Comparison of Educationally Labeled and Nonlabeled Adolescents With Emotional and Behavioral Needs - Research Article Summary

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bulrr

Epidemiologic research indicates an identification gap for students with emotional or behavioral problems between prevalence estimates and federal “emotional disturbance” eligibility. A study of 626 secondary students examined academic and behavioral functioning, school-based services, discipline incidents, and label predictors, comparing students with special education labels (ED, SLD, OHI) to those without school labels. Results showed no significant group differences on standardized emotional/behavioral functioning, while academic performance differed: learning disabilities had lower reading and math. Non-ED students received fewer services; ED-labeled students received more disciplinary actions, and demographics did not differentially predict labeling.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time30 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Legislative and Epidemiologic Background

IDEA and Child Find Requirements

Identification Gap in Emotional Disturbance

Study Rationale and Prior Research

Underidentification of Students With ED

Ambiguous Definition and Educational Performance

Comparison of Educationally Labeled and Nonlabeled Adolescents With Emotional and Behavioral Needs Behavioral Disorders 2022, Vol. 47(4) 245–256 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2021 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/01987429211052917](DOI: 10.1177/01987429211052917)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/01987429211052917)[journals.sagepub.com/home/bhd](journals.sagepub.com/home/bhd) Allyse A. Hetrick 1, Lee Kern2, and Bridget V. Dever2 Abstract Epidemiologic research suggests a gap between prevalence estimates of students with emotional or behavioral problems and the actual number of students identified under the federal category of emotional disturbance (ED). To better understand issues related to the identification gap, we investigated the academic and behavioral functioning, school-based services, frequency of discipline incidents, and predictors of labels among 626 secondary age students referred for participation ina larger study due to emotional and behavioral difficulties. Students with special education labels (i.e., ED, specific learning disability [SLD], other health impairment [OHI]) were compared to those who did not have a school label. Analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between groups on standardized measures of emotional and behavioral functioning. Academic performance was the only distinction, with students with learning disabilities scoring significantly lower in reading and math than students with other disability types or without disabilities. Students without an ED label received significantly fewer services whereas students with an ED label received significantly higher rates of disciplinary actions. Finally, demographic data examined did not differentially predict receipt of a label. Keywords adolescent age group, behavioral disorders, emotional or behavioral disabilities The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) provides the legal mechanism to assure students with emotional and behavioral problems receive services that address their needs. IDEA requires public schools to provide special education services to students identified as having a disability who demonstrate the need for specially designed instruction. Moreover, IDEA’s childfind mandate (34 C.F.R. § 300.111) requires that schools identify, locate, and evaluate students in need of special education and related services, even as they advance from grade to grade (§ 300.111[c][1]) . Nevertheless, epidemiologic research continuously suggests that there is a sizable gap between prevalence estimates of students with “emotional disturbance”(ED) and special education identification (Forness et al., 2012b) . Researchers have estimated that between 10% and 20% of school-age children exhibit persistent emotional or behavioral problems and need some type of mental health services (Ghandour et al., 2012; Merikangas et al., 2010) . However, the percentage of students who receive special education services under the category of ED has consistently been under 1% (National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 2015) . Consequently, many students may fail to receive special education services to which they are legally entitled. Although many have speculated about reasons for the mismatch between incidence rate and identification (Fornesset al., 2012a, 2012b; Kalberg et al., 2011), limited research has directly examined characteristics of students with and without a special education label or the implications of a label with respect to school-based services. Underidentification of Students with ED Among all IDEAlabel categories,“Emotional Disturbance”(hereafter referred to as Emotional and Behavioral Disorders [EBDs]) has been fraught with the most significant problems related to identification, resulting in significant underidentification. One variable implicated in un

FAQs

What identification gap does the study address?

It targets the gap between prevalence estimates of emotional or behavioral problems and the smaller number of students actually identified under the federal category of emotional disturbance (ED).

How did labeled and nonlabeled students differ in outcomes?

There were no significant differences in standardized emotional and behavioral functioning, but academic performance differed, with students with learning disabilities scoring lower in reading and math.

What role did labels play in school services and discipline incidents?

Students without an ED label received significantly fewer services, while students with an ED label received significantly higher rates of disciplinary actions.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bulrr