Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: Intellectual Disability (ID) varies according to denition, aetiology, severity classication, and certication criteria. Two global consensus on ID criteria are: intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70 and ID starts before 18 years. However, the severity classication (in %) and its basis (IQ/social quotient-SQ/clinical diagnosis or combination as suggested by DSM-5 and ICD-11) are important as ID certication has many public health policy, legal, and nancial implications. While variations between countries are expected, non-uniformity/discrepancy within a legal document of a country needs urgent attention. This study critically examined commonly used IQ/SQ tools and use of VSMS for criteria for ID irrespective of age as in Government of India-Gazette-2024. The study ndings Methods: from 55 clinical psychologists (89.1% females, mean age=31-years, mean clinical experience=6-years) in two-phases (face-to-face and telephonic interview, and Google Forms) were analysed. The major discrepancies in the Gazette-Marc Findings: h-2024 are: severity classications between NIEPID Indian Test for Intelligence vs VSMS, page-490 and 491, page-492 and 495 on average IQ for SLD consideration, the arbitrary xation of average IQ for India contrary to/in absence of evidence, implications of using only SQ for disability certication and VSMS for adults' certication, and purpose/relevance of IQ tests and/or clinical diagnosis. While congruence Interpretation: between intellectual functioning and social adaptation, and method and basis of disability severity classication is imperative, addressing incongruence is equally important. Severity category for ID certication based on SQ +IQ or SQ+ clinical diagnosis or IQ+ clinical diagnosis must be the norm not an exception and needs implementation guidelines for incongruencies. NIL
Satapathy et al. (Thu,) studied this question.