Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 356

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

Lowe, K., Allen, D., Jones, E., Brophy, S., Moore, K., James, W.·2007·Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00948.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 356

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

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.