Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
IntroductionThe assessment of disability among children and adolescents in research has traditionally relied on objective measures, such as clinical evaluations and standardized tests or proxy evaluation (Grönvik, 2009; Krahn et al., 2015; Schulz et al., 2024). However, there is a growing recognition of the importance of subjective measures in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2006) definition—those that capture the young individual’s personal experiences and perceptions of their disabilities. The UNCRPD advocates for a transition from traditional medical models to a social and human rights-based framework, ensuring that disability assessments prioritize the lived experiences and rights of individuals with disabilities, rather than focusing solely on individual impairments (Degener, 2016; Waddington Longo et al., 2017). This opinion article explores the implications of using subjective measures of disability, with a special focus on children and adolescents, highlighting their potential benefits, challenges, and scenarios in which subjective disability measures may not be suitable.Self-report and subjective measures are often used interchangeably but have distinct characteristics and applications in research and clinical assessment. In the context of disability, self-report measures often involve individuals providing information about their own experiences of disability, typically through standardized questionnaires or interviews (Bakhtiari et al., 2021; Marques et al., 2013; Shipman et al., 2011). This could include questions about physical functioning, difficulties with mobility, or the impact of disability on daily life. Since self-reports rely on an individual's personal perspective, they capture a subjective view of disability that may vary widely across respondents due to differences in perception, coping mechanisms, or self-awareness (Fuhrer, 2000; Laman Lee et al., 2004). Today, the Washington Group on Disability (WG; Washington Group on Disability Statistics, n.d.) are well-known examples of measures for self-reporting disability among children and adolescents (Ng et al., 2020). The standardized tools from the WG are widely used to measure functional limitations across different domains, such as seeing, hearing, walking, cognition and mental health, among diverse populations such as older children and adolescents (Farrow et al., 2024). The set of questions is particularly valuable in survey contexts, providing comparable data on disability prevalence, which helps inform policy decisions, guide interventions, and promote inclusivity (Washington Group on Disability Statistics, n.d.). According to a report by Massey et al. (2015), parents and teenagers generally agree on observable impairments, such as issues with movement, vision, and hearing, as indicated by the questionnaires from the WG. However, they often have differing views on less visible problems, like anxiety. The report suggests that self-assessment can be beneficial in these situations, but parents can still provide valuable insights into their teen's functional abilities.Subjective measures of disability, however, are broader in scope and can include a range of assessment methods beyond self-reports. For example, subjective assessments might integrate observations and evaluations from caregivers or healthcare professionals, as well as insights from family who are familiar with the individual’s daily life (Sneeuw et al., 2002). These assessments could also include semi-structured interviews or narrative approaches that allow for a more nuanced understanding of how disability is experienced beyond a questionnaire’s constraints (Valers, 2010). The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI), which is a subjective clinical assessment tool designed to assess functional capabilities and performance in children with disabilities, ages 6 months to 7.5 years (Haley et al., 1992). Administered by clinicians like occupational or physical therapists, the PEDI relies heavily on input from parents or caregivers who are familiar with the child’s abilities. The merits and limitations of subjective measures and self-reportsSubjective measures of disability offer distinct advantages over objective measures by capturing personal experiences and addressing unobservable aspects of disability that objective tests may fail to consider (Beazley et al., 2009; Brown et al., 2004; Laman Rotsika et al., 2011), which can stem from factors such as age-related differences in cognitive abilities, self-awareness and communication skills, especially among younger children. Eddy et al. (2011) highlight the importance of understanding how children interpret items in self-report measures. Their study revealed that many children answered questions despite not fully understanding them, underscoring a significant gap in effective communication and comprehension within pediatric populations. In addition, younger children may struggle to accurately express their experiences, while fluctuating emotional states or situational factors may also compromise reliability (Anastopoulos et al., 2011). Shulz et al. (2024) revealed the limitations of the WG-SS in identifying psychosocial disabilities among adolescents and younger adults. Chi and Lin (2022) suggest that the PEDI may not fully capture the real-life performance of daily living activities in preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Their study underscores the importance of incorporating observational assessments alongside self-report measures. A practical example can illustrate the advantages and limitations of subjective measures. Consider a school-based assessment program for adolescents with mobility disabilities. The program used the CASP to evaluate participation in school activities. While the adolescents' self-reported data highlighted reduced participation due to inaccessible infrastructure, caregivers and teachers reported that psychosocial factors, such as peer relationships and self-confidence, played a larger role in limiting engagement. This case demonstrates how subjective measures can capture psychosocial barriers often overlooked by objective metrics. However, it also highlights the challenges of relying solely on self-reports, such as variability in individual responses and potential gaps in self-awareness among younger participants.Cultural differences can also impact how disability is perceived and reported, potentially skewing results if assessments are not culturally sensitive (Gannotti et al., 2001; Krawczyńska Srinivasan et al., 2021). Knox and Usen (2000) showed that the accuracy of self-reported disability measures in children and adolescents can be improved through structured interviews with knowledgeable caregivers, as used in the PEDI, and by combining standardized assessments with self-reports. When Not to Use Self-Report MeasuresWe reason that self-report measures may be inappropriate for younger children or individuals with cognitive impairments who may struggle to understand questions or provide reliable responses (Coombes et al., 2021). In contexts where variability in self-reports complicates comparisons across populations or when evaluating intervention effectiveness, combining self-report with objective measures may provide a more comprehensive evaluation.Research Gaps and Future DirectionsDespite the growing recognition of the importance of subjective measures, several research gaps remain. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess how subjective experiences of disability evolve over time, particularly as children transition into adolescence and adulthood. There is also a lack of comprehensive research on the intersectionality of disability with social determinants such as socioeconomic status, gender, and cultural background, which can impact how disabilities are experienced and reported. Furthermore, developing culturally sensitive subjective measures that reflect diverse experiences is crucial. Integrating technology in subjective assessments, such as mobile applications or online platforms, can facilitate real-time self-reporting and provide immediate feedback enhancing data collection and offering a more comprehensive view of children's experiences. Collaborative efforts between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers are essential to translate findings from subjective assessments into actionable interventions and policies that promote inclusivity and support for children and adolescents with disabilities. ConclusionWhile self-report measures empower young individuals by giving them a voice in their assessments, challenges related to bias, reliability, and cultural sensitivity that must be addressed. It is imperative for researchers and practitioners to adopt a balanced approach that integrates both subjective and objective assessments, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of disability. Identifying research gaps highlight the need for longitudinal studies and the development of culturally sensitive measures. The integration of technology in subjective assessments offers innovative solutions for real-time data collection and feedback. Addressing these challenges and pursuing future research directions will improve outcomes for children and adolescents with disabilities, fostering a more inclusive environment and enhancing well-being.
Moradi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.