No abstract

Summary In an epidemiological study of the behaviour of a 1 in 4 sample of 3‐year‐old children living in a North London Borough, it was found that 7 per cent had a behaviour problem winch was moderate or severe. A further 15 per cent had mild behaviour problems. There were no significant social class differences. Boys were significantly more likely to be overactive, to be wetting at night and during the day, to be soiling and to have relapsed in sphincter control after a period of being clean or dry. Girls were more likely to be fearful: there were no other sex differences in the frequency of problem behaviour.

No abstract

A representative sample of 535 children were followed up from their third to their eighth birthday using measures of language ability and behaviour. At age 8 yr it was found that there were significantly more boys with behavioural deviance than girls, and that children from manual social class backgrounds also showed more behavioural deviance. The only difference between the immigrant and non-immigrant children was a less frequent occurrence of neurotic deviance in the immigrant group. It was found that behaviour problems at age 3 yr were strongly related to behavioural deviance at school at age 8 yr, particularly for boys. This medium-term stability in behaviour problems had not been found in previous studies looking at younger children. A low score on a measure of language structure at age 3 yr was found to be related to a high rate of neurotic deviance at age 8 yr even when behaviour at age 3 yr was controlled. The implications of these findings for the early identification and intervention with children at risk for later behaviour deviance are discussed.

The development of the Preschool Behaviour Checklist, for screening emotional and behavioural problems in preschool children in group settings, is described. Inter-rater reliability and internal consistency was established, and its validity was shown using a variety of methods. These include observations of the children, interviews with staff, comparison between clinic and nonclinic populations, factor and cluster analysis and comparison with another screening questionnaire. Uses of the PBCL for training and inservice work are outlined. The limitations of screening as a method of identifying children with behaviour problems are discussed.