Differential perceptions of multidisciplinary team members: Seriously emotionally disturbed vs. socially maladjusted

Abstract

The difficult task of distinguishing between students with serious emotional disturbance (SED) and those with social maladjustment (SM) continues to present a problem for educators. Although many researchers in the field of special education and school psychology have strong opinions about the feasibility of differentially identifying these groups of students, very little information is available about how this distinction is actually made by educators in the field. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that multidisciplinary team (MDT) members, specifically school psychologists, special educators, and school principals, consider in making the distinction between SED and SM students and the degree of confidence they have in their ability to make this distinction. Although no significant difference in reported confidence was found between the three groups of professionals, there was a moderate degree of disagreement between the groups on the behavioral or background descriptors that differentially characterize SED and SM students, especially in regard to the diagnosis of conduct disorder. Overall, school psychologists tended to differ from special educators and principals in the number of descriptors identified as important and the relative number of respondents that endorsed each descriptor. Implications for special education decision making and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Social Maladjustment and Special Education

“…Assessments developed to aid in the differentiation between ED and SM include the Clinical Assessment of Behavior (CAB; Bracken & Keith, 2004), Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree (EDDT; Euler, 2007), Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (SAED; Epstein & Cullinan, 1998), Emotional and Behavior Problem Scale (EBPS; Wright, 1989), and the Differential Test of Conduct and Emotional Problems (DT/CEP; Kelly, 1990). In spite of the presence of these measures, researchers have established that students with ED cannot be reliably differentiated from students with SM (Constenbader & Buntaine 1999; Dumont & Rauch, 2000; Easler & Medway, 2004; Merrell & Walker, 2004; Olympia et al, 2004; Stein & Merrell, 1992) because youth with characteristics associated with most definitions of SM (e.g., exhibiting behavior that is difficult to manage, aggressive, truant) are likely to have co-occurring conditions such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD (Davis, Sheeber, & Hops, 2002; Seeley, Rohde, Lewinsohn, & Clarke, 2002). Thus, those students who exhibit behavior consistent with many conceptualizations of SM are the same students as those who have the emotional and behavioral problems associated with ED.…”

Wading Through Quicksand: Making Sense of Minority Disproportionality in Identification of Emotional Disturbance

“…Much of the literature has focused on decisions related to identification of learning disabilities, but research suggests identification of ED is similarly affected by conflicting conceptualizations of the category and by practices of limited reliability and validity (e.g., Costenbader & Buntaine, 1999; Della Toffalo & Pedersen, 2005; Kelley, Reitman, & Noell, 2006). Unsurprisingly, there seems to also be little agreement among educators and service providers involved in the eligibility determination process (e.g., Stein & Merrell, 1992). But then, how can scholars or educators reliably identify a condition that has no agreed upon definition?…”