AAIDD proposed recommendations for ICD-11 and the condition previously known as mental retardation.

Tassé et al. (2013) wrote a position paper for the AAIDD. They told the World Health Organization how to list intellectual disability in the next ICD-11 book.

The paper gives new words, cut-off scores, and steps for doctors who make the diagnosis.

The authors found that the old label "mental retardation" must disappear. They want "intellectual disability" in its place.

They also want equal weight given to IQ scores, adaptive skills, and age of onset.

Luckasson et al. (2013) published the same year with matching advice. Both papers push the same AAIDD line, so they back each other up.

Matson et al. (1999) had already shown that the ICD-10 guide for ID was weak. Tassé et al. (2013) now gives the fix that paper asked for.

Thurm et al. (2022) came later and refined the words again. Their work extends the 2013 push by telling clinicians exactly when to say "condition," "disorder," or "syndrome."

Wehmeyer (2013) seems to clash at first. That paper warns that "disorder" labels can hurt identity. Tassé et al. (2013) still keeps "disorder" inside the medical code set. The gap is really about setting: medical charts need short codes, while person-first talk should use broader, respectful language.

If you write reports, sit on diagnostic teams, or bill insurance, these rules are your roadmap. Use the term "intellectual disability," score both IQ and daily living skills, and note onset before age 18. Following the paper keeps your records ready for ICD-11 and shows families you use up-to-date, respectful words.