OTOtherJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2026

Emotional and Behavioural Problems of Children and Youth With Intellectual Disabilities Following the February 6 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Hatice Ulu Aydın, Emine Eratay

PMID 42002405

WHAT IT FOUND

Teachers rated children with intellectual disabilities after the February 2023 Türkiye earthquakes highest for social, attention and thought problems, with boys rated higher than girls for aggression and rule-breaking.

Drawings often omitted details, but nothing was measured before the earthquake.

Key findings

01The average total problem score was 33.23, with the highest subscale average for social, attention and thought problems (18.11), ahead of aggressive and rule-breaking behaviour (7.63) and internalising problems (7.48).

02Boys were rated higher than girls on total behaviour problems (p = 0.03), on aggressive and rule-breaking behaviour (p = 0.03) and on social, attention and thought problems (p = 0.01), but not on internalising problems (p = 0.5).

03Ratings did not differ significantly by age (p > 0.05).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Nothing was measured before the earthquake and there was no comparison group, so the study cannot show that the earthquake caused these difficulties, or that these children are worse off than they would otherwise have been. Only 52 children in one Turkish province took part, all rated by 13 teachers, so the numbers are small and the authors say the findings may not transfer to other countries or services. Everything rests on teachers' impressions from a questionnaire, not on clinical assessment or on what the children themselves reported, and the drawing test was scored by raters using a system the authors themselves describe as not standardised and open to subjective judgement. The study did not record whether children were directly exposed to the earthquake, saw it only through media or household discussion, or were displaced, so it cannot say which children were most affected. The questionnaire asks about the two months before the teacher filled it in, which is well after the earthquake, so it does not capture the immediate aftermath. The three score areas cover different numbers of items, so comparing their averages with each other should be done with care.

Declared interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest and state that they have nothing to report on funding.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that the earthquakes caused these problems. No measurement was taken before the earthquake and there is no comparison group, so the study can only describe what teachers reported afterwards. Do not treat the drawings as a diagnostic result either: the authors themselves say the scoring is not standardised and the interpretation is subjective.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →