Behavioral and Emotional Disorder Risk

Behavioral and Emotional Disorder

Risk Factors Predictive of the Problem Behaviors of Children at Risk

Nelson, Stage, Dupong-Hurly, Syhorst and Epstein (2007) set out to predict, which, of several previously identified risk factors, were most likely to predict behavioral and/or emotional disorders in kindergartener and first grade children. Their study used a broad measure, evaluating 40 risk factors applied to 178 students that had previously been identified as at-risk. These students had been selected to receive intervention using the Early Screening Process (Walker, Severson & Feil, 1995) and the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker & Severson, 1990). Parents, guardians and teachers rated their children using the previously mentioned scales, as well as on the Child Behavior Checklist Total Problem Scale (Achenbach, 2001). The study found that at-risk children who fall within certain risk categories are more likely to develop emotional and behavioral disorders. In addition, it was found that there are certain behavioral markers which are more likely predictor of emotional and behavioral disorders.

The strength of this study lies largely in its breadth. The researchers evaluated more risk factor than had prior been examined in a single study. In addition to a wide variety of risk factor, the study identified different types of risk factors, which had varying impact on the child. As well, the study is useful in that it utilized the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenback, 2001) a system of measure that is already commonly used in schools. This allows the results of the study to be easily understood by many educator, thus making the findings more applicable to general use. In addition, because it was conducted over several year, it again allowed for more breadth of result that could have been achieved in a shorter study.

There are, however, several drawbacks to both the way the study was conducted and its findings. First, only children that were already selected to receive intervention were chosen to participate. In addition, because of the location of the study, the population it sampled was fairly homogenous. Much of the results were reported by parents or guardians, leaving a high chance of bias. Similarly, the staff who conducted the interviews were neither psychologists nor psychiatrists, again leaving room for error. Within the scope of the study's goals, however, the researchers controlled for the majority of the potential drawbacks.

This study provides educators with a rough series of guidelines for evaluating at-risk students. It can be used to create a checklist of behaviors and circumstance that can point to children which are at higher risk of developing emotional and behavioral problems, and give some objective measures which can be applied to any student, with less risk of personal bias on the part of the educator. However, there is also a possibility of using these findings to pigeonhole students that these findings may indicate are at risk, even if those students have other influencing factors that mediate their risks. Students that display the behaviors noted are not guaranteed to develop disorders, but the guidelines are useful none the less.