An Initial Study of the Emotional and Behavioral Characteristics of Black Students School Identified as Emotionally Disturbed

Abstract

For years, the research and policy focus on Black students with emotional disturbance (ED) has been on racial disproportionality. The disproportionality issue has sparked professional debate and raised major questions about racial bias, cultural fairness, appropriateness of assessment instruments, the adequacy of special education programs, poverty, exposure to risk factors, and research approaches. Unfortunately, minimal progress has been made on understanding the overrepresentation of Black students in ED programs. The purpose of the present study was to initiate research on the emotional and behavioral functioning of Black students with ED, by comparing the teacher-completed ratings from the Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance for Black students with ED (n = 139), Black students without ED (n = 421), White students with ED (n = 271), and White students without ED (n = 1,218). The results demonstrated that (a) Black students with ED were judged to demonstrate significantly higher levels of emotional and behavioral problems than their Black and White peers without ED, and (b) Black students with ED differed minimally from White students with ED. Research limitations, directions for future research, and implications for assessment and service delivery are discussed.

Keywords

emotional disturbance disorders/disabilities behavioral assessment psychometrics disproportionate representation

For more than 40 years, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 has been instrumental in ensuring that qualified students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. To qualify for services, students suspected of having a disability must meet the criteria for one or more of the disabilities listed under IDEA. Emotional disturbance (ED) is one such educational disability category that has been subject to intense scrutiny and controversy (e.g., prevalence rates, outcomes, disproportionality). According to IDEA, children who are identified as ED must demonstrate one or more of the following behavioral characteristics—Inability to Learn, Relationship Problems, Inappropriate Behavior, Unhappiness or Depression, and Physical Symptoms or Fears—for an extended period and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Although the current definition of ED has been in federal legislation for several decades, there has been much criticism of the definition (Algozzine, 2017; Florell, 2018; Forness & Knitzer, 1992; Hanchon & Allen, 2013, 2018). The primary areas of criticisms are that the definition is vague and ambiguous, lacks research support, includes arbitrary exclusionary clauses, and is outdated. In 2018, approximately 347,331 children were receiving services for ED, about 0.5% of school-age children, and this rate has been reasonably consistent for many years (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2021).

Unfortunately, while researchers and policy makers have examined the status and outcomes of students with ED, minimal effort has been directed to how the performance and outcomes of students with ED might vary by important demographic variables, especially with respect to race. Conversely, in general education, the educational experience and outcomes of White and minority students, particularly Black students, have been well documented. Specifically, it has been well established that the educational experiences of Black and White students are quite different, and the disparities have been well known for decades (Curran, 2016). When compared with their White peers, Black students are more likely to graduate with a standard high school diploma and more likely to drop out (B. Hussar et al., 2020) as well as less likely to score at the proficient level in math (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2020a) and reading (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2020b). Moreover, Black and White students experience different discipline practices (Gage et al., 2019; Skiba & Losen, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2019). While significant efforts and resources have been directed to reduce this academic achievement and school discipline gap, the disparity in educational experiences and outcomes between racial groups still exists.

When special education researchers and policy makers have focused on race and aspects of service delivery to students with ED, the target has often been on racial disproportionality. Specifically, the current child count data on students with ED indicate that approximately 25% of students with ED are Black students while the percentage of Black students in the general school population is about 16% (McFarland et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2019; see also U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2021). Furthermore, Black students had the highest risk ratio among minority groups in being verified as having ED at 1.9, American Indian or Alaska Native at 1.6, and two or more races at 1.4; in contrast, Whites had a risk ratio of 1.0, Latino had 0.7, and Asian had 0.2. This discrepancy between the percentage of Black students in the general population and the percentage of Black students in the ED population has led to questions of disproportionality or overrepresentation of Black students in the ED school population. This disproportional representation of Black students in ED raises major questions about racial bias, cultural fairness, appropriateness of assessment instruments, and the adequacy of special education programs (see Skiba et al., 2008; Whitford et al., 2016). Teacher biases are particularly evident in disciplinary actions, often predicating referral and potential eligibility for special education (see Devine et al., 2012; Finn & Servoss, 2014; Skiba et al., 2011; Triplett et al., 2014; Whitford et al., 2016). Other investigators have looked at the disproportionality issue and hypothesized that it is a result of children being exposed to poverty and the risk factors inherent with being raised in a poor environment (Wiley et al., 2013). Still other researchers have argued that the overrepresentation of Black students in the ED population is related more to the research approaches used and not to actual overrepresentation (Morgan & Farkas, 2016). Unfortunately, while the disproportionality debate of Black students in special education and in ED, in particular, has been a concern for decades, it remains unresolved. Moreover, this focus on disproportionality rates has been at the expense of critically examining issues such as the school functioning of Black students with ED and the educational and behavioral needs of Black students with ED.

Nonetheless, students with ED exhibit much poorer school and adult outcomes than their same-age peers with and without disabilities (Bradley et al., 2008; Sanford et al., 2011); race potentially exacerbates these already dismal outcomes (e.g., regarding disciplinary exclusions, academic-performance-graduation rates, drop-out rates, post-school outcomes–post-secondary education, and employment; Gage et al., 2019; Sanford et al., 2011; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2021). Specifically, students with ED demonstrate much poorer levels of academic performance in all content areas, and this level of underachievement increases with each year in school (Trout et al., 2003). In addition, students with ED demonstrate high levels of discipline problems, absenteeism, in-school and out-of-school suspensions, and expulsions (McElderry & Cheng, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2021; Wagner et al., 2005). In 2017–2018, students with ED were less likely to graduate with a standard high school diploma (60.5% vs. 72.7% for all disabilities) and more likely to drop out (32.4% vs. 16.0%) (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2021; see also Wagner et al., 2003). After high school, students with ED exhibit high rates of under- and unemployment, involvement with the justice system, and substance abuse (Kauffman & Landrum, 2018; Sanford et al., 2011; Wagner, Kutash, et al., 2005). In sum, the short-term and long-term educational and life outcomes of students identified as ED are poor compared with their same-age peers with and without disabilities.

Consequently, the emotional and behavioral functioning of Black students with ED in the educational setting is a critical issue that has yet to be addressed. Specifically, it would be informative to compare and contrast the behavior of Black students with ED to that of Black students not identified with disabilities. If the emotional and behavioral functioning of these two groups of students did not significantly differ, then there is the possibility that factors such as prejudice, discrimination, and test bias were influencing the decision to identify a Black student as ED. However, if the emotional and behavioral challenges of these students did significantly differ and that Black students with ED were determined to possess more deficits, problems, and pathologies than their peers without disabilities, then there is the possibility that variables other than prejudice, discrimination, and test bias are operative in the decision-making process. Along these lines, it would be informative to determine how similar or dissimilar the emotional and behavioral functioning of Black students with ED is to White students with ED. If the functioning of these two student groups were judged to be similar, it would tend to suggest that the screening and identification procedures used to identify the two student groups were appropriate.

Although there are a number of approaches available for use to study the emotional and behavioral functioning of Black students with ED, Black students without ED, and White students with ED, teacher ratings of student behavior is an approach that provides a number of advantages. Specifically, teacher ratings are common to the school environment, teachers are familiar with the purpose and process of rating scales, and the approach allows researchers to collect data on a large number of students within a reasonable period of time. Also, it has been well established that teacher rating scales are convenient to use, are cost-effective, and in most cases afford excellent psychometric characteristics (Chafouleas et al., 2010; Volpe & Gadow, 2010). Moreover, teacher judgment has been found to be an accurate predictor of student academic performance (e.g., Südkamp et al., 2012) and behavioral functioning (e.g., Chang et al., 2016; Erickson & Gresham, 2019).

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to initiate research on the emotional and behavioral functioning of Black students with ED by using data from the re-norming of the Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance–3: Rating Scale (SAED-3 RS; Epstein et al., 2020). The recently revised normative data of SAED-3 RS afford an important avenue for researching the emotional and behavioral functioning of these student groups for a number of reasons: The rating scale (a) operationalizes the characteristics noted in the federal definition, (b) is psychometrically sound, and (c) was normed on a large, nationally representative sample. In this research, three questions on the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black students with ED were addressed:

Research Question 1: Are the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black students with ED similar to or different from Black students in the general school population?

Research Question 2: Are the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black students with ED similar to or different from White students with ED?

Research Question 3: Are the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black students with ED similar to or different from White students without ED?

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from the norming study of the Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance–3 (SAED-3; Epstein et al., 2020), which consisted of 3,062 Grades K-12 students from throughout the United States. Four groups of students were sampled for this study: (a) Black/non-Hispanic students with school-identified ED (n = 139), (b) Black/non-Hispanic students not identified with a disability (n = 421), (c) White/non-Hispanic students with school-identified ED (n = 271), and (d) White/non-Hispanic students not identified with a disability (n = 1,218). All students included in the ED samples had an active Individualized Education Program (IEP) for ED at the time of the study. Students identified with comorbid disabilities were excluded from the ED samples.

Demographic data are reported in Table 1 for all four groups of students. For the Black/non-Hispanic ED sample, the majority of students were male (64.0%; n = 89) with a mean age of 13.03 (SD = 3.44). Nearly 75% of students attended public schools (n = 102), but data on school type were missing for 15.8% of this sample (n = 22). Less than 2% of this sample (n = 2) were identified as English language learners (ELLs). Just over half of the students were rated by a White/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 72), and 13.7% of students were rated by a Black/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 19); however, teacher racial data were missing for 32.4% of this sample (n = 45). Teachers who completed the ratings for this sample had 7.97 years of teaching experience on average (SD = 4.14).

Table 1.

Student Demographics by Group.

Demographic variable	Black ED (n = 139)	Black ND (n = 421)	White ED (n = 271)	White ND (n = 1,218)
Male	64.0%	67.9%	70.8%	56.5%
M age (SD)	13.03 (3.44)	12.20 (3.69)	13.36 (3.49)	11.78 (3.88)
Attended a public school	73.3%	62.5%	76.8%	67.7%
English language learner	1.4%	1.7%	<1%	2.6%
Rated by White teacher	51.8%	68.6%	65.7%	84.2%
Rated by Black teacher	13.7%	7.8%	5.2%	1.1%
M years teaching experience (SD)	7.97 (4.14)	8.25 (4.46)	7.46 (4.47)	8.89 (4.30)

Note. ED = emotional disturbance; ND = without disabilities.

For the Black/non-Hispanic without disabilities (ND) sample, the majority of students were male (67.9%; n = 286) with a mean age of 12.20 (SD = 3.69). Just over 62% of students attended public schools (n = 263), but data on school type were missing for 22.1% of this sample (n = 93). Less than 2% of this sample (n = 7) were identified as ELLs. Slightly under 70% of the students were rated by a White/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 289), and 7.8% of students were rated by a Black/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 33); however, teacher racial data were missing for 20.9% of this sample (n = 88). Teachers who completed the ratings for this sample had 8.25 years of teaching experience on average (SD = 4.46).

For the White/non-Hispanic ED sample, the majority of students were male (70.8%; n = 192) with a mean age of 13.36 (SD = 3.49). Over 75% of students attended public schools (n = 208), but data on school type were missing for 12.2% of this sample (n = 33). Less than 1% of this sample (n = 2) were identified as ELLs. Slightly over 65% of the students were rated by a White/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 178), and 5.2% of students were rated by a Black/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 14); however, teacher racial data were missing for 21.4% of this sample (n = 58). Teachers who completed the ratings for this sample had 7.46 years of teaching experience on average (SD = 4.47).

For the White/non-Hispanic without disabilities (ND) sample, the majority of students were male (56.5%; n = 688) with a mean age of 11.92 (SD = 3.86). Over 67% of students attended public schools (n = 824), but data on school type were missing for 1.7% of this sample (n = 21). Just over 2.5% of this sample (n = 31) were identified as ELLs. Slightly over 84% of the students were rated by a White/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 1,026), and 1.1% of students were rated by a Black/non-Hispanic teacher (n = 14); however, teacher racial data were missing for 8.9% of this sample (n = 109). Teachers who completed the ratings for this sample had 8.89 years of teaching experience on average (SD = 4.30).

Measure

The SAED-3 RS is a standardized, norm-referenced 45-item rating scale for students’ ages 5 to 18 years. The RS has five subscales: Inability to Learn (e.g., listening and note-taking skills are weak), Relationship Problems (e.g., has few or no friends), Inappropriate Behavior (e.g., verbally abuses, teases, taunts people), Unhappiness or Depression (e.g., has feelings of worthlessness), and Physical Symptoms or Fears (e.g., afraid of unlikely dangers) that align with the federal definition of ED as stated in IDEA. A supplemental sixth subscale Socially Maladjusted does not correspond to a characteristic of ED and was not included in the analyses. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = “not a problem,” 1 = “mild problem,” 2 = “considerable problem,” and 3 = “severe problem”). Raters must be familiar with the student for at least 2 months. Items composing each of the subscales are summed to obtain a raw score, which is transformed to a scaled score. For this study, the five subscale scaled scores were used as dependent variables in the analysis.

Evidence of the adequate psychometric properties of the SAED-3 RS scores has been previously studied and demonstrated with large samples of students. The psychometric properties most relevant to this study include test-score reliability, internal structure for students with and without disabilities, measurement invariance between Black and White students, and construct validity (see Epstein et al., 2020; Lambert, Cullinan, et al., 2021a; Lambert, Cullinan, et al., 2021b). Perhaps most importantly, previous research on the measurement invariance of SAED-3 RS scores has demonstrated that SAED-3 RS scores were comparable between Black/non-Hispanic and White/non-Hispanic students thus facilitating a valid comparison within this study (Lambert, Martin, et al., 2021).

Data Collection

In the process of creating national norms for the SAED-3 RS (Epstein et al., 2020), data were collected from individuals throughout the United States from fall 2015 through spring 2018. Teachers, school psychologists, and other school personnel were contacted via mail, email, or telephone, and asked to participate. Volunteers were provided detailed instructors on how to complete the rating scale and how to select students. Participants were informed to rate only students they were familiar with and they had in their class for at least 2 months. They were also asked to complete demographic information on students they rated. Respondents were asked to rate all of the students on their caseload, or to select an unbiased sample using the following procedure. In selecting the sample, they were asked to follow a set procedure.

First, decide how many students you will rate. Then start at one end (top or bottom) of your roll, and rate each student in order. Do not skip any student unless you have known that student less than two months. When you have completed scales on the number of students you decided, stop rating.

Prior to data being collected, three university Internal Review Boards (University of Nebraska–Lincoln, University of Northern Colorado, and Elon University) approved recruitment and data collection protocols.

Data Analysis

The main focus on the analysis was to evaluate the extent to which SAED-3 RS subscale scores differed across the four samples of students: (a) Black/non-Hispanic students with school-identified ED, (b) Black/non-Hispanic students without disabilities, (c) White/non-Hispanic students with school-identified ED, and (d) White/non-Hispanic students without disabilities. To this end, STATA v16 was used to analyze data within a multivariate multiple regression framework, where all five SAED-3 RS subscale scores were the dependent variables. Predictors in the models included dummy-coded variables representing contrasts between Black students with ED and the other three groups, student gender (male = 0, female = 1), and mean-centered age variable. Gender and age were included as control variables to account for differences in demographics between the samples of students. Because the distributions of SAED-3 RS subscale scaled scores (and residuals) were non-normal, the standard errors for model parameters were computed using nonparametric bootstrapping based on 1,000 bootstrapped replications. Bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals were computed based on the bootstrapped replications.

Hedges’s g effect sizes were computed for each comparison between the samples. Hedges’s g statistics represent the mean difference between two groups in standard deviation units while accounting for the upward bias of the mean difference attributed to sampling variation (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Hedges’s g estimates were computed using the model-adjusted means from the regression analysis (controlling for gender and age) and the unadjusted variances as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 2014). We characterized each effect size estimate according to Cohen’s suggested ranges for the d effect size statistic (Cohen, 1988); therefore, g values ranging 0.00–0.19 were designated as trivial, 0.20–0.49 were small, 0.50–0.79 were medium, and ≥0.80 were large.

A total of 15 comparisons were interpreted in this study (three comparisons per subscale score). If the significance level was set at .05, there would be a .54 probability of making at least one Type I error across the set of comparisons. To account for multiple comparisons and to maintain a nominal significance level of .05 across the entire set of comparisons, we adopted a conservative per-test significance level of .0034.

Results

The unadjusted means and standard deviations for each of the four groups of students are reported in Table 2. Black/non-Hispanic students with ED had the highest scores for the Inability to Learn and Inappropriate Behavior SAED-3 RS subscales, while White/non-Hispanic students with ED had the highest scores for the Relationship Problems, Unhappiness or Depression, and Physical Symptoms and Fears SAED-3 RS subscales. Black and White students with no disabilities had substantially lower scores for each SAED-3 RS subscale.

Table 2.

Unadjusted Means (and Standard Deviations) by Group.

SAED Subscale	Black ED (n = 139)	Black ND (n = 421)	White ED (n = 271)	White ND (n = 1,218)
Inability to Learn	13.36 (3.81)	10.48 (3.35)	13.03 (3.76)	9.91 (3.11)
Relationship Problems	13.46 (3.84)	10.70 (2.70)	14.04 (3.88)	10.37 (2.46)
Inappropriate Behavior	15.43 (4.30)	10.99 (3.83)	13.56 (4.63)	9.82 (2.79)
Unhappiness or Depression	12.91 (3.96)	10.21 (2.58)	13.02 (4.09)	9.88 (2.29)
Physical Symptoms and Fears	12.40 (3.53)	10.19 (2.35)	13.95 (4.08)	10.03 (2.52)

Note. ED = emotional disturbance; ND = without disabilities.

Results from the multivariate regression models (see Table 3) addressed the three research questions while accounting for differences in student gender and age across the four samples. First, we examined the extent to which the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black/non-Hispanic students with ED differed from those of Black/non-Hispanic students in the general population. Black/non-Hispanic students with ED scored significantly higher on all five SAED-3 RS subscales compared with Black/non-Hispanic students with no disabilities with large effect sizes ranging from −0.861 to −1.160. Effect sizes are negative because the Black/non-Hispanic ED sample served as the reference group in the analysis. Second, we examined the extent to which the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black/non-Hispanic students with ED differed from those of White/non-Hispanic students in the general population. Similarly, Black/non-Hispanic students with ED scored significantly higher than White/non-Hispanic students with no disabilities on all five SAED-3 RS subscales with large effect sizes ranging from −0.920 to −1.949. Interestingly, the differences between Black/non-Hispanic students with ED and White/non-Hispanic students in the general population tended to be larger than the differences between Black/non-Hispanic students with ED and Black/non-Hispanic students in the general population. This was particularly apparent for the Inappropriate Behavior subscale score (g = −1.949 vs. −1.160).

Table 3.

Results From the Multivariate Multiple Regression Analysis.

Predictor & group	Regression coefficient [BC 95% CI]	Bootstrap SE	p value	Hedges’s g effect size
Inability to Learn
Black ND	−3.018 [−3.67, −2.37]	.34	<.001	−0.869
White ED	−0.290 [−1.03, 0.45]	.37	.435	−0.077
White ND	−3.639 [−4.31, −2.99]	.33	<.001	−1.141
Female	−0.183 [−0.44, 0.08]	.14	.189	—
Age	−0.161 [−0.19, −0.13]	.02	<.001	—
Relationship Problems
Black ND	−2.827 [−3.60, −2.18]	.35	<.001	−0.935
White ED	0.583 [−0.32, 1.33]	.40	.149	0.150
White ND	−3.148 [−3.84, −2.51]	.33	<.001	−1.195
Female	−0.323 [−0.54, −0.10]	.11	.005	—
Age	−0.063 [−0.09, −0.04]	.01	.001	—
Inappropriate Behavior
Black ND	−4.586 [−5.38, −3.73]	.42	<.001	−1.160
White ED	−1.826 [−2.72, −0.91]	.46	<.001	−0.393
White ND	−5.808 [−6.51, −5.11]	.35	<.001	−1.949
Female	−0.158 [−0.43, 0.13]	.11	.260	—
Age	−0.170 [−0.20, −0.14]	.01	<.001	—
Unhappiness or Depression
Black ND	−2.720 [−3.48, −2.07]	.35	<.001	−0.911
White ED	0.138 [−0.77, −0.93]	.41	.740	0.035
White ND	−3.098 [−3.77, −2.46]	.33	<.001	−1.232
Female	0.308 [0.08, 0.53]	.11	.007	—
Age	−0.037 [−0.06, −0.01]	.01	.010	—
Physical Symptoms and Fears
Black ND	−2.318 [−3.01, −1.79]	.30	<.001	−0.861
White ED	1.534 [0.80, 2.20]	.37	<.001	0.391
White ND	−2.431 [−3.01, −1.88]	.29	<.001	−0.920
Female	−0.777 [−1.01, −0.56]	.12	<.001	—
Age	−0.104 [−0.13, −0.08]	.01	<.001	—

Note. BC 95% CI = bias-corrected 95% confidence interval; ED = emotional disturbance; ND = without disabilities.

Finally, we examined the extent to which the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black/non-Hispanic students with ED differed from those of White/non-Hispanic peers with ED. Comparing the two groups of students with ED revealed that Black/non-Hispanic students with ED scored significantly higher than White/non-Hispanic students with ED on a single subscale score, Inappropriate Behavior (B = −1.826, p < .001), and this difference was of a small magnitude (g = −0.393). In addition, White/non-Hispanic students with ED scored significantly higher than Black/non-Hispanic students with ED on the Physical Symptoms and Fears subscale (B = 1.534, p < .001), and this difference was also of a small magnitude (g = 0.391).

Discussion

This study examined the emotional and behavioral characteristics of Black students with ED, an overlooked and yet critical area of inquiry. Findings indicated that Black students with ED have emotional and behavioral needs that are significantly different from their Black peers in regular classrooms who are not school identified as having a disability. Across the five primary characteristics of ED as identified in IDEA—Inability to Learn, Relationship Problems, Inappropriate Behavior, Unhappiness or Depression, and Physical Symptoms or Fears—Black students with ED were judged to demonstrate significantly higher levels of these behavioral challenges than their Black and White peers with no disabilities. Moreover, the magnitude of these differences was large across each of these characteristics. Also, Black students with ED differed from White students with ED on only two of the emotional and behavioral characteristics; yet, these differences were small in magnitude. It appears that Black students with ED have more in common academically, emotionally, and behaviorally with White students with ED than their non-identified Black peers without disabilities. Taken together, these findings in conjunction with previous research on the SAED-3 RS (e.g., Lambert et al., 2021) suggest that factors other than prejudice, discrimination, and test bias (at least as far as rating scales such as the SAED-3 RS) may be operative in the screening and identification of Black students with ED, and, at the very least, the school assessment process is identifying a student group with significant academic, emotional, and behavioral needs.

These findings begin to shed light on the decades-long debate regarding reasons for the disproportionality of Black students in special education programs for students with ED. Numerous explanations have been offered for the disproportionality, including racial bias, cultural fairness, appropriateness of assessment instruments, the adequacy of special education programs, poverty, exposure to risk factors, and research approaches (e.g., Morgan & Farkas, 2016; Skiba et al., 2008; Wiley et al., 2013). Unfortunately, minimal progress has been made on understanding or validating any of these explanations as the number of Black students identified and receiving services for ED continues to be significantly larger than one would predict based on the proportion of Black students in U.S. schools. Specifically, (a) Black students with ED were judged to demonstrate significantly higher levels of emotional and behavioral problems than their Black peers with no disabilities and (b) Black students with ED differed minimally from White students with ED.

In addition, prior research has consistently shown that students with ED tend to have poorer school and post-school adjustment outcomes than their non-identified peers (Bradley et al., 2008; Kaufman & Landrum, 2018; Sanford et al., 2011; Wagner, Kutash, et al., 2005; Wagner, Newman, et al., 2005). Although research has not been reported separately for Black students with ED, it is very likely, given their similarity to White students with ED, that these poor educational and life outcomes for ED students closely reflect outcomes for Black students with ED. In fact, given the potential of discriminatory practices related to race exacerbating the poor outcomes of Black students with ED, school personnel need to design and implement culturally appropriate academic and behavioral interventions that meet the documented needs of Black students with ED. While specific intervention approaches will necessarily vary substantially by individual, school, and locality, scholars in the area of culturally responsive intervention suggest that evidence-based practices and best practices are not “culture-free,” and therefore, school personnel should focus a greater extent of attention on understanding how culture both enables and constrains student learning and behavior (Bal, 2015). This focus might include carefully collecting and analyzing disaggregated data to evaluate the moderating role culture on intervention processes and student outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this research should be noted. First, the data for the present study were provided by teachers, school psychologists, and other school personnel that completed the SAED-3 RS, which in previous studies has demonstrated that the scores are reliable and valid (see Epstein et al., 2020). However, it is possible that if the behavior of the participants had been measured with other rating scales or other recording strategies (e.g., direct observation, office referrals), the results may have been different. To this end, future researchers may consider triangulating data and using direct observation recording strategies in classroom settings to get a sense of actual classroom behaviors of Black students with and without ED and their White counterparts. Second, the sample of students with and without ED was not randomly selected. Schoolteachers and other school personnel were contacted via letter, email, or telephone, and asked to participate. Thus, the sample included individuals who agreed to participate and completed the SAED-3 RS on their students. It is possible, therefore, that the ratings of teachers who responded are systematically different from teachers who choose not to respond. Third, an important variable that was left unmeasured in the current study was the socioeconomic status (SES) of students. SES is highly correlated with the behavior of students in schools (e.g., Cholewa et al., 2018; Mason et al., 2014), so future researchers should include SES information in any replications. Fourth, another limitation is the sample size of Black students with ED (n = 139), which was much smaller than the three other groups of students. With that in mind, the findings should be viewed with caution, and future researchers should replicate the study with a significantly larger sample of Black students with ED. Finally, at the time of the ratings, teachers knew which students had been already identified as ED, which may have influenced their ratings of student behavior. This limitation may be addressed, as previously mentioned, by using other data collection strategies such as office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions in future research efforts.

Along with the limitations, which afford several directions for research, there are additional areas for future study. In the present investigation, only Black students with and without ED and White students with and without ED were studied. For this reason, the results do not provide information on the extent to which the emotional and behavioral functioning of other minority students with ED including Hispanic, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial groups compared with the functioning of Black students with ED. As the student population in U.S. schools is predicted to become more and more diverse (e.g., W. J. Hussar & Bailey, 2016), future researchers should replicate the present study with students from other backgrounds. Furthermore, previous researchers have shown that teachers and other school personnel are more likely to rate Black students as demonstrating higher levels of disruptive, externalizing behaviors than their White peers, and that ratings may be related to both students and teacher race and ethnicity (DuPaul et al., 2016). Thus, researchers need to gather complete demographic data (e.g., race, actual position, training) on the school personnel providing the ratings and to examine the interaction between relative contribution of teacher demographic variables and student race on the ratings of students with and without ED. Finally, although differences between the Black and White students identified with ED on the Inappropriate Behavior and Physical Symptoms or Fears subscales were small in magnitude, further research is needed to better understand the underlying causes of these differences and the extent to which these differences impact decision making related to identifying students with ED.

Implications

Two clear implications emerge from the research findings: (a) the need to focus efforts on understanding the academic, social, and emotional needs of the population of Black students with ED, and (b) the need to implement evidence-based practices with Black students with ED. First, as previously stated, for decades efforts have focused on the disproportionality of Black students identified as ED, without efforts directed toward documenting and understanding the needs of this student group. The findings of this study document that Black students with ED have significant needs—Inability to Learn, Relationship Problems, Inappropriate Behavior, Unhappiness or Depression, and Physical Symptoms or Fears—that separate them from Black students not identified with disabilities. Researchers, policy makers, and educational personnel need to understand how these needs are manifested in educational settings, document the short- and long-term consequences of these problems, and design teacher training and staff development programs to better address the needs of Black students with ED. Second, school personnel need to implement evidence-based academic and behavioral interventions for Black students with ED as this study documented the significant academic and behavioral challenges of this population. Evidence-based practices can be summarized under the areas of (a) creating structure and predictability (e.g., physical environment, active supervision), (b) promoting positive classroom environments (e.g., positive classroom expectations, positive reinforcement systems), (c) using effective instructional strategies (e.g., explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, performance feedback), and (d) using assessments and data-based decision making to address behavior and academic needs (Zaheer et al., 2019).

Finally, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) are particularly promising as “tiered” models of prevention and intervention and have received support from numerous researchers, school professionals, and professional organizations to address the academic and behavioral needs of students (e.g., Jimerson et al., 2016; National Association of School Psychologists, 2016; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016). MTSS programs are frameworks that assist professional to implement evidence-based academic and behavioral strategies. When implemented with fidelity, these lead to increased student instructional time, improvements in academic and social functioning, and better school outcomes for all students. Key features of MTSS appropriate to students with ED receiving intensive services include the collection of functional assessment data across environments, individualized behavior interventions, collaboration across school, home and community providers, and frequent progress monitoring. Perhaps most relevant to the education of Black students with ED, MTSS programs are flexible enough to be culturally responsive by incorporating an awareness of student diversity, race, ethnicity, and background in the implementation of academic and behavior interventions and supports. Scholars suggest that frameworks for implementing culturally responsive interventions within MTSS should be democratic, reciprocal, and inclusive, and involve a community of learners to be most responsive and effective (Bal, 2015). Additional promising practices that may be more inclusive and culturally responsive include focuses on social-emotional learning, restorative justice, and self-discipline strategies (National Association of School Psychologists, 2013).

In conclusion, the findings of this study clearly establish that Black students with ED have significant academic, emotional, and behavioral challenges. The needs of these students are distinctly different than their non-ED Black peers. Educators, therefore, need to develop, test, and adopt culturally responsive, evidence-based practices that meet the documented academic, emotional, and behavioral needs of this student group. Critical in this process is the implementation of sustained professional development, both preservice and inservice, that is culturally relevant and allows for in-depth knowledge of working with diverse populations, including Black students (Whitford et al., 2016; see also Devine et al., 2012; Hattie, 2009). Furthermore, as Kauffman et al. (2016) argued, there should be an unwavering emphasis on “implementing research-based, effective special instruction, rejecting the notion that place of instruction is more important than the practice of instruction” (p. 150). Therefore, efforts of practitioners, researchers, and policy makers need to invest significant attention on the emotional and behavioral challenges that Black students with ED present in school.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: It is important to note that the third and fourth authors are developers of the Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance–3 (SAED-3) and receive royalties from sales of the assessment. It is also important to note that the data were analyzed and interpreted by the lead author independently from the other authors. The lead author has neither a financial interest related to the SAED-3 nor any other conflict of interest related to this study.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Algozzine

(2017). Toward an acceptable definition of emotional disturbance: Waiting for change. Behavioral Disorders, 42, 136–144.

Bal

(2015). Culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports (WCER Working Paper No. 2015-9). Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php

Bradley

Doolittle

Bartolotta

(2008). Building on the data and adding to the discussion: The experiences and outcomes of students with emotional disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9058-6

Chafouleas

S. M.

Volpe

R. J.

Gresham

F. M.

Cook

C. R.

(2010). School-based behavioral assessment within problem-solving models: Current status and future directions. School Psychology Review, 39, 343–349.

Chang

L. Y.

Wang

M. Y.

Tsai

P. S.

(2016). Diagnostic accuracy of rating scales for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 137(3), 2015–2749.

Cholewa

Hull

M. F.

Babcock

C. R.

Smith

A. D.

(2018). Predictors and academic outcomes associated with in-school suspension. School Psychology Quarterly, 33, 191–199.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Curran

F. C.

(2016). Estimating the effect of state zero tolerance laws on exclusionary discipline, racial discipline gaps, and student behavior. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 647–668.

Devine

P. G.

Forscher

P. S.

Austin

A. J.

Cox

W. T. L.

(2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1267–1278.

10.

DuPaul

Reid

Anastopoulos

Lambert

M. C.

Watkins

Power

(2016). Parent and teacher ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms: Factor structure and normative data. Psychological Assessment, 28, 214–225.

11.

Epstein

M. H.

Cullinan

Pierce

Huscroft-D’Angelo

Wery

(2020). Scales for assessing emotional disturbance (3rd ed.). PRO-ED.

12.

Erickson

Gresham

(2019). Measuring teachers’ perceptions of student behavior using the systematic screening for behavior disorders in middle school students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 119–128.

13.

Finn

J. D.

Servoss

T. J.

(2014). Misbehavior, suspensions, and security measures in high school: Racial/ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 11. http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=childrenatrisk

14.

Florell

(2018). Historical foundations. In Grapin

S. L.

Kranzler

J. H.

(Eds.), School psychology: Professional issues and practices (pp. 21–41). Springer.

15.

Forness

S. R.

Knitzer

(1992). A new proposed and definition and terminology to replace “serious emotional disturbance” in Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. School Psychology Review, 21, 12–20.

16.

Gage

N. A.

Whitford

D. K.

Katsiyannis

Adams

Jasper

(2019). National analysis of the disciplinary exclusion of Black students with and without disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 1754–1764.

17.

Hanchon

T. A.

Allen

R. A.

(2013). Identifying students with emotional disturbance: School psychologists’ practices and perceptions. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 193–208.

18.

Hanchon

T. A.

Allen

R. A.

(2018). The identification of students with emotional disturbance: Moving the field toward responsible assessment practices. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 176–189.

19.

Hattie

(2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

20.

Hedges

L. V.

Olkin

(1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.

21.

Hussar

Zhang

Hein

Wang

Roberts

Cui

Smith

Bullock Mann

Barmer

Dilig

(2020). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020144

22.

Hussar

W. J.

Bailey

T. M.

(2016). Projections of education statistics to 2024: Forty-third edition (NCES 2016-013). National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Government Printing Office.

23.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).

24.

Jimerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

(2016). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). Springer.

25.

Kauffman

J. M.

Anastasiou

Maag

J. W.

(2016). Special education at the crossroad: An identity crisis and the need for a scientific reconstruction. Exceptionality, 25, 139–155.

26.

Kauffman

J. M.

Landrum

T. J.

(2018). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (11th ed.). Pearson.

27.

Lambert

M. C.

Cullinan

Epstein

M. H.

Martin

(2021a). Differences between students with emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, and without disabilities on the five dimensions of emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2021.1895399

28.

Lambert

M. C.

Cullinan

Epstein

M. H.

Martin

(2021b). Factor structure of the scales for assessing emotional disturbance – 3 rating scale for student identified with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429211012328

29.

Lambert

M. C.

Martin

Epstein

M. H.

Cullinan

Katsiyannis

(2021). Differential item functioning of the scales for assessing emotional disturbance – 3 rating scale for White and African American students. Psychology in the Schools, 58, 553–568.

30.

Mason

B. A.

Guneersel

A. B.

Ney

E. A.

(2014). Cultural and ethnic bias in teacher ratings of behavior: A criterion-focused review. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 1017–1030.

31.

McElderry

C. G.

Cheng

T. C.

(2014). Understanding the discipline gap from an ecological perspective. Children & Schools, 36, 241–249.

32.

McFarland

Hussar

de Brey

Snyder

Wang

Wilkinson-Flicker

. . . Hinz

(2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

33.

Mitchell

B. S.

Kern

Conroy

M. A.

(2019). Supporting students with emotional or behavioral disorders: State of the field. Behavioral Disorders, 44, 70–84.

34.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

(2016). Evidence and implications of racial and ethnic disparities in emotional and behavioral disorders identification and treatment. Behavioral Disorders, 41, 122–131.

35.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2020a). NAEP report card: Mathematics. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/nation/achievement?grade=4

36.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2020b). NAEP report card: Reading. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement?grade=4

37.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2013). Racial and ethnic disproportionality in education [Position statement].

38.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Integrated model of academic and behavioral supports [Position statement].

39.

Sanford

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A. M.

Shaver

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school: Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3004). SRI International.

40.

Skiba

R. J.

Horner

R. H.

Chung

C. G.

Rausch

M. K.

May

S. L.

Tobin

(2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, 85–107.

41.

Skiba

R. J.

Losen

D. J.

(2016). From reaction to prevention: Turning the page on school discipline. American Educator, 39, 4–44.

42.

Skiba

R. J.

Simmons

A. B.

Ritter

Gibb

A. C.

Rausch

M. K.

Cuadrado

Chung

C. G.

(2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.

43.

Stoiber

K. C.

Gettinger

(2016). Multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based practices. In Jimerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 121–141). Springer.

44.

Südkamp

Kaiser

Möller

(2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 743–762.

45.

Triplett

N. P.

Ayana

Lewis

C. W.

(2014). Examination of how urban minorities are punished for white suburban violence. Journal of Negro Education, 83, 352–370. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.3.03

46.

Trout

A. L.

Nordness

P. D.

Pierce

C. D.

Epstein

M. H.

(2003). Research on the academic status of children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review of the literature from 1961-2000. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 198–210.

47.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. (2014). What works clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook version 3.0. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf

48.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2019). 2015–16 civil rights data collection: School climate and safety.

49.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2021). 42nd annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2020.

50.

Volpe

R. J.

Gadow

K. D.

(2010). Creating abbreviated rating scales to monitor classroom inattention-overactivity, aggression, and peer conflict: Reliability, validity, and treatment sensitivity. School Psychology Review, 39, 350–363.

51.

Wagner

Cameto

Newman

(2003). Youth with disabilities: A changing population. SRI International.

52.

Wagner

Kutash

Duchnowski

A. J.

Epstein

M. H.

Sumi

W. C.

(2005). The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2): Study designs and implications for children and youth with emotional disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 25–41.

53.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levin

(2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. SRI International.

54.

Whitford

D. K.

Katsiyannis

Counts

(2016). Discriminatory discipline: Trends and issues. NASSP Bulletin, 100(2), 117–135.

55.

Wiley

A. L.

Brigham

F. J.

Kauffman

J. M.

Bogan

J. E.

(2013). Disproportionate poverty, conservatism, and the disproportionate identification of minority students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 29–50.

56.

Zaheer

Maggin

McDaniel

McIntosh

Rodriguez

B. J.

Fogt

(2019). Implementation of promising practices that support students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 44(2), 117–128.