Toward a Comprehensive Assessment of Relationships with Teachers and Parents for Youth with Intellectual Disabilities.

Dubé et al. (2022) built a new rating scale. It asks youth, parents, and teachers about the same adult–teen relationship.

The team tested the tool with teens who have mild–moderate intellectual disability. Each teen, one parent, and one teacher filled out the form.

They checked if the teens’ answers were consistent and if the scale measured what it claimed to measure.

The scale worked. Teens gave steady answers, and the math backed that up.

Youth reports added fresh information. Parents and teachers could not guess how the teen felt inside.

In short, teens with ID can reliably speak for themselves about their bonds with adults.

Berástegui et al. (2021) looked at quality-of-life ratings for the same group. They saw poor match between teen and adult scores. Céleste’s team found the same pattern for relationships, but they show the mismatch is useful data, not error.

Schmidt et al. (2010) showed adults with ID and their proxies only partly agree on QoL. The new study widens the age range down to teens and shifts the topic to relationships, proving the multi-informant rule still holds.

Cullinan et al. (2001) first proved kids with ID can rate peer ties. Céleste updates that work by adding parent and teacher forms and by focusing on youth–adult ties, giving clinicians a fuller trio of views.

Stop guessing how your client feels about you or their teacher. Hand them the new scale. Their answers will flag hidden friction you can target in treatment plans, and they will boost buy-in because the teen’s voice is on paper.