Practitioner Development

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

Schalock et al. (2013) · Intellectual and developmental disabilities 2013
★ The Verdict

The labels we choose decide who gets help and who gets left out.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who write evaluations, attend ISP meetings, or supervise RBTs.
✗ Skip if Researchers looking for effect sizes or new teaching protocols.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The authors looked at every big choice we make about intellectual disability. They asked: What happens when we pick one name over another? When we set the IQ cutoff at 70 instead of 75? When we write "client” instead of “citizen”?

They read policy papers, history books, and self-advocate stories. Then they lined up the facts to show how each label changes money, services, and daily life.

02

What they found

Words are not just words. Calling someone “mentally retarded” on paper can block housing, jobs, and friendships. Lowering the IQ cutoff by five points can remove a large share of people from services.

Even small grammar shifts matter. Writing “person with ID” keeps the person first. Writing “disabled person” puts the disability first. Each style trains staff to see either a human or a file number.

03

How this fits with other research

Hall et al. (2007) showed how “mental retardation” was slowly dropped after self-advocates fought the term. Matson et al. (2013) picks up that story and warns the next label can carry the same sting if we are not careful.

Friedman (2016) found Medicaid waivers still used the old term years after Rosa’s Law ordered the change. That real-world lag proves the target paper’s point: policy only works when everyday forms, reports, and staff mouths catch up.

Luckasson et al. (2013) is the direct sequel. Part I (our target) maps the landmines; Part II gives the safe path. Read them together to move from “why words matter” to “here’s the wording we should use Monday.”

04

Why it matters

You write reports, goals, and insurance justifications. Each time you pick a term, you open or close a door. Use the language Luckasson et al. (2013) recommends: “intellectual disability,” “supports,” and specific IQ-adaptive scores. Check your state’s Medicaid text against Carli’s findings. If the waiver still says “mental retardation,” flag it. One email from a BCBA can start a forms update that restores someone’s waiver slot.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Open your last report. Replace any leftover “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” and add one line on adaptive strengths.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
narrative review
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

This article focuses on the power of naming, defining, diagnosing, classifying, and planning supports for people with intellectual disability. The article summarizes current thinking regarding these five functions, states the essential question addressed by the respective function, and provides an overview of the high stakes involved for people with intellectual disability, their families, and the field of intellectual disability.

Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.2.086