Behavioural phenomena in persons with an intellectual developmental disorder according to the level of emotional development.
Emotional age predicts challenging behavior better than diagnosis in adults with ID—use SED-S to pick level-matched interventions.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team gave the SED-S test to adults with intellectual disability. The test gives each person an emotional age score.
Staff also recorded how often and how severe each person’s challenging behavior was.
They then looked for patterns between emotional age and behavior across the whole group.
What they found
Challenging behavior dropped as emotional age went up.
Each emotional level had its own behavior profile. For example, people at a toddler emotional age showed different topographies than those at a preschool level.
How this fits with other research
McCarthy et al. (2010) first showed that adults with both autism and ID have four times more challenging behavior than ID-only peers. Whiteside et al. (2022) keep that finding but add nuance: emotional age, not autism label, predicts the behavior map.
Holden et al. (2003) linked psychiatric symptoms like anxiety to challenging behavior. The new study keeps the link but swaps symptom labels for emotional developmental level, giving clearer intervention targets.
Soto et al. (2024) took the same SED-S tool into a hospital and cut antipsychotic use. Their result extends the 2022 profiles into real-world prescribing, showing the emotional-development lens can guide medication decisions.
Why it matters
You can replace vague psychiatric labels with an emotional age score. The SED-S takes 15 minutes and gives you a behavior forecast. Match your intervention to the emotional level instead of the diagnosis. For example, use toddler-level distraction for a 40-year-old with a toddler emotional age. This reframes your FBA and may keep antipsychotics off the plan.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run the free SED-S on one adult client and write the emotional age at the top of the behavior plan.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Challenging behaviours in people with an intellectual developmental disorder (IDD) are complex and often difficult to understand. The developmental perspective may provide additional insights into the specific behavioural patterns and underlying motives in different emotional reference ages. METHODS: The behaviours of 185 adults with IDD who were admitted to psychiatry were systematically assessed with the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC) and the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS). The association of the different behaviours with various emotional reference age groups as assessed with the Scale of Emotional Development - Short (SED-S) was analysed to deduce behavioural patterns typical for a certain level of functioning. RESULTS: Overall, the severity of challenging behaviours decreases in higher emotional reference age groups. Physical aggression was most prevalent in persons in the second phase of emotional development (7-18 months reference age). In SED-S-1 (reference age 0-6 months), the persons appeared to be searching for physical comfort and showed high scores in social withdrawal, stereotypies and aggression towards the self. Persons functioning in SED-S-2 (reference age 7-18 months) scored highest in irritability and physical aggression (searching for security), while those in SED-S-3 (19-36 months) exhibited the searching for autonomy type characterised by defiant and socially inappropriate behaviours. Persons with an emotional reference age of 4-7 years (SED-S-4) showed inappropriate speech, verbal self-regulation and depressive-like behavioural aspects (searching for identity). CONCLUSIONS: The behavioural phenomena exhibited in a certain emotional reference age may support the clinician to differentiate behavioural problems from psychopathological symptoms to yield the proper diagnosis.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2022 · doi:10.1111/jir.12930