional-reported adaptive abilities in a sample of pre- and primary school aged autistic children with lower nonverbal ability than previously considered. We used the baseline characterisation data of the Paediatric Autism Communication Trial-Generalised (PACT-G) trial (see Green et al., 2018), for details of the trial protocol) for this work. Please note that when referring to measures and associated scores, we use ‘teacher’, which is the label used by these measures, but when referring to informants, we use ‘education professional’, to encompass the broader range of staff involved in this research. Our first aim was to replicate current studies to explore VABS-II ABC and domain concordance between parents and education professionals in the PACT-G sample, by (1) Comparing mean scores, and looking at ICCs and Bland-Altman plots (plus regression); and (2) Exploring child factors that may influence reporting and therefore the level of disagreement between parents and education professionals. Our second aim was to extend the knowledge base by considering to what extent concordance exists at the item level, and if disparities do exist; on which items and why. Given the limited and variable literature base, it is difficult to form directional hypotheses. However, we do anticipate low levels of concordance between parents and education professionals at both the ABC/domain level and the item level. Methods Participants In this study, we used the baseline characterisation data from PACT-G (Green et al., 2018), a multisite, randomised controlled trial social communication intervention for autistic children. A sample of 248 children, aged between 2 and 11 years, in South London, Greater Manchester and the North-East of England were recruited via referral from local clinical and educational services between November 2016 and April 2018. Eligibility criteria included: a clinical autism diagnosis, confirmed using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2nd Edition (ADOS-2; Lord et al., 2012) cut-off scores for ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder’ and the Social Communication Lifetime Questionnaire (SCQ; Rutter et al., 2003) scores of ≥ 12 (for children < 5 years) or ≥ 15 (for children ≥ 5 years); a nonverbal age-equivalent of > 12 months, measured using the Visual Reception (VR) and Fine Motor (FM) subscales of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL; Mullen 1995), or the Special Nonverbal Composite Score on the British Ability Scales-School Age (BAS; Elliott & Smith 2011); and language abilities between P3 and P8 on the English curriculum1 for children ≥ 5 years. Children with epilepsy were included if controlled by medication. Children/parents with significant hearing/visual impairments were excluded, as were parents with severe learning disability or psychiatric disorder. Parents were required to have enough spoken and written English to participate in PACT-G assessments and intervention. Child characteristics and parent and education provision information for the whole sample are presented in Table 1. A favourable ethical opinion was obtained from the North West-Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (REF: 15/NW/0912) and parents provided informed, written consent before taking part in PACT-G. In addition, the child’s education provider was also required to agree to participate in the study. Table 1 Demographic characteristics of PACT-G sample (N = 233) N (%) Mean SD Min Max Child CA (Months) – Parent Assessment 233 (100) 61.49 21.89 28 131 Child CA (Months) – Education Professional Assessment 233 (100) 62.74 21.81 36 132 Child Gender Female 49 (21.03) Male 184 (78.97) Child Ethnicity White-British 128 (54.94) White non-British 12 (5.15) Mixed/Multiple ethnic backgroundsa 21 (9.01) Asian/Asian-British 29 (12.45) Black/African/Caribbean/Black British 36 (15.45) Other ethnic groupb 7 (3.00) Phrase Speech (ADOS-2 Modulec) Module 1 175 (75.11) Module 2 58 (24.89) Parent Mother 216 (92.70) Father 16 (6.87) Otherd 1 (0.43) Type of School Mainstream nursery 86 (36.91) Specialist nursery 4 (1.72) Mainstream primary school 47 (20.17) Mainstream school with SEN/autism resource class 7 (3.00) Special school with mixed disabilities 54 (23.18) Specialist autism school 34 (14.59) Childminder 1 (0.43) Type of Education Professionale Day care provider 23 (9.87) General education teacher 158 (67.81) Special education teacher 47 (20.17) Otherf 5 (2.15) Note: (a) Includes mixed white and black Caribbean, white and black African, white and Asian, and any other mixed backgrounds. (b) Includes Arab. (c) ADOS-2 module 1: nonverbal-simple phrases e.g. two words); ADOS-2 module 2: short phrases upwards. (d) Adoptive Mother. (e) Informant-chosen categories from the T-VABS-II; general and special education teachers include a combination of teachers and LSAs. (f) Includes managerial staff and one school’s Communications Champion Measures Characterisation data from the PACT-G sample used in this study included2: Adaptive Functioning The VABS-II survey form (P-VABS-II) is an interview-format rating scale used to measure parent/caregiver assessment of a child’s adaptive functioning, from birth to 90 + years. The Teacher rating form of the VABS-II (T-VABS-II; Sparrow et al., 2005) is a questionnaire used to measure teacher assessment of a child’s adaptive ability within an education setting, for those aged 3–21 years. Both P- and T-VABS-II measure four domains: Communication, Daily Living Skills (DLS), Socialisation, and Motor Skills, which, combined, form an overarching Adaptive Behaviour Composite (ABC) score. Communication appraises the child’s use and understanding of spoken and written language. DLS encompasses practical skills the child needs to take care of themselves and respond to the requirements of the home or school community. Socialisation measures how the child interacts with others and uses their free time. Finally, Motor Skills incorporates fine and gross motor movements, coordination, and manipulation of objects. Inter-rater reliability is 0.74 (Sparrow et al., 2005). Chronological age-relevant starting points are employed with both measures, as well as reverse rules to use earlier items if a child does not meet the baseline requirements for their own age. Raw scores were translated into standard scores for each domain, with a mean of 100 and SD of 15. Autism Severity The ADOS-2 (Lord et al., 2012) is a semi structured, play-based assessment of social communication and restricted and repetitive behaviours (RRBs). Modules 1 and 2 were used, covering the age range and verbal ability of the sample, from nonverbal through to phrase speech. A Calibrated Severity Score (CSS) ranging from 1 to 10 was calculated from social affect (SA) and RRB domains, which is standardised in relation to the child’s CA and verbal ability and can be compared across modules. Higher scores indicate more severe autism symptomology. The SCQ Lifetime (Rutter et al., 2003) is a 40-item, parent-report measure, which requires yes or no responses according to whether or not the child displays particular social communication behaviours and yields a score ranging from 0 to 40. Higher scores indicate more symptoms of autism. Non-Verbal Ability The VR and FM subscales from the MSEL (Mullen, 1995) measure nonverbal ability. We used age equivalent (AE) scores and calculated a nonverbal developmental quotient (NVDQ; see data analysis), because our sample included children outside of the age range to ascertain standard scores (i.e., > 5 years). Higher scores indicate greater nonverbal ability. Language Ability The Receptive (ROWT) and Expressive (EOWT) One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (Martin & Brownell, 2011a, b) are picture-based assessments assessing understanding and use of single words. The child is presented with a picture and asked to name it (EOWT), and presented with a selection of pictures and asked to identify which one the examiner has named (ROWT). We used raw scores to capture performance variation, with higher scores indicating more correct responses, as many participants did not score sufficient correct responses to derive a t-score. Procedure Baseline data were collected prior to randomisation in the PACT-G study. Assessments administered directly with the child were completed either at the research clinic, child’s home and/or educational setting. Parents completed the SCQ during the first session and returned it to the research team. The P-VABS-II was administered via interview with a trained researcher. The T-VABS-II was completed by the education professional, without interviewer support. Education settings chose the most appropriate person to complete questionnaires, based on prior knowledge of the child. An education professional might complete a T-VABS-II for more than one child. Both parents and education staff were given opportunities to ask questions about any items prior to submission. Statistical Analysis This is a secondary analysis of data collected for PACT-G and was powered to meet the primary aims of this study. For these analyses, the N (ranging between 168 and 233 pairs of raters) was sufficient to detect an effect of 0.5 at an α of 0.05, with power > 0.80 (G*Power 3.1.9.7; Faul et al., 2009). Data were prepared and analysed using Stata Version 16 (StataCorp, 2019) and IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25 (IBM Corp, 2017). One family withdrew from the study post-randomisation, and 12 participants were removed from the analyses as they were < 3 years, thus younger than the youngest available normative data for the T-VABS-II. Data were missing if questionnaires were incomplete, e.g. insufficient subscale items completed to calculate domain scores on the VABS-II, or in the case of VABS-II Motor Skills, if participants were older than the CA subscale cut-off of 7 + years. Table 2 shows N values for each variable included in the analyses. Of researcher-administered measures, two participants completed the BAS (Elliott & Smith, 2011) so did not have MSEL NVDQ scores, and it was not possible to complete the ROWT and EOWT with a small number of participants. Table 2 Descriptive statistics for parent and teacher measures of adaptive functioning, as well as measures of autism severity, nonverbal ability, language ability, and strengths and difficulties N Min Max Mean SD Parent SS P-VABS-II ABC 231 40 87 62.13 9.41 P-VABS-II Communication 233 36 97 62.71 14.89 P-VABS-II DLS 233 34 105 63.15 11.71 P-VABS-II Socialisation 233 47 90 63.50 9.21 P-VABS-II Motor skills 198 43 114 71.02 10.64 Teacher SS T-VABS-II ABC 223 25 98 58.22 14.56 T-VABS-II Communication 229 27 114 62.01 16.47 T-VABS-II DLS 231 23 108 62.15 15.61 T-VABS-II Socialisation 233 41 93 61.73 11.40 T-VABS-II Motor Skills 191 30 103 67.79 13.86 Parent-Teacher Mean Difference SS PT-VABS-II ABC 222 -42 50 4.10 15.11 PT-VABS-II Communication 229 -55 53 0.85 19.28 PT-VABS-II DLS 231 -52 47 1.02 16.94 PT-VABS-II Socialisation 233 -36 39 1.77 13.32 PT-VABS-II Motor Skills 168 -33 50 2.97 14.64 Child Characteristics ADOS CSS 233 6 10 7.40 1.26 SCQ Total Score 233 12 36 23.53 5.29 MSEL NVDQ 231 17.09 112.24 48.69 18.38 ROWT Total Score 232 0 80 18.16 21.68 EOWT Total Score 228 0 78 15.44 18.69 Some of the data were not normally distributed; therefore, we used nonparametric equivalents, where possible. To investigate whether differences existed in the standard scores for parents and education professionals, we compared VABS-II ABC scores using a Wilcoxon signed ranks test. We compared domain scores using a mixed ANOVA, with informant as the between subjects variable and VABS-II domain as the within subjects variable. There is no nonparametric equivalent to a mixed ANOVA, but ANOVAs are considered robust to violations of normality. We also conducted ICCs to explore the level of agreement between parent and education professional ratings on the VABS-II ABC and domain scores. The strength of agreement on the ICCs was established using Cicchetti & Sparrow (1981) guidelines, developed for assessment of adaptive behaviour (< 0.40: Poor; 0.40-0.60: Fair; 0.60-0.75: Good; 0.75 − 1.00: Excellent). Additionally, Bland-Altman plots (including regression analyses) were produced to investigate whether systematic differences existed between parent and education professional ratings across the range of scores, for VABS-II ABC and domain scores. These were plotted with the VABS-II Difference Scores on the Y axis, and the mean parent-education professional score on the X axis. Education professional scores were taken from parent scores to calculate the difference score, such that a positive score indicated higher parent rating and a negative score indicated higher education professional rating. An average of the respective parent and education professional score was calculated for VABS-II ABC and domain scores to produce the mean parent-education professional score. On each graph, the solid line represents the mean difference score, and 95% CIs are represented by dotted lines above and below the mean score line. As recommended by Bland & Altman (1986), we also ran regression analyses to determine any systematic trends across the range of scores, by regressing the mean parent-education professional score on to the parent- education professional difference score. Regression lines were added to Bland-Altman plots. Next, we investigated factors which might affect differences in VABS-II ABC and domain scores between parents and education professionals. The VABS-II was administered to parents and education professionals as close together as possible. However, children were significantly older when rated by education professionals than when rated by parents (Z=-11.18, p < .001; ∆Mean: 1.25 months, see Table 1); therefore, we included difference in chronological age (CA Difference) as a potential predictor of VABS-II Difference Scores. As there were no significant differences between MSEL VR and FM AE scores (Z=-0.23, p = .8086; Mean MSEL VR = 27.43 months, Mean MSEL FM = 27.24 months), we used a mean score to calculate the MSEL NVDQ (mean nonverbal mental AE/CA*100). Participants performed significantly better on the ROWT than EOWT (Z=-4.83, p < .001); therefore, we considered these predictors separately, rather than deriving a language quotient. First, we used Spearman’s rank correlations to explore associations between VABS-II Difference Scores on the ABC and other domains, and child characteristics, such as CA Difference, autism severity, nonverbal ability, and language ability. We subsequently undertook a series of multiple linear regression analyses to explore concurrent associations between VABS-II Difference Scores on the ABC and other domains, and child characteristics. Variables for the regression analyses were entered if they were significantly associated with any of the VABS-II Difference Scores. Finally, we explored item-level agreement in ratings on the VABS-II for parent and education professional ratings. We first extracted all identical and ‘near identical’ items from the measures, allowing differences in wording relating to ‘home’/‘school’/‘classroom’ etc., but where the content was the same and no other differences in meaning arose. This totalled 165 identical /or near identical items (43% of parent items and 74% of teacher items (see Supplementary Table 1 for items). Although many of the identical items were not administered on the parent form, due to discontinue rules, the assumption is that the child would score zero on items after ceiling, making comparison possible on all identical items. Weighted kappa cross-tabulations for non-unique raters were performed using linear weightings, and simes procedure was applied to correct for multiple comparisons. We established the strength of significant weighted kappa cross-tabulations using guidelines from Altman (1991): ≤0.20: Poor; 0.21-0.40: Fair; 0.41-0.60: Moderate; 0.61-0.80: Good; 0.81 − 1.00: Very good. To further understand differences in rating decisions by parents and education professionals, the distribution of ratings across the categories were examined for all nonsignificant items (i.e., those showing disagreement), to determine how parents and education professionals ranked behaviour. For each nonsignificant kappa score, the item was examined to determine which of parents and education professionals used each category more frequently. Results Comparison of Parent and Education Professional Adaptive Functioning Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for P- and T-VAB-II ABC and domain scores. Overall, parents rated their child’s performance significantly higher than education professionals did on VABS-II ABC (N = 222, Z = 4.44, p < .0001). A mixed ANOVA found no significant main effect of informant (F(1, 1309) = 3.97, p = .1018). There was, however, a significant main effect of VABS-II domain (F(3, 1309) = 48.32, p < .0001; Greenhouse-Geisser correction) and a significant Informant by VABS-II domain interaction (F(3, 1309) = 4.69; p = .0039; Greenhouse-Geisser correction). Pairwise comparisons indicated that both parents and education professionals rated VABS-II Motor Skills higher than all other domains (all p < .001), but no other domains differed significantly. As illustrated in Fig. 1, there was no difference in rating between parents and education professionals for VABS-II Communication (N = 229, Z = 1.06, p = .2908, ns) and VABS-II DLS (N = 231, Z = 1.03, p = .3031, ns) domains, whereas parents rated their child’s performance significantly higher than education professionals on VABS-II Socialisation (N = 233, Z=-2.18, p = .0294) and VABS-II Motor Skills (N = 168, Z=-2.77, p = .0054) domains. Fig. 1 Parent and teacher VABS-II domain scores Concordance between Parent and Education Professional Adaptive Functioning As can be seen in Table 3, the ICC for inter-rater reliability on the VABS-II ABC and domain scores was poor for all but VABS-II DLS, which demonstrated fair reliability. Figure 2 shows the Bland-Altman plots for VABS-II ABC and domain scores. The range and mean differences in VABS-II SS between parents and education professionals are shown in Table 2. The regression analyses showed a significant negative relationship between the difference scores and means for VABS-II ABC (B= -0.65, t= -6.85, p < .001), DLS (B=-0.45, t=-4.54, p < .001), Socialisation (B= -0.36, t= -3.32, p = .0011), and Motor Skills. VABS-II Communication was not significant (B= -0.16, t= -1.60, p = .1118). Table 3 ICCs comparing agreement and consistency between parent and education professional ratings for the VABS-II ABC and domain scores ICC Parent-Teacher Comparison N ICC LLCI ULCI VABS-II ABC 222 0.38*** 0.19 0.52 VABS-II Communication 229 0.39*** 0.21 0.53 VABS-II DLS 231 0.40*** 0.22 0.53 VABS-II Socialisation 233 0.29** 0.09 0.45 VABS-II Motor Skills 168 0.33** 0.10 0.50 Note: LLCI: Lower level confidence interval; ULCI: Upper level confidence interval; *: Sig < 0.05; **: Sig < 0.01; ***: Sig < 0.001 Fig. 2 Bland-Altman plots to investigate systematic differences in parent and education professional reporting across the range of scores for VABS-II ABC and domains. Note: The solid line represents the mean difference score, dotted lines above and below the mean score line represent 95% CIs, and dashed lines represent regression lines Impact of child factors on parent- education Professional Concordance Table 2 shows VABS-II Difference scores for ABC and domain scores, as well as descriptive statistics for other child characteristics. Significant correlations from bivariate analyses (Supplementary Table 2) guided variable inclusion in regression analyses. Regression analyses for VABS-II ABC and domain difference scores are reported in Table 4. Across all five models, the only significant predictor was MSEL NVDQ, which was negatively associated with difference in scores between parents and education professionals. Variance accounted for by the models ranged from 10 to 35%. Table 4 Regression models for VABS-II adaptive ability difference scores for parents and education professionals, using CA difference, autism severity, nonverbal ability, and language ability B (CI) SE B β p Adjusted r2 VABS-II ABC Difference 0.35 (Constant) 23.11 (13.25, 32.97) 5.00 < 0.001*** SCQ 0.17 (-0.15, 0.49) 0.16 0.06 0.3058 MSEL NVDQ -0.45 (-0.56, -0.35) 0.54 -0.57 < 0.001*** ROWT -0.03 (-0.19, 0.13) 0.08 -0.05 0.7005 EOWT 0.02 (-0.16, 0.20) 0.09 0.03 0.8287 VABS-II Communication Difference 0.26 (Constant) 26.07 (19.69, 32.46) 3.24 < 0.001*** MSEL NVDQ -0.48 (-0.62, -0.33) 0.07 -0.46 < 0.001*** ROWT -0.05 (-0.27, 0.17) 0.11 -0.05 0.6755 EOWT -0.06 (-0.30, 0.19) -0.06 0.28 0.6454 VABS-II DLS Difference 0.34 (Constant) 26.77 (15.86, 37.67) 5.53 < 0.001*** SCQ 0.05 (-0.30, 0.40) 0.18 0.02 0.7827 MSEL NVDQ -0.57 (-0.69, -0.45) 0.06 -062. < 0.001*** ROWT 0.01 (-0.17, 0.19) 0.09 0.01 0.9456 EOWT 0.51 -(0.15, 0.25) 0.10 0.06 0.6133 VABS-II Socialisation Difference 0.14 (Constant) 8.51 (-1.15, 18.16) 4.90 0.0839 Child CA -0.74 (-1.56, 0.08) 0.42 -0.11 0.0782 SCQ -0.23 (-0.09, 0.54) 0.16 0.09 0.1570 MSEL NVDQ -0.22 (-0.32, -0.11) 0.05 -0.31 < 0.001*** ROWT 0.06 (-0.10, 0.22) 0.08 0.10 0.4500 EOWT -0.12 (-0.31, 0.06) 0.09 -0.18 0.1758 VABS-II Motor Skills Difference 0.10 (Constant) 17.48 (10.56, 24.39) 3.50 < 0.001*** MSEL NVDQ -0.29 (-0.44, -0.15) 0.08 -0.37 0.0001*** ROWT 0.05 (-0.08, 0.17) 0.06 0.07 0.4818 Note: ***: Sig < 0.001 Parent and Education Professional Concordance at the Item Level Supplementary Table 1 shows the weighted kappa scores and significance (simes correction) for each item. Weighted kappa scores were calculated for 147 of 165 items (89.1%). Scores that were not calculated were often later items in the measures, used for older/more able children, and so lacked sufficient range in scores to determine concordance in our sample. Of the 147 kappa scores, 48 were significant (32.7%), indicating inter-rater agreement. Table 5 shows the percentage with significant inter-rater agreement within each of the 11 subscales that map on to the four domains (using parent subscale categories). Agreement was most frequent for the VABS-II Communication domain, followed by VABS-II DLS domain, and least frequent for the VABS-II Socialisation domain. Within the VABS-II Communication domain, significant inter-rater reliability was most frequent for the Written subscale, and least frequent for the Receptive subscale. Higher frequency agreement within the VABS-II DLS domain came from the Personal subscale. Overall, 30/48 (62.5%) of significant weighted kappas showed poor agreement, and 18/48 (37.5%) of significant weighted kappas showed fair agreement. Table 5 Total number of items and percentage of items with significant kappa weighted crosstabulation scores, for each VABS-II domain and subscale (using parent form subscale categories) Domain / Subscale N (N calculated) No. Significant Kappa Scores (% N / % N Calculated) VABS-II Communication 55 (44) 28 (50.9 / 63.6) Receptive 11 2 (18.2) Expressive 25 (21) 14 (56.0 / 66.7) Written 19 (12) 12 (63.2 / 100) VABS-II DLS 25 (24) 10 (40.0 / 41.7) Personal 13 7 (53.8) Domestic 1 0 (0.0) Community 11 (10) 3 (27.3 / 30.0) VABS-II Socialisation 48 (45) 4 (8.3 / 8.9) Interpersonal Relationships 18 (17) 3 (16.7 / 17.6) Play and Leisure 16 (15) 1 (6.3 / 6.7) Coping Skills 14 (13) 0 (0.0) VABS-II Motor Skills 37 (34) 6 (16.2 / 17.6) Gross Motor Skills 14 3 (21.4) Fine Motor Skills 23 (20) 3 (13.0 / 15.0) Note: N: Total number of identical items available for each domain/subscale; N Calculated: Total number of items for which a weighted kappa result was returned. Individual item scores, SE, and simes corrected significance information can be found in Supplementary Table 1 Table 6 shows that where disagreements arose (99/147), education professionals rated behaviour in the ‘sometimes or partially’ category, whereas parents were more likely to rate behaviours as ‘never’ or ‘usually’. To note, frequency of rating ‘never’ was closer for parents and education professionals than the other two categories, but parents chose this ranking more frequently (see Supplementary Table 3 for full cross-tabulations for each item). Table 6 Percentage of VABS-II items on which either parents or education professionals rated children more frequently for each scoring category Rater (%) VABS-II Scoring Category Parent Education Professional Tie 0 (Never) 72.7 23.2 4.0 1 (Sometimes or Partially) 3.0 94.9 2.0 2 (Usually) 65.7 24.2 10.1 Note: Percentages are based on the 99 items for which parents and education professionals disagreed Discussion As far as the authors are aware, this is the first study to investigate the degree of parent and education professional concordance on the VABS-II, a measure of adaptive functioning, at the item level as well as the domain level. Our results show that parents scored their children higher on VABS-II ABC scores, as well as Socialisation and Motor Skills domains, but not Communication or DLS domains. The overall picture was one of poor concordance both at the domain and item level, and systematic differences in ratings across the range of scores (except for VABS-II Communication). Differences at the domain level were greater when child nonverbal ability was lower, but the degree of discrepancy was unaffected by child language or autism severity. Where disagreements occurred at the item level, parents and education professionals frequently chose different response options. However, item level agreement was more frequent for domains/subdomains that measured overt behaviours (e.g. VABS-II Communication, particularly the Written subdomain). Parent and Education Professional Agreement Our study showed higher parent than education professional ratings of adaptive functioning on the VABS-II ABC, and Socialisation and Motor Skills domains, but no difference in ratings on the VABS-II Communication and DLS domains. This is partially consistent with Dickson et al., (2018) and Lane et al., (2013), who found higher parent scores on all domains (on the VABS-II and BASC-2, respectively). However, the literature base is inconsistent; Lane and colleagues also found no difference using the VABS-II, and both McDonald et al., (2016) and Jordan et al., (2019) found higher teacher ratings when using the BASC-2 and ABAS-3, respectively. Inter-rater reliability between parent and education professionals was poor for all VABS-II ABC and domain scores except DLS, which was fair. Previous research has, again, demonstrated inconsistent findings, with correlations ranging from small to large, and ICCs from poor to good, but with an overall pattern of stronger agreement than seen in the current study (Dickson et al., 2018; Jordan et al., 2019; Lane et al., 2013; McDonald et al., 2016). Our regression analyses indicated systematic differences across the range of scores, with a negative relationship between means and differences for all except VABS-II Communication, which was nonsignificant. Taking these with the Bland-Altman plots, this suggests that at lower mean scores, parents may rate their child higher, whereas as the means increased, education professionals were more likely to rate the child’s performance higher. In contrast, Jordan et al., (2019) found no systematic differences, while McDonald et al., (2016) found greater differences on the BASC-2 ABC as the mean score increased. Association between Agreement and Child Characteristics The discrepancy in all VABS-II scores in our sample was significantly negatively associated with child nonverbal ability, predicting 10–35% of the variance in difference scores, but neither child language nor autism severity were significantly associated with this discrepancy. Thus, as child nonverbal ability increased, the discrepancy between parents and education professionals decreased. This partially corresponds with the results of Dickson et al., (2018), who found significant associations between cognitive ability and parent-teacher congruence on the VABS-II Socialisation domain in their sample. On the other hand, neither Jordan et al., (2019) or McDonald et al., (2016) found significant correlations between difference scores and any child factors. Differences in ability level of our sample in comparison to samples from previously published research might have contributed to the variation in results. The PACT-G sample has lower ability than other published research, which may lead to differences in perceptions about ability. Indeed, our results align most closely with those of Dickson et al., (2018), whose sample represents a lower ability level than other published research in this area. A higher ability sample may have shown a different pattern of results, with closer agreement and perhaps even education professional scores surpassing those of parents. Our finding that higher child nonverbal ability was associated with reduced discrepancy in VABS-II scores supports this. Further support comes from our Bland-Altman plots and regression analyses, which suggested not only that higher adaptive ability led to closer agreement, but also that parents scored their children higher when the mean adaptive functioning score was lower, but this was reversed when the mean score was higher. More research is needed to delineate how sample and informant characteristics affect informant report and differences in reporting between multiple informants. Parent education did not affect the degree of concordance on measures of adaptive functioning in previous research (Jordan et al., 2019; McDonald et al., 2016). However, other parent and family factors, such as parent employment status, single parent home, and number of children in the household, are associated with discrepancy in parent and teacher ratings of behavioural difficulties (Cheng et al., 2018), and the impact of these wider characteristics on adaptive functioning congruence in autistic children have not yet been explored. Furthermore, no research has yet included the impact of education professional characteristics (e.g. education level, prior experience with autism) on adaptive functioning concordance. These would benefit from further exploration in future. Another important factor to consider when exploring concordance is the quality of the relationship between the parent and education professional. Minke et al., (2014) found the congruence between parents’ and teachers’ assessment of their relationship quality impacted teacher but not parent scores of social functioning, as well as behaviour problems, but not adaptive skills (specifically measuring adaptability and leadership), in low ability children. It would be interesting to explore whether congruence impacts not only individual parent or teacher scores, but also the degree of agreement between parties. Agreement at the Item Level At the item level, there was significant agreement for around one third of comparable items. However, of these, almost two thirds showed poor agreement, and just over one third presented fair agreement. The highest frequency of item agreement centred on Communication items, whereas the lowest agreement was with Socialisation items, despite specific social communication impairments required for autism diagnosis. Agreement appeared strongest for more objectively identifiable items, such as those from the Written subscale in the Communication domain, compared to the Receptive subscale, which requires a more subjective assessment of understanding for a greater number of items. Again, within the DLS domain, most frequent agreement came from the Personal subscale, which directly measures overt behaviours. Where disagreements arose, parents were more likely to assess their child’s skills on items as either present or absent, whereas education professionals were more likely to rate behaviour as emergent/sometimes present, corresponding to patterns of responding observed by Voelker et al., (2000) in low ability, non-autistic children. Two key factors might have created meaningful differences in ratings between parents and education professionals. First, discrepancies in informant report may be capturing differences in child behaviour across different contexts (Achenbach, 2011; De Los Reyes, 2013; Alexander et al., 2017). For example, parents might observe a different range of social opportunities with more skilled social partners, who might scaffold the interaction and present a different level of performance than observable by education professionals in a school setting. In line with this, there may be greater opportunities for children to demonstrate their motor skills to parents where a more individualised approach may be possible, routines may be less carefully structured and again, peer play partners may be more skilled. Conversely, communication and DLS might be less influenced by context and expectations placed on the child in home and school settings. In support, De Los Reyes et al., (2013) found that discrepancies increased following training to focus on context-specific behaviours. Very little research has explored associations between informant report and objective observations. One study, comparing parent and teacher report of disruptive behaviour in young children to observations of parent-child and researcher-child interactions, found parent report was specifically associated with parent-child observations, and teacher report with researcher-child observations alone (De Los Reyes et al., 2009). Moreover, the predictive validity of teacher ratings is superior to parents when considering child mental health in an education setting (Aitken et al., 2017). Other studies have identified nonshared environmental rater-specific variance in reports of attention and internalising problems in twins (Bartels et al., 2007; Derks et al., 2006). The second factor that may influence discrepancies is level of insight (Alexander et al., 2017). Parents and education professionals may apply different thresholds for reporting behaviours (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Achenbach, 2011). With their greater training on and experience of child developmental norms and levels in school reporting, education professionals may be better able to distinguish between emerging skills and competence. This can be seen in the variation in preference towards scoring present/absent vs. emergent in parents and education professionals, respectively. Domains with higher agreement (e.g. communication and DLS) may be subsumed by more easily observable items where distinctions between performance are more clearly defined (Achenbach, 2011); e.g., if the child can copy their own first name, or if they are toilet trained during the day. Alternatively, education professionals may have a different sampling base (especially in special schools) for rating decisions, and may be more influenced in their response by comparison of individual skills with other children in the school than parents are. Without extensive comparison of adaptive behaviours of autistic children in both home and school settings, it will not be possible to determine why reports of behaviour differ between parents and education professionals, and whether context, level of insight, or both, play a significant role. The question becomes whether a combined approach is better at predicting long-term outcomes, and if so, how best to incorporate this information to best effect. Psychopathology research has suggested that using the higher rating (from among different informants), or the rating that endorses a behaviour, increases predictive validity to identify current support needs (e.g. referrals) and longitudinal functional outcomes (e.g. internalising and externalising behaviours, academic, and social functioning; Shemmassian & Lee 2016; Lapalme et al., 2020). Other methods such as triangulating three ratings, and creating a trait score have also demonstrated success over single informant methods (e.g. Makol et al., 2020; Schwab et al., 2020; Styck et al., 2021). While this research demonstrates the value of integrated multi-informant approaches when looking at different areas of psychopathology, it remains to be seen (1) Whether predictive validity of adaptive functioning (and associated) outcomes of autistic children would improve with multi-informant approaches, and (2) What the best method for combining data is, when moving away from diagnosis/referrals. Longitudinal research may help to elucidate the value of different approaches to multi-informant reporting in this area. It is important to consider the utility of employing multi-informant approaches to understand adaptive functioning in autistic children. Our results indicate low agreement across domains and differences in item level rating thresholds; clearly, parent ratings cannot be assumed to be analogous to education professional ratings, and vice versa. Thus, there is value to gathering information from a range of sources to determine the adaptive abilities of autistic children across contexts (both environmental and person-specific). There is a time cost to collecting information from multiple sources though, so this may best be implemented when both the context and level of insight are relevant in measurement of adaptive ability (Alexander et al., 2017). In research, multi-informant measures are important where goals include generalisability across settings or where interventions are being carried out in more than one setting. Clinically, multi-informant methods may be most effective where healthcare professionals are determining the holistic needs of an autistic child across settings, rather than when difficulties relate to a specific context. Indeed, Decker et al., (2021) recently demonstrated significantly worse psychotherapy outcomes for adolescents where there was greater parent-clinician disagreement about functioning. Such disagreements may lead to disengagement with proposed interventions. Intervention and support planning for adaptive functioning (whether developed by healthcare or educational professionals) should engage with the views of key informants in different settings, to develop context-specific support plans and optimise learning across settings. Strengths and Limitations of the current study One of the major strengths of our study is the large sample of autistic children, with lower ability than previously explored in multi-informant concordance research about adaptive functioning. Nevertheless, we acknowledge some methodological limitations to our measurements. While we used the widely accepted method for calculating child MSEL NVDQ with AE scores, we acknowledge the limitations of ordinal numbers which may represent nonlinear developmental changes across AE scores (see Mervis & Klein-Tasman (2004) for a methodological discussion). We also lack knowledge of education professional characteristics that may potentially affect reporting behaviours. There is an assumption that education professionals have a baseline level of understanding of the behaviours necessary to code each item in the VABS-II; however, these informants differed by education level and teaching experience, as well as autism training and experience, class size and potentially, familiarity with the child. Another potential limitation is that education professionals completed a questionnaire, but researchers interviewed parents for information to determine the rating for each item. Previous research has used questionnaires for both informants, and the interview format may have impacted concordance in this study. It is important to note that results may have been influenced by different floors for standard scores across ages on parent and teacher versions of the VABS-II. However, Voelker et al., (2007) found higher skills estimates on classroom than survey forms when both were completed by teachers, suggesting that our education professional scores may not have been impacted by lower floors. Risk of method variance could be reduced in future by using the same rating form for parents and education professionals (Voelker et al., 2007; Charman et al., 2004). Conclusions In conclusion, these findings have important clinical findings for assessing adaptive functioning of autistic children in different contexts. Parents and education professionals view the adaptive abilities of autistic children differently and both should be considered when gathering information about functioning and developing personalised interventions and support. Additional research is needed to understand why these differences occur, and to explore how best to combine reports for optimal predictive validity about current needs and future outcomes. Declarations. The Paediatric Autism Communication Trial-Generalised (PACT-G) is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Medical Research Council [Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme (13/119/18)]. HLM, ALC, JRP, and VG have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. TC has served as a paid consultant to F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Servier; and has received royalties from Sage Publications and Guilford Publications. JG is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. JG receives Director’s fees from a not-for-profit PACT training company IMPACT (CiC 10,902,031). A favourable ethical opinion was obtained from the North West-Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (REF: 15/NW/0912). Parents provided informed, written consent, and the child’s education provider agreed to participate. Access to PACT-G data will be available in due course subject to consideration by the PACT-G Consortium and current NIHR guidance. All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by HLM. Analysis was performed by HLM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by HLM and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 1 In England, P scales describe targets for children aged 5–16 years with special educational needs. P8 was taken to represent a language age-equivalent of approximately 4 years in a typically developing child. 2 Data from selected measures were used for the purpose of this study. For complete baseline characterisation data of the PACT-G sample, please refer to Green et al. (2018). Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ==== Refs References Achenbach TM Commentary: Definitely More Than Measurement Error: But How Should We Understand and Deal With Informant Discrepancies? Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2011 40 1 80 86 10.1080/15374416.2011.533416 21229445 Aitken M Martinussen R Tannock R Incremental Validity of Teacher and Parent Symptom and Impairment Ratings when Screening for Mental Health Difficulties Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology 2017 45 4 827 837 10.1007/s10802-016-0188-y 27448434 Alexander LA McKnight PE Disabato DJ Kashdan TB When and How to use Multiple Informants to Improve Clinical Assessments Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 2017 39 4 669 679 10.1007/s10862-017-9607-9 Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research Chapman and Hall. London and New York Bartels M Boomsma DI Hudziak JJ van Beijsterveldt T van den Oord E Twins and the study of rater (dis)agreement Psychological Methods 2007 12 4 451 466 10.1037/1082-989x.12.4.451 18179355 Bland JM Altman DG Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement The lancet 1986 327 8476 307 310 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 Carruthers S Pickles A Slonims V Howlin P Charman T Beyond intervention into daily life: A systematic review of generalisation following social communication interventions for young children with autism Autism Research 2020 13 4 506 522 10.1002/aur.2264 31943828 Charman T Howlin P Berry B Prince E Measuring Developmental Progress of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder on School Entry Using Parent Report Autism 2004 8 1 89 100 10.1177/1362361304040641 15070549 Cheng S Keyes KM Bitfoi A Carta MG Koç C Goelitz D Understanding parent–teacher agreement of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Comparison across seven European countries International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 2018 27 1 e1589 10.1002/mpr.1589 29024371 Cicchetti DV Sparrow SA Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior American Journal Of Mental Deficiency 1981 86 2 127 137 7315877 De Bildt A Sytema S Kraijer D Sparrow S Minderaa R Adaptive functioning and behaviour problems in relation to level of education in children and adolescents with intellectual disability Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2005 49 9 672 681 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00711.x 16108984 De Los Reyes A Kazdin AE Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: a critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study Psychological Bulletin 2005 131 4 483 509 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.483 16060799 De Los Reyes A Henry DB Tolan PH Wakschlag LS Linking informant discrepancies to observed variations in young children’s disruptive behavior Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2009 37 5 637 652 10.1007/s10802-009-9307-3 19247829 De Los Reyes A Introduction to the special section: More than measurement error: Discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2011 40 1 9 10.1080/15374416.2011.533405 21229439 De Los Reyes A Strategic objectives for improving understanding of informant discrepancies in developmental psychopathology research Development and Psychopathology 2013 25 3 669 682 10.1017/S0954579413000096 23880384 De Los Reyes A Ehrlich K Swan A Luo T Van Wie M Pabon S An Experimental Test of Whether Informants can Report About Child and Family Behavior Based on Settings of Behavioral Expression Journal of Child and Family Studies 2013 22 177 191 10.1007/s10826-012-9567-3 36711028 Decker LB Patel AA Conway CA Kim S Adnopoz J Woolston JL When parents and clinicians disagree: Consequences for high-risk youth receiving in-home family-based psychiatric treatment Children and Youth Services Review 2021 121 105913 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105913 Derks EM Hudziak JJ Van Beijsterveldt CEM Dolan CV Boomsma DI Genetic analyses of maternal and teacher ratings on attention problems in 7-year-old Dutch twins Behavior Genetics 2006 36 6 833 844 10.1007/s10519-006-9084-5 16773450 Di Rezze B Duku E Szatmari P Volden J Georgiades S Zwaigenbaum L Examining Trajectories of Daily Living Skills over the Preschool Years for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2019 49 11 4390 4399 10.1007/s10803-019-04150-6 31372802 Dickson KS Suhrheinrich J Rieth SR Stahmer AC Parent and Teacher Concordance of Child Outcomes for Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders 2018 48 5 1423 1435 10.1007/s10803-017-3382-z 29164440 Elliott CD Smith P British ability scales-3 technical manual 2011 London GL Assessment Limited Farley MA McMahon WM Fombonne E Jenson WR Miller J Gardner M Twenty-year outcome for individuals with autism and average or near-average cognitive abilities Autism Research 2009 2 2 109 118 10.1002/aur.69 19455645 Farmer C Swineford L Swedo SE Thurm A Classifying and characterizing the development of adaptive behavior in a naturalistic longitudinal study of young children with autism Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 2018 10 1 1 10.1186/s11689-017-9222-9 29329511 Faul F Erdfelder E Buchner A Lang AG Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses Behavior research methods 2009 41 4 1149 1160 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 19897823 Green J Aldred C Charman T Le Couteur A Emsley RA Grahame V Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy-Generalised (PACT-G) against treatment as usual for reducing symptom severity in young children with autism spectrum disorder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial Trials 2018 19 1 514 514 10.1186/s13063-018-2881-3 30241574 Harrison PL Oakland T Adaptive Behavior Assessment System 2015 3 Los Angeles Western Psychological Services IBM Corp IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. (25.0 ed.) 2017 Armonk, NY IBM Corp Jordan AK Thomeer ML Lopata C Donnelly JP Rodgers JD McDonald CA Informant Discrepancies in the Assessment of Adaptive Behavior of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2019 49 5 2024 2034 10.1007/s10803-018-03876-z 30673911 Kanne SM Abbacchi AM Constantino JN Multi-informant Ratings of Psychiatric Symptom Severity in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Importance of Environmental Context Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2009 39 6 856 864 10.1007/s10803-009-0694-7 19191016 Lane BR Paynter J Sharman R Parent and teacher ratings of adaptive and challenging behaviours in young children with autism spectrum disorder Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2013 7 10 1196 1203 10.1016/j.rasd.2013.07.011 Lapalme M Bégin V Le Corff Y Déry M Comparison of Discriminant Validity Indices of Parent, Teacher, and Multi-Informant Reports of Behavioral Problems in Elementary Schoolers Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 2020 42 1 58 68 10.1007/s10862-019-09782-7 Lord C Rutter M DiLavore PC Risi S Gotham K Bishop S Autism diagnostic observation schedule 2012 2 Torrance, CA Western Psychological Services Lord C McCauley JB Pepa LA Huerta M Pickles A Work, living, and the pursuit of happiness: Vocational and psychosocial outcomes for young adults with autism Autism 2020 24 7 1691 1703 10.1177/1362361320919246 32431163 Magiati I Tay XW Howlin P Cognitive, language, social and behavioural outcomes in adults with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review of longitudinal follow-up studies in adulthood Clinical Psychology Review 2014 34 1 73 86 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.11.002 24424351 Makol BA Youngstrom EA Racz SJ Qasmieh N Glenn LE De Los Reyes A Integrating Multiple Informants’ Reports: How Conceptual and Measurement Models May Address Long-Standing Problems in Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Psychological Science 2020 8 6 953 970 10.1177/2167702620924439 Martin N Brownell R Expressive one word picture vocabulary test 2011 4 Novato, CA ATP Assessments Martin, N., & Brownell, R. (2011b). Receptive one word picture vocabulary test (4ed., Vol. ATP Assessments): Novato, CA Maskey, M., Warnell, F., Parr, J., Couteur, A., & McConachie, H. (2012). Emotional and Behavioural Problems in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1622-9 Matthews NL Pollard E Ober-Reynolds S Kirwan J Malligo A Smith CJ Revisiting cognitive and adaptive functioning in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders 2015 45 1 138 156 10.1007/s10803-014-2200-0 25117583 McDonald CA Lopata C Donnelly JP Thomeer ML Rodgers JD Jordan AK Informant discrepancies in externalizing and internalizing symptoms and adaptive skills of high-functioning children with autism spectrum disorder School Psychology Quarterly 2016 31 4 467 477 10.1037/spq0000150 27929317 Merrell KW Shapiro ES Kratochwill TR Informant Report: Rating Scale Measures Conducting School-Based Assessments of Child and Adolescent Behavior 2000 New York The Guildford Press 203 234 Mervis CB Klein-Tasman BP Methodological Issues in Group-Matching Designs: α Levels for Control Variable Comparisons and Measurement Characteristics of Control and Target Variables Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2004 34 1 7 17 10.1023/B:JADD.0000018069.69562.b8 15098952 Minke KM Sheridan SM Kim EM Ryoo JH Koziol NA Congruence in Parent-Teacher Relationships: The Role of Shared Perceptions The Elementary School Journal 2014 114 4 527 546 10.1086/675637 Moore, H. L., Rogan, L., Taylor, L. J., Charman, T., Le Couteur, A., Green, J., et al. (2021). Which factors influence teacher report of adaptive functioning in autistic children?Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,1–10 Mouga S Almeida J Café C Duque F Oliveira G Adaptive profiles in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders 2015 45 4 1001 1012 10.1007/s10803-014-2256-x 25241010 Mullen EM Mullen scales of early learning 1995 Circle Pines, MN Western Psychological Services Nevill R Hedley D Uljarevic M Mulick JA Adaptive behavior profiles in young children with autism spectrum disorder diagnosed under DSM-5 criteria Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2017 43–44 53 66 10.1016/j.rasd.2017.09.006 Ozonoff S Goodlin-Jones B Solomon M Evidence-based assesment of autism spectrum disorders in children and adolescents Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2005 34 3 559 568 10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_8 16026219 Paul R Loomis R Chawarska K Adaptive behavior in toddlers under two with autism spectrum disorders Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders 2014 44 2 264 270 10.1007/s10803-011-1279-9 21573835 Paynter J Trembath D Lane A Differential outcome subgroups in children with autism spectrum disorder attending early intervention Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2018 62 7 650 659 10.1111/jir.12504 29797370 Reynolds CR Kamphaus RW Behavior assessment system for children 2004 Circle Pines, MN American Guidance Services Rutter M Bailey A Lord C Social communication questionnaire 2003 Los Angeles, VA Western PSychological Services Schwab S Zurbriggen CLA Venetz M Agreement among student, parent and teacher ratings of school inclusion: A multitrait-multimethod analysis Journal of School Psychology 2020 82 1 16 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.07.003 32988457 Shemmassian SK Lee SS Predictive Utility of Four Methods of Incorporating Parent and Teacher Symptom Ratings of ADHD for Longitudinal Outcomes Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2016 45 2 176 187 10.1080/15374416.2014.971457 25643854 Sparrow SS Balla DA Cicchetti DA Vineland adaptive behavior scales (Expanded Form) 1984 Circle Pines, MN American Guidance Service Sparrow SS Balla DA Cicchetti DA Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Survey Form) 1984 Circle Pines, MN American Guidance Service Sparrow SS Cicchetti DV Balla DA Vineland-ii: Vineland adaptive behaviour scales, survey forms manual 2005 Circle Pines, MN Pearson StataCorp Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station 2019 TX StataCorp LLC Styck KM Anthony CJ Flavin A Riddle D LaBelle B Are ratings in the eye of the beholder? A non-technical primer on many facet Rasch measurement to evaluate rater effects on teacher behavior rating scales Journal of School Psychology 2021 86 198 221 10.1016/j.jsp.2021.01.001 34051914 Taylor JL Henninger NA Frequency and Correlates of Service Access Among Youth with Autism Transitioning to Adulthood Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2015 45 1 179 191 10.1007/s10803-014-2203-x 25081594 Ventola P Saulnier CA Steinberg E Katarzyna Chawarska K Klin A Early-Emerging Social Adaptive Skills in Toddlers with Autism Spectrum Disorders: An Item Analysis Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders 2014 44 283 293 10.1007/s10803-011-1278-x 21567256 Voelker SL Shore DL Lee CH Szuszkiewicz TA Congruence in Parent and Teacher Ratings of Adaptive Behavior of Low-Functioning Children. [journal article] Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 2000 12 4 367 376 10.1023/a:1009436230984 Voelker SL Johnston TC Agar C Gragg M Menna R Vineland Survey: Self-administered Checklist Format for Teachers of Young Children in Rehabilitation Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 2007 19 3 177 186 10.1007/s10882-007-9046-8 Zimmerman D Ownsworth T O’Donovan A Roberts J Gullo MJ High-functioning autism spectrum disorder in adulthood: A systematic review of factors related to psychosocial outcomes Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 2018 43 1 2 19 10.3109/13668250.2016.1262010 Yang S Paynter JM Gilmore L Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: II Profile of Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders 2016 46 1 64 73 10.1007/s10803-015-2543-1 26231205