Population prevalence of psychopathology in children and adolescents with intellectual disability: I. Rationale and methods.

Einfeld et al. (1996) wrote a narrative review. They looked at past studies on mental health in kids with intellectual disability.

The authors saw small samples and mixed methods. They offered a new plan: use one shared tool, the Developmental Behaviour Checklist.

The paper did not give new numbers. It showed that without a shared tool, prevalence numbers jump around.

They argued that a single checklist gives clearer, fairer counts across clinics and research teams.

Rojahn et al. (1994) had already tested three depression screens in adults with ID. Agreement was poor. L et al. echoed this worry and offered the CBCL as a fix.

Constantino et al. (2003) later showed DSM-IV criteria can spot bipolar disorder in adults with ID. This finding supersedes the 1996 doubt; it proves structured criteria can work when chosen well.

Rackauskaite et al. (2016) used the CBCL in a big national sample of kids with cerebral palsy. Nearly half screened positive for psychopathology. This conceptual replication shows the same checklist plan works in a related group.

Hermans et al. (2010) reviewed depression screens and still called them "promising but not proven." Their caution keeps the 1996 warning alive: picking the tool is only step one; we still need more validity data.

If you assess youth with ID, pick one normed checklist and stick with it. The CBCL is ready; it gives you a common language with doctors, teachers, and funders. Start there, then layer on specific tools as needed.