were published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) included content about people ages 18 yr or older with primary or coexisting ID at any level, and (4) included information relevant to occupational therapy practice (e.g., related to occupational performance strengths and needs of people with ID). Articles were excluded if they (1) were literary criticism (e.g., book reviews, editorials) or conference proceedings; (2) were gray literature (e.g., dissertations, government reports); or (3) included only participants with physical, developmental, or cognitive disabilities without ID (e.g., adult-onset muscular dystrophy, high-functioning ASD, dementia). To establish reliability, three authors independently screened 20 titles and abstracts for inclusion, compared their decisions, discussed their reasoning, and came to consensus, documenting any clarification regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria. These authors conducted this reliability consensus of 20 articles three times until they reached 90% consistency. Map the DataWe identified 3,402 articles for screening (1,203 PsycINFO; 1,102 CINAHL; 732 Scopus; and 365 PubMed). A total of 826 duplicates were removed, resulting in 2,576 articles to be screened. After reviewing titles and abstracts, we deemed 2,007 articles irrelevant to the research question, leaving 569 articles to be assessed for inclusion. Two authors conducted full-text screenings of each article, and three authors discussed and came to consensus regarding any disagreements about inclusion to ensure reliability. Of the 569 articles assessed, 410 were excluded, leaving 159 that met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).To analyze the full text of included articles, we extracted key information (e.g., purpose of the study, sample characteristics, types of evidence provided, areas of occupation addressed, measures used, implications for intervention) from each article into a shared Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) spreadsheet. For each article, one author completed the initial data extraction, and a second author reviewed and added to this information. The articles were divided into three major categories on the basis of the type of evidence that the article provided: descriptive, assessment, or intervention. Evaluate and Summarize FindingsTo develop codes for the 57 intervention articles, three authors independently reviewed extracted data, proposed inductive codes and descriptions, and deliberated initial codes. These authors reviewed the extracted data and referred to the full articles until they reached consensus about the coding structure, which developed into intervention outcome categories and intervention strategy categories. Subsequently, these authors assigned each article outcome and strategy codes, as appropriate, and used a shared audit trail to track individual coding. These authors also discussed differences in coding and referred back to full-text articles until reaching consensus. ResultsOf the 159 articles that met the inclusion criteria for the larger scoping review, data were extracted ...
were published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) included content about people ages 18 yr or older with primary or coexisting ID at any level, and (4) included information relevant to occupational therapy practice (e.g., related to occupational performance strengths and needs of people with ID). Articles were excluded if they (1) were literary criticism (e.g., book reviews, editorials) or conference proceedings; (2) were gray literature (e.g., dissertations, government reports); or (3) included only participants with physical, developmental, or cognitive disabilities without ID (e.g., adult-onset muscular dystrophy, high-functioning ASD, dementia). To establish reliability, three authors independently screened 20 titles and abstracts for inclusion, compared their decisions, discussed their reasoning, and came to consensus, documenting any clarification regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria. These authors conducted this reliability consensus of 20 articles three times until they reached 90% consistency. Map the DataWe identified 3,402 articles for screening (1,203 PsycINFO; 1,102 CINAHL; 732 Scopus; and 365 PubMed). A total of 826 duplicates were removed, resulting in 2,576 articles to be screened. After reviewing titles and abstracts, we deemed 2,007 articles irrelevant to the research question, leaving 569 articles to be assessed for inclusion. Two authors conducted full-text screenings of each article, and three authors discussed and came to consensus regarding any disagreements about inclusion to ensure reliability. Of the 569 articles assessed, 410 were excluded, leaving 159 that met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).To analyze the full text of included articles, we extracted key information (e.g., purpose of the study, sample characteristics, types of evidence provided, areas of occupation addressed, measures used, implications for intervention) from each article into a shared Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) spreadsheet. For each article, one author completed the initial data extraction, and a second author reviewed and added to this information. The articles were divided into three major categories on the basis of the type of evidence that the article provided: descriptive, assessment, or intervention. Evaluate and Summarize FindingsTo develop codes for the 57 intervention articles, three authors independently reviewed extracted data, proposed inductive codes and descriptions, and deliberated initial codes. These authors reviewed the extracted data and referred to the full articles until they reached consensus about the coding structure, which developed into intervention outcome categories and intervention strategy categories. Subsequently, these authors assigned each article outcome and strategy codes, as appropriate, and used a shared audit trail to track individual coding. These authors also discussed differences in coding and referred back to full-text articles until reaching consensus. ResultsOf the 159 articles that met the inclusion criteria for the larger scoping review, data were extracted ...
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.