Three-method taxonomy of child classification: categorical, dimensional, and person-oriented¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 5 claims (4 for, 1 mixed) · 1 study (1 associational), q3 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 5 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article organizes classification of school-age children into three approaches. Categorical methods place students into "all-or-nothing" categories based on the assumption that disorders form discrete categories, as in DSM-IV or IDEA. Dimensional methods assume behavior occurs along a continuum, combining correlated variables into higher-order dimensions. Person-oriented methods "attempt to blend categorical and dimensional methods by producing a categorical classification system through the use of dimensional scales," typically via cluster analysis, emphasizing the individual as a whole.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Requires a measure yielding dimensional scale scores (e.g., teacher rating scales) from which categories, dimensions, or clusters can be formed

Constraints¶

• The article states categorical methods fail to account for comorbidity, subsyndromal psychopathology, and quantitative differences in symptoms, while dimensional systems are arguably less parsimonious than categorical ones

Target Learners¶

• elementary school children in grades 1-5

Target Learning Objectives¶

• accurate identification of children's behavioral adjustment and risk status to guide prevention, early intervention, and treatment decisions

Claims¶

• Dimensional classification was superior for predicting Opportunity Room visits and suspensions [+W]
• Person-oriented and dimensional methods each predicted reading achievement significantly better than the categorical method [+W]
• No classification method was significantly superior for predicting mathematics achievement [~W]
• Person-oriented classification predicts later GPA significantly better than dimensional or categorical methods [+W]
• Person-oriented classification predicted days absent significantly better than categorical, with no method differences for days tardy [+W]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

• Gather comprehensive information about students' functioning rather than relying solely on categorical placement eligibility

Key Sources¶

• Dowdy, E., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2007). A Comparison of Classification Methods for Use in Predicting School-Based Outcomes. The California School Psychologist, 12, 121-132. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ896649. doi:10.1007/bf03340936