ArticleChild: care, health and development2025
Mapping the Instruments Used to Measure Well-Being on Children With Disabilities: A Scoping Review.
Article in Child: care, health and development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mapping the Instruments Used to Measure Well-Being on Children With Disabilities: A Scoping Review.Child: care, health and development · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the self-report instruments used to measure well-being in children with disabilities, investigate their psychometric quality, cognitive accessibility and alignment with Keyes's operationalization of well-being, including emotional, psychological and social aspects.
methodsMEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed and CINAHL were searched for articles published from 2011 to March 2023, identifying 724 studies. Synonyms provided by thesaurus on the main constructs: 'children', 'measure', 'disability' and 'mental health' were employed in the search strategy. Two reviewers independently screened articles using criteria following the SPIDER framework, resulting in the inclusion of 13 articles. From these, 10 instruments were extracted and critically appraised using the COSMIN checklist, evaluating their psychometric properties. The cognitive accessibility and alignment to Keyes's dual continua model of mental health were analysed.
resultsThe included instruments had fair to excellent psychometric properties. Instruments designed for children with disabilities demonstrated greater cognitive accessibility compared with those for the general child population. Well-being was primarily identified as hedonic, with social aspects of positive functioning underrepresented. Five of the 10 instruments measured quality of life but were used as well-being measures in studies. While most items aligned with the dual continua model, no single instrument encompassed all three aspects of well-being.
conclusionsAlthough there is a growing effort to include children with disabilities in well-being research, a consensus on a comprehensive well-being self-report measure is lacking. Further research is needed to develop a multidimensional operationalization that includes psychological and social aspects of well-being for children with disabilities. SUMMARY: Well-being measures focus on hedonic aspects-emotional well-being-and often exclude the social aspect of positive functioning within eudaimonia. There is a conceptual overlap between quality-of-life measures and well-being measures. There is a tendency to emphasize individual aspects of well-being over social dimensions. Participatory research methods reflect the ecological validity of the construct of cognitive accessibility as proposed by Kramer and Schwarts. Keyes' MHC-SF remains the most global proposal integrating eudemonic and hedonic aspects of well-being but has not been validated in children with disabilities.
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.