The psychopathology instrument for mentally retarded adults: psychometric characteristics, factor structure, and relationship to subject characteristics.

The team tested the PIMRA on the adults with intellectual disability.

They checked if the questions hang together, if age or gender change scores, and if the same person gets similar scores twice.

The study ran in 1988, before many modern tools existed.

The PIMRA questions fit together well—like a good puzzle.

Older adults scored a bit higher on some scales, and women scored slightly higher than men.

But test-retest scores wobbled more than expected, so use caution when re-testing the same client.

Horovitz et al. (2011) later used the PIMRA to track adults with severe ID for a year. They found most symptom scores stayed flat, which shows the tool works for long-term checks.

Matson et al. (2004) built the PAS-ADD Checklist as a newer screen. It catches about 20 % of adults with ID as needing follow-up—similar to PIMRA’s hit rate, but with updated norms.

Embregts (2000) found the Child Behavior Checklist breaks down for youth with mild ID. This warns us that not every tool works for every ID group—PIMRA’s adult focus matters.

Kildahl et al. (2025) showed the Aberrant Behavior Checklist holds steady over time for autistic clients with ID. Their modern stats echo PIMRA’s factor structure, proving good design lasts.

You can still use the PIMRA today for a quick screen in adult day programs. Pair it with newer tools like the PAS-ADD if you need tighter norms. Always re-check any score that jumps between sessions—retest reliability is the weak spot.