Dual Diagnosis: A Problematic Construct When Applied to Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term dual diagnosis can refer to the co-occurrence of an intellectual disability and a mental disorder. While such a term may have some advocacy rationale aimed at facilitating improved mental health care for those with intellectual disabilities, it is proposed that the construct has flawed underpinnings, and its application may problematize mental health service delivery. A core concern is the promotion of categorical diagnostic models, whereas dimensional models may more accurately reflect underlying continuums for both cognitive and mental health challenges. A categorical diagnostic approach may also contribute to questionable dichotomization of mental health difficulties in persons with intellectual disabilities into "problem or challenging behaviours" versus "mental disorders." Organizing services based on beliefs that such distinctions and categorical classifications are accurate may contribute to unnecessary and inappropriate fractionation of interventions and create additional service barriers for a vulnerable population. It is proposed that the term dual diagnosis be abandoned and replaced by systematic use of a dimensional approach to help facilitate assessment, intervention evaluation, and equitable service access.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".