EBD Blog

Thoughts on Defining and Identifying EBD

Among the most difficult questions about emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is this: How do we know that a child or youth has one? There are, of course, the cases about which virtually no one will argue—cases in which the individual is so well behaved and socially skilled that almost nobody would even raise the question of whether he or she has any such disorder, and those in which the individual’s behavior is so unusual and seemingly inexplicable that almost nobody questions the judgment that he or she has at least one EBD.

However, a significant percentage of cases are not so easy to judge. This is because they’re close to the criterion, whatever it is, and some people will see it one way (i.e., the child has an EBD) and some the other (no, the child does not have an EBD). In many ways, the problem is like that of calling balls and strikes or making any other judgment in which things can be very close (some pitches are clearly strikes to nearly everyone, and some pitches are just inarguably balls, but some are really close and we may agree or disagree with the ump’s call). Sometimes, we have a built-in criterion to help us make a judgment. For example, we may consider a battery dead when it produces insufficient electrical current to operate the device to which it is attached (e.g., a car starter, a flashlight, or a digital device).

For some disabilities, there is a typical or standard type of test or scale yielding a value that we rely upon heavily for definition (e.g., hearing impairment has the audiogram; visual impairment has measures of visual acuity; mental retardation has the intelligence test). For some disabilities, there is a relatively well-established cut score indicating disability. Now, it is important to realize that these measures alone are not sufficient to make the judgment that a student has or does not have the disability in question. Nevertheless, the test or score is an important indicator in definition. EBD has no such typical or standard scale, although various instruments (e.g., behavior rating scales) are often used to help people make judgments. Probably more than is true in other areas of disability, EBD is defined by the judgment of adults who are allowed to make the call—EBD/not EBD.

Three concepts are particularly important in identifying things like EBD. The first is that the definition is necessarily arbitrary. That is, we simply pick a criterion for identification. There is no inherently right or wrong criterion. We simply make the case that the criterion should be X, not X+Y or X-Y. Again, some cases will be clear (many low birth weight/not low birth weight decisions, for example). But others will be difficult because they are “borderline” cases. Controversy arises primarily around the cases that are near whatever criterion we set. Second, if we do not have a criterion or line by which to define something, then we will not have a program to address it (this is as true of EBD as it is of poverty; for example, a recent New Yorker magazine article discussed the case of a woman who was poor but not quite poor enough, by a matter of only a few hundred dollars of income per year, to qualify for financial assistance). Finally, someone has to be the designated umpire or referee—the person with the power to make the call. As a society, we may designate people of any description to make the decision about a particular matter. In the case of EBD, should physicians with training in mental disorders (i.e., psychiatrists) be trusted as the final arbiters? Who should be the judges in criminal cases (e.g., electrical engineers, people chosen at random, auto mechanics, people with training in law, or CEOs)? Sometimes we designate a group rather than an individual as the decision-maker, as is the case with a jury. Somebody has to have the power to make the call or we have a chaotic situation (whether it’s a social service, such as special education, a legal proceeding, or an athletic contest).

Two other realities are important to recognize. First, some people are better judges than are others, every judge (including every group) is less than perfect, and we cannot expect every case to have the best judge(s). Second, every possible solution—any solution having to do with the criteria for judgment and any involving the designation of a person or persons to make the call—has a downside. That is, there is no perfect solution, so we are faced with real dilemmas, which involve choosing the lesser of two evils.

I discuss definitions and identification of EBD further in my text (see citation below). However, I think the common features of all definitions have to do with persistent and significant (if not severe) problems in one or more of the following areas:

• Getting along with others, both age peers and adults
• Behaving in ways that are judged to be socially appropriate
• Achieving academically at a level consistent with ability

Probably, all of the other more specific indicators of EBD can be subsumed under these three fundamental criteria. At what point or by what standards should we judge that a child or youth has an EBD? Well, that is a difficult judgment, but if we do not give anyone the power to make the call, then we will have to just ignore the emotional and behavioral difficulties of children and youth and allow peers and adults to take whatever actions they deem best regardless of their training or motivations. Personally, I would rather not see that kind of lassie-faire attitude toward EBD.

These kids (with EBD) exist, and they need help. They’ll get help only if we’re willing to live with the realities of definition and identification, as much as we may complain that these processes are not perfect. We need to make definition and identification the best we can while getting on with life in the real and imperfect world. Striving for perfection while tolerating imperfection is a good idea. Insisting on perfection is, itself, maladaptive behavior. So is philosophical dithering in which definition and identification are reduced to mere abstract propositions.

Reference

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

JK