Preliminary Testing of the English Version of the Adolescent Screener for Intelligence and Learning Disabilities (SCIL) Among Adolescents in Nigeria.
Eziafakaku Uchechukwu Nwokolo, Glynis H Murphy, Anne-Marie Mensink and 2 others
PMID 42390027WHAT IT FOUND
The 14-item SCIL screen for Nigerian adolescents at the suggested score of 15 rarely flagged people without disability but did not catch enough people who met the study's disability criteria.
Lower cutoff scores of 10 to 12 caught more.
Key findings
01At the suggested SCIL score of 15, sensitivity was 0.67 and specificity was 0.98 under unadjusted FSIQ <70 and VABS-3 composite score <70.
02Lower SCIL cutoff scores of 10, 11 and 12 improved sensitivity to 0.95, 0.95 and 0.97, with specificity between 0.83 and 0.87.
03Under adjusted FSIQ <52 and VABS-3 composite score <70, an SCIL cutoff score of 10 gave sensitivity 0.66 and specificity 1.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
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 mainly from large urban areas in Nigeria, so it may not represent rural adolescents. 37 participants could not complete the WISC-V or WAIS-III and were excluded from FSIQ analyses; these participants likely had intellectual disability. The SCIL was not tested for test-retest reliability. The WISC-V, WAIS-III and VABS-3 were not Nigerian standardised, so the reference classification used uncertain cutoffs. The adjusted FSIQ cutoff of <52 was based on prior African performance on Western IQ tests, not on Nigerian norms.
Declared interests
The authors have nothing to report for funding. Xavier Moonen is one of the developers of the Dutch version of the SCIL and receives an annual financial contribution from the publisher for, among other things, further research. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that the SCIL diagnoses intellectual disability in Nigerian adolescents. It is a preliminary screen, and at the suggested score of 15 it did not meet the sensitivity threshold used in the paper. The reference standards were Western IQ and adaptive behaviour scores that were not Nigerian standardised, and 37 participants who likely had intellectual disability were excluded from FSIQ analyses.