Ask Larsen Flemming, Damen Saskia
Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2A, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Bartiméus, Oude Arnhemsebovenweg 3, 3941 XM Doorn, The Netherlands; Department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 38, 9712 TJ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Res Dev Disabil. 2014 Oct;35(10):2568-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.05.029. Epub 2014 Jul 10.
In order to compile knowledge on deafblindness (DB) and congenital deafblindness (CDB), one important factor is comparison of results between different scientific studies. In an attempt to do a systematic review of the literature on cognitive assessment and CDB, considerable difficulties in determining eligibility of the studies were encountered due to heterogeneity in definitions and inclusion criteria used in the articles. The present systematic review aims to provide both an overview of this terminological and methodological heterogeneity and suggestions for better future research practices. A systematic review of definitions used in (N=30) studies employing psychological assessment of people with CDB served as a sample of the scientific literature on DB and CDB. Absent or heterogeneous definitions and inclusion criteria regarding both DB and CDB are evident in the sample. Fifty percent of the studies reported no definition of DB and 76.7% reported no definition of CDB. Main discrepancies are: (1) medical/functional versus ability/functioning definitions regarding DB; and (2) different criteria for onset of DB in the case of defining CDB (e.g. age versus developmental level). The results of this study call attention to a scientifically inadequate approach to the study of DB and CDB. Findings indicate that clear guidelines for sample descriptions of the DB and/or CDB populations are needed. It is suggested that studies including DB and CDB participants provide the following information: definitions of DB and CDB used; severity of sensory impairments; level of sensory ability in relation to mobility, access to information, and communication; age at onset of DB; and communication as well as language ability at onset of DB.
为了汇编关于聋盲(DB)和先天性聋盲(CDB)的知识,一个重要因素是比较不同科学研究的结果。在试图对有关认知评估和CDB的文献进行系统综述时,由于文章中使用的定义和纳入标准存在异质性,在确定研究的合格性方面遇到了相当大的困难。本系统综述旨在概述这种术语和方法上的异质性,并为未来更好的研究实践提供建议。对(N = 30)项采用对CDB患者进行心理评估的研究中所使用的定义进行系统综述,作为关于DB和CDB的科学文献样本。样本中关于DB和CDB的定义和纳入标准明显缺乏或存在异质性。50%的研究未报告DB的定义,76.7%的研究未报告CDB的定义。主要差异在于:(1)关于DB的医学/功能定义与能力/功能定义;以及(2)在定义CDB时DB发病的不同标准(例如年龄与发育水平)。本研究结果提醒人们注意对DB和CDB研究的科学方法不足。研究结果表明,需要针对DB和/或CDB人群的样本描述制定明确的指南。建议纳入DB和CDB参与者的研究提供以下信息:所使用的DB和CDB的定义;感觉障碍的严重程度;与行动能力、信息获取和沟通相关的感觉能力水平;DB发病年龄;以及DB发病时的沟通和语言能力。