Comparing Goldstein's Developmental Continuum with DSM-5-TR and IDEIA
Sam Goldstein, Ph.D.
No part of this document can be reproduced in any format.
Copyright Sam Goldstein 2025
The Goldstein Developmental Continuum (GDC) was born out of my desire to provide a more flexible and nuanced understanding of children's behavior that moves beyond rigid diagnostic categories and legal frameworks. In my 40-plus years of experience working with children, I have observed that their behavior is rarely fixed or pathological; rather, it exists on a spectrum, influenced by developmental stages, environmental factors, and the challenges they face in their everyday lives. The continuum approach recognizes that behavior fluctuates and that early, context-sensitive interventions can help prevent more severe issues from developing. By focusing on developmental appropriateness and environmental influences, this model allows for a more holistic understanding of children’s behavior, promoting early intervention and reducing the likelihood of mislabeling children with mental health disorders. My aim with the continuum is to help educators, clinicians, and parents move beyond binary labels of 'disruptive' or 'non-disruptive' and instead focus on creating environments that support positive behavior and emotional growth.
My model also serves as a much-needed alternative to existing frameworks, such as the DSM-5-TR and the IDEIA, which, while valuable, often overlook the broader developmental context in which children’s behavior occurs. The DSM-5-TR provides a structured, criteria-driven diagnostic method, but it can sometimes pathologize behaviors that are normal for a child’s developmental stage. IDEIA, while essential for securing educational rights and support, tends to focus on how behavior impacts learning without always considering the child's broader developmental needs. The GDC addresses these gaps, offering a third way of understanding and intervening in child behavior—one that prioritizes fluidity, growth, and the child’s unique developmental journey.
Understanding children's behavior and development is multifaceted, requiring diverse frameworks to address their needs. Three approaches presented in this article —the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), the DSM-5-TR, and Goldstein’s Disruptive/Non-Disruptive Continuum—offer distinct lenses through which child behavior can be viewed. While the IDEIA focuses on legal rights and educational support for children with disabilities, and the DSM-5-TR provides a clinical, diagnostic method for categorizing mental disorders, the GDC offers a developmental, non-pathologizing approach that considers behavior on a spectrum, influenced by context and environmental factors. Each framework plays a critical role, but together, they reveal the need for a third way of understanding child behavior—one that transcends categorical diagnoses and eligibility criteria, recognizing the complexity of human development.
The rationale for this third way arises from the limitations inherent in both the legal and medical models. The DSM-5-TR’s categorical approach, while useful for clinical diagnosis, can lead to rigid interpretations of behavior that may not fully capture the dynamic nature of child development. Similarly, IDEIA’s focus on educational access and legal protections can overlook the broader developmental context of a child’s behavior. GDC fills this gap by allowing for a fluid understanding of behavior that emphasizes early intervention and acknowledges the influence of developmental, social, and environmental factors. By integrating this approach, educators and clinicians can provide effective and responsive interventions, addressing the unique needs of each child without immediately resorting to diagnostic labels or legal classifications.
The IDEIA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) framework is a federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities. Like the GDC and the DSM-5-TR, IDEIA address children's behavioral and developmental needs but with a focus on legal rights and educational support for children with disabilities, including those who exhibit disruptive behaviors. Below is a comparison of these three approaches.
Conceptual Focus
GDC
Spectrum-Based Approach: Goldstein’s framework provides a dynamic understanding of behavior, conceptualizing it on a spectrum from non-disruptive to highly disruptive. This approach highlights that behavior is not static but fluctuates according to a child’s developmental stage and external factors, such as family dynamics or academic pressures. By framing behavior as part of a spectrum, Goldstein's model allows for a more nuanced view of child development, accommodating the natural variation in behaviors exhibited at different stages. This approach shifts away from rigid labels, allowing for a deeper exploration of whether a behavior is temporary, context-dependent, or indicative of a more significant challenge.
Non-Pathologizing Lens: Unlike models that quickly categorize behaviors as disorder symptoms, Goldstein’s continuum advocates for understanding behavior within its broader context. It recognizes that many behaviors commonly observed in children, such as tantrums or impulsivity, may be age-appropriate or triggered by environmental stressors rather than underlying pathology. This non-pathologizing view emphasizes early and supportive interventions, fostering resilience by modifying the child’s environment or emotional support system, rather than focusing on diagnostic labels. The continuum thus promotes a more holistic, growth-oriented approach to addressing disruptive behavior.
DSM-5-TR:
Diagnostic Approach: The DSM-5-TR is the standard manual used by clinicians to diagnose mental health conditions. It employs a categorical diagnostic method, which organizes mental disorders into discrete categories based on specific criteria. This approach is particularly relevant for identifying disruptive behavior disorders such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder. In this framework, a child’s behavior is assessed against clinical thresholds, and if a certain number of symptoms are met, a diagnosis is made. While this method provides a structured, evidence-based approach to diagnosis, it can limit understanding by focusing on whether a child meets a binary threshold rather than considering behavioral fluctuations across time and context.
Pathology-Focused: The DSM-5-TR’s primary focus is on identifying behaviors that are considered pathological or symptomatic of a mental health disorder. In this model, behaviors like aggression, defiance, or rule-breaking are seen through a clinical lens, with an emphasis on identifying the disorder driving the behavior. This often leads to a medicalized approach to treatment, where therapeutic interventions such as medication or cognitive-behavioral therapy are implemented to manage the symptoms. While effective for treating severe disorders, this pathology-based focus can sometimes overlook developmental and environmental contributors to the behavior, narrowing the scope of intervention.
IDEIA
Educational Support: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) is a legal framework that focuses on providing children with disabilities access to Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). For children exhibiting disruptive behaviors, the framework recognizes the importance of ensuring that these behaviors do not hinder their ability to access education. This model interprets behavior primarily in terms of its impact on academic performance and classroom dynamics. If a child’s disruptive behavior impedes their learning or that of their peers, IDEIA mandates that schools provide appropriate interventions to support their educational journey, often through specialized plans.
Legal and Individualized Focus: A central tenet of IDEIA is its legal mandate to create individualized education plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities. These IEPs are tailored to meet each child’s unique needs, which may include specific behavioral goals or interventions. The legal focus ensures that schools remain accountable for providing necessary support, whether through behavioral intervention plans (BIPs), counseling, or adjustments to the learning environment. The individualized approach reflects a broader recognition that each child’s educational and behavioral needs are distinct, requiring a personalized plan of action. This structure ensures children with disruptive behaviors receive the support they need to thrive academically and socially within the school environment.
Comparison
GDC takes a developmental approach, recognizing behavior as fluid and contextually influenced, which allows for adaptive interventions as the child grows and their environment changes. In contrast, the DSM-5-TR operates within a rigid diagnostic framework that categorizes behavior based on clinical thresholds, focusing heavily on pathology and the need for medicalized treatment. IDEIA, meanwhile, concentrates on the educational implications of behavior, ensuring that students with disabilities receive the necessary support to succeed in a classroom setting with legally mandated individualized plans. Each framework offers valuable insights, but Goldstein’s model uniquely provides flexibility, making it particularly beneficial in developmental and environmental contexts.
Behavioral Interpretation
GDC
Contextual Emphasis: Goldstein’s continuum greatly emphasizes understanding behavior within the larger context of a child’s life. Rather than isolating behavior as a static issue, this approach examines the environmental, developmental, and relational factors that might be contributing to a child’s actions. For example, behaviors such as aggression or withdrawal are interpreted in relation to the child’s developmental stage—what is typical for a toddler may not be appropriate for an adolescent. Additionally, family dynamics, socio-economic stresses, and school environments all play a role in influencing behavior. Goldstein’s model suggests that by modifying or addressing these contextual factors, disruptive behaviors can often be mitigated without resorting to clinical labels. Interventions focus on creating supportive environments that nurture the child’s growth, helping to align their behavior with developmental expectations.
DSM-5-TR:
Criteria-Based Diagnosis: The DSM-5-TR relies on specific diagnostic criteria to interpret behavior, focusing on the frequency, intensity, and duration of behaviors when diagnosing disruptive behavior disorders like Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) or Conduct Disorder. For example, to diagnose ODD, a child must display a pattern of angry, irritable moods, argumentative behavior, or vindictiveness over a period of at least six months. This criteria-based approach ensures consistency and accuracy in diagnosis but may overlook the broader context of a child’s life. In some cases, behaviors that meet the criteria for a disorder might actually stem from temporary environmental stressors or developmental changes. The DSM-5-TR is symptom-driven, aiming to establish whether the behavior qualifies as a disorder requiring medical or psychological intervention. While effective for diagnosis, this approach can pathologize behaviors that might otherwise be understood as normal developmental variations in other frameworks.
IDEIA
Educational Context: The IDEIA framework interprets behavior in terms of its impact on a child’s ability to participate in and benefit from educational activities. Disruptive behaviors are seen primarily through the lens of how they affect classroom dynamics and learning outcomes. If a child’s behavior disrupts their ability to learn or hinders the learning environment for others, schools are legally required to address it. The goal of IDEIA is not to diagnose a mental health disorder but to ensure that every child has access to Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Behavioral issues that interfere with educational success trigger a range of interventions designed to help the child navigate the school environment more effectively.
Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA): Under IDEIA, the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is a key tool for analyzing and interpreting disruptive behavior. The FBA seeks to identify the underlying reasons or triggers for problematic behavior by looking at environmental influences, classroom demands, and the child’s individual needs. Once the root cause is understood, targeted interventions, often laid out in a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP), are developed to address the behavior to support the child’s educational experience. The FBA process highlights IDEIA’s commitment to understanding behavior within an educational context and tailoring interventions that help students succeed academically.
Comparison:
GDC emphasizes a developmental and environmental lens, focusing on how behavior changes as children grow and respond to external pressures. This approach values contextual understanding over fixed diagnoses. In contrast, the DSM-5-TR follows a criteria-based, symptom-driven approach, diagnosing behaviors based on specific, measurable criteria without fully considering the developmental context. IDEIA’s interpretation is primarily concerned with educational impact, implementing interventions when behavior disrupts a child’s ability to learn. It also uses tools like FBAs to root interventions in the specific educational challenges that the behavior creates. Together, these frameworks offer different perspectives on interpreting and addressing children’s disruptive behaviors.
Intervention Approach
GDC
Gradual Intervention: Goldstein’s model allows for early and flexible intervention. It encourages working with the child’s environment, development, and individual needs to address disruptive behavior before it escalates.
DSM-5-TR:
Medicalized Interventions: The DSM-5-TR often leads to formal, clinical interventions like therapy or medication, especially once behavior meets diagnostic thresholds. Mental health professionals rather than educators usually guide these.
- IDEIA Framework:
- Individualized Educational Plan (IEP): IDEIA mandates the development of an IEP that includes special education services and behavioral interventions (e.g., Behavioral Intervention Plans). These are specifically tailored to help the child succeed in an academic environment.
- Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): IDEIA emphasizes keeping children in the least restrictive environment possible while ensuring they receive the necessary behavioral support.
Comparison: Goldstein’s continuum promotes early, adaptable interventions that evolve with the child’s needs. The DSM-5-TR provides clinical treatments based on diagnosis, whereas IDEIA focuses on educational accommodations and interventions (like IEPs) to support children in the classroom.
Perspective on Disruptive Behavior
- Goldstein’s Continuum:
- Behavior as a Signal: In Goldstein’s framework, disruptive behavior is seen as a signal that a child’s developmental or environmental needs aren’t being met. The goal is to adjust the context or support to help the child adapt.
- DSM-5-TR:
- Disruptive Behavior as a Symptom: The DSM-5-TR views disruptive behavior as a potential symptom of a clinical disorder. The focus is on diagnosing the underlying condition and applying treatment to manage symptoms.
- IDEIA Framework:
- Behavior as an Educational Barrier: IDEIA views disruptive behavior primarily as a barrier to learning. If behavior interferes with the child’s education, schools are required to develop intervention strategies to mitigate these behaviors and provide the necessary support.
Comparison: Goldstein sees disruptive behavior as an opportunity to adjust support dynamically, while the DSM-5-TR treats it as a clinical symptom requiring treatment. IDEIA looks at behavior in terms of its impact on education and mandates that schools address it through accommodations.
Flexibility vs. Rigidity
- Goldstein’s Continuum:
- Fluidity: The continuum allows for flexibility in understanding and responding to behavior. It accounts for changes in a child’s development and environment, offering adaptive interventions based on the child’s current needs.
- DSM-5-TR:
- Categorical Diagnosis: The DSM-5-TR provides a more rigid diagnostic structure, where a child either meets criteria for a disorder or does not. This can lead to binary decisions regarding the need for clinical services.
- IDEIA Framework:
- Structured yet Adaptable: While IDEIA follows a structured legal framework, it requires tailored interventions through the IEP, which can be adjusted based on the child’s progress. However, the interventions are typically more standardized within the educational system and driven by legal requirements.
Comparison: Goldstein’s continuum is the most fluid, adapting to the child’s developmental and environmental context, whereas the DSM-5-TR is more rigid, focusing on diagnostic thresholds. IDEIA balances structure and adaptability, with a legal mandate for individualized support that ensures flexibility within an educational setting.
Conclusion:
Goldstein’s Disruptive/Non-Disruptive Continuum offers a flexible and developmentally contextual approach, emphasizing early intervention and environmental adjustments. The DSM-5-TR provides a clinical, criteria-based framework for diagnosing disruptive behavior disorders, focusing on symptom severity and impairment. Meanwhile, IDEIA emphasizes educational support for children with disabilities, mandating legal protections and individualized interventions in the school environment. Each framework has a specific focus: Goldstein’s is more fluid and developmental, the DSM-5-TR is more clinical and diagnostic, and IDEIA is centered around legal rights and educational success. Together, these models provide a comprehensive view of how to approach disruptive behaviors in children across different contexts.
GDC is a framework used to understand children's behavior along a spectrum, ranging from adaptive, non-disruptive behaviors to more extreme, disruptive behaviors that can indicate developmental or environmental challenges. Rather than viewing behaviors as fixed or pathologically problematic, Goldstein's continuum emphasizes that behavior is dynamic and influenced by context, environment, and development. This approach originated in developmental psychology, focusing on understanding how children's behaviors fluctuate based on their social interactions, emotional states, and external influences. The model encourages early, context-sensitive interventions before categorizing behavior as problematic, and allows for gradual escalation of support to prevent severe disruptive behaviors. This framework contrasts with rigid diagnostic models, highlighting flexibility and the possibility for behavioral modification through supportive environments. Goldstein’s continuum is rooted in the idea that behaviors should be understood developmentally and contextually, reflecting both the natural variations in children's growth and the potential for positive change.
The concept of understanding children's behavior along a continuum rather than through rigid, categorical labels existed before Goldstein’s work. The idea that behavior is not static but can vary depending on developmental stages, environmental factors, and context is deeply rooted in developmental psychology and educational theory.
Some key figures and approaches that predate or laid the groundwork for GDC include:
- Jean Piaget (1896–1980): Piaget’s stages of cognitive development emphasized that children’s behavior and thinking change as they grow, depending on their developmental stage. Piaget did not see behavior as fixed but as something that evolved as the child progressed through different cognitive phases.
- Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934): Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasized the importance of social context in shaping a child’s behavior. He introduced the idea of the Zone of Proximal Development, which highlights how children's behaviors and skills change in response to the support and guidance provided by adults. Vygotsky’s focus on the importance of context and interaction laid the foundation for understanding behavior as adaptable.
- B.F. Skinner (1904–1990): In the field of behaviorism, Skinner’s work on operant conditioning introduced the idea that behaviors could be shaped by environmental consequences. While Skinner focused on reinforcement and punishment, his work suggested that behavior could be modified and was not fixed, depending on external factors.
- Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005): Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory proposed that children's behavior is influenced by multiple layers of their environment, from immediate family to broader societal structures. His theory aligns with the idea that disruptive or non-disruptive behaviors must be understood within their environmental and social contexts, not simply as inherent traits.
- Erik Erikson (1902–1994): Erikson’s psychosocial development theory suggested that individuals go through different stages of emotional and social development, each with its own set of challenges and outcomes. Disruptive behaviors could be seen as part of normal responses to developmental crises, depending on the child’s stage in life.
These theorists laid the groundwork for a continuum-based understanding of behavior, where children's actions are seen as part of a developmental process that can be influenced by their environment, relationships, and support systems. GDC builds on these earlier theories, combining elements of developmental psychology, behaviorism, and contextual analysis to provide a flexible framework for understanding and addressing behavior. The continuum concept has been widely accepted in education and psychology, recognizing that behavior exists on a spectrum and can be shaped by developmental and contextual factors.
GDC arose from similar foundational ideas introduced by Achenbach’s distinction between internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Achenbach’s model, which categorizes behaviors into internal (e.g., anxiety, depression) and external (e.g., aggression, hyperactivity) responses, provided a crucial framework for understanding how behaviors exist on a spectrum, from mild to severe. Both models emphasize the importance of recognizing that behaviors are not fixed traits, but rather fluctuate depending on various factors such as context, developmental stage, and external pressures. This approach moves away from labeling every disruptive behavior as indicative of a mental disorder, instead assessing severity and frequency to guide intervention.
However, GDC differs by broadening this concept and incorporating a more holistic, non-pathologizing perspective. Where Achenbach’s model primarily focuses on categorizing and measuring behaviors within clinical boundaries, GDC extends beyond this, incorporating environmental, relational, and developmental factors into the understanding of a child’s behavior. Goldstein's framework emphasizes context and the dynamic nature of behavior, stressing the need for flexible, early interventions rather than immediate clinical diagnoses. It views disruptive behavior not merely as a symptom but as a signal of unmet developmental or environmental needs. Thus, while both models recognize the variability of behavior, GDC focuses more deeply on the child’s entire ecosystem and developmental journey rather than a purely diagnostic or categorical framework.
In conclusion, the comparison of GDC, DSM-5-TR, and IDEIA highlights the strengths and limitations of each approach. Goldstein’s model provides a flexible and context-sensitive framework, the DSM-5-TR offers clear diagnostic criteria for clinical conditions, and IDEIA ensures educational support and legal protections for children with disabilities. Together, these approaches underscore the importance of understanding children’s behavior in a developmentally informed and contextually sensitive way, advocating for a balanced approach that includes legal, clinical, and developmental perspectives in addressing children’s behavioral challenges.
Case Study: John, a 10-year-old Child with Learning and Behavioral Challenges
John, a 10-year-old boy, has struggled with reading, writing, and spelling since elementary school. He also experiences inattention, social difficulties, excessive worry, and frequent fears. These issues have contributed to his academic underperformance and growing anxiety in social settings, causing him to withdraw from peers. John's teachers often observe his inability to stay focused during lessons, and his hesitance to engage socially has affected his emotional development.
From the DSM-5-TR perspective, John might be diagnosed with learning disabilities like dyslexia or ADHD, as well as an anxiety disorder based on his excessive worrying. The DSM-5-TR would categorize John's symptoms into specific mental health disorders, leading to clinical interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, specialized learning support, or medication. While effective for diagnosis and treatment, this approach primarily focuses on his deficits and symptoms.
The IDEIA framework would address John's academic challenges by developing an Individualized Education Program (IEP). This plan would include interventions such as specialized reading instruction, accommodations for his learning difficulties, and counseling for his social and emotional struggles. The focus here would be on providing John with the educational support he needs to access the curriculum. Still, it may overlook the broader developmental and emotional aspects of his experience.
The GDC offers a more holistic approach to understanding John. This framework does not simply focus on diagnosing and treating symptoms but instead sees John's behavior on a spectrum influenced by his developmental stage and environment. Notably, the Goldstein framework also considers John's strengths, such as his curiosity, creativity, and problem-solving abilities, which may not be immediately evident through a deficit-based lens like the DSM-5-TR. By identifying and nurturing these strengths, the Goldstein model promotes resilience and growth, offering interventions that build on what John does well while addressing his areas of need.
For instance, instead of focusing solely on his reading struggles, the Goldstein approach would consider how John's strengths—like a strong interest in science or art—can be leveraged to support his learning in areas where he struggles. This strengths-based focus, combined with early and flexible interventions, allows for a more personalized support plan that adapts to John's evolving needs and fosters emotional and academic success.
The GDC is especially suited to helping John because it recognizes his behavior as fluid and context-dependent rather than fixed or pathologized. The model offers a balanced, developmentally appropriate intervention plan by focusing on his challenges and strengths. This approach fosters John's overall development by modifying environmental factors, building on his strengths, and offering flexible support that evolves as he grows.
Implications For the Future
The GDC holds significant potential for transforming how we understand and intervene in children's behavioral challenges. As this framework becomes more widely adopted, its emphasis on early, context-sensitive interventions can lead to more personalized and effective approaches to behavior management. By moving away from rigid diagnostic models, the continuum allows professionals to create more holistic, individualized intervention plans that prioritize the child's development over labeling. This approach can help reduce the over-pathologizing of behaviors in children and offer solutions that are more adaptive to the child’s current needs and environment.
In the future, integrating the GDC into educational and clinical practices can foster better collaboration between educators, clinicians, and families. The continuum encourages a shared understanding of behavior as fluid and developmentally influenced, which could lead to more cohesive strategies that address not just the behavior but the underlying factors contributing to it. Additionally, the continuum's flexibility aligns with the growing trend toward personalized education and mental health support, paving the way for more tailored, developmentally appropriate interventions.
Overall, the GDC has the potential to influence policy, reshape clinical and educational training, and provide a more dynamic understanding of child behavior that recognizes the complexities of human development.
