Studying the Experiences of Children With Moderate to Profound Intellectual Disabilities in Research: A Systematic Review.
Satu Peltomäki, Sirpa Granö, Ella Rönkkö and 3 others
PMID 40650453WHAT IT FOUND
Researchers collected children's experiences using interviews, questionnaires, task-based approaches, observation and focus groups across 41 studies.
Common supports were pictures, symbols or signing, rephrasing and emotional support.
Key findings
01Researchers used five main instruments to collect children's experiences: individual interviews (n = 19), questionnaires (n = 12), task-based approaches (n = 8), observations (n = 4) and focus groups (n = 2).
02The most used adaptations were pictures, symbols or signing, rephrasing and emotional support.
03Children with severe ID who communicated without speech were mainly studied with task-based approaches (n = 6), individual interviews (n = 4) and observations (n = 3).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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
Only peer-reviewed articles in English or Finnish since 2000 were searched, and future reviews should include non-peer-reviewed studies in all languages. Title and abstract screening was done by one researcher only, so relevant articles may have been missed. The labels moderate, severe and profound intellectual disabilities were indicative only, because studies reported and classified participants differently. Many studies reported adaptations only generally, so the adaptations may be hard to reproduce. Methodological quality varied across the included studies. The review did not analyse proxy reports or behaviour observation, so it says nothing about how those methods work.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this review as evidence that any intervention helps children with intellectual disabilities. It reports how researchers collected children's experiences, not patient outcomes or treatment effects.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →