The first English-language IQ test, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, was adapted from a test battery designed for school placement by Alfred Binet in France. Lewis Terman adapted Binet's test and promoted it as a test measuring "general intelligence." Terman's test was the first widely used mental test to report scores in "intelligence quotient" form ("mental age" divided by chronological age, multiplied by 100). Current tests are scored in "deviation IQ" form, with a performance level by a test-taker two standard deviations below the median score for the test-taker's age group defined as IQ 70. Until the most recent revision of diagnostic standards, an IQ of 70 or below was a primary factor for intellectual disability diagnosis, and IQ scores were used to categorize degrees of intellectual disability.

Since current diagnosis of intellectual disability is not based on IQ scores alone, but must also take into consideration a person's adaptive functioning, the diagnosis is not made rigidly. It encompasses intellectual scores, adaptive functioning scores from an adaptive behavior rating scale based on descriptions of known abilities provided by someone familiar with the person, and also the observations of the assessment examiner who is able to find out directly from the person what he or she can understand, communicate, and such like. IQ assessment must be based on a current test. This enables diagnosis to avoid the pitfall of the Flynn effect, which is a consequence of changes in population IQ test performance changing IQ test norms over time.

Developmental disabilities can be initially suspected when a child does not reach expected child development stages. Subsequently, a differential diagnosis may be used to diagnose an underlying disease, which may include a physical examination and genetic tests.

The degree of disability can be quantified by assigning a "developmental age" to a person, which is age of the group into which test scores place the person. This, in turn, can be used to calculate a "" (DQ) as follows:

formula_1

Adaptive behavior, or adaptive functioning, refers to the skills needed to live independently (or at the minimally acceptable level for age). To assess adaptive behavior, professionals compare the functional abilities of a child to those of other children of similar age. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals use structured interviews, with which they systematically elicit information about persons' functioning in the community from people who know them well. There are many adaptive behavior scales, and accurate assessment of the quality of someone's adaptive behavior requires clinical judgment as well. Certain skills are important to adaptive behavior, such as:

- Daily living skills, such as getting dressed, using the bathroom, and feeding oneself

- Communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer

- Social skills with peers, family members, spouses, adults, and others

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to detect morphological brain abnormalities associated with ADCP in patients that are either at risk for ADCP or have shown symptoms thereof. The abnormalities chiefly associated with ADCP are lesions that appear in the basal ganglia. The severity of the disease is proportional to the severity and extent of these abnormalities, and is typically greater when additional lesions appear elsewhere in the deep grey matter or white matter. MRI also has the ability to detect brain malformation, periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), and areas affected by hypoxia-ischemia, all of which may play a role in the development of ADCP. The MRI detection rate for ADCP is approximately 54.5%, however this statistic varies depending on the patient’s age and the cause of the disease and has been reported to be significantly higher.

Movement and posture limitations are aspects of all CP types and as a result, CP has historically been diagnosed based on parental reporting of developmental motor delays such as failure to sit upright, reach for objects, crawl, stand, or walk at the appropriate age. Diagnosis of ADCP is also based on clinical assessment used in conjunction with milestone reporting. The majority of ADCP assessments now use the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (formerly the International Classification of Impairments Disease, and Handicaps), measures of motor impairment that are effective in assessing severe CP. ADCP is typically characterized by an individual’s inability to control their muscle tone, which is readily assessed via these classification systems.

There are many physical health factors associated with developmental disabilities. For some specific syndromes and diagnoses, these are inherent, such as poor heart function in people with Down syndrome. People with severe communication difficulties find it difficult to articulate their health needs, and without adequate support and education might not recognize ill health. Epilepsy, sensory problems (such as poor vision and hearing), obesity and poor dental health are over-represented in this population. Life expectancy among people with developmental disabilities as a group is estimated at 20 years below average, although this is improving with advancements in adaptive and medical technologies, and as people are leading healthier, more fulfilling lives, and some conditions (such as Freeman-Sheldon syndrome) do not impact life expectancy.

The test is particularly indicated in children who have had cluster seizures in series. It is also recommended for patients who are diagnosed GEFS+ and when the seizures are associated with fever, infection, experienced regression, delayed cognitive growth or behavioral problems. The test is typically ordered by neurologists. The diagnostic test can be done by drawing blood or saliva of the patient and their immediate family. It is analyzed in laboratories that specialize in genetic testing. Genetic testing can aid in a firmer diagnosis and understanding of the disorder, may aid in identifying the optimal treatment plan and if positive, testing of the parents can determine if they are carriers. (See Genetic Counseling)

Once the diagnosis of polymicrogyria has been established in an individual, the following approach can be used for discussion of prognosis:

A pregnancy history should be sought, with particular regard to infections, trauma, multiple gestations, and other documented problems. Screening for the common congenital infections associated with polymicrogyria with standard TORCH testing may be appropriate. Other specific tests targeting individual neurometabolic disorders can be obtained if clinically suggested.

The following may help in determining a genetic etiology:

Family history

It is important to ask for the presence of neurologic problems in family members, including seizures, cognitive delay, motor impairment, pseudobulbar signs, and focal weakness because many affected family members, particularly those who are older, may not have had MRI performed, even if these problems came to medical attention. In addition, although most individuals with polymicrogyria do present with neurologic difficulties in infancy, childhood, or adulthood, those with mild forms may have no obvious deficit or only minor manifestations, such as a simple lisp or isolated learning disability. Therefore, if a familial polymicrogyria syndrome is suspected, it may be reasonable to perform MRI on relatives who are asymptomatic or have what appear to be minor findings. The presence of consanguinity in a child's parents may suggest an autosomal recessive familial polymicrogyria syndrome.

Physical examination

A general physical examination of the proband may identify associated craniofacial, musculoskeletal, or visceral malformations that could indicate a particular syndrome. Neurologic examination should assess cognitive and mental abilities, cranial nerve function, motor function, deep tendon reflexes, sensory function, coordination, and gait (if appropriate).

Genetic testing

PCDH19 gene-related epilepsy is clinically based on patient and family seizure history, cognitive and behavioral neuropsychological evaluation, neurological examination, electroencephalogram (EEG) studies, and long term observation. Diagnosis is confirmed using molecular testing for PCDH19 mutations.

Cytogenetic analysis for fragile X syndrome was first available in the late 1970s when diagnosis of the syndrome and carrier status could be determined by culturing cells in a folate deficient medium and then assessing for "fragile sites" (discontinuity of staining in the region of the trinucleotide repeat) on the long arm of the X chromosome. This technique proved unreliable, however, as the fragile site was often seen in less than 40% of an individual's cells. This was not as much of a problem in males, but in female carriers, where the fragile site could generally only be seen in 10% of cells, the mutation often could not be visualised.

Since the 1990s, more sensitive molecular techniques have been used to determine carrier status. The fragile X abnormality is now directly determined by analysis of the number of CGG repeats using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and methylation status using Southern blot analysis. By determining the number of CGG repeats on the X chromosome, this method allows for more accurate assessment of risk for premutation carriers in terms of their own risk of fragile X associated syndromes, as well as their risk of having affected children. Because this method only tests for expansion of the CGG repeat, individuals with FXS due to missense mutations or deletions involving "FMR1" will not be diagnosed using this test and should therefore undergo sequencing of the FMR1 gene if there is clinical suspicion of FXS.

Prenatal testing with chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis allows diagnosis of FMR1 mutation while the fetus is in utero and appears to be reliable.

Early diagnosis of fragile X syndrome or carrier status is important for providing early intervention in children or fetuses with the syndrome, and allowing genetic counselling with regards to the potential for a couple's future children to be affected. Most parents notice delays in speech and language skills, difficulties in social and emotional domains as well as sensitivity levels in certain situations with their children.

Several disorders may appear similar to CBPS and need to be distinguished in the process of diagnosing CBPS. These include pachygyria, double cortex syndrome, and lissencephaly, all of which are classified along with CBPS as neuronal migration disorders. Diagnostic tests for CBPS include electroencephalograms, CT scanning, and magnetic resonance imaging.

Parents of a proband

- The parents of an affected individual are obligate heterozygotes and therefore carry one mutant allele.

- Heterozygotes (carriers) are asymptomatic.

Sibs of a proband

- At conception, each sibling of an affected individual has a 25% chance of being affected, a 50% chance of being an asymptomatic carrier, and a 25% chance of being unaffected and not a carrier.

- Once an at-risk sibling is known to be unaffected, the risk of his/her being a carrier is 2/3.

- Heterozygotes (carriers) are asymptomatic.

Offspring of a proband

- Offspring of a proband are obligate heterozygotes and will therefore carry one mutant allele.

- In populations with a high rate of consanguinity, the offspring of a person with GPR56-related BFPP and a reproductive partner who is a carrier of GPR56-related BFPP have a 50% chance of inheriting two GPR56 disease-causing alleles and having BFPP and a 50% chance of being carriers.

Other family members of a proband.

- Each sibling of the proband's parents is at a 50% risk of being a carrier

Diagnosing Jacobsen Syndrome can be difficult in some cases because it is a rare chromosomal disorder. There are a variety of tests that can be carried out like karyotype, cardiac echocardiogram, a renal sonogram, a platelet count, blood count, a brain imaging study. Genetic testing can be carried out for diagnosis. In which chromosomes are stained to give a barcode like appearance and studied under the microscope which reveals the broken and deleted genes. It can also be diagnosed early in the prenatal stage if there are any abnormalities seen in the ultrasound. A simple assessment of the symptoms can be done to diagnose the Syndrome. A thorough physical examination could be carried out to assess the symptoms.

Although not necessary for the diagnosis, individuals with intellectual disability are at higher risk for SMD. It is more common in boys, and can occur at any age.

This is an ill-defined disorder of uncertain nosological validity. The category is included here because of the evidence that children with moderate to severe intellectual disability (IQ below 35) who exhibit major problems in hyperactivity and inattention frequently show stereotyped behaviours; such children tend not to benefit from stimulant drugs (unlike those with an IQ in the normal range) and may exhibit a severe dysphoric reaction (sometimes with psychomotor retardation) when given stimulants; in adolescence the overactivity tends to be replaced by underactivity (a pattern that is not usual in hyperkinetic children with normal intelligence). It is also common for the syndrome to be associated with a variety of developmental delays, either specific or global. The extent to which the behavioural pattern is a function of low IQ or of organic brain damage is not known, neither is it clear whether the disorders in children with mild intellectual disability who show the hyperkinetic syndrome would be better classified here or under F90.- (Hyperkinetic disorders); at present they are included in F90-.

Diagnostic guidelines

Diagnosis depends on the combination of developmentally inappropriate severe overactivity, motor stereotypies, and moderate to severe intellectual disability; all three must be present for the diagnosis. If the diagnostic criteria for F84.0 (childhood autism), F84.1 (atypical autism) or F84.2 (Rett's syndrome) are met, that condition should be diagnosed instead.

CBPS is commonly treated with anticonvulsant therapy to reduce seizures. Therapies include anticonvulsant drugs, adrenocorticotropic hormone therapy, and surgical therapy, including focal corticectomy and callosotomy. Special education, speech therapy, and physical therapy are also used to help children with intellectual disability due to CBPS.

There are no objectively definitive statistics about how many people have savant skills. The estimates range from "exceedingly rare" to one in ten people with autism having savant skills in varying degrees. A 2009 British study of 137 parents of autistic children found that 28% believe their children met the criteria for a savant skill, defined as a skill or power "at a level that would be unusual even for 'normal' people". As many as 50 cases of sudden or acquired savant syndrome have been reported.

Males with savant syndrome outnumber females by roughly 6:1, slightly higher than the sex ratio disparity for autism spectrum disorders of 4.3:1.

Although 1p36 Deletion Syndrome can be debilitating in many ways, patients do respond to various treatments and therapies. These include the following:

American Sign Language: Because few individuals with Monosomy 1p36 develop complex speech, an alternate form of communication is critical to development. Most patients can learn basic signs to communicate their needs and wants. This also appears to reduce frustration and may reduce self-injurious tendencies. Children with hearing loss will often qualify for locally sponsored sign language classes.

Music Therapy: Music has been shown to aid children with 1p36 deletion in various developmental areas. It serves as an excellent auditory stimulus and can teach listening skills. Songs with actions help the child to develop coordination and motor skills.

Physical Therapy: Due to low muscle tone, patients with 1p36 Deletions take a great deal of time to learn to roll over, sit up, crawl and walk. However, regular physical therapy has shown to shorten the length of time needed to achieve each of those developmental milestones.

Occupational Therapy can be helpful to help children with oral motor and feeding difficulties (including dysphagia and transitioning to solid foods) as well as developmental delays in motor, social and sensory domains.

Stereotyped movements are common in infants and young children; if the child is not distressed by movements and daily activities are not impaired, diagnosis is not warranted. When stereotyped behaviors cause significant impairment in functioning, an evaluation for stereotypic movement disorder is warranted. There are no specific tests for diagnosing this disorder, although some tests may be ordered to rule out other conditions. SMD may occur with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, intellectual disability, and fetal alcohol exposure or as a result of amphetamine intoxication.

When diagnosing stereotypic movement disorder, DSM-5 calls for specification of:

- with or without self-injurious behavior;

- association with another known medical condition or environmental factor;

- severity (mild, moderate or severe).

There are no current treatments or cures for the underlying defects of FXS. Management of FXS may include speech therapy, behavioral therapy, sensory integration occupational therapy, special education, or individualised educational plans, and, when necessary, treatment of physical abnormalities. Persons with fragile X syndrome in their family histories are advised to seek genetic counseling to assess the likelihood of having children who are affected, and how severe any impairments may be in affected descendants.

The diagnosis of Angelman syndrome is based on:

- A history of delayed motor milestones and then later a delay in general development, especially of speech

- Unusual movements including fine tremors, jerky limb movements, hand flapping and a wide-based, stiff-legged gait.

- Characteristic facial appearance (but not in all cases).

- A history of epilepsy and an abnormal EEG tracing.

- A happy disposition with frequent laughter

- A deletion or inactivity on chromosome 15 by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) or by BACs-on-Beads technology.

Diagnostic criteria for the disorder were initially established in 1995 in collaboration with the Angelman syndrome Foundation (US); these criteria underwent revision in 2005.

Savant syndrome is a condition in which a person demonstrates one or more profound and prodigious capacities or abilities far in excess of what would be considered normal, yet often also has significant deficits in other areas of brain processing.

People with savant syndrome may have neurodevelopmental disorders, notably autism spectrum disorders (in which case they are often referred to as autistic savants), or brain injuries. The most dramatic examples of savant syndrome occur in individuals who score very low on IQ tests, while demonstrating exceptional skills or brilliance in specific areas, such as rapid calculation (hypercalculia), art, memory, or musical ability. Although termed a syndrome, it is not recognized as a mental disorder nor as part of a mental disorder in medical manuals such as the ICD-10 or the DSM-5.

Another form of savant syndrome is acquired savant syndrome, in which a person acquires prodigious capabilities or skills following dementia, a head injury or concussion, epilepsy, or other brain disturbances. This syndrome is more rare, with a study by Darold Treffert in 2010 showing that in a registry of 319 known savants, only 32 had acquired savant syndrome.

There are a variety of medical conditions affecting cognitive ability. This is a broad concept encompassing various intellectual or cognitive deficits, including intellectual disability, deficits too mild to properly qualify as intellectual disability, various specific conditions (such as specific learning disability), and problems acquired later in life through acquired brain injuries or neurodegenerative diseases like dementia. These disabilities may appear at any age.

In order to be diagnosed with AGU an individual takes a urine test, which will show indication of an increased amount of aspartylglucosamin being secreted. The confirmation of the diagnosis of aspartylglucosaminuria requires a blood test. This helps show if the enzyme aspartylglucosaminidase is present or partially absent. A skin simple will also show the amount of aspartylglucosaminidase present.

Because the causes of CP are varied, a broad range of preventative interventions have been investigated.

Electronic fetal monitoring has not helped to prevent CP, and in 2014 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada have acknowledged that there are no long-term benefits of electronic fetal monitoring. Prior to this, electronic fetal monitoring was widely used to prop up obstetric litigation.

In those at risk of an early delivery, magnesium sulphate appears to decrease the risk of cerebral palsy. It is unclear if it helps those who are born at term. In those at high risk of preterm labor a review found that moderate to severe CP was reduced by the administration of magnesium sulphate, and that adverse effects on the babies from the magnesium sulphate were not significant. Mothers who received magnesium sulphate could experience side effects such as respiratory depression and nausea. Caffeine is used to treat apnea of prematurity and reduces the risk of cerebral palsy in premature babies, but there are also concerns of long term negative effects. A moderate level of evidence has been shown for giving women antibiotics during preterm labour when their waters had not broken was associated with an increased risk of cerebral palsy in the child. Additionally, allowing a preterm birth to proceed rather than trying to delay the birth also had a moderate level of evidence for increased risk of cerebral palsy in the child.

Cooling high-risk full-term babies shortly after birth may reduce disability, but this may only be useful for some forms of the brain damage that causes CP.