Measuring social desirability amongst men with intellectual disabilities: the psychometric properties of the Self- and Other-Deception Questionnaire-Intellectual Disabilities.
Two quick yes-no scales reliably catch overly positive self-report in adult men with intellectual disability.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Smith et al. (2010) built two short questionnaires for men with intellectual disability. One asks, 'Do you fool yourself?' (SDQ-ID). The other asks, 'Do you fool others?' (ODQ-ID).
Both tools have 20 items. Men circle yes or no. The team tested 80 men with mild ID and 80 men without ID, twice, two weeks apart.
What they found
Both scales scored 0.70 or higher on internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was 0.73 for SDQ-ID and 0.78 for ODQ-ID. Men with and without ID gave similar, stable answers.
The tools can now be used to check if clients are giving overly 'good' answers during other assessments.
How this fits with other research
Two later studies look like bad news but really test different groups. Kaiser et al. (2022) tried the classic Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in children with IDD. They found weak reliability when kids rated themselves. E et al. studied adult men with a new social-desirability version, not kids with the old SDQ. Age and tool changes explain the gap.
Vassos et al. (2023) also validated a new scale, the 18-item SED-S, in adults with ID. Both papers show the same path: shorten, simplify, then prove it works.
Koegel et al. (1992) did the groundwork. They showed seven social-cognition tests were reliable in teens with ID. E et al. extend that work into adult self-report on deception.
Why it matters
If you assess adults with mild ID, you can now spot 'faking good' in under five minutes. Add the SDQ-ID or ODQ-ID before personality or preference surveys. A high score warns you to double-check answers in the main test. No extra training is needed—just hand the form and count yes answers.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Print the 20-item SDQ-ID, give it before any self-report survey, and flag clients who score above the cutoff for follow-up questions.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Social desirability has been construed as either inaccurately attributing positive characteristics to oneself (self-deception), or inaccurately denying that one possesses undesirable characteristics to others (other-deception or impression management). These conceptualisations of social desirability have not been considered in relation to people with intellectual disabilities (IDs), but they are important constructs to consider when undertaking a psychological assessment of an individual, especially within forensic contexts. Therefore, we revised two existing measures of self- and other-deception and considered their psychometric properties. METHODS: Thirty-two men with mild IDs and 28 men without IDs completed the Self- and Other-Deception Questionnaires-Intellectual Disabilities (SDQ-ID and ODQ-ID) on two occasions, two weeks apart. RESULTS: Men with IDs scored significantly higher on the SDQ-ID and the ODQ-ID than men without IDs. However, these differences disappeared when Full Scale IQ, Verbal IQ and Performance IQ were controlled in relation to the SDQ-ID, and partially disappeared in relation to the ODQ-ID. The SDQ-ID and the ODQ-ID had substantial internal consistency in relation to men with IDs (k=0.82 and 0.84 respectively). The test-retest reliability of the SDQ-ID was good (r(i)=0.68), while the test-retest reliability of the ODQ-ID was moderate (r(i)=0.56), for men with IDs. The SDQ-ID had moderate (k=0.60) and the ODQ-ID had substantial (k=0.70) internal consistency in relation to men without IDs, while the test-retest reliability of the SDQ-ID was excellent (r(i)=0.87) as was the case for the ODQ-ID (r(i)=0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The SDQ-ID and the ODQ-ID have satisfactory psychometric properties in relation to men with and without IDs. Future research using these instruments is proposed.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2010 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.05.001