Borderline Intellectual Functioning: A Scoping Review.
Borderline IQ research talks about mood or memory, not daily skills—so you must assess adaptive behavior yourself.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Milane et al. (2025) mapped every paper they could find on borderline intellectual functioning. They read 138 reports, notes, and trials.
The team sorted what the field studies most and what it ignores.
What they found
Most work looks at other mental health labels or basic IQ scores. Hardly anyone studies daily living skills or asks clients how they feel.
In short, we know little about real-world strengths and needs in people with IQ 70-85.
How this fits with other research
Orió-Aparicio et al. (2025) dove deeper into the same gap. Their fresh systematic review shows people with BIF do struggle with cooking, money, friends, and work. The two 2025 papers pair like puzzle pieces: one maps the hole, the other fills it.
Peltopuro et al. (2014) already warned the field was thin. Cristina et al. update that map and prove little has changed in ten years.
Ferrari (2009) argued that IQ cut-offs leave many without help. The new scoping data back his claim: studies still skip daily skills, so clinicians keep overlooking them.
Why it matters
If you assess only IQ, you will miss why a teen with an 80 IQ keeps losing jobs or friends. Add an adaptive scale such as the ABAS-3. Ask about self-care, safety, and social steps. The field’s blind spot can be your clinical edge.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull the ABAS-3 (or any adaptive tool) for every client with IQ 70-85 and add goals for the lowest skill area.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) is a condition that involves limitations in cognitive skills that affect the daily functioning of people who present it. BIF has lost visibility in diagnostic manuals such as the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11, which relegate it to complementary categories of aspects requiring attention, rather than recognising it as a category of its own. This lack of recognition as well as unclear criteria for diagnosis underscores the need for a deeper understanding of BIF. METHOD: The study conducted a scoping review to map the available evidence in the field of BIF. Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, ProQuest, WoS, SCOPUS and EBSCOhost databases were searched. Documents were selected based on inclusion criteria: date of publication (since 2012), study of BIF as a specific group and language (English or Spanish). A total of 138 documents were included, both academic and grey literature. RESULTS: The review mapped the literature into key categories: intellectual functioning, adaptive functioning and additions for a comprehensive evaluation. Most research focused on comorbid psychiatric, emotional and behavioural disorders associated with BIF, as well as cognitive aspects. Very few addressed adaptive functioning explicitly, a crucial area for diagnosing and supporting individuals with BIF, though many covered its domains (conceptual, social and practical). Studies predominantly used quantitative methodologies, with only a few incorporating qualitative methods and directly involving people with BIF. CONCLUSIONS: The review emphasises the need for a clearer definition of BIF. Future studies should incorporate the perspectives of individuals with BIF to fully understand their needs and challenges across various life domains.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2025 · doi:10.1111/jir.13221