ArticleInternational journal of developmental disabilities2025
Comparison of self-administered versus read-aloud questionnaires for psychological measurement in students with low intellectual functioning: use of frequentist and Bayesian approaches.
Article in International journal of developmental disabilities, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Students with low intellectual functioning (LIF) often experience barriers to participating in social research due to the literacy demands of the survey's typical self-administered format. Although evidence for the validity of the read-aloud format for educational testing abounds, few studies have analyzed the impact of application formats on attitudes or opinion questionnaires for LIF students. Aim: To analyze the effect of self-administered vs read-aloud formats on LIF and typical development (TD) students using four psychological questionnaires for school contexts (Student Engagement Instrument, Multidimensional School Engagement Scale [MSES], Brief Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Scale, and School Participation Scale). Method: A mixed factorial (2x2) design was used. Thirty-two students participated (14 to 19 years old; Results: Reliability indices between formats for LIF students in most questionnaire subscales were found to be adequate and equivalent. All instrument subscales had appropriate intra-subject correlations between formats, indicating that LIF students had similar scores in both. Only the MSES showed a format effect, where LIF students reported fewer disengagement behaviors in the read-aloud format. Frequentist and Bayesian statistics were conducted looking for convergences due to the small sample size. Conclusion: We discuss the case-related appropriateness of each application format and propose a new criterion to choose between them to guarantee the inclusion of LIF students in psychological research.
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.