R E Mattison1, J Morales, M A Bauer. 1. Division of Child Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine basic psychosocial characteristics for adolescent socially and emotionally disturbed (SED) boys. METHODS: Boys aged 12 to 16 years who were recommended for SED placement were compared with same-aged boys recommended for other educational intervention. The main measures were the Kiddie SADS-E interview and Achenbach's parent Child Behavior Checklist and Teacher Report Form scales. RESULTS: The adolescent SED boys were found to have normal intelligence, high rates of family stressors, predominantly DSM-III externalizing disorders, serious dysfunction according to checklist ratings by both teachers and parents, and little current community mental health intervention. They were significantly different from the comparison group on several variables: lower socioeconomic status, more abuse experience, greater diagnostic comorbidity, higher Axis V clinician ratings, and higher teacher ratings on externalizing scales. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are similar to those for other age-gender groups of SED students. One implication is the need for more private child psychiatrists to become involved in the collaborative treatment of this complex and seriously ill group of special education students. Consequently, a second implication is to increase the experience of child psychiatry trainees in dealing with the many consultative needs of SED students and staff.
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine basic psychosocial characteristics for adolescent socially and emotionally disturbed (SED) boys. METHODS:Boys aged 12 to 16 years who were recommended for SED placement were compared with same-aged boys recommended for other educational intervention. The main measures were the Kiddie SADS-E interview and Achenbach's parent Child Behavior Checklist and Teacher Report Form scales. RESULTS: The adolescent SED boys were found to have normal intelligence, high rates of family stressors, predominantly DSM-III externalizing disorders, serious dysfunction according to checklist ratings by both teachers and parents, and little current community mental health intervention. They were significantly different from the comparison group on several variables: lower socioeconomic status, more abuse experience, greater diagnostic comorbidity, higher Axis V clinician ratings, and higher teacher ratings on externalizing scales. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are similar to those for other age-gender groups of SED students. One implication is the need for more private child psychiatrists to become involved in the collaborative treatment of this complex and seriously ill group of special education students. Consequently, a second implication is to increase the experience of child psychiatry trainees in dealing with the many consultative needs of SED students and staff.