Quality comparison of websites related to developmental disabilities.
Skip ad-heavy dot-com disability sites; send families to ad-free .gov or .org pages that cite real studies.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team hunted for websites about developmental disabilities. They kept 104 sites that parents or teachers might actually use.
Each site got scored on ten red-flag items. Ads, pop-ups, for-profit logos, and missing science citations counted against it.
They also noted the web address. Sites ending in .gov or .org started with bonus points.
What they found
The cleaner the site, the better the score. No ads, no sales pitch, and a list of journal articles meant higher marks.
Dot-gov and dot-org pages usually beat dot-com pages. Sponsored pages rarely cited real research.
How this fits with other research
Gevarter et al. (2013) did the same kind of sweep in the same year. They compared talking devices, not websites, but used the same checklist style. The two reviews show that systematic scoring works for any tool parents touch.
Heinicke et al. (2019) later graded picture-based preference tests. Like Brian et al., they found that fancy format does not equal quality; you have to look for proof behind the claims.
Hartwell et al. (2025) widened the lens. Their 2025 map of autism-screening tools could fold in the 2013 website list. Together they warn us: even today, slick sites and slick tests can both look legit while lacking data.
Why it matters
Before you hand a parent a link, glance at the URL. Pick .gov or .org, skip the ads, and check for a reference list. One quick filter saves hours of myth-busting later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a one-line note to every parent handout: “This site has no ads and lists its sources.”
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The Internet is commonly used to seek health-related information, but little is known about the quality of websites on developmental disabilities. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the characteristics and quality of websites located by searching ten common terms related to developmental disabilities and explore relations between website characteristics and website quality in order to make recommendations on ways to ensure locating good online information. We located 208 unique websites in our November 2012 US searches of Google and Bing. Two independent coders evaluated 10 characteristics of the websites and two different coders assessed the quality of the websites. From the 208 websites, 104 (50%) provided relevant information about the disability being searched. Of these 104 websites, those found to be of highest quality were least likely to be a sponsored result, contain advertisements, be from a for-profit company, and did contain references to peer-reviewed publications or had a top-level domain of .gov or .org. Individuals with developmental disabilities and their family members who choose to obtain disability-related information online should remain vigilant to ensure that they locate high-quality and accurate information and should not replace information obtained from health-care professionals and educational specialists with information found online.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.013