Karrie A. Shogren

The Renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability

There is considerable and intense discussion in the field of intellectual disability/mental retardation about the construct of disability, how intellectual disability fits within the general construct of disability, and the use of the term intellectual disability (Glidden, 2006; Greenspan, 2006; MacMillan, Siperstein, & Leffert, 2006; Schalock & Luckasson, 2004; Switzky & Greenspan, 2006b). This discussion is occurring within the context of competing world views of the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of the conceptions of intellectual disability/mental retardation (Switzky & Greenspan, 2006a). Increasingly, the term intellectual disability is being used instead of mental retardation. This transition in terminology is exemplified by organization names (e.g., the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities—AAIDD, International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities, President’s Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities), journal titles, and published research (Parmenter, 2004; Schroeder, Gertz, & Velazquez, 2002). A number of questions have emerged with the increased use of the term intellectual disability:

Conceptualizing Supports and the Support Needs of People With Intellectual Disability

This is the third in a series of perspective articles (Schalock et al., 2007; Wehmeyer et al., 2008) from the Terminology and Classification Committee of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD). The purpose of these articles is to share our thoughts on critical issues associated with terminology, definition, and classification in the field of intellectual disability and to seek input from the field as we prepare the 11th edition of AAIDD’s Diagnosis, Classification, and System of Supports Manual (the working title). In the first article (Schalock et al., 2007), we explained the reasons for shifting from the term mental retardation to intellectual disability. Although the two terms cover the same population of individuals, we concluded that intellectual disability was the better term because it

Effects and implications of self-management for students with autism: a meta-analysis

Self-management for students With autism is important both as a management tool and as a means to enhance students quality of life by empoWering them to control their oWn behavior. This article reports the results of an examination of the efficacy of self-management for increasing appropriate behavior of children and youth With autism. Single-subject research using self-management of students With autism as an intervention Was synthesized and the impact Was analyzed across intervention and participants characteristics using the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) metric. Average PND values suggest that self-management interventions are an effective treatment for increasing the frequency of appropriate behavior of students With autism. Implications for further research extending the use and understanding of self-management procedures for students diagnosed With autism are discussed.

Examining Individual and Ecological Predictors of the Self-Determination of Students with Disabilities

This article examines the impact of multiple individual and ecological factors on the self-determination of students with learning disabilities, mild and moderate mental retardation, and other health impairments. Baseline data from a multistate, longitudinal research project evaluating interventions to promote self-determination were examined using structural equation modeling. The findings suggest that teachers viewed students capacity for self-determination differently based on level of cognitive impairment, but not students opportunities for self-determination. Capacity, opportunity, and transition empowerment predicted students self-reported level of self-determination, but the degree to which students were included in general education did not. Significant differences emerged in the pattern of predictive relationships, however, depending on the measure of self-determination utilized. Also discussed are implications for research and practice.

The Intellectual Disability Construct and Its Relation to Human Functioning

The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities’ (AAIDD) Terminology and Classification Committee has two primary purposes in publishing this Perspective: (a) to share our thinking about the construct underlying the term intellectual disability (henceforth the intellectual disability construct) and its relation to human functioning and (b) to ask for input from the field because the committee is preparing a proposal for the upcoming Definition, Classification and Systems of Supports manual, to be published in 2009 or 2010. The article has three sections. In the first section, we make a distinction between an operational definition, which operationalizes the intellectual disability construct and provides the basis for diagnosis and classification, and a constitutive definition, which explains the underlying construct and provides the basis for theory– model development and planning individualized supports. In the second section, we provide an historical overview of how the construct underlying the term mental retardation (henceforth, the mental retardation construct) differs from the construct underlying intellectual disability. In the third section, we describe the parameters to the proposed AAIDD theoretical framework of human functioning that reflects our current understanding of the multidimensionality of human functioning that underlies the intellectual disability construct and the significant role that individualized supports play in human functioning. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the benefits to the field that accrue from a clear understanding of both the differences between an operational and constitutive definition and the fundamental properties of the intellectual disability construct. Operational Versus Constitutive Definitions

Understanding the Construct of Self-Determination Examining the Relationship Between the Arc's Self-Determination Scale and the American Institutes for Research Self-Determination Scale

Since the early 1990s, attention has been focused on the importance of self-determination in the education of students with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to further our understanding of the construct of self-determination by examining the relationship between the Arcs Self-Determination Scale and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) Self-Determination Scale student and educator versions. Using structural equation modeling, we found that the theoretical structure of the Arcs Self-Determination Scale and the AIR Self-Determination–Student Scale was supported by the data, while the proposed theoretical structure of the AIR Self-Determination–Educator Scale was not. The analyses suggested that each of the measures of self-determination was measuring a different aspect of the self-determination construct (i.e., it was not possible to create a higher order factor comprising each of the assessments); thus issues related to the goals of the research and the underlying theoretical perspective of each measure must be considered when determining the most appropriate measure of self-determination in research and practice. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

The Application of Positive Psychology and Self-Determination to Research in Intellectual Disability: A Content Analysis of 30 Years of Literature

In recent decades, there have been shifts in the conceptualization of intellectual disability and increased attention has been directed toward the importance of identifying and capitalizing on the strengths and capabilities of people with intellectual disabilities as a means to promote meaningful participation, community inclusion, and quality of life outcomes. However, there are little data on the extent to which research in the field of intellectual disability has been influenced by these new conceptualizations. This paper reports the results of a content analysis of 30 years of literature that examines the degree to which research in the field has emphasized the strengths and capabilities of people with intellectual disabilities, as well as the degree to which this literature base has included constructs associated with positive psychology and self-determination. Our review found that there has been a shift toward research focusing on the capacities of people with intellectual disabilities. Additionally, there is a growing body of literature that focuses on constructs within the parameters of positive psychology, including self-determination. However, such research still represents a minority of the scholarship in the field.