{"title":"智障情绪发展评估工具的心理测量特性:系统回顾。","authors":"Bethany Leal, Mark Hudson","doi":"10.1111/jir.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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-R<sup>2</sup>, SEO-Lukas and the Frankish model, and the psychometric properties were assessed in accordance with the COSMIN good measurement properties checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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-R<sup>2</sup>, SEO-Lukas and the Frankish model, and the psychometric properties were assessed in accordance with the COSMIN good measurement properties checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"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}","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}
The Psychometric Properties of Emotional Development Assessment tools in Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
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.
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.