Children with intellectual disabilities show deficits in cognitive abilities and adaptive behavior which increase the risk of psychopathological disorders. This exploratory study aims at delineating profiles of children based on their cognitive functioning and adaptive behaviors, and to compare them on psychopathological manifestations. A cognitive assessment and an evaluation of adaptive behaviors are conducted with 52 school-age children receiving services from a rehabilitation center for people with intellectual disabilities. Adaptive behaviors are evaluated by a special educator and a questionnaire concerning psychopathology is filled out by a parent and a teacher. Cluster analyses highlight three profiles among children: Performing, Uncooperative and Non-performing. They differ on cognitive functions, collaboration and in terms of practical abilities of adaptive behaviors. Chi-square tests show significant differences in social competences, but not in problematic behaviors, according to the viewpoint of parents and teachers. Potential explanations are provided to understand the absence of significant differences in problematic behaviors between the three profiles.
Over the last few decades, researchers have focused on evaluating psychopathological disorders and their prevalence in various samples of children and adolescents presenting disabilities (Dykens, 2000). In the field of intellectual disability, psychopathology refers to two distinct clinical issues, psychiatric disorders and problematic behaviors (Rojahn & Tassé, 1996). Authors generally agree on the fact that children with intellectual disabilities are more likely to present a psychopathology than those of the general population (Kolaitis, 2008 and Tonge, 2007). However, the causes that may explain this greater vulnerability have received far less attention in research, particularly concerning children (Chadwick et al., 2000 and Dykens, 2000).
Several hypotheses have been developed to explain the greater prevalence of psychopathological disorders in children with intellectual disabilities. In particular, they point to biopsychosocial and developmental factors such as personality styles, social stigmatization, genetic etiology and neurological deficits (Dykens, 2000).
Cognitive disorders and the level of adaptive functioning may also explain some problematic behaviors of children with intellectual disabilities (Baumeister, Kupstas, & Woodlet-Zanthos, 1991). The combination of those two factors in studying psychopathology is mandatory since they provide the basis for the definition of intellectual disability. This definition refers to an intellectual deficit which is related to cognitive functions as well as to a deficit in adaptive behaviors (Luckasson et al., 2002). Despite the fact that the identification of intellectual disabilities have evolved over the last 50 years, the three fundamental criteria of the definition and its operationalization remain substantially the same (Schalock et al., 2007). Moreover, the consideration of adaptive behaviors in the construct of intellectual disability is a key component of a social–ecological framework (Schalock et al., 2007) in which the human functioning depends on the interaction between individuals and their environments (Wehmeyer et al., 2008). Since adaptive behaviors are increasingly meaningful to determine support needs, the diagnosis of intellectual disability must no longer be based only on the IQ score (Garaigordobil & Pérez, 2007). According to Schalock (2006), the merge of these two components of intellectual disability can extend the understanding of a personal competence model of functioning.
This study highlights the difficulties and the complexity of evaluating children with an intellectual disability. In this context, an evaluation guide for professionals could be necessary to identify which are the most appropriate tests. It may consider many factors related to intellectual disabilities such as sensory, motor and language deficits. It may also be relevant to carry out cognitive evaluation that refers to behavioral manifestations of cognitive functions in a more ecological way. Finally, the use of measures originally conceived and validated for preschool aged children could be considered among individuals with intellectual disabilities since uncooperative behaviors may hide a lack of comprehension.
