Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025
Reliability and Validity of Questionnaires to Assess Communication Skills in People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Windsor Catriona, Næss Kari-Anne Bottegård, Kirmess Melanie, Deckers Stijn, Ballentine Natalie, Yoon Sangwon, Speyer Renée
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Assessing communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities is essential yet challenging because of the complexity of the construct and limited availability of psychometrically robust tools. This review aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of communication questionnaires used with this population.
METHOD: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and COSMIN definitions for validity and reliability. Five databases (Cinahl, Embase, Eric, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2024. Inclusion criteria required questionnaires to assess communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities and report on validity or reliability. Methodological quality was appraised using the QualSyst tool.
RESULTS: Six questionnaires described in five studies and three manuals met the inclusion criteria. Validity evidence was more frequently reported than reliability, though both were inconsistently documented. No questionnaire demonstrated a comprehensive evaluation of validity or reliability. Content validity was often limited by a lack of stakeholder involvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Current questionnaires show promise but require further validation. Future research should prioritise stakeholder engagement, content and structural validity to ensure an inclusive, reliable communication assessment. Prospero Id: CRD42023413902.
METHOD: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and COSMIN definitions for validity and reliability. Five databases (Cinahl, Embase, Eric, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2024. Inclusion criteria required questionnaires to assess communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities and report on validity or reliability. Methodological quality was appraised using the QualSyst tool.
RESULTS: Six questionnaires described in five studies and three manuals met the inclusion criteria. Validity evidence was more frequently reported than reliability, though both were inconsistently documented. No questionnaire demonstrated a comprehensive evaluation of validity or reliability. Content validity was often limited by a lack of stakeholder involvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Current questionnaires show promise but require further validation. Future research should prioritise stakeholder engagement, content and structural validity to ensure an inclusive, reliable communication assessment. Prospero Id: CRD42023413902.