Reliability and Validity of the Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors- Intellectual Disability in Adults with Mild Intellectual Disabilities or Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the reliability and construct validity of the Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors- Intellectual Disability – Adult version (DITS-ID-adults) in adults with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF).Method The DITS-ID-adults, Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI–18), and Impact of Event Scale-Intellectual Disability (IES – ID) were administered to 97 participants with MID-BIF who lived in supported housing. The Anxiety, Depression, and Mood Scale (ADESS) and Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI) were administered to their relatives.Results The interrater reliability of the DITS-ID-adults was good to excellent. The construct validity of the DITS-ID-adults was good, based on positive correlations between the BSI–18, IES-ID, ADESS and DITS-ID-adults, and mainly positive correlations between the BPI and DITS-ID-adults (r = .21 to r = .75). Reporting potentially traumatic events listed under the A criterium for PTSD was associated with fulfilling PTSD symptom criteria. In this sample, 58% were classified with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) according to the DITS-ID-adults, while PTSD diagnosis on file was low (7%).Conclusion The present findings support the DITS-ID-adults as a reliable and valid basis for classifying PTSD in individuals with MID-BIF.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".