The Psychometric Properties of Emotional Development Assessment tools in Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.

IF 2 2区医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Pub Date : 2025-08-12 DOI:10.1111/jir.70023

Bethany Leal, Mark Hudson

{"title":"The Psychometric Properties of Emotional Development Assessment tools in Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Bethany Leal, Mark Hudson","doi":"10.1111/jir.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: People with intellectual disabilities can experience psychological distress and show behaviours of concern, such as self-injurious behaviour or physical aggression. One contributing factor is the degree to which their emotional needs are understood by those in their environment. This paper aims to review the psychometric properties of assessment tools measuring emotional development in individuals with intellectual disabilities.Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted, which included 5 databases and followed the PRISMA guidance (registration number: CRD42024553322). Seven assessment tools were included in this review: the SAED, SED-S, Brief SED-S, SED-R, and SED-R2, SEO-Lukas and the Frankish model, and the psychometric properties were assessed in accordance with the COSMIN good measurement properties checklist.Results: Sixteen studies were included in this review. Internal consistency was assessed in six of the seven measures; validity was only assessed in the SAED and SED-S. Whilst both of these measures were considered reliable and valid, studies on the SAED had greater methodological quality, and the SED-S had a larger quantity of evidence.Conclusions: Both the SAED and the SED-S are psychometrically sound tools, based on the overall quality and sufficiency of the evidence. Further research should consider the usability, sensitivity and cross-cultural use, especially in UK populations.","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.70023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: People with intellectual disabilities can experience psychological distress and show behaviours of concern, such as self-injurious behaviour or physical aggression. One contributing factor is the degree to which their emotional needs are understood by those in their environment. This paper aims to review the psychometric properties of assessment tools measuring emotional development in individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted, which included 5 databases and followed the PRISMA guidance (registration number: CRD42024553322). Seven assessment tools were included in this review: the SAED, SED-S, Brief SED-S, SED-R, and SED-R², SEO-Lukas and the Frankish model, and the psychometric properties were assessed in accordance with the COSMIN good measurement properties checklist.

Results: Sixteen studies were included in this review. Internal consistency was assessed in six of the seven measures; validity was only assessed in the SAED and SED-S. Whilst both of these measures were considered reliable and valid, studies on the SAED had greater methodological quality, and the SED-S had a larger quantity of evidence.

Conclusions: Both the SAED and the SED-S are psychometrically sound tools, based on the overall quality and sufficiency of the evidence. Further research should consider the usability, sensitivity and cross-cultural use, especially in UK populations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

智障情绪发展评估工具的心理测量特性：系统回顾。

背景：智障人士可能会经历心理困扰，并表现出令人担忧的行为，如自残行为或身体攻击。其中一个影响因素是他们的情感需求在多大程度上被周围的人理解。本文旨在回顾智力障碍个体情感发展评估工具的心理测量特性。方法：采用系统文献综述，纳入5个数据库，遵循PRISMA指南（注册号：CRD42024553322）。本文采用SAED、SED-S、Brief SED-S、SED-R、SED-R2、SEO-Lukas和Frankish模型7种评估工具，并根据COSMIN良好测量特性清单评估心理测量特性。结果：本综述纳入了16项研究。7项措施中的6项评估了内部一致性；效度仅在SAED和SED-S中进行评估。虽然这两种测量方法都被认为是可靠和有效的，但SAED的研究具有更高的方法质量，而SED-S有更多的证据。结论：基于证据的整体质量和充分性，SAED和SED-S都是心理测量学上可靠的工具。进一步的研究应该考虑可用性、敏感性和跨文化使用，特别是在英国人群中。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Multiple-

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

5.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.