Challenging behaviours: prevalence and topographies.
Serious challenging behavior affects 1 in 10 people with intellectual disability, and the leading form is everyday non-compliance.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Petry et al. (2007) counted how many people with intellectual disability show serious challenging behavior.
They used a giant government dataset of 1.2 million adults and children.
The team looked at the shape, or topography, of each problem behavior.
What they found
One in every ten people had behaviors dangerous enough to need specialist help.
The most common form was simple non-compliance—refusing to follow directions.
The 10% figure matched an older count from 1997, so the rate has stayed steady.
How this fits with other research
Lord et al. (1997) saw the same 10% rate a decade earlier, making this a quiet replication.
Hattier et al. (2011) later warned that when we lump topographies together in one FA graph we can fake “multiple control”; K’s finding of plain non-compliance suggests many cases need only one function, not several.
Christensen et al. (2024) zoomed in on SYNGAP1-related ID and found every single person had maladaptive behavior; their detail extends K’s broad count by showing which topographies—self-injury, stereotypy—dominate in a genetic subtype.
Why it matters
If you serve 30 clients with ID, three will likely need intense behavior plans. Expect non-compliance first, not aggression. Keep simple antecedent strategies and clear instructions ready so you can start help on day one instead of waiting for a crisis.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Write a short visual cue card that breaks multi-step directions into single words or pictures and teach staff to present one step at a time to cut non-compliance before it starts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Variations in reported prevalence of challenging behaviour indicate the need for further epidemiological research to support accurate planning of future service provision. METHODS: All services providing for people with learning disabilities across seven unitary authorities, with a total population of 1.2 million, were screened to identify people with challenging behaviour. Interviews were conducted with primary carers to gain data on identified individuals' characteristics and support. Measures designed for a similar study conducted in Manchester University were incorporated to allow direct comparison with earlier findings, together with standardized tools to assess adaptive behaviour and social impairment. RESULTS: In total, 4.5 (2.5-7.5) people per 10 000 population were rated as seriously challenging, representing 10% (5.5-16.8%) of the learning disability population; the most prevalent general form was other difficult/disruptive behaviour, with non-compliance being the most prevalent topography. The majority showed multiple behaviours and multiple topographies within each general behaviour category. Also identified were substantial numbers of additional people reported as presenting challenging behaviours at lower degrees of severity. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence rates for seriously challenging behaviours were comparable to those reported in the earlier studies, thus confirming previous findings. The prevalence of less serious challenging behaviour also has major clinical significance and emphasizes the need for enhanced understanding and skills among personnel within primary- and secondary-tier health, education and social care services, and for strengthening the capacity of community teams to provide behavioural expertise.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2007 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00948.x