This is a good example of something that we should be careful of-- we're nearing (but not yet in) boat-programming territory.
I was not involved in closing this question, but would have voted to do so. It violates one of the most important criteria we have here, which is that questions should have a specific goal which can be addressed through IPS skills. Obviously this question touches on IPS skills, as it involves communication between people. But "what information exists on this very broad topic" doesn't fit very well.
If the question were more along the lines of "how can I best communicate with someone that has Alzheimer's" or "how can I avoid asking leading questions", with a brief description of the observation about yes/no framing, I think that there would be a much better case that the question is on-topic and has appropriate scope.
The academic-research tag would then (to me) indicate that the asker is looking for published studies which apply, and those studies could be about phrasing, communication with people that have Alzheimer's, and so on. It's more about what a good answer will include, rather than a tag that bypasses an otherwise fairly strict (and valuable) rule.
My thoughts on questions that ask only for an index of published research, even if on an IPS-related topic, are outlined a bit further in this meta question, as well as this one. It's not that they can't be good or valuable questions, just that they clash with the SE format in ways that are difficult to accommodate.
