Inventory of assessment practices in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in three European countries.
Marleen D Wessels, Annette A J van der Putten, Muirne C S Paap
PMID 34137122WHAT IT FOUND
Professionals assess multiple domains in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities, often using observation and involving parents.
However, most assessment instruments used have no published data on their reliability or validity for this specific group. This means the accuracy of these common clinical assessments is currently unknown.
Key findings
01Of 116 published instruments used in practice, only 8 had studies reporting psychometric properties for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.
02Observation was the most frequently used assessment method, while standardised tests were used least often.
03Most professionals reported using assessment methods that were not specifically developed for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample was a convenience sample of 148 professionals, which may not represent the wider clinical population. Only 55% of respondents completed the entire survey, and demographic data was missing for those who dropped out, potentially biasing the results toward those with more time or interest in research. The literature search relied on published peer-reviewed journals and a specific Dutch database, which may have missed evidence contained in test manuals or unpublished reports. The study was limited to three European countries, so findings may not apply to other healthcare systems.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, University of Groningen. No specific funding source is mentioned in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that the instruments you are using are invalid. The study found that for most tools, there is simply no published evidence either way for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. The lack of data is not proof of poor quality, but it does mean you cannot rely on standardised scores as objective truth without further clinical corroboration.