Adolescent depression: relationships of self-report to intellectual and adaptive functioning.

Gaylord-Ross et al. (1995) asked teens with and without intellectual disability to fill out a depression checklist. They also gave IQ and daily-living tests to see if smarts or skills changed the scores.

The goal was simple: do kids with ID really feel more blue, and does their ability level hide or boost the numbers?

Teens with ID ticked more depression and general psychopathology items than typical peers. Higher daily-living skills softened the link between low IQ and high depression scores.

In plain words, the better a teen could cook, clean, and handle money, the less their IQ score seemed to drag them into sad reports.

Garrison et al. (2025) later showed the same self-report trick works for anxiety in autistic teens with ID. They found verbal and adaptive skills predict who can finish the forms, backing the 1995 view that ability level matters.

Gotham et al. (2015) looked at verbally fluent ASD teens and saw only modest validity for standard depression scales. This extends the warning: even talkative kids on the spectrum may give shaky answers, so check their adaptive level first.

Young et al. (2025) systematic review now recommends tools like the PHQ-9 or EDA for autistic youth. Their pick list updates the 1995 message: use instruments built for neurodivergent minds, not plain vanilla ones.

Before you hand any teen a mood form, quickly scan their adaptive profile. If daily-living scores lag, expect inflated depression numbers and plan follow-up interviews. Swap to ASD-ID friendly tools like the EDA when available, and always pair self-report with caregiver data for the clearest picture.