Prevalence and putative risk markers of challenging behavior in students with intellectual disabilities
Abstract
Numerous studies have reported a high prevalence of challenging behavior among students with intellectual disabilities (ID). They discuss different putative risk markers as well as their influence on the occurrence of challenging behavior. The study investigates the prevalence of challenging behavior and evaluates in terms of a replication study well-known putative risk markers among a representative sample of students with ID (N=1629) in Bavaria, one of the largest regions in Germany. The research is based on a modified version of the Developmental Behavior Checklist (DBC). Findings indicate a prevalence rate of 52% for challenging behavior. The following putative risk markers are associated with challenging behavior: intense need for care, male gender, lack of communication skills, and residential setting. These risk markers explain 8.4% of the variance concerning challenging behavior. These results reveal that challenging behavior either is to a large extent determined by situations and interactions between individuals and environment and cannot be explained by the measured individual and social risk markers alone, or it is determined by further risk markers that were not measured.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Challenging behaviour is a common issue among children with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual and developmental disability.
“Challenging behaviour (CB) is a common issue among children with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual and developmental disability.”
A representative study in Germany found prevalence rates of approximately 52% for challenging behaviour in students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
“A representative study in Germany found prevalence rates of approximately 52% for CB in students with IDD (14).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Dworschak, W., Ratz, C., & Wagner, M.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- University of Würzburg (DE)
- University of Koblenz and Landau (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Ratz, Christoph
- Venue
- Research in Developmental Disabilities
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 58
- Pages
- 94-103
- ISSN
- 0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2508718019
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Keywords
- behavioral problems, intellectual disability, prevalence, risk indicators, students with intellectual disabilities, care needs, gender differences, communication skills, residential settings, replication study
- MeSH terms
- Problem Behavior, Adolescent, Child, Communication, Female, Germany, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Language, Male, Intellectual Disability, Residential Facilities, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Prevalence, Comprehension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review