Article Reflection

In Comparing Characteristics of High-Incidence Disability Groups, Saborne, Evans, Cullinan (2006), analyzed research articles surrounding characteristics of high incidence groups to determine similarities and differences between three groups: emotional-behavior disorders (EBD), mild-intellectual disabilities (MID), and learning disabilities (LD). By the end of their review, Saborne, et al. (2006) concluded, “Individualized, appropriate assessment and effective instruction regardless of the disability category are still best practice for students with high-incidence disabilities in special and general education.

Having little background in understanding the characteristics of these three high-incidence groups (EBD, MID, and LD), I was surprised to discover the similarities and differences presented in this article. I was surprised to learn that MID and LD, IQ domain aside, were similar across five of the six categories compared. It was interesting to realize that LD and EBD groups had a range in IQ from 90-95 and that the MID groups scored lower than both groups. This also surprised me since the LD and MID groups were similar across the other domains. In regards to academics, I discovered there was a large difference (in 80% of the studies) between EBD and MID groups. However, when learning that “students with MID received significantly less academic instruction and were given significantly more free-time activities than students with EBD or LD” (Saborne, et al.), it helped to explain the difference between EBD and MID groups based on academics. It also makes me wonder how we could change that from occurring in schools to better help MID students and expose them to more academic instruction.

It is also helpful to learn that all groups do require additional support in behavioral and social skill domains, though it appears that EBD requires more support in the behavioral domain than the other groups. Finally, it surprised me to learn that “an immediate family member with chemical dependency was reported by 47% of students with EBD, by 15% of those with LD, and by 20% of students without disabilities.” (Saborne, et al. 2006)

In considering all of these characteristics and understanding the need for instruction to be individualized, I would like more information on the best assessments and instruction practices to explore for all students and groups. For me, this article helped to highlight the areas of needs for high-incidence disability groups. It is helpful to understand how these groups differ and are similar across the domains mentioned in the article, so I can better prepare to teach to the areas of need across all 3 groups of high-incidence disabilities.

Bibliography

Saborne, E. J., Evans, C., & Cullinan, D. (2006). Comparing Characteristics of High-Incidence Disability Groups. Remedial and Special Education,27(2), 95-104.