What's at stake in the lives of people with intellectual disability? Part II: Recommendations for naming, defining, diagnosing, classifying, and planning supports.

Luckasson et al. (2013) wrote Part II of a two-part position paper. They list exact words to use and steps to take when naming, diagnosing, and planning supports for people with intellectual disability.

The paper gives a checklist for reports: use 'intellectual disability,' drop old terms, note strengths, and tie every goal to real-life contexts.

The authors found that clear, respectful language leads to better support plans. They offer a five-step template: name the person first, state the diagnosis plainly, list adaptive strengths, classify support level, and pick evidence-based supports.

Hall et al. (2007) show the backstory: groups spent decades moving away from 'mental retardation.' Ruth et al. now lock in the next label: 'intellectual disability.'

Friedman (2016) reveals a lag problem. Years after Ruth’s paper, most Medicaid waivers still used the old term. The field talks the talk slower than it walks.

Matson et al. (2013) (Part I) explains why words matter; Ruth et al. (Part II) tells you exactly which words to pick.

If you sit on diagnostic teams or write behavior plans, swap in the paper’s five-step format. Start with the person’s name, say 'intellectual disability,' list strengths, and pick supports tied to daily life. Your report will match current standards and reduce stigma.