http://ldx.sagepub.com/Journal of Learning Disabilities

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/23/2/115The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/002221949002300207

1990 23: 115J Learn DisabilPaul A. Toro, Roger P. Weissberg, John Guare and Nancy L. Liebenstein

Behavior, and Family BackgroundA Comparison of Children With and Without Learning Disabilities on Social Problem-Solving Skill, School

  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Learning DisabilitiesAdditional services and information for    

  http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/23/2/115.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Feb 1, 1990Version of Record >>

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

A Comparison of Children With and Without Learning Disabilities on

Social Problem-Solving Skill, School Behavior, and Family Background

Paul A. Toro, Roger P. Weissberg, John Guare, and Nancy L Liebenstein

The study compared 86 children with learning disabilities (LD) with 86 matched children without learning disabilities (NLD) on three domains of variables: social problem-solving skill, teacher-rated school behavior and competence, and family background. The children with LD and the NLD group differed on variables in all three domains. More specifically, the children with LD were able to generate fewer alternatives for solving social problem situations, showed less tolerance for frustration and less adaptive assertiveness, and had more overall classroom behavior problems and less personal and social competence in a variety of areas as rated by teachers. Children having LD also showed more family background difficulties (e.g., lack of educational stimulation at home, economic difficulties). The findings sug-gest the need for greater attention to social and behavioral remediation for children with LD and greater involvement of their families, in addition to the cognitive and academic remediation emphasized in existing curricula for children with LD.

Research on children with learning disabilities (LD) has traditionally

focused on their perceptual, language, cognitive, and academic functioning, rather than on their behavior, social functioning, and family backgrounds. Recently, however, research evidence has accumulated suggesting that children with LD show more behavioral prob-lems, display less social competence, and more frequently come from disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to their nondis-abled peers.

Many studies, using a variety of socio-metric measures and subject types (vary-ing on the definition of learning disability, age, and other demographic character-istics), have consistently demonstrated the lower popularity of children with LD compared to non-learning-disabled (NLD) children (Bruininks, 1978; Bryan, 1974, 1976; Perlmutter, Crock, Cordray, & Garsted, 1983; Scranton & Ryckman, 1979; Silver & Young, 1985; Siperstein, Bopp, & Bak, 1978). Children with LD also show a variety of behavioral prob-lems, both in and out of school. Studies that document the deficits of children with LD relative to NLD children have been based on the ratings of teachers

(Bender & Golden, 1988; Center & Was-com, 1986; Keogh, Tchir, & Windeguth-Behn, 1974; Leigh, 1987; Schneider & Yoshida, 1988; Silver 8c Young, 1985; Stone & La Greca, 1984) and parents (Bryan, Pearl, Zimmerman, & Matthews, 1982; McConaughty, 1986; McConaughty & Ritter, 1985; Pihl & McLarnon, 1984; Strag, 1972).

Several recent studies based on be-havioral observations in the classroom have found that children with LD are more distractible than NLD children (Feagans & McKinney, 1981; McKinney, McClure, & Feagans, 1982; Richey & McKinney, 1978; Sherry, 1982). How-ever, one recent study, based on a small sample (14 NLD and 14 LD), failed to find such differences (Slate & Saudargas, 1986). Other studies collecting quantita-tive observational data on children with LD in other structured or unstructured situations with peers have generally found that, while they are not different from NLD peers on overall levels of social in-teraction, children having a learning dis-ability show more negative and inappro-priate types of social behavior (La Greca, 1981; Pearl, Bryan, & Donahue, 1983). Here again, however, one recent study,

also based on a small sample (15 NLD and 15 LD), obtained results not entirely consistent with this pattern (Markoski, 1983).

Stimulated by the recent surge of in-terest in children's social competence and the consistent findings that children with LD are perceived more negatively by those around them, several investigations have compared the social perceptions and social skills of children with and without learning disabilities.

Children identified as having a learn-ing disability have been found to "mis-read" social interactions (Gerber & Zink-graf, 1982; Jackson, Enright, & Murdock, 1987; Pearl & Cosden, 1982), display poorer role-taking skills (Dickstein & Warren, 1980), perceive social situations as more "unfriendly" (Weiss, 1984), be more prone to attribute positive social outcomes to "luck" (Sobol, Earn, Ben-nett, & Humphries, 1983), and show less empathy toward their peers (Bachara, 1976).

Five studies have explored differences between children with LD and NLD chil-dren in social problem-solving skills, an important aspect of social competence (Spivack, Piatt, & Shure, 1976). Carlson (1987) presented males with and without LD with four open-ended hypothetical, peer-related social situations and found the males with LD to be deficient in the quality and/or quantity of strategies spontaneously chosen in resolving two of the four situations. In a methodologically similar study, Oliva and La Greca (1988) found that males with LD were deficient in developing "sophisticated" goals in the hypothetical social situations, though the strategies they generated to achieve their social goals were no less "friendly" than those of NLD peers. The remaining three studies (Berg, 1982; Schneider & Yoshida, 1988; Silver & Young, 1985), using more traditional measures of social problem-solving skills (Spivack et al., 1976), found children with LD to be deficient in both (a) generating alternative solutions to hypothetical social situations, and (b) of-fering the relevant means to accomplish desirable social outcomes.

It may be possible, under certain con-ditions, to eliminate these consistent social skills deficits found among persons with LD. For instance, Stone and La Greca (1984) found that children with

Volume 23, Number 2, February 1990 115 at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

LD did not "misread" social interactions if they were given an incentive for being attentive during the study's procedures. Similarly, Carlson (1983) found that, if the experimenter provided the child with a prosocial goal, children with LD could not be distinguished from children with-out LD on the quality of strategies chosen in resolving hypothetical peer-related social situations.

Surprisingly few studies in the litera-ture have examined the socioeconomic and family situations of children with learning disabilities. However, there is some evidence that the cognitive abilities of children with LD are similar to those of culturally deprived children (Itskowitz, Bar-El, & Gross, 1986) and that the parents of children with LD show lower educational attainment (Carlson, 1983). In addition, longitudinal follow-up studies suggest that children with LD come from disadvantaged backgrounds. In a 5-year follow-up study comparing children with and without LD, Pihl and McLarnon (1984) found that the fathers of children with LD had lower scores on an occupa-tion-based measure of socioeconomic status. In a massive prospective study done in the United States, Nichols and Chen (1981) found socioeconomic vari-ables to be some of the best predictors of later LD status.

The present study explored differences between children with LD and NLD chil-dren in three domains: social problem-solving skill, school behavior, and fami-ly background. This study expands the existing literature by (a) considering these multiple domains in the same study, (b) measuring social problem-solving skill (which has been explored in only five prior studies), (c) measuring specific components of school behavior in addi-tion to a global rating from the teacher's perspective, and (d) assessing several aspects of family background.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 172 children. There were 86 children with LD (66 boys, 20 girls), between the ages of 7 and 11 (M= 9.12) from 11 small (median class size= 10), self-contained classes for children with

learning disabilities in two urban (51 children) and four suburban (35 children) public elementary schools (see Note). A matched NLD sample of 86 children was selected from the same or neighboring schools. Each NLD child was matched with the corresponding child with LD on sex, age (plus or minus 1 year), and urban-suburban school location. The families living in the areas served by the schools were generally from the lower to middle classes: Based on 1980 census data, (a) the median yearly family in-come was $17,160 for the urban schools and $21,733 for the suburban schools, and (b) the percentage of families living below the poverty line was 14.5% for the urban schools and 3.0% for the subur-ban schools. IQ data were available for both subjects in 44 of the 86 matched pairs. NLD children had significantly higher IQs than children with LD (mean IQ for the children with LD = 85.11, usually based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised [WISC-R] [1974] or Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale [Terman & Merrill, 1973]; mean IQ for the NLD group = 103.02, usually based on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test [PPVT] [Dunn, 1965]; matched t [43] = 6.45, p<.001).

Measures

NLD children and children with LD were compared on three clusters of de-pendent variables: social problem-solving skill, teacher-rated school behavior, and teacher-rated family background char-acteristics.

Social Problem-Solving Skill. The ability to generate alternative solutions is a focal social problem-solving skill for elementary-school-aged children (Spivack et al., 1976; Weissberg, Gesten, Rapkin, et al., 1981). In addition to distinguishing disturbed from nondisturbed groups (Piatt, Spivack, Altman, Altman, & Peizer, 1974), this skill has been found to correlate with teacher-rated school ad-justment (Spivack et al., 1976) and has been shown in controlled studies to im-prove following social problem-solving training programs (Shure & Spivack, 1979; Weissberg, Gesten, Carnrike, et al., 1981; Weissberg, Gesten, Rapkin, et al., 1981).

The ability to generate alternative solu-tions was assessed in this study by the Open Middle Interview (OMI) (Polifka, Weissberg, Gesten, Flores de Apodaca, & Picolli, 1981). The OMI is an individ-ually administered measure that presents children with four different age-relevant social problem situations. The child's task is to generate as many different solu-tions as possible to each story. The four problems depicted were as follows: (a) A child wants to take home the class gerbil that another child also wants to take, (b) a youngster is teased about a new hair-cut, (c) a child wants to ride a bike that a friend has been using for a long time, and (d) a child borrows a friend's toy and loses it. A trained interviewer reads the OMI to the child and writes down the child's responses (note that this standard OMI procedure avoids giving an unfair advantage to NLD children, since chil-dren with LD may have greater difficulty producing written material themselves). Interviewers were regularly observed by trainers during the administration of the OMI, to assure their conformity to pro-cedures. Though they were not aware of the study's purposes, the interviewers usually knew whether they were interview-ing a child with or a child without LD.

Alternative solutions was the main OMI variable used in this study. Alter-native solutions are novel, goal-directed protagonist actions in response to the problem specified in the particular OMI story. Based on 111 OMI protocols of children with and without LD, randomly selected from this and other studies, undergraduate raters obtained an inter-rater agreement of .93 in coding alter-native solutions. (Based on a subset of 30 randomly selected OMI protocols of children with LD in this study, the inter-rater agreement was .97.)

Two additional OMI variables were used in this study: (a) solution variants, which are variations on themes of pre-viously offered alternatives and indicate a repetitive tendency not considered to be a sign of good social problem-solving skill; and (b) irrelevant responses, which are non-goal-directed or non-protagonist-initiated actions and indicate off-task behavior and a lack of social problem-solving skill. Based on the same 111 ran-domly selected OMI protocols, under-graduate raters obtained an interrater

116 Journal of Learning Disabilities

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

agreement of .84 for solution variants and .92 for irrelevant responses. (Based on the 30 randomly selected OMI proto-cols from children with LD, the interrater agreement figures were .91 and .93, re-spectively.) #

School Behavior. School behavior was assessed by the three-part Child Be-havior Rating Scale (CBRS) (Weissberg, Gesten, Carnrike, et al., 1981), an amal-gam of two other teacher-rated scales with established reliability, validity, and factor structure: the Classroom Adjust-ment Rating Scale (Lorion, Co wen, & Caldwell, 1975) and the Health Resources Inventory (Gesten, 1976). The following dependent variables were derived from the CBRS: (a) factor scores on acting-out, shy-anxious, and learning problems, plus a "problem total" summing these three factors; (b) factor scores on frustra-tion tolerance, adaptive assertiveness, and peer sociability competencies, plus a "competence total" sum; and (c) a global 7-point rating on how well ad-justed the children were. Factor scores were computed based on the factor solu-tion of the large normative sample of Weissberg, Gesten, Carnrike, et al. (1981).

Family Background. Each child's classroom teacher also indicated the pres-ence or absence of six family background problems: separation/divorce of parents, illness or death of a family member, lack of educational stimulation at home, eco-nomic difficulties, family pressure on the child to succeed, and family difficulties.

RESULTS

Significant differences (p<.05) were obtained in 7 of the 12 matched t tests (two-tailed) done for the 86 LD-NLD pairs on social problem-solving and school behavior variables. The children with LD demonstrated deficiencies rela-tive to NLD children on all seven vari-ables: alternative solutions, learning problems, problem total, frustration tolerance, adaptive assertiveness, com-petence total, and global adjustment (see Table 1). The significant {p< .0001) and large (over 1 Vi standard deviations) dif-ference found on learning problems

serves as a "methodological check" in-dicating that the children with LD in-cluded in this study did, indeed, have serious learning difficulties. The nearly significant difference (p< .051) found for solution variants suggests that children with LD may be prone to perseverate on tasks such as the OMI.

Results of chi-square analyses indicated that children with LD had significantly (p<.05) more family problems than NLD children in three of the six areas as-sessed: lack of educational stimulation at home, family economic difficulties, and family difficulties (see Table 2).

DISCUSSION

The study's results suggest that, in ad-dition to their deficits in cognitive func-tioning, children with LD show deficits relative to children without LD in social problem-solving skill (alternative solu-tions), school behavior (six of nine vari-

ables significant), and family background characteristics (three of six variables significant).

The overall social problem-solving and school behavior findings are consistent with the many recent studies reviewed that assess similar differences. However, this study's specific pattern of findings across multiple domains suggests some particular areas in which students with LD might be deficient: While children with LD may not be overly disruptive in class or avoid peer interaction (see the lack of acting-out, shy-anxious, and peer sociability findings), they may show defi-cits in less "visible" social skills (see find-ings for frustration tolerance, adaptive assertiveness, and social problem-solving skills). Perhaps it is these more subtle social deficits that lead to the consistent finding in other research of low evalua-tions of children with LD, made by their peers and others.

In any event, these findings indicate

TABLE 1 Differences Between Children With (LD) and Without (NLD) Learning

on Social Problem-Solving Skill and School Behavior

Social Problem Solving Alternative solutions Solution variants Irrelevant responses

School Behavior Acting-out problems Shy-anxious problems Learning problems Problem total Frustration tolerance Adaptive assertiveness Peer sociability Competence total Global adjustment

LD(n =

M

8.29 4.17 2.63

.26

.21 1.50 1.96

- .83 - .62 - .07

-1.52 3.37

aAII matched r tests were two-tailed. *p<.05. **p<.001.

= 86) SD

2.81 4.69 3.44

1.31 1.21 .96

1.66 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.28 1.63

NLD(n M

9.59 2.76 2.23

.21

.07 - .04

.24 - .13 - .03

.12 - .04 5.05

= 86)

SD

4.80 4.02 3.18

1.06 .95 .92

1.78 1.07 .94 .97

1.42 1.71

Disabilities

t (85)*

- 2.28* 1.98 .78

.27

.79 11.83** 6.54**

-3.97** -3.83** -1.24 -7.03** -6 .74**

TABLE 2 Frequencies of Family Background Problems for

Children With (LD) and Without (NLD) Learning Disabilities

Separation/divorce of parents Illness/death in family Lack of educational stimulation Economic difficulties Under pressure to succeed Family difficulties

*p<.05. **p<.001.

LD(n = 86)

27(31%) 2 ( 2%)

31 (36%) 31 (36%) 3 ( 3%)

32 (37%)

NLD(n = 86)

17 (20%) 3 ( 3%)

10 (12%) 18(21%) 4 ( 5%)

12 (14%)

X2(1)

3.05 .21

14.12** 4.82*

.15 12.22**

Volume 23, Number 2, February 1990 117

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

the need for greater attention to social and behavioral remediation for children with learning disabilities. Social com-petence training programs, such as those teaching social problem-solving skills (e.g., Allen, Chinsky, Larcen, Lochman, & Selinger, 1976; Weissberg, Gesten, Carnrike, et al., 1981; Weissberg, Gesten, Rapkin, et al., 1981), could be especial-ly helpful for children with LD, many of whom seem to be at risk for a range of social and behavioral problems. A few recent studies have, in fact, applied such programs with some success (Hazel, Schumaker, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1982; Schumaker & Ellis, 1982; Weissberg, Liebenstein, & Toro, 1983). Remediation could also be accomplished by integrat-ing social and behavioral training com-ponents into existing academically focused curricula for students with LD.

The study also indicated that many children with LD have family problems. In fact, two of the three problem areas yielding significant results (lack of educa-tional stimulation, and overall family dif-ficulties) were about three times more common among the families of students with LD. The third problem area yielding a significant result (economic difficulties) differentiated children with LD from NLD children despite the fact that the guidelines used to select children with LD by the schools in this study, like many other schools in the country, specifically excluded children whose learning prob-lems were primarily due to economic disadvantage (Regulations of the Com-missioner, 1987). Perhaps the children with LD in this study had economic dif-ficulties as a secondary problem, or perhaps the schools did not always follow stated regulations to the letter.

These results on the family background characteristics of children with LD sug-gest (as they are currently defined in our school systems) that some of the deficits observed in social and behavioral areas, as well as in cognitive and academic areas, may be due at least in part to in-adequacies in the home environment. Whatever the nature of cause and effect between these deficits and family back-ground, the results point out the need to involve the families in any remediation or treatment plan (Wilchesky & Rey-nolds, 1986).

Limitations of the present study in-

clude the fact that the selection of the children with LD was based on school placement rather than researcher-defined criteria. While the schools in this study clearly took relevant criteria, such as the discrepancy between ability and achieve-ment scores, into account in determining placements, other factors may also have entered into their decision making. The method of selection used in this study does, however, have the advantage of identifying a sample more like the chil-dren with LD who are receiving special services in our schools today and, thus, allows greater generalization of the study's findings to existing samples of children identified as having a learning disability. In future studies, it might be useful to determine whether samples of children with LD who have been identified based on more specific criteria differ from the existing samples in our schools on social, behavioral, and family background vari-ables, in addition to ability and achieve-ment variables. In fact, one recent study comparing the observed classroom be-havior of carefully selected children with LD to students of average academic abili-ty failed to find the typical pattern of greater distractibility of the students with LD (Slate & Saudargas, 1986).

Another limitation derives from the study's reliance on teacher ratings as the data source for school behavior and family background variables. Since they could not be blind to group status (LD vs. NLD), it is possible that teachers responded based on their assumptions about students with LD and their fami-lies rather than on hard data. Perhaps future studies could collect parent ratings and child self-reports in these two vari-able domains as well as objective be-havioral data.

Another useful direction for future research involves the comparison of stu-dents with LD in self-contained class-rooms to those who are mainstreamed in classrooms composed primarily of NLD students. While some studies, including this one, are based on children with LD in self-contained classrooms, many other studies are based on mainstreamed chil-dren. Especially when considering social and behavioral measures, children with LD (even those with comparable levels of academic ability and achievement) may look quite different in the two con-

texts. It will also be important to com-pare students with LD to low-achieving students. In fact, a few recent studies comparing children with LD to matched low-achieving children have found few differences between these two groups on a variety of measures, including peer popularity, teacher ratings, and social skills (Bursuck, 1983; Silver & Young, 1985).

Future research should also attempt to examine multiple variables over time to better understand the causality of effects among cognitive, social, behavioral, and family background variables in produc-ing the phenomenon of learning disabil-ities as it now exists in our schools. In the literature on differences between chil-dren with and without LD, family back-ground influences are seldom discussed or measured, and the social and behavioral differences often are assumed to stem from more basic cognitive deficits. It is also possible that the cognitive deficits could be the result of the social deficits, or of poor early environmental condi-tions, as some longitudinal studies have suggested (Nichols & Chen, 1981; Pihl & McLarnon, 1984). Only through further large-scale longitudinal studies examin-ing the wide variety of variable domains over time can we hope to untangle the cause-and-effect web surrounding the phenomenon of learning disabilities.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Paul A. Toro is assistant professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He received his PhD in clinical/community psychology at the University of Rochester and did postdoctoral work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests include (a) the development and evaluation of preventive programs for children and families; (b) social support and nonprofessional forms of helping; and (c) home-lessness. Roger P. Weissberg is associate professor of psychology at Yale University. He also received his PhD in clinical/community psychology at the University of Rochester. His research interests in-volve the development and evaluation of school-based social competence promotion programs for children. John Guare is an advanced graduate stu-dent in psychology at the University of Pittsburgh. His research interests are primarily in the area of behavioral medicine. Nancy L. Liebenstein is cur-rently in private practice as a child-clinical psychol-ogist in Pittsford, New York. She also received her PhD in clinical/community psychology at the Uni-versity of Rochester. Address: Paul A. Toro, De-partment of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Park Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260.

118 Journal of Learning Disabilities at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

AUTHORS'NOTES

Special thanks go to the many teachers and admin-istrators of both the Rochester City School District and the Rush-Henrietta Central School District, as well as students from the University of Rochester, who helped make this study possible. We also ex-press our sincere appreciation to Emory Cowen, Ellis Gesten, and other staff from the Primary Mental Health Project who supported this effort.

NOTE

The schools based placement of children with LD in self-contained classrooms on New York State regulations, which excluded children whose learn-ing problems were primarily "the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage" (Regulations of the Commissioner, 1987, p. 264.4a). Students iden-tified as having a learning disability were required to have "a discrepancy of 50 percent or more be-tween expected achievement and actual achievement'' (Regulations of the Commissioner, 1987, p. 264.4a).

REFERENCES

Allen, G.J., Chinsky, J.M., Larcen, S. W., Loch-man, J.E., & Selinger, H. V. (1976). Community psychology and the schools: A behaviorally ori-ented multilevel preventive approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bachara, G. (1976). Empathy in learning disabled children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 541-542.

Bender, W.N., & Golden, L.B. (1988). Adaptive behavior of learning disabled and non-learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 55-61.

Berg, F.L. (1982). Psychological characteristics related to social problem solving in learning dis-abled children and their non-disabled peers. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Bruininks, V.I. (1978). Peer status and personality characteristics of learning disabled and nondis-abled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 58-66.

Bryan, T.H. (1974). Peer popularity of learning dis-abled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 31-35.

Bryan, T.H. (1976). Peer popularity of learning disabled children: A replication. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 9, 307-311.

Bryan, T, Pearl, R., Zimmerman, D., & Matthews, F. (1982). Mothers'evaluations of their learning disabled children. The Journal of Special Educa-tion, 16, 149-160.

Bursuck, W.D. (1983). Sociometric status, behavior ratings, and social knowledge of learning disabled and low-achieving children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 329-338.

Carlson, C.I. (1987). Social interaction goals and strategies of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 306-311.

Center, D.B., & Wascom, A.M. (1986). Teacher

perceptions of social behavior in learning disabled and socially normal children and youth. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 420-425.

Dickstein, E,B„ & Warren, D,R, (1980), Role-taking deficits in learning disabled children. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 378-382.

Dunn, L.M. (1965). Peabody picture vocabulary test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Feagans, L„ & McKinney, J. (1981). The pattern of exceptionality across domains in learning dis-abled children. Journal of Applied Developmen-tal Psychology, 1, 313-328.

Gerber, P.J., <£ Zinkgraf, S.A, (1982), A com-parative study of social-perceptual ability in learn-ing disabled and nonhandicapped students. Learn-ing Disability Quarterly, 5, 374-378.

Gesten, E.L. (1976). A Health Resources Inventory: The development of a measure of the personal and social competence of primary-grade children, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 775-786.

Hazel, J.S., Schumaker, J.B., Sherman, J.A., & Sheldon, J. (1982). Application of a group train-ing program in social skills and problem solving to learning disabled youth. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 398-408.

Itskowitz, R„ Bar-El, Y„ & Gross, Y. (1986). Thought processes in culturally deprived and learn-ing disabled children—A comparative study. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 432-437.

Jackson, S.C., Enright, R.D., & Murdock, J.Y, (1987). Social perception problems in learning disabled youth: Developmental lag versus percep-tual deficit. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 361-364.

Keogh, B.K„ Tchir, C„ & Windeguth-Behn, A, (1974). Teacher perceptions of educationally high-risk children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 367-374.

LaGreca, A.M, (1981). Social behavior and social perception in learning-disabled children: A review with implications for social skills training. Jour-nal of Pediatric Psychology, 6, 395-416.

Leigh, J. (1987). Adaptive behavior of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabil-ities, 20, 557-562.

Lorion, R.P., Cowen, E.L., & Caldwell, R.A, (1975). Normative and parametric analyses of school maladjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 3, 293-301.

Markoski, B.D, (1983). Conversational interactions of the learning disabled and nondisabled child. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 606-609,

McConaughty, S.H. (1986). Social competence and behavioral problems of learning disabled boys aged 12-16. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 101-106.

McConaughty, S.H., & Ritter, D.R. (1985). Social competence and behavioral problems of learning disabled boys aged 6-11. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities, 18, 547-553.

McKinney, J„ McClure, S., & Feagans, L. (1982). Classroom behavior of learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 45-52.

Nichols, P.L., & Chen, T.C, (1981), Minimal brain dysfunction: A prospective study, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Oliva, A.H., <£ La Greca, A.M. (1988). Children with learning disabilities: Social goals and strate-

gies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21,301-306. Pearl, R., Bryan, T, & Donahue, M. (1983). Social

behaviors of learning disabled children: A review. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 3(2), 1-14,

Pearl, R„ & Cosden, M. (1982), Sizing up a situa-tion: LD children's understanding of social inter-actions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,371-373.

Perlmutter, B„ Crock J„ Cordray, D„ & Garsted, D, (1983). Sociometric status and related per-sonality characteristics of mainstreamed learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarter-ly, 6, 20-30.

Pihl, R.O., & McLarnon, L.D. (1984). Learning disabled children as adolescents. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 17, 96-100.

Piatt, J.J., Spivack, G., Altman, N, Altman, D., & Peizer, S.B. (1974). Adolescent problem-solving thinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 787-793.

Polifka, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Gesten, E.L., Flores de Apodaca, R., & Picolli, L. (1981). The Open Middle Interview (OMI): Manual. Unpub-lished manuscript, Center for Community Study, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

Regulations of the Commissioner, Education De-partment, State of New York, Section 200.1 (1987).

Richey, D., & McKinney, J. (1978). Classroom be-havior patterns in learning disabled children. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 38-43.

Schneider, M„ & Yoshida, R.K. (1988). Interper-sonal problem-solving skill and classroom be-havioral adjustment in learning-disabled adoles-cents and comparison peers. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 25-34.

Schumaker, J.B., & Ellis, E.S. (1982). Social skills training of LD adolescents: A generalization study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 409-414.

Scranton, T.R., & Ryckman, D.B. (1979). Socio-metric status of learning disabled children in an integrative program. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities, 12, 49-53.

Sherry, L. (1982). Non-task oriented behaviors of educable mentally retarded, emotionally handi-capped, and learning disabled students. Educa-tional Research Quarterly, 4, 19-29.

Shure, M.B., <fc Spivack, G, (1979). Interpersonal cognitive problem-solving and primary preven-tion: Programming for preschool and kinder-garten children. Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 2, 89-94.

Silver, D.S., & Young, R.D, (1985). Interpersonal problem-solving abilities, peer status, and be-havioral adjustment in learning disabled and non-learning disabled adolescents. Advances in Learn-ing and Behavioral Disabilities, 4, 201-223.

Siperstein, G.N., Bopp, M., & Bak, J. (1978). Social status of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 49-53.

Slate, J.R., & Saudargas, R.A, (1986), Differences in learning disabled and average students' class-room behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 61-67.

Sobol, M.P., Earn, B.M., Bennett, D„ <£ Hum-phries, T. (1983). A categorical analysis of social attributions of learning-disabled children. Jour-nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 217-227.

Spivack, G„ Piatt, J. J., & Shure, M.B. (1976), The problem-solving approach to adjustment, San

Volume 23, Number 2, February 1990 119 at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stone, W.L., & La Greca, A.M. (1984). Compre-

hension of nonverbal communication: A reexam-ination of the social competence of learning-disabled children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 505-518.

Strag, G.A. (1972). Comparative behavioral rating of parents with severe mentally retarded, specific learning disability, and normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 631-635.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.

Weiss, E. (1984). Learning disabled children's under-

February 14-16, 1990 • 1990 CASE Institute-CEC. Tampa, Florida • Contact: Jo Thomason, 615 16th St. NW, Albuquer-que, NM 87104

February 16-18, 1990 • Treatment of Child-hood Disorders, University of Minnesota • Phoenix, Arizona • Contact: Trisha Tatam, University of Minnesota, 204 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Min-neapolis, MN 55455; 612/625-3369

February 21-24,1990 • Learning Disabilities Association of America (formerly Associa-tion for Children and Adults with Learn-ing Disabilities), Annual Conference • Anaheim, California • Contact: LDA, 4156 Library Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15243; 412/341-8077

February 22-25, 1990 • California Associa-tion of Resource Specialists • Sacramento, California • Contact: Jeff or Peggy Reyes, 7402 Richland Way, Stockton, CA 95207; 209/952-5411

February 23-26, 1990 • California Associa-tion of Resource Specialists, 9th Annual Conference • Sacramento, California • Contact: Jeff and Peggy Reyes, 7402 Rich-land Way, Stockton, CA 95207; 209/952-5411

March 15-16, 1990 • Council for Learning Disabilities Spring Regional Conference • Williamsburg, Virginia • Contact: CLD, PO Box 40303, Overland Park, KS 66204; 913/492-8755

March 17-18, 1990 • AD-HD: Assessment and Treatment, University of Minnesota Conference • Montreal, Canada • Con-tact: Trisha Tatam, University of Minne-sota, 204 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; 612/625-3369

standing of social interactions of peers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 612-615.

Weissberg, R.P., Gesten, E.L., Carnrike, C.C., Tow, P.A., Rapkin, B.D., Davidson, E., & Cowen, E.L. (1981). Social problem-solving skills training: A competence-building intervention with second- to fourth-grade children. American Jour-nal of Community Psychology, 9, 411-423.

Weissberg, R.P., Gesten, E.L., Rapkin, B.D., Cowen, E.L., Davidson, E., Flores deApodaca, R., & McKim, B.J. (1981). The evaluation of a social problem-solving training program for suburban and inner-city third grade children.

March 22-24, 1990 • New York Branch of The Orton Dyslexia Society, 17th Annual Conference • New York, New York • Contact: 80 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10011; 212/691-1930

April 19-21,1990 • Fifth Pan American Con-ference on Rehabilitation and Special Education • South Padre Island, Texas • Contact: Julian Castillo, Division of Health Related Professions, Pan Ameri-can University, Nursing Education Bldg., #228-A, Edinburg, TX 78539

April 23-24,1990 • Michigan Association of Infant Mental Health, 14th Annual Con-ference • Ann Arbor, Michigan • Contact: Ann Saffer, 2340 Hickman Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105; 313/994-8168

April 23-27, 1990 • Council for Exceptional Children, 68th Annual Convention • Toronto, Ontario, Canada • Contact: CEC, 1920 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091-1589; 703/620-3660

April 27-28, 1990 • The Child's Eye, Face, and Brain: Normal and Abnormal De-velopment • Houston, Texas • Contact: Lila K. Lerner, Office of Continuing Education, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030; 713/798-6020

April 27-28, 1990 • Treatment of Childhood Disorders, University of Minnesota Con-ference • San Diego, California • Contact: Trisha Tatam, University of Minnesota, 204 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; 612/625-3369

April 28, 1990 • Cognitive-Behavioral Ap-proaches to Treating Children and Ado-lescents, University of Minnesota Con-ference • Phoenix, Arizona • Contact: Trisha Tatam, University of Minnesota, 204 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; 612/625-3369

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 251-261.

Weissberg, R.P., Liebenstein, N.L., & Toro, PA. (1983, April). The evaluation of a social problem-solving training program for children with learn-ing disabilities. Paper presented at the 55th An-nual Meeting, Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia.

Wilchesky, M., & Reynolds, T. (1986). The social-ly deficient LD child in context: A systems ap-proach to assessment and treatment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 411-415.

May 3-4, 1990 • International Congress on I Treatment of Mental Illness and Behav-

ioral Disorder in Mentally Retarded Per-sons • Amsterdam, The Netherlands • Contact: PAOS, PO Box 325, 2300 AH Leiden, The Netherlands

May 6-10, 1990 • International Reading As-sociation, Annual Conference • Atlanta, Georgia • Contact: IRA, 800 Barksdale Rd., PO Box 8129, Newark, DE 19714-8139; 302/731-1600

May 27-31,1990 • American Association on Mental Retardation, Annual Conference • Atlanta, Georgia • Contact: 1719 Kalorama Rd., NW, Washington, DC

i 20009; 202/387-1968

June 15-17, 1990 • Integration - European I Perspectives and Practice • Dublin, Ire-» land • Contact: Irish Association of

Teachers in Special Education, Teachers Centre, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 Ireland

June 22-24,1990 • AD-HD: Assessment and , Treatment, University of Minnesota Con-

ference • San Antonio, Texas • Contact: Trisha Tatam, University of Minnesota,

; 204 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; 612/625-3369

July 9-13,1990 • Fifth World Conference on Computers in Education • Sydney,

1 Australia • Contact: WCCE/90, PO Box 319, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010. Australia;

: 612/211-5855 » ' October 4-6, 1990 • 12th International Con-

ference on Learning Disabilities • Austin, Texas • Contact: CLD, PO Box 40303, Overland Park, KS 66204; 913/492-8755

: October 18-20, 1990 • 1990 CECs Multi-, cultural Symposium • Albuquerque, New , Mexico • Contact: CEC 1920 Association

Dr., Reston, VA 22901; 703/264-9448

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION CONVENTION CALENDAR

120 Journal of Learning Disabilities at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on July 31, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from