Abstract
Dual-task paradigms can provide insights on the structures and mechanisms underlying information processing and hold diagnostic, prognostic, and rehabilitative value for populations with cognitive deficits such as in individuals with intellectual disability (ID). In this paradigm, two tasks are performed separately (single-task context) and concurrently (dual-task context). The change in performance from single- to dual-task context represents dual-task interference. Findings from dual-task studies have been largely inconsistent on whether individuals with ID present with dual-task-specific deficits. The current review aimed to map the published literature on dual-task methods and pattern of dual-task interference in individuals with ID. A scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework was performed. Seventeen electronic databases and registries were searched to identify relevant studies, including gray literature. Charted data from included studies were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. PRISMA guidelines informed the reporting of this review. Twenty-two studies involving 1,102 participants (656 with ID and 446 without ID) met the review's inclusion criteria. Participants in the included studies were heterogeneous in sex, age (range 3-59 years), etiology and ID severity. Included studies characterized their ID-sample in different ways, most commonly using intelligence quotient (IQ) scores. Other measures of intellectual function (e.g., mental age, ID severity, verbal and/or visuospatial ability scores) were also used, either solely or in combination with IQ. Methods of dual-task testing varied across studies, particularly in relation to dual-task combinations, equation of single-task performance between groups, measurement and reporting of dual-task performance for each single-task, and task priority instructions. Thematic content of the included studies were: (1) structural interference to dual-tasking; (2) etiology-based differences in dual-tasking; (3) gait and balance dual-task performance; (4) testing executive function using dual-task paradigms; and (5) training effect on dual-task performance. Although the evidence consistently supported the intact dual-tasking ability of individuals with ID, the pattern of dual-task interference was inconsistent. Likewise, the evidence was inconclusive regarding dual-task deficit specific to individuals with ID because of heterogeneity in dual-task study designs among included studies.