1. _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
April 28 2014 08:33
_______________________________________________________________
28 April 2014 ProQuest

2. Table of contents
1. Emotional Adjustment and School Functioning of Young Adolescents with Multiple Versus Single
Learning Disabilities........................................................................................................................................ 1
28 April 2014 ii ProQuest

3. Document 1 of 1
Emotional Adjustment and School Functioning of Young Adolescents with Multiple Versus Single
Learning Disabilities
Author: Martínez, Rebecca S; Semrud-Clikeman, Margaret
ProQuest document link
Abstract: Early adolescents (Grades 6-8) with multiple learning disabilities (LD; reading and math) in inclusive
settings were compared to adolescents with single LD (reading or math) and typically achieving (TA) peers
regarding their psychosocial functioning in two areas of adolescent well-being: emotional adjustment and school
functioning. The Behavior Assessment System for Children (Reynolds &Kamphaus, 1998) Self-Report of
Personality for adolescents was used to determine well-being. One hundred twenty middle school students-15
boys and 15 girls in each group-were included in the current study. The results confirmed that adolescents with
multiple LD (reading and math) reported poorer functioning (i.e., higher T scores) on school maladjustment,
clinical maladjustment, emotional symptoms index, attitude to school, atypicality, and depression when
compared to TA peers but not when compared to peers with a single LD (reading or math). All three groups
differed from the TA group (but not from each other) on sense of inadequacy, with the multiple LD group
reporting the highest T scores. Additional analyses indicated significant differences between girls and boys,
regardless of disability status. Girls reported higher T scores on the emotional symptoms index, social stress,
and depression, but boys reported greater school maladjustment and sensation seeking. Implications for
practice and recommendations for future research are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Full text: Headnote
Abstract
Early adolescents (Grades 6-8) with multiple learning disabilities (LD; reading and math) in inclusive settings
were compared to adolescents with single LD (reading or math) and typically achieving (TA) peers regarding
their psychosocial functioning in two areas of adolescent well-being: emotional adjustment and school
functioning. The Behavior Assessment System for Children (Reynolds &Kamphaus, 1998) Self-Report of
Personality for adolescents was used to determine well-being. One hundred twenty middle school students-15
boys and 15 girls in each group-were included in the current study. The results confirmed that adolescents with
multiple LD (reading and math) reported poorer functioning (i.e., higher T scores) on school maladjustment,
clinical maladjustment, emotional symptoms index, attitude to school, atypicality, and depression when
compared to TA peers but not when compared to peers with a single LD (reading or math). All three groups
differed from the TA group (but not from each other) on sense of inadequacy, with the multiple LD group
reporting the highest T scores. Additional analyses indicated significant differences between girls and boys,
regardless of disability status. Girls reported higher T scores on the emotional symptoms index, social stress,
and depression, but boys reported greater school maladjustment and sensation seeking. Implications for
practice and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Chronic school failure is associated with poor academic and emotional functioning (Chapman, 1988; Margalit
&Zak, 1984; Patten, 1983). School failure is a trademark of students with learning disabilities (LD);
consequently, children and adolescents with LD may be particularly vulnerable to emotional problems and
school maladjustment. The literature has illustrated that relative to typically achieving peers, students with LD
face significant emotional difficulties (Arthur, 2003), including social isolation (Mishna, 1996), peer rejection
(Kuhne &Wiener, 2000; Ochoa &Olivarez, 1995), and loneliness (Margalit, 1998). Children and adolescents with
LD also encounter considerable school and academic problems, including poor motivation (Fulk, 1996), high
dropout rates (Lichtenstein &Zantol-Wiener, 1988), and modest school achievement (Gresham, MacMillan,
&Bocian, 1997). Students with LD may work harder than their teachers give them credit for (Meltzer, Katzir-
28 April 2014 Page 1 of 13 ProQuest

4. Cohen, Miller, &Roditi, 2001), and teachers have been noted to perceive students with LD as less motivated
(Grolnick &Ryan, 1990) and less competent (Meltzer, Roditi, Houser, &Perlman, 1998) than typical students.
Despite experiencing considerable emotional and academic problems, children and adolescents with LD report
that they do value school and recognize the importance of academic tasks (Hatzichristou &Hopf, 1993; Kloomok
&Cosden, 1994). Students with LD also hold academic competence in high regard and deem hard work and
effort to be important determinants of their academic success (Meltzer et al., 2001). Roeser, Eccles, and
Sameroff (1998) reported that adolescents' perceptions of their academic competence were positively
correlated to grade point average (GPA), whereas emotional distress was negatively correlated to GPA. Thus,
emotional distress in young adolescents may be assuaged by affirmative academic variables such as feeling
competent, valuing school, and earning good grades (Roeser, Eccles, &Sameroff, 2000). Although academic
and emotional functioning reciprocally affect each other, there are limited data examining the co-occurrence of
academic and emotional problems in children and adolescents (Roeser, Eccles, &Strobel, 1998). The main
objective of this study was to explore emotional functioning and school adjustment reported by middle school
adolescents in inclusive classes based on three disability categories: (a) single learning disability (either reading
or math); (b) multiple LD (reading and math); and (c) typically achieving (i.e., no LD).
Heterogeneity of LD
The term LD is broadly used to describe a heterogeneous group of deficits. Persons with LD have specific and
severe impairments in one or more academic areas. Federal guidelines currently recommend that a diagnosis
of LD be based on the severe discrepancy (see Note) between scores that measure ability (i.e., IQ) and
achievement in one or more of the following academic areas: oral expression, listening comprehension, written
expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, math calculation, and mathematics reasoning (U.S.
Department of Education, 1997). Despite the existence of distinct types or categories of LD (e.g., reading and
math), researchers often group individuals with one or more learning deficits into a single LD category. Although
LD subtyping research has become more prominent in the recent literature (e.g., Davis, Parr, &Lan, 1997;
Fuerst &Rourke, 1995; McIntosh &Gridley, 1993; Swanson, 1994), the participants in this research are generally
selected from clinic-referred samples, and the results of these studies are not generalizable to the general
school population of students with LD.
Although some of the literature has established that children with LD suffer social, emotional, and academic
problems, we have limited data about the emotional and school challenges that students with LD encounter in
specific academic areas. Rourke and Fuerst (1992) argued that there is "an almost lack of sensitivity to the
notion that there may be subtypes of children with LD for whom various kinds of academic and social learning
may be more or less difficult to achieve" (p. 362). Greater sensitivity to LD types, both in clinical and empirical
investigations, is critical to efforts aimed at providing remediation and compensation strategies and interventions
(Strang &Rourke, 1985) and provides valuable information for educational placement decisions.
Emotional Adjustment and School Functioning
In their review of the literature, Bender and Wall (1994) suggested that children in heterogeneous LD samples
are more susceptible to emotional and social problems than children without LD. Similarly, Sabornie (1994)
investigated sixth and seventh graders with and without LD who were matched on gender, race, grade, and
presence in the same general education class. Using group membership (LD and non-LD) as the independent
variable, Sabornie analyzed students' raw scores on various measures of psychosocial functioning. Overall, he
found that students with LD expressed more loneliness, more victimization, and less social satisfaction (i.e.,
school integration) than their non-LD matched peers. Clinical observations of students with LD also show that
this population tends to suffer chronic low levels of depression and anxiety (Cohen, 1986) and are more
depressed than peers who do not have LD (Goldstein, Paul, &Sanfilippo-Cohn, 1985).
Several researchers have generated hypotheses to explain the underlying reasons for the frequent occurrence
of emotional problems among students who experience academic problems. For example, Guay, Boivin, and
28 April 2014 Page 2 of 13 ProQuest

5. Hodges (1999) recently posited that psychological difficulties lead to academic failure. In a longitudinal study,
they followed second- through fourth-grade students over a 2-year period and reported evidence that negative
experiences with peers led to feelings of loneliness, which in turn contributed to poor academic self-evaluations.
On the other hand, Chapman (1988) argued that negative school-related attitudes develop early in the lives of
children who experience school failure and remain negative but consistent through high school, supporting the
notion that academic difficulties and emotional problems co-occur. A third position, argued by Goldstein et al.
(1985), posits that academic failure leads to impairments in psychosocial functioning. That is, for children with
LD, depression is an expected cognitive and emotional response to chronic academic failure. This theory has
most recently been referred to as the academic difficulties hypothesis (Roeser, Eccles, &Strobel, 1998). Based
on this theoretical framework, children with LD, who typically experience persistent academic failure throughout
school, are vulnerable to emotional problems as a result of their recurrent academic problems, which preceded
the emotional difficulties.
In line with the academic difficulties hypothesis, we propose that students with multiple learning disabilities,
especially in the core academic areas (reading and math), have to exert greater efforts to compensate
academically and emotionally for their learning deficits compared to students with a single learning disability and
peers without LD. As a result of experiencing academic problems in multiple academic areas (e.g., mathematics
and reading), psychosocial Stressors would be more apparent in the self-report measures of students with
multiple LD compared to students with LD in a single academic area and students with no LD.
Method
Participants
Participants included 120 sixth- (n = 33), seventh- (n = 54), and eighth-grade (n = 33) adolescents. Fifteen boys
and 15 girls were identified in each of four groups: reading and mathematics disabilities (RD + MD), reading
disabilities only (RD), math disabilities only (MD), and typically achieving (TA). Students with mental retardation,
pervasive developmental disorder, and auditory or visual impairments were excluded. Only students educated
in inclusive settings for most of the school day participated in the study. The participants were at least 12 years
old, and the sample included 65 European Americans, 37 Hispanics, 16 African Americans, and 2 Asian
Americans.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from 14 public middle schools in two large neighboring school districts in the
metropolitan Southwest. Students in the reading and mathematics disabilities (RD + MD), reading disabilities
only (RD), and mathematics disabilities only (MD) groups were identified based on the state's discrepancy
definition of a learning disability-that is, a 16-point or greater discrepancy between ability (IQ) and achievement.
The scores were obtained from cumulative folders and were based on the students' most recent annual or 3-
year psychoeducational evaluation.
Students in the TA group scored within the average range on an abbreviated measure of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) composed of the Block Design and
Vocabulary subtests. Full Scale IQ was computed according to Sattler (1988). The Math and Reading subtests
of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; Psychological Corp., 1992) provided academic
achievement standard scores, which were in the average to aboveaverage range and did not significantly differ
from the abbreviated IQ scores. All students in the TA group attended one or more classes with participants in
the RD, MD, and RD + MD groups. Table 1 displays IQ and math and reading achievement standard score
means and standard deviations for the sample by group.
Measures
The Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC; Reynolds &Kamphaus, 1998) is a multidimensional,
normreferenced rating scale used to evaluate emotional and behavioral disorders in children ages 2 years 6
months to 18 years 11 months. The BASC was normed on a sample of more than 9,000 students. The three
28 April 2014 Page 3 of 13 ProQuest

6. core scales include Teacher Rating Scales (TRS), Parent Rating Scales (PRS), and Self-Report of Personality
(SRP). The TRS and PRS each have three levels: preschool (2-5), child (6-11), and adolescent (12-18). The
SRP is available for children (8-11) and adolescents (12-18). The adolescent level of the BASC-SRP was used
in the current study. Teacher and parent forms were not administered.
During the administration, participants rated items true or false in response to 186 statements reflecting
personal thoughts and feelings. Scores on the clinical scales and composites were expressed as T scores (M =
50; SD = 10). Scores between 60 and 69 reflect at-risk behavior, and scores above 70 are in the clinically
significant range. The BASC manual reports internal consistency reliability for the SRP (adolescent version) to
be .88 to .99 for the composites and .58 to .89 for the clinical scales. Test-retest reliability scores for the
composites range from .81 to .86. The manual also reports evidence of the scale's validity as significant
correlations to similar measures, including the Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1985).
The BASC-SRP consists of four composites, and we chose to examine the following three and the clinical
scales that load on each: the Emotional Symptoms Index (ESI; Social Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Sense of
Inadequacy, Interpersonal Relations, and Self-Esteem), School Maladjustment (Attitude to School, Attitude to
Teachers, and Sensation Seeking) and Clinical Maladjustment (Atypicality, Locus of Control, Somatization,
Social Stress, and Anxiety).
Data Analysis
Based on the academic difficulties hypothesis, we hypothesized that students with multiple LD would report
greater emotional distress and school maladjustment than their peers with a single LD and their TA peers. First,
we calculated descriptive statistics to obtain a general profile of the sample. Next, we used analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to examine group differences on ability (IQ) and achievement in reading and math. Then we
examined group and gender differences on the three composites of interest using a 4 ×2 (Group ×Gender)
MANOVA. Using the Bonferroni procedure to correct testwise error, we also conducted subsequent univariate
28 April 2014 Page 4 of 13 ProQuest

7. analyses. We set the alpha level for the analysis of the overall model (the omnibus F) at .05. For the
subsequent univariate analyses of single variables, the alpha level was set accordingly, based on the Bonferroni
procedure for guarding against a chance of error from using numerous univariate analyses (testwise error). A
subsequent MANOVA was run on the clinical scales that made up the composites that showed significant main
effects. In addition to testing for significance, we calculated effect size measures for each comparison. Cohen's
d (Cohen, 1988) was adopted for this analysis. Cohen's d is defined as the standardized mean difference
between the experimental group and the control group on the measured outcome. According to Cohen (1988),
effect sizes can be categorized as small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), or large (d = 0.8).
Results
One-way ANOVAs revealed a significant group effect for IQ, F(3, 289) = 4.39, p <.006. Students in the MD
group (M = 97.33, SD = 8.29) were significantly lower in IQ, F(3, 301) = 4.69, p <.004, relative to students in the
TA group (M = 106.88, SD = 12.21). As expected, the ANOVAs also indicated group differences on basic
reading, F(3, 2722) = 34.6, p <.001, and math calculations, F(3, 3597) = 35.7, p <.001. On basic reading, all of
the LD groups were significantly different from the TA group and each other (except for the RD and RD + MD
groups). The TA group scored the highest mean score (M = 104.88, SD = 11.47), followed by the MD (M =
92.80, SD = 11.07), RD (M = 77.87, SD = 6.94), and RD + MD (M = 77.70, SD = 7.84) groups. On math
calculations, the RD group (M = 97.80, SD = 10.91) scored significantly better than the RD + MD group (M =
79.53, SD = 9.84, p <.001), whereas the TA group (M = 102.13, SD = 10.97) scored significantly better than the
RD + MD group (p <.001). No additional group differences were noted on math calculations.
Table 2 lists the means and standard deviations by group and gender on the three BASC-SRP composites
examined in this study. A 4 ×2 (Group ×Gender) MANOVA with the three BASC composites as dependent
variables revealed a main effect for group, F(9, 268) = 1.97, p <.043, and gender, F(3, 110) = 6.31, p <.001, but
not for the interaction between group and gender, F(9, 268) = .68, p <.732. Bonferroni post hoc analyses on the
28 April 2014 Page 5 of 13 ProQuest

8. effect of group using contrasts indicated significant group differences between the TA group and the RD + MD
group on School Maladjustment (p <.031, Cohen's d = .72), Clinical Maladjustment (p <.047, Cohen's d = .76),
and the Emotional Symptoms Index (p <.008, Cohen's d = .91). In all cases, students in the RD + MD category
reported higher F scores (i.e., poorer functioning) than the TA group. A significant difference also emerged
between the TA and MD groups on the school maladjustment composite (p <.022, Cohen's d = .88) in favor of
the TA group. No additional group differences on the composites emerged.
Gender differences appeared on the School Maladjustment Composite (p <.040, Cohen's d = .37) and the
Emotional Symptoms Index (p <.025, Cohen's d = .40) but not on Clinical Maladjustment (p <.262). Boys
reported higher T scores than girls on School Maladjustment (M = 55.12, SD = 10.81), whereas girls reported
higher T scores than boys on the Emotional Symptoms index (M = 55.10, SD = 13.71).
Because the three composites showed main effects, we ran a second MANOVA on the clinical scales that made
up each of the composites (Social Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Sense of Inadequacy, Interpersonal Relations,
Self-Esteem, Attitude to School, Attitude to Teachers, Sensation Seeking, Atypicality, Locus of Control,
Somatization, Social Stress, and Anxiety).
Table 3 lists the means and standard deviations for these clinical scales. The results of the MANOVA indicated
a main effect for group, F(12, 103) = 2.76, p <.003, on Attitude to School, F(3, 406) = 2.98, p <.035, Atypicality,
F(3, 433) = 3.19, p <.026, Depression, F(3, 445) = 3.53, p <.017, Sense of Inadequacy, F(3, 1067) = 7.85, p
<.001, and Interpersonal Relations, F(3, 316) = 3.14, p <.028. Bonferroni post hoc analyses on the effect of
group using contrasts indicated that students in the RD + MD group showed significantly more impairment than
the TA group on Atypicality (p <.043, Cohen's d = .74) and Depression (p <.017, Cohen's d = .84) but not on the
remaining clinical scales. Group differences between the RD + MD and TA groups did approach significance on
Attitude to School (p <.086, Cohen's d = .64) and Interpersonal Relations (p <.066, Cohen's d = .07). The RD (p
<.019, Cohen's d = .87), MD (p <.005, Cohen's d = .94), and RD + MD (p <.001, Cohen's d = 1.26) groups were
significantly different and showed more impairment on Sense of Inadequacy compared to the TA group but not
compared to each other. No additional group differences among the clinical scales were noted.
Finally, a main effect on the clinical scales emerged for gender, F(12, 101) = 2.29, p <.013, but not for the
interaction between group and gender, F(12, 103) = 1.62, p <.098. Girls reported significantly higher T scores
relative to boys on Social Stress, Depression, and Self-Esteem, whereas boys indicated higher T scores on
Sensation seeking. No additional gender differences on the remaining clinical scales emerged.
Discussion
The current study investigated group differences among students with single versus multiple LD in two areas of
adolescent well-being: emotional adjustment and school functioning. Our hypothesis that students with multiple
LD fare worse than students with a single LD and students with no LD was partially supported by our findings
that students in the RD + MD category showed significantly more impairment than students in the TA group (but
not compared to their RD or MD peers) on the three composites of the BASC-SRP (Clinical Maladjustment,
Emotional Symptoms Index, and School Functioning) and on two clinical scales, Depression and Atypicality.
These findings can be partially explained by earlier research. There is consensus in the literature that having LD
predisposes a person to social and emotional difficulties, especially during adolescence (Mishna, 1996). When
compared to adolescents without LD, adolescents with LD exhibit more internalizing symptoms (Cohen, 1986;
Guay et al., 1999; Hatzichristou &Hopf, 1993) and endorse higher levels of depressive symptomatology
(Bender, Rosenkrans, &Crane, 1999). Although the referenced studies did not examine psychosocial
differences by LD type (i.e., single vs. multiple), the current study offers preliminary evidence that children with
multiple LD (but not single LD) may be qualitatively different in their emotional and school functioning than their
peers without LD.
Our findings further indicate that students with multiple LD may be more socially immature than students without
LD. In the current study, children in the RD + MD group showed significantly more impairment on the Atypicality
28 April 2014 Page 6 of 13 ProQuest

9. scale than their TA peers. The Atypicality scale measures behaviors that are considered immature and odd
(Reynolds &Kamphaus, 1998). Consistent with the literature, children with LD have been described as having
poor social skills relative to their peers without LD (Kavale &Forness, 1996). It is possible that students with
learning problems in only one area are able to compensate for their academic difficulties and therefore
experience fewer academic failures; as a result, they are better adjusted than students with problems in multiple
academic areas.
Our work also shows that students with both single and multiple LD perceived a greater sense of inadequacy
than students without LD. Although students with LD do not generally report poorer global self-concepts than
their TA peers (Bear, Minke, &Manning, 2002), children with LD in one or multiple areas seem to feel
inadequate regarding their intellectual ability and school status (Gans, Kenny, &Ghany, 2003).
Finally, group comparisons also revealed that students with multiple LD and with single MD showed greater
school maladjustment than students in the TA group. Sabornie (1994) investigated the emotional functioning of
sixth and seventh graders with and without LD who were in the same general education class. By and large,
students with LD expressed more loneliness, more victimization, and less social satisfaction (i.e., school
integration) than their non-LD peers. The finding that students with multiple learning disabilities and math
disabilities fare worse on school adjustment relative to TA students may be partially explained by the tendency
for students with LD to compare themselves to their TA peers (Bear, Clever, &Proctor, 1991). This may be
particularly true in the current study because all participants were in inclusive classroom settings with typical
peers. Further research is needed to determine why students with a math disability but not a reading disability
showed more school maladjustment than TA students.
In sum, our findings indicate that having multiple learning disabilities (in reading and math) may be a risk factor
for emotional functioning and school adjustment. Consistent with this line of thought, Morrison and Cosden
(1997) wrote about LD as a risk factor that, combined with other risk factors, exacerbates poor emotional
28 April 2014 Page 7 of 13 ProQuest

10. functioning. More recently, Margalit (2003) discussed the important role that mediating protective factors (e.g.,
emotion regulation, peer and adult support) play in the healthy adjustment of youth with LD. Wong (2003) and
Sorensen et al. (2003) underscored the importance of longitudinal research in understanding how contextual
factors (e.g., school size, classroom placement, friendship patterns, severity of LD) interact with individual
factors that facilitate or impede healthy psychosocial development. Our findings suggest that having multiple
learning disabilities (in reading and math) may be a risk factor for psychosocial difficulties and school problems.
Longitudinal work is needed to investigate if having multiple LD is causally related to students' emotional and
school problems.
Gender Differences
Another major finding in this study was that girls reported more difficulty on the Depression and Sense of
Inadequacy composites and the Emotional Symptoms Index than boys. These results are echoed in a recent
10-year longitudinal study about the development of depression from preadolescence to young adulthood. In
this study, Hankin and Abramson (1999) reported that adolescent girls are consistently more depressed than
their male peers. Unfortunately, dysthymic characteristics in childhood are prognostic of later emotional
difficulties for girls but not for boys (Kandel &Davies, 1986), which may partially explain why women report more
depression than men (Gladstone &Koenig, 1994). Bear, Juvonen, and McInerney (1993) emphasized the
importance of research that investigates aspects of girls' personal and social adjustment. Bruck (1985)
examined adults with LD and compared their educational, psychological, occupational, and social functioning to
individuals without LD. Regrettably, she found that despite having learned to compensate in many areas in the
academic domain, women with LD were at higher risk than men (with and without LD) for emotional and social
problems in adulthood (Bruck, 1985).
In contrast, boys in this study reported poorer functioning than girls on School Maladjustment and Sensation
seeking. Although boys and girls make up roughly equal proportions of the school-age population, boys account
for approximately two thirds of all students in special education (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). By and
large, boys are more likely than girls to be referred for special education by their teachers (Flynn &Rahbar,
1994), principally because boys, when compared to girls, are inclined to act out or disrupt in class (Lubs et al.,
1991). This is alarming, given that students with school discipline problems are at risk for dropping out of school
(Altenbaugh, Engel, &Martin, 1995). Interventions that address girls' emotional functioning and boys' unique
psychosocial difficulties, regardless of disability status, should be the focus of future work in schools.
Future Work
The LD literature has traditionally conceptualized our understanding of LD from within a deficit model. The
deficit framework has systematically ignored critical contextual factors that interact with child variables (e.g.,
self-efficacy, attitudes toward school, internalizing symptomatology, personality) to facilitate (or impede) healthy
psychosocial adjustment. To date, few researchers have applied a risk and resilience framework in their
research with individuals with LD (Margalit, 2003). Wong (2003) challenged future LD researchers to implement
the risk and resilience framework in their investigations about the psychosocial functioning of children and
adolescents with LD. This positive paradigm shift emphasizes research that explores risk and protective factors
that influence the developmental outcomes of individuals with LD.
A second area worthy of future investigation centers on the compensation strategies (both academic and
emotional) used by students with LD. Perhaps students with a single LD have adopted successful means of
coping with their academic deficits that, once identified, can be systematically taught to students with multiple
LD. For example, internal factors such as focusing on academic promise (rather than academic shortfalls),
persistence, and self-confidence (Gerber &Reiff, 1991) have been found to be characteristics of successful
people with LD.
Recommendations for Practitioners
Counselors and school psychologists who work with children with LD should focus on learning goals and not on
28 April 2014 Page 8 of 13 ProQuest

11. performance outcomes; this reduces students' feelings of helplessness (Dweck, 1986). Similarly, teaching
students specific study techniques (e.g., using flashcards, seeking social assistance, highlighting, color coding)
may be beneficial for students with LD (Zimmerman &Martinez-Pons, 1986). Because students with LD do have
the capacity to take credit for their achievements (Tur-Kaspa &Bryan, 1993), teaching them to develop positive
attributions of success and failure might be a particularly helpful learning strategy (Borkowski, Wyhing, &Carr,
1988).
When students do not do well in school, teachers should focus on their students' lack of effort and not on their
lack of ability (Robertson, 2000). Furthermore, inservice and professional development training for teachers
about specific strategies for following each child's Individualized Education Program and modifying the general
education curriculum so that students with LD, especially LD in multiple academic areas, experience success
may be another promising strategy.
Limitations
Several limitations must be considered when interpreting these data. First, all dependent variables were based
on BASC-SRP, and comparisons of self-report measures with teacher or parent reports about the students'
actual social support networks would have provided additional validity to the self-reports. A second limitation
was the great variability in the severity of LD represented in the sample. The discrepancy method defines a
learning disability as a minimum 16-point difference between ability and achievement. Ability-achievement
discrepancies in this sample ranged from -16 to -43 points. Similarly, the use of different intelligence and
achievement measures across participants may have influenced whether a student was included in one group
versus another or not at all. For example, a student's IQ score on one ability test (e.g., one that is known to
inflate general or full scale scores) may qualify a student for LD in a particular area (e.g., reading); however, the
same student's IQ score on a different ability test might result in a commensurate ability-achievement score,
failing to qualify the same student for LD. This highlights one of the chief arguments in the literature against the
use of the discrepancy model to define LD.
Footnote
NOTE
The discrepancy-based definition used to operationalize LD is the most frequently used method in educational
practice and research investigations in the United States (Frankenberger &Fronzaglio, 1991). Despite its
widespread use, discussions casting doubt on the validity of the discrepancy definition have been consistent in
the literature (e.g., Stanovich &Siegel, 1994).
References
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1985). Manual for the Youth Self-Report. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of
Psychiatry.
Altenbaugh, R. J, Engel, D. E., &Martin, D. T. (1995). Caring for kids: A critical study of urban school leavers.
Washington, DC: Palmer Press.
Arthur, A. R. (2003). The emotional lives of people with learning disability. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 31, 25-31.
Bear, G. G., Clever, A., &Proctor, W. A. (1991). Self-perceptions of nonhandicapped children and children with
learning disabilities in integrated classes. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 409-426.
Bear, G. G., Juvonen, J., &McInerney, F. (1993). Self-perceptions and peer relations of boys with and boys
without learning disabilities in an integrated setting: A longitudinal study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 127-
136.
Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., &Manning, M. A. (2002). Self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-
analysis. School Psychology Review, 31, 405-427.
Bender, W. N., Rosenkrans, C. B., &Crane, M. (1999). Stress, depression, and suicide among students with
28 April 2014 Page 9 of 13 ProQuest

12. learning disabilities: Assessing the risk. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 143-156.
Bender, W. N., &Wall, M. E. (1994). Social-emotional development of students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 323-341.
Borkowski, J. G., Wyhing, R. S., &Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading
comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46-53.
Bruck, M. (1985). The adult functioning of children with specific learning disabilities: A follow-up study.
Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 91-129.
Chapman, J. W. (1988). Cognitive-motivational characteristics and academic achievement of learning disabled
children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 357-365.
Cohen, J. (1986). Learning disabilities and psychological development in childhood and adolescence. Annals of
Dyslexia, 36, 287-300.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, J. T., Parr, G., &Lan, W. (1997). Differences between learning disability subtypes classified using the
revised Woodcock-Johnson. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 446-352.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Flynn, J. M., &Rahbar, M. H. (1994). Prevalence of reading failure in boys compared with girls. Psychology in
the Schools, 31, 66-71.
Frankenberger, W., &Fronzaglio, K. (1991). A review of states' criteria and procedures for identifying children
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 495-500.
Fuerst, D., &Rourke, B. (1995). Psychosocial functioning of children with learning disabilities at three age levels.
Child Neuropsychology, 1, 38-55.
Fulk, B. M. (1996). Reflections on "The effects of combined strategy and attribution training on LD adolescents'
spelling performance." Exceptionality, 6, 59-64.
Gans, A. M., Kenny, M. C., &Ghany, D. L. (2003). Comparing the self-concept of students with and without
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 287-295.
Gerber, P. J., &Reiff, H. B. (1991). Speaking for themselves: Ethnographic interviews with adults with learning
disabilities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gladstone, T. R., &Koenig, L. J. (1994). Sex differences in depression across the high school to college
transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 643-669.
Goldstein, D., Paul, G. G., &Sanfilippo-Cohn, S. (1985). Depression and achievement in subgroups of children
with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 263-275.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., &Bocian, K. M. (1997). Teachers as 'tests': Differential validity of teacher
judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26, 47-60.
Grolnick, W. S., &Ryan, R. M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in children with learning
disabilities: A multiple-group comparison study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 177-184.
Guay, F., Boivin, M., &Hodges, E. V. E. (1999). Predicting change in academic achievement: A model of peer
experiences and self-system processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 105-115.
Hankin, B. L., &Abramson, L. Y. (1999). Development of gender differences in depression: Description and
possible explanations. Annals of Medicine, 31, 372-379.
Hatzichristou, C., &Hopf, D. (1993). Students with learning disabilities: Academic and psychosocial aspects of
adaptation. School Psychology International, 14(1), 43-56.
Kandel, D. B., &Davies, M. (1986). Adult sequelae of adolescent depressive symptoms. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 43, 255-262.
Kavale, K. A., &Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 29, 226-237.
Kloomok, S., &Cosden, M. (1994). Self-concept in children with learning disabilities: The relationship between
28 April 2014 Page 10 of 13 ProQuest

13. global self-concept, academic "discounting," nonacademic self-concept, and perceived social support. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 17, 140-153.
Kuhne, M., &Wiener, J. (2000). Stability of social status of children with and without learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 64-75.
Lichtenstein, S., &Zantol-Wiener, K. (1988). Special education dropouts (ERIC digest #451). Reston, VA: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED295395)
Lubs, H. A., Duara, R., Levin, B., Jallad, B., Lubs, M., Rabin, M., et al. (1991). Dyslexia subtypes-genetics,
behavior, and brain imaging. In D. D. Duane &D. B. Gray (Eds.), The reading brain (pp. 89-117). Parkton, MD:
York Press.
Margalit, M. (1998). Loneliness and coherence among preschool children with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 31, 173-181.
Margalit, M. (2003). Resilience models among individuals with learning disabilities: Proximal and distal
influences. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 18, 82-87.
Margalit, M., &Zak, I. (1984). Anxiety and self-concept of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 17, 537-539.
McIntosh, D. E., &Gridley, B. E. (1993). Differential ability scales: Profiles of learning-disabled subtypes.
Psychology in the Schools, 30, 11-24.
Meltzer, L., Katzir-Cohen, T., Miller, L., &Roditi, B. (2001). The impact of effort and strategy used on academic
performance: Student and teacher perceptions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 85-99.
Meltzer, L. J., Roditi, B., Houser, R. P., &Perlman, M. (1998). Perceptions of academic strategies and
competence in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 437-451.
Mishna, F. (1996). Finding their voice: Group therapy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research &Practice, 11, 249-258.
Morrison, G. M., &Cosden, M. A. (1997). Risk, resilience, and adjustment of individuals with learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 43-60.
Ochoa, S. H., &Olivarez, A. (1995). A metaanalysis of peer rating sociometric studies of pupils with learning
disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 1-20.
Patten, M. (1983). Relationships between self-esteem, anxiety, and achievement in young learning disabled
students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 43-45.
Psychological Corp. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test: Examiner's manual. San Antonio, TX:
Author.
Reynolds, C. R., &Kamphaus, R. W. (1998). The behavior assessment system for children. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Robertson, J. S. (2000). Is attribution training a worthwhile classroom intervention for K-12 students with
learning difficulties? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 111-134.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., &Sameroff, A. J. (1998). Academic and emotional functioning in early
adolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 321-352.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., &Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents' academic and
social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. Elementary School Journal, 100, 443-471.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., &Strobel, K. R. (1998). Linking the study of schooling and mental health: Selected
issues and empirical illustrations at the level of the individual. Educational Psychologist, 33, 153-176.
Rourke, B. P., &Fuerst, D. R. (1992). Psychosocial dimensions of learning disability subtypes: In the Windsor
Laboratory. School Psychology Review, 2, 361-374.
Sabornie, E. J. (1994). Social-affective characteristics in early adolescents identified as learning disabled and
nondisabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 268-279.
28 April 2014 Page 11 of 13 ProQuest

14. Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed). San Diego: Author.
Sorensen, L. G., Forbes, P. W., Bernstein, J. H., Weiler, M. D., Mitchell, W. M., &Waber, D. P. (2003).
Psychosocial adjustment over a two-year period in children referred for learning problems: Risk, resilience, and
adaptation. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 18, 10-25.
Stanovich, K. E., &Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with dyslexia: A regression-
based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53.
Strang, J. D., &Rourke, B. P. (1985). Adaptive behavior of children who exhibit specific arithmetic disabilities
and associated neuropsychological abilities and deficits. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of learning
disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis (pp. 302-328). New York: Guilford Press.
Swanson, H. L. (1994). The role of working memory and dynamic assessment in the classification of children
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 9, 190-202
Tur-Kaspa, H., &Bryan, T. (1993). Social attributions of students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 4, 229-
244.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Nine-teenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.
Wong, B. Y. (2003). General and specific issues for researchers' consideration in applying the risk and
resilience framework to the social domain of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 18,
68-77.
Zimmerman, B. J., &Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use
of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628.
AuthorAffiliation
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Rebecca S. Martinez, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational
Psychology at Indiana University. Dr. Martinez is a graduate of the School Psychology Program at the
University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include the psychosocial adjustment of adolescents with
LD and attitudes toward inclusion. Margaret Semrud-Clikeman, PhD, is a professor in the Department of
Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. She is also director of the School Psychology
Program. Dr. Semrud-Clikeman has written extensively in the field of learning disabilities, ADHD, and child
neuropsychology. Address: Rebecca S. Martinez, Indiana University, School Psychology Program, 201 North
Rose, Room 4012, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006; e-mail: rma@indiana.edu
AUTHORS' NOTE
This article is based on the doctoral dissertation submitted by the first author (under the direction of the second
author) to the graduate school of the University of Texas at Austin.
Subject: Learning disabilities; Gender differences; Adjustment; Emotions; Social psychology; Academic failure;
Middle school students;
MeSH: Adolescent, Affective Symptoms -- diagnosis, Child, Depression -- diagnosis, Depression -- psychology,
Dyslexia -- diagnosis, Dyslexia -- psychology, Female, Humans, Learning Disorders -- diagnosis, Male,
Mathematics, Peer Group, Personality Inventory, Self Concept, Social Adjustment, Adaptation, Psychological
(major), Affective Symptoms -- psychology (major), Educational Status (major), Learning Disorders --
psychology (major)
Publication title: Journal of Learning Disabilities
28 April 2014 Page 12 of 13 ProQuest

15. Volume: 37
Issue: 5
Pages: 411-20
Number of pages: 10
Publication year: 2004
Publication date: Sep/Oct 2004
Year: 2004
Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Place of publication: Austin
Country of publication: United States
Publication subject: Education--Special Education And Rehabilitation, Psychology, Medical Sciences
ISSN: 00222194
CODEN: JLDIAD
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Comparative Study
Document feature: Tables References
Accession number: 15460348
ProQuest document ID: 194228037
Document URL:
http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/docview/194228037?accountid=42518
Copyright: Copyright PRO-ED Journals Sep/Oct 2004
Last updated: 2013-08-22
Database: Arts & Humanities Full Text
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright © 2014 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions
28 April 2014 Page 13 of 13 ProQuest