About Whom Are We Talking When We Use Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities?

Area of Science:

• Disability Studies
• Public Health Communication
• Health Policy

Background:

• Clear communication about population groups is vital for knowledge transfer.
• Inconsistent definitions and abbreviations for intellectual disability (ID) and developmental disability (DD) create significant ambiguity.
• Variability in terminology impacts the interpretation of research, clinical findings, and policy decisions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To highlight inconsistencies in the communication of individuals with intellectual disability (ID) and developmental disability (DD).
• To address the wide variability in definitions and abbreviations used in the field of ID and DD.
• To propose recommendations for enhanced consistency and clarity.

Main Methods:

• This narrative review analyzes the current state of terminology used for intellectual disability and developmental disability.
• The review examines the impact of inconsistent definitions and abbreviations on prevalence rates and data interpretation.
• Recommendations are developed based on the identified issues.

Main Results:

• Significant variability exists in the definitions and abbreviations (e.g., ID/DD, IDD, I/DD) for intellectual and developmental disabilities.
• This inconsistency leads to a 5-fold difference in reported prevalence rates for developmental disabilities.
• Ambiguous use of initialisms obscures whether they refer to separate or co-occurring conditions.

Conclusions:

• Clear operational definitions and consistent use of abbreviations are essential for accurate communication.
• Authors should define chosen initialisms upon first use in scholarly works, clinical publications, and policy documents.
• Enhanced consistency will improve understanding for all stakeholders, including researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.