Assessment & Research

Self-perception, self-regulation and metacognition in adolescents with intellectual disability.

Nader-Grosbois (2014) · Research in developmental disabilities 2014
★ The Verdict

Teens with ID rate themselves as positively as younger kids, yet they actually plan and monitor less—so teach them to talk through tasks and make choices.

✓ Read this if BCBAs working with adolescents with intellectual disability in middle or high school
✗ Skip if Clinicians serving only preschool or adult ID populations

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Nader-Grosbois (2014) compared 28 teens with intellectual disability to 28 younger kids matched for mental age. All teens answered questions about how smart, athletic, and liked they felt. They also completed puzzles that showed how they plan, check, and think about their own thinking.

The study used paper tests and simple computer tasks. Each teen worked for about 45 minutes with a researcher in a quiet room.

02

What they found

Both groups said, "I’m okay" about overall competence. Yet the ID teens scored lower on real-time planning, self-checking, and talking about their own thinking.

In the ID group, better metacognition went hand in hand with stronger performance. In the mental-age-matched group, the link was weaker, showing different patterns.

03

How this fits with other research

Andrews et al. (2024) extends these results. They followed older youth with mild ID and found that self-determination, not raw planning skill, predicted quality of life. Together the papers show that teaching teens to speak up and make choices may matter more than drilling pure planning tasks.

Cappadocia et al. (2012) is a predecessor study. Preschoolers with ID who felt accepted by peers showed better theory-of-mind growth. Nader-Grosbois (2014) mirrors this in adolescents, shifting the lens from social acceptance to metacognition.

Kooijmans et al. (2024) topically relates by proving that simplified language and pictures make self-report tools more accurate for adults with ID. Nathalie’s teen-friendly tasks likely worked because they used the same low-language approach.

04

Why it matters

If you serve teens with ID, do not trust a cheerful "I’m fine" as proof of strong self-regulation. Probe deeper with quick check-ins: "What will you do first? How will you know you’re right?" Embed choice-making in every session, because Andrews et al. (2024) shows that boosting self-determination lifts life satisfaction more than pure executive drills alone.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add one self-monitoring question to each task: "How do you know you’re done?" and let the teen choose the order of activities.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
60
Population
intellectual disability, neurotypical
Finding
mixed

03Original abstract

This study compares self-perception of competences in 28 typically developing children (TD) aged 7-9 years and 32 adolescents with intellectual disability (ID) aged 11-16 years in special school, matched for mental age (MA). The links between self-perception, self-regulation in problem-solving and metacognition are investigated. Overall self-perception and self-perception of competences by domain do not differ significantly between the two groups. Self-perception of competences in specific domains, self-regulation and metacognition vary depending on MA and verbal comprehension in the two groups. ID adolescents attribute more importance to social acceptance than TD children. In both groups, positive links are identified between self-perception and importance attributed to domains. Performance, self-regulation and metacognition are lower in ID adolescents than in TD children. Positive links are obtained between self-perception of competences in specific domains and certain self-regulatory and metacognitive strategies, although these links differ in the two groups.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2014 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.033