No abstract

No abstract

Some evidence exists that individuals with intellectual disability of heterogeneous etiology (excluding autism) have facial affect recognition deficits that cannot be fully accounted for by cognitive-intellectual abilities. In addition, cognitive processing strategies and genetic syndrome-specific differences in facial affect recognition have been discovered but further research is needed. We found no evidence that emotion recognition deficits contribute to the emergence of later antisocial behavior.

Background Psychometric properties of three functional assessment rating scales were compared for three types of target behaviours [self-injurious behaviour (SIB), stereotypic behaviour and aggressive ⁄ destructive behaviour]. Materials and methodThe Questions about Behavioural Function (QABF), the Functional Assessment for Multiple Causality (FACT) and the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST) were administered twice by two raters to 130 adults with intellectual disability (total of 29 raters). Results and conclusions The reliability of the FACT and the QABF for estimates across all three behaviours was acceptable to good. Mean inter-rater reliability intraclass correlations across two administrations ranged from 0.63 to 0.68 for the QABF and from 0.65 to 0.78 for the FACT. Mean test-retest reliability for the QABF ranged from 0.81 to 0.82 and for the FACT from 0.86 to 0.87. Internal consistency across the subscales ranged from 0.89 to 0.96 for the QABF and from 0.92 to 0.96 for the FACT. The FAST had generally poorer reliability scores. Convergent and discriminant validity (Spearman q) were better between FACT and the QABF than between the FAST and the other two instruments.