Education Adjustment Program (EAP) > Verification >

Intellectual Impairment (II)

Definition

The DETE 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).

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 in the disability category of intellectual impairment is made by a guidance officer/psychologist, and must be quality assured by a Senior Guidance Officer (SGO). A medical specialist diagnosis of a condition that has a predisposition towards intellectual impairment may be used to support Criterion 1.

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) in the Quality Assurance section.

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 Criterion 2 or Criterion 2 only)
the review date.

This decision will be guided by the following factors:

age of the student
stage of schooling
information provided on the impairment (Criterion 1)
information provided on the activity limitations and participation restrictions related to the impairment and associated education adjustment (Criterion 2).

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. It is important for schools to check whether both Criterion 1 and Criterion 2 need to be reviewed or only Criterion 2.

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's active verification record from the category and evidence that the student no longer meets criteria must be collected and recorded using the EAP Verification Form - II (EAP 5) with supporting documentation, proposing the removal and quality assured by the SGO.

Verification Form

Use EAP Verification Form - II (EAP 5) - available on the EAP website.

Prompts for II Criterion 2 have been developed to assist with the completion of the Criterion 2 section. The prompts are a guide and schools need only report on those prompts relevant for the student.

^ Top of page

This page was last reviewed on 10 Aug 2012