ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024
How to Assess Oral Narrative Skills of Children and Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities (ID) often encounter difficulties with narrative skills. Yet, there is a lack of research focusing on how to assess these skills in this population. This study offers an overview of the tools used for assessing oral narrative skills in children and adolescents with ID, addressing key questions about common assessment tools, their characteristics, and reported evidence. A systematic review was conducted of the literature published between 2010 and 2023 in the PsycINFO, ERIC, Education, and Psychology databases. An initial 1176 studies were reviewed by abstract, of which 485 were read in full text, leading to the selection and analysis of 22 studies. Most of the identified tools involve analyzing language samples obtained using wordless picture story books. Three common tools are emphasized. Studies have primarily identified inter-rater reliability and test-criterion evidence for validity. The main tools and their characteristics are discussed in depth to aid readers in discerning suitable options for research or practical applications. The importance of reporting diverse sources of evidence for validity and reliability within this population is highlighted.
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.