Tayside Primary Care NHS Trust, Clinical Psychology Department, Wedderburn House, Dundee
Carseview Centre, Ninewells Medipark, Dundee
Correspondence: Dr Andrew Reid, Carseview Centre, 4 Tom McDonald Avenue, Ninewells Medipark, Dundee DD2 1NH, UK
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Aims To clarify the natural history of challenging behaviour and psychiatric disorder in this population through a longterm prospective cohort study over a 26-year period.
Method One hundred individuals with severe or profound intellectual disability were randomly selected in 1975. Their behaviour was recorded through carer and psychiatrist ratings using the Modified Manifest Abnormality Scale of the Clinical Interview Schedule. The presence and severity of psychiatric disorder were also recorded. The study was repeated in 1981/82 and 1992/93. We repeated the study again in 2001, supplementing the original observational data with the Checklist of Challenging Behaviour.
Results Behavioural symptomatology is remarkably persistent, particularly stereotypy, emotional abnormalities, eye avoidance and overactivity, although the severity of overall psychiatric disorder does show some abatement through time.
Conclusions These findings influence the prospects of success in relocating adults with severe and profound degrees of intellectual disability back into the community.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
METHOD |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The data collection was repeated in 1981/82 (Reid et al, 1984) and again in 1992/93 (Reid & Ballinger, 1995). We have repeated the assessments once again and present the results of a comparison of the 1975/76 data with the 2001 data to establish possible changes in behavioural and psychiatric patterns.
Design and participants
The study is a longitudinal, within-participant design, following the
cohort over a 26-year period. The original 1975/76 sample consisted of 100
individuals living at a long-stay hospital for people with intellectual
disabilities: 45 males and 55 females with a mean age of 35 years (range
17-78), 49 of them with severe intellectual disability and 51 with profound
intellectual disability. Subsequently, two individuals were excluded because
it emerged that they were functioning above the severe level of
intellectual disability. Of the remaining 98, 54 are still living. One
individual was not followed up in 2001 because she was relocated repeatedly
throughout the data collection period. The study is, therefore, a behavioural
comparison of the 53 survivors in 2001 from the original cohort with those
same 53 individuals in 1975.
The present sample consisted of 21 males and 32 females with a mean age of 57.6 years (range 42-92): 26 (49.1%) with severe intellectual disability, 18 (34%) with profound intellectual disability and 9 (17%) whose level of intellectual disability varied on the border between severe and profound. In 28 out of 53 (52.8%) the intellectual disability was of unknown aetiology, with other causes including hydrocephalus (1 out of 53, 1.9%) and Down's syndrome (4 out of 53, 7.5%).
Forty-two of the cohort are currently living in the community, with the remainder either living in the same long-stay hospital as in 1975/76 or in specialist accommodation. As a group, the participants have been resident in hospital for a mean of 36.7 years (range 10-67).
Measures taken
In both the 1975/76 and the 2001 study, the following demographic data were
noted: age, gender, cause of intellectual disability (if known), level of
intellectual disability, continence level, whether the individual had epilepsy
and whether they had significant impairment of vision, hearing or mobility. We
adopted the same definition of epilepsy in 2001 as in 1975/76, defining a
patient as having epilepsy if he or she had suffered three or more fits over
the last 2 years or was receiving any anticonvulsant medication for previous
epilepsy (Gunn & Fenton,
1969).
Participants were also assessed in the following two ways. First, staff informant interviews, originally devised by Reid et al in 1978, asked primary carers if participants had shown significant abnormality during the preceding week in relation to social withdrawal, overactivity, stereotypies, irritability, nosiness, self-injury, stripping, sleep disturbance or feeding disorder: 0 indicated that the symptom was absent and 1 indicated that it was present. This information represents dichotomous data and the ratings are referred to as carer ratings. Second, each participant was interviewed/observed for approximately 20 min using the Modified Manifest Abnormality Scale (MMAS) of the Clinical Interview Schedule (Goldberg et al, 1970).
The MMAS (see Appendix) defines and records 19 behaviours and psychiatric symptoms on a five-point rating scale: a zero rating indicates that the symptoms are absent, whereas ratings of 1-4 represent increasing degrees of severity. Ballinger et al (1975) had previously shown this modified scale to be a reasonably valid and reliable instrument in this population, although the numbers involved in the original reliability study were small and correlations for some of the items, for example histrionic, anxious and hostile irritability, did not reach statistical significance. Some other items, for example delusions, misinterpretations and thought disorder and pica, were also recorded so rarely that statistical analysis made little sense. The interpretation of significant changes/lack of changes on these symptoms should therefore be viewed cautiously.
For the 1975/76 data, observations of behaviour and mental state were made by psychiatrists. For the 2001 data, these same observations were made by a research psychologist. The reliability of these ratings was not established, but the psychologist had extensive research and clinical experience with this population, with particular reference to behavioural observation. The authors, therefore, would have no concern about the psychologist's expertise in assessing and rating psychopathology. For the purposes of consistency between published papers, the psychologist's ratings are referred to in this follow-up study as psychiatrist ratings.
These two sources of information were then reviewed and a decision was made by the psychiatrist/psychologist as to whether each participant showed evidence of a psychiatric disorder.
As with the previous studies, psychiatric disorder was defined as follows: abnormalities of emotions, behaviour, relationships, or thinking which are inconsistent with the patient's intellectual level and of sufficient duration or severity to cause persistent suffering or handicap to the person and/or distress and disturbance to those in daily contact with him/her. This definition was derived from that of Rutter & Graham (1968). We rated psychiatric disorder thus defined on a five-point scale: 0=no disorder, 1=personality quirks or eccentricities of behaviour, not amounting to overt psychiatric disorder or sufficient to cause management problems; 2, 3 and 4 indicate mild, moderate and severe degrees of psychiatric disorder, respectively. The second author has used this five-point scale previously for rating psychiatric disorder in a population with intellectual disability (Ballinger & Reid, 1977). It was used in both the 1975/76 and 2001 studies to estimate, at the time of interview, the presence or absence and degree of severity of psychiatric disorder. It represents a subjective opinion by the interviewer and the data are referred to as overall ratings.
In addition, for the 2001 study, data were collected using the Checklist of Challenging Behaviour (CCB; Harris et al, 1994). This checklist aims to identify: the type and number of challenging behaviours exhibited by residents and explores how often an individual displays these behaviours; if staff find these behaviours difficult to manage; and if any injuries have been caused as a result within the 3 months prior to administration of the assessment. The CCB has been found to be useful as a screening tool for both challenging behaviour and mental health problems (Jenkins et al, 1998) and it is used here to lend validity to the subjective overall interviewer ratings.
The CCB is divided into two parts: Part 1 consists of 14 aggressive behaviours that involve physical contact with other people and self-injury; and Part 2 consists of 18 other types of challenging behaviours, such as absconding and stereotypical behaviours. Both parts are rated on a five-point scale: Part 1 for frequency, management difficulty and severity; and Part 2 for frequency and management difficulty. Within each scale, a higher number denotes a more frequent behaviour, difficult behaviour or severe injury. For example, the frequency scale ranges from 1: never occurred to 5: occurs daily or more often.
For the purposes of this study, the rating scale was modified to 0-4 rather than 1-5 because it was felt that the original scale was subject to false inflation of scores. On the original scale, an individual who displayed no challenging behaviours would have received a score of 32. By modifying the scale, the same individual would now receive a more authentic score of zero; if a behaviour has not occurred, it is rated as zero across all scales.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Carer ratings
Table 1 compares the carer
ratings for the 53 survivors between 1975/76 (base-line) and 2001 (follow-up).
Because the data for these ratings are dichotomous, correlation coefficient
was used to explore the relationships between ratings. This indicated
three categories that showed a significant correlation between assessment
points: noisy, social withdrawal and overactive. It should be noted, however,
that all three correlation coefficients were fairly weak. The remaining
behaviours were not found to be significantly correlated despite showing
similar percentages between assessment periods.
|
Psychiatrist ratings
Table 2 compares the
interviewer ratings of manifest abnormalities between 1975/76 and 2001 using
the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Ratings of slow, lability of mood, and
depressed show a significant increase over assessment periods.
|
Among the other symptoms, four were not present at either period and the remainder showed no significant differences over time, indicating their persistence. Stereotype, in particular, is present in over 60% of the cohort at both periods.
Overall ratings
Table 3 compares overall
ratings for psychiatric disorder between 1975/76 and 2001. Results indicate
that the number of individuals receiving an overall score of 3 or 4 in 2001
had decreased from 1975/76, whereas the numbers who received a less severe
score of 1 had increased. The Wilcoxon signed rank test found these
differences to be significant.
|
Overall ratings from the 2001 data were also compared for frequency,
management difficulty and severity scores on the CCB. Two-tailed Spearman's
correlation coefficient indicated a significant correlation between
overall ratings and frequency ratings (
=0.331, P<0.05). No significant
correlation was found for overall ratings and either management difficulty or
severity ratings.
Additional comparisons
We also looked at the 2001 overall ratings in relation to the participants'
age, gender, place of residence and level of intellectual disability. These
figures are shown in Table 4. Comparison of scores by place of residence and age group both show a
significant difference, with those living in the hospital and those aged 59
years and under, recording a higher mean overall rating for psychiatric
disorder (for place of residence, those living in specialist provision were
placed within the hospital group). No significant differences were found
between males and females or levels of intellectual disability.
|
Finally, we compared the 1975/76 data of those still living with those of the original cohort who are now deceased, in order to examine differences, if any, between these two groups and identify possible mortality trends. As an original cohort of 98, the living and deceased groups were fairly evenly matched. We found no significant differences between groups for overall ratings for psychiatric disorder. Among the deceased group, we did find a significantly lower level of psychiatrist ratings of stereotypy, eye avoidance, elation and overactivity, and a higher level of hostile irritability, but carer ratings showed no differences between the two groups. Our confidence in these differences is therefore limited.
An easier explanation would be that more individuals within the deceased group were of profound intellectual disability, and more were older at the baseline assessment period, which would account quite readily for any differential mortality.
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The cohort is clearly showing a similar behaviour pattern at both assessment points on psychiatrist ratings. From 1975/76 to 2001 three symptoms slow, lability of mood and depressed show notable increases. The other symptoms are remarkably persistent.
The carer ratings are less robust and can be somewhat misleading at first glance. Only three behaviour ratings were found to be persistent over time and the correlations were fairly weak. Figures from Table 1 (percentages of population showing each behaviour) show some behaviours where, at first glance, a perfect correlation would be expected, for example sleep disturbance. However, although the same number of individuals are showing that behaviour, they are not the same individuals. Careful consideration should therefore be given to dichotomous data such as this, because an exploration of numbers and/or percentages alone may lead to false demonstration of persistence.
It is interesting to note that overall ratings continue to show a high number of behavioural symptoms for the cohort, but the severity of these symptoms has decreased, suggesting that the group has become easier to manage. The high percentage of the cohort that has been relocated to the community supports this suggestion.
Implications for care
Any conclusions drawn from this study about the persistence of symptoms are
obviously coloured by the use of older methodologies and definitions in
1975/76. Ways of investigating and measuring behavioural and psychiatric
symptoms have improved in the intervening period. The comparison of overall
ratings with the CCB, however, does provide a measure of validity between
overall ratings and frequency, and this allows us to be more confident in our
findings.
It is predictable that individuals with higher levels of challenging behaviour are to be found within the hospital rather than community settings. In this study, individuals resident in hospital show, on average, almost twice as much challenging behaviour as individuals resident in the community. It is also predictable that behavioural symptoms are likely to decrease in severity with age. We found this to be the case, with individuals over 60 years of age being given lower overall ratings for psychiatric disorder. This is not surprising, given the noted increase in mobility problems from 1975/76 to 2001 for the cohort as a whole.
The passage of time
In 1995, the second author concluded by stating that the passage of time
was unlikely per se to bring about more than a modest abatement in the
disordered behaviour of such a challenging group. This view is supported in
this study by the continued persistence of the majority of the symptoms
investigated. However, although the passage of time may not have fundamentally
changed the behaviour patterns of this population with severe and profound
intellectual disability, there has been a reduction in the severity of the
symptomatology.
![]() |
Clinical Implications and Limitations |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
LIMITATIONS
![]() |
APPENDIX |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Ballinger, B. R. & Reid, A. H. (1977) Psychiatric disorder in an adult training centre and a hospital for the mentally handicapped. Psychological Medicine, 7, 525-528.[Medline]
Day, K. A. & Jancar, J. (1994) Mental and physical health and ageing in mental handicap: a review. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 38, 241 -256.[Medline]
Goldberg, D. P., Cooper, B., Eastwood, M. R., et al (1970) A standardised psychiatric interview for use in community surveys. British Journal of Social & Preventative Medicine, 24, 18 -23.
Gunn, J. & Fenton, G. W. (1969) Epilepsy in prison: a diagnostic survey. BMJ, iv, 326 -328.
Harris, P., Humphreys, J. & Thomson, G. (1994) A checklist of challenging behaviour: the developments of a survey instrument. Mental Handicap Research, 7(2), 118 -133.
Holland A. J. (2000) Ageing and learning
disability. British Journal of Psychiatry,
176, 26-31.
Jenkins, R., Rose, J. & Jones, T. (1998) The checklist of challenging behaviour and its relationship with the psychopathology inventory for mentally retarded adults. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42, 273 -278.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kiernan, C. & Alborz, A. (1996) Persistence and change in challenging and problem behaviours of young adults with intellectual disability living in the family home. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 181-193.
Moss, S., Emerson, E., Kiernan, C., et al
(2000) Psychiatric symptoms in adults with learning
disability and challenging behaviour. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 177,
452
-456.
Nottestad, J. A., Stromgren, B. & Linaker, O. M. (2000) Psychiatric and behavioral disturbances in elderly mentally retarded before and after deinstitutionalization. Nord Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 281 -286.[CrossRef]
Reid, A. H., Ballinger, B. R. & Heather, B. B. (1978) Behavioural syndromes identified by cluster analysis in a sample of 100 severely and profoundly retarded adults. Psychological Medicine, 8, 399-412.[Medline]
Reid, A. H., Ballinger, B. R., Heather, B. B., et al (1984) The natural history of behavioural symptoms among severely and profoundly mentally retarded patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 289 -293.[Abstract]
Reid, A. H. & Ballinger, B. R. (1995) Behaviour symptoms among mentally retarded patients. A 16-18 year follow-up study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 452 -455.[Abstract]
Rutter, M. & Graham, P. (1968) The reliability and validity of the psychiatric assessment of the child. 1. Interview with the child. British Journal of Psychiatry, 114, 563 -579.[Medline]
Received for publication October 11, 2001. Revision received March 12, 2002. Accepted for publication March 19, 2002.
Related articles in BJP: