S Forster1, K M Gray, J Taffe, S L Einfeld, B J Tonge. 1. Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology, School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. sheridan.forster@monash.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with severe and profound levels of intellectual disability (ID) are frequently examined as a single group in research. However, these two groups may be significantly different, particularly in the area of emotional and behavioural difficulties. METHOD: The Developmental Behaviour Checklist (DBC) was completed by parents and caregivers of 107 people with severe ID and 22 people with profound ID at four time periods across 12 years. Regression analyses were used to examine trends in sub-scale scores across time and groups. RESULTS: Significant differences between the groups of people with severe and profound ID were found. People with profound ID had significantly lower scores across all sub-scales except Social Relating. This was usually related to fewer items being selected as present for people with profound ID, as opposed to the scores being attributable to lower item severity scores. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between groups of people with severe and profound ID in scores on the DBC, indicating differences in behavioural and emotional problems. Caution should be exercised by researchers treating these two disparate groups as a single group, and by practitioners translating such findings into practice.
BACKGROUND:People with severe and profound levels of intellectual disability (ID) are frequently examined as a single group in research. However, these two groups may be significantly different, particularly in the area of emotional and behavioural difficulties. METHOD: The Developmental Behaviour Checklist (DBC) was completed by parents and caregivers of 107 people with severe ID and 22 people with profound ID at four time periods across 12 years. Regression analyses were used to examine trends in sub-scale scores across time and groups. RESULTS: Significant differences between the groups of people with severe and profound ID were found. People with profound ID had significantly lower scores across all sub-scales except Social Relating. This was usually related to fewer items being selected as present for people with profound ID, as opposed to the scores being attributable to lower item severity scores. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between groups of people with severe and profound ID in scores on the DBC, indicating differences in behavioural and emotional problems. Caution should be exercised by researchers treating these two disparate groups as a single group, and by practitioners translating such findings into practice.