ReviewFrontiers in psychology2020
Cognitive Assessment of Children Who Are Deafblind: Perspectives and Suggestions for Assessments.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping ecological paradigms in educational psychology: a decade of scholarship inFrontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core sets for deafblindness, part II of the systematic review: linking data to the ICF categories.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for deafblindness. Part I: a systematic review of outcome measures.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Considerations for the identification of autism spectrum disorder in children with vision or hearing impairment: A critical review of the literature and recommendations for practice.The Clinical neuropsychologist · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The overall goal of a cognitive assessment is to improve communication, learning, and quality of life for a child who is deafblind. This article will give a brief description and perspective on different evaluation approaches as a basis for reliable cognitive assessments and offer suggestions on how to improve the quality of a cognitive assessment in our clinical practice. The assessor should be aware of the limitations of norm-referenced tests if standardized normative measures are applied to evaluate the cognitive functions of a child who is deafblind. However, if engaging a child with deafblindness in a standardized normative assessment, special considerations and assessment concessions would be required. Furthermore, key issues on how to improve the quality of a cognitive assessment by affording multiple assessment pathways for cognitive assessments will be addressed. Particular attention is given to the following assessment approaches: multi-method, multi-informant assessment, ecological assessment, and dynamic assessment. The use of multiple assessment pathways is necessary to reveal the genuine cognitive abilities and potentials of a child with deafblindness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.