INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2: 116–124 APRIL 2007 116 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Perspectives The Renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability Robert L. Schalock, Ruth A. Luckasson, and Karrie A. Shogren, With Sharon Borthwick-Duffy, Val Bradley, Wil H. E. Buntinx, David L. Coulter, Ellis (Pat) M. Craig, Sharon C. Gomez, Yves Lachapelle, Alya Reeve, Martha E. Snell, Scott Spreat, Marc J. Tasse ´, James R. Thompson, Miguel A. Verdugo, Michael L. Wehmeyer, and Mark H. Yeager Introduction and Overview There is considerable and intense discussion in the field of intellectual disability/mental retardation about the construct of disability, how intellectual disability fits within the general construct of dis- ability, and the use of the term intellectual disability (Glidden, 2006; Greenspan, 2006; MacMillan, Sip- erstein, & Leffert, 2006; Schalock & Luckasson, 2004; Switzky & Greenspan, 2006b). This discus- sion is occurring within the context of competing world views of the philosophical and epistemolog- ical underpinnings of the conceptions of intellec- tual disability/mental retardation (Switzky & Greenspan, 2006a). Increasingly, the term intellectual disability is be- ing used instead of mental retardation. This transi- tion in terminology is exemplified by organization names (e.g., the American Association on Intellec- tual and Developmental Disabilities—AAIDD, In- ternational Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities, President’s Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities), journal titles, and published research (Parmenter, 2004; Schroe- der, Gertz, & Velazquez, 2002). A number of ques- tions have emerged with the increased use of the term intellectual disability: • Why is the term intellectual disability currently pre- ferred to mental retardation? • How might the use of the term intellectual disability impact the current definition of mental retardation? • How might the use of the term intellectual disability affect persons diagnosed or eligible for a diagnosis of mental retardation? Our purpose in this article is to clarify the shift to the term intellectual disability. At the heart of that shift is the understanding that this term covers the same population of individuals who were diagnosed previously with mental retardation in number, kind, level, type, and duration of the disability and the need of people with this disability for individualized services and supports. Furthermore, every individual who is or was eligible for a diagnosis of mental re- tardation is eligible for a diagnosis of intellectual disability. In addition, in this article we explore why the field is shifting to the term intellectual disability. In- creased understanding is based on a clear distinc- tion among the construct used to describe a phe- nomenon, the term used to name the phenomenon, and the definition used to precisely explain the term and establish the term’s meaning and boundaries. In this article we represent the first of a planned series of articles by the AAIDD Committee on Ter- minology and Classification in which we will share our thoughts and ask for input from the field prior to the anticipated publication in 2009/2010 of the 11th edition of the definition, classification, and systems of supports manual (The Manual). Throughout the article we stress that under- standing the term intellectual disability is enhanced by dialogue and clarity. To that end, the following terms will be used: • Construct: an abstract or general idea that is formed by arranging parts or elements, based on observed phenomena, in the context of a theory. The construct of intellectual disability is con- tained within the broader construct of disability, aligning and integrating the framework for assess- ment and intervention of intellectual disability within the broader construct of disability. • Name: the term that is used to refer to a construct (in this case, mental retardation or intellectual