ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessing Pragmatic Skills in People with Intellectual Disabilities.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People with intellectual disabilities live with significant conceptual, social, and practical limitations that hinder the acquisition, development, and use of language. Pragmatic skills facilitate interpersonal relationships, allowing for the understanding and expression of oneself, as well as the planning, organization, and adaptation of speech depending on the context and interlocutor. These skills imply, therefore, complex higher functions that must be articulated harmoniously for effective communication. Identifying the weaknesses of people with intellectual disability in the pragmatic dimension of language enables the provision of individualized support resources to guarantee their participation and social inclusion. This study presents a systematic review based on the PRISMA guidelines, and it includes the most commonly used assessment tools for pragmatic competence in people with intellectual disabilities over time. Of the 172 articles found, 20 met the inclusion criteria and were finally reviewed. The results show a lack of conformity between instruments in the pragmatic aspects evaluated and a lack of adjustment of the evaluation tools to the characteristics of this population. Therefore, the design of new standardized tests that specifically evaluate the pragmatic skills of people with intellectual disability is required in the near future. A tailored assessment is crucial for defining a complete profile of their communication skills and generating individualized intervention and support programs.
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.