Development and Psychometric Properties of an Assessment for Persons With Intellectual Disability—The interRAI ID
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the development of the interRAI‐Intellectual Disability (interRAI ID), a comprehensive instrument that assesses all key domains of interest to service providers relative to a person with an intellectual disability (ID). The authors report on the reliability and validity of embedded scales for cognition, self‐care, aggression, and depression. Four provider agencies volunteered to participate and assessed a total of 160 community‐dwelling adults with ID using the interRAI ID, Dementia Questionnaire for Persons with Mental Retardation, and Reiss Screen for Maladaptive Behavior. All scales had acceptable levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.74–0.93) and good relationships with the criterion measures (r = 0.50–0.93, p < 0.0001). The development of the interRAI ID represents an important and successful first step toward an integrated, comprehensive, and standardized assessment of adults with ID. Use of this instrument may lead to more appropriate support planning, enhanced communication between various professionals supporting persons with ID, and a more seamless approach to supports across the health and social service systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".