State Definitions of Behavior Disorders

Abstract

The purpose of this article was to survey state departments of education regarding their definitions of behavior disorders. Forty-nine state definitions were analyzed based on their alignment to 11 criteria components. The data indicated a wide discrepancy between the states as to what constitutes a behavior disorder. The results are discussed in terms of the shortcomings of many of the definitions and in terms of the changes which have occurred in state definitions over the years. Specific recommendations regarding the need to operationalize the definitions are presented.

The Prevalence of Handicapping Conditions Among Juvenile Delinquents

“…Although the terms apparently carry different connotations (Feldman, Kinnison, Jay, & Harth, 1983), they are often applied indiscriminately by practitioners, researchers, and state education officials (Epstein, Cullinan, & Sabatino, 1977;Kauffman, 1984). All delinquents are, speaking literally, behaviorally disordered: Their behavioral deviance is precisely what has brought them to the attention of the criminal justice system.…”

The Influence of State Definitions of Behavior Disorders on the Number of Children Served Under P.L. 94-142

“…Of special interest are the findings that definitions have consistently outweighed terminology in magnitude of influence, and that the amount of total influence on prevalence rates has been increasing at a low but steady rate. These would appear to indicate that the influence of state definitions merits further study, hopefully with more discriminating analysis than was afforded by the l-to-4 categorical variables employed by Tallmadge et al A promising approach to this problem was offered in studies by Epstein, Cullinan, and Sabatino (1977), and Cullinan, Epstein, and McLinden (1986). The authors of both studies analyzed state definitions to determine the presence or absence of clauses or requirements corresponding to the 11 components listed in Table 1 (from Cullinan et al, 1986).…”

“…The authors of both studies analyzed state definitions to determine the presence or absence of clauses or requirements corresponding to the 11 components listed in Table 1 (from Cullinan et al, 1986). These components were derived from study of numerous professionally accepted definitions of behavior disorders (Epstein et al, 1977) and proved sensitive both to the diversity of definitions in effect at the time of each study and to the many changes that ensued during the interval between them. Epstein et al (1977) surveyed state directors of special education regarding definitions in effect for 1976/77 and documented the widespread lack of agreement among states at that time.…”

“…These components were derived from study of numerous professionally accepted definitions of behavior disorders (Epstein et al, 1977) and proved sensitive both to the diversity of definitions in effect at the time of each study and to the many changes that ensued during the interval between them. Epstein et al (1977) surveyed state directors of special education regarding definitions in effect for 1976/77 and documented the widespread lack of agreement among states at that time. They also noted that medical or psychiatric orientations of little educational relevance were in widespread use, and that terminology was generally ambiguous regarding practical assessment issues.…”

“…The data presented by Epstein et al (1977) and Cullinan et al (1986) represent the type of more detailed definitional description that one might hope to be more enlightening in examining the influences on prevalence rates. Additionally, data presented by Epstein et al (1977) predated the earliest data examined by Tallmadge et al (1985) and might be hoped to extend the possible trend, noted earlier, of increasing definitional influence on prevalence rates.…”