Discovery of previously undetected intellectual disability by psychological assessment: A study of consecutively referred child and adolescent psychiatric inpatients

Intellectual disability is associated with an increased risk of behavioral disturbances and also complicates their treatment. Despite increases in the sophistication of medical detection of early risk for intellectual disability, there is remarkably little data about the detection of intellectual disability in cases referred for psychiatric treatment. In this study, we used a 10-year sample of 23,629 consecutive child and adolescent admissions (ages between 6 and 17) to inpatient psychiatric treatment. Eleven percent (n = 2621) of these cases were referred for psychological assessment and were examined with a general measure of intellectual functioning (i.e., WISC-IV). Of these cases, 16% had Full Scale IQs below 70. Of the cases whose therapists then referred them for formal assessment of their adaptive functioning (i.e., ABAS-II) 81% were found to have composite scores below 70 as well. Only one of the cases whose Full Scale IQ was less than 70 had a referral diagnosis of intellectual disability. Cases with previously undetected intellectual disability were found to be significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder and less likely to have a diagnosis of mood disorder than cases with IQs over 70. Disruptive behavior disorder diagnoses did not differ as a function of intellectual performance. These data suggest a high rate of undetected intellectual disability in cases with a psychiatric condition serious enough to require hospitalization and this raises the possibility that many such cases may be misdiagnosed, the basis of their problems may be misconceptualized, and they may be receiving treatments that do not take into account their intellectual level.     

Can Motor Measures Tell Us If Someone Is Trying? An Assessment of Sincerity of Effort in Simulated Malingering

Several studies have focused on detection of simulated injury or submaximal effort using forced-choice measures of memory. However, few studies have examined the role of motor performance in patient effort, and no studies have examined motor functioning in an injury simulation. In this study, we administered measures of motor strength, motor speed, and attention and a forced-choice memory measure to 30 participants instructed to simulate brain injury and 30 participants instructed to perform to the best of their abilities. Simulators' level of performance and variability were significantly different from those of participants instructed to give maximal performance. Variables derived from motor measures may serve as useful supplemental indicators of incomplete effort.     

Survey of patient and physician influences and decision-making regarding CT utilization for minor head injury

Objective

Assess factors that influence both the patient and the physician in the setting of minor head injury in adults and the decision-making process around CT utilization.

Methods

This is a convenience sample survey study of adult minor head injury patients (GCS 15) and their physicians regarding factors influencing the decision to use CT to evaluate for intra-cranial haemorrhage. Once a head CT was ordered and before the results were known, both the patient and physician were given a one-page survey asking questions about their concern for injury and rationale for CT use. CT results and surveys were then recorded in a centralized database and analyzed.

Results

584 subjects were enrolled over the 27-month study period. The rate of any intra-cranial haemorrhage was 3.3%. Both the physicians (6% pre-test estimate) and the patients (22% pre-test estimate) over-estimated risk for haemorrhage. Clinical decision rules were not met in 46% of cases where CT was used. Physicians listed an average of 5 factors from a list of 9 that influenced their decision to order CT. Patients listed an average of 1.7 factors influencing their decision to present to the Emergency Department for evaluation. Many patients felt cost (45%) and low risk stratification (34%) should weigh heavily in the decision to use CT. If asked to limit CT utilization, physicians were able to identify a group with less than 2% risk of injury.

Conclusions

Patients with low risk of intra-cranial injury continue to be evaluated by CT. Physician decision-making around the use of CT to evaluate minor head injury is multi-factorial. Shared decision-making between the patient and the physician in a low risk minor head injury encounter shows promise as a method to reduce CT utilization in this low risk cohort.