This paper critically reviews Nelson, Stage, Dupong-Hurly, Syhorst, and Epstein's (2007) study on risk factors predictive of problem behaviors in children identified as at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. The review examines the study's methodology, which evaluated 40 risk factors across 178 kindergarten and first-grade students using established screening tools including the Early Screening Process, the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders, and the Child Behavior Checklist. The paper assesses the study's strengths — particularly its breadth of risk factors and use of widely adopted measurement tools — as well as its limitations, including sample homogeneity and potential reporting bias. The review also considers practical applications for educators and directions for future research.
The paper demonstrates effective critical appraisal of empirical research. Rather than simply summarizing the study, the writer evaluates methodological choices — such as sample homogeneity, the use of non-specialist interviewers, and reliance on parent-reported data — and weighs them against the study's stated goals. This evaluative stance is a core skill in education and social science writing.
The paper opens with a concise summary of the study's purpose and methodology, then moves through a strengths analysis, a limitations analysis, a discussion of practical applications for educators, and finally a set of recommended future research directions. This progression from description to evaluation to application mirrors standard research critique structure and keeps the argument logically ordered throughout.
Nelson, Stage, Dupong-Hurly, Syhorst, and Epstein (2007) set out to determine which of several previously identified risk factors were most likely to predict behavioral and/or emotional disorders in kindergarten and first-grade children. Their study used a broad measure, evaluating 40 risk factors applied to 178 students who 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 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 certain behavioral markers are more reliable predictors of emotional and behavioral disorders than others.
The strength of this study lies largely in its breadth. The researchers evaluated more risk factors than had previously been examined in a single study. In addition to a wide variety of risk factors, the study identified different types of risk factors, which had varying impact on the child. The study is also useful in that it utilized the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 2001), a measurement system already commonly used in schools. This allows the results of the study to be easily understood by many educators, thus making the findings more applicable to general use. Furthermore, because it was conducted over several years, it allowed for greater breadth of results than 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 who had already been selected to receive intervention were chosen to participate. In addition, because of the location of the study, the population sampled was fairly homogenous. Much of the data was 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 these potential drawbacks.
This study provides educators with a rough set of guidelines for evaluating at-risk students. It can be used to create a checklist of behaviors and circumstances that can point to children who are at higher risk of developing emotional and behavioral problems, and it offers some objective measures that 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 who may have other influencing factors that mediate their risks. Students who display the noted behaviors are not guaranteed to develop disorders, but the guidelines for recognizing children's mental health warning signs are useful nonetheless.
There are several avenues for further research stemming from this study. First, as indicated by the researchers, the study needs to be replicated in an area with greater diversity, to counteract any potential biases present in the original sample. Second, similar research should be conducted on younger students to discover which markers still apply, with the hope of enabling earlier intervention. Finally, additional study is indicated for students who have not qualified as at-risk through pre-screening. As the study suggests, children without identified risk factors can still develop emotional or behavioral disorders, and it should be examined whether the identified behavioral markers apply to all children, not only those flagged through formal screening processes.
Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 2001 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
You’re 88% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.