Differentiating Between
Emotional Disturbance and
Social Maladjustments in
Students with Challenging
Behaviors
Objective: To gain an overview
of the problems posed by
differentiating between SED
and SM
Federal Definition of
Emotional Disturbance
The term means a condition exhibiting one or
more of the following characteristics over a long
period of time and to a marked degree that
adversely affects a child’s educational
performance;
[1] An inability to learn that cannot be explained by
intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
Federal Definition of
Emotional Disturbance
[2] An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers.
[3] Inappropriate types of behaviors or feelings
under normal circumstances.
[4] A general pervasive mood of
unhappiness or depression.
[5] A tendency to develop physical symptoms
or fears associated with personal or school
problems.
Serious Emotional
Disturbance Defined
 Perception of Self:Self-critical and naive; self-devaluing.
Perception of Reality:Fantasy; disorders of thinking or reasoning.
Peer Relations/Social Situations:May be fearful; may be anxious;
withdrawn; may consist of seeking negative attention or seeking approval.
Serious Emotional
Disturbance Defined
 Adaptive Behavior:Consistently poor across settings; behavior appears to be nonpurposive (function of the behaviors is seen as an attempt of expression of
internal discomfort); self-destructive behavior.
Affective Responses:May be pervasive negative mood; impulsive or
aggressive outbursts toward self or others an end in itself; somatic
complaints
Other researchers (Clarizio, 1987; Kelly, 1986) found that conscience
development and domain of psychological activity were characteristics that
school psychologists believed differentiated students with SED and SM.
Socially Maladjusted Defined
Socially maladjustment has not been defined in the
Federal regulations, and has infrequently been
defined in the literature. In order to make this social
maladjustment distinction, professionals have
frequently consulted the criteria for conduct disorder
and oppositional defiant disorder in the DSM.
Socially Maladjusted Defined
 Perception of Self:Pleasure seeking; has a right behavior; little
remorse; self-reliant.
Perception of Reality:Streetwise; knowledge of appropriate social
behavior and norms but chooses to disregard.
 Peer Relations/Social Situations:Disrespect and intimidation of
“outsiders,” may be more socialized with the “in group.
Socially maladjusted students are those whose social, not
emotional, behaviors inhibit meaningful, normative growth and
development. Specifically, they consistently disregard or defy
authority, refuse to meet minimum standards of conduct required in
regular schools and classrooms, have problems relating to society’s
normative expectations…They are chronic social offenders (Raiser &
Van Nagel, 1980 cited by Zabel, 1986 ).
Socially Maladjusted Defined
 Adaptive Behavior:Situation specific (varies from situation to situation);
purposive behavior to gain tangible rewards or responses are a means
to an end.
Affective Responses:May be hostile or noncompliant or cool and
relaxed; aggressive responses are a means to an end; little remorse for
their misbehavior.
The Problem
The task of distinguishing between children with
Emotional Disturbance (ED and SED) and children
with Social Maladjustment (SM) continues to present
a huge problem for educators because the definition
of social maladjustment has not been agreed upon
(Clarizio, 1992; Skiba & Grizzle, 1992;Forness,
Kavale& Lopez, 1993).
The Problem
This statement still holds true as evidenced
in the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997. The
legislation remained silent on a definition of
social maladjustment yet dictated that
students with only social maladjustment not
qualify for special education.
QuickTime™ and a
H.263 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
In making a differential diagnosis for social maladjustment,
clinical criteria may be taken into consideration. Disorders
typically viewed as internalizing, e.g. affective disorders,
elective mutism, separation anxiety disorder, may qualify
as Emotional Impairment (EI), whereas, disorders viewed
as externalizing, e.g. conduct disorders, oppositional
disorder or antisocial personality disorder, may indicate
Social Maladjustment (SM). It is extremely important,
however, when making a differential diagnosis to
remember that the external behavior may look the same but
the underlying reason, etiology and intent of the behavior
may be very different. Therefore, a comprehensive
evaluation by the MDT team is in order.
Educational options for Emotionally Impaired and Socially
Maladjusted students often parallel. Both groups require
small class size that is focused on individualized
programming with a modified curriculum to meet the needs
of students. Programming should consider such options as:
work study, adjusted school hours, vocational
programming, shortened academic periods and alternative
school placement. A major difference can be seen in the
effectiveness of the interventions used. Strategies used to
discipline emotionally impaired students often fail when
attempted with socially maladjusted students.
The primary argument used to support the exclusion of
socially maladjusted students from placement in
emotionally impaired programs is that students with
social maladjustment are not truly disabled. These
children are believed to engage in deliberate acts of
self-interest to gain attention or to intimidate others,
while experiencing no distress or self-devaluation
about their own internalized distress about their
behavior (Clarizio, 1992; Kelly, 1993; Slenkovitch,
1986).
Arguments For Differentiation
Between Socially Maladjusted
and Emotionally Disturbed:
 Special Education classification for social rule breaking excuses responsibility for
behavior and is not reflective of society’s rules beyond the educational environment.
Differentiation may force the administrators to look at more
comprehensive approaches to intervening with challenging behavior
outside of the special education arena.
While certain behaviors present the same, the function of these
behaviors are quite different.
Arguments For Differentiation
Between Socially Maladjusted
and Emotionally Disturbed
 The recurring theme in distinguishing between SM and ED is choice
and purposive behavior.
Kelly (1988) emphasized the importance of focusing on overt
behaviors and discouraged the search for “inferred pathological
motives.
Arguments For Differentiation
Between Socially Maladjusted
and Emotionally Disturbed
 Failure to discriminate between SED and SM will lead to the
misappropriation of valuable limited resources to students who are not
handicapped (CCBD, 1990).
 “While recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 4thed. (DSM-IV) as a disruptive behavioral disorders, such
Conduct Disorders do not, as a matter of fact of law, meet the federal
definition guidelines under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as
a disabling condition” (Murray & Myers, 1998).
Arguments for Differentiated
Educational Programs
Increases victimization of emotionally disturbed students by conduct
problem students. Combined programs are not therapeutic settings
(Kelly, 1986; Zabel, 1986).
 Social, ethical, and legal implications of the conduct disordered
student are often excused through the “handicapped” designation.
Arguments for Differentiated
Educational Programs
Combined programs often result in permanent “short term” placements
housing delinquent students in classroom settings yielding little
educational benefit. (Kelly, 1990).
Minimize the importance of internalized problematic perceptions and
insights (Heshusius, 1986).
 Combined programs result in high teacher burnout and
attrition rates (Kelly,1990).
Arguments Against Differentiation
Between SM/ED
 Despite which taxonomy or definition you use, inherent in them is the idea
that SM or conduct-disordered students are facing educational and
developmental challenges and therefore it is unethical to exclude them from
services.
There is a lack of operational definitions with which to
base decisions (Zabel, 1986).
 Exclusion of socially maladjusted students allows schools to justify the
exclusion of students whom the district simply does not want to serve (Maag&
Howell, 1991).
Characteristics typically associated with SM and ED often occur
together (Kovacs, Paulauskas, Gatsonis, & Richards, 1988).
Over lap of definitions
» :
An inability to build or maintain satisfactory
relationships, and inappropriate behaviors of
feelings under normal circumstances are two of
the criteria that qualify a child as seriously
emotionally disturbed. Yet the types of behaviors
meeting those two criteria may also qualify a
student for a DSM diagnosis of conduct disorder.
When the diagnosis is then equated with social
maladjustment, students who otherwise would be
(and have always been) eligible for SED service
are suddenly excluded.
Defining Legal Cases
A. E. By and Through Evans v. Independent School
District No. 25 (1991): A conduct disordered child
was ruled ineligible for SED services under the
social maladjustment exclusion. The court denied
SED service to a child diagnosed as borderline
personality disorder, who had difficulty relating to
her peers, problems with impulsivity and anxiety,
and who was clearly at-risk for suicide, simply
because that child was also eligible for a diagnosis
of conduct disorder.
Defining Legal Cases
Doe v. Sequoia Union High School
District (1987): the court ruled that
substance abuse, truancy, and boredom
with school do not in and of themselves
constitute sufficient cause for eligibility
for SED services. There was no
diagnosis of conduct disorder made.
Social Maladjustment and
Section 504
Letter of Finding on Irvine (CA) Unified School
District (1989), the OCR concluded that the “District
also erred when it neglected to consider whether
‘social maladjustment’ might be a handicapping
condition under Section 504” (p. 193).
Typical Test Battery
IQ
 Achievement
 Observation
 Teacher and parent reports
 Record review (including
discipline)
 Misc. others –visual motor,
receptive vocabulary, etc.

Typical Test Battery
Differential Test of Conduct and Emotional Problems
 Beck Depression Inventory
 Achenbach Behavior Checklist
 Reynolds Depression Inventory
 Functional Behavior Assessment (interviews,
observations, etc.)
 Devereux Behavior Rating Scale
 Kovac’s Children’s Depression Inventory
 Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
Behavior Assessment System for Children
Social Skills Rating System
Adolescent Pychopathology Scale

Summary
 Historically, students whose primary difficulty in school consisted of
problematic behavior were not differentially identified based on the
nature of the problem.
 Differential diagnosis of SM and SED is made difficult by the absence of a
widely accepted working definition of social maladjustment which has
relevance in schools (Zabel, 1986).
Combined special education programs for SM and SED students have not
proven to be the most effective or appropriate means of serving either group
(Kelly, 1990, and Murray & Myers, 1998).
Summary
 While school psychologists continue to wrestle with this problem,
the courts are increasingly stepping in to settle the issue. A.E. By
and Through Evans v. Independent School District (1991), Chris D.
v. Montgomery County Board (1990), and Doe v. Board of Education
of the State of Connecticut (1990).
 Legal decisions have made it clear the academic and achievement as
well as behavioral, emotional, and cognitive factors must be assessed
when diagnosing SED and SM.
Summary
In a nutshell, the argument is one of
Legalism versus Professionalism