MacMillan D L, Gresham F M, Siperstein G N
School of Education-82, University of California, Riverside 92521, USA.
Am J Ment Retard. 1995 Jul;100(1):87-95.
We reiterated our earlier concerns (MacMillan et al., 1993) regarding the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation and replied to a defense of the definition (Reiss, 1994). Our major point here is that definitional precision should not be sacrificed to advance a particular ideological position. The result of such a compromise is a definition lacking precision and necessitating identification dependent upon assessment of behavioral dimensions for which there is currently no reliable measurement. We explored the varied purposes served by classification systems and criticized the new AAMR definition for lack of precision needed to serve research. In addition, we attempted to reduce confusion over the concepts of reliability, assessment, test bias, and use of factor analysis to establish the independence of adaptive skill domains. Some factual errors and incorrect representations in Reiss's article were pointed out.
我们重申了我们之前（麦克米伦等人，1993年）对1992年美国智力落后协会（AAMR）智力迟钝定义的担忧，并回应了对该定义的辩护（赖斯，1994年）。我们在此的主要观点是，不应为了推进特定的意识形态立场而牺牲定义的精确性。这种妥协的结果是一个缺乏精确性的定义，并且需要依赖于对目前尚无可靠测量方法的行为维度进行评估来进行识别。我们探讨了分类系统所服务的各种目的，并批评了新的AAMR定义缺乏服务于研究所需的精确性。此外，我们试图减少在可靠性、评估、测试偏差以及使用因素分析来确立适应性技能领域的独立性等概念上的混淆。我们还指出了赖斯文章中的一些事实错误和错误表述。
