The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Challenging behaviours: prevalence and topographies
Abstract
Background Variations in reported prevalence of challenging behaviour indicate the need for further epidemiological research to support accurate planning of future service provision. Methods All services providing for people with learning disabilities across seven unitary authorities, with a total population of 1.2 million, were screened to identify people with challenging behaviour. Interviews were conducted with primary carers to gain data on identified individuals' characteristics and support. Measures designed for a similar study conducted in Manchester University were incorporated to allow direct comparison with earlier findings, together with standardized tools to assess adaptive behaviour and social impairment. Results In total, 4.5 (2.5–7.5) people per 10 000 population were rated as seriously challenging, representing 10% (5.5–16.8%) of the learning disability population; the most prevalent general form was other difficult/disruptive behaviour, with non‐compliance being the most prevalent topography. The majority showed multiple behaviours and multiple topographies within each general behaviour category. Also identified were substantial numbers of additional people reported as presenting challenging behaviours at lower degrees of severity. Conclusions Prevalence rates for seriously challenging behaviours were comparable to those reported in the earlier studies, thus confirming previous findings. The prevalence of less serious challenging behaviour also has major clinical significance and emphasizes the need for enhanced understanding and skills among personnel within primary‐ and secondary‐tier health, education and social care services, and for strengthening the capacity of community teams to provide behavioural expertise.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Systematic recording of behaviors and skills of retarded and psychotic children
Wing, L., & Gould, J. (1978) · Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia · doi:10.1007/bf01550280 · Cited by 212
The form and function of challenging behaviours
Emerson, E., & Bromley, J. (1995) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1995.tb00543.x · Cited by 190
Cited by
Tsiouris, J. A., Kim, S. Y., Brown, W. T., & Cohen, I. L. (2011) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01418.x · Cited by 124
Newcomb, E. T., & Hagopian, L. P. (2018) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/09540261.2018.1435513 · Cited by 119
Harvey, S. T., Boer, D., Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M. (2009) · Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability · doi:10.1080/13668250802690922 · Cited by 112
Allen, D. G., Lowe, K., Moore, K., & Brophy, S. (2007) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00877.x · Cited by 100
Self-citationNoone, S. J., & Hastings, R. P. (2010) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-010-0007-4 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Lowe, K., Allen, D., Jones, E., Brophy, S., Moore, K., & James, W.
- Venue
- Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05-09
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 625-636
- ISSN
- 0964-2633 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2788
- OpenAlex
- W2042578701
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Challenging behaviours: prevalence and topographies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00948.x
- The paper
- Lowe, K., Allen, D., Jones, E., Brophy, S., Moore, K., & James, W. (2007). Challenging behaviours: prevalence and topographies. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00948.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.