Reading and Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities

Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities often have significant challenges learning to read, resulting in delays that can exacerbate other academic, emotional, and behavioral difficulties. Yet with emotional or behavioral supports, along with targeted interventions and accommodations in reading instruction and assessment, these students can become proficient readers. Understanding the characteristics of students who have emotional or behavioral disabilities is an important step toward the development of effective instruction and appropriate assessment.

This paper is intended to begin a discussion of the issues surrounding reading and students with emotional or behavioral disabilities; it is not intended to be a comprehensive research review. The paper provides: (1) an overview of the characteristics of students with emotional or behavioral disabilities, (2) a description of common approaches to reading instruction, and (3) assessment approaches and issues that surround the assessment of reading for students with emotional or behavioral disabilities.

The paper is one of several brief papers developed to contribute to the process of conducting research and developing accessible reading assessments for students with disabilities. Creating accessible reading assessments based on accepted definitions of reading and proficiencies of reading requires knowledge of the issues specific to each disability and how they affect reading and the assessment of reading. The information in these papers was obtained through a broad review of literature and Web sites of national agencies and organizations, along with input and feedback from professionals in the disability areas. Each paper is intended as a first step to facilitate discussions that include individuals who do not know the disability, in this case emotional or behavioral disabilities, and those who may know the disability but have not considered the interaction of the disability with reading or the assessment of reading through statewide testing.

Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities

Nearly 475,000 students 6–21 years of age in the United States received services for emotional or behavioral disabilities in the 2000-2001 school year, or about 8% of all students with disabilities in U.S. schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The official label for this group of students was formerly “serious emotional disturbance”; it was changed to “emotional disturbance” in the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We use the terminology commonly used in schools – emotional or behavioral disabilities – to refer to these students in this report. Students in this category are predominantly male, disproportionately African American, and likely to take psychotropic medicine such as stimulants, antidepressants, and anti-anxiety drugs (Bradley, Henderson, & Monfore, 2004).

It has been estimated that 8,723 K-12 English language learners (ELLs) received special education services for emotional or behavioral disabilities in 2001-2002. Thus, approximately 2.4% of school-age ELLs with disabilities were identified with emotional or behavioral disabilities (Zehler, Gleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, & Stephenson, 2003). The challenge of learning English and having a disability adds another level of complexity to learning to read and demonstrating reading achievement (Mueller & Markowitz, 2004).

Emotional and behavioral disabilities cover a range of conditions, including affective disorders, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, and conduct, attention, or adjustment disturbances (National Association of School Psychologists, 2002). It does not include youngsters who are considered to be exhibiting social maladjustments, unless they also have emotional disturbance.

Instruction for Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities

Many students diagnosed with emotional or behavioral disabilities have a difficult time learning to read (Jorm, Share, Matthews, & MacLean, 1986; Kauffman, Cullinan, & Epstein, 1987; Maughan, Pickles, Hagell, Rutter, & Yule, 1996; Wehby, Falk, Barton-Arwood, Lane, & Cooley, 2003). Because of the wide range of characteristics of emotional or behavioral disabilities, no one learning strategy is effective for every student. For instance, a student who refuses to participate in a classroom reading exercise may lack the necessary skills due to missed classes or limited English proficiency, or may have encountered a difficult situation earlier in the day that interferes with classroom concentration. Alternatively, the student may simply refuse to participate out of disinterest in the exercise. It is often difficult for teachers to know whether to target instruction, behavior, or other factors.

Reading difficulties and behavior problems often are linked, but the causal or correlative nature of this relationship is unclear. Educators frequently have to intervene both academically and behaviorally to help students with emotional or behavioral disabilities learn to read. When considering the approach to take with a student, it is necessary to understand the student’s past achievement and ability in reading classes, history of behavioral control, oppositional behavior, and emotional regulation. Rather than having specific processing deficits, these students usually must compensate for general lack of attention, high distractibility, or learning environments with too little task structure or direct instruction. It is also important for teachers to know the student’s level of English proficiency if the student is an English language learner.

Few studies address reading interventions for students with emotional or behavioral disabilities (Coleman & Vaughn, 2000). In a review of the literature, Coleman and Vaughn found only eight studies that investigated interventions for elementary students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Almost all of these used small samples of students and targeted only basic reading skills such as phonemic awareness and reading sight words. As an example, Wehby et al. (2003) had only eight subjects in their study of a comprehension intervention. No studies specifically address ELLs with emotional or behavioral disabilities.

Coleman and Vaughn (2000) conducted a focus group with teachers of students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. These teachers emphasized the importance of establishing trust to help these students overcome their fear of failure. They also stressed that instruction and interventions must meet a high level of interest for the students – high-interest reading materials such as games, magazines, or newspapers were better than basic readers or other more traditional instructional materials. The teachers also noted that students with emotional or behavioral disabilities were more likely to make leaps in progress rather than slow progress.

Two approaches highlighted in the work of Coleman and Vaughn (2000) were direct instruction and peer tutoring. Teachers in the focus group indicated that direct instruction, a highly structured, fast-paced method of instruction built around small, incremental learning objectives and immediate feedback, holds students’ attention and can build students’ confidence by giving students small, achievable reading tasks. Coleman and Vaughn cited a study by Yell (1992) that investigated the effect of direct instruction when compared to Language Master reading program and independent practice; he found that direct instruction better addressed task attention, interfering behaviors, and acquisition of sight words.

Peer tutoring, which also was identified in the Coleman and Vaughn (2000) literature review, provides a method of practicing reading that may allow students to build social skills. Peer tutoring has been found to be associated with increases in sight word recognition (Cochran, Fent, Cartledge, & Hamilton, 1993) and standardized test scores (Resnick, 1987 as cited in Coleman & Vaughn, 2000; Shisler, Top, & Osguthorpe, 1986) for both tutors and tutees.

Wehby et al.’s (2003) study addressed both academic and interpersonal skills by combining a modified curriculum, Open Court Reading, with a peer-assisted learning strategy (PALS). The study found that students made moderate gains in nonsense word fluency, sound naming, blending, and segmenting, as measured by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) system. However, these gains were not reflected in standardized test scores, and no changes in behavior were observed. The small sample size and only moderate effects on DIBELS make it difficult to determine whether it was a “successful” reading intervention, but it is an example of an attempt to combine effective instruction with behavioral supports.

The setting in which students with emotional or behavioral disabilities receive instruction may also have an impact on their reading achievement. Bradley, Henderson, and Monfore (2004) found that students with emotional and behavior disorders in U.S. schools were more likely to be referred to more restrictive settings, and four times more likely than students in other disability groups to be educated in a separate public facility. While some students may benefit from the small class sizes and individualized instruction in these settings, the increased emphasis on behavioral control may sacrifice academic rigor. In a national survey, Gagnon and McLaughlin (2004) found that 25% of day treatment and residential schools serving students with emotional or behavioral disorders reported offering a school-developed program that was not aligned to state or local general education curriculum guidelines. Furthermore, about one-third of teachers reported that they used teacher-identified assessments as their primary accountability measure of student learning, leaving these schools with little or no link to district or state accountability systems (Gagnon & McLaughlin, 2004). Students served by these institutions may fall behind in the general curriculum, making it difficult for them to reintegrate into public schools.

Assessment of Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities

Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities generally take the same reading assessments as students in the general education classroom who do not have disabilities, but not necessarily in the same way. Accommodations for both classroom testing and state or district assessments are often used by students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Common accommodations include taking the test in a quiet room without distractions, taking a test that has fewer questions per page, taking breaks as needed, and allowing more time to finish the test.

In 2003, 46 states allowed students to take breaks during testing, and 45 states allowed extra time on tests (Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, &Thurlow, 2005). Some of these states restricted the use of these accommodations to certain circumstances, or the use of the accommodations had scoring or aggregation implications. Many states also allowed setting accommodations that might help students with emotional or behavioral disabilities maintain their concentration on the assessment – 46 states allowed students to be tested individually, and 40 states allowed students to take tests in a study carrel, without any restrictions or scoring implications. Few states have accommodation policies for ELLs with disabilities, and we know little about the accommodations typically used by ELLs with emotional or behavioral disabilities.

Given the wide variety of instructional and behavioral needs of students with emotional or behavioral disabilities, there are many issues that remain to be addressed when it comes to assessment, especially those assessments that measure reading. If motivation is such an integral aspect of the students ’disability, then why are there not accommodations available that address this? For example, the use of reinforcements during testing may make sense for these students, yet they are rarely addressed in states’ accommodation policies. Other unique accommodations, such as the use of calming music, or the allowance for tests to be taken at home – while some may seem as stretching the bounds of what is appropriate for security reasons – may be most appropriate when considering students who have school phobias. Motivational issues for these students are rarely addressed in state accommodation policies or in the design of the assessments themselves.

Most of the questions that have been raised address accommodation issues. Many of these have not been considered at all by states and districts, although some have –for example, 20 states allow the test to be taken in the home (Clapper et al., 2005). Yet it will be important also to consider whether there is anything about reading tests themselves that make them a challenge for students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Can the design of the assessments themselves address the needs of these students, without changing the standards of proficiency?

Summary

The intent of this brief paper is to highlight issues surrounding reading and students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. While not a comprehensive review, it is intended to give enough of a sense of the characteristics of the students, general instructional approaches used with them, and assessment approaches and issues to generate discussion about the possible ways in which more accessible assessments can be designed for those students who are proficient readers given their emotional or behavioral disabilities. This paper is part of the background for research on accessible reading assessments conducted by the Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessments (PARA), and for discussions among collaborators on the National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects (NARAP).

References

Bradley, R., Henderson, K., & Monfore, D. A. (2004). A national perspective on children with emotional disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 211 – 223.

Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html.

Cochran, L., Fent, H., Cartledge, G., & Hamilton, S. (1993). The effects of cross-age tutoring on academic achievement, social behaviors, and self-perceptions of low achieving African American males with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 292-302.

Coleman, M., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Reading interventions for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 93-104.

Gagnon, C. G., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2004). Curriculum, assessment, and accountability in day treatment and residential schools. Exceptional Children, 70, 263-83.

Jorm, A. F., Share, D. L., Matthews, R., & MacLean, R. (1986). Behaviour problems in specific reading retarded and general reading backward children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 27, 33-43.

Kauffman, J. M., Cullinan, D., & Epstein, M. H. (1987). Characteristics of students placed in special programs for the seriously disturbed. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 175-
184.

Maughan, B., Pickles, A., Hagell, A., Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1996). Reading problems and antisocial behavior: Developmental trends in comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 405-418.

Muller, E., & Markowitz, J. (2004). Synthesis brief: English language learners with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education Inc.

National Association of School Psychologists (2002). Position statement on students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Retrieved May 3, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_sebd.html.

Resnick, M. J. (1987). The use of seriously emotionally disturbed students as peer tutors: Effects of oral reading rates and tutor behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International 49(05), 1968. (University Microfilms No. 8813441).

Shisler, L., Top, B. L., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1986). Behaviorally disordered students as reverse- role tutors: Increasing social acceptance and reading skills. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 10, 101-119.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Wehby, J. H., Falk, K. B., Barton-Arwood, S., Lane, K. L., & Cooley, C. (2003). The impact of comprehensive reading instruction on the academic and social behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 225-238.

Yell, M. L. (1992). A comparison of three instructional approaches on task attention, interfering behaviors, and achievement of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Dissertations Abstracts International 53(09), 3174. (University Microfilms No. 9236987).

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (No. 4 Special topic report: Findings on special education LEP students). Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.

Acknowledgments

This paper was developed through a collaborative effort of numerous members of the PARA staff. The contributors are listed here alphabetically: Kristin Eisenbraun, Christopher Johnstone, Sheryl Lazarus, Kristi Liu, Danielle Matchett, Ross Moen, Mari Quenemoen, Rachel Quenemoen, Sandra Thompson, and Martha Thurlow.

Top of Page