Search results

Assessment and identification of children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is complex and involves multiple techniques, levels, and participants. While federal law sets the general parameters for identification in school settings, these criteria are vague and may lead to inconsistencies in selection and interpretation of assessment measures. Assessment practice across school settings is greatly influenced by clinical guidelines such as the DSM-IV, which more specifically defines emotional and behavioral disorders and highlights the issue of co-morbidity. Before a student is assessed for special education eligibility under the IDEIA category of emotional disturbance, screening techniques and pre-referral interventions are needed. Positive Behavioral Supports and Response to Intervention models provide empirically supported frameworks for establishing the need for formal psychological assessment. Collaboration among members of the multidisciplinary team, including parents, helps to ensure that identification and intervention efforts have ecological validity. Tests and techniques vary considerably, but developmental histories, interviews, observations across settings, and behavioral checklists and rating scales are recommended, along with cognitive and achievement testing. While problems exist in the reliability and validity of projective techniques, they continue to be used in school-based assessment for EBD. Multitrait, multisetting, and multimethod approaches are essential for culturally fair assessment and reduction of bias in identification and placement.

In the field of behavioral disabilities, systematic direct observation (SDO) has been an integral tool for describing and explaining relationships between student and teacher behavior in authentic classroom settings. However, this method of measurement can be resource-intensive and presents a series of complex decisions for investigators. The purpose of this chapter is to review a series of critical decisions investigators must make when developing SDO protocols to address their research questions. After describing each decision point and its relevance to the measurement system, we identify trends and special considerations in the field of behavioral disabilities with respect to each decision. We organize content according to deciding what to measure, deciding how to measure it, and critical steps to prevent system breakdowns. Finally, we identify avenues for research to further the impact of SDO in the field of behavioral disabilities.

The authors speculate only about relatively short-term advances in special education for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Speculation is confined to the overlapping areas of core values, technologies, neuroscience, and law/policy. In core values, the authors hope to see a resurgence of commitment to special, effective instruction and to practice aligned with scientific evidence. It is hoped that technologies will advance practices in instruction, improve the uses of artificial intelligence in teacher training and teaching, and encourage the appropriate use of artificial reproduction to avoid disorders. Neuroscience, it is hoped, will yield more reliable and helpful classification of disorders, better and more useful imaging, and more effective treatment of a variety of emotional, behavioral, and academic problems. In law and policy, the authors hope the Supreme Court's Endrew case will result in greater focus on challenging, appropriate education. Law and policy should also encourage trauma sensitivity in education, make whole-school approaches to trauma sensitivity the priority, and avoid universal trauma screening. Students' and families' legitimate interests in confidentiality and data privacy should be protected in newly constructed information-sharing infrastructures.

Four reputed leaders for the coming years in the field of special education for individuals with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) each with a slightly different perspective on the field were asked to respond independently to a prompt asking what does special education mean for students with EBD and what is being done and how do we maintain tradition? The contributors' responses to the prompt are presented and then summarized across the essays. A remarkable consistency emerges across the independent essays. In addition to the tradition of providing a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, the contributors identify needs to support teachers serving this population. Needs in teacher training and the expertise required to meet the needs of individuals with EBD are outlined as well as potential contributions of technology to carry out specific tasks. We conclude with a call for increased advocacy for use of the knowledge that we currently possess and that which will soon be discovered to support students with EBD as well as their teachers. We also note that the contributors' names are listed alphabetically to acknowledge the equality of each person to the final product.

Recently, a national priority has been set to improve mental health services for children and families. It has been identified in epidemiological literature that in the United States, an approximate 15% of youth meet diagnostic criteria for emotional or behavioral problems. Furthermore, less than one in every five children that present with such needs receive mental health services. Individual, family, and system barriers such as transportation, competing demands, and long waiting lists have negatively impacted access to mental health services. Therefore, the school system has become the “de facto” mental health system for children and adolescents, in part because of the significant time students spend at school. However, meeting the needs of students with behavioral or emotional problems within the school system poses its own challenges. Schools have reported being limited in their ability to deliver basic mental wellness to students due to the lack of available resources. Specifically, there is a shortage of school-employed mental health personnel and the ratio of student to mental health professional is two to three times larger than recommended. Expanded school mental health programs are partnered systems that utilize existing services and collaborate with community mental health (CMH) professionals at each level of the three-tiered system. This partnership enables CMH staff gain access to youth with emotional and behavioral problems, resulting in increased prevention and intervention services for students. Additionally, a coordinated effort such as student-transition services has an integral role of facilitating the process from the school system to postsecondary employment, training, and or additional education.

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) are one of the most underserved populations in today's schools (Kauffman, Mock, & Simpson, 2011). Many of these students also have additional disabilities in conjunction with an EBD identification, such as Learning Disabilities (LD), Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), among other psychiatric disorders (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2009; Kauffman, 2005).

Because the identification of EBD examines behaviors that tend to be more subjective in nature than other disabilities and because these pervasive behaviors are manifested in a variety of forms, EBD is one of the most misidentified disability categories (Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006). For students with EBD, the behavior(s) they exhibit contribute to learning difficulties in multiple academic and functional areas. This chapter provides in-depth information on the common characteristics and behavioral dimensions of this population. Additionally, the in-school performance and long-term outcomes of students with EBD are discussed.

There are few challenges as daunting as achieving positive outcomes for students with emotional disabilities. A major obstacle is the generally poor quality of classroom instruction. Too few general education teachers or special education teachers possess the knowledge and skills to adequately serve this population of learners. Various factors account for the inadequate level of teacher preparation, including licensure requirements that emphasize quantity over quality, the research-to-practice gap, a train-and-hope rather than a train-and-coach approach to teacher preparation, and the absence of an infrastructure to support sustained use of evidence-based practices. I discuss each of these factors and offer some recommendations for improving the quality of teacher preparation and, in turn, the potential for more positive student outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the success of an initiative involving the transformation of a group of small substance use treatment only or mental health treatment only provider agencies serving uninsured adults into providers of co-occurring disorder treatment.

The paper uses a case study narrative to describe the initiative and the transformation of the participant agencies from being providers of mental health or substance use treatment to providers of co-occurring disorders.

Six agencies serving uninsured adults expanded their scope of patient treatment services to include the capacity to treat adults with co-occurring disorders. This was achieved with modest support funding from a local foundation. The initiative has been ongoing for five years.

The outcome of this initiative demonstrates the financial and practical feasibility of improving and expanding treatment services to low-resourced patient populations. The participating agencies were able to improve their capacity to treat patients with substance use or mental health issues that previously they were not prepared to treat and thus increased their ability to provide integrated care.

The initiative described here shows that the treatment of concomitant substance use and mental health disorders is within the range of many small-scale treatment providers, if provided the leadership and support. Delivery of effective treatments to populations experiencing co-occurring disorders that are underserved and undertreated are achievable in community-based clinical practices. This has implications for developing treatment capacity outside of hospital settings to enable treatment of co-occurring disorders to become more accessible.

Students with and at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) or behavioral difficulties have unique and heterogeneous needs that affect their academic, behavioral, and social skills. As such, many of these students are served in more restrictive settings (e.g., residential facilities) than their peers with other disabilities. However, there is little research to document the characteristics of students who are served outside of their neighborhood school. In this chapter, we describe a study of students with and at-risk for EBD served in a residential facility in the southeastern United States. Descriptive analyses of the behavioral, academic, and social characteristics of 18 students enrolled at the facility suggest that, on average, students scored above average for problem behaviors, below average on academic measures, and below average for social skills. Linear regression analyses suggest that age did not predict performance and that certain behavioral indices predicted student achievement on both academic and social skills measures. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

Psychopathy and antisocial personality are controversial disorders with alternate behavioral and dynamic formulations. As such, diagnostic approaches are often fragmentary and inconsistent. The purpose of this paper is to delineate the various conceptual parameters and to propose a comprehensive diagnostic approach.

A model is presented based on the congruence and differences among various categories of psychopathic and antisocial personality disorders and their clinical manifestations. Diagnostic approaches are critiqued and evaluated. Specific assessment tools and measures are recommended based on referrals and symptomatology.

Key factors of low frustration tolerance, poor social intelligence, aggression-driven psychopathy, sadism, and superego impairment are shown as central in the differential diagnostics of antisocial individuals.

The model enables the differentiation of problematic behaviors which may appear similar but require different forensic, legal, diagnostic, and intervention strategies.