Emotional and Behavioral Risk Configurations, Students With Disabilities, and Perceptions of the Middle School Ecology

Abstract

Perceptions of the ecology and middle school transition are examined in relation to interpersonal competence patterns (ICPs) of approximately 3,000 sixth graders (46.2% boys) including 415 students with disabilities from 26 metropolitan schools. Teacher ratings of students’ academic competence, externalizing and internalizing behavior, popularity, physical attractiveness/athletic ability, and friendliness are used to determine students’ ICPs. Using latent profile analyses, distinct ICPs are identified, including Model (high adaptive), Average, Tough (popular-aggressive), Passive (shy, withdrawn), and Troubled (low adaptive) for boys and girls, respectively. Although students with disabilities are overrepresented in Passive and Troubled ICPs and underrepresented in the Model ICP, 804 students without disabilities (367 boys) were identified in risk ICPs (i.e., Passive, Tough, Troubled) compared with 197 students with disabilities (128 boys). Risk ICPs are differentially associated with students’ perceptions of the school ecology and the transition experience of students with disabilities. Implications for Multitiered Systems of Support and the tailoring of interventions are considered.

Risk Profiles of Korean Adolescents in Relations With Contextual Factors: Implications for Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

“…It suggests the movement to the next level of intervention with a more intensive strategy if a student is not responsive to a less intensive level of instructions (30). However, as we have reviewed that risk factors of adolescents are significantly impacted by home and classroom environments surrounding each student (21)(22)(23), the response to intervention is also highly likely to be affected by identical contextual variables (26,29). For example, according to Farmer et al (27), teachers are familiar to conclude that the instruction was ineffective or the student is resistant to the instruction based on the lack of student progress after the instruction.…”

Supporting the Inclusion of Socially Vulnerable Early Adolescents: Theory and Illustrations of the BASE Model

“…Compared to youth who do not receive special education, students with SEN have elevated rates of social difficulties. This includes increased risk for involvement in bullying both as a perpetrator and a victim (Blake et al, 2012;Chen et al, 2015;Rose and Gage, 2017) as well as feeling as though they do not belong in the classroom or school (Sullivan et al, 2015;Chen et al, 2019;Musetti et al, 2019). In addition, higher proportions of students with SEN are socially isolated (i.e., not a member of a peer group: Pijl et al, 2008;Farmer et al, 2011) or are not well liked by peers (i.e., rejected sociometric status: Estell et al, 2008;Pijl and Frostad, 2010;Bossaert et al, 2015).…”

“…Further, although 10-20% of students with SEN are socially isolated, the majority are members of peer groups and have close friendships that, in some cases, appear to support their adjustment in school (Pearl et al, 1998;Estell et al, 2009b). Using person-oriented analytic approaches, subtypes of youth, including students with SEN, have been identified who have distinct interpersonal competence patterns (ICPs) on teacher ratings of their academic, behavioral, and social functioning (Farmer et al, 1999;Chen et al, 2019). In turn, these ICPs are associated with different levels of school belonging and social experiences in inclusive classroom settings.…”

“…Although between 40 and 50% of students with SEN are identified in interpersonal risk configurations (i.e., popularaggressive, passive, low-adaptive), the majority of students in these risk configurations are general education students (Farmer et al, 1999(Farmer et al, , 2011(Farmer et al, , 2019Chen et al, 2019). In fact, in a recent sample of nearly 3,000 students across 26 middle schools, four times as many general education students (803) as students with SEN (197) were identified in risks configurations that are related to a range of social vulnerabilities including poor adjustment to the middle school environment, feelings of not belonging, involvement in peer victimization, and experiencing academic and behavioral difficulties (Chen et al, 2019). Accordingly, efforts to support the inclusion of socially vulnerable youth may be enhanced by focusing on students in these configurations regardless as to whether they are identified for SEN.…”

Tiered Systems of Adaptive Supports and the Individualization of Intervention: Merging Developmental Cascades and Correlated Constraints Perspectives

“…If an evidence-based intervention does not promote the positive organization of the student’s developmental system and if the trajectory of functioning does not improve over time, it is likely that the intervention requires tailoring to improve impact. Using person-oriented analysis with teacher ratings of students’ adjustment (e.g., academic and behavioral social), it is possible to identify subtypes of youth with similar interpersonal competence configurations or patterns (ICPs) that are related to trajectories of key developmental process variables such as school belonging, teacher–student relationships, peer acceptance, peer affiliations, and social roles (Chen et al, 2020; Estell, Cairns, et al, 2002; Estell, Farmer, et al, 2002; Farmer et al, 2008). These ICPs and associated developmental trajectories are predictive of important outcomes such as academic failure, substance use, teen parenthood, delinquency, and school dropout (Bergman et al, 2009; Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Farmer et al, 2003; Gest et al, 1999).…”