Reliability and Validity of Questionnaires to Assess Communication Skills in People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
No communication questionnaire for people with ID has full psychometric backing—audit any scale before you use it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team hunted for every questionnaire that claims to measure communication in people with intellectual disability.
They read the fine print on how each tool was built and tested.
Only six questionnaires made the cut for full review.
What they found
None of the six tools had complete proof that they work.
Each one missed at least one big piece: either reliability, validity, or both.
The authors say we need fresh data and input from clients and families before any tool is ready for daily use.
How this fits with other research
Smith et al. (2020) showed that over half of adults with ID have real communication needs, so a good scale is urgent.
Werner et al. (2012) and Hinckson et al. (2013) ran similar reviews for stigma and physical-activity scales and also came up empty—no gold-standard tool.
Alecia et al. (2020) add that even our classic IQ and adaptive tests may miss change; Catriona’s team now says the same gap hits communication tools.
Why it matters
If you screen or write goals for clients with ID, treat these questionnaires as drafts, not finals. Ask: was the tool tested on people like my client? Check if caregivers helped build it. Until stronger tools arrive, pair any questionnaire with direct observation and caregiver report to protect your data.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick the questionnaire you used last—email the test authors for its latest validity data before the next assessment.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessing communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities is essential yet challenging because of the complexity of the construct and limited availability of psychometrically robust tools. This review aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of communication questionnaires used with this population. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and COSMIN definitions for validity and reliability. Five databases (Cinahl, Embase, Eric, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2024. Inclusion criteria required questionnaires to assess communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities and report on validity or reliability. Methodological quality was appraised using the QualSyst tool. RESULTS: Six questionnaires described in five studies and three manuals met the inclusion criteria. Validity evidence was more frequently reported than reliability, though both were inconsistently documented. No questionnaire demonstrated a comprehensive evaluation of validity or reliability. Content validity was often limited by a lack of stakeholder involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Current questionnaires show promise but require further validation. Future research should prioritise stakeholder engagement, content and structural validity to ensure an inclusive, reliable communication assessment. Prospero Id: CRD42023413902.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2025 · doi:10.1111/jir.70063