Assessing functioning for individuals with neurodevelopmental conditions: Current clinical practice in Australia.

Participants were recruited by convenience and self-selection, so clinicians who were more confident or research engaged may have answered. Most participants had qualifications beyond a bachelor's degree, which may not represent typical practice. Results are self-reported and may include social desirability bias. The sample size was small, and profession comparisons were only calculated for occupational therapists, psychologists and speech pathologists. Branching logic meant not all participants answered questions about ICF chapters. Qualitative comments were too limited to identify themes. The survey only asked about specific named measures, so other measures' frequency and appropriateness were not captured. Findings describe Australian practice and may not generalise to other countries or funding systems.

One author received an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship during the research, and the other authors completed the work through paid roles at their institutions. No other conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Do not read this survey as showing which assessment tool or profession gives the most accurate functioning assessment. It reports what clinicians said they used and preferred, not how accurate the assessments were or how they affected patient outcomes.