■本文旨在回答基于神经典型人群的心理测量方法如何在非典型发育个体的智力障碍的评估和诊断中充当有效的工具。遗传,结构,和CHARGE的功能特性使其唯一适合解决这个问题。
■根据DSM-5评估智力障碍诊断的指南,挪威CHARGE(N=35)人群接受了评估程序。获得了认知测试(韦克斯勒智力量表)和父母对适应性技能的评估(Vineland适应性行为量表)的结果,并将其与各自的规范样本进行了比较,以探索任何方法上的不一致。
■参与者和标准样本之间出现了显着差异。从韦克斯勒获得的全球认知显示出双峰分布,建议两组样本,最小的孩子组成自己的小组。不同年龄段表现的比较表明,学龄前儿童的成绩最低,而成年人的成绩最高。全局自适应行为得分明显低于基于绩效的得分,从而缩小了对全球智力能力的总体估计。
■对于有收费的个人,非典型性的影响在儿童早期似乎最为明显,在成年后稳定和消退。对于学龄前儿童,测试结果的可解释性是最弱的,直到成年期达到顶峰,强调推迟智力残疾评估和诊断的重要性。由于与基于观察的度量相关的几个有效性问题,在对有CHARGE的个体进行诊断时,补充检测应在临床评估之前进行。
UNASSIGNED: This paper aimed to answer how psychometric methods based on neurotypical populations can serve as valid instruments in the assessment and diagnosis of intellectual disability in individuals with atypical development. The genetic, structural, and functional features of CHARGE make it uniquely suited to address this question.
UNASSIGNED: A Norwegian population of individuals with CHARGE (N = 35) underwent assessment procedures according to DSM-5 guidelines for the evaluation of an intellectual disability diagnosis. Results from cognitive testing (Wechsler Intelligence Scales) and parental evaluation of adaptive skills (Vineland Adaptive Behavioral Scale) were obtained and compared to their respective norm samples to explore any methodological inconsistencies.
UNASSIGNED: Significant differences emerged between the participants and the norm samples. Global cognition obtained from Wechsler revealed a bimodal distribution, suggesting a two-group sample, with the youngest children forming their own subgroup. Comparisons of the different age-groups\' performances demonstrated the lowest results among the preschoolers while the adults scored the highest. The global adaptive behavior score turned out significantly lower than the performance-based scores, thereby deflating the overall estimate of global intellectual abilities.
UNASSIGNED: For individuals with CHARGE, the effect of the atypicality seemed most apparent during early childhood, stabilizing and subsiding towards adulthood. The test results\' interpretability was weakest for the preschoolers progressively increasing until peaking in adulthood, emphasizing the importance of delaying the assessment and diagnosis of intellectual disability. Because of several validity issues connected to the observation-based measure, complementary testing should precede clinical evaluations when possible in the diagnostics of individuals with CHARGE.