Using the ICF in transition research and practice? Lessons from a scoping review.
The ICF gives transition teams a shared language, but newer reviews show you must also weigh equity and ecology, and we still lack proof it improves outcomes.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Nguyen et al. (2018) looked at 25 papers that used the ICF in youth transition.
The kids had mixed chronic conditions. The team asked: how are people using this tool?
They mapped every way the ICF showed up in planning, goals, or reports.
What they found
Use of the ICF is growing. Teams like it for writing shared goals across disciplines.
Yet almost no studies test if the ICF actually improves outcomes.
Clinicians want clearer items and proof it works before they bank on it.
How this fits with other research
Delgado-Lobete et al. (2020) found clear best-practices for early-school transitions. Their review shows smooth moves into kindergarten when teams plan together. That seems to clash with Tram’s call for more evidence. The gap is age: Laura looked at little kids, Tram at teens and young adults.
Fradet et al. (2025) updated the same ground. Their bio-ecological review keeps the life-course lens but adds family expectations and transport issues. It absorbs the ICF idea and widens it, so Tram’s paper is now a stepping-stone, not the last word.
Xu et al. (2022) widened the view again. They tracked barriers for immigrant families with IDD. Where Tram stayed inside clinic walls, Yue showed language, culture, and system walls. The 2022 paper therefore overtakes the 2018 one on equity questions.
Why it matters
You can borrow the ICF domains today to build team goals, but treat it like a draft checklist, not a finished protocol. Pair it with fresh lessons from Fradet et al. (2025) and Xu et al. (2022): ask about buses, parent hopes, and language needs. Push for data as you go so the next review can finally say “this works.”
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your current transition plan, add one line each for transport, cultural need, and caregiver expectation, then flag those for follow-up data.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and subsequent ICF-CY (child and youth version) recognize the importance of personal and environmental factors in facilitating holistic transition planning and service delivery for youth with chronic health conditions (YCHC). AIMS: The objective of this scoping review is to investigate the degree to which the ICF and ICF-CY have been used in transition research and practice since its initial publication. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework guided the scoping review using the following databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. Keywords included: 'ICF', 'ICF-CY', and 'transition', which were adapted to each database. RESULTS: 25 articles met final inclusion. Two key themes emerged regarding use of the ICF: 1) the ICF enhances transdisciplinary processes to inform transition planning and interventions; and 2) the ICF facilitates comprehensive and developmentally appropriate transition services over a youth's lifecourse. The strengths and limitations of the ICF in guiding the planning and delivery of transition services are discussed. Some limitations include the large number of items inherent within the ICF and a lack of clarity between the components of activity and participation. CONCLUSION: Key recommendations include: i) further explanation and development of items for quality of life and well-being, personal factors, and psychological issues; and ii) additional research to advance knowledge towards developing empirically- based evidence for the application of the ICF in clinical practice to facilitate transition.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2018 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2017.11.003