The Self- and Other-Deception Questionnaires-Intellectual Disabilities (SDQ-ID and ODQ-ID): component analysis and reliability.
Short deception questionnaires work for adults with mild ID, but IQ shapes the scores, so interpret with care.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cacciani et al. (2013) shortened two deception scales for adults with mild-borderline intellectual disability.
They wanted to know if the new forms still measured the same two ideas and if scores stayed steady over time.
The team also checked how much IQ scores colored the results.
What they found
The short forms held together well. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were both acceptable.
IQ explained about one-fifth of the score differences. After holding IQ constant, group gaps vanished.
How this fits with other research
Haynes et al. (2013) also re-worked the SDQ, but for kids. They found three factors instead of five, showing the same tool needs different cuts for different ages.
MacLean et al. (2011) looks like a clash. They say the WAIS-III four-factor IQ model is invalid for adults with ID, while Laura accepts IQ-linked variance in deception scores. The gap is about purpose: Hannah tests if IQ structure holds; Laura only tracks how IQ colors another measure.
Pickard et al. (2022) moves the field forward. They used tablets and plain-language tweaks so adults with ID could complete health scales alone, proving tech can replace paper forms.
Why it matters
You now have two brief, reliable deception screens for adults with mild-borderline ID. Always note the client’s IQ, because it sways scores. If you want self-report without IQ noise, follow Katherine’s tech-friendly setup or pick tools shown to be IQ-invariant.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the SDQ-ID and ODQ-ID short forms to your intake packet and always record the most recent IQ score beside the results.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The objectives of this research were to: (1) investigate the component structure and psychometric properties of the Self- and Other-Deception Questionnaires-Intellectual Disabilities (SDQ-ID and ODQ-ID), (2) examine the relationship between social desirability and IQ, and (3) compare social desirability scores of those with intellectual disabilities (IDs) and a history of criminal offending to the social desirability scores of participants with IDs and those without IDs and no such history, controlling for general intellectual functioning. Men with mild to borderline IDs detained within medium secure inpatient forensic mental health services (N=40) completed the SDQ-ID and ODQ-ID at Time 1 and then two-weeks later at Time 2. Data for the men with and without IDs and no known criminal offending history were taken from a previous study (N=60). Following exploratory Principal Components Analysis, the number of questionnaire items were reduced, and a two-factor structure was found for the SDQ-ID which was labelled: (1) Positive Self Representation and (2) Denial of Intrusive Thoughts. A two-factor structure was also found for the ODQ-ID and these two factors were labelled: (1) Denial of Negative Social Interaction and (2) Untrustworthiness. Both the SDQ-ID and ODQ-ID had acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Fifteen percent of the variance in SDQ-ID scores was explained by Full Scale IQ, while 21% of the variance in ODQ-ID scores was explained by Full Scale IQ. Between group comparisons controlling for intelligence did not yield any significant differences. The shortened SDQ-ID and ODQ-ID have promising psychometric properties, and their component structures appear robust. Differences between men with and without IDs on these two measures of social desirability can be accounted for by differences in general intellectual functioning.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.004