INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD

2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

The Relation Between Intellectual Functioning and Adaptive

Behavior in the Diagnosis of Intellectual Disability
Marc J. Tassé, Ruth Luckasson, and Robert L. Schalock

Abstract
Intellectual disability originates during the developmental period and is characterized by significant
limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual,
social, and practical adaptive skills. In this article, we present a brief history of the diagnostic criteria
of intellectual disability for both the DSM-5 and AAIDD. The article also (a) provides an update of
the understanding of adaptive behavior, (b) dispels two thinking errors regarding mistaken temporal or
causal link between intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, (c) explains that there is a strong
correlational, but no causative, relation between intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, and
(d) asserts that once a question of determining intellectual disability is raised, both intellectual
functioning and adaptive behavior are assessed and considered jointly and weighed equally in the
diagnosis of intellectual disability. We discuss the problems created by an inaccurate statement that
appears in the DSM-5 regarding a causal link between deficits in intellectual functioning and adaptive
behavior and propose an immediate revision to remove this erroneous and confounding statement.
Key Words: intellectual disability; intellectual functioning; adaptive behavior; diagnosis; DSM-5;
definitions of intellectual disability; mental retardation

Although the term or name has changed over time, behavior showing that adaptive behavior as a whole
the definition of intellectual disability (ID) used over is composed of conceptual, social, and practical
the past 50 years or more has been quite consistent. adaptive skills; the second major advance is the
Specifically, an analysis of the U.S.-based defini- progress made in the formal standardized assessment
tions used since the 1950s shows that the three of adaptive behavior (Tassé et al., 2012).
essential elements of ID—limitations in intellectu- The current definition of intellectual disability
al functioning, limitations in adaptive behavior, promulgated by AAIDD is that ‘‘intellectual
and early age of onset—have not changed substan- disability is characterized by significant limitations
tially (Brown, 2007; Schalock, Luckasson, & both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive
Shogren, 2007). Although the three elements have behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and
not substantially changed, there have been minor practical adaptive skills. This disability originates
changes in the phrasing of the definition that have before age 18’’ (Schalock et al., 2010, p. 1).
occurred in successive manuals published by the Analogously, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
American Association on Intellectual and Devel- Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) defined
opmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and the American intellectual disability (intellectual developmental
Psychiatric Association (APA) as science and disorder) as ‘‘a disorder with onset during the
knowledge in these areas have advanced. developmental period that includes both intellec-
In this article, we focus on two scientific tual and adaptive behavior deficits in conceptual,
advances related to the construct of adaptive social, and practical domains’’, (American Psychi-
behavior and how these advances require the equal atric Association, APA, 2013, p. 33).
consideration of intellectual functioning and adap- For purposes of diagnosis, intellectual func-
tive behavior in the diagnosis of intellectual tioning is currently best conceptualized and cap-
disability. One major advance is the empirical tured by a general factor of intelligence, which is a
validation of the factor structure of adaptive general mental ability best represented by a full-

M. J. Tassé, R. Luckasson, and R. L. Schalock 381

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

scale or composite score (APA, 2013; Schalock et diagnostic criteria used to establish intellectual
al., 2010). Intelligence includes reasoning, plan- disability?’’ In addressing this key question, we (a)
ning, solving problems, thinking, comprehending provide an update of the understanding of adaptive
complex ideas, learning quickly, and learning from behavior; (b) dispel two thinking errors regarding
experience (Arvey et al., 1994; Gottfredson, 1997). mistaken temporal or causative relation between
The ‘‘significant limitations in intellectual func- intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior; (c)
tioning’’ criterion for a diagnosis of ID requires a explain that there is a strong correlational, but no
full-scale IQ score that is approximately two causal relation between intellectual functioning and
standard deviations below the mean, considering adaptive behavior; and (d) assert that once a
the standard error of measurement for the specific, question of whether a person has ID is raised, both
individually administered instruments used, and intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior are
the instruments’ psychometric properties. All other assessed, considered jointly, and weighed equally in
sources of measurement error, such as the Flynn the diagnosis of intellectual disability. Throughout
effect and practice effects, should also be consid- the article we emphasize strongly that the constructs
ered when interpreting test results. of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior and their
For purposes of diagnosis, adaptive behavior is assessment must be weighed equally and considered
the collection of conceptual, social, and practical jointly in the diagnosis of ID.
skills that have been learned and are performed by
people in their everyday lives (Schalock et al., Understanding Adaptive Behavior
2010). Measurement of adaptive behavior uses
When first proposed by AAIDD in their draft
individually administered instruments, as well as
version of the 5th edition of the Terminology &
other sources of relevant clinical information, and
Classification (T&C) manual (Heber, 1959), adap-
focuses on whether the person has significant
tive behavior was introduced as being composed of
limitations in one or more of the three adaptive
three principle elements: learning, social adjust-
skill areas (conceptual, social, or practical). Signif- ment, and maturation. AAIDD quickly subsumed
icant limitations in adaptive behavior are objec- these three elements into the broad construct of
tively established through the use of standardized adaptive behavior in the official version of the 5th
measures normed on the general population, edition of the T&C manual (Heber, 1961). For the
including people with disabilities and people next 40 years, the concept of adaptive behavior
without disabilities. Similar to the assessment of evolved from a single, largely undefined term to a
intellectual functioning, the ‘‘significant limita- measurable construct whose factor structure and
tions in adaptive behavior’’ criterion for a diagnosis measurement are now understood to include con-
of ID is an adaptive behavior score that is ceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills that
approximately two standard deviations below the have been learned and are performed in the
mean in one of the three adaptive skill areas, community by people in their everyday lives
considering the standard error of measurement for (Luckasson et al., 2002; Schalock et al., 2010;
the respective skill area and the instruments’ Thompson, McGrew, & Bruininks, 1999). Tassé and
psychometric properties. Interpretation of adaptive his colleagues (2012) have argued that Heber’s
behavior assessment results should consider respon- (1959) original proposal of the aforementioned three
dent reliability, whether present functioning is skill areas overlap perfectly with the current 3-factor
considered within the context of community model of adaptive behavior comprising conceptual,
environments and compared to same-age peers, as social, and practical skills.
well as all other sources of measurement error. With this accepted and empirically validated
With the better understanding of intellectual conceptualization, adaptive behavior can be con-
functioning and adaptive behavior as reflected in the sidered on an equal footing in terms of weight and
previous diagnostically related operational defini- metrics with intellectual functioning in the under-
tions, the field of ID is now in a better position to standing and diagnosis of ID (Schalock et al.,
address a question that sometimes arises in clinical 2012). Adaptive behavior is also uniquely able to
decisions and recommendations: ‘‘Is there a relation be used effectively to provide a framework for
between deficits in intellectual functioning and person-referenced education and habilitation goals
deficits in adaptive behavior, and if so, how should and individualized support strategies, direct atten-
the relation be expressed, and how does it affect the tion to an essential dimension of human function-

382 Relation Between IQ and Adaptive Behavior

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

ing, and serve as an independent variable in by Edgar Doll (Doll, 1936, 1953) and later evolved
outcomes evaluation (Luckasson & Schalock, into adaptive behavior as described initially by Heber
2013; Tassé, 2009; Tassé et al., 2012). (1959, 1961) and later by Tassé et al. (2012).

Overcoming Thinking Errors Causative

With the publication of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013),
Temporal the notion of causation has emerged as a second
Typically in the definitions of intellectual disability, a
thinking error. The DSM-5 replaced IQ scores with
form of the phrase ‘‘intellectual functioning’’ appears
level of adaptive behavior deficits as the metric to be
first. Unfortunately this has led some people to
used in determining the severity levels of intellectual
conclude incorrectly that significant limitations in
disability (e.g., mild, moderate, severe, and pro-
intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior should
found). In so doing, the DSM-5 justified this change
be considered sequentially. This thinking error leads
by arguing that adaptive behavior is a more salient
inaccurately to linear or sequential thinking that
and relevant construct than intellectual functioning
limitations in intellectual functioning is the primary
in predicting the intensity of supports needed (APA,
criterion of a diagnosis of ID, and that significant
2013). Although it appears that the DSM-5
limitations in adaptive behavior are secondary. There
emphasized the importance of the adaptive behavior
is a simple historical explanation for this thinking
error. The explanation is that since intellectual construct over intelligence, this was negated by an
functioning was initially better understood and able erroneous phrase. As stated in the DSM-5: ‘‘To meet
to be formally assessed earlier in the 1900s, the level diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability, the deficits in
of intellectual functioning became the fulcrum for the adaptive functioning must be directly related to the
diagnosis. It was during the 1930s, for example, that intellectual impairments described in Criterion A’’ (p.
mental testing greatly influenced both public policy 28). This phrase implied that deficits in adaptive
and clinical actions in the United States. Analo- behavior are caused by deficits in intellectual
gously, internationally, the use of ‘‘IQ’’ to diagnose functioning. With this added phrase, the DSM-5
individuals with intellectual disability was facilitated inadvertently created a fourth diagnostic criterion,
by the availability of ‘‘IQ tests’’ (Schalock, 2011), and one that is virtually impossible for clinicians to
the lack of comparable formal adaptive behavior implement and is unsupported by science. Our
scales, which did not appear until the late 1960s concern is that though a clinician can validly assess
(Nihira, 1999). Because intelligence was better the person’s functioning and establish the presence
defined, conveniently measured with standardized of significant limitations in intellectual functioning
tests and expressed as easily understood IQ scores, and and adaptive behavior, it is unclear how one would
listed first in most definitions of ID, it was go about establishing the causal link between the
understandable that deficits in intellectual function- two. It would probably be entirely speculative on the
ing erroneously became in people’s thoughts and part of the clinician to assert that the deficits in
actions the primary criterion used in ID diagnoses. adaptive behavior are directly related to the deficits in
Despite this historical overreliance on the intellectual functioning, or, conversely, that the
construct of intellectual functioning in the diagnostic deficits in intellectual functioning are directly related
process, there was an understanding that the sole to the deficits in adaptive behavior. Even with
reliance on intellectual functioning did not take into repeated testing over a lifespan, a clinician might be
account the skills and behaviors necessary for a able to document the onset of these deficits but
person to learn and adapt to societal expectations and would still be unable to assert with confidence that
demands. To this end, Tredgold (1937) referred to one caused the other. It is far more likely that the
the need to also measure ‘‘social incapacity’’ among deficits in intellectual functioning and adaptive
people diagnosed with intellectual disability. This behavior are in fact caused by a third independent
need for a more complete understanding of ID and its factor (e.g., brain development or injury).
valid diagnosis led to the search for a construct that The erroneous implication of causation is both
could measure the person’s ability to learn the skills an error in thinking and a notion not supported by
and behaviors necessary to adapt to societal expec- the evidence as reflected in published definitions of
tations and demands. Adaptive behavior was origi- mental retardation or intellectual disability over the
nally introduced in the form of ‘‘social competence’’ past five decades. Specifically, in Table 1 we provide

M. J. Tassé, R. Luckasson, and R. L. Schalock 383

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

Table 1
Definitions and Diagnostic Criteria of Intellectual Disability

Diagnostic System / Edition Definition of Intellectual Disability

AAMD DRAFT of 5th Edition (Heber, 1959) ‘‘Mental retardation refers to subaverage general
intellectual functioning which originates during the
developmental period and is associated with impairment
in one or more of the following: (1) maturation, (2)
learning, and (3) social adjustment.’’
AAMD 5th Edition (Heber, 1961) ‘‘Mental retardation refers to subaverage general
intellectual functioning which originates during the
developmental period and is associated with impairment
in adaptive behavior.’’
AAMD 6th Edition (Grossman, 1973) ‘‘Mental Retardation refers to significantly subaverage
general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with
deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested during the
developmental period.’’
AAMD 7th Edition (Grossman, 1977) ‘‘Mental Retardation refers to significantly subaverage
general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with
deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested during the
developmental period.’’
AAMD 8th Edition (Grossman, 1983) ‘‘Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage
general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with
deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the
developmental period.’’
AAMR 9th Edition (Luckasson et al., 1992) ‘‘Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in
present functioning. It is characterized by significantly
subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently
with related limitations in two or more of the following
applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care,
home living, social skills, community use, self-direction,
health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and
work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18.’’
AAMR 10th Edition (Luckasson et al., 2002) ‘‘Mental retardation is a disability characterized by
significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and
in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social,
and practical adaptive skills. This disability originates
before age 18.’’
AAIDD 11th Edition (Schalock et al., 2010) ‘‘Intellectual disability is characterized by significant
limitations in intellectual functioning and in adaptive
behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and
practical adaptive skills. This disability originates before
age 18.’’
(Table 1 continued)

384 Relation Between IQ and Adaptive Behavior

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

Table 1
Continued

Diagnostic System / Edition Definition of Intellectual Disability

DSM (APA, 1952) ‘‘Here will be classified those cases presenting primarily a
defect of intelligence existing since birth, without demon-
strated organic brain disease or known prenatal cause.
This group will include only those cases formerly known
as familial or ‘‘idiopathic’’ mental deficiencies. The
degree of intelligence defect will be specified as mild,
moderate, or severe, and the current I.Q. rating, with the
name of the test used, will be added to the diagnosis. In
general, mild refers to functional (vocational)
impairment, as would be expected with I.Q.’s of
approximately 70 to 85; moderate is used for functional
impairment requiring special training and guidance, such
as would be expected with I.Q.’s of about 50-70; severe
refers to the functional impairment requiring custodial or
complete protective care, as would be expected with
I.Q.’s below 50.’’
DSM-II (APA, 1968) ‘‘Mental retardation refers to subnormal general intellectual
functioning which originates during the developmental
period and is associated with impairment of either
learning and social adjustment or maturation, or both.’’
DSM-III (APA, 1980) ‘‘The essential features are: (1) significantly subaverage
general intellectual functioning, (2) resulting in, or
associated with, deficits or impairments in adaptive
behavior, (3) with onset before the age of 18. The
diagnosis is made regardless of whether or not there is a
coexisting mental or physical disorder.’’
DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) ‘‘The essential features of this disorder are: (1) significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning, accompanied
by (2) significant deficits or impairments in adaptive
functioning, with (3) onset before age of 18. The
diagnosis is made regardless of whether or not there is a
coexisting physical or other mental disorder.’’
DSM-IV (APA, 1994) ‘‘The essential feature of Mental Retardation is significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning (Criterion A)
that is accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive
functioning in at least two of the following skill areas:
communication, self-care, home living, social/
interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-
direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure,
health, and safety (Criterion B). The onset must occur
before age 18 years (Criterion C).’’

(Table 1 continued)

M. J. Tassé, R. Luckasson, and R. L. Schalock 385

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

Table 1
Continued

Diagnostic System / Edition Definition of Intellectual Disability

DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) ‘‘The essential feature of Mental Retardation is
significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning
(Criterion A) that is accompanied by significant
limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the
following skill areas: communication, self-care, home
living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community
resources, self-direction, functional academic skills,
work, leisure, health, and safety (Criterion B). The
onset must occur before age 18 years (Criterion C).
Mental retardation has many different etiologies and
may be seen as a final common pathway of various
pathological processes that affect the functioning of the
central nervous system.’’
DSM-5 (APA, 2013) ‘‘Intellectual disability (intellectual developmental
disorder) is a disorder with onset during the
developmental period that includes both intellectual
and adaptive functioning deficits in conceptual, social,
and practical domains. The following three criteria
must be met:
A. Deficits in intellectual functions, such as reasoning,
problem solving, planning, abstract thinking,
judgement, academic learning, and learning from
experience, confirmed by both clinical assessment
and individualized, standardized intelligence testing.
B. Deficits in adaptive functioning that result in failure
to meet developmental and sociocultural standards
for personal independence and social responsibility.
Without ongoing support, the adaptive deficits limit
functioning in one or more activities of daily life,
such as communication, social participation, and
independent living, across multiple environments,
such as home, school, work, and community.
C. Onset of intellectual and adaptive deficits during the
developmental period.’’
Note. AAMD and AAMR are now American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD). DSM ¼
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

the full text of the published definitions of mental worthy is the slight variation in conjunctions. For
retardation/intellectual disability, going back to AAIDD, the conjunctions used have been ‘‘asso-
the 1959/1961 definitions for the American ciated with’’ (Heber, 1959, 1961), ‘‘existing
Association for Intellectual and Developmental concurrently with’’ (Grossman, 1973, 1977,
Disabilities (AAIDD, then American Association 1983; Luckasson et al., 1992), and ‘‘both in . . .
on Mental Deficiency) and 1952 for the DSM as expressed in’’ (Luckasson et al., 2002; Schalock
(American Psychiatric Association, 1952). Note- et al., 2010). For the DSM, the conjunctions used

386 Relation Between IQ and Adaptive Behavior

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

have been ‘‘associated with’’ (APA, 1968), 3. A complete understanding of human func-
‘‘resulting in, or associated with’’ (APA, 1980), tioning requires an understanding of the
‘‘accompanied by’’ (APA, 1987, 1994, 2000), and person’s typical performance, which is the
‘‘that includes both’’ (APA, 2013). Throughout case in the assessment of adaptive behavior,
the past 50þ years of definitions promulgated by not maximum performance, which is the case
both AAIDD and APA, any relation between in the assessment of intellectual functioning
intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior has (Luckasson & Schalock, 2015).
repeatedly and consistently been described as a 4. A variety of factors can be used as a basis for
correlational relation (e.g. ‘‘associated with,’’ ‘‘exist- subgroup classification, including level of
ing concurrently,’’ ‘‘including both’’), and not a causal support needs, adaptive behavior, or intel-
relation. In fact, over the past half-century the only lectual functioning (Schalock & Luckasson,
time there was any mention of one construct 2015). AAIDD has long urged that various
causing or resulting in the other in the diagnostic classification systems be developed to ensure
and classification systems for intellectual disability a meaningful subgrouping of individuals
was in the third edition of the DSM (APA, 1980). according to criteria that are relevant to
This statement was immediately abandoned and the purpose of the classification (Luckasson
changed in the revision of the DSM-III to et al., 1992, 2002; Schalock et al., 2010).
‘‘concurrent deficits or impairments in adaptive DSM-5 followed this established trend in
behavior’’ (see: DSM-III-R; APA, 1987). We proposing that the person’s level of adaptive
recommend an immediate comparative revision behavior or level of support needs be used to
to the DSM-5 to correct this thinking error. determine classification levels for ID (DSM-
5; APA, 2013).
Equal Weight and Joint Consideration 5. A valid diagnosis of ID requires the clinician
to synthesize/integrate assessment of intel-
There are no published studies supporting the lectual functioning and adaptive behavior
notion of a causal link between intelligence and
while following these two standards of
adaptive behavior. Because there have been
clinical judgment (Schalock & Luckasson,
studies (see Tassé et al., 2012) documenting the
2014; Luckasson & Schalock, 2015): (a)
correlational relationship between intellectual
clinical judgment employs research-based
functioning and adaptive behavior, and because
best practices in diagnosis, classification,
the constructs of intellectual functioning and
and planning supports; and (b) clinical
adaptive behavior and their assessment are better
judgment incorporates the multidimension-
understood and comparable in terms of the metrics
ality of human functioning in diagnosis,
used in their assessment, both must be weighed
classification, and planning supports. A
equally and considered jointly in the diagnosis of ID.
recognition of the important role of clinical
The ordering of the presentation of these two
judgment is also emphasized in the DSM-5
criteria in all diagnostic systems is merely
diagnostic criteria.
historical and should not be interpreted as a
6. The definitions of ID, going back more than
sequential ordering or steps in the diagnostic
50 years to the present, confirm that any
process. The following empirical findings and best
relationship between intellectual functioning
clinical practices support this position.
and adaptive behavior has always been corre-
1. The relation between intellectual functioning lational. There is no empirical evidence to
and adaptive behavior has been expressed support inserting a causal interpretation be-
historically and consistently as correlational, tween the two. A recent error in DSM-5 to the
not causative (see Table 1). contrary, suggesting there is a possible causal
2. Demonstrating a causative relationship be- relationship, is unsupported by either science
tween these two criteria for a diagnosis of ID is or clinical practice, and would erroneously add
clinically impossible and irrelevant, and at- a new fourth diagnostic element to the
tempting to do so would mistakenly add a definition of ID that would be impossible to
fourth criterion to the diagnostic process. establish clinically.

M. J. Tassé, R. Luckasson, and R. L. Schalock 387

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

Summary and Conclusion American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diag-

nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
In summary, in this article we have provided an (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
updated understanding of adaptive behavior, dis- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diag-
pelled two thinking errors regarding the temporal
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
or causative relation between intellectual function-
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
ing and adaptive behavior, explained that there is a
Arvey, R. D., Bourchard, T. J., Jr., Carroll, J.B.,
strong correlational but no causal relation between
intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, and Cattell, R. B., Cohen, D. B., Davis, R. V. . . .
asserted that when a question of ID determination Willerman, L. (1994, December 13). Main-
is raised, both intellectual functioning and adaptive stream science on intelligence. Wall Street
behavior are assessed and considered jointly and Journal, p. B1.
weighed equally in determining a diagnosis of Brown, I. (2007). What is mean by intellectual and
intellectual disability. developmental disabilities? In I. Brown & M.
In conclusion, the constructs of intellectual Percy (Eds.), A comprehensive guide to intellec-
functioning and adaptive behavior and their tual and developmental disabilities (pp. 3–15).
assessment must be weighed equally and considered Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
jointly in the diagnosis of ID. Correlation does not Doll, E. A. (1936). The Vineland Social Maturity
mean causation. There is no prioritization or Scale. Vineland, NJ: Vineland Training School.
prescribed sequence for these two criteria required Doll, E. A. (1953). Measurement of Social Maturity:
for a diagnosis of intellectual disability. As co- A manual for the Vineland Social Maturity Scale.
equals, the diagnostic process can begin with
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Ser-
intellectual functioning or adaptive behavior. Once
vices, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11349-000
a question of whether a person has ID is raised, the
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on
diagnostic process can begin with the assessment of
adaptive behavior or intellectual functioning; both intelligence. An editorial of 52 signatories,
must be considered jointly and weighed equally. history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1),
Any attempt to shortcut the evaluation/assessment 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
process by conducting only half the needed 2896(97)90011-8
assessment is inconsistent with professional respon- Grossman, H. J. (Ed.) (1973). Manual on terminol-
sibility and established clinical practice. ogy and classification in mental retardation.
Washington, DC: American Association on
Mental Deficiency.
Grossman, H. J. (Ed.) (1977). Manual on terminol-
References ogy and classification in mental retardation.
Washington, DC: American Association on
American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diag- Mental Deficiency.
nostic and statistical manual for mental disorders. Grossman, H. J. (Ed.) (1983). Classification in
Washington, DC: Author. mental retardation. Washington, DC: American
American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diag- Association on Mental Deficiency.
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders Heber, R. (1959). A manual on terminology and
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. classification in mental retardation. American
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diag- Journal of Mental Deficiency [A monograph
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders supplement], 64, 1–111.
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Heber, R. (1961). A manual on terminology and
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diag- classification in mental retardation (2nd ed.).
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders American Journal of Mental Deficiency [A
(3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author. monograph supplement], 66, 1–109.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diag- Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W.
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Reeve,
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. A. . . . Tassé, M. J. (2002). Mental retardation:

388 Relation Between IQ and Adaptive Behavior

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

Definition, classification, and systems of supports Washington DC: American Association on

(10th ed.). Washington, DC: American Asso- Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
ciation on Mental Retardation. Schalock, R. L., & Luckasson, R. (2014). Clinical
Luckasson, R., Coulter, D. L., Polloway, E. A., judgment (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Ameri-
Reiss, S., Schalock, R. L., Snell, M. E. . . . can Association on Intellectual and Develop-
Stark, J. A. (1992). Mental retardation: Defini- mental Disabilities.
tion, classification, and systems of supports (9th Schalock, R. L., & Luckasson, R. (2015). A
ed.). Washington, DC: American Association systematic approach to subgroup classification
on Mental Retardation. in intellectual disability. Intellectual and Devel-
Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L. (2013). Defining opmental Disabilities, 53, 358–366. http://dx.
and applying a functionality approach to doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-53.5.358
intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Schalock R. L., Luckasson, R., & Shogren, K. A.
Disability Research, 57, 657–668. http://dx.doi. (2007). The renaming of mental retardation:
org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01575.x Understanding the change to the term intel-
Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L. (2015). Standards lectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental
to guide the use of clinical judgment in the Disabilities, 45, 116–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.
field of intellectual disability. Intellectual and 1352/1934-9556(2007)45[116:TROMRU]2.0.
Developmental Disabilities, 53, 240–251. http:// CO;2
dx.doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-53.3.240 Tassé, M. J. (2009). Adaptive behavior assessment
Nihira, K. (1999). Adaptive behavior: A historical and the diagnosis of mental retardation in
overview. In R. L. Schalock (Ed.), Adaptive capital cases. Applied Neuropsychology, 16,
behavior and its measurement: Implications for the 114–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
field of mental retardation (pp. 7–14). Wash- 09084280902864451
ington, DC: American Association on Mental Tassé, M. J., Schalock, R. L., Balboni, G., Bersani,
Retardation. H. A. Jr., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A. S.Spreat, . . .
Schalock, R. L. (2011). International perspectives Zhang, D. (2012). The construct of adaptive
on intellectual disability. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), behavior: Its conceptualization, measurement,
Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and use in the field of intellectual disability.
and perspectives (pp. 312–328). New York, NY: American Journal on Intellectual and Develop-
Wiley-Blackwell.
mental Disabilities, 117, 291–303. http://dx.doi.
Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Bradley,
org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.4.291
V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig,
Thompson, J. T., McGrew, K., & Bruininks, R. H.
E. M., Gomez, S. C., Lachapelle, Y., Luck-
(1999). Adaptive behavior and maladaptive
asson, R., Reeve, A., Shogren, K. A., Snell, M.
behavior: Functional and structural character-
E., Spreat, S., Tassé, M. J., Thompson, J. R.,
istics. In R. L. Schalock (Ed.), Adaptive
Verdugo-Alonso, M. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., &
behavior and its measurement: Implications for
Yeager, M. H. (2010). Intellectual disability:
the field of mental retardation (pp. 15–42).
Definition, classification, and systems of supports
Washington, DC: American Association on
(11th ed.). Washington DC: American Asso-
Mental Retardation.
ciation on Intellectual and Developmental
Tredgold, A. F. (1937). A textbook of mental
Disabilities.
deficiency (6th ed.). Baltimore, MD: William
Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Bradley, V.
Wood and Company.
J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E.
M., Gomez, S. C., Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson, R.,
Reeve, A., Shogren, K. A., Snell, M. E., Spreat,
Received 8/31/2016; accepted 9/2/2016.
S., Tassé, M. J., Thompson, J. R., Verdugo-
Alonso, M. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Yeager, M.
H. (2012). Users guide to intellectual disability: We thank Wesley R. Barnhart for his assistance in
Definition, classification, and systems of supports. locating many of the previous editions of the

M. J. Tassé, R. Luckasson, and R. L. Schalock 389

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2016, Vol. 54, No. 6, 381–390 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381

AAIDD Terminology & Classification manuals Robert L. Schalock, Hastings College, Department
and DSM. of Psychology.

Correspondence concerning this article should be

Authors:
Marc J. Tassé, The Ohio State University, addressed to Marc J. Tassé, The Ohio State
Nisonger Center, Department of Psychology & University, Nisonger Center UCEDD, 1581 Dodd
Psychiatry; Ruth Luckasson, University of New Drive, Columbus, OH 43210 (e-mail: marc.tasse@
Mexico, Department of Special Education; and osumc.edu).

390 Relation Between IQ and Adaptive Behavior