Disciplinary removal patterns among students with other health impairments and emotional disturbance: A three-year descriptive analysis of IDEA Part B data

Melissa Beck Wells

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346338

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 15, 2025
10 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Avanti Dey, Editor Dear Dr. Beck Wells, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Avanti Dey, PhD Staff Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I have a very positive view of the subject matters of the study. It highlights an important issue in the education of students with disabilities, which can have a significant impact on their academic performance and success. Overall, the study is valuable, but there is room for improvement in the article. I hope that the comments below will help with this. The research concept has not been described with sufficient precision. The author does not mention any research protocol used; SQUIRE.EDU could be appropriate because of the issue with the paper. The research focuses on describing what has been done. As the author writes, “The purpose of this study was to examine longitudinal patterns of disciplinary removal among students classified under OHI and ED using IDEA Part B discipline data across three academic years”. But the key question is why the examining of the patterns is important. However, it is not clearly and accurate stated what purpose this comparative analysis serves or what the author wants to achieve with it. The process of data analysis is a means of achieving the intended goal. It is a path leading to it. It would be helpful to define the goal more accurately by formulating research questions, which are not included in the article, and which would indicate what the author wants to find out through this research. The article also lacks a description of the analysed data set. This should include information about what the data contains, how it was created, the total number of people, procedures and penalties analysed, and other important information. A description of the "research sample" in the form of a data set allows for a better presentation of the data analysis process itself. It also strengthens the conclusions formulated on its basis. The data analysis is descriptive in nature, and the author explains why she limited herself to this method. But I think that the data analysis process and its individual stages should be described in more detail (e.g. whether she took all the data into account or only some of it, and why; how she processed the data, what analysis tools were used, etc.). The analysis is based on publicly available data contained in the national IDEA report. As noted by the author in the 'Limitations' section of the article, this data is restricted. These limitations, including the lack of separation of ADHD students and the lack of information on interventions, are very important when taking into account the subject of the study and the final conclusions. Owing to these limitations, the conclusions of the study are only partially supported by the data and must be formulated very carefully. For example, in the part titled DSM-5 Context and …, the Author writes: “The comparable or higher disciplinary removal rates observed for students classified under OHI suggest a misalignment between diagnostic classification and educational response, with ADHD-related behaviors more likely to be addressed reactively through discipline rather than proactively through behavioral intervention.” Since the author did not analyse ADHD data separately, why is the statement so definitive? The lack of data on behavioural interventions also means that this finding cannot be considered definitive. It might be possible that interventions were used earlier, but were ineffective, which led to the decision to remove students. For the same reasons, the author's final conclusion relating to ADHD students cannot be considered as sufficiently grounded in the analysed data or in the review of current research. The study has not been placed in the context of current literature on the subject. The author did not provide an overview of literature and research on this issue, which could further affect the confidence we can have in the conclusions. A discussion of the current state of research into differences in school functioning and learning among students classified as OHI (primarily including ADHD) and ED, as well as interventions used with these students, would certainly strengthen the study's results and conclusions. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346338.r001
Revision 1
24 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer #1 Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-66721 Title: Disciplinary Removal Patterns Among Students with Other Health Impairments and Emotional Disturbance: A Three-Year Descriptive Analysis of IDEA Part B Data We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the positive assessment of the study’s topic and the recognition of its relevance to the education of students with disabilities. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address each concern raised. Below we respond point-by-point. 1. Clarification of Research Purpose and Precision Reviewer Comment: The research concept has not been described with sufficient precision. The purpose of examining patterns is not clearly articulated. Research questions are not included. Response: We agree that the manuscript benefited from greater precision in articulating its aims. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated “Research Questions” subsection at the end of the Introduction. This section now explicitly states the guiding research questions, clarifying that the study is descriptive and comparative in nature and aimed at identifying longitudinal system-level patterns within publicly reported IDEA data. These revisions strengthen conceptual clarity and make explicit what the analysis seeks to examine and why those patterns are relevant within policy and diagnostic contexts. 2. Description of the Dataset Reviewer Comment: The article lacks a detailed description of the analyzed dataset, including what the data contain, how they were created, total numbers, and procedures analyzed. Response: We appreciate this recommendation. The Data Source section has been substantially expanded. The revised manuscript now includes: Identification of IDEA Section 618 Table bdiscipline-15 as the data source Clarification that the dataset includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia Explanation that percentages are calculated by the U.S. Department of Education using disability-specific denominators Explicit clarification that the dataset reflects publicly reported administrative census-level data rather than a sample Clarification that ADHD is embedded within the OHI category and not separately reported These additions improve transparency regarding the scope, structure, and limitations of the dataset. 3. Expansion of the Analytic Approach and Statistical Rigor Reviewer Comment: Statistical analysis has not been performed appropriately and rigorously. The analytic process should be described in more detail. Response: We have expanded the Analytic Approach section to provide greater methodological transparency. Specifically, we now describe: Inclusion of all available state-level data Treatment of suppressed or missing values Rationale for calculating median state-level percentages Justification for descriptive analysis given the census-level nature of the dataset Clarification that inferential statistical testing would not provide additional interpretive value because the dataset reflects population-level administrative reporting rather than sampled observations The revised manuscript now more clearly explains why descriptive longitudinal analysis is methodologically appropriate for the dataset used. 4. Interpretation of ADHD-Related Findings Reviewer Comment: Statements relating to ADHD are too definitive given that ADHD was not analyzed separately and intervention data were not available. Response: We appreciate this important caution. We have revised the Discussion section to soften language where necessary and avoid overstatement. Specifically: Definitive phrasing (e.g., “suggest a misalignment”) has been revised to conditional phrasing (e.g., “may reflect a potential misalignment”). Statements implying intervention absence have been reframed to acknowledge that intervention data are not available in IDEA Section 618 reporting. The Conclusion has been revised to reference students classified under OHI, rather than ADHD specifically, to maintain consistency with the available data. These revisions ensure that interpretations remain appropriately bounded by the limitations of the dataset. 5. Placement Within Existing Literature Reviewer Comment: The study has not been sufficiently placed in the context of current literature. Response: We have expanded the Discussion to better situate the findings within existing scholarship. The revised manuscript now includes additional contextualization of prior research on: Disciplinary exposure among students with disabilities Differences in identification and intervention practices for OHI and ED classifications Universal Design for Learning as a preventative instructional framework These additions clarify how the present study contributes to the broader literature while maintaining analytic restraint. 6. Limitations and Interpretive Boundaries We have retained and strengthened the Limitations section to emphasize: The inability to disaggregate ADHD within OHI The absence of intervention-level data (e.g., FBAs, BIPs) The descriptive nature of the analysis The inability to draw causal conclusions We agree that conclusions must be formulated cautiously and have revised language accordingly. Summary We are grateful for the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback. The revisions have strengthened the manuscript by: Clarifying research questions Expanding methodological transparency Refining interpretive language Enhancing literature contextualization We believe these changes meaningfully address the reviewer’s concerns and improve the rigor and clarity of the manuscript. We respectfully resubmit the revised version for further consideration. Sincerely, Melissa Beck Wells Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346338.r002
18 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Omid Beiki, Editor Disciplinary Removal Patterns Among Students with Other Health Impairments and Emotional Disturbance: A Three-Year Descriptive Analysis of IDEA Part B Data PONE-D-25-66721R1 Dear Dr. Beck Wells, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.... If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Omid Beiki, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear Author, I appreciate your responses to the comments and remarks I included in my previous review. I hope they were helpful in refining the article, and I accept all of the proposed changes. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346338.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Omid Beiki, Editor PONE-D-25-66721R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Beck Wells, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Omid Beiki Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346338.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .