Developmental trajectories of behaviour problems and prosocial behaviours of children with intellectual disabilities in a population‐based cohort

Abstract

Background: The study examined developmental trajectories of prosocial behaviours, internalising and externalising behaviour problems in children with intellectual disabilities (ID) between pre-school and middle childhood. Method: Growth models examined the best-fitting trajectories for internalising and externalising behaviour problems, as well as prosocial behaviours, in 555 children with ID between the ages of three and 11 years from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Models were also fitted to examine the association of child outcomes with time-varying maternal psychological distress and life satisfaction. Finally, models were extended to compare trajectories with typically developing children. Results: Externalising behaviour problems and prosocial behaviours generally improved, whereas internalising problems did not change systematically over time. A cubic trend indicated a slowing down of improvement between ages 5 and 7 for prosocial behaviours and externalising problems. Maternal psychological distress positively co-varied with internalising and externalising behaviour problems over time. Life satisfaction was not related to changes in child behaviours over time. Compared to behavioural trajectories in typical development, intercepts were worse and trajectories also differed in the ID group. Conclusions: Over an 8-year period, externalising behaviour problems and prosocial behaviours of children with ID tended to improve. These behavioural improvements slowed between five and seven years, possibly coinciding with school-related environmental changes. Children with ID significantly differ from children with typical development in both the initial level of difficulties (exhibiting higher externalising and internalising behaviours, and lower prosocial behaviours) and subsequent development as they age, showing comparatively lower decreases in both externalising and internalising behaviours, and lower increases in prosocial behaviours. Findings also highlight the significant role of maternal mental health problems in the trajectory of child behaviour problems.

Social Cognition in Children With Non-specific Intellectual Disabilities: An Exploratory Study

“…Social maladjustment has been generally associated with a deficit in social cognition, notably in ToM ( Charman and Campbell, 1996 ; Jervis and Baker, 2004 ; Nader-Grosbois et al, 2013 ) and SIP ( Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012 ). Children in the first cluster also tended to present more internalizing problems, even at a clinical level: a number of studies have observed the presence of behavioral problems in children with IDs ( Dekker et al, 2002 ; Baker et al, 2003 ; Dekker and Koot, 2003 ; Emerson, 2003 ; Nader-Grosbois et al, 2013 ; Bailey et al, 2019 ), notably internalizing problems ( Merrell and Holland, 1997 ; Guralnick, 1999 ). Some studies have also reported a link between internalizing problems and a deficit in social cognition ( van Nieuwenhuijzen et al, 2004 ; Thirion-Marissiaux and Nader-Grosbois, 2008c ).…”

“…No previous study has examined the social cognition of children with IDs by combining analysis of both ToM and SIP profiles in order to better understand how their particular profiles contribute to their social adjustment or to the risk of maladjustment in family or school contexts. Studies have reported that these children are more at risk of displaying externalizing behaviors (such as opposition, resistance or aggressiveness; Taylor, 2002 ; Rojahn et al, 2012 ) and internalizing behaviors (such as withdrawal, isolation or anxiety; Merrell and Holland, 1997 ; Thirion-Marissiaux and Nader-Grosbois, 2008c ), or even both kinds of behavioral problems ( Dekker et al, 2002 ; Baker et al, 2003 ; Dekker and Koot, 2003 ; Emerson, 2003 ; Nader-Grosbois et al, 2013 ; Hauser-Cram and Woodman, 2016 ; Bailey et al, 2019 ). To make it possible to give effective support to children with IDs in developing their social abilities and gaining social inclusion, the strengths and weaknesses in their social cognitive profiles, particularly in affective and cognitive ToM as well as in SIP, need to be explored.…”

Definitions and Operationalization of Mental Health Problems, Wellbeing and Participation Constructs in Children with NDD: Distinctions and Clarifications

“…An example of a very practical consequence of the conceptual overlap between a mental disorder and a mental health problem, which may create conceptual confusion, is how authors define mental health problems when screening children with NDD. A study by Bailey et al [22] used two indexes of mental health difficulties, as suggested for typical populations [23], namely internalizing (emotional and peer problems) and externalizing (conduct and hyperactivity) mental health difficulties, based on the definition of a mental disorder. The same type of indices is used with other "problem behavior" screening instruments, such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) [24].…”

Online Mindfulness Stress Intervention for Family Carers of Children and Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Stress and mental health problems in parents of children and adults with ID are not only concerning directly for the quality of life and well-being of the parents themselves but also for the children. Longitudinal data, allowing causal inferences, confirm that children with ID whose parents (especially mothers) experience significant stress or mental health problems are more likely (than those with less severe difficulties) to experience increased behavioral and emotional problems over time (e.g., Bailey et al 2019;Hastings et al 2006;Lecavalier et al 2006;Neece et al 2012;Totsika et al 2013). Such findings can be understood from a family systems perspective, such that the well-being of one family member will affect other individual family members and family subsystems (such as couple relationships, parent-child relationship quality, and sibling relationship quality) (Cridland et al 2014;Seligman and Darling 2009;Trivette et al 2010).…”