“…The remaining six papers were rated as “good” (Clarkson, Murphy, Coldwell, & Dawson, ; Cookson & Dickson, ; Dinwoodie, Greenhill, & Cookson, ; Roscoe, Petalas, Hastings, & Thomas, ; Rose et al, ; Stenfert Kroese et al, ). These papers met the majority of quality criteria but there were some exceptions, which included specifying the level of intellectual disability of the participants, and a lack of homogeneity in some samples.…”