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

Abstract

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.

Screening for learning disability in primary care: an examination of feasibility against the Wilson-Jungner criteria

“…While there is the possibility that those who are identified as likely to meet the criteria for learning disability may feel stigmatised, as outlined previously, research suggests that this was identified as a potential psychological risk by less than 1 in 5 parents, service users, and professionals. The LDSQ has also been identified as a means by which the issue of prisoners being ashamed to highlight their difficulties can be addressed (McKenzie et al 2021).…”

“…Overall, research suggests that use of the CAIDS-Q and LDSQ has few disadvantages and many advantages (McKenzie et al 2021). The most obvious advantage and key purpose of the screening tools is that they accurately identify people who are likely to meet the criteria for learning disability.…”

Screening for intellectual disability in autistic people: A brief report

“…Those with a percentage score that falls below the relevant cut-off are indicated as likely to meet the criteria for intellectual disability. Like the CAIDS-Q, the LDSQ has also been used in different settings and found to demonstrate good psychometric properties (see McKenzie et al, 2021). A study which validated the LDSQ against the updated Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 2010) found it to have sensitivity and specificity values of 91.5 % and 91.7 % respectively.…”

“…The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, for the CAIDS-Q and LDSQ. to have an intellectual disability, prioritise assessments, and reduce waiting times for assessment (see McKenzie et al, 2021). The CAIDS-Q has also been highlighted as a helpful tool for professionals who are part of neurodevelopmental screening, assessment, and diagnosis pathways, such as teachers, nurses, and paediatricians (Rutherford et al, 2021).…”

“…Two screening tools that address these difficulties are the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q: McKenzie et al, 2012) and the adult version, the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ: McKenzie & Paxton, 2006). These have both demonstrated good psychometric properties in a variety of clinical settings and other populations (see McKenzie et al, 2021 for an overview) and have been found to have comparable performances to short-form intellectual assessments, while taking less time to administer (McKenzie et al, 2014;Paxton et al, 2008).…”