Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1993, 77, 93 1-937.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1993

COMPARISON O F T H E VINELAND SOCIAL MATURITY SCALE,

T H E VINELAND ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALES-SURVEY
FORM, AND T H E BAYLEY SCALES O F INFANT
DEVELOPMENT WITH INFANTS EVALUATED
FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY '

DONALD J. RAGGIO AND TWILA W. MASSINGALE

UniuersiQ of Mississippi Medical Center

Summary.-The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales is an extensive revision of the

Vineland Social Maturity Scale; however, research comparing the two scales with dif-
ferent populations and measures of intelligence is Limited. The Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales-Survey Form, the Vinelnnd Social Maturity Scale, and the mental
scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development were administered to 44 infants re-
ferred for evaluation of developmental delay. The differences between means were
compared and shared variance examined. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-
Survey Form scores were significantly higher than those of the Vieland Social Matu-
rity Scale and the Bayley Mental Development Index. No significant differences were
found between the means of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale and the Bayley Scales
of Infant Development-Mental Development Index. Correlations were .59 between
the Bayley Index and scores on the Vineland-Survey Form and .72 between the Bay-
ley Index and the Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Between versions of the Vieland
scale r = .39. Implications for diagnosis and educational classification are discussed.

With the passage of PL 99-457, children from birth to two years of age
will be targeted increasingly for diagnosis and placement in programs for chil-
dren with developmental delays. The expected demand in services for infants
with developmental delay would increase the need for instruments suitable
for identification. PL 94-142, passed prior to PL 99-457, requires the assess-
ment of adaptive and mental functioning as part of the diagnosis of mental
retardation and developmental delay.
There are several measures of adaptive functioning appropriate for
young children and infants, the most often used being the Vineland Social
Maturity Scale (Doll, 1753) and its revision, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior
Scales (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984). Reviews by Anastasi (1988) and
Sattler (1988) state that the two scales are useful tools for the diagnosis of
developmental delay. In the assessment of cognitive skds, the Bayley Scales
of Infant Development (Bayley, 1969) are used almost exclusively with young
infants (Knobloch & Pasamanick, 1774; Sattler, 1988; Ross, 1989). The Bay-
ley scales are the most widely used infant test probably because they are the
most precise and have the most recent and representative norms (Gist &
Coen, 1981; Whatley, 1787). A revision is to be released this year.

'Address requests for reprints to D. J. Raggio, Ph.D., C M d Development Clinic, University of

Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39216.
932 D. J. RAGGIO & T. W. MASSINGALE

Although the Vineland Social Maturity Scale has been used extensive-
ly in clinical practice, a review of the literature shows a limited number of
studies comparing scores on it with measures of infant intelligence such as
Bayley's scales or the Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale (Cattell, 1940).
Erickson, Johnson, and Campbell (1970) compared the first two and Cattell's
scale and noted slightly higher scores on the Vineland with an average mean
difference of eight points.
As the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales have only recently become
available, the number of studies is limited. Sparrow, et al. (1984) compared
the earlier and new Vineland scores of 389 individuals whose ages were be-
tween birth and 6 months through 18 years, 11 months. A moderate correla-
tion of .55 was obtained; however, there were substantial differences in mean
scores. The mean Vineland Adaptive Score Composite was 99.8 and the
mean Vineland Social Maturity Scale Deviation Social Quotient was 116.3.
An apparent trend with school-age educable mentally retarded children would
indicate the Vineland-Classroom Edition yielded lower age equivalents than
the Social Quotients of the older version (Britton & Eaves, 1986). Oakland
and Houchins (1985) compared the two forms and found lower standard
scores across all ages for children enrolled in special education classes for the
mildly mentally retarded.
Although the newer version is acclaimed for its content and extensive
normative data (Holden, 1984; Sattler, 1988), there is some concern about
its usefulness with young delayed infants. When evaluating infants referred
for suspected developmental delay, Raggio and Massingale (1990) found
higher mean values of the Adaptive Score Composite on the Vineland-
Survey Form than Social Quotients on the Vineland Social Maturity Scale.
For the practitioner, diagnostic and placement questions must be answered
when the measure of adaptive functioning is above that required for an eligi-
bility ruling even though the measure of cognitive functioning would meet
criteria for placement.
One conclusion drawn by Raggio and Massingale (1990) as well as
others (Oakland & Houchins, 1985; Silverstein, 1986) is that further re-
search is needed to clarify the role of the revised Vineland scales in the
assessment of adaptive behavior, especially that of delayed infants. In a re-
view of the literature, the only study which directly compared the Bayley
Index and the original Vineland was that of Erickson, et al. (1970). In no
studies have the two Vineland scales been compared with the Bayley Index.
Therefore, the present study was designed to evaluate the correlations among
scores on the original Vineland, revised Vineland, and Bayley Index.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were 44 infants who ranged in age from 4 to 18 months
 DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY: BAYLEY SCALES. VINELAND SCALES 933

(M = 12 mo.). The 26 boys and 18 girls were ethnically mixed (33 black and
11 white). Evaluations were conducted in a child development clinic at a re-
gional medical center. The medical center is a tertiary center serving children
from a southern state. Infants born at risk for developmental delay at the
medical center are referred to the center's newborn follow-up clinic. O n re-
turn visits to that clinic infants are examined by a neonatologist. If develop-
mental delays are indicated by neurological evaluation, the infant is referred
to the child development clinic for psychological assessment.
Instruments
At the beginning of each test session the revised Vineland and the origi-
nal Vineland interviews were conducted with each infant's primary caregiver
using a counterbalanced order. All tests were administered in one session.
The Bayley mental scale was administered following standardized procedures
immediately on completion of the revised or original Vineland. Each test was
administered and scored by appropriately licensed or certified psychologists.
Vineland Social Maturity Scale.-Doll (1953) developed this scale as a
measure of adaptive behavior defined as the performance of daily activities
required for personal and social sufficiency. Although it has been criticized
in The Third Mental Measurements Yearbook (Buros, 1947) for lack of norma-
tive data, C. M. Loutitt praised the methodology of the scale. In the fourth
edition of Buros (1953), William Cruickshank praised the scale while recom-
mending improvement in standardization, and Florence Teagarden noted ex-
tensive research had been conducted. Anastasi (1976) described the original
Vineland as most useful with younger ages and particularly with mentally
retarded children. Until the recent revision the original Vineland was widely
accepted as a measure of adaptive behavior. For this study the original Vine-
land standard scores were computed based on the Deviation Social Quotient
recommended by Silverstein (197 1).
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Survey Form.-The revised Vineland
(Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) is a revision of the original scale (Doll,
1953) and contains three versions: Survey Form, Expanded Form, and Class-
room Edition. Each version assesses adaptive behavior via Communication,
Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills. The Survey Form covers
ages ranging from birth to 18 years. The authors included handicapped and
nonhandicapped individuals in the standardization group. The severity of
handicap was not noted. The Survey Form (Holden, 1984) is most similar in
context to the original Vineland. The revision has been praised for elimi-
nating the faults noted with the original; however, further research is needed
to explore how adequately the revision assesses adaptive behavior (Sattler,
1988) and its applicability to handicapped infants (Raggio & Massingale,
1990). Questions have been raised by Silverstein (1986) regarding fluctua-
tions of standard deviations from group to group. Cicchetti and Sparrow
934 D. J. RAGGIO & T. W. MASSINGALE

(1986) stated that the fluctuations in means and standard deviations reported
by Silverstein are due to sampling variability and the conclusions erroneous.
Cicchetti (1987) argued that Silverstein was statistically incorrect as his con-
clusions were based on the assumption of five independent areas of behavior
assessment whereas the data from the revised Vineland is based on five re-
peated assessments of the same age groups.
Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Mental Index.-The Bayley mental
scale (1969) was intended to assess cognitive abilities, problem solving, mem-
ory, communication, and early abstracting ability. Sattler (1988) and What-
ley (1987) in reviews of the Bayley scales attest to its usefulness in assessing
infant mental development. Although lacking predictability of later mental
ability of normal infants, the Bayley Index has very good predictability for
those whose development is significantly below average.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
Since Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variances indicated lack of ho-
mogeneity, in this case (p = .0002), standard scores on the scale were ana-
lyzed using the nonparametric Friedman's test. This test for mean differ-
ences in scores of the three instruments was significant ( p < .0001). Multiple
comparisons based on Friedman's test indicated that the revised Vineland-
Survey Form differed from the Bayley Index and the original Vineland scales
(p = .0001) while there was no statistically significant difference between the
Bayley Index and the original Vineland (see the top half of Table 1). Correla-
tions between the original Vineland and the Bayley Index were much higher
than those between the original and revised Vineland scales. The correlation
coefficient between scores on the revised Vineland and the Bayley Index was
.72 and that between the original Vineland and the Bayley Index was .59
(p < .0001). The correlation between the revised and original Vineland scales
was .39. The comparisons among the three instruments were based on stan-
dard scores of a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15 (see the bottom
half of Table 1).

TABLE 1
MEANSTANDARD
SCORES,STANDARD DEVIATIONS,
PEARSON CORRELATIONS,
A N D p VALUES
FORTHREETESTS(n = 44)

Instrument M SD
1. Vineland Social Maturity Scale, Social Quotient 45.84 21.05
2. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Survey Form, Adaptive Score 76.18 11.37
Composite
3 . Bayley Scales of Infant Development 42.50 20.19
Instruments r P
Doll's and Revised Vineland-Survey Form 0.39 .01
DoU's Vineland vs Bayley Scales
Vineland and Adaptive Behavior Scales-Survey Form vs Bayley Scales 0.72 .0001
 DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY: BAYLEY SCALES, VINELAND SCALES 935

I n the present study the mean score of the revised Vineland was higher
than those of the original Vineland and the Bayley Index. The standard de-
viation of the Vineland-Survey Form was much lower than those of the
other two measures which were quite similar. Using standard classification
procedures the mean score of the Vineland-Survey Form is in the moder-
ately delayed range and the mean scores of the original Vineland and Bayley
scores are in the borderline range.
Doll's original scale has many limitations such as inadequate and out-
of-date norms and lack of standard scores in the manual (Oakland &
Houchins, 1985; Britton & Eaves, 1986). To obtain the social quotient Doll
recommended dividing the social age by chronological age and multiplying by
100. The resulting standard score was considered to be similar to that of the
Stanford-Binet with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. However,
the Vineland-Survey Form may have limitations when evaluating infants,
the most likely being an inadequate statistical floor as age equivalents were
generally in agreement among the three scales. I n Table B . l of the Vine-
land-Survey Form manual which provides standard scores for chronological
age and raw scores, no child can obtain a score less than 50 until age 1 year,
11 months. As the WISC-R has been noted to inflate scores for younger
mentally retarded children (Sattler, 1988), so it seems the Vineland-Survey
Form also yields inflated standard scores for delayed infants (Raggio & Mas-
singale, 1990).
The revised Vineland with its greater range of questions and increased
statistical power appears clinically superior to the original Vineland; however,
standard scores were significantly higher than those of the Bayley Index and
the original Vineland when applied to infants with developmental delay. This
is of additional interest as most test revisions result in lower mean scores.
Silverstein (1986) noted the varying means and standard scores with the re-
vised Vineland scales and recommended that examiners use caution in inter-
preting results for individuals. Such a finding is more likely here as behaviors
are being measured at the extreme end of the lstribution which reduces
reliability. Volkmar, Sparrow, Goudreau, Cicchetti, Paul, and Cohen (1987)
recommended that age-equivalency scores be used rather than standard scores
in assessing adaptive behavior of low-functioning children and adults. Based
on the present results, this procedure seems to hold promise but further re-
search is needed as to its applicability with delayed infants, children, and
adults and its acceptance by psychological examiners.
If the present results are valid, scores from the revised Vineland will
pose a question for examiners who must make a decision regarding diagnosis
and placement for infants suspected of developmental delay. Examiners
should be extremely cautious in trying to make fine discriminations between
mild and profound delays for young infants. State survey teams who make
936 D. J. RAGGIO & T W MASSINGALE

final approval for placement will have great difficulty resolving these differ-
ences. When adaptive scores are higher than developmental quotients of in-
fants, one may infer a lack of stimulation rather than true developmental de-
lay. However, this may be erroneous. Research is necessary to assess other
age ranges and correlations of scores on the revised Vineland scales with
those of other measures of adaptive behavior as well as of intelligence tests.

REFERENCES
ANASTASI, A. (1976) Psychological testing. (4th ed.) New York: Macmillan.
ANASTASI, A. (1988) Psychological testing. (6th ed.) New York: Macmdan.
BAYLEY,N . B. (1969) The Bayley Scales of Infant Deuelopment, manual. New York: The Psy-
chological Corp.
BRITTON, W. H., & EAVES,R. C. (1986) Relationship between the Vineland Adaptive Behavior
Scales-Classroom Edition and the Vineland Social Maturity Scale. American Journal of
Menbl Deficiency, 91, 105-107.
Bunos, 0. K. (1947) The third mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon.
Bunos, 0. K. (1953) The fourth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon.
CATTELL, P, (1940) The measurement of intelligence of infants and young children. New York:
The Psychological Corp.
CICCHETTI,D. V. (1987) More false conclusions about Vineland standard scores: a reply to
Silventein's rejoinder. Psychological Reports, 60, 1278.
~ , V.,& SPARROW,
C I C C I - I ED. S. S. (1986) False conclusions about Vineland standard scores:
Silventein's Type I error and other artifacts. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91,
5-9.
DOLL, E. A. (1953) The measurement of social competence: a manual for the Vineland Social
Maturity Scale. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
ERICKSON, M. T., JOHNSON, N. M., & CAMPBELL, F. A. (1970) Relationships among scores on
infant tests for children with developmental problems. American Journal of Mental De-
ficiency, 75, 102-104.
GIST, K., & COEN,R. W. (1981) Assessment techniques used in hgh-risk newborn follow-up
programs. Perinatology-Neonatology, 5, 31-41.
HOLOEN, R. H. (1984) Review of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. I n D. J. Keyser & R.
C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques. Vol. 1. Kansas Cicy, MO: Test Corp. of America.
Pp. 715-719.
KNOBLOCH, H., & PASAMANICK, B. (1974) Gessell and Amabuda's "Developmental diagnosis."
(3rd ed.) Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row.
OAKLAND,T., & HOUCHINS,S. (1985) Testing the tests: review of the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales Survey Form. Journal of Counseling and Development, 3, 585-586.
RAGGIO,D. J., & MASSINGME, T. W. (1990) Comparability of the Vineland Social Marudty
Scale and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Survey Form with infants evaluated
for developmental delay. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 415-418.
Ross, G . (1989) Some thoughts on the value of infant tests for assessing and predicting mental
ability. Developmenhl and Behavioral Pediabics, 10, 44-47.
SATTLEK, J. M. (1988) Assessment ofchildren. (3rd ed.) San Diego, CA: Author.
SILVERSTEIN, A. B. (1971) Deviation Social Quotients for the Vineland Social Maturity Scale.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 348-351.
SILVEKSTEM, A . B. (1986) Nonstandard scores on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: cau-
tionary note. American Jorrrnal of Mental Deficiency, 91, 1-4.
SPARROW, I , V. (1984) Vinehnd Adaptive Behavior Scales:
S. S., BALLA,D. A , , & C I C C H E ~D.
Interview Edition. Survey Form mantral. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
VOLKMAR,F. R., SPARROW,S. S., GOUDREAU, D., C I C C I - I ED~. , V., PAUL,R., & COHEN,D. J.
(1987) Social deficits in autism: an operational approach using the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 156-
161.
 DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY: BAYLEY SCALES, VINELAND SCALES 937

J. L. (1987) Review of the Bayley Scales of Infant Develo ment I n D. J. Keyser &
WHATLEY,
Pp. 38-47.
~8:
R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test crifiquer. Vol. 6 . Kansas City, ~ e s ;Corp. of America.

Accepted August 27, 1993.