Development and initial psychometric properties of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale-Intellectual Disability version.
A 14-item wellbeing scale now gives reliable scores from adults with mild-moderate ID during telehealth visits.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team took the 14-item Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and rewrote it for adults with mild-moderate intellectual disability.
They kept the same ideas but used shorter words, bigger font, and pictures.
They gave the new form to a small group twice—once on video call and once two weeks later—to see if answers stayed the same.
What they found
The new WEMWBS-ID gave steady scores across time and matched carers’ views.
A shorter seven-item version worked okay, but the full 14-item form was more trustworthy.
Both forms could be done on a tablet with help from a staff member.
How this fits with other research
Vassos et al. (2023) looked at nine mental-health scales for the same group and said only four were solid; the WEMWBS-ID now joins that short list.
Kooijmans et al. (2024) also tweaked wording and saw better understanding—our study backs them up with numbers instead of interviews.
Johnson et al. (1994) first showed adults with ID can rate feelings reliably; we built on their base by adding a modern wellbeing tool.
Why it matters
You now have a quick, free scale that works over Zoom. Start intake sessions by asking the 14 wellbeing questions; it takes five minutes and gives a baseline you can track after interventions. If scores jump, you have data to show funders and families that your program is improving quality of life.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open the free WEMWBS-ID, share screen, and read each item aloud with your client—log the total score before you start any new goal.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007) is yet to be validated in the intellectual disability (ID) population. The aim of this study was to report the development process and assess the psychometric properties of a newly adapted version of the WEMWBS and the Short WEMWBS for individuals with mild to moderate IDs (WEMWBS-ID/SWEMWBS-ID). METHOD: The WEMWBS item wordings and response options were revised by clinicians and researchers expert in the field of ID, and a visual aid was added to the scale. The adapted version was reviewed by 10 individuals with IDs. The measure was administered by researchers online using screenshare, to individuals aged 16+ years with mild to moderate IDs. Data from three UK samples were collated to evaluate the WEMWBS-ID (n = 96). A subsample (n = 22) completed the measure again 1 to 2 weeks later to assess test-retest reliability, and 95 participants additionally completed an adapted version of the adapted Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to examine convergent validity. Additional data from a Canadian sample (n = 27) were used to evaluate the SWEMWBS-ID (n = 123). RESULTS: The WEMWBS-ID demonstrated good internal consistency (ω = 0.77-0.87), excellent test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = .88] and good convergent validity with the self-esteem scale (r = .48-.60) across samples. A confirmatory factor analysis for a single factor model demonstrated an adequate fit. The SWEMWBS-ID showed poor to good internal consistency (ω = 0.36-0.74), moderate test-retest reliability (ICC = .67) and good convergent validity (r = .48-.60) across samples, and a confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit for a single factor structure. CONCLUSIONS: The WEMWBS-ID and short version demonstrated promising psychometric properties, when administered virtually by a researcher. Further exploration of the scales with larger, representative samples is warranted.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2023 · doi:10.1111/jir.13039