There has been a significant transformation in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) over the last 5 decades. Although this transformation has profoundly influenced multiple stakeholders, the field is currently at a critical juncture and facing a number of social and political challenges. Given the relevance of the question, “where is the field of IDD and where do we go,” the present article describes the field's transformation, and suggests future action steps to facilitate and sustain the transformation. The seven action steps discussed in the article relate to using precise terminology, incorporating a functional and holistic approach to IDD, embracing the supports model and evidence-based practices, implementing outcome evaluation, empowering individuals and families, understanding better the multidimensional properties of context, and incorporating an explicit notion of professional responsibility.

Challenges in collecting comprehensive health surveillance data on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are numerous. A number of important issues and strategies are discussed in the articles contained in this special issue of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities . In this article, we focus on the advances and tools available in the area of technology. We explore a number of possible sources including accessing big data such as analyzing health information contained in Medicaid and Medicare health databases. We also discuss some of the possibilities afforded to us by complementing Medicaid/Medicare database information with health information available in the myriad of electronic health records. Lastly, we explore other technologies available that might yield valuable health supports and information, including wearable devices, remote supports and other smart home technologies, telehealth and telepsychiatry, as well as looking at ways to access other technologies that collect health information (e.g., glucometer, health apps, connected exercise devices, etc.).

This article describes a holistic theoretical framework that can be used to explain intellectual disability (ID) and organize relevant information into a usable roadmap to guide understanding and application. Developing the framework involved analyzing the four current perspectives on ID and synthesizing this information into a holistic theoretical framework. Practices consistent with the framework are described, and examples are provided of how multiple stakeholders can apply the framework. The article concludes with a discussion of the advantages and implications of a holistic theoretical approach to ID.

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.

This study used data from the National Core Indicators (NCI) Survey to derive an empirically validated measurement model for social outcomes and associated constructs for both individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and individuals with other disabilities. Items consistent with the survey structure of the NCI were selected as initial indicators of the latent constructs Social Relationships, Community Inclusion, and Opportunity for Choice in factor analyses. Results yielded a novel factor structure that is different from the original NCI survey structure. Three factors emerged as a result of these analyses: Personal Control, Social Determination, and Social Participation and Relationships. The factor structure of each of these constructs was consistent although not identical across individuals with ASD and individuals with developmental disabilities other than ASD.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is in the process of seeking input from professional stakeholder groups and consumers regarding the draft proposals of the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD–11). The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) convened a small group of distinguished interdisciplinary expert professionals in intellectual disability to review the ICD–11 proposal regarding revisions of the condition previously known as “mental retardation.” This article presents the recommendations made by the AAIDD to the WHO Secretariat regarding the name, definition, diagnostic guidelines, and classification of the condition known today as intellectual disability.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is in the process of developing the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD–11). Part of this process includes replacing mental retardation with a more acceptable term to identify the condition. The current international consensus appears to be replacing mental retardation with intellectual disability. This article briefly presents some of the issues involved in changing terminology and the constraints and conventions that are specific to the ICD.

A systematic approach for addressing the support needs of persons with mental retardation and related developmental disabilities is presented and a new scale to measure individual differences in support needs described. The process employed in developing the scale is explained, including the establishment of a typology of support areas that was drawn from a review of the professional literature, a validation process using Q-sort methodology, and a pilot field test. Critical issues and practical challenges associated with efforts to measure and address the support needs of individuals are discussed. Editor in charge: Steven J. Taylor