Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, December 2011; 36(4): 227–237

CONCEPTUAL PAPER

The evolving understanding of the construct of intellectual disability

ROBERT L. SCHALOCK

Hastings College, Nebraska, USA

J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14

Abstract
This article addresses two major areas concerned with the evolving understanding of the construct of intellectual disabil-
ity. The first part of the article discusses current answers to five critical questions that have revolved around the general
question, “What is Intellectual Disability?” These five are what to call the phenomenon, how to explain the phenomenon,
how to define the phenomenon and determine who is a member of the class, how to classify persons so defined and iden-
tified, and how to establish public policy regarding such persons. The second part of the article discusses four critical
issues that will impact both our future understanding of the construct and the approach taken to persons with intellectual
disability. These four critical issues relate to the conceptualisation and measurement of intellectual functioning, the con-
stitutive definition of intellectual disability, the alignment of clinical functions related to diagnosis, classification, and
planning supports, and how the field resolves a number of emerging epistemological issues.
For personal use only.

Keywords: classifying, constitutive definition, defining, etiology, intellectual disability, intellectual functioning, naming,
operational definition

Introduction and overview

Throughout history, there have been five critical
questions that have faced both persons with intel-
lectual disability (ID) and the societies within which
they lived: (a) what to call the phenomenon, (b) how
to explain the phenomenon, (c) how to define the
phenomenon and determine who is a member of
the class, (d) how to classify persons so defined and
identified, and (e) how to establish public policy that
aligns societal values with services and supports for
such persons. The purpose of the first section of this
article is to provide contemporary answers to each of
these five critical questions. The second section of
the article discusses four critical issues that provide
the framework for future discussions and dialogue.
These four relate to the conceptualisation and mea-
surement of intellectual functioning, the constitutive
definition of intellectual disability, the alignment of
clinical functions related to diagnosis, classification,
and supports planning, and how the field resolves a
number of emerging epistemological issues.
How one answers these critical questions and
addresses these critical issues is based in large part
on the power of mental models that are defined as
deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, and
images we have to understand the world (Senge,
2006). Throughout the history of ID a number of
mental models have impacted the terminology used,
the explanation and definition of the phenomenon,
the classification system used, and the policies and
practices implemented. Historically, these models
have focused on illness, personal defectology, and
categorisation. Mental models are beginning to
change as we understand better the construct of
ID and find answers to the five critical questions
addressed in the article’s first section. These more
current mental models are those that focus on (a)
human potential and the ameliorating effects of envi-
ronmental factors; (b) an emphasis on social inclu-
sion, self-determination, personal development, and
community inclusion; and (c) the provision of indi-
vidualised supports (Schalock & Verdugo, in press;
Schalock, Verdugo, Bonham, Fantova, & van Loon,
2008).
It is important to make explicit from the begin-
ning the author’s “mental model.” First, I was a

Correspondence: Robert L. Schalock, PhD, PO Box 285, Chewelah, Washington 99109, USA. E-mail: rschalock@ultraplix.com

ISSN 1366-8250 print/ISSN 1469-9532 online © 2011 Australasian Society for Intellectual Disability, Inc.
DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2011.624087
 228 R. L. Schalock
member of the American Association on Intellectual
and Developmental Disability (AAIDD; formerly
AAMR) committee that developed and published
the 1992, 2002, and 2010 definition, classification,
and systems of supports manuals. Second, I have
been involved in cross-cultural research on ID-re-
lated definitional and application issues (Schalock,
2010; Schalock & Luckasson, 2004) and the inter-
national implications of the emerging disability par-
adigm on policies and practices (Schalock, 2004).
Third, I have discussed the relationships among the
articles of the 2006 United Nations’ Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the concept
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
of quality of life, and the measurement and use of
personal outcomes to enhance public policy and ser-
vice delivery system practices (Schalock, Bonham,
& Verdugo, 2008). Finally, I have suggested ways to
integrate the World Health Organization’s Interna-
tional Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health (WHO-ICF) and AAIDD models of dis-
ability, quality of life, and the supports paradigm in
order to enhance professional practices in the field of
ID (Buntinx & Schalock, 2010). These experiences
are reflected throughout the article, which attempts
to address both US and international perspectives
For personal use only.
on the issue.
Answering the five critical questions
Naming the phenomenon
Naming involves attaching a specific term to some-
thing or someone. Naming is a powerful process that
carries many messages about perceived value and
human relationships (Luckasson & Reeve, 2001),
and is the prerequisite for defining and ultimately
classifying persons who are members of the class
(Simeonsson, Granlund, & Bjorck-Akersson, 2006).
The name (or term) used to refer to persons with ID
has historically varied significantly. Even now, one
finds considerable variation in terminology interna-
tionally. As discussed in more detail in Brown (2007),
Brown and Radford (2007), and Schalock (2010),
these terms include “mental deficiency,” “mental
handicap,” “mental subnormality,” “developmental
disability” (especially in Canada), and “learning dis-
abilities” (especially in the United Kingdom).
The term intellectual disability is increasingly being
used internationally. This increased usage reflects the
changed construct of disability, aligns better with
current professional practices that focus on func-
tional behaviours and contextual factors, provides
a logical basis for individualised supports provision
due to its basis in a social-ecological framework,
is less offensive to persons with the disability than
terms that have been used historically such as men-
tal retardation or mental deficiency (Schroeder,
Gerry, Gertz, & Velazquez, 2002), and is more con-
sistent with international terminology, including
journal titles, published research, and organisation
names (Parmenter 2004; Schalock, Luckasson, &
Shogren, 2007; Schroeder et al., 2002; Wehmeyer
et al., 2008).
Explaining the phenomenon
Explanations of the phenomenon (i.e., intellectual
disability) have varied historically from those rooted
in deification to those rooted in defectology. Cur-
rently, ID is viewed as a disability characterised by
significant limitations in intellectual functioning and
adaptive behaviour and manifest during the develop-
mental period. ID is also a multidimensional state
of human functioning. Understanding these two key
concepts—the construct of disability and the mul-
tidimensionality of human functioning—is essential
to not only explaining the phenomenon, but also in
providing a framework to understand and explain
its etiology.
The construct of disability. The construct of intellectual
disability belongs within the general construct of dis-
ability, which focuses on the expression of limitations
in individual functioning within a social context and
represents a substantial disadvantage to the individual.
The current social-ecological conception of disability
has emerged over the last two decades due primarily
to an increased understanding of the process of dis-
ablement and its amelioration. Major factors in this
include (a) the research on the social construction of
illness and the extensive evolution impact that societal
attitudes, roles, and policies have on the ways that indi-
viduals experience health disorders (Aronowitz, 1998);
(b) the blurring of the historical distinction between
biological and social causes of disability (Institute of
Medicine, 1991); and (c) the recognition of the multi-
dimensionality of human functioning (Buntinx, 2006;
Luckasson et al., 2002; Wehmeyer et al., 2008; World
Health Organization, 2001). Because of these factors
the concept of disability has evolved from a person-
centred trait or characteristic (often referred to as a
“deficit”) to a focus on functional limitations that
reflect an inability or constraint in both personal func-
tioning and performing roles and tasks expected of an
individual within a social environment (Bach, 2007;
DePoy & Gilson, 2004; Hahn & Hegamin, 2001;
Nagi, 1991). This emerging focus is consistent with
the personal empowerment and self-determination
movement, a stronger emphasis on personal rights
and desired personal outcomes, and an awareness of

the effects of discrimination and marginalisation on
persons with disability (Oliver, 1996; Rioux, 1997;
Schalock, 2004).
The importance of this evolutionary change in the
construct of disability is that ID is no longer consid-
ered entirely an absolute, invariant trait of the person
(DeKraai, 2002; Devlieger, Rusch, & Pfeiffer, 2003;
Switzky & Greenspan, 2006). Rather, this social-eco-
logical conception of ID exemplifies the interaction
between the person and their environment, focuses
on the role that individualised supports can play in
enhancing individual functioning, and allows for the
pursuit and understanding of “disability identity”
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
whose principles include self-worth, subjective well-
being, pride, common cause, policy alternatives, and
engagement in political action (Powers, Dinerstein,
& Holmes, 2005; Putnam, 2005; Schalock, 2004;
Vehmas, 2004).
Multidimensionality of human functioning. As pro-
posed by the World Health Organization (2001)
and AAIDD (Schalock et al., 2010) human func-
tioning is an umbrella term for all life activities.
The ICF model of human functioning involves
For personal use only.
six components: health condition (disability and
disease), body functions and structures (impair-
ments), activities, participation, environmental
factors, and personal factors. The AAIDD model
includes five components of human functioning
(intellectual abilities, adaptive behaviour, health,
participation, and context) and focuses on the key
role played by individualised supports in enhanc-
ing the level of human functioning (Buntinx &
Schalock, 2010).
The etiology of intellectual disability. Increasingly, the
etiology of ID is conceptualised as a multifactorial
construct composed of four categories of risk fac-
tors that interact across time, including across the
life of the individual and across generations from
parent to child. This multifactorial understanding
of etiology is replacing the historical approach that
divided etiology of ID (referred to then as “mental
retardation”) into two broad types: those due to
biological origin and those due to psychosocial dis-
advantage. The multifactorial approach to etiology
expands the list of causal factors in two directions:
types of factors (biomedical, social, behavioural,
educational) and timing of factors (prenatal, peri-
natal, and postnatal). Table 1, which is based on
the work of Emerson, Fujiura, and Hatton (2007),
Schalock et al. (2010), and Walker et al. (2007),
summarises key risk factors from each of these
perspectives.
What is intellectual disability? 229
Defining the class
The third critical question relates to how to define
the phenomenon and determine who is a member of
the class. In defining the class, the name or term is
explained as precisely as possible. As stated by Felce
(2006, p. xiii), “the clarity of definition is clearly
necessary to science.” The definition should estab-
lish the boundaries of the term and separate who or
what is included within the term from whom or what
is outside the term. The importance of a clear opera-
tional definition is that it establishes meaning, helps
meet the basic human drive for understanding, and
affects a person’s social and legal status (Greenspan
& Switzky, 2006; Schalock et al., 2007).
An important distinction can be made between
an operational and constitutive definition of ID. An
operational definition focuses on the operations with
which a construct such as ID can be observed and
measured. In distinction, a constitutive definition
defines the construct of ID in relation to other con-
structs and thus helps to understand the theoretical
underpinnings of the construct. Before discussing
this distinction in greater detail, a little history is
required for context and to appreciate our evolv-
ing understanding of the construct of ID. Histori-
cally, four approaches have been used to identify the
class of persons with ID: social, clinical, intellectual,
and dual-criterion. Initially, persons (with ID) were
defined or identified because they failed to adapt
socially to their environment. Since an emphasis
on intelligence and the role of “intelligent people”
in society was to come later, the oldest historical
approach was to focus on social behaviour and the
“natural behavioral prototype” (Greenspan, 2003).
With the rise of the medical model, the focus for
defining the class shifted to one’s symptom com-
plex and clinical syndrome. This approach did not
negate the social criterion, but gradually there
was a shift toward the role of organicity, heredity,
pathology, and the need for segregation (Devlieger
et al., 2003). With the emergence of intelligence as
a viable construct to explain the class and the rise
of the mental testing movement, the criterion for
defining the class shifted to intellectual functioning as
measured by an IQ test. This emphasis led to the
emergence of IQ-based statistical norms as a way to
both define the class and classify individuals within it
(Devlieger, 2003). In reference to the dual criterion
approach, the first attempt to use both intellectual
and social criteria to define the class was found in the
1959 American Association on Mental Deficiency’s
(AAMD) manual (Heber, 1959), which defined ID
(then referred to as “mental deficiency”) as referring
to sub-average general intellectual functioning which
 230 R. L. Schalock

Table 1. Examples of prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal risk factors in intellectual disability

Prenatal
• Biomedical: chromosomal disorders, metabolic disorders, transplacental infections (e.g., rubella, herpes, HIV), exposure to toxins
or teratogens (e.g., alcohol, lead, mercury), undernutrition (e.g., maternal iodine deficiency)
• Social: poverty, maternal malnutrition, domestic violence, lack of prenatal care
• Behavioural: parental drug use, parental immaturity
• Educational: parental disability without supports, lack of educational opportunities
Perinatal
• Biomedical: prematurity, birth injury, hypoxia, neonatal disorders, rhesus incompatibility
• Social: lack of access to birth care
• Behavioural: parental rejection of caretaking, parental abandonment of child
• Educational: lack of medical referral for intervention services at discharge
Postnatal
• Biomedical: traumatic brain injury, malnutrition, degenerative/seizure disorders, toxins
• Social: lack of adequate stimulation, family poverty, chronic illness, institutionalisation
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14

• Behavioural: child abuse/neglect, domestic violence, difficult child behaviours

• Educational: delayed diagnosis, inadequate early intervention, inadequate special education services, inadequate family support

originates during the developmental period and is
associated with impairments in maturation, learn-
ing, and social adjustments. In the 1961 AAMD
manual (Heber, 1961), maturation, learning and
social adjustments were folded into a single, largely
undefined new term, “adaptive behavior.” The dual-
criterion approach has also included age of onset as
an accompanying element.
For personal use only.
to age 18. Each of the first two criteria (significant
limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive
behaviour) is defined in terms of cut-off scores and
interpreted in reference to a statistical confidence
interval (Schalock et al., 2010). More specifically,
the “significant limitations in intellectual function-
ing” criterion for a diagnosis of ID is an IQ score
that is approximately two standard deviations below

the mean, considering the standard error of mea-

Operational definition of intellectual disability. An
operational definition of ID includes three key
components: (a) the actual definition, (b) the
construct’s boundaries, and (c) the use of the
statistical concept of standard error of measure-
ment to establish a statistical confidence inter-
val within which the person’s true score falls.
Based on a review of the international literature
(Schalock, 2010), the most commonly used opera-
tional definition of ID is that promulgated by the
American Association of Intellectual and Devel-
opmental Disabilities (AAIDD). According to this
operational definition:
Intellectual disability is characterized by signi-
ficant limitations both in intellectual func-
tioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed
in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills.
This disability originates before age 18. (Schalock
et al., 2010, p. 1)
Other ID-related definitions can be found in
Brown (2007) and Brown and Radford (2007).
In reference to the construct’s boundaries, cut-off
scores are used to identify (i.e., diagnose) a person
who falls within the class. Based on the operational
definition of ID just presented, the identification of
ID is based on three criteria: significant limitations
in intellectual functioning, significant limitations in
adaptive behaviour as expressed in cognitive, social,
and practical adaptive skills, and age of onset prior
surement for the specific instruments used and the
instruments’ strengths and limitations. Although
the two standard deviations below the mean crite-
rion might be considered arbitrary, it has been used
widely since 1973 (Schalock et al., 2007, 2010).
Analogously, the “significant limitations in adaptive
behavior” criterion for a diagnosis of ID is perfor-
mance that is approximately two standard deviations
below the mean of either (a) one of the following
three types of adaptive behaviour: conceptual, social,
or practical; or (b) an overall score on a standardised
measure of conceptual, social, and practical skills. As
with the intellectual functioning criterion, the assess-
ment instrument’s standard error of measurement
must be considered when interpreting the individu-
al’s obtained score.
The results of any psychometric assessment
need to be evaluated in terms of the accuracy of
the instrument used. Obtained scores are subject
to variability as a function of a number of potential
sources of error including variations in test perfor-
mance, examiner’s behaviour, cooperation of the
test taker, and other personal and environmental
factors. The term standard error of measurement
(SEM), which varies by test, subgroup, and age
group, is used to quantify this variability and pro-
vide the basis for establishing a statistical confidence
interval around the obtained score within which the
person’s true score falls. From the properties of the
normal curve, a range of statistical confidence can

be established with parameters of at least one SEM
(66% probability) or parameters of two SEM (95%
probability).
Constitutive definition of intellectual disability. Although
the operational criteria (based on the operational
definition of ID) for diagnosis have been generally
consistent for the last 50 ⫹ years (Schalock et al.,
2007), the construct underlying the term ID (and
thus, the constitutive definition of ID) has changed
significantly due to the impact of the social-ecological
model of disability. In this model, ID is understood
as a multidimensional state of human functioning in
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
relation to environmental demands.
A constitutive definition of ID is used to define
the construct in relation to other constructs and thus
helps to understand better the theoretical underpin-
nings of the construct. For example, Wehmeyer et al.
(2008) discuss the significant differences between the
construct that underlies the term intellectual disability
and the construct underlying the term mental retarda-
tion. The major difference is in regard to where the
disability resides: the former construct (mental retarda-
tion) viewed the disability as a defect within the per-
son, while the current construct (intellectual disabil-
For personal use only.
ity) views the disability as the fit between the person’s
capacities and the context within which the person is
to function. The term mental retardation referred to a
condition internal to the person (e.g., slowness of mind);
intellectual disability refers to a state of functioning, not
a condition. Both constructions see the condition (as
in mental retardation) or the state of functioning (as
in intellectual disability) as best defined in terms of
limitations in typical human functioning.
Thus, a constitutive definition of ID defines the phe-
nomenon in terms of limitations in human functioning,
emphasises an understanding of disability consistent
with an ecological and multidimensional perspective,
and recognises the significant role that individualised
supports play in improving human functioning. The
advantages to a constitutive definition of ID are that
it recognises the vast biological and social complexi-
ties associated with ID (Baumeister, 2006; Switzky
& Greenspan, 2006), captures the essential charac-
teristics of a person with this disability (Simeonsson
et al., 2006), establishes an ecological framework for
supports provision (Thompson et al., 2009), and pro-
vides a solid conceptual basis to differentiate among
persons with other cognitive and developmental
disabilities (Thompson & Wehmeyer, 2008).
Classifying members of the class
All classification systems have as their fundamental
purpose the provision of an organised scheme for the
What is intellectual disability? 231
categorisation of various kinds of observations. Clas-
sification systems are used typically for four purposes:
funding, research, services/supports, and communi-
cation about selected characteristics of persons and
their environments. Three classification systems are
currently used most frequently internationally in the
field of ID: the International Classification of Diseases,
Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM;
Medicode, 1998), the International Classification of
Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10; WHO, 1993),
and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psy-
chiatric Association, 2000). In each system, mental
retardation (the term ID is not used) is coded pri-
marily on the basis of full scale IQ scores.
As the field of ID moves increasingly to an eco-
logical focus and a supports paradigm, a number
of current policies and practices have emerged that
require a broader, multidimensional approach to
classification. These changes relate to: (a) group-
ing for reimbursement/funding on the basis of some
combination and weighting of levels of assessed
support need, level of adaptive behaviour, health
status, and/or contextual factors such as residential
platform and geographical location; (b) research
methods that focus on multidimensional predictors
of human functioning and/or desired personal out-
comes; and (c) individualised services and supports
based on the pattern and intensity of assessed sup-
port needs across dimensions of human functioning
and life activity areas. As a result of these changes in
policies and practices, multidimensional classifica-
tion frameworks are emerging that reflect the multi-
dimensionality of human functioning discussed ear-
lier. One such framework, which is consistent with
both the AAIDD system (Schalock et el., 2010) and
the ICF model (WHO, 2001), is shown in Table 2.
Although “exemplary measures” are referenced in
the table, it is beyond the scope of this article to list
specific assessment instruments or scales. Further-
more, considerable work is yet to be done in this
area—work that is currently being engaged in by one
or more ICD-11 and AAIDD work groups.
Establishing public policy
The final critical question relates to establishing pub-
lic policy that aligns societal values with services and
supports for persons with ID. Currently, international
disability policy regarding persons with ID is pre-
mised on a number of core concepts and principles
that are: (a) person-referenced, such as inclusion,
empowerment, individualised and relevant supports,
productivity and contribution, and family integrity
and unity; and (b) service-delivery referenced, such
 232 R. L. Schalock
Table 2. Exemplary components of a multidimensional classification system
Dimension Exemplary measures
Intellectual abilities Individually administered IQ tests
Adaptive behaviour Adaptive behaviour scales
Health Health and wellness inventories
Mental health measures
Etiologic assessment
Participation Community integration scales
Community involvement scales
Measures of social relationships
Measures of home life
Context Environmental assessments (physical, social, attitudinal)
Personal assessments (motivation, coping styles,
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
learning styles, lifestyles)
Supports Support need scales
Functional behaviour assessment
as antidiscrimination, coordination and collabora-
tion, and accountability (Brown & Percy, 2007;
Montreal Declaration, 2004; Salamanca Statement,
1994; Shogren, Bradley, Gomez, Yeager, & Schalock,
2009). These concepts and principles have resulted
in significant changes in service delivery policies and
practices, and a significant effort to conceptualise
and measure important life domains. In reference
For personal use only.
to the former, we have seen internationally poli-
cies and practices enacted that provide education,
community living and employment opportunities,
technological supports and assistive technology,
person-centred planning, and a framework to assess
person- and family-referenced valued outcomes. In
reference to the latter, the concepts and principles
mentioned above have been operationalised in the
following eight universally recognised life domains
(United Nations, 2006): rights (access and privacy);
participation; autonomy, independence, and choice;
physical well-being; material well-being (work and
employment); inclusion, accessibility, and participa-
tion; emotional well-being (freedom from exploita-
tion, violence, and abuse); and personal development
(education and rehabilitation). Although there is con-
siderable variability across countries, the net effect of
these concepts, principles, and related changes has
been the development of an array of services and
supports for persons with ID and an increasing focus
on measuring public policy outcomes.
Array of services and supports. As discussed more
fully by Emerson et al. (2007) and Mercier, Sax-
ena, Lecomte, Cumbrera, and Harnois (2008),
persons with disabilities, including those with ID,
are provided in many countries with an array of
educational, residential, occupational, and support
services. Although the availability and composi-
tion vary across countries, the general parameters
of this array are (a) educational opportunities that
Classification scheme
IQ ranges or levels
Adaptive behaviour levels
Health status
Mental health status
Risk factors
Etiology groupings
Degree of community integration
Degree of community involvement
Level of social interactions
Level of in-home activities
Environmental status
Personal status
Level of needed support
Pattern of needed supports
vary from highly segregated classrooms, to resource
rooms, to schools providing full inclusion for stu-
dents with ID; (b) residential options that vary from
large, congregate living facilities and nursing homes,
to group homes, to supported community living pri-
vate residences (It should be noted, however, that
across the globe, only a small proportion of persons
with ID live in residential settings; most reside with
their family [Emerson et al., 2007].); (c) occupa-
tional opportunities that vary from day activity cen-
ters, to sheltered workshops, to general work skills
and vocational preparation, to integrated employ-
ment; and (d) support services that include special-
ised health and behaviour supports, leisure activities,
transportation, assistive technology, rights and advo-
cacy support, and/or nutritional assistance.
The concept of supports is being applied to per-
sons with ID in different ways. For some, the sup-
ports orientation has brought together the related
practices of person-centred planning, personal
growth and development opportunities, community
inclusion, self-determination, empowerment, the
application of positive psychology, and the applica-
tion of a “systems of supports” that includes policies
and practices, incentives, cognitive supports (i.e.,
assistive technology), prosthetics, skills and knowl-
edge, environmental accommodation, and profes-
sional services (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Buchanan, &
Lopez, 2006; Thompson et al., 2009). For others, we
have seen the integration of a quality of life frame-
work into the individualised planning process so as
to align supports provision within the quality of life
framework, and thus focus on the role that individu-
alised supports play in the enhancement of quality
of life-related personal outcomes (van Loon, 2008).
And for others, supports are provided through
a community-based rehabilitation model, which con-
sists of small programs implemented through the
 What is intellectual disability? 233

combined efforts of those with disability, their and supports planning, and how the field resolves a
families, and the community using indigenous sup- number of emerging epistemological issues.
ports (McConkey & O’Toole, 1995). According to
Emerson et al. (2007), this model remains the cen-
terpiece of international development strategies. Conceptualisation and measurement of intellectual
functioning
Measuring public policy outcomes. Public policy out-
Historically, there have been three broad conceptual
comes can be used for multiple purposes including
frameworks used to describe and measure intel-
analysing the impact of specific public policies, mon-
lectual functioning: intelligence as a general factor
itoring the effectiveness and efficiency of services
(e.g., Gottfredson, 1997), intelligence as a multi-
and supports, providing a basis for continuous qual-
trait, hierarchical phenomenon (e.g., Carroll, 1993),
ity improvement and performance enhancement,
or intelligence as a multidimensional construct
meeting the increasing need for accountability, and
(Gardner, 1998; Horn & Cattell, 1966; Naglieri &
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14

helping establish the parameters of best practices

Das, 1997). Although the pendulum swings back and
(Shogren & Turnbull, 2010). Although just appear-
forth, recent years have brought an increased empha-
ing in the field of ID, public/social policy outcomes
sis on a multidimensional conceptual approach, even
are being assessed in three broad areas: personal,
though currently the most valid assessment of intel-
family, and societal. The framework used to mea-
lectual functioning employs individually adminis-
sure these outcomes is based on the delineation
tered, standardised assessment instruments that are
of valued life domains and the assessment of core
based on the general factor conceptual framework
indicators associated with each life domain. Table 3
(Schalock et al., 2010).
summarises exemplary outcome domains, including
Although our current definition and diagnostic-
relevant published literature. The outcome domains
classification processes are still based largely on con-
listed in Table 3 are consistent with the specific
ceptualising and measuring intelligence as a general
articles found in the 2006 UN Convention on the
For personal use only.

factor, the increased emphasis on the multidimen-

Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Addressing four critical issues
Addressing the five critical questions just discussed
has resulted in an increasing understanding of the
construct of ID. However, in the author’s opinion,
there are four critical issues that need to be addressed
in the future as we continue to understand better the
nature of the ID construct and the approach taken to
persons with intellectual and closely related develop-
mental disability. These four relate to the conceptual-
isation and measurement of intellectual functioning,
the constitutive definition of ID, the alignment of
clinical functions related to diagnosis, classification,
sionality of intelligence will have significant implica-
tions in the future as to how we operationally define
ID. For example, the movement towards conceptu-
alising intellectual functioning as a multidimensional
construct could be the basis for an operational defi-
nition of ID. This is reflected in Sternberg’s (1988)
triarchic model of intelligence as being composed of
analytical, creative, and practical components, and/
or Greenspan’s (2006) tripartite model of adap-
tive intelligence as being composed of conceptual,
practical, and social components. This changed
operational definition of ID would also be consistent
with the potential merging of the concepts of intel-
ligence and adaptive behaviour into a model of per-
sonal competence based on conceptual, social, and

Table 3. Public policy outcome measures: Domains and referent group

Person-Referenced Outcome Domainsa

Rights Personal Development Self-Determination Physical Well-Being
Inclusion Emotional Well-Being Material Well-Being Participation
Family-Referenced Outcome Domainsb
Family Interaction Emotional Well-Being Personal Development
Parenting Physical Well-Being Financial Well-Being
Community/Civic Involvement Disability-Related Supports
Societal-Referenced Outcomesc
Socioeconomic Position Health Subjective Well-Being
aBased on the work of Alverson, Bayliss, Naranjo, Yamamoto, and Unruh (2006), Gardner and Carran (2005), Bradley and Moseley

(2007), Schalock and Verdugo (2002). bBased on the work of Aznar and Castañón (2005), Isaacs et al. (2007), Summers et al. (2005).
cBased on the work of Arthaud-Day, Rode, Mooney, and Near (2005), Emerson, Graham, and Hatton (2006), Emerson and Hatton

(2008).
 234 R. L. Schalock
practical skills (Schalock, 1999, 2006; Thompson &
Wehmeyer, 2008).
A number of potential benefits would accrue with
such a change in the conceptualisation and mea-
surement of intellectual functioning. Chief among
these would be (a) a subtle, but important, shift in
terminology from “intelligence” (a unitary concept)
to “intellectual functioning” (a multidimensional
concept); (b) a closer alignment between the term
intellectual disability and the diagnostic criteria
(e.g., significant limitations in conceptual, social,
and practical intelligence/intellectual skills); (c) a
singular operational definition of ID that focuses on
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
the multidimensionality of intelligence, rather than
including both intelligence and adaptive behaviour
in the operational definition; (d) a shift towards an
emphasis on specific skills associated with each type
of “intelligence” that are amenable to individualised
supports rather than focusing—as many do—on the
perceived invariant nature of one’s “IQ”; and (e) a
clear and needed research focus on the development
of valid measurement instruments that assess con-
ceptual, social, and practical intelligence (or intel-
lectual skills).
At least three things are required for such a change
For personal use only.
to occur and be accepted by the scientific commu-
nity. First, the operational definition of intelligence
would need to be changed to reflect the multidi-
mensionality of intellectual functioning. Second,
valid measures of social and practical intelligence
(or conceptual, social, and practical intellectual
skills) would need to be developed. Third, we would
need to discard the (somewhat arbitrary) distinction
between “intelligence” as reflective of maximum per-
formance and “adaptive behaviour” as reflective of
typical performance.
Constitutive definition of intellectual disability
As discussed previously, a constitutive definition of
ID includes an ecological construct of disability,
an emphasis on the multidimensionality of human
functioning, and a supports paradigm that focuses
on the provision of a person-centred system of
supports that enhances human functioning. How
this critical issue “plays out” in the future impacts
potentially how we define ID and how the param-
eters of best practices are established. A transdis-
ciplinary approach to research that jointly involves
researchers and practitioners is essential in further-
ing our understanding of a constitutive definition
of ID. Such an approach results in both scientific
(understanding) and social (application) effects, and
allows the field to better integrate principles and
methods into public policy, program practices, and
program standards (Walter, Helgenberger, Wiek, &
Scholz, 2007). This research approach also incorpo-
rates a more functional perspective of ID based on
a multidimensional model of etiology and the prin-
ciples of human potential, positive psychology, and
self-determination (Emerson et al., 2007; Schalock,
Bonham, & Verdugo, 2008; Shogren et al., 2006;
Wehmeyer et al., 2008).
Alignment of clinical functions
The third critical issue involves a better understand-
ing of the role of assessment in ID and the alignment
of three clinical functions: diagnosis, classification,
and planning supports. As discussed more fully in
Schalock et al. (2010) and Schalock and Luckasson
(2004), an assessment framework needs to meet three
criteria: the assessment tools and processes should
match the purpose for the assessment, the assess-
ment findings should be as valid as possible, and
the results should be both useful and purposefully
applied. Furthermore, such an assessment frame-
work needs to align data from assessment instru-
ments and strategies to the three clinical functions
of diagnosis, classification, and planning supports.
According to such a framework:
(a) ID is diagnosed using assessment information
obtained from standardised and individually
administered instruments. If the criteria for a
diagnosis of ID are met, the diagnosis may be
applied to achieve several focused purposes
including, but not limited to, establishing the
presence of the disability in an individual
and confirming an individual’s eligibility for
services, benefits, and legal protections.
(b) Multiple classification systems are used to
group or classify individuals with ID (or
the individuals themselves) for several pur-
poses such as conducting research, providing
service reimbursement/funding, developing
services and supports, and communicating
about selected characteristics. As shown in
Table 2, a multidimensional classification
system is based on the assessment of intellec-
tual functioning, adaptive behaviour, health,
participation, context, and/or the pattern or
intensity of needed supports. The particular
classification system selected should be con-
sistent with a specific purpose and used to
benefit members of the group.
(c) Planning supports should integrate assessment
information obtained from standardised and
informal measures of individual support needs,
person-centred planning information, and
other input from knowledgeable informants.

Epistemological issues
In the future, we also need to address at least five
epistemological issues. Chief among these are those
related to (a) the construct of disability, how intel-
lectual disability fits within the general construct of
disability, and the relation of ID to other develop-
mental disabilities (Brown & Percy, 2007; Finlay &
Lyons, 2005; Schalock & Luckasson, 2004; Switzky
& Greenspan, 2006); (b) the social construction of
ID (Rapley, 2004); (c) the ethical analysis of the
concept of disability (Vehmas, 2004); (d) whether
the elements of the ID construct and the construct
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
itself are relevant internationally due to the cul-
tural relativity of the constructs of intellectual func-
tioning and adaptive behaviour (Emerson et al.,
2007); and (e) whether the “functionalist-objectivist
paradigm” of ID can be reconciled with the “inter-
pretative-subjective paradigm” of ID (Switzky &
Greenspan, 2006).
In conclusion, the resolution of these epistemolog-
ical issues—and indeed how we answer the question,
“What is ID?”—will be facilitated by a better under-
standing of the multidimensionality of intelligence,
clearly articulated operational and constitutive defi-
For personal use only.
nitions of ID, the employment of a transdisciplinary
approach to research, and a clear understanding of
the role of assessment in the three clinical functions
of diagnosis, classification, and planning supports.
Additionally, their resolution as part of the evolv-
ing understanding of the construct of ID will be
facilitated by a better understanding of the multidi-
mensionality of human functioning, an expanding
understanding of the etiology of ID and the risk
factors involved in its manifestation, and a general
movement internationally towards the recognition of
the legal and human rights of persons with ID and
their inclusion into the mainstream of life. Through-
out these future endeavors, and as our understanding
of the construct of ID continues to evolve, both the
presence and legacy of Professor Emeritus Trevor
Parmenter will be most evident.
Declaration of interest: The author report no con-
flict of interest. The author alone is responsible for
the content and writing of the paper.
References
Alverson, C. Y., Bayliss, C., Naranjo, J. M., Yamamoto, S. H., &
Unruh, D. (2006). Methods for conducting post-school outcomes
follow-up studies: A review of the literature. Eugene, OR: National
Post-School Outcomes Center, University of Oregon.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statisti-
cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington,
DC: Author.
What is intellectual disability? 235
Aronowitz, R. A. (1998). Making sense of illness: Science, society, and
disease. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., & Near, J. P.
(2005). The subjective well-being construct: A test of its con-
vergent, discriminate, and factorial validity. Social Indicators
Research, 74, 445–476. doi:10.1007/s11205-004-8209-6
Aznar, A. S., & Castañón, D. G. (2005). Quality of life from the
point of view of Latin American families: A participative
research study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49,
784–788. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00752.x
Bach, M. (2007). Changing perspectives on developmental dis-
abilities. In I. Brown & M. Percy (Eds.), A comprehensive guide
to intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 35–57). Balti-
more, MD: Brookes.
Baumeister, A. A. (2006). Mental retardation: Confusing senti-
ment with science. In H. N. Switzky & S. Greenspan (Eds.),
What is mental retardation? Ideas for an evolving disability in the
21st century (Rev. and updated ed., pp. 95–126). Washington,
DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Bradley, V. J., & Moseley, C. (2007). National core indicators:
Ten years of collaborative performance measurement. Intel-
lectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 354–358.
doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2007)45[354:NCITYO]2.0.CO;2
Brown, I. (2007). What is meant by intellectual and developmen-
tal disabilities? In I. Brown & M. Percy (Eds.), A comprehensive
guide to intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 3–15).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Brown, I., & Percy, M. (2007). A comprehensive guide to intellectual
and developmental disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Brown, I., & Radford, J. P. (2007). Historical overview of intel-
lectual and developmental disabilities. In I. Brown & M. Percy
(Eds.), A comprehensive guide to intellectual and developmental
disabilities (pp. 17–33). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Buntinx, W. H. E. (2006). The relationship between WHO-ICF
(International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and
Health) and the AAMR 2002 system. In H. N. Switzky & S.
Greenspan (Eds.), What is mental retardation? Ideas for an
evolving disability in the 21st century (Rev. and updated ed., pp.
303–323). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Retardation.
Buntinx, W. H. E., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Models of disability,
quality of life, and individualized supports: Implications for
professional practice in intellectual disability. Journal of Policy
and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7, 283–294. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-1130.2010.00278.x
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-
analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571312
DeKraai, M. (2002). In the beginning: The first hundred years
(1850 to 1950). In R. L. Schalock (Ed.), Out of darkness and
into the light: Nebraska’s experience with mental retardation (pp.
103–122). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Retardation.
DePoy, E., & Gilson, S. F. (2004). Rethinking disability: Principles
for professional and social change. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole.
Devlieger, P. (2003). From “idiot” to “person with mental retar-
dation”: Defining differences in an effort to dissolve it. In P.
Devlieger, R. Rusch, & D. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Rethinking disability:
The emergence of new definitions, concepts and communities (pp.
169–188). Antwerp, Belgium: Garant.
Devlieger, P., Rusch, F., & Pfeiffer, D. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking
disability:The emergence of new definitions, concepts and communi-
ties. Antwerp, Belgium: Garant.
Emerson, E., Fujiura, G. T., & Hatton, C. (2007). International
perspectives. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & J.
 236 R. L. Schalock
Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 593–
613). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Emerson, E., Graham, H., & Hatton, C. (2006). The measure-
ment of poverty and socioeconomic position in research
involving people with intellectual disability. In L. M. Glidden
(Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol.
32, pp. 77–108). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Emerson, E., & Hatton, C. (2008). Self-reported well-being of
women and men with intellectual disabilities in England.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 113, 143–155.
doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2008)113[143:SWOWAM]2.0.CO;2
Felce, D. (2006). What is mental retardation? In H. N. Switzky
& S. Greenspan (Eds.), What is mental retardation? Ideas for an
evolving disability in the 21st century (Rev. and updated ed., pp.
xiii–xiv). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
Retardation.
Finlay, W. M. L., & Lyons, E. (2005). Rejecting the label: A social
constructionist analysis. Mental Retardation, 43, 120–134.
doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2005)43 ⬍ 120:RTLASC ⬎ 2.0.CO;2
Gardner, H. (1998). Are there additional intelligences? The case
for naturalist, spiritual, and existential intelligences. In J. Kane
(Ed.), Education, information, and transformation: Essays in
learning and thinking (pp. 111–132). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Gardner, J. F., & Carran, D. T. (2005). Attainment of personal
outcomes by people with developmental disabilities. Mental
Retardation, 43, 157–174. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2005)43
[157:AOPOBP]2.0.CO;2
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An
For personal use only.
editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography [Editorial].
Intelligence, 24, 13–23. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
Greenspan, S. (2003). Mental retardation: Some issues for
concern. In H. N. Switzky & S. Greenspan (Eds.), What
is mental retardation? Ideas for an evolving disability (pp. 64–74).
Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Retardation.
Greenspan, S., & Switzky, H. N. (2003). Lessons learned from
the Atkins decision in the next AAMR manual. In H. N. Swit-
zky & S. Greenspan (Eds.), What is mental retardation? Ideas
for an evolving disability in the 21st century (pp. 283–302). Wash-
ington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Hahn, H., & Hegamin, A. P. (2001). Assessing scientific measures
of disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12, 114–121.
doi:10.1177/104420730101200209
Heber, R. (1959). A manual on terminology and classification in
mental retardation [Monograph Supplement]. American Jour-
nal of Mental Deficiency, 64(2).
Heber, R. (1961). A manual on terminology and classification on
mental retardation (2nd ed.) [Monograph Supplement]. Wash-
ington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the
theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270. doi:10.1037/h0023816
Institute of Medicine. (1991). Disability in America: Toward a
national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emy Press.
Isaacs, B. J., Brown, I., Brown, R. I., Baum, N., Myerscough, T.,
& Neikrug, S., … Wang, M. (2007). The international family
quality of life project: Goals and description of a survey tool.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 4, 177–
185. doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2007.00116.x
Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter,
D. L., Craig, E. M., Reeve, A., … Tasse, M. (2002). Mental
retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (10th
ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retar-
dation.
Luckasson, R., & Reeve, A. (2001). Naming, defining, and classifying
in mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 39, 47–52.
doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2001)039 ⬍ 0047:NDACIM ⬎ 2.0.CO;2
McConkey, R., & O’Toole, B. (1995). Towards the new millen-
nium. In B. O’Toole & R. McConkey (Eds.), Innovations in
developing countries for people with disabilities (pp. 3–14). Lan-
cashire, UK: Lisieux Hall.
Medicode. (1998). International classification of diseases (9th rev.):
Clinical modification (6th ed.). Salt Lake City, UT: Medicode.
Mercier, C., Saxena, S., Lecomte, J., Cumbrera, M. G., & Har-
nois, G. (2008). WHO Atlas on global resources for persons
with intellectual disabilities 2007: Key findings relevant to
low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Policy and Prac-
tice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 81–88. doi:10.1111/j.1741
-1130.2008.00152.x
Montreal Declaration. (2004). Montreal declaration on intellectual
disability. Montreal, Canada: PAHO/WHO Conference on
Intellectual Disability.
Nagi, S. Z. (1991). Disability concepts revisited: Implications for
prevention. In A. M. Pope & A. R. Tarlov (Eds.), Disability in
America: Toward a national agenda for prevention (pp. 309–
327). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Cognitive assessment system:
Interpretative handbook. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Parmenter, T. R. (2004). Contributions of IASSID to the scien-
tific study of intellectual disability: The past, the present, and
the future. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabili-
ties, 1, 71–78. doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2004.04011.x
Powers, L., Dinerstein, R., & Holmes, S. (2005). Self-advocacy,
self-determination, and social freedom and opportunity. In K.
C. Lakin & A. Turnbull (Eds.), National goals and research for
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 257–
287). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Retardation.
Putnam, M. (2005). Conceptualizing disability: Developing a
framework for political disability identity. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 16, 188–198. doi:10.1177/1044207305016003
0601
Rapley, M. (2004). The social construction of intellectual disability.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511489884
Rioux, M. H. (1997). Disability: The place of judgement in a
world of fact. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41,
102–111. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1997.tb00686.x
Salamanca Statement. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework
for action in special needs education. Paris, France: UNESCO,
Ministry of Education and Science, Spain.
Schalock, R. L. (1999). The merging of adaptive behavior
and intelligence: Implications for the field of mental retarda-
tion (pp. 43–60). In R. L. Schalock (Ed.), Adaptive behavior
and its measurement: Implications for the field of mental retarda-
tion. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Retardation.
Schalock, R. L. (2004). The emerging disability paradigm and its
implications for policy and practice. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 14, 204–215. doi:10.1177/10442073040140040201
Schalock, R. L. (2006). Scientific and judgmental issues involved
in defining mental retardation. In H. N. Switzky & S. Green-
span (Eds.), What is mental retardation? Ideas for an evolving
disability in the 21st century (Rev. and updated ed., pp. 231–
245). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Retardation.
Schalock, R. L. (2010). International perspectives on intellectual
disability. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology:

Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 312–328). New York,
NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schalock, R. L., Bonham, G. S., & Verdugo, M. A. (2008). The
conceptualization and measurement of quality of life: Implica-
tions for program planning and evaluation in the field of intel-
lectual disabilities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31,
181–190. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.02.001
Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx,
W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., … Yeager, M. H.
(2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and
systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., & Luckasson, R. (2004). American Association
on Mental Retardation’s definition, classification, and systems of
supports and its relation to international trends and issues in
J Intellect Dev Dis Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Manukau Institute of Technology on 10/07/14
the field of intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and
Practice in Intellectual Disability, 1, 136–146. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-1130.2004.04028.x
Schalock, R. L., Luckasson, R. A., & Shogren, K. A. (with Borth-
wick-Duffy, S., Bradley, V., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L.,
Craig, E. M., Gomez, S. C., … Yeager, M. H.) (2007). The
renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the change to
the term intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 45, 116–124. doi:10.1352/1934-9556(2007)
45[116:TROMRU]2.0.CO;2
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002). Handbook on quality of
life for human service practitioners. Washington, DC: American
Association on Mental Retardation.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (in press). A leadership guide to
For personal use only.
redefining intellectual and developmental disability organizations:
Eight successful change strategies. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Bonham, G. S., Fantova, F., &
van Loon, J. (2008). Enhancing personal outcomes: Organi-
zational strategies, guidelines, and examples. Journal of Policy
and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 276–285. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-1130.2007.00135.x
Schroeder, S. R., Gerry, M., Gertz, G., & Velazquez, F. (2002).
Final project report: Usage of the term “mental retardation”: Lan-
guage, image and public education. Lawrence, KS: Kansas Uni-
versity Center on Developmental Disabilities.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the
learning organization (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shogren, K. A., Bradley, V. J., Gomez, S. C., Yeager, M. H., &
Schalock, R. L. (with Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W. H. E.,
Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson, R. A.,
… Wehmeyer, M. L.) (2009). Public policy and the enhance-
ment of desired public policy outcomes for persons with intel-
lectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47,
307–319. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-47.4.307
Shogren, K. A., & Turnbull, H. R. (2010). Public policy and out-
comes for persons with intellectual disability: Extending and
expanding the public policy framework of the 11th edition of
Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of
Supports. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 375–
386. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-48.5.375
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Buchanan, C. L., & Lopez, S.
J. (2006). The application of positive psychology and self-de-
termination to research in intellectual disability: A content
analysis of 30 years of literature. Research & Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 31, 338–345.
Simeonsson, R. J., Granlund, M., & Bjorck-Akersson, E. (2006).
The concept and classification of mental retardation. In H. N.
What is intellectual disability? 237
Switzky & S. Greenspan (Eds.), What is mental retardation?
Ideas for an evolving disability in the 21st century (Rev. and
updated ed., pp. 247–266). Washington, DC: American Asso-
ciation on Mental Retardation.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human
intelligence. New York, NY: Penguin.
Summers, J. A., Poston, D. J., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J., Hoff-
man, L., Mannan, H., & Wang, M. (2005). Conceptualizing and
measuring family quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities
Research, 49, 777–783. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00751.x
Switzky, H. N., & Greenspan, S. (2006). Summary and conclu-
sion: Can so many diverse ideas be integrated? Multiparadig-
matic models of understanding mental retardation in the 21st
century. In H. N. Switzky & S. Greenspan (Eds.), What is
mental retardation: Ideas for an evolving disability in the 21st cen-
tury (Revised and updated ed., pp. 341–358). Washington,
DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Thompson, J. R., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Schalock, R.
L., Shogren, K. A., Snell, M. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (with
Borthwick-Duffy, S., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Gomez, S.
C., Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson, R. A., … Yeager, M. H.) (2009).
Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people
with intellectual disability. Intellectual andDevelopmental Disa-
bilities, 47, 135–146. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.135
Thompson, J. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008). Historical and legal
issues in developmental disabilities. In H. P. Parette & G. R.
Peterson-Karlan (Eds.), Research-based practices in developmen-
tal disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 13–42). Austin, TX: ProEd.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.un.org/
disabilities/convention
Van Loon, J. (2008). Aligning quality of life domains and indica-
tors with SIS data. In R. L. Schalock, J. R. Thompson, & M.
J. Tassé (Eds.), Relating Supports Intensity Scale information to
individual service plans (pp. 10–13). Retrieved from http://
www.siswebsite.org/cs/SISwhitepaper/Individualserviceplans
Vehmas, S. (2004). Ethical analysis of the concept of disability.
Mental Retardation, 42, 209–222. doi:10.1352/0047-
6765(2004)42 ⬍ 209:EAOTCO ⬎ 2.0.CO;2
Walker, S. P., Wachs, T. D., Gardner, J. M., Lozoff, B., Wasserman,
G. A., Pollitt, E., … the International Child Developmental
Steering Group. (2007). Child development: Risk factors for
adverse outcomes in developing countries. Lancet, 369, 145–
157. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60076-2
Walter, A. I., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2007).
Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research
projects: Design and application of an evaluation model. Eval-
uation and Program Planning, 30, 325–338. doi:10.1016/j.
evalprogplan.2007.08.002
Wehmeyer, M. L., Buntinx, W. H. E., Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson,
R. A., Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (with Borthwick-
Duffy, S., Bradley, V., Craig, E. M., Coulter, D. L., Gomez,
S. C., Reeve, A., … Yeager, M. H.) (2008). The intellectual
disability construct and its relation to human functioning.
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 311–318.
doi:10.1352/2008.46:311–318
World Health Organisation. (1993). International statistical clas-
sification of diseases and related health problems (10th ed.).
Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
World Health Organisation. (2001). International classification of
functioning, disability and health:ICF. Geneva, Switzerland:
Author.