Disability Screening Questionnaire Research Articles

Evaluating the use of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) to estimate IQ in children with low intellectual ability.

In situations where completing a full intellectual assessment is not possible or desirable the clinician or researcher may require an alternative means of accurately estimating intellectual functioning. There has been limited research in the use of proxy IQ measures in children with an intellectual disability or low IQ. The present study aimed to provide a means of converting total scores from a screening tool (the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire: CAIDS-Q) to an estimated IQ. A series of linear regression analyses were conducted on data from 428 children and young people referred to clinical services, where FSIQ was predicted from CAIDS-Q total scores. Analyses were conducted for three age groups between ages 6 and 18 years. The study presents a conversion table for converting CAIDS-Q total scores to estimates of FSIQ, with corresponding 95% prediction intervals to allow the clinician or researcher to estimate FSIQ scores from CAIDS-Q total scores. It is emphasised that, while this conversion may offer a quick means of estimating intellectual functioning in children with a below average IQ, it should be used with caution, especially in children aged between 6 and 8 years old.

The accuracy of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) in classifying severity of impairment: a brief report

Severity of intellectual disability (ID) is associated with a range of outcomes for the individual and having an indication of severity can help inform support needs. Previous research has not evaluated whether screening tools can accurately ascertain severity category in addition to providing a red flag for the presence of ID. We used multi-category receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to assess whether the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) could be used clinically to classify individuals (n = 191) aged between 12 and 18 according to British Psychological Society (BPS) categories of severity of impairment. The volume under the surface statistic (VUS) was 0.59. The optimal cut-points estimated based on the ROC surface and Youden Index provided correct classification probabilities for the severe, significant and non-ID groups of 0.44, 0.63 and 0.86 and 0.79, 0.29 and 0.88 respectively. While the CAIDS-Q can accurately discriminate between those with and without ID, and provides a heuristic for severity of ID, the results indicate that it does not reliably identify whether an individual falls into the severe or significant category of intellectual impairment.

Estimating the level of functional ability of children identified as likely to have an intellectual disability

Screening tools can provide an indication of whether a child may have an intellectual disability (ID). Item response theory (IRT) analyses can be used to assess whether the statistical properties of the tools are such that their utility extends beyond their use as a screen for ID. We used non-parametric IRT scaling analyses to investigate whether the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) possessed the statistical properties that would suggest its use could be extended to estimate levels of functional ability and to estimate which (if any) features associated with intellectual impairment are consistently indicative of lower or higher levels of functional ability. The validity of the two proposed applications was assessed by evaluating whether the CAIDS-Q conformed to the properties of the Monotone Homogeneity Model (MHM), characterised by uni-dimensionality, local independence and latent monotonicity and the Double Monotone Model (DMM), characterised by the assumptions of the MHM and, in addition, of non-intersecting item response functions. We analysed these models using CAIDS-Q data from 319 people referred to child clinical services. Of these, 148 had a diagnosis of ID. The CAIDS-Q was found to conform to the properties of the MHM but not the DMM. In practice, this means that the CAIDS-Q total scores can be used to quickly estimate the level of a person's functional ability. However, items of the CAIDS-Q did not show invariant item ordering, precluding the use of individual items in isolation as accurate indices of a person's level of functional ability.

The Validity of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) with children aged 6–7 years, 11 months: A brief report

We examined the performance of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire with 103 young children aged 6–7 years, 11 months referred to mental health services. Sensitivity and specificity were both over 80% and convergent validity with IQ scores was found, suggesting it could be useful for screening with this age group.

Estimating the severity of intellectual disability in adults: A Mokken scaling analysis of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire.

A Mokken scaling analysis of the learning disability screening questionnaire (LDSQ) suggested that, with the exception of 1 item, the scale conforms to the properties of a Mokken scale. This has advantages for estimating the severity of intellectual disability and inferring the difficulties likely to be experienced by an individual for whom there is incomplete information on intellectual and adaptive functioning.

Screening with young offenders with an intellectual disability

The research suggests that young offenders with an intellectual disability (ID) may not always be identified within youth justice services. This pilot study assessed some aspects of the validity of a screening tool, the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q), in UK forensic settings, using data from 23 individuals. The CAIDS-Q had positive and negative predictive power of 100%. In addition, a significant difference was found in CAIDS-Q scores between those with and without an ID, with the latter group scoring significantly higher, indicating discriminative validity. A significant positive relationship was found between full-scale IQ and CAIDS-Q scores, indicating convergent validity. The pilot study suggested that the CAIDS-Q may represent a valid screening tool to identify those young offenders who are likely to have an ID. Limitations and implications of the pilot are discussed.

Screening for offenders with an intellectual disability: The validity of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire

The study assessed the validity of an intellectual disability screening tool, the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ), in three forensic settings: a community intellectual disability forensic service; a forensic in-patient secure unit and a prison, using data for 94 individuals. A significant positive relationship was found between full scale IQ and LDSQ score, indicating convergent validity. Discriminative validity was indicated by, firstly, a significant difference in the LDSQ scores between those with and without an intellectual disability, with those with a diagnosis of intellectual disability, scoring significantly lower. Secondly, a ROC analysis indicated that the sensitivity and specificity of the LDSQ were both above 80%. The screening tool was found to have lower sensitivity in the forensic populations than was obtained in the original community standardisation sample, but had slightly higher specificity. Limitations and implications of the study are discussed.

The evaluation of a screening tool for children with an intellectual disability: The Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire

The study outlines the evaluation of an intellectual disability screening tool, the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q), with two age groups. A number of aspects of the reliability and validity of the CAIDS-Q were assessed for these two groups, including inter-rater reliability, convergent and discriminative validity. For both age groups, a significant positive relationship was found between full scale IQ and CAIDS-Q score, indicating convergent validity. Significant differences were found in the CAIDS-Q scores between those with and without an intellectual disability, with the former group scoring significantly lower. The sensitivity and specificity of the CAIDS-Q were above 96.7% and 85.5% respectively for the younger group and 90.9% and 94.9% respectively for the older group. Limitations and implications of the study are discussed.

The usefulness of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ) in a Community Learning Disability Service

The usefulness of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ) in a Community Learning Disability Service

The development of a child learning disability screening questionnaire: a pilot study

The identification of learning disability in children can be problematic, especially for those with significant intellectual impairment (Hamilton 2006, Siminoff et al 2006). However, early diagnosis can be crucial in terms of the child’s learning and everyday functioning (Herbert 2006), with early intervention helping to improve difficulties in communication and self-care skills (Chadwick et al 2005). In addition, diagnosis can help parents and others make sense of the child’s behaviours and difficulties, guide intervention and identify support needs (Goodman and Linn 2003).

An epidemiological survey of the health needs of disabled people in a rural community.

To describe service use and unmet needs of disabled people in a rural environment, given well-recognized difficulties in providing equitable services to a widely-spread population, availability of transport and the presence of discrepancies in wealth. Disabled people registered with a single rural general practice, identified by postal questionnaire. All 3462 households were screened using the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) disability screening questionnaire. An 86% response rate was achieved. Seventy-four people aged 16-65 and 69 people aged 66-75 were interviewed by a rehabilitation physician. Fifty-five people aged 76+ were interviewed. Disability was assessed using the OPCS scales of disability, Barthel Index, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Thirty per cent (43) of those aged 16-75 received assistance for their personal activities of daily living (ADLs), and 98% (140) required assistance for extended ADLs (taken from the OPCS surveys criteria). There was no difference in either disability or dependency by age group. Fifty-three per cent of this group had domestic adaptations, 75% had disability aids. Those aged 16-75 had significantly fewer aids and adaptations, less home care, care management, respite, district nursing and chiropody services than people over 75. Equipment was provided by statutory services less frequently and fewer carers were salaried. The rehabilitation physician assessed them as needing more occupational therapy, physiotherapy and chiropody. Thirty per cent saw their GP monthly and 45% attended hospital. Unmet need was assessed as greater in the younger group. Elderly people are possibly more visible to service providers with better recognition of need. There is no evidence of a relationship between medical surveillance and identification of rehabilitation needs. Those with greater degrees of disability require more interlinked and organized services.