How IQ testing contributes to an intellectual disability diagnosis
An IQ test contributes evidence about intellectual functioning in an evaluation for intellectual disability. It does not establish the diagnosis by itself. A defensible diagnosis brings together individually administered cognitive assessment, a separate appraisal of everyday adaptive functioning, and evidence that the limitations originated during the developmental period. A score near 70 has clinical significance because it is near two standard deviations below the conventional population mean of 100, yet its meaning depends on measurement uncertainty, the person’s opportunities to learn, linguistic and sensory accessibility, and the wider developmental record. AAIDD and the American Psychiatric Association emphasize this integrated interpretation.
For a reader asking whether an IQ of 68, 72, or 75 means intellectual disability, the scientifically sound answer starts with three questions: Was the score obtained on an appropriate, valid assessment? Are there significant limitations in conceptual, social, or practical everyday functioning that are connected to the intellectual limitations? Did those limitations emerge during development? Those questions require qualified clinical evaluation, not a numerical lookup. The aim of assessment is also constructive: to describe strengths, accessible learning conditions, and supports that make participation possible.
What an IQ score measures in this clinical setting
Contemporary IQ tests estimate aspects of general intellectual performance from tasks involving reasoning, problem solving, acquired knowledge, working memory, visual-spatial processing, or processing efficiency. A standardized score indicates the individual’s performance relative to a specified age-matched normative sample under the test’s prescribed conditions. It is an estimate anchored to the instrument, edition, norming population, and administration. For a broader account of the construct of intelligence and test design, see IQ: What Intelligence Quotient Measures and What It Means; this article focuses on intellectual disability decisions.
Many widely used intelligence scales report composite scores on a metric with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. On that conventional metric, 85 is one standard deviation below the mean and 70 is two standard deviations below it. These are statistical reference points, not steps on a ladder of human worth or exhaustive descriptions of learning potential. The particular instrument may use its own composite structure, norms, valid age range, and interpretive rules. A low observed score must therefore be considered alongside the actual subtests completed, behavior during assessment, developmental history, and the quality of the standardization sample.
Composite IQ, index scores, and task-level performance
A full-scale or overall IQ score summarizes multiple tasks, but individual cognitive profiles can be uneven. A marked gap between language-mediated and visual or nonverbal tasks may make the composite less representative of the person’s day-to-day reasoning. Speeded tasks are especially sensitive to motor limitations, visual difficulties, attention, and fatigue. Conversely, a single stronger nonverbal index cannot by itself exclude a generalized developmental condition. Clinical interpretation examines why components diverge, whether composites remain psychometrically interpretable, and which findings are reproducible across appropriate methods. The American Psychiatric Association explicitly notes that differing subtest scores require clinical judgment.
What standardized, age-normed, and individually administered mean
Standardization refers to controlled administration and scoring procedures; age norms compare the test taker with a reference group of comparable age; individual administration lets a qualified examiner observe comprehension, engagement, and barriers that affect performance. The value of an IQ estimate depends on the extent to which the norming group, test language, test demands, and permitted accommodations fit the person assessed. A score produced by an online quiz, a casually translated test, or an instrument outside its validated age range cannot substitute for a properly selected clinical measure.
IQ 70 and 75: understanding the diagnostic range
The AAIDD defining criteria describe an IQ score around 70, or as high as approximately 75, as a possible indication of significant limitations in intellectual functioning. The range reflects the need to take measurement uncertainty seriously. It does not create a universal diagnostic rule under which everyone at 75 qualifies or everyone at 76 does not. The AAIDD clinical FAQs describe intellectual limitations in relation to a score approximately two or more standard deviations below the mean on an appropriately normed test, interpreted with clinical judgment and potential error sources.
Because most familiar IQ scales use a standard deviation of 15, a score of 70 is located around the lower 2.3% of the reference distribution. A score of 75 is closer to the lower 5%. Those percentile positions describe the standardization distribution; they are not probabilities that the particular person has intellectual disability. Diagnostic probability depends on independent adaptive evidence, developmental onset, and alternative explanations. It is particularly important to avoid treating 70–75 as an automatic diagnosis or as a formula that replaces the test manual’s own confidence interval.
What do IQ scores of 65, 70, 72, and 80 mean?
A score of 65 generally provides substantial evidence of low measured intellectual functioning if the test is valid for the individual, but a diagnosis still requires the remaining criteria. A score of 70 falls close to the familiar two-standard-deviation reference point. A score of 72 sits within a range where a confidence interval and a detailed adaptive assessment may change the clinical interpretation. A score of 80 is above the typical diagnostic reference range and prompts careful review of why notable adaptive difficulties are occurring, while unusual testing limitations, developmental evidence, or discrepant methods may warrant further assessment. Each illustration is an interpretive scenario, not a diagnosis for an actual person.
Why no single cutoff can carry the clinical decision
IQ and adaptive behavior are related, but they measure different parts of functioning. The analysis by Tassé, Luckasson, and Schalock (2016) rejects the assumption that low IQ automatically causes or establishes a particular level of adaptive limitation. A person may demonstrate substantially lower skills in some everyday domains than the cognitive score would suggest, while another may function more effectively through experience, accessible environments, and sustained support. For intellectual disability diagnosis, the two areas of evidence must be gathered and considered together.
Measurement uncertainty: standard error and confidence intervals
Every observed test score contains measurement uncertainty. The standard error of measurement, usually abbreviated SEM, summarizes the expected variability in scores arising from imperfections in test reliability. It is derived for a given instrument and may depend on age, score range, and reporting method. A confidence interval places a statistically informed range around an obtained score under the test’s assumptions. The interval is not a guarantee, and it must be read in the test manual rather than inferred from a universal number of IQ points.
A clinician reviewing an observed IQ of 72 should report the instrument, edition, applicable confidence interval, and reliability considerations before judging whether the person has significant intellectual limitations. An obtained score of 69 and an obtained score of 72 can have overlapping intervals; it would be indefensible to claim that the first proves disability and the second disproves it. Scores close to a boundary require greater scrutiny of corroborating evidence. The test’s uncertainty does not mean scores are arbitrary; it defines the precision with which their meaning can be stated.
Measurement error and invalid measurement are different problems
Routine random measurement error is anticipated by the instrument’s reliability estimates and standard error. An assessment conducted in an unfamiliar language, with inappropriate instructions, after severe sleep loss, or in the presence of an unaccommodated sensory impairment raises an additional question of validity: did the test meaningfully sample the intended abilities? No confidence interval can repair a fundamentally inappropriate assessment. Clinicians therefore separate the numerical precision of a valid score from the more basic question of whether a numerical score can be interpreted at all.
Norms, test editions, and the Flynn effect
IQ results depend on the population and time period used to construct norms. When population test performance shifts over generations, an older test edition can yield systematically different scores from a recently normed edition. The phenomenon commonly called the Flynn effect was examined in a large meta-analysis by Trahan and colleagues (2014); it reported average historical gains, with substantial heterogeneity across tests and comparisons. The evidence supports attention to norm age. It does not justify applying one automatic point subtraction to every individual score.
An evaluator should identify the precise test edition and when its norms were collected, follow the publisher’s current interpretive guidance, and account for population and cross-test comparability when old reports are reviewed. A childhood IQ result and an adult IQ result may differ because of changes in norms, instruments, testing conditions, developmental skills, and true performance. Documentary consistency should be sought through the original records rather than converting one historical number into a present-day label. These considerations matter especially when an older result has lasting consequences for access to services.
Floor effects at the lower end of IQ testing
A floor effect occurs when an instrument cannot distinguish meaningful performance differences below its lowest available standard score. Two people who solve very different numbers or kinds of test items may receive the same minimum scaled score, and the apparent uniformity can flatten their cognitive profiles. In a study of children with fragile X syndrome, Hessl and colleagues (2009) documented prominent floor effects in commonly used standardized subtest scores and explored a transformation of raw-score data to recover differences. These findings concern the instruments and sampled populations studied; the size of the problem varies by measure.
Sansone and colleagues (2014) investigated low-end score limitations using Stanford–Binet Fifth Edition data from individuals with fragile X syndrome and autistic participants. Their alternative deviation scoring recovered differences masked by conventional scaled-score floors and was associated with improved explanatory value for selected external measures. This is a valuable psychometric research result, but a research-derived scoring transformation is not automatically interchangeable with a publisher’s licensed clinical norms or with an official diagnostic cutoff. Qualified clinicians should consult current test-specific procedures and report floor limitations transparently.
Why severe intellectual limitations may require more observation
At very low levels of performance, a conventional IQ score may cease to distinguish degrees of intellectual functioning adequately. The WHO ICD-11 clinical requirements recognize the greater role of clinical evaluation and adaptive-function indicators where suitable standardized testing cannot provide a valid differentiation. Detailed observation of communication, learning, daily living activities, and environmental supports then carries more information than an apparent difference between two floor-level IQ scores. This approach also helps prevent sensory or motor access barriers from being mistaken for absent cognitive competence.
Adaptive functioning is an independent diagnostic requirement
Adaptive functioning describes learned skills used to meet everyday personal and social demands. Conceptual skills encompass practical language, literacy, understanding of money and time, and self-direction. Social skills include interpersonal judgment, social understanding, communication, and recognizing risk. Practical skills include personal care, home routines, health and safety, community participation, and work-related tasks. The AAIDD definition and ASHA clinical guidance emphasize evaluating these domains in the person’s actual life settings.
Adaptive behavior is generally assessed through standardized interviews or rating instruments, developmental and educational records, and informed descriptions from people who know the individual in more than one setting. Instruments often used for these purposes include the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, and the Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale. Each instrument has distinct administration rules and normative properties. The central clinical question is how a person performs expected activities given typical opportunities and supports, while the findings also help identify achievable goals.
Why IQ and adaptive scores can disagree
The relationship between measured cognition and everyday behavior is influenced by practice, expectations, accommodations, language access, physical health, family resources, instructional opportunity, and context. Low adaptive scores may reflect co-occurring autism, mobility limitations, anxiety, environmental deprivation, or language barriers; their presence calls for analysis of causation and fit. Likewise, a person with significant intellectual limitations may acquire particular everyday skills through systematic teaching and consistent support. Tassé and colleagues (2016) describe intellectual ability and adaptive behavior as distinct and jointly necessary diagnostic dimensions.
Support needs and diagnostic severity
DSM-5-TR bases the severity specification of intellectual developmental disorder on adaptive functioning across conceptual, social, and practical domains, as summarized by the APA Dictionary of Psychology. ICD-11 descriptions consider intellectual and adaptive levels together, with greater reliance on behavior when testing is not feasible; their detailed formulation is set out in the WHO clinical manual. The systems therefore share central diagnostic requirements but do not use completely interchangeable severity procedures. Moreover, the level or duration of support a person receives is shaped by environment, health, accessibility, and local services, which cannot be compressed into an IQ number.
How a comprehensive clinical assessment is conducted
A well-designed evaluation begins with the referral question and informed agreement about how information will be used. The evaluator reviews early development, learning history, language exposure, educational access, medical or neurologic concerns, and previous testing. A psychometric assessment is selected for the individual’s age and communication profile. Qualified professionals examine the full pattern of results, behavioral observations, and reliability of conclusions, then administer an appropriate adaptive behavior evaluation and gather corroborating evidence of developmental onset. The process often involves psychology, developmental medicine, educational specialists, speech-language pathology, and people chosen by the individual or family.
Test selection and examiner qualifications
The most suitable instrument is one whose intended age range, normative population, language, tasks, and practical demands fit the referral question. Common examples of individually administered measures include age-appropriate Wechsler scales, the Stanford–Binet, and selected nonverbal cognitive measures; no single named brand is the universal default. Examiners must be trained in administration, scoring, interpretation, and the limitations of their methods. The instrument’s current manual and professional assessment standards govern score reporting. Practical adaptations should preserve meaningful participation while documenting whether standardized norms still apply.
Developmental history and corroborating records
Developmental onset cannot be established by a low adult IQ score alone. Childhood school records, pediatric developmental notes, prior assessments, accounts from family members or caregivers, and evidence of adaptive challenges at relevant ages may help reconstruct the trajectory. A person who first shows impaired cognition after a stroke, acute neurologic illness, or emerging neurodegenerative disorder needs a different diagnostic formulation. An adult can receive an intellectual disability diagnosis for the first time if reliable evidence shows that the qualifying intellectual and adaptive limitations were present during development.
Interpreting several tests and discrepant outcomes
When scores disagree across scales, clinicians first examine test editions, age norms, linguistic load, motor and sensory demands, testing environment, fatigue, response style, and the confidence intervals attached to each score. They also ask whether the instruments sampled comparable abilities. Averaging unlike IQ numbers or selecting the lowest score to obtain an eligibility label is not a principled method. A narrative synthesis can be more clinically faithful than a single numerical estimate, especially where validity conditions differ. Retesting is considered when it answers a specific unresolved question and its benefits outweigh practice effects, burden, and the risk of redundant assessment.
Culture, language, disability access, and fairness
An IQ test can be standardized and still be inappropriate for a particular individual. Language exposure, education quality, migration experience, literacy opportunity, and cultural expectations about test-taking may change measured performance. ASHA’s cultural-responsiveness guidance warns that norm-referenced results cannot be assumed valid when the examinee is inadequately represented in the norming population. Its multilingual assessment guidance also emphasizes that translation can invalidate standardized score interpretation. A nonverbal instrument reduces some language demands but does not become culture-free; instructions, conventions, attention, prior experience, and motor or visual demands continue to matter.
Communication and augmentative access
When speech is limited, the assessment team should distinguish understanding from expressive output and consider accessible response modes. People using augmentative and alternative communication may need demonstrations, response alternatives, or extended opportunities to show abilities. The examiner should specify whether accommodations are permitted within the test’s published procedures and whether modified administration allows norm-referenced scores. Rich qualitative descriptions of what the person could do under accessible conditions can be more informative than an artificially depressed standardized number. Speech-language clinicians contribute evidence on receptive language, pragmatics, and communication supports.
Vision, hearing, motor function, and medical conditions
Hearing loss can undermine verbal instructions; visual impairment can make picture or symbol tasks inaccessible; motor disabilities can depress timed or manipulation-heavy scores; epilepsy, medication effects, poor sleep, and pain may disrupt attention or performance. When these are relevant, the clinical report records the barrier, any adjustment, and its effect on interpretation. Low performance arising mainly from an access barrier must not automatically be attributed to low intellectual capacity. [ASHA’s intellectual disability guidance]({ASHA}) supports multidisciplinary assessment with attention to communication, sensory, motor, cultural, and contextual dimensions.
Fair interpretation without erasing actual difficulties
Fairness requires two simultaneous commitments: to take genuine developmental limitations seriously and to avoid importing irrelevant barriers into the IQ estimate. A person may need extensive adaptive support and still demonstrate reasoning that a poorly chosen test fails to capture. Another person may perform competently on familiar tasks while having significant deficits in broader general learning. Clinicians should state the limits of each result, use observations from accessible contexts, and explain conclusions in a way that the person and their chosen supporters can understand.
Differential diagnosis and co-occurring conditions
The most important differential question is whether the assessment demonstrates a generalized developmental impairment in both intellectual and adaptive functioning. Specific learning disorders affect particular academic domains and can occur with otherwise much stronger general cognitive skills. Language disorders may restrict verbal test performance; attention disorders may impair sustained engagement; autism may influence language, social adaptability, and test-taking behavior. Neither a low reading score nor a social-communication difference alone establishes intellectual disability. The diagnostic formulation must identify which findings are specific, which are generalized, and which may arise from several interacting causes.
Autism with or without intellectual disability
An autistic person may have an intellectual disability, average measured IQ, or a highly uneven cognitive profile. Co-occurring autism can also affect how adaptive scores relate to cognitive testing. Questions about autistic adults and co-occurring intellectual disability are treated in Autism and Intellectual Disability in Adults: Differences and Support, the separate canonical clinical discussion. In an intellectual disability evaluation, the task is to establish whether the cognitive and adaptive evidence independently supports that additional diagnosis rather than inferring it from autism characteristics.
Global developmental delay and younger children
In very young children, developmental skills can be difficult to measure reliably enough for a stable global intellectual classification. When substantial delays span several domains and a definitive intellectual assessment cannot yet be made, global developmental delay may be the appropriate age-linked clinical formulation. Screening results and early developmental checklists should trigger fuller evaluation and support rather than premature certainty about a lifelong IQ trajectory. As the child matures, repeated evidence from developmentally appropriate tasks and adaptive behavior supports refinement of the diagnosis.
Borderline intellectual functioning and acquired cognitive problems
Borderline intellectual functioning describes low-range cognitive performance that may create learning and support needs without satisfying the full criteria for intellectual disability. The classification of borderline functioning should not be inferred from a score band alone; adaptive history and the complete assessment still matter. Acquired cognitive difficulties emerging after typical earlier development call for their own neurologic, psychiatric, or medical evaluation. If an older adult has both intellectual disability and a new decline, the examiner must compare functioning with that person’s established lifelong baseline rather than with population averages alone.
How IQ findings should inform education, support, and services
The clinically useful question after valid measurement is what the results reveal about accessible learning, problem solving, and support design. Relative strengths can inform instructional channels, repetition schedules, structured prompts, and environmental adjustments. Adaptive assessments identify practical goals such as communication of preferences, money safety, community navigation, daily routines, and supported work. These decisions require individualized observation and follow-up of real-life outcomes. A measured IQ is neither an intervention nor a reliable stand-alone forecast of the person’s future living arrangement, employment, relationships, or quality of life.
Educational, vocational, and disability services sometimes use eligibility criteria that differ from clinical diagnostic criteria. Evaluation teams should explain which rule a program applies and avoid presenting one administrative threshold as a universal scientific definition. People whose results do not meet a particular diagnostic classification may still benefit from communication accommodations, learning supports, occupational assessment, or treatment for co-occurring conditions. Documentation should convey an understandable profile of demonstrated abilities, environmental barriers, and supports, with attention to the person’s own goals and preferences.
Reading a clinical IQ report accurately
A sound clinical report names the measure and edition, assessment date, norm group where relevant, obtained composite and index scores, confidence intervals or measurement uncertainty, and factors affecting score validity. It interprets patterns rather than displaying numbers without explanation. It includes a separately documented adaptive assessment, developmental-onset evidence, a reasoned differential formulation, and the practical implications of findings. When norm-based interpretations are limited, the report should say so and describe reliable qualitative observations instead of providing an unwarrantedly precise estimate.
Illustrative case: a measured IQ of 72
Consider a hypothetical adolescent with a valid IQ result of 72, a confidence interval spanning values on both sides of 70, and longstanding difficulty managing safety, money, and age-expected conceptual skills across home and school. The clinician investigates independent adaptive scores and developmental records; a qualified assessment may support an intellectual disability diagnosis depending on the whole evidence. Contrast a second hypothetical adolescent with the same IQ result whose adaptive functioning is broadly age-appropriate, apart from specific difficulties in literacy. This second pattern warrants a different explanation and possibly specific educational support. Equal IQ scores therefore need not yield equal diagnoses.
Illustrative case: an unusually low score with access barriers
Consider an adult with a motor disorder who must rapidly manipulate small objects during testing and communicates primarily through an accessible device. A very low conventional composite could reflect both actual cognitive difficulties and task formats that restrict expression of competence. The evaluator selects better-matched procedures, documents nonstandard administrations, and collects independent adaptive and developmental data. The outcome is a defensible description of what was measured and what remains uncertain. These examples illustrate clinical reasoning only; they are not substitutes for a person-specific assessment.
What the scientific evidence establishes—and where it remains limited
Established diagnostic practice integrates intellectual ability, adaptive functioning, and developmental onset, as described by AAIDD, the APA, and the WHO ICD-11 clinical requirements. Psychometric research has established that intelligence scores have uncertainty and that obsolete norms can change their interpretation; a meta-analysis of the Flynn effect provides population-level evidence. Research in selected neurodevelopmental samples demonstrates substantial floor effects and ways to describe masked score differences more sensitively, as seen in Hessl et al. and Sansone et al..
The evidence becomes narrower when translating one study’s revised scoring method into general clinical rules across all instruments, languages, ages, and genetic conditions. Cultural fairness depends on the population in which an instrument was validated and the specific accommodations used. Diagnostic accuracy evidence also varies by context, especially in people with extensive communication or sensory needs. It would be premature to promise that a single alternative test, nonverbal battery, or statistical correction removes all such limitations. The clinical standard is documented validity, convergent evidence, individualized interpretation, and transparent acknowledgement of what remains uncertain.
Frequently asked questions about IQ and intellectual disability
Can someone with an IQ of 75 have an intellectual disability?
Yes, depending on the complete developmental and adaptive evidence and the assessment’s uncertainty. The AAIDD criteria explicitly recognize scores up to approximately 75 as potentially indicating significant limitations in intellectual functioning. The number alone is insufficient for diagnosis.
Does IQ below 70 always mean intellectual disability?
No. The examiner must establish that the score validly estimates intellectual functioning and evaluate adaptive limitations and developmental onset. A low score on an unsuitable test, or low performance attributable to a major access barrier, requires further interpretation.
Are IQ tests reliable for people who do not speak?
Some measures and assessment strategies can provide useful information with limited spoken responses, but appropriateness depends on receptive language, sensory and motor access, available norms, and permitted accommodations. An accessible evaluation may combine standardized, adapted, and qualitative methods, clearly distinguishing their evidentiary roles.
Can a person’s IQ change over time?
Observed scores can differ over time because of development, instruction, testing conditions, practice effects, different instruments, and revised norms. Longitudinal interpretation requires comparable methods and the person’s wider functioning. A score change by itself does not show that a developmental condition has appeared or disappeared.
Can an adult be diagnosed for the first time?
Yes. The evaluation can establish that intellectual and adaptive limitations originated during development by reviewing reliable early records and retrospective information. A new acquired decline in adult life requires separate investigation and cannot by itself fulfill the developmental criterion.
Does a low IQ score determine whether someone can live independently?
No. Daily functioning depends on skills, accessible environments, health, relationships, technology, housing, and available support. Individual planning uses cognitive and adaptive evidence to design choices and resources, not to impose a life prediction from a score.
Clinical conclusion
IQ tests are essential sources of evidence when properly chosen and interpreted, but intellectual disability is a developmental and adaptive clinical determination. The evaluation must show how a standardized cognitive score relates to actual learning, conceptual understanding, everyday adaptive skills, developmental history, and the validity limits of measurement. A diagnostically meaningful result describes what is known, how certain the measurement is, and which supports will help the person participate and exercise choice. That is the most scientifically faithful use of IQ testing in intellectual disability assessment.
Related Articles
IQ: What Intelligence Quotient Measures and What It Means — the general psychological meaning of IQ, intelligence testing, normative interpretation, and the limits of a composite score.
Autism and Intellectual Disability in Adults: Differences and Support — diagnostic distinctions, coexistence, and practical support in autistic adults.
How Is Intellectual Disability Diagnosed? Assessment and Diagnostic Criteria — Multidisciplinary diagnostic procedure rather than self-screening.
Adaptive Behavior Assessment for Intellectual Disability: Vineland-3, ABAS-3, and DABS — Comparison of adaptive assessment instruments used in ID evaluation.
References
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2021). Defining criteria for intellectual disability. https://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition/.
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2021). FAQs on intellectual disability. https://www.aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/faqs-on-intellectual-disability.
American Psychiatric Association. (2023). Intellectual disability. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/intellectual-disability.
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). What is intellectual disability? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/intellectual-disability/what-is-intellectual-disability.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Cultural responsiveness. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/professional-issues/cultural-responsiveness.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Intellectual disability: Practice Portal. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/intellectual-disability/.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Multilingual service delivery in audiology and speech-language pathology. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/professional-issues/multilingual-service-delivery/.
Hessl, D., Nguyen, D. V., Green, C., Chavez, A., Tassone, F., Hagerman, R. J., et al. (2009). A solution to limitations of cognitive testing in children with intellectual disabilities: The case of fragile X syndrome. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11689-008-9001-8.
Sansone, S. M., Schneider, A., Bickel, E., Berry-Kravis, E., Prescott, C., and Hessl, D. (2014). Improving IQ measurement in intellectual disabilities using true deviation from population norms. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 6, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1866-1955-6-16.
Tassé, M. J., Luckasson, R., and Schalock, R. L. (2016). The relation between intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior in the diagnosis of intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 54(6), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-54.6.381.
Trahan, L. H., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., and Hiscock, M. (2014). The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1332–1360. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037173.
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263/.