{"title":"发展服务中年龄上限的随意性","authors":"S. Greenspan","doi":"10.19080/gjidd.2018.05.555668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When determining eligibility for disability-related services, supports and protections, bureaucracies (schools, courts, adult service agencies, etc.) have a strong preference for clear-cut decision and eligibility rules [1]. An example of this would be IQ cut-offs (e.g., 70) for determining whether someone qualifies as having an Intellectual Disability (ID). The reason for this preference is obvious: bureaucrats and other decision-makers typically lack the time or training to deal with the complexity of individual situations.","PeriodicalId":93559,"journal":{"name":"Global journal of intellectual & developmental disabilities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Arbitrariness of Age Ceilings in Developmental Services\",\"authors\":\"S. Greenspan\",\"doi\":\"10.19080/gjidd.2018.05.555668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When determining eligibility for disability-related services, supports and protections, bureaucracies (schools, courts, adult service agencies, etc.) have a strong preference for clear-cut decision and eligibility rules [1]. An example of this would be IQ cut-offs (e.g., 70) for determining whether someone qualifies as having an Intellectual Disability (ID). The reason for this preference is obvious: bureaucrats and other decision-makers typically lack the time or training to deal with the complexity of individual situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global journal of intellectual & developmental disabilities\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global journal of intellectual & developmental disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19080/gjidd.2018.05.555668\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global journal of intellectual & developmental disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19080/gjidd.2018.05.555668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Arbitrariness of Age Ceilings in Developmental Services
When determining eligibility for disability-related services, supports and protections, bureaucracies (schools, courts, adult service agencies, etc.) have a strong preference for clear-cut decision and eligibility rules [1]. An example of this would be IQ cut-offs (e.g., 70) for determining whether someone qualifies as having an Intellectual Disability (ID). The reason for this preference is obvious: bureaucrats and other decision-makers typically lack the time or training to deal with the complexity of individual situations.