Cited by 69Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchDisability Rights and Representation

Online risk for people with intellectual disabilities

Open access
Chadwick, Darren David·2019·Tizard Learning Disability Review

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to summarise the current state of empirical knowledge pertaining to online risk and cybercrime relating to people with intellectual disabilities (ID). Design/methodology/approach This narrative review summarises, synthesises and critically evaluates the current literature and state of knowledge and offers suggestions for extending current knowledge and practice. Findings Evidence regarding risk for people with ID is limited but growing. Existing findings highlight that: risk may increase contingent upon higher levels of sociability, loneliness, anxiety and depression, poorer insight, judgement, discrimination and ability to detect deception online and reduced experience and life opportunities; people without ID perceive high online risk for people with ID, which may lead to gatekeeping restrictions and controlling digital access; restriction may potentially impede online self-determination, participation and development by people with ID; and experience of risk may enhance awareness, independence and resilience in managing future online risk amongst people with ID. Further research work is needed in this area to enhance understanding of risk experience and effective support strategies. Originality/value This review of current knowledge has highlighted the necessity for more research to better understand the propensity for engagement in different risky online behaviours and to better inform support practices to help people with ID to manage risk whilst maintaining digital inclusion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/tldr-03-2019-0008

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Specific disabilities mentioned include autism spectrum disorder, Williams Syndrome, intellectual disabilities, 22q11 deletion syndrome, and physical disabilities including deafness, and chronic health problems.

    “Specific disabilities are mentioned, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD) [17,26,27], Williams Syndrome [17,26], intellectual disabilities [22,26,27], 22q11 deletion syndrome (which involves developmental delays and may face mild intellectual disability or learning disabilities) [26], and physical disabilities [23,25] including deafness [18], and chronic health problems [25].”
  • Those with Williams Syndrome and ASD shared experiences of perpetrators providing them with gifts and encountered cyber-threats, cyber-harassment, and grooming, akin to individuals with 22q11 deletion syndrome and intellectual disabilities.

    “Furthermore, those with Williams Syndrome and ASD [26] shared experiences of perpetrators providing them with gifts in their experience of OCSEA [23], and encountered cyber-threats, cyber-harassment, and grooming, akin to the occurrences reported by individuals with 22q11 deletion syndrome [26] and intellectual disabilities [22].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chadwick, D. D.
Affiliations
University of Wolverhampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Chadwick, Darren David
Venue
Tizard Learning Disability Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2019-09-26
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
180-187
ISSN
1359-5474 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2980173781
Cited by
69
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6
FWCI
7.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tizard Learning Disability Review (publishedVersion)
  • Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
Keywords
intellectual disability, online risks, cybercrime, risky online behavior, loneliness, anxiety, depression, deception detection, discrimination, gatekeeping, digital inclusion, resilience, support measures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review