The Relationship between Self-Perception of a Learning Disability and Achievement, Self-Concept and Social Support

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

The Relationship between Self-Perception of a Learning Disability and Achievement, Self-Concept and Social SupportAuthor(s): Howard R. Rothman and Merith CosdenSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), pp. 203-212Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511043 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 12:08

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 188.72.127.79 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:08:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511043?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-PERCEPTION OF A LEARNING

DISABILITY AND ACHIEVEMENT, SELF-CONCEPT AND SOCIAL SUPPORT

Howard R. Rothman and Merith Cosden

Abstract. This study investigated the relationship between self-perception of a learning disability (SPLD) and self-concept and social support. Fifty-six third- through sixth-grade children with learning disabilities were administered Heyman's SPLD scale. This instrument measures the degree to which children view their disability as circumscribed, modifiable and nonstigmatizing rather than global, un- changeable and stigmatizing. Students were also administered two scales developed by Harter to measure general and domain-specific self-concept and social support. Results revealed that children with less negative perceptions of their learning disability had higher math achievement scores. Also, they perceived more positive global self-concept, more intellectual and behavorial competence, and more social acceptance. These children also felt more support from their parents and classmates. The relationship of SPLD to self-concept and social support was maintained after partialing out the influences of actual academic achievement. The importance of helping students more clearly understand the nature of their learning disability is discussed.

While our knowledge about the cognitive and social components of learning disabilities contin- ues to grow, little is known about children's self- perceptions of their disabilities. Clinical observa- tions suggest that both children and adults are more likely to experience academic success and emotional growth when they can better understand and interpret factors related to their learning disabilities (Cohen, 1985; Kronick, 1977). Still, it appears that students are often given in- sufficient information and support in this area.

Gerber, Ginsberg, and Reiff (1992) conducted a retrospective study of 71 adults with learning disabilities who were successful in their voca- tions. While these individuals had developed di- verse and successful careers, they almost uni- formly expressed concerns about others finding out about their disability. Many of them perceived a need to hide their learning disability from others. In a similar vein, Shulman (1984)

found that being able to put their disability into perspective was one factor that differentiated successful from less successful experiences among adults with learning disabilities who sought counseling.

The relationship between students' under- standings of their disabilities and their global and academic self-concept was investigated by Hey- man (1990), who based her study on a review of the literature on how individuals with physical disabilities accept their disabilities. She noted that both recognition of the existence of the dis-

HOWARD R. ROTHMAN, Ph.D., is a psychologist, Santa Barbara County Education Office, Santa Barbara, California. MERITH COSDEN, Ph.D., is Associate Pro- fessor of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Volume 18, Summer 1995 203



ability and understanding the specificity of its im-

pact on other aspects of one's life had a positive effect on self-esteem (Dembo, Leviton, &

Wright, 1956; Wright, 1960, 1983). She suggested that students who viewed their learning disability as having an impact on many aspects of their lives would have lower self-esteem than those who felt that their disability was more circumscribed and modifiable.

To test this hypothesis, Heyman developed the Self-Perception of a Learning Disability (SPLD) Scale, which assesses the extent to which students feel their learning disability has a

persuasive, permanent, negative impact on their lives. Scores are based on student responses to

questions about the degree to which they see their disability as delimited or global, modifiable or permanent, and stigmatizing or socially ac-

cepted. In an initial study, Heyman (1990) found a significant relationship between students' self-

perceptions of their learning disability, as measured by the SPLD, and their academic and general self-concept. Specifically, students who viewed their disability as less negative had higher academic and general self-concepts than those who saw their disability as more negative. Hey- man found that student SPLD scores accounted for 12% of the variability in general self-concept, and more than 30% of the variability in academic self-concept. These relationships were maintained even after controlling for sex, ethnic-

ity, classroom placement, reading and math achievement, and age.

Thus, the meaning children give to their learn-

ing disability may help explain variations in their

global self-concept. Concern for the self-concept of children with learning disabilities has arisen because of the potential impact of their academic failure on their global perceptions of themselves (Cooley & Ayres, 1988). Children with learning disabilities are assumed to experience lower self-esteem than their more academi-

cally successful peers (Bear, Clever, & Proctor, 1991). This assumption has generally been sup- ported when academic self-concept measures have been employed (Chapman, 1988). How- ever, studies using general self-concept instruments have yielded equivocal results (Kistner, Haskett, White, & Robbins, 1987). Thus, although it appears that the presence of a learning disability has a significant impact on students' academic self-concept, this impact does not al-

ways generalize to their global self-concept. There is a growing literature on individual dif-

ferences in self-concept among children with learning disabilities. It has been suggested, for

example, that some students compensate for their academic failure by excelling at nonacademic activities (Chapman, 1988; Silverman &

Zigmond, 1983). To test this hypothesis, Kloomok and Cosden (in press) compared self-

concept in global, academic, and nonacademic domains for 72 elementary-school students with

learning disabilities. Using Harter's (1985) scales of self-concept, the investigators found that students with high global self-concept also had

higher perceptions of their physical appearance, behavioral conduct, and social acceptance than students with low global self-concept. Although these investigators did not measure how students perceived their learning disability, it is rea- sonable to expect that students who see their

disability as less global, more modifiable, and less stigmatizing would also have areas of nonacademic functioning in which they felt good about themselves.

Perceived social support is another area that has been associated with self-concept in students with learning disabilities (e.g., Forman, 1988; Kloomok & Cosden, in press) and that may also be associated with self-perception of a learning disability. While some studies indicate that students with learning disabilities vary in their perceptions of social support, others suggest that, as a group, teachers and parents tend to have more negative feelings about children with learn-

ing disabilities than they do about other children. Further, these attitudes appear to cross academic and social dimensions (Bryan, Pearl, Zim- merman, & Matthews, 1982; Priel & Leshem, 1990; Strag, 1972).

For several reasons, it is anticipated that perceived social support will be correlated with self-

perception of a learning disability. First, parents play a pivotal role in providing information to their child about the nature of their learning dis-

ability, as well as in providing them with emotional support after they have been identified as

having a learning disability. Thus, it has been

suggested that parental disappointment may be communicated to children with learning disabilities and further limit their aspirations and performance (Stone, 1984). Children who perceive higher levels of parental support are also more

204 Learning Disability Quarterly



likely to receive, and be receptive to, information about their learning disability from their parents. In addition, children who perceive higher levels of support from parents, teachers and students are more likely to seek clarification and support for their disability.

Another factor that may affect students' perception of their learning disability is the severity of the disability. That is, the level of the child's discrepancy, and the number of areas in which he or she experiences academic discrepancies, may accurately affect perceptions of their disabil-

ity. Heyman (1990) found a significant correlation between reading achievement and SPLD scores, indicating that children who had more negative perceptions about their disability also had lower reading achievement scores. Kloomok and Cosden (in press) found that LD students with high global self-concept perceived themselves as more intelligent than students with low global self-concept. Although both groups had similar IQ scores, students with lower self-concept had lower achievement scores than students with higher self-concept.

Studies have shown, for example, that class placement may result in students with mild disabilities having lower self-concept than students with more severe disabilities. That is, students with mild learning disabilities in integrated classes have demonstrated lower self-concept than students with more severe learning disabilities in self-contained classes (Bear et al., 1991). In these instances, self-concept appears to be af- fected by the social comparison group. It has been hypothesized that as a result of their inte- gration, children with mild learning disabilities form a comparison group of nondisabled students. As a consequence, these integrated students feel less adequate about themselves than students who may have greater academic problems but who are placed in self-contained set- tings and are surrounded by a comparison group with learning disabilities. Findings on the impact of class placement on social comparison group and self-concept have not been consistent, however (Coleman, 1983; Forman, 1988; Yauman, 1980).

These studies suggest that self-concept is influ- enced by severity of disability but that other factors may mediate this relationship. Similarly, we believe that severity of a disability will be related to self-perception of a learning disability, but

that severity will not account for all of the vari- ance in self-perception. Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between self-perception of a learning disability (SPLD) and severity of a learning disability, global self-concept, domain-specific self- concepts, and perceived social support. Hey- man's initial study of SPLD was limited in several ways. She used two unrelated instruments to measure general self-esteem and academic self-concept, and did not assess the relationship of social support to SPLD. In this study, self-perception of a learning disability was assessed and correlated with the multidimensional self-concept and social support scales developed by Harter (1985). Heyman studied subjects who were from urban, predominantly lower socioeco- nomic backgrounds, with an overrepresentation of minority students. By comparison, subjects in the present study were from largely middle-class backgrounds, and included a greater proportion of nonminority students. Thus, we attempted to replicate Heyman's findings with a new set of measures and a demographically different popu- lation. In addition, we assessed the relationship between self-perception of a learning disability and self-concept in nonacademic domains and perceived social support.

It was hypothesized that self-perception of a learning disability would be related to self-concept, severity of disability, and perceived social support in several ways. First, it was expected that students' perceptions of their disability was correlated with the severity of their disability; that is, students who have lower achievement scores will accurately perceive their skills as lower and report more pervasive problems. Be- cause of incongruities in the literature, no differences were expected as a function of class placement.

Second, a direct relationship between self-perception of a learning disability and global self- concept was expected. That is, students with a less negative view of their learning disability were expected to have a higher global self-concept.

Third, it was hypothesized that students with a less negative SPLD would report higher intellectual and academic self-concept. In part, it was anticipated that this would be related to higher achievement scores. However, it was also predicted that students with a negative SPLD would




rate themselves lower in academic and intellectual self-concept above and beyond that which was dictated by their test scores.

Fourth, it was predicted that students with a less negative perception of their learning disability would perceive greater competence in nonacademic areas than students with an negative view of their disability. As this study did not measure actual skill in nonacademic areas, this measure was solely one of student perception.

Fifth, students with a less negative view of their learning disability were predicted to perceive higher levels of support from their parents, teachers, friends, and classmates.

Sixth, it was hypothesized that the relationship between student SPLD and academic and intellectual self-concept, nonacademic self-concept, global self-concept, and social support would re- main significant even after partialing out variability due to gender, grade level, achievement and type of special educational placement (resource room versus self-contained class). That is, while severity of disability, as measured by achievement scores, was anticipated to have a significant relationship to SPLD, the self-concept and social support variables were expected to significantly, and independently, contribute to SPLD.

METHODS Subjects

The sample was composed of 56 third- through sixth-grade students enrolled in six elementary schools in Santa Barbara County, Cali-

U


fornia. All students met the state of California eli- gibility criteria for LD classification. Accordingly, there was a severe discrepancy between their ability and achievement scores in at least one or more academic areas of oral expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, written expression, listening comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematics reasoning (Cali- fornia State Department of Education, 1988). Thirty-eight of the students attended a pull-out resource specialist program for less than half of their school day, while the remaining 18 students attended a self-contained LD class for at least half of their day. The sample consisted of 35 boys and 21 girls; 38 were Anglo, 16 were Hispanic, and two were of other ethnic backgrounds.

Academic achievement scores in reading, mathematics, and written language were obtained from special education records based on a student's most current annual or triennial review. The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement- Revised were the predominant achievement instruments used (n=51) for the participating dis- tricts. Five students were tested on the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised.

The most recent full-scale IQ scores, almost solely the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil- dren-Revised (WISC-R) or the Wechsler Intelli- gence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC- III) were obtained for 49 students. Scores on the Differential Ability Scale were obtained on three students whereas Performance Scale IQ scores

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics on IQ and Achievement Standard Scores

n M SD min max Full Scale IQ 50 101.94 11.59 80 131 Performance IQ 56 102.45 12.35 80 126 Verbal IQ 50 100.22 12.90 80 130

Readinga 56 79.02 13.91 40 112 Mathb 56 87.93 17.47 40 119

Writingc 56 78.21 13.94 43 105

aTaken from the Broad Reading area of the WJR and the Reading Recognition subtest of the WRAT. bTaken from the Broad Math area of the WJR and the Math Computation subtest of the WRAT. cTaken from the Broad Writing area of the WJR and the Spelling subtest of the WRAT.

m



were obtained for the four remaining students. These students were not given the Verbal scale of the WISC-R because they came from families who spoke predominantly Spanish. A descrip- tion of the test scores is provided in Table 1. Instruments

Self-Perceptions of One's Learning Disability (SPLD). All students were administered the SPLD instrument (Heyman, 1990), a 25-item paper-and-pencil test with a true-false format designed to measure how children evalu- ate their learning disability. Specifically, the SPLD scale assesses the extent to which children perceive their disability as "(a) delimited rather than global, (b) modifiable rather than perma- nently limiting, and (c) not stigmatizing" (Hey- man, 1990, p. 472).

The scale does not include subscales, although each of the items can be categorized into one of the three areas listed above. Thus, the SPLD pro- vides one score that reflects the extent to which students feel their disability has a pervasive, negative, and permanent impact on their lives. Items are balanced between positively and negatively keyed responses. An example of a positively keyed item tapping the delimited dimension is "I can think of many things I'm good at;" an example of a negatively keyed item on permanence is "I'll always need extra help in school work;" while an example of a negatively keyed item on stigmatization is "I don't have many friends because I need extra help in school."

The author noted that the preliminary SPLD measure was reviewed for clarity and face valid- ity by two psychologists and pilot tested on 12 LD students. Items were modified or eliminated based on student and psychologist feedback. The scale was then tested on a sample of 147 students with LD ranging in ages from 8-17. The current SPLD measure was used with a sample of 87 third- through sixth-grade public school children, and 120 second- through fourth-grade parochial school students. Coeffi- cient alpha for this sample was .70. The SPLD instrument is scored by assigning a point for each item for which a student gives a neutral or positive answer. Thus, low scores are indicative of students' negative view of their learning disability, while higher scores reflect a more neutral view. SPLD scores for the Heyman sample ranged from 3 to 23, with a mean of 16.81 and a standard deviation of 3.74.

Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Students. All students were administered the Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Students, or What I Am Like instrument (Renick & Harter, 1988), a 46-item self-report measure that assesses domain-specific and global-perceived competence. Like the SPLD measure, this scale is appropriate for children in grades three through six. The instrument con- tains one global self-worth scale and nine domain-specific scales: General Intellectual Ability; Reading, Spelling, Math, and Writing Compe- tence; Social Acceptance; Behavioral Conduct; Physical Appearance; and Athletic Competence.

Students are presented two statements and asked to decide if they are more like children de- scribed by one than the other. After they choose the statement that is most like them, students are asked to mark whether the statement is "re- ally true" or "sort of true" for them. The responses are scored on a 4-point scale ranging from least competent (1) to most competent (4). A mean score is obtained for all domain-specific subscales. According to Harter, the structured al- ternative format helps reduce the problem of students offering socially desirable responses.

Renick and Harter (1988) reported that participants in the standardization of the Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Students included 90 public school and 111 private school children with learning disabilities, and 367 normally achieving students in grades 4-8. Factor analysis indicated that the subscales explicitly differentiated factors for both groups. Scale reliabilities based on coefficient alphas ranged from .78 to .89 for students with learning disabilities, and .80 to .90 for the children without learning disabilities.

The Social Support Scale for Chil- dren. All participants were administered the 24-item People in My Life (Harter, 1985) instrument, designed to measure the extent to which students perceive their parents, teachers, classmates, and close friends as being supportive. This scale has the same format as the What I Am Like scale. Student responses are scored on a 4-point scale ranging from least (1) to most (4) supportive. A mean score was obtained for each of the four social support subscales. Procedures

Written consent was obtained from all parents whose children participated in the study. To avoid the effect of differences in student reading




ability, tests were administered orally to one student at a time. The three tests were administered in one session. The testing time to com- plete these measures was under an hour.

RESULTS Before the primary analyses, ANOVAs were

conducted to determine if there were differences in SPLD scores based on gender, ethnic group, school program (self-contained or resource), or grade level. Since only two students were not ei- ther Hispanic or Anglo, they were dropped from the ethnic analysis but were included in the analyses of gender, program, and grade. Third- and fourth-grade students were placed into a middle- elementary group whereas fifth and sixth graders were placed into an upper-elementary group. No significant intergroup differences were found on any of these four variables. As a result, subsequent comparisons between SPLD groups were made without reference to gender, ethnicity, program or grade level. SPLD, Ability and Achievement

Correlations were obtained between IQ and achievement measures and SPLD scores. As shown in Table 2, the achievement measures were highly correlated with each other. Of inter- est to this study were the correlations between test scores and SPLD. Only two variables, Full Scale IQ and Math achievement, were significantly related to SPLD scores.

A simultaneous multiple-regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of intelligence (Full Scale, Performance and Verbal IQ)

and achievement (standard scores in Math, Reading, and Writing) on SPLD scores. In addition, the number of areas in which students demonstrated a significant discrepancy (one standard deviation or greater) was coded and entered into the regression equation. This equation was significant, F(7,42)=2.52, R2=.29, p<.05. Math achievement was the one variable that significantly predicted SPLD scores, t(42)=3.01, p<.01, although the number of areas in which students had discrepancies also approached significance, t(42)=1.83, p=.07. SPLD and Self-Concept

Because of the many interrelated variables used in the following regression analyses, the intercorrelations of self-concept measures and their correlations with SPLD are presented in Table 3. While there were a number of significant relationships among the self-concept measures, the focus of the study is the relationship of self-concept to SPLD. As indicated in Table 3, SPLD was significantly correlated with global self-concept. In addition, SPLD was significantly correlated with self-perceptions of ability, writing competence, behavior, and social acceptance.

A multiple-regression analysis was conducted entering all self-concept variables simultaneously on SPLD. This equation was significant, F(10, 45)=4.00, R2=.47, p<.001. The primary variable predicting SPLD was Global Self-Concept, t(45)=3.36, p<.001. That is, students with higher SPLD scores (more positive views of their learning disability) also had higher global self- concept scores.


Table 2 Correlations among IQ and Achievement Scores and SPLD

2 3 4 5 6 7

1. SPLD .27* .19 .26 .19 .40* .22

2. Full Scale IQ .85* .75* .39* .58* .50*

3. Verbal IQ - .33* .56* .57* .58*

4. Performance IQ .16 .43* .32*

5. Reading SS - .57* .80*

6. Math SS - -- .68*

7. Writing SS -

*p<.05.

I



U

Table 3 Correlations among Measures of Self-Perception of a Learning Disability (SPLD) and Self-Concept (SC)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. SPLD 2. Global SC 3. Ability SC 4. Reading SC 5. Math SC 6. Spelling SC 7. Writing SC 8. Athletic SC 9. Behavior SC 10. Physical SC 11. Social SC

.57* .40* .23 .22 .19 .38* .23 .35* .23 .33* - .51* .37* .45* .44* .46* .29* .58* .62* .23

- - .40* .51* .53* .49* .06 .64* .36* .22 - - - - .59* .75* .81* .29* .39 .23 .21

- - - - .62* .60* .25 .35* .45* .31*

.-. - - -.- 73* .19 .46* .46* .16

.- - -.. - -.. - .20 .41* .26 .27

..- - - - - - - .18 .43* .45*

- - . .-.. . .45* .14

..~-... -... -. - - - - - - .32*

SPLD and Social Support Intercorrelations of the social support mea-

sures and their correlation with SPLD are presented in Table 4. Again, the focus of this study was the relationship between SPLD and the social support measures. As indicated in Table 4, SPLD was significantly correlated with parent support, classmate support, and friend support. That is, students who perceived higher levels of support from their parents and their peers also reported less negative perceptions of their learning disability.

A simultaneous regression analysis entering all support measures against SPLD was significant, F(4,51)=4.21, R2=.25, p<.01. Parent support was the primary predictor of SPLD, t(51)=2.22, p<.01, with classmate support approaching significance, t(51)=1.89, p=.063. Stepwise Analysis

As noted, students with a less negative perception of their learning disability scored higher on academic achievement in math than did their learning disabled peers who had a more negative view of their disability. A set of stepwise multiple-regression analyses of SPLD were performed with the control variables of math, reading, and written language achievement entered first. Each of the self-concept and social support variables significantly related to the SPLD mea-

sure was then entered at the last hierarchical step. The relationship between these variables and the SPLD remained significant. The results are presented in Table 5.

DISCUSSION This study attempted to determine the extent

to which self-perception of a learning disability is associated with severity of disability, general self- worth, domain-specific self-concept, and perceived social support. The findings support the assumption that children with learning disabilities are not a homogeneous group in their self- perceptions of their learning disability. The results also support Heyman's (1990) findings of a relationship between self-perception of a learning disability and academic and general self-concept. In addition, according to this study, students with a less negative view of their disability, that is, students who report that their disability is delimited, malleable, and nonstigmatizing, experience less serious achievement problems in some areas, have higher self-perceptions of their ability and academic competence, feel more socially accepted, and perceive more support from their parents and classmates.

Both intelligence test scores and academic achievement scores varied as a function of SPLD. In the regression analysis, students with


*p<.05.

m

i

I



higher (less negative) scores on the SPLD scored higher in math than students with lower (more negative) SPLD scores. As most students had problems in reading and language, students who scored higher in math were differentiated from their peers by demonstrating one area of relative strength. Thus, students with higher math scores

appeared to accurately perceive their disability as less encompassing and negative. In addition, Rourke (1988) noted that children with a non- verbal learning disability are more likely to have problems in math as well as in many areas of social functioning. Thus, students with lower math achievement scores may be particularly vulnera- ble to feeling negative about their disability. Re- sults of the stepwise multiple-regression analysis, however, confirm that a significant relationship was maintained between SPLD and measures of perceived intellectual ability, perceived writing competence, social acceptance, parental support, classmate support, and general self-worth after controlling for variability due to academic achievement. Thus, achievement in and of itself does not account for all of the variation in negative perceptions of one's learning disability.

This study confirms Heyman's (1990) finding that students with a less negative view of their learning disability have higher general self-concepts. Due to this study's correlational design, one cannot determine whether a positive view of oneself leads to a more positive outlook on having a learning disability, or whether being able to put a learning disability in perspective has a global impact on self-concept. The relationship between math achievement and SPLD does suggest, however, that students who demonstrate


Table 4 Correlations among Measures of Self-Perception of a Learn- ing Disability (SPLD) and So- cial Support

2 3 4 5 1. SPLD .35* .37* .30* .05

2. Parent - .25 .23 .48* Support

3. Classmate - - .34* .07 Support

4. Friend - - .15 Support

5. Teacher - -

Support

*p<.05.

I

Table 5 Stepwise Regression of Academic Achievement Scores, Selected Domain- Specific Competence, General Self-Worth, and Selected Social Support Measures on SPLD (n = 56)

Variable R2 Increase in R2 F df Math SS .16 .16 10.45** 1,54

Writing SS .17 .005 .01 1,53

Reading SS .17 .00 .01 1,52 Global SCa .39 .22 18.48*** 1,51

Writing SCa .27 .10 6.89* 1,51

Ability SCa .26 .10 6.59* 1,51 Social SCa .27 .10 7.15** 1,51 Parent SSa .32 .16 11.74*** 1,51 Classmate SSa .29 .13 9.06** 1,51

"Six separate analyses were run, with each of the significant variables entered last in the regression equation. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

U

I



areas of strength are more likely to see their disability in a more positive light. This is an important area for further exploration.

Also, as predicted, students with a less negative view of their learning disability rated themselves as more intellectually competent and perceived themselves as higher in some areas of achievement. In part, this was related to actual achievement differences among students. How- ever, the significance of perceived ability and writing self-concept was maintained even after partialing out the effects of achievement scores. This suggests that students with more negative views of their disability also see themselves as less cognitively competent, and that this perception is not substantiated by their test scores.

Students with higher SPLD scores also perceived themselves as being more behaviorally competent and more socially accepted. In addition, the results of this study indicate that students with higher SPLD feel more support and recognition, particularly from parents and classmates, than students with lower SPLD. The importance placed on perceived parental support is consistent with suggestions of a close relationship between perceived parental expectations and self-esteem (Stone, 1984).

There are two caveats in interpreting these data, however. First, the correlational design of the study does not allow us to determine the di- rectionality of effects or the process by which perceptions of a learning disability and perceptions of social support develop and affect each other. For example, it is possible that having a more positive perception of one's disability al- lows one to reach out to others and feel more support; it is equally plausible that having higher levels of support helps students develop greater perspective on their learning disability by afford- ing them opportunities to get more information and help when needed.

The second caveat is that the measures in this study are of perceived social support, not actual support. It is possible, therefore, that parents, teachers, and peers believe that they are providing support to students with learning disabilities, but that such support is not perceived by the student. Nevertheless, taken together, these findings suggest that perceived social skill and social support are key variables in helping students develop positive self-perceptions about themselves.

Implications The results of this study lend support to the

idea that some children with learning disabilities generalize their concerns about specific areas of academic weakness to more general dimensions of self-esteem, and that this generalization is related to their perceptions of their learning disability. The findings parallel the views of Wright (1960, 1983), who indicated that high self-esteem among individuals with physical disabilities is often associated with the ability to accept the disability as a circumscribed handicap that does not impede positive development in other areas of life.

The results of this study have several implications for working with children with learning disabilities. First, although not often addressed in the literature, there is heterogeneity in the severity of the learning disabilities experienced by children as well as in students' perceptions of their problems. Understanding the specific nature and extent of a disability appears to be an important first step in accepting that disability, putting it into perspective, and subsequently developing a positive self-concept. To date, we have little knowledge about how children find out about their disability. Yet, it is clear from this and other studies that students often misperceive the extent of their problems. As Shulman (1984) noted from his experience counseling adults with learning disabilities, any practice that enables individuals to examine their self-perceptions of their learning disability increases the likelihood of them gaining a more favorable perspective of their overall well-being. It is suggested that this information be provided to students as part of the formal individualized educational program process. In addition, the need for ongoing support and information is clear.

The importance of social skills and social support was also documented. Students who felt that their behavioral skills and social acceptance were high also felt less negative about their learning disability. The correlational design of this study does not allow one to make statements about development of social supports to facilitate acceptance of one's disability. Nevertheless, perceived social skill and social support are clearly important to students, and the relationship of these perceptions to perceptions of one's learning disability warrants further study.

Finally, Heyman's scale is the first designed for




the specific purpose of assessing a child's perception of his or her learning disability. Several limitations of the scale are apparent. For example, while the items tap three different domains (global or circumscribed, permanent or changeable, stigmatizing or nonstigmatizing), the scale does not allow one to differentiate between these factors. Such differentiation could have implications for treatment planning; for example, low scores in one domain would suggest an intervention focus on stigmatization and social acceptance, while low scores in another could result in attribution retraining with regard to the permanence and globality of one's disability (e.g., Geschwind, 1982; Licht, 1983; Torgesen & Licht, 1983). Future studies, and additional scale development, may assist in the process of helping students develop accurate perceptions of their disabilities.

REFERENCES Bear, G.G., Clever, A., & Proctor, W.A. (1991). Self-

perceptions of nonhandicapped children and children with learning disabilities in integrated classes. Journal of Special Education, 24, 410-426.

Bryan, T.H., Pearl, R., Zimmerman, D., & Matthews, F. (1982). Mothers' evaluations of their learning disabled children. Journal of Special Education, 16, 149-159.

California State Department of Education. (1988). California special education programs: A com- posite of laws (10th ed.). Sacramento: California State Department of Education, Special Education Division.

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

Cohen, J. (1985). Learning disabilities and adoles- cence: Developmental considerations. Annals of the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 177-196.

Coleman, J.M. (1983). Self-concept and the mildly handicapped: The role of social comparisons. Jour- nal of Special Education, 17, 37-45.

Cooley, E.J., & Ayres, J. (1988). Self-concept and success-failure attributions of nonhandicapped students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learn- ing Disabilities, 21, 174-178.

Dembo, T., Leviton, G.L., & Wright, B.A. (1956). Ad- justment to misfortune: A problem of social-psycho- logical rehabilitation. Artificial Limbs, 3, 4-62.

Forman, E.A. (1988). The effects of social support and school placement on the self-concept of LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 115- 124.

Geschwind, N. (1982). Why Orton was right. Annals of Dyslexia, 32, 13-30.

Gerber, P., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H. (1992). Identify- ing alterable patterns in employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475-487.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Social Support Scale for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Heyman, W.B. (1990). The self-perception of a learning disability and its relationship to academic self- concept and self-esteem. Journal of Learning Dis- abilities, 23, 472-475.

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.

Kloomok, S., & Cosden, M. (in press). Global and academic self-concept of children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly.

Kronick, D. (1977). The pros and cons of labeling. Academic Therapy, 13, 101-104.

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

Priel, B., & Leshem, T. (1990). Self-perceptions of first- and second-grade children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 637-642.

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

Rourke, B. (1988). Socioemotional disturbances of learning disabled children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 801-810.

Shulman, S. (1984). Psychotherapeutic issues for the learning disabled adult. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 856-867.

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

Stone, B. (1984). Ecological view of self-concept. Re- medial and Special Education, 5, 43-44.

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

Torgesen, J.K., & Licht, B.G. (1983). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Retrospect and prospects. In J.D. McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 35-54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wright, B.A. (1960). Physical disability-A psycho- logical approach. New York: Harper & Row.

Wright, B.A. (1983). Physical disability-A psychoso- cial approach (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Yauman, B. (1980). Placement and self-concept. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 30-35.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Howard Rothman, P.O. Box 90501, Santa Barbara, CA 93190.




Documents

The Relationship between Self-Perception of a Learning Disability and Achievement, Self-Concept and Social Support