Education Adjustment Program (EAP) > Verification >

Intellectual Impairment (II)

Definition

The DET definition of intellectual impairment is adapted from the American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD, 2002).

Intellectual impairment is characterised by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behaviour as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. This impairment originates before age 18.

The student's identified level of functioning results in activity limitations and participation restrictions at school requiring significant education adjustments.

The following five assumptions are essential to the application of this definition:

Limitations in present functioning must be considered within the context of community environments typical of the individual's age peers.
Valid assessment considers cultural and linguistic diversity as well as differences in communication, sensory, motor, and behavioural factors.
Within an individual, limitations often coexist with strengths.
An important purpose of describing limitations is to develop a profile of needed supports.
With appropriate personalised supports over a sustained period, the life functioning of the person with intellectual impairment generally will improve.

Departmental Criteria

Verification for the EAP disability category of Intellectual Impairment is based on two criteria.

Criterion 1: a. significant limitations in intellectual functioning

b. significant limitations in adaptive behaviour

c. the impairment originates before 18 years of age.

Criterion 2: The student's identified level of functioning results in activity limitations and participation restrictions at school requiring significant education adjustments.

Evidence

Criterion 1:

Criterion 1a: Significant limitations in intellectual functioning.

Evidence includes:

Scores obtained from current individually administered psychoeducational assessments are at least two standard deviations below the mean, considering the standard error of measurement (SEM) for the specific assessment instruments used and the instruments' strengths and limitations.
Where formal psychoeducational assessment, is not possible or not appropriate, then relevant information needs to be provided from a range of contexts, to support the presence of significant limitations in intellectual functioning.

Criterion 1b: Significant limitations in adaptive behaviour.

Evidence includes:

Significant limitations in adaptive behaviour are operationally defined as performance that is at least 2 standard deviations below the mean of either:

(a) one of the following three types of adaptive behaviour: conceptual, social, or practical or

(b) an overall score on a standardised measure of conceptual, social, and practical skills.

Limitations in adaptive behaviour are determined by using a broad range of assessment methods across a range of sources and settings.

Criterion 1c: The impairment originates before 18 years of age.

Evidence as indicated on the EAP Verification Form - II (EAP 5 updated 2009) (new window) .

Criterion 2: The student's identified level of functioning results in activity limitations and participation restrictions at school requiring significant education adjustments.

Evidence includes:

the student's level of functioning is significantly below peers

programs and adjustments in areas of need that have been implemented and the achieved outcomes
programs and adjustments that need to be maintained (wholly or partially) to address the educational needs.

A proposal for verification of intellectual impairment is made by a guidance officer/psychologist, and must be quality assured by a Senior Guidance Officer (SGO). Proposals may be supported by medical specialist diagnosis of a condition that has a predisposition towards intellectual impairment.

Psychoeducational assessment information presented for verification must be current. This does not mean that the assessments need to be recent but rather that they reflect the student's current functioning, as determined by the SGO.

In order to ensure quality and consistency, and to monitor the data gathering, professional interpretation and reporting processes, the SGO documents their supervision and support on the EAP Verification Form - II (EAP 5 updated 2009) (new window) .

Review of Verification

At the time of verification the statewide verifier will determine:

if a review is required
the criteria to be reviewed (Criterion 1 and/or Criterion 2)
the review date.

This decision will be guided by the following factors:

age of the student
stage of schooling
individual impairment information
the described activity limitations and participation restrictions associated with the impairment.

All verification review dates will be recorded on AIMS by the statewide verifier.

For a review of verification, the school follows the same steps as for an initial verification. This includes the completion of a new EAP Consent Form (EAP 1 updated 2009) (new window) and EAP Verification Form - II (EAP 5 updated 2009) (new window) .

Removal from the EAP Disability Category of Intellectual Impairment

In some instances, a student may no longer meet the criteria for the EAP disability category of Intellectual Impairment. To remove a student from the disability category, evidence that the student no longer meets criteria must be collected and recorded using the EAP Verification Form - II (EAP 5 updated 2009) (new window) with supporting documentation, proposing the removal, quality assured by the SGO.

Verification Form

Use EAP Verification Form - II (EAP 5 updated 2009) (new window) - available on the EAP website.

^ Top of page