The reliabilty and validity of a revised version of the How I Think Questionnaire for men who have intellectual disabilities

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to revise an existing measure of distorted cognitions, creating the How I Think Questionnaire -Intellectual Disabilities (HIT-IDs), and to investigate the reliability and validity of the revised questionnaire. To achieve our aims, we recruited 97 men with intellectual disabilities (IDs), with or without a history of engaging in criminal behaviour, and interviewed them on two occasions, inviting them to complete the HIT-IDs, along with measures of moral development and empathy. The results indicated that the internal consistency of the HIT-IDs was acceptable, and the test-retest reliability was good. The HIT-IDs discriminated well between offenders and non-offenders, and as expected, correlated positively with a measure of moral development and negatively with a measure of empathy. The HIT-IDs is a reliable and valid measure for use with men who have IDs.

Attentional bias toward negative and positive pictorial stimuli and its relationship with distorted cognitions, empathy, and moral reasoning among men with intellectual disabilities who have committed crimes

“…These findings are similar to that reported by others using samples of offenders who do not have intellectual disabilities (Chan et al, 2010; Ciardha & Gormley, 2012; Domes et al, 2013; Gallagher‐Duffy et al, 2009; Smith & Waterman, 2003, 2004). In addition, and as reported by others, men with intellectual disabilities and a history of offending endorsed more distorted cognitions (Daniel et al, 2018; Langdon & Talbot, 2006; Langdon, Murphy, et al, 2011; Lindsay & Michie, 2004; Lindsay et al, 2006), and reported less general empathy (Hockley & Langdon, 2015; Langdon & Hockley, 2012); however, not all previous studies have reported that men with intellectual disabilities who have a history of committing crimes score lower on measures of empathy (Beail & Proctor, 2004; Langdon, Murphy, et al, 2011; Proctor & Beail, 2007; Ralfs & Beail, 2012) than men without such a history, which is likely related to measurement and sampling.…”

“…Women were excluded from this study for two reasons: (a) there is some evidence that women and men may score differently on measures of related constructs, such as empathy (Baron‐Cohen & Wheelright, 2004); and (b) the population of offenders with intellectual disabilities within secure services in the United Kingdom are predominantly men. The sample of participants in this study have taken part in a previous study (Daniel, Sadek, & Langdon, 2018).…”

“…Distorted cognitions, or offense supported cognitions, were measured using the How I Think Questionnaire (HIT; Barriga & Gibbs, 1996; Barriga, Gibbs, Potter, & Liau, 2001) which was adapted for use with adults with intellectual disabilities by Daniel et al (2018) where it was read to participants. A thorough description of the adaptations can be found elsewhere, where the authors also reported that this measure has excellent internal consistency and good test–retest reliability (Daniel et al, 2018).…”

“…Higher scores indicate greater empathy. The measure has previously been used with men who have intellectual disabilities where the questionnaire was read to participants and discriminates between those with and without a history of criminal offending (Daniel et al, 2018; Hockley & Langdon, 2015; Langdon & Hockley, 2012). In one study, the internal consistency was reported as α = .70 (Daniel et al, 2018).…”

The adaptation of self-report measures to the needs of people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review.

“…If measures are unsuitable for use in their original format with persons with ID, it is common practice to adapt assessments and to test the modified versions for usability, reliability and validity (Stancliffe et al, 2017). Many measures have been adapted, for example the revised version of the How I Think Questionnaire (Daniel et al, 2018), Impact of Events Scale (Hall et al, 2014), the Self- and Other-Deception Questionnaire (Langdon et al, 2010), and the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS-ID; Lindsay & Michie, 1988).…”