Feasibility and reliability of screening on mild to borderline intellectual disabilities using SCIL through video-administration

Abstract

Purpose In the Netherlands, the Screener for Intelligence and Learning Disabilities (SCIL) was developed to aid recognition of mild to borderline intellectual disability (MBID) early in the criminal justice system or health-care trajectory. In situations where physically meeting the suspect or client is not feasible, administration of the SCIL using a video-link might be a solution. This paper aims to examine whether the SCIL is still reliable when administered remotely instead of face-to-face. Design/methodology/approach The SCIL was administered twice to a total of 89 respondents: once face-to-face, once using a video link, in varying order and with an interval of at least six weeks. A laptop with a Skype connection was used for the remote administration, while an assistant was present to make sure the respondents did not have to perform technical actions. After the second SCIL administration, respondents were asked to answer a series of evaluation questions. Findings Respondents were generally satisfied with both methods of administration of the SCIL. However, they were in general more positive about face-to-face administration. Nevertheless, most respondents would be willing to undergo administration through video-link in future. On average, respondents scored slightly lower on the SCIL when administered remotely (µ = 16.31, SE = 0 0.77) than with face-to-face administration (µ = 16.94, SE = 0.78), t(88) = 2.47, p = 0 0.015. Calculation of the reliability of the assessment “suspected MBID” showed a (linear weighted) Kappa of 0.77, p = 0.000, 95% RI: 0.64-0.90. Originality/value The results of this study show that with some caution, the SCIL can be administered remotely. When doing this, the SCIL will only lead to a small number of respondents being wrongly labelled as “suspected MBID”.

Virtual health care for adult patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review

“…Four studies looked at whether assessments can be conducted remotely, including the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 52 intellectual assessments 55 Alzheimer assessments, 61 and the Screener for Intelligence and Learning Disabilities. 54 The studies generally found only minor differences between virtual and in-person administration, though a number of limitations were flagged related to study design, sample size and sample composition suggesting the need for further research. Temple et al.…”

“…Spaan et al. 54 reported on the feasibility and reliability of using the Screener for Intelligence and Learning Disabilities through video-administration compared with in-person. They found that most participants (n = 89) were satisfied with both ways of being assessed though almost half preferred face-to-face.…”

“…Among the three studies which tested the usability or reliability of conducting virtual assessments, one reported that most participants found the system intuitive and simple to use and experienced no technical issues; 53 the other two reported only occasional minor technical glitches. 52 , 54 In all three studies the assessment was conducted in a controlled supported setting where an assistant was present to set up the technology and troubleshoot any issues. Technical support for the patient was identified as an important component of the model.…”