Parent and athlete perceptions of special olympics participation: utility and danger of proxy responding.

Glidden et al. (2011) asked two groups the same questions. They asked parents of adult Special Olympics athletes. They asked the athletes themselves. Both groups rated how much the program helped.

The survey covered social skills, fitness, and happiness. The goal was to see if parents speak for their kids accurately.

Parents painted a rosier picture than the athletes did. They claimed bigger gains in every area. The athletes gave milder, mixed reviews.

The gap shows proxy reports can inflate benefits. Relying only on parents may mislead teams.

Dodds et al. (2011) saw the same pattern with motivation. Parents of kids with Down syndrome rated motivation low, yet direct tests showed normal drive. Together these papers warn: parent views do not always match reality.

Bigham et al. (2013) found another twist. After accounting for developmental age, parent ADHD ratings no longer linked to real impulsivity scores. Method matters; simple parent checklists can drift off target.

Pitchford et al. (2016) looked bright-side. Parents who believed sport helps had youth who moved more. Parent belief can drive action, but Masters reminds us the belief itself may be over-stated.

When you write goals or progress notes, collect data from the athlete first. If the person can sign, point, or speak, ask them. Use parent input as extra, not proof. This small shift keeps treatment plans grounded in the client's own voice.