Harmonizing two measures of adaptive functioning using computational approaches: prediction of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales II (VABS-II) from The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System II (ABAS-II) Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very large sample sizes are often needed to capture heterogeneity in autism, necessitating data sharing across multiple studies with diverse assessment instruments. In these cases, data harmonization can be a critical tool for deriving a single dataset for analysis. This can be done through computational approaches that enable the conversion of scores across various instruments. To this end, our study examined the use of analytical approaches for mapping scores on two measures of adaptive functioning, namely predicting the scores on the vineland adaptive behavior scales II (VABS) from the scores on the adaptive behavior assessment system II (ABAS). METHODS: Data from the province of Ontario neurodevelopmental disorders network were used. The dataset included scores VABS and the ABAS for 720 participants (autism n = 547, 433 male, age: 11.31 ± 3.63 years; neurotypical n = 173, 95 male, age: 12.53 ± 4.05 years). Six regression approaches (ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression, ridge regression, ElasticNet, LASSO, AdaBoost, random forest) were used to predict VABS total scores from the ABAS scores, demographic variables (age, sex), and phenotypic measures (diagnosis; core and co-occurring features; IQ; internalizing and externalizing symptoms). RESULTS: The VABS scores were significantly higher than the ABAS scores in the autism group, but not the neurotypical group (median difference: 8, 95% CI = (7,9)). The difference was negatively associated with age (beta = -1.2 ± 0.12, t = -10.6, p < 0.0001). All estimators demonstrated similar performance, with no statistically significant differences in mean absolute error (MAE) values across estimators (MAE range: 4.96-6.91). The highest contributing features to the prediction model were ABAS composite score, diagnosis, and age. LIMITATIONS: This study has several strengths, including the large sample. We did not examine the conversion of domain scores across the two measures of adaptive functioning and suggest this as a future area of investigation. CONCLUSION: Overall, our results supported the feasibility of harmonization. Our results suggest that a linear regression model trained on the ABAS composite score, the ABAS raw domain scores, and age, sex, and diagnosis would provide an acceptable trade-off between accuracy, parsimony, and data collection and processing complexity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".