Instruments assessing anxiety in adults with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review.
Glasgow Anxiety Scale and ADAMS general anxiety subscale are the front-runners for measuring anxiety in adults with ID, but they still need more replication.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hermans et al. (2011) hunted for anxiety tests made for adults with intellectual disability. They read every paper they could find and kept only the studies that checked if the tests really work.
The team looked at how long each test takes, what it costs, and if staff can give it without special gear.
What they found
Two tools came out on top: the Glasgow Anxiety Scale and the ADAMS general anxiety subscale. Both were built for people with ID and show early signs of reliability.
Still, only a handful of studies exist for each tool, and most are small or weak in design.
How this fits with other research
Wouters et al. (2017) did the same kind of sweep for fitness tests in youth with ID. Like Heidi, they found only a few tools with solid numbers behind them. Together, the reviews show that ID assessment is still a skinny evidence base no matter the domain.
Older preference studies such as Hamilton et al. (1978) and Willemsen-Swinkels et al. (1998) prove you can make valid tools for adults with severe ID when you keep the format simple. Their success hints that brief, concrete item sets may also help anxiety measures.
None of the neighbor papers contradict Heidi, but they widen the lens: if you want to screen mood or preference in ID, expect slim pickings and pilot your own data.
Why it matters
If you serve adults with ID, you now know which two anxiety scales have the best early backing. Start with the Glasgow or ADAMS general subscale, collect your own reliability numbers, and share them. Every new data set thickens the thin evidence base and moves the field toward better mental-health care for this often-overlooked group.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick either the Glasgow or ADAMS general subscale, give it to one client this week, and chart the score alongside your ABC data to see if it tracks observed worry behaviors.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last decades several instruments measuring anxiety in adults with intellectual disabilities have been developed. AIM: To give an overview of the characteristics and psychometric properties of self-report and informant-report instruments measuring anxiety in this group. METHOD: Systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Seventeen studies studying 14 different instruments were found. Methodological quality as measured with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist was insufficient for four studies, sufficient for seven, and good for six. For self-report, the Glasgow Anxiety Scale for people with a learning disability appears most promising, with good internal consistency (a = 0.96), high test-retest reliability (r = 0.95), sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%). For informant-report, the general anxiety subscale of the Anxiety, Depression and Mood Scale may be promising, with good internal consistency (a = 0.83 and a = 0.84) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78 and ICC = 0.92), but poor interrater reliability (ICC = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Two instruments appear promising. However, these instruments have only been studied once or twice, whereas the methodological quality of these studies was varying.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.034