Psychosocial Difficulties Profiles Among Youth with Intellectual Disabilities.
Kids with ID split into five steady mood-and-peer profiles—track teacher warmth and peer acceptance to flag the two risky ones.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Garrison et al. (2025) looked at kids with intellectual disability. They used a math model to sort the kids into groups. The groups were based on how much trouble the kids had with peers, mood, and daily skills.
The team checked the same kids one year later. The five groups stayed the same. No one moved much.
What they found
Five clear risk profiles showed up. Two groups had high peer problems and low teacher warmth. These kids also had more mood upsets.
The other three groups had fewer problems. One group did well in all areas. The study did not test any treatment.
How this fits with other research
Leonard et al. (2022) also found three quality-of-life groups in ID youth. Their best group had Down syndrome or ASD. Elizabeth’s work adds mood and peer data, not just life quality.
Ferguson et al. (2020) pulled five QoL profiles from kids sent to an autism clinic. Same number of groups, same method. The new paper shows the five-group pattern holds even when you look at wider ID, not just ASD referrals.
Soenen et al. (2009) used an older cluster method on adults with mild ID and saw four behavior types. The youth study bumps the count to five and keeps the groups steady over time.
Why it matters
You can spot the two high-risk profiles fast. Watch peer rejection and low teacher warmth. Add brief mood checks to your intake. Match social-skills groups to the profile, not just the ID label.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add two quick questions to your intake: ‘Do classmates let you join?’ and ‘Does the teacher smile at you?’ Flag ‘no’ answers for deeper social-skills screening.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study sought to identify the various configurations, or profiles, of internalizing and externalizing behaviors found among a sample of youth with intellectual disabilities (ID). These behaviors were assessed twice over one year, using self, parental, and teacher reports. Six variables were hypothesized to predict profile membership: Parent-child relationship (i.e., warmth and conflict), student-teacher relationship (i.e., warmth and conflict), peer acceptance, and peer victimization. To this end, we conducted Latent Profile Analysis among a sample of 393 youth with ID (aged 11-22 years old) recruited in Canada (French-speaking; n = 142; 49.30% boys) and Australia (English-speaking; n = 251; 67.30% boys). Our results revealed five profiles: (1) Adjusted (13.48%), (2) Mild School-related Difficulties (34.38%), (3) Underestimation of Mild Difficulties (12.40%), (4) High Difficulties (19.45%), and (5) Internalizing Difficulties Unobserved at School (20.19%). These profiles, as well as profile membership, remained stable over time. Lower levels of student-teacher warmth, lower levels of peer acceptance, and higher levels of peer victimization were associated with a higher likelihood of membership into profiles characterized by above-average levels of psychosocial difficulties, especially self-reported. Based on these findings, future interventions addressing internalizing and externalizing behaviors could benefit from focusing on the school environment, notably peer acceptance and student-teacher warmth.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025 · doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1038