self-concept and middle school students with learning disabilities: a comparison of scholastic...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Self-Concept and Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities: A Comparison ofScholastic Competence SubgroupsAuthor(s): Winston J. HagborgSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 117-126Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511252 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 18:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:45:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511252?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SELF-CONCEPT AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES:

A COMPARISON OF SCHOLASTIC COMPETENCE SUBGROUPS

Winston J. Hagborg

Abstract. Three subgroups of middle school-age students with learning disabilities were formed on the basis of their self-reported ratings on the Scholastic Com- petence subscale of Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Children. Findings indi- cated significant differences between the low and both the medium and the high subgroup on three measures: internal locus of control for positive events, school attitudes, and global self-worth. Notably, the subgroups did not differ in the areas of socioeconomic status, intelligence, achievement, grades, age at classification, and extent of participation in special education. Hence, the most commonly re- garded markers of school success were not found to be associated with differing scholastic competence subgroups for students with learning disabilities. Findings are interpreted as supporting the compensatory hypothesis for positive self-concept development among students with learning disabilities

Numerous investigations of children with learning disabilities (LD) have explored the possible concomitant behavioral and personality variables. In reviewing this research, Huntington and Bender (1993) concluded that there is now substantial empirical evidence of differences between students with LD and normally achieving (NA) secondary school-age students. Among the constructs investigated, self-concept has been one of the most frequent.

Early comparisons of LD and NA groups of students using measures of global self-concept provided inconsistent findings. However, using measures of academic self-concept, consistent findings emerged. For example, Chapman's (1988) extensive meta-analytic literature review found that in all but one of 20 studies, NA students' academic self-concept exceeded that of students with LD to a statistically significant extent. Furthermore, the average student with a learning disability had an academic self-concept score that was at the 19th percentile compared to the average NA student.

Despite these consistent findings, students with LD constitute a very heterogeneous group, and sizable numbers of these students have academic self-concepts that are either only moderately below the average or even roughly equiva- lent to or higher than that of NA students. When clinicians and researchers uncover these students, how are we to interpret our findings?

Only three studies could be located that have investigated different self-concept subgroups of children with LD. In each case, the subgroups were formed based on a combination of subscales from a multidimensional measure of self- concept. For example, Kistner, Haskett, White, and Robbins (1987) identified a negative and a positive LD subgroup and reported that the negative subgroup possessed higher teacher-rated reading and spelling skills and higher intelligence test scores, and spent less time in special educa-

WINSTON J. HAGBORG, Ph.D., is a school psychologist at Chatham Central School, New York.

Volume 19, Spring 1996 117



tion classes. The authors concluded that, in fact, the negative subgroup was less disabled than the

positive subgroup. Furthermore, the authors sus-

pected that the positive subgroup's self-concept ratings were a part of impaired self-perception and possibly indicative of more serious social- emotional problems.

In a related study, Kistner and Osborne (1987) identified a negative LD subgroup and compared it to a second subgroup composed of the remain- ing students with LD in their sample. This time the negative subgroup's teacher ratings of academic skills and school adjustment did not differ from those of the other LD subgroup; yet, students did tend to possess higher intelligence, ap- proaching statistical significance (p = .06). Based on the negative subgroup's higher intelligence and lower self-concept, the authors concluded the group most likely was comprised of students with higher socioeconomic status, consistent with other research that supports an inverse relationship between self-concept and socioeconomic status for students with LD (Coleman, 1985).

In a recent study reported by Kloomok and Cosden (1994), 72 elementary school-age children with LD (grades 3 to 6) were divided into three groups based on their self-ratings on the Global Self-Worth subscale and average score of the four academic subscales of the Self-Percep- tion Profile for Learning Disabled Students (Harter & Renick, 1988): high global/high academic, high global/low academic, and low global/low academic. These groups did not differ on measures of intelligence, mathematics, or writing achievement; nor did they differ on self- ratings of the personal importance of academic or intellectual competence.

When compared to the low global/low academic group, the other two groups had significantly higher reading achievement scores, higher self-ratings in various nonacademic self- concept domains (Intellectual Ability, Social, Be- havior, and Appearance) and greater social support from parents. Additionally, the high global/high academic group significantly differed from the other two groups in higher ratings of Intellectual Ability, Athletic Competence, and social support from close friends. The authors concluded that the crucial group differences were found in nonacademic areas of self-concept and social support, not in intelligence; two of three academic skill areas; or a tendency to

devalue the importance of academic or intellectual competence.

Other pertinent findings were revealed in two other studies. Raviv and Stone (1991) reported on a study of self-image among high school students with LD, in which self-image served as a dependent rather than independent variable. They found higher self-image scores on two of 10 subscales associated with later (i.e., after second grade) rather than earlier diagnosis of learning disabilities. Further, the severity of the learning disability (i.e., extent of achievement intelligence discrepancy) was not found to be related to self-image scores.

In another study, Alvarez and Adelman (1986) presented evidence that students with psychoeducational problems were inclined to provide exaggerated self-perceptions. Exploration of rea- sons for these positive self-perceptions found that they were not distortions related to a failure in self-understanding (self-deception), but at- tempts to prevent possible undesirable interven- tions (i.e., other-deception) such as counseling.

Beyond these variables, other important constructs have been found related to self-concept. For example, grades - the principal means by which students receive feedback from teachers - have been found to be a significant correlate of self-concept (Hattie, 1992). Also tied closely to self-concept is locus of control, with numerous studies demonstrating a correlational relationship between these two variables (Bender, 1987; Boersma & Chapman, 1981; Hattie, 1992; Rogers & Saklofske, 1985). Finally, student school attitudes appear to hold special importance for school personnel, as school attitudes have been found to be linked both with school engagement and self-concept (Ekstrom, Goertz, & Rock, 1988; Hagborg, 1994).

The purpose of this study was to examine positive and negative self-concept subgroups among students with LD. The investigation drew on previous studies pertaining to LD subgroups to identify a number of pertinent variables, such as intelligence, academic performance, and so on. This investigation will extend the scope of these previous studies by examining other variables found to be related to self-concept but as yet unexplored in studies of LD subgroups; for example, grades, locus of control, and school attitudes. Also, using a multidimensional self- concept scale, the possible relationship between

118 Learning Disability Quarterly



academic self-concept and other self-concept domains was investigated to examine the possible overlap between academic self-concept and other self-concept domains.

Previous studies have provided inconsistent

findings in this area, reporting either a limited domain overlap (Grolnick & Ryan,1990; Kistner & Osborne, 1987), supporting a "disconnec- tion" between academic self-concept and other domains for students with LD, or pointing to a substantial overlap (Renick & Harter, 1989), similar to that found among NA students. This latter finding would indicate that students with LD who report a positive academic self-concept are com- pensating for their academic weaknesses with strengths in other self-concept domains, thereby elevating their academic self-concept (Silverman & Zigmond, 1983).

Drawing on this broad range of variables, this study explored LD subgroups in a wide variety of areas, thereby yielding a more complete understanding of LD self-concept subgroups and providing further evidence pertaining to the discon- nection or compensatory hypothesis of academic self-concept among students with LD.

METHOD Subjects

The LD group was obtained through information from standard psychoeducational evaluations (8 initial and 71 triennial) performed by a single psychologist at a single middle school (grades 5 to 8) over a three-year period. Specifi- cally, pertinent information was collected through the various portions of the assessment: school background information, social history, intellectual assessment, achievement testing, and school adjustment.

These students were identified as LD by the school district's Committee on Special Education in compliance with state criteria. Criteria included the following requirements for a learning disability classification: severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement tests; evidence of a processing deficit; and exclusionary criteria to ensure that the learning difficulty is not due to other conditions, such as physical or sensory handicap.

At the close of the LD data collection, based on same gender and grade placement, these students were matched one-to-one to randomly selected NA students. The NA students were administered the Self-Perception Profile for

Children (SPPC, 1985) in a small group setting. Seventy-nine students with LD (56 boys and 23 girls) and an equal number of NA students were drawn from the following grade placements: 5th - 21, 6th - 15, 7th - 16, and 8th - 27.

For the NA students, available background information included: age, grade, gender, and grade point average, based on a computed average score of numerical grades achieved in major subjects.

For the LD group the background information consisted of age, grade, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), derived from Hollingshead's 2-factor method (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958), age when classified as learning disabled, years enrolled in special education, extent of participation in special education, grade point average, Wech- sler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974) scores, and Wood- cock-Johnson Psychoeducational Test Battery (W-J) scores (Reading and Mathematics Cluster standard scores) (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977). Measures

Teacher Rating Scale (TRS). Each evalu- ated student's teachers (major subject areas only) completed an author-devised measure that pro- vides ratings relative to classmates in five areas (Attention/Concentration, Classwork, Peer Rela- tions, Classroom Behavior, and Homework) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 - far below average to 5 - far above average). The five item scores, summed to yield a total score, offer an indication of a student's classroom adjustment.

The number of major subject area teacher raters for each student with LD depended on the student's grade placement: 2 (5th grade), 3 (6th grade), and 4 (7th and 8th grade). During the study, the scale was completed 259 times, demonstrating adequate internal consistency (alpha .81). The item ratings ranged from 2.37 (Attention/Concentration) to 3.21 (Classroom Behavior), with a mean total score of 13.93 (SD = 3.71). The TRS positively correlated [r(77) = .43 (p < .01)] with student grades, supporting its validity.

Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC). The SPPC developed by Harter (1985) was selected to assess students' self-concept. A revision of the earlier Perceived Competence Scale for Children (PCSC) (Harter, 1982), the SPPC is a 36-item questionnaire that requires the student to select the one of two presented state-




ments that most resembles himself or herself, and then indicate whether the selected statement is "really true" or "sort of true." The SPPC pro- vides scores on six-factor-analytically derived subscales (scores range from 1 [low] to 4 [high]).

Harter reported alphas ranging from .71 (Be- havioral Conduct) to .86 (Athletic Competence) based on four samples of children. Significant relationships between SPPC responses and stan- dardized achievement scores (Scholastic Compe- tence subscale), sociometric standing (Social Ac- ceptance subscale), and ratings by physical education teachers (Athletic Competence subscale) support the scale's validity (Harter, 1985).

Intellectual Achievement Responsibility (IAR) Questionnaire. The IAR (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965) was selected to measure locus of control. This 34-item forced- choice questionnaire measures the degree to which an individual attributes intellectual successes and failures to his or her own behavior as opposed to others in the environment. Two al- ternative attributions, one internal and one exter- nal, are presented for each item. An IAR+ score (internality for success) represents the number of positive items for which the individual takes responsibility; the IAR- score (internality for failure) represents the number of negative items for which the individual takes responsibility. Finally, the Total IAR score (sum of IAR+ and IAR-) indicates an attribute of internality of causality.

IAR authors reported that for a random sample of older children (grades 6 to 12), the internal consistency correlations were .60 for both IAR+ and IAR-; the test-retest correlations (2- month interval) were .65 for the Total IAR, .47 for IAR+, and .69 for IAR-.

School Attitudes. This scale is a 4-item (yes/no) measure of school attitudes shown to demonstrate high internal consistency (alpha .83) (Hagborg, 1993). Previous use of the instrument with a middle school-age sample found that it was positively correlated with grades (r = .45, p < .001), time spent on homework (r =

.51, p < .001), and Weinstein and Palmer's (1990) School Attitudes subscale drawn from their Learning Attitudes and Study Skills In- ventory - High School (LASSI-HS) version (r = .48, p < .001) (Hagborg, 1991a).

Lie Scale. To assess the possible influence of social desirability, the author selected the 9-item Lie Scale from the Revised Children's Manifest

Anxiety Scale (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985). The instrument's authors have reported on its high internal consistency (alpha = .77). In addition, its concurrent validity is supported by its correlation (r = .64) with the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, which has been deter- mined to be a useful measure of both self- and other-deception forms of socially desirable responding (Hagborg, 1991b). Also, Paget and Reynolds (1984) have reported that the Lie Scale is particularly useful in detecting social desirability among LD children. Both the School Attitudes measure and the Lie Scale were administered along with 16 additional items not included in this study. Subgroup Composition

Previous studies have each used different meth- ods of subgroup identification; however, given that the most consistent self-concept domain difference between students with LD and NA students is academic self-concept, this domain alone was used to identify students for the composition of LD subgroups. Next, to decrease the possible confounding influence of differing social comparison groups (regular education versus special education classmates), only mainstreamed students with LD (one or two periods in a nine-period day) were included.

The LD group's Scholastic Competence subscale fell at the 28th percentile compared to the NA group. Guided by Scholastic Competence subscale scores from the NA students, the LD group was divided into three subgroups: low (scores 2.17 or lower, 18th percentile and below), medium (scores between 2.33 and 2.67, 26th to 46th percentile), and high (scores 2.80 and higher, 60th percentile and higher). The gender composition of each of the subgroups was as follows: low - 25 boys and 14 girls; medium - 16 boys and 5 girls; and high - 15 boys and 4 girls.

RESULTS To examine differences between LD and NA

groups on the SPPC, a 2 (Group: LD vs. NA) by 2 (Gender) MANOVA was computed (see Table 1). Main effects were significant for both group (Wilks lambda = .848, Rao's R (6, 149) = 4.43, p < .001) and gender (Wilks lambda = .876, Rao's R (6, 149) = 3.50, p < .01). However, group-by-gender interaction was not significant (Wilks lambda = .996, Rao's R (6, 149) = .35).




Table 1 Group (LD and NA) and Gender by Self-Perception Subscales

Subscale

Scholastic Competence

Social Acceptance

Athletic Competence

Physical Appearance

Behavioral Control

Global Self-Worth

M SD M

SD M

SD M

SD M

SD M

SD

Boys 2.44 (.53)

2.89 (.58)

2.86 (.59)

2.88 (.64)

2.77 (.72)

3.14 (.63)

Profile for Children (SPPC)

Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

Follow-up univariant ANOVAs examined subscale differences. The NA group exceeded the LD group only on Scholastic Competence F (1, 154) = 12.08, p < .001). Boys' self-rated scores were significantly higher than those of girls on the following subscales: Scholastic Competence (F(1, 154) = 4.07, p < .05); Athletic Compe- tence (F (1, 154) = 5.77, p < .05); Physical Ap- pearance (F (1, 154) = 7.52, p < .01); and Global Self-Worth (F (1, 154) = 4.57, p < .05). Next, the NA group's grades [M = 83.4 (SD = 9.5)] significantly exceeded those of the LD group [M = 77.8 (SD = 6.6)] based on a computed independent sample t-test [t (156) = 4.26, p < .0001].

The LD subgroups were compared with regard to gender and found not to differ significantly, using a chi square (2, N = 79) 2.41). Given the SPPC subscale gender differences, this finding was important, as it ensures a rough gender equivalence among the subgroups. The LD subgroups were compared using a series of one-way ANOVAs, and significant findings were further examined using a post-hoc Scheffe test.

As illustrated in Table 2, significant differences were found between low and medium and low and high subgroups on the following variables: Scholastic Competence, IAR I+, School Atti- tudes, and Global Self-Worth. Additional significant differences between low and high sub-

groups were found on the SPPC subscales, So- cial Acceptance and Physical Appearance. The only significant difference between the high and medium subgroups was on Scholastic Compe- tence. The correlations found between the Scholastic Competence subscale and the other SPPC subscales for both LD and NA groups indicate a high degree of similarity between both groups of students (see Table 3).

Inspecting the statistically significant differences among the three subgroups, the crucial break is found between the low and medium subgroups, as the medium and high subgroups did not significantly differ on any of the variables studied, except Scholastic Competence. Among students with LD, the low subgroup is judged as presenting Inadequate Scholastic Competence, while the medium and high subgroups are thought to exhibit Adequate Scholastic Compe- tence. Hence, moderately below-average Scholastic Competence relative to NA students is viewed as a healthy adaptation by a student with LD to his or her long history of academic difficulties.

DISCUSSION To secure a more complete understanding of

differences between LD subgroups, the present study examined these groups based on self-reported ratings of Scholastic Competence. Find-


LD Girls

2.23 (.62)

2.87 (.71)

2.49 (.63)

2.41 (.88)

2.84 (.72)

2.80 (.80)

Combined

2.34 (.56)

2.88 (.62)

2.67 (.69)

2.65 (.74)

2.81 (.72)

2.97 (.70)

Boys 2.81 (.63)

2.69 (.74)

2.89 (.58)

2.65 (.64)

2.79 (.65)

3.01 (.55)

NA Girls

2.59 (.62)

2.69 (.69)

2.72 (.73)

2.47 (.71)

2.91 (.63)

2.86 (.66)

Combined

2.70 (.62)

2.70 (.72)

2.81 (.63)

2.56 (.66)

2.85 (.64)

2.93 (.59)



High M

12.9 4.0 7.8 4.9 1.5

80.4 95.3

100.2a 97.8 86.9 92.0 13.9

12.8b 10.6 23.4

3.1b 3.4 3.15C 3.17b 3.04

3.08b 3.01a

3.43b

Table 2 Comparison of LD Scholastic Competence Subgroups by Collected Data

Low M

13.1 4.0 8.9 4.3 1.5

76.9 93.7

103.6a 98.0 87.7 95.1 14.06 10.5a 10.9 21.4 2.3a 2.4

1.94a 2.70a 2.59 2.53a 2.58a 2.73a

Note. Mean scores with different subscript letters differ significantly based on computed Scheffe F-test (p < .05). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

SD

1.3 1.1 2.2 2.2 .68 6.9 11.7 10.5 10.4 12.1 12.5 3.2 2.4 2.8 4.6 1.3 2.0 .28 .66 .71 .74 .73 .70

Age (years) SES

Age-Classified LD Years in Special Education

Special Education Periods Grade Point Average WISC-R Verbal IQ WISC-R Performance IQ WISC-R Full Scale IQ W-J Reading Cluster W-J Mathematics Cluster Teacher Rating Scale IAR I+ IAR I- IAR Total School Attitudes Lie Scale Scholastic Competence Social Acceptance Athletic Competence Physical Appearance Behavioral Conduct Global Self-Worth

Medium M SD

13.1 1.6 3.9 1.1 8.4 2.3 4.7 3.0 1.2 .5

77.2 6.2 92.3 8.9 96.7a 10.1 93.7 8.8 91.6 11.9 92.4 12.3 13.7 3.0

12.2b 2.3

10.9 2.5 23.1 4.3

3.1b .9

2.6 2.6

2.50b .14

2.97ab .52

2.79 .66

2.84ab .67

2.97a .56

3.26b .50

SD

1.7 1.1 1.5 2.1

.6 6.1

10.7 10.9 10.0 11.3 14.2 2.7 1.9 2.8 3.4 1.3 2.3

.36

.48

.60

.72

.76

.59

ANOVA

F(2, 76) .60 .23

1.87 .55

1.23 1.98

.39 3.00* 1.41

.96

.52

.11 7.68***

.11 1.78 5.07* 1.12

121.68*** 4.45* 3.02 4.09* 3.41* 9.71***

ings support the presence of a central distinction between Adequate and Inadequate Scholastic Competence. Furthermore, these two groups are distinguishable in three areas: locus of control for positive events (IAR+), school attitudes, and Global Self-Worth.

Beginning with locus of control, the study found that Adequate Scholastic Competence is associated with a belief in one's control over positive academic outcomes. This is consistent with numerous studies citing this difference between students with LD and NA students, espe- cially regarding positive academic outcomes (i.e., IAR+) (Boersma & Chapman, 1981; Cooley & Ayres, 1988; Licht, 1983; Rogers & Saklofske, 1985). These investigators explained that given


Table 3 Correlations Between Scholastic Competence and SPPC Subscales

Subscales LD NA r r

Social Acceptance .31** .39*** Athletic Competence .32** .34** Physical Appearance .39*** .41*** Behavioral Conduct .43*** .43*** Global Self-Worth .56*** .34***

**p< .01. ***p< .001.

m I I



that the educational history of students with LD often includes repeated failures, along with the nature of the special education assistance, which frequently fosters student dependency, eventu- ally, students with LD develop a belief in the ex- ternality of their academic successes. This has been viewed as a part of the tendency to "give up" academically when faced with rigorous school challenges (Boersma & Chapman, 1981).

While previous investigators found locus of control useful in studying NA and LD groups of students, the present study found that it was also useful in examining LD subgroups. The subgroups with Adequate Scholastic Competence were distinguishable from the Inadequate Scholastic Competence subgroup, who dis- played the more typical characteristic of an ex- ternal locus of control for academic successes. Despite a history of school setbacks and continuing academic difficulties, as evidenced by lower grades and skills than NA students, the LD subgroups with Adequate Scholastic Competence were characterized by a more internal locus of control for positive academic outcomes.

In order to cope successfully with the frustra- tions and setbacks of school work, including their disappointing performance relative to classmates, students with LD are thought to dis- tance themselves from school tasks and challenges, resulting in a protective buffer of unfa- vorable school attitudes (Sabatino, 1983). The School Attitudes measure selected for this study assesses student interest in and enjoyment of school, desire to work hard, and personal satis- faction with school.

Among students with Inadequate Scholastic Competence, poorer school attitudes were found, supporting a connection between lower academic self-concept and school disengage- ment. However, LD subgroups with Adequate Scholastic Competence exhibited a relatively more favorable outlook on school and engagement in its tasks, despite a lack of any significant differences in family socioeconomic status, intelligence, academic skills, or grades.

The final significant distinction found among the LD subgroups was related to Global Self- Worth. It has been theorized that the academic self-concept of students with LD becomes dis- connected from their overall self-regard related to their indifference to academic success (Kistner

& Osborne, 1987; Silverman & Zigmond, 1983). This hypothesis has received support in several studies that administered the PCSC to LD groups and found statistically insignificant correlations between Scholastic Competence and Global Self-Worth, while reporting significant correlations between these subscales for NA students (Grolnick & Ryan, 1990; Kistner & Os- borne, 1987).

However, with elementary and middle school- age students with LD (n = 86), Renick and Har- ter (1989) found a correlation of r = .59 (p < .0001) between these PCSC subscales. Further support for Renick and Harter's finding is reported here, with a correlation of r = .56 (p < .001) between these two subscales using the SPPC. Together, these two studies indicate that Scholastic Competence for LD students is dis- tinct, but also overlaps the other self-concept domains in a pattern similar to that found among NA students. Furthermore, contrary to hypothe- ses of possible "discounting" of academics among students with LD, Kloomok and Cosden (1994) found no significant differences pertaining to the importance of academics among differing LD groups studied.

The present study's findings indicate that the crucial difference between LD and NA groups regarding Scholastic Competence does not reside in its relationship to other self-concept domains, but rather in its relationship to other school-related variables, such as socioeconomic status, intelligence, academic skills, and grades. These variables were found to be far less important for students with LD than has been shown for NA students.

Previous investigators studying students with LD with positive self-concept ratings have reported inconsistent findings pertaining to academic skills and intelligence (Kistner et al., 1987; Kloomok & Cosden, 1994); greater participation in special education (Kistner et al., 1987); and earlier classification as LD (Raviv & Stone, 1991). It was suspected that these students were more likely to reside in lower socioeconomic-status family circumstances (Kistner & Osborne, 1987). Additionally, to explain their "exaggerated" positive self-ratings, investigators had surmised the presence of elevated social desirability responding, as part of either self-deception (Kistner & Osborne, 1987) or other-deception (Alvarez & Adelman, 1986). Using a sample




that excluded any students enrolled in a self-con- tained classroom, thereby lessening the possibil- ity of differing social reference groups, the present study did not find evidence supportive of subgroup differences on any of these variables previously studied. This is the first study to thor- oughly investigate the variables with a carefully drawn sample.

Silverman and Zigmond (1983) suggested several possible interpretations for positive self-concept ratings by students with LD. These include multiple social reference groups (i.e., special education and regular class), impaired self-perception, and compensatory strengths in other personal domains. While this study's findings are not supportive of either of the first two interpretations, it is supportive of a compensatory inter- pretation, based largely on the SPPC subscale intercorrelations (see Table 3). Consistent with Kloomok and Cosden's (1994) findings, students with a more positive self-concept in nonacademic domains are more likely to report a higher Scholastic Competence. Thus, even with lower academic skills and grades than NA students, LD students' compensatory strengths in the other self-concept domains, along with an internality for academic successes and positive school attitudes, contributed to an overall higher Global Self-Worth which, in turn, was part of an elevated Scholastic Competence.

Consistent with numerous previous studies (Chapman, 1988), this investigation found that the presence of a learning disability is associated with a below-average academic self-concept in most students with LD (i.e., 73% in this study). However, the subgroup findings were of critical importance, as below-average LD students could be divided into two distinguishable subgroups and then studied along with an average or higher LD subgroup.

Previous investigators, often relying on small samples, have tended to gloss over the diversity of the students with LD by focusing on differences between LD and NA groups. The present study's findings were that adequate Scholastic Competence among LD students is both achiev- able and prevalent; however, the developmental pathway to Scholastic Competence may not be marked by the typical school success markers of family background, intelligence, academic skills, and grades. Rather, it resides in the areas of Global Self-Worth, accrued through both school

and, even more importantly, out-of-school domains. Accompanied by a cognitive style that is inclined to take credit for one's own school ac- complishments, these variables, and no doubt other unexplored factors, combined with a higher degree of school engagement and satis- faction. How these variables may be causally related is beyond the scope of this study; yet they were found to be crucial to the difference between LD groups with Adequate and those with Inadequate Scholastic Competence.

Future investigators might explore further the importance of social support in the development of adequate Scholastic Competence among students with LD. Kloomok and Cosden (1994) found that social support from parents and friends was related to a high academic self-concept. Furthermore, social-emotional support provided in school is suggested by recent correlational findings indicating a significant correlation (r = .46, p < .01) between Scholastic Com- petence and perceived school membership among students with LD. However, an insignificant correlation between these two variables was found for NA students (Hagborg, Diskin, Busa, & Williams, 1995). It may be that social support both within and outside of school is vital for students with LD to attain an adequate level of academic self-concept.

Another possible avenue for study is the long- term implications of these academic self-concept subgroups on matters such as future school and personal adjustments. While school personnel place a decided and appropriate emphasis on improving weak academic skills or offering curriculum modifications to assist students with LD in meeting academic challenges, this study found that students' self-perceptions in the academic domain are less related to their academic skills, or even grades, and more closely associated with less obvious concerns. Adequate Scholastic Competence was found to reside in the students' tendency to experience success in areas not di- rectly a part of successful school performance, in the belief that personal academic efforts can result in favorable outcomes, and finally in a positive outlook on school. Hence, in their efforts to enhance a student's Scholastic Competence, educators must extend the scope of their interven- tions beyond academic skill and curriculum assistance to the areas of nonacademic personal domains (e.g., body image, social relations, etc.).




In addition, they must thoughtfully consider the nature of the academic assistance provided, en-

suring that it is supportive of personal responsibility for academic successes and not undermined by teacher dependency. Finally, students' attitudes about school are important. Educators should not assume that negative school attitudes are an un- fortunate but necessary concomitant of a learning disability.

REFERENCES Alvarez, V., & Adelman, H.S. (1986). Overstatements

of self-evaluations by students with psychoeducational problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 567-571.

Bender, W.N. (1987). Behavioral indicators of temper- ament and personality in the inactive learner. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 301-306.

Boersma, F.J., & Chapman, J.W. (1981). Academic self-concept, achievement expectations, and locus of control in elementary learning disabled children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 13, 349-358.

Chapman, J.W. (1988). Learning disabled children's self-concepts. Review of Educational Research, 58, 347-371.

Coleman, M.J. (1985). Achievement level, social class, and the self-concepts of mildly handicapped children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 26-30.

Cooley, E.J., & Ayres, R.R. (1988). Self-concept and success-failure attributions of nonhandicapped students and students with learning disabilities. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 174-179.

Crandall, V.C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V.J. (1965). Children's beliefs in their own control of re- inforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 36, 91-109.

Ekstrom, R.B., Goertz, M.E., & Rock, D.A. (1988). Education and American youth: The impact of the high school experience. New York: Falmer Press.

Grolnick, W.S., & Ryan, R.M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in children with learning disabilities: A multiple group comparison study. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 177-184.

Hagborg, W.J. (1991a). A brief measure of school attitudes. Unpublished manuscript. Chatham, NY: Chatham Central School.

Hagborg, W.J. (1991b). The Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale and social desirability. Ed- ucational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 423-427.

Hagborg, W.J. (1993). Middle-school student satisfac- tion with group counseling: An initial study. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18, 80-85.

Hagborg, W.J. (1994). An exploration of school membership among middle- and high-school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 312-323.

Hagborg, W.J., Diskin, W., Busa, D., & Williams, N. (1995). A study of school membership among stu-

dents with learning disability and nondisabled high school age students. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual: Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Harter, S., & Renick, M.J. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Stu- dents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hollingshead, A.B., & Redlich, EC. (1958). Social class and mental illness: A community study. New York: Wiley.

Huntington, D.D., & Bender, W.N. (1993). Adoles- cents with learning disabilities at risk. Emotional well-being, depression, suicide. Journal of Learn- ing Disabilities, 26, 159-166.

Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, K., & Robbins, F. (1987). Perceived competence and self-worth of LD and normally achieving students. Learning Disabil- ity Quarterly, 10, 37-44.

Kistner, J., & Osborne, M. (1987). A longitudinal study of LD children's self-evaluations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 258-266.

Kloomok, S., & Cosden, M. (1994). Self-concept in children with learning disabilities: The relationship between global self-concept, academic "discounting," nonacademic self-concept, and perceived social support. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 140-153.

Licht, B.G. (1983). Cognitive-motivational factors that contribute to the achievement of learning-disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 483-490.

Paget, K.D., & Reynolds, C.R. (1984). Dimensions, levels and reliabilities on the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale with learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 137- 141.

Raviv, D., & Stone, C.A. (1991). Individual differences in the self-image of adolescents with learning disabilities: The roles of severity, time of diagnosis, and parental perceptions. Journal of Learning Dis- abilities, 24, 602-611, 629.

Renick, M.J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing self-perceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 631-638.

Reynolds, C.R., & Richmond, B.O. (1985). Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS): manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Rogers, H., & Saklofske, D.H. (1985). Self-concepts, locus of control and performance expectations of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 273-278.

Sabatino, D.A. (1983). Research on achievement motivation with learning disabled populations. In K.D. Gadow & I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, Volume I (pp. 75- 116). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.




Silverman, R., & Zigmond, N. (1983). Self-concept in learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 478-482.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corpo- ration.

Weinstein, C.E., & Palmer, D.R. (1990). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory-High School Version: LASSI-HS user's manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H.

Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1977). Wood- cock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Winston J. Hagborg, Chatham Central Schools, Chatham, NY 12037.

I Keys to Empowerment I gI X

BE ON THE CUTTING EDGE ?, i

OF YOUR PROFESSION... __ -1 Attend the -

18th International Conference on Learning Disabilities October 31-November 2, 1996

Nashville, Loews Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel

CONFERENCE STRANDS * Preventing Learning Disabilities * Linking Innovations in Special Education

to School Restructuring * Building the Inclusive School * Developing Self-Reliance in Children,

Youth and Adults with LD * Enhancing the Gifts and Talents of

Persons with LD

* Providing Authentic Instruction and Assessment * "Watering Up" the Curriculum * Empowering Teachers and Parents Through

Collaboration * Capitalizing on Technology * Preparing Tomorrow's Educators and Leaders * Reconceptualizing the Learning Disabilities Paradigm

Thursday, October 31 - Preconference Workshops

Early Reading Intervention: The Role of Phonological Awareness, Benita Blachman, Syracuse University Responsible Inclusion at the Elementary and Middle School Level, Sherri Vaughn, University of Miami

"Watering Up" the Curriculum in the Elementary School, Kevin Feldman, Sonoma County Schools, Sonoma, CA

"Watering Up" the Curriculum in the Middle School, Doug Carnine, University of Oregon Learning Tomorrow with Today's Technology for Students with Learning Disabilities, Ted Hasselbring,

Vanderbilt University Self-Advocacy and Other Transition Strategies for the College-Bound Student with LD, Pat Neismith,

University of Alabama Collaboration: Instructional Strategies for the Co-Taught Classroom, Suzanne Robinson, University of Kansas

Strategies to Help Students with Learning and Writing Problems Master the Composing Process, Susan De La Paz, Vanderbilt University

Friday, November 1 Keynote, Melvin Levine, M.D., Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, University of North

Carolina, Chapel Hill

Saturday, November 2 9th Annual Distinguished Lecture, Donald D. Deshler, University of Kansas

...In addition, on Friday and Saturday, you will be able to choose from over 120 breakout and poster sessions. Also, exhibits, special sessions, networking, leadership opportunities, awards lunch, and much, much more...

Continuing Education Credit Available To receive complete registration information, please contact:

Council for Learning Disabilities, Box 40303, Overland Park, KS 66204; 913/492-8755; FAX: 492-2546


I- -I

I I

.????RTn.nainnm-..a?umrh.lr,nrm



self-concept and middle school students with learning disabilities: a comparison of scholastic...

Documents