Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39118221›Full record

ArticleJournal of intellectual disabilities : JOID2026

The characteristics of users of an online screening tool for children and adolescents with intellectual disability and of those being screened.

Karen McKenzie, Kara R Murray, Judith Thompson, Karen Horridge, Kirsty Greenwell, Aja L Murray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intellectual disabilities : JOID, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Karen McKenzieDepartment of Psychology, Northumbria University, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0400-416X
Kara R MurrayCommunity Mental Health, NHS Lothian, UK.
Judith ThompsonNorth East and Cumbria Learning Disability Network, UK.
Karen HorridgeDepartment of Education, University of Sunderland, UK.
Kirsty GreenwellNorth East and Cumbria Learning Disability Network, UK.
Aja L MurrayDepartment of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening tools can help with the identification of intellectual disability, but little is known about who uses them. This study analysed anonymous information from 2691 users of an evidence-based, online, intellectual disability screening questionnaire for children and adolescents (CAIDS-Q) to explore the characteristics of the users and of those being screened. The users were split almost equally between parents/family members (48.6%) and professionals (49.9%), with the majority (63.8%) of the latter group being health staff. Significant differences in the characteristics of the children being screened were found, according to whether the user was a parent/family member or a professional, with the overall pattern suggesting that professionals screened children with greater complexity of needs, but about whom less was known. The screened children had a range of areas of difficulties that are common to those with intellectual disability. Implications for practice are discussed.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelIntellectual DisabilityInternetAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningParentsSurveys and Questionnairescharacteristicschild and adolescent intellectual disability screening questionnaireintellectual disability

Identifiers

PMID39118221
PMCPMC13519063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.