A systematic review on assessment instruments for dementia in persons with intellectual disabilities.
You now have a menu of 114 dementia tests made for adults with ID—pick one instead of guessing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors searched every database they could find. They pulled every paper that tested a dementia tool on adults with intellectual disability.
In the end they listed 114 different tests. They wrote a short note on each one: what it measures, if it was made for ID, and what language it uses.
What they found
No new data were collected. The paper is a map, not a race.
You get a one-page profile for each tool so you can pick the best fit instead of guessing.
How this fits with other research
Keel et al. (1997) came first. That paper said, "Let’s all use the same dementia rules." Matson et al. (2013) answers back, "Here are 114 tools that follow those rules."
Sturmey et al. (1996) told staff how to care for the client once dementia is suspected. The new list plugs straight into that three-step care plan: pick a tool, assess, then manage.
de Vaan et al. (2018) looks similar on paper—they both validate tests for people with ID. But Gitta checked one new autism tool with real clients, while L et al. only catalogued existing dementia tools. Same road, different mile markers.
Why it matters
If you serve adults with Down syndrome or other IDs, dementia screening is now routine. This cheat sheet saves you from hunting through manuals. Print the table, circle the tools that match your setting, and pilot one next month. Your future self will thank you when the first early-warning signs appear.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open the paper’s appendix, find two tools rated for ID, and schedule a pilot screen for your oldest client.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AIM: This work describes an extensive systematic literature review on assessment instruments for dementia in persons with intellectual disability (ID). Existing instruments for the detection of dementia in persons with ID were collected and described systematically. This allows a direct and quick overview of available tools. Additionally, it contributes to the availability and usability of information about these instruments, thus enhancing further developments in this field. METHODS: A systematic literature search in five databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted. In order to include gray literature an invisible college approach was used. Relevant studies were identified and selected using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the selection process all instruments were coded and classified. It was determined which concepts they assess, whether they were especially developed or adapted for persons with ID, and whether they were designed to assess dementia. The selection of relevant papers, as well as the coding of instruments was done independently by two researchers. RESULTS: In total, 97 records met the search criteria. Out of these, 114 different instruments were extracted. There were 79 instruments to be completed by the person with ID, and 35 informant-based instruments. Additionally, four test batteries were found. Some of these instruments were neither designed for the assessment of dementia, nor for persons with ID. CONCLUSIONS: There are a variety of different tools used for the assessment of dementia in ID. Nevertheless, an agreed-upon approach or instrument is missing. Establishing this would improve the quality of assessment in clinical practice, and benefit research. Data collected would become comparable and combinable, and allow research to have more informative value.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.013