Beyond terminology: the policy impact of a grassroots movement.

Marty and colleagues traced how everyday advocates turned one word change into federal law. They gathered meeting notes, press clips, and policy drafts from 2008-2013. The team mapped each step that moved 'intellectual disability' from grassroots talks into official U.S. documents.

The switch from 'mental retardation' to 'intellectual disability' was not top-down. Parents, self-advocates, and state councils lobbied Congress, wrote public comments, and shared personal stories. By 2013, the new term appeared in federal education, health, and labor laws.

Kleinert et al. (2007) first argued the term swap would cut stigma. Ford et al. (2013) shows the idea later reached the statute books.

Yet Ohan et al. (2015) ran a real test. They showed people news clips saying experts now say 'intellectual disability.' The result: stigma stayed the same or rose. The policy win did not guarantee a public opinion win.

Zwiya et al. (2023) pushes the inclusion story further. They say research itself must include people with IDD as co-scientists, not just as subjects.

Your intake forms, graphs, and team meetings must now say 'intellectual disability.' That keeps you legal and shows respect. But don't expect the new word alone to change hearts. Pair it with real contact: invite clients to speak at staff training, co-write newsletter pieces, or lead Q-and-A sessions. Language opens the door; shared experience keeps it open.