Prevalence and types of aggressive behaviour among adults with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aggressive behaviours represent major obstacles to the integration into society of individuals with intellectual disability (ID) and pose significant management issues for carers. METHODS: The present study assessed the prevalence and severity of five types of aggressive behaviours in 3165 adult men and women with ID receiving services from three rehabilitation agencies in Québec by surveying their carers using the Modified Overt Aggressive Scale. RESULTS: The 12-month prevalence of aggressive behaviour was 51.8%: 24% property damage, 37.6% verbal, 24.4% self-oriented and 24.4% physical aggression, and 9.8% sexually aggressive behaviour, most of which being mild in severity. Only 4.9% of individuals displayed aggressive behaviour leading to injury of the victim. Few gender differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The capacity to document and assess the types as well as the severity of aggressive behaviour is thus critical, not only to better understand the correlates of various types of behaviours but also to orient intervention programmes whether they be prevention, assessment, monitoring or management of aggressive behaviour.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".