Adapting the ECLECTIC framework for intellectual disability assessment: an ethical and cross-cultural approach.

Authors

Freddie O'Donald, Molly Smith, Alice Gritti, Corinne Reid, Elaine Whelan, Clara Calia

Published in

Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence. Pages 1-27. Aug 24, 2026. Epub Aug 24, 2026.

Abstract

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) clinicians increasingly conduct cognitive assessments with culturally and linguistically diverse children and young people, often using tools and diagnostic pathways developed within narrow cultural, linguistic, and educational contexts. In intellectual disability (ID) assessment, this can generate interpretive and ethical uncertainty, particularly when differences in language exposure, schooling histories, migration experiences, and interpreter-mediated assessment complicate the interpretation of standardized cognitive scores. This study examined the adaptation and implementation of Fujii's ECLECTIC framework within CAMHS cognitive assessments for possible ID, and its integration with the ETHICA-4P ethical reasoning framework, to support structured, developmentally informed, and ethically grounded clinical reasoning. Using a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 clinicians reflecting on their use of the adapted frameworks across 36 assessments involving culturally and linguistically diverse children and young people. Brief descriptive self-report ratings were collected to contextualize qualitative findings. Clinicians described the adapted ECLECTIC framework as supporting more explicit integration of contextual, cultural, linguistic, and developmental information into cognitive interpretation and formulation. Diagnostic certainty was consistently framed as calibrated confidence rather than maximal decisiveness, with explicit articulation of uncertainty regarded as clinically appropriate and ethically defensible, particularly in complex or interpreter-mediated assessments. Integration of ETHICA-4P supported clearer ethical reflection on the limits of interpretation and the potential consequences of diagnostic conclusions. Overall, the findings suggest that cross-cultural and ethical frameworks may function most effectively as decision-support tools, enhancing transparency and proportionality in clinical reasoning rather than producing definitive diagnostic answers.

PMID:
42636037
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 25 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.