Participant Characteristics in Research on Interventions for Young Children With Challenging Behavior: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Intervention studies to reduce challenging behavior in young children below the age of 6 were reviewed for participant characteristics, including gender, race/ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status, and language to evaluate the frequency of reporting and diversity of participant characteristics in this area of research. Interventions conducted in school, preschool, and home-based settings were included; 53 articles were reviewed. In these articles utilizing single case research or group designs ( n = 2,262 participants), most articles reported gender and disability. Slightly fewer than half of the studies reported participants’ race/ethnicity. Socioeconomic status and language were infrequently reported. Analyses of participant characteristics in studies that reported children’s gender and race/ethnicity found that boys and Black and Latino children were overrepresented. Implications are discussed, including the field’s use of research standards regarding the reporting of participant characteristics, suggestions for inclusive recruitment and retention strategies, and the importance of identifying culturally responsive interventions for challenging behavior.

Pursuing Justice-Driven Inclusive Education Research: Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) in Early Childhood

“…Research and policy that adopts narrow conceptualizations of “readiness” can lead to interventions that blame families of Color as failing to support their children’s development (and themselves requiring intervention) while ignoring systemic educational and sociopolitical inequities (e.g., Baquedano-López et al, 2013; Dudley-Marling & Lucas, 2009). Similarly, the previously discussed behavioral intervention systematic review by Steed and Kranski (2020) found that multiple identity markers (e.g., race, gender, dis/ability, indicators of socioeconomic status) were rarely reported for individual participants, which limits the field’s understanding of how to address intersectional inequities related to behavioral expectations and exclusion. Thus, discourses and practices intended to support children’s development that only attend to dis/ability cannot necessarily support equity for multiply marginalized young children with dis/abilities.…”

“…Research can inadvertently minimize or obscure the effects of racism when race/ethnicity is not considered as an influence on the experiences of young children with dis/abilities and/or is simply reported as demographic information without consideration of its meaning. For example, multiple systematic reviews of early intervention and ECSE research have found that participants’ race/ethnicity is often not reported (e.g., Baril & Humphreys, 2017; Steed & Kranski, 2020). Steed and Kranski (2020) found that race/ethnicity was reported in less than half of studies examining interventions to address young children’s perceived challenging behavior.…”

“…For example, multiple systematic reviews of early intervention and ECSE research have found that participants’ race/ethnicity is often not reported (e.g., Baril & Humphreys, 2017; Steed & Kranski, 2020). Steed and Kranski (2020) found that race/ethnicity was reported in less than half of studies examining interventions to address young children’s perceived challenging behavior. When race was reported, Black and Latinx children were overrepresented in participant samples, which could be illustrative of other research findings that the behavior of children of Color is disproportionately interpreted in deficits ways (e.g., Gilliam et al, 2016; Wright & Ford, 2016).…”

“…When race was reported, Black and Latinx children were overrepresented in participant samples, which could be illustrative of other research findings that the behavior of children of Color is disproportionately interpreted in deficits ways (e.g., Gilliam et al, 2016; Wright & Ford, 2016). As Steed and Kranski (2020) noted, leaving out racial information limits the field’s understanding of who practices do and do not benefit. From a DisCrit lens, that call may be expanded to question both the impact of said practices and their goals (i.e., what is considered a beneficial outcome of behavioral support practices, given the prevalence of racism and ableism).…”

“…As Migliarini and Annamma (2020) articulated, this is problematic because, when “appropriate” behavior is narrowly defined according to white, middle-class norms and any other behavior is construed as “challenging” or indicative of the need for intervention, it leaves children of Color with dis/abilities subject to exclusionary discipline. Such a pattern may be further compounded by the minimal consideration of race in behavior intervention research (Steed & Kranski, 2020).…”