The accuracy of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) in classifying severity of impairment: a brief report

The use of an impact framework to evaluate the impact of research on policy and practice: Screening questionnaires for intellectual disability

There is an increasing emphasis on the importance of research having an impact on policy and practice. This can be more difficult to evidence in intellectual disability services because of the wide range of stakeholders involved. We evaluated whether an impact questionnaire covering: knowledge production, capacity building, informing policy and practice, social and economic benefits could successfully be used to evaluate the impact of research into and use of two screening questionnaires: the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ) and Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q). We conducted an online search for published peer reviewed and grey literature, and Internet resources that referenced LDSQ and/or CAIDS-Q. The resultant literature and resources were assessed for relevance and organized according to the categories outlined in the impact questionnaire. Evidence was found for all the areas of impact, with the largest body of evidence being in relation to informing policy and practice and social benefits and the least for economic benefits. The impact questionnaire provided the basis for a comprehensive and useful evaluative framework to assess impact, although there was some overlap between the different categories. The process of using it highlighted some wider issues to consider when attempting to evaluate impact. The results indicated that the research underpinning the LDSQ and CAIDS-Q had resulted in significant, generally positive, and wide-reaching impact on policy and practice in intellectual disability and other services, resulting in a number of positive outcomes.

Usefulness of the 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS-15) for classifying minor and major depressive disorders among community-dwelling elders

BACKGROUND

The 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS-15) is a short form of GDS and is used to screen, diagnose, and evaluate depression in elderly individuals. Most previous studies evaluated the ability of GDS-15 to discriminate between depressive and non-depressive states. In this study, we investigated the multi-stage discriminating ability of GDS-15.

METHODS

A total of 774 participants, over 65 years of age were included (normal, n = 650; minor depressive disorder [MnDD], n = 94; major depressive disorder [MDD], n = 30). Multi-category receiver operating characteristic (ROC) surfaces were evaluated to identify three stages of geriatric depression. The optimal cutoff points were selected based on the volume under the ROC surface (VUS) and the Youden index.

RESULTS

In the results of multi-category classification analyses, VUS of the GDS-15 of 0.61 was obtained, and optimal cutoff points of the GDS-15 for multiple stages of depression of 4 (between normal and MnDD) and 11 (between MnDD and MDD) were derived. The Youden index for the GDS-15 was 0.49, and the derived optimal cutoff points were 5 and 10, for the multiple stages, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy based on the Youden index was superior to that based on the VUS in the GDS-15.

LIMITATIONS

The participants' cognitive function has potential to affect the GDS-15 score; nevertheless, the study included those with mild cognitive impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

GDS-15 was a useful tool to classify stages of geriatric depression into either minor or major depressive disorder.

Screening for intellectual disability with the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Screening Questionnaire: a modified Delphi approach

AIM

To develop a consensus framework to evaluate the impact of screening for intellectual disability, using the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) in paediatric neurodevelopment clinics.

METHOD

A modified Delphi survey with four phases (literature review; initial development of framework [participants=11 parents, 8 professionals]; qualitative interviews [participants=4 parents, 15 professionals]; questionnaire development [participants=31 parents, 14 professionals] was used to develop the consensus framework. The framework was used to evaluate the impact of screening on six paediatricians and 31 parents of children who had participated in a previous paediatric screening project.

RESULTS

Twelve of the original 20 items were retained based on levels of endorsement of 60 per cent or above. Direct benefits of using the CAIDS-Q were: indicating the child's level of functioning, increasing awareness of intellectual disability, helping to identify children with intellectual disability, and identifying potentially vulnerable children. Benefits related to subsequent diagnostic assessment were: promoting greater understanding of the child, identification of support needs, and receipt of support, particularly for the child at school.

INTERPRETATION

The use of the CAIDS-Q had a number of direct and indirect benefits for children, families, and services as reported by parents and paediatricians.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

A 12-item framework was developed to evaluate the impact of screening for intellectual disability. Direct benefits of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire include increasing awareness and identification of intellectual disability. Indirect benefits included increased identification of support needs and receipt of support.

Informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE) for classifying cognitive dysfunction as cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia

BACKGROUND

The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) is a reliable, validated informant-based instrument in screening for cognitive dysfunction. However, previous studies have evaluated only the ability to discriminate dichotomously, such as dementia from cognitively normal (CN) individuals or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from CN. This study investigated the ability of the IQCODE to classify not only dichotomous but also multiple stages of cognitive dysfunction.

METHODS

We examined 228 consecutive participants (76 CN, 76 with MCI, and 76 with dementia). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined dichotomous classification parameters. Multi-category ROC surfaces were evaluated to classify three stages of cognitive dysfunction.

RESULTS

Dichotomous classification using the ROC curve analyses showed that the area under the ROC curve was 0.91 for dementia from participants without dementia and 0.71 for MCI from CN. Simultaneous multi-category classification analyses showed that the volume under the ROC surface was 0.61 and the derived optimal cut-off points were 3.15 and 3.73 for CN, MCI, and dementia. The Youden index for the IQCODE was estimated as 0.51 and the derived optimal cut-off points were 3.33 and 3.70. The overall classification accuracy by the VUS was 58.3% and that by the Youden index 61.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

IQCODE is useful to classify the dichotomous and multi-category stages of cognitive dysfunction.

Evaluating the use of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) to estimate IQ in children with low intellectual ability

In situations where completing a full intellectual assessment is not possible or desirable the clinician or researcher may require an alternative means of accurately estimating intellectual functioning. There has been limited research in the use of proxy IQ measures in children with an intellectual disability or low IQ. The present study aimed to provide a means of converting total scores from a screening tool (the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire: CAIDS-Q) to an estimated IQ. A series of linear regression analyses were conducted on data from 428 children and young people referred to clinical services, where FSIQ was predicted from CAIDS-Q total scores. Analyses were conducted for three age groups between ages 6 and 18 years. The study presents a conversion table for converting CAIDS-Q total scores to estimates of FSIQ, with corresponding 95% prediction intervals to allow the clinician or researcher to estimate FSIQ scores from CAIDS-Q total scores. It is emphasised that, while this conversion may offer a quick means of estimating intellectual functioning in children with a below average IQ, it should be used with caution, especially in children aged between 6 and 8 years old.