The Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire showed good psychometric properties. It identified all participating children who met the criteria for intellectual disability. Between 83% and 94% of children without intellectual disability were also correctly identified.
Background
The demands of academic life are considered to be increasingly stressful for students in higher education, but there is limited research about the extent to which those attending student counselling services experience difficulties relating to academic issues and how effective counselling is for them.
Aim
The study aimed to evaluate the reliable and clinically significant change for students with self‐reported academic issues. Reliable change occurs when a change in the outcome being measured is not attributable to error, while clinically significant change occurs when a person moves from a clinical population to a healthy population after an intervention, in this case counselling.
Methodology
Pre‐existing data from 129 university students who had attended a student counselling service were analysed to determine levels of reliable change and clinically significant change. These data related to psychological status before and after counselling based on CORE‐OM total scores; self‐report of the impact of counselling on academic issues; and demographic variables.
Findings
In total, 117 (92%) of students reported experiencing academic issues to some extent. Counselling was found to result in reliable change for 67% and clinically significant change for 40% of those students reporting academic issues.
Implications
The results of the study suggest that, even where academic reasons are not the primary cause of referral to student counselling services, a significant number of students will also experience difficulties in these areas. Counselling was, however, shown to result in reliable and clinically significant change in a high percentage of those experiencing these additional difficulties.
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.