Screening with young offenders with an intellectual disability

The Validity of the Child and Adolescent Intellectual Disability Screening Questionnaire (CAIDS-Q) with children aged 6–7 years, 11 months: A brief report

“…Initially developed for use in child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) services and child ID services, the CAIDS-Q was subsequently successfully piloted in forensic services. It was found to have strong psychometric properties with children aged eight to 18 years, demonstrating good validity psychometric properties (McKenzie et al, 2012b(McKenzie et al, , 2012c. These results suggested that it may represent a useful screening tool to help clinicians identify those children aged eight and over who are likely to have ID.…”

“…Based on previous research with the CAIDS-Q, which yielded large effect sizes (McKenzie et al, 2012b(McKenzie et al, , 2012c), and assuming an alpha level of 0.05 and power of 0.80, minimum sample sizes of 26 per group (i.e. those with and without a diagnosis of ID) and 28 overall were required for an independent t-test and Pearson's correlation respectively.…”

“…The CAIDS-Q has previously been found to have good psychometric properties including inter-rater reliability, construct and criterion validity (McKenzie et al, 2012b(McKenzie et al, , 2012c. It was developed to be used by a range of staff, such as clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and nursing staff, without the need for a particular professional background or training.…”

Estimating the level of functional ability of children identified as likely to have an intellectual disability

“…Previous research has examined the psychometric properties of the scale in clinical and forensic (McKenzie, Paxton, Michie, et al, 2012) samples and have supported the uni-dimensionality, reliability, criterion validity and predictive ability of the scale. Evaluations with clinical samples of children aged 6-7 years 11 months (McKenzie, and young people aged 8-18 years , have found sensitivity and specificity values of 82% and 83% respectively for the younger group and 96% and 85% for the older group, at the relevant cutoff scores.…”

“…We conducted analyses on the 314 cases that had complete data on the CAIDS-Q, which resulted in the deletion of 5 cases from the total sample. Comprehensive descriptions of these samples can be found in McKenzie, Paxton, and McKenzie, Paxton, Michie, et al (2012).…”