comparing the self-concept of students with and without learning disabilities

287

Comparing the Self-Concept of Students With and Without

Learning Disabilities Amy M. Gans, Maureen C. Kenny, and Dave L. Ghany

This study compared self-concept in 50 middle school children with learning disabilities (LD) and 70 of their peers without LD. The stu-dents, primarily Hispanic, completed the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, and each obtained a score in six subdomains. Differ-ences were found between the groups on the Intellectual and School Status and Behavior subscales, with students without LD scoringhigher on both scales. There was no difference between groups on global self-concept. The limitations of this study are identified, anddirections for future research are provided.

,stimates claim that between 2%and 10% of the population areaffected by learning disabilities

(LD; American Psychiatric Associa-tion, 1994; Silver, 1991). In addition toconcerns over the academic strugglesof these children, research has also in-

vestigated their emotional difficulties.Learning disabilities have been foundto affect mental health, self-esteem, andthe social activities of children (John-son, 1995). Children with LD are oftendescribed as depressed or withdrawn(Wright-Strawderman & Watson, 1992)and lacking social skills (Vaughn,Zaragoza, Hogan, & Walker, 1993).Children who have experienced hu-miliation, rejection, and failure, as

many children with LD have, generallyhave feelings of low self-worth andvulnerability (Hughes & Baker, 1990).Researchers’ interest in the self-conceptof children with LD has increased

given the concern that their academicfailure may affect their global self-

concept (Cooley & Ayres, 1988). How-ever, the research literature on self-

concept in children with LD showsmixed findings and is often contradic-

tory (Gresham & MacMillan, 1997).A large body of research has de-

scribed the academic self-perceptionsof children with LD. Many studieshave maintained that despite the LDlabel, these children retain a positiveself-concept about their academic skills.Meltzer, Roditi, Houser, and Perlman(1998) used the Student Self-Report Sys-tem in a study with fourth- throughninth-grade students and found thatstudents with LD considered them-selves as using appropriate strategiesin the areas of reading, writing, spell-ing, math, and organization and as

being competent in those domains.

They also rated their academic perfor-mance and organization as average toabove average. Bear and Minke (1996),using the Self-Perception Profile for Chil-dren (SPP-C) with third-grade students,found that children with LD did not

perceive themselves to be any less

competent in their schoolwork or lessintelligent than their peers.However, other research has found

that children with LD have lower self-

concept, particularly in regard to theiracademic achievement. Harter, White-

sell, and Junkin (1998), using the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents, foundthat 9th- through 12th-grade studentswith LD felt worse about their generalintellectual ability than did typicallyachieving students. In related research,Boetsch, Green, and Pennington (1996)conducted a series of four studies thatused a number of measures (includingan adaptive version of the Adult Self-Perception Profile and the Self-PerceptionProfile for Learning Disabled Students).They reported that children ages 7 to18 with developmental dyslexia hadlower global self-worth and lower per-ceived competence in scholastic do-mains than typically achieving stu-

dents. Renick and Harter (1989) foundthat students with LD who comparedtheir academic competence with thatof typically achieving students tendedto have lower perceived competencethan if they compared themselves toother students with LD. Bear, Clever,and Proctor (1991), using the HarterSelf Perception Profile for Children withthird graders, found that they perceivedtheir scholastic competence as lowerthan that of their typically achieving

at University of Thessaly on June 22, 2015ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ldx.sagepub.com/

288

peers. These feelings of lowered self-concept may also affect children’s so-cialization, as evidenced by Valas’ (1999)results. Using a modified version ofthe Loneliness and Social DissatisfactionQuestionnaire, a modified version of the

Self-Description Questionnaire II, and asociometric question referring to a

hypothetical situation with fourth-,seventh-, and ninth-grade students,Valas (1999) found that compared tostudents without LD, students with LDwere less accepted by their peers, hadlower self-esteem, and felt more lonely.Many studies have maintained that

despite the lower self-concept in chil-dren with LD in the intellectual do-

main, the children maintain positivefeelings of global self-worth. Bear andMinke (1996) and Bear et al. (1991)found no differences in global self-worth between children with LD andtheir peers without LD. Rothman andCosden (1995) used the Heyman’s Self-Perception of a Learning Disability Scalewith third- through sixth-grade chil-dren with LD and found that children

with less negative perceptions of theirLD perceived a more positive globalself-concept, more intellectual and be-havioral competence, and more socialacceptance than students with LD whohad more negative perceptions of theirLD. However, adequate global self-

concept among children with LD hasnot been a consistent finding by re-searchers (Chapman, 1988). Harter et al.(1998) found that typically achievingstudents reported more positive glo-bal self-worth and positive evaluationsof their self-worth than did studentswith LD.

Researchers have offered some ex-

planations for why many childrenwith LD do maintain positive self-

perceptions and feelings of self-worthin spite of their academic difficulties.Factors such as perceived social sup-port and favorable feedback from oth-ers, especially teachers, parents, friends,and peers (Bear et al., 1991; Forman,1988; Kloomok & Cosden, 1994; Roth-man & Cosden, 1995), and perceivedcompetence in domains other than aca-demics seem to aid in elevating their

self-concept (Hagborg, 1996; Harter,1987). Moreover, research has shown adiscrepancy between children’s self-assessments and teachers’ judgments(Meltzer et al.,1998). Students with LD

frequently perceive themselves as cap-able and effective and often rate them-

selves as academically stronger thantheir teachers judge them to be (Melt-zer et al., 1998). The comparison groupused by students with LD for self-evaluation may also affect their indi-vidual self-concept. Renick and Harter(1989) found that children with LD who

compared themselves to others withLD felt better about their performancethan children with LD who comparedthemselves to their peers without LD.

Beltempo and Achille (1990) found thatwhen children with LD were placed ina combination of partial special educa-tion settings and general educationclassrooms, they reported higher self-esteem than children with LD in other

settings.Research on gender differences in

self-concept has also yielded conflict-ing data. Kling, Hyde, Showers, andBuswell (1999) conducted a meta-

analysis involving thousands of partic-ipants and concluded that boys scoredhigher on standard measures of globalself-esteem than girls, but the differ-ence was small. Harter et al. (1998) re-ported that girls displayed much lowerperceptions of their physical appear-ance than did boys. Contrary to thesefindings, Knox, Funk, Elliot, and Bush(1998) found no significant differencebetween male and female high schoolgeneral education students using theHarter Self-Perception Scale for Adoles-cents Global Self-Worth scale. Despitethese findings, the literature lacksstudies examining the relationship be-tween gender and self-concept in chil-dren with LD. One reason for the

dearth of literature in this area may bethe overrepresentation of boys in sam-ples of children with LD (Meltzer et al.,1998).Another area in which literature is

lacking is the use of ethnically diversesamples of children with LD. Despitetrends in the U.S. census of the dispro-

portionate growth of ethnic groups,most studies make no mention of eth-nic differences or employ only Euro-pean American samples. Specifically,the European American population inthe United States has grown at the rel-

atively small rate of 5.9%, whereas theHispanic population has grown 57.9%and the Asian American populationhas grown 48.3% (U.S. Census Bureau,2000). Furthermore, Hispanic childrenrepresent a large number of referralsfor special education (Tansy & Miller,1997). The Office of Special Educationreported that 8% of the students inspecial education programs are His-panic, and these numbers can be

higher in areas where there is a largeHispanic population, such as Florida(15%; Florida Department of Educa-tion, 2002; Office of Special EducationPrograms, 2000). However, recent

studies have suggested that Hispanicstudents are not overrepresented in ex-ceptional education categories at thenational level and may in fact be un-

derrepresented relative to their pres-ence in the population (MacMillan &

Reschly, 1998; U.S. Department of Ed-ucation, 1997).The existing studies that contained

diverse participants have not madecomparisons across such groups (e.g.,Bear & Minke, 1996; Harter et al., 1998;Knox et al., 1998). In the available liter-ature, findings are scarce. For example,Martinez and Dukes (1997), using itemsfrom the Multigroup Ethnic Identitymeasure, the Self-Concept of AcademicAbility scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteemscale, and the Purpose in Life scale withhigh school students, found lowerscores on self-esteem in Hispanics,Asian Americans, and Native Ameri-cans compared to European Americans,African Americans, and individuals ofmixed ethnicity. Rothman and Cosden(1995) examined differences betweenethnic groups (European Americansand Hispanics) and found no differ-ences on their self-perception of LD.Clearly, the relationship between theethnicity of students with LD and theirself-concept needs to be evaluated fur-ther (e.g., Boetsch et al., 1996; Meltzer



289

et al.,1998; Renick & Harter, 1989; Valas,1999).This study sought to examine the

self-concept of children with LD fromprimarily Hispanic backgrounds. ThePiers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale(PHCSCS) was chosen for this studybecause of its theoretical understand-

ing of self-concept as well as its ease ofadministration and target population.Furthermore, the PHCSCS’ adequacyand usefulness as a research instru-ment has been widely documented(Impara & Murphy, 1994). We believethe yes and no format of the questionson the PHCSCS would be easier forchildren to respond to (especially forthose with LD) as compared to othermeasures (e.g., the Harter Self-PerceptionProfile). Self-concept as assessed by thisinstrument was defined by Piers (1994)as &dquo;a relatively stable set of self-

attitudes, reflecting both a descriptionand an evaluation of one’s own be-havior and attributes&dquo; (p. 1). This in-strument uses children’s conscious

self-perceptions gained through self-report, rather than attempting to con-jecture how they feel about themselvesfrom their observable actions or the at-tributions of others.

Piers (1994) contended that the termsself-esteem and self-regard are inter-

changeable with the self-concept mea-sured by this scale. This scale was

constructed based on the belief that

individuals develop a view of them-selves that remains consistent through-out development. It is also based onthe assumption that children will re-veal aspects of their underlying self-image by responding to the declarativestatements contained in the instrument

(Piers, 1994). This instrument uses self-report because it is believed to be thebest way for individuals to express their

experiences of self, which are viewedas phenomenological. This measurealso relies on other theoretical under-

standings of children’s self-concept,namely that self-concept has a self-

evaluation and self-descriptive compo-nent, is experienced and expressed bythe self differently at various stages ofdevelopment, serves an important or-

ganizing function, and plays a key rolein motivation (Piers, 1994). The instru-ment also contains both global andspecific components of self-concept.

Piers’ (1994) aforementioned defini-tion of global self-concept reflects howan individual feels about him- or her-self as a total person and takes into ac-count characteristic interactions with

others, general and specific abilities,and physical self-image. Specific self-concept refers to &dquo;an individual’s self-

appraisal in specific areas of function-ing&dquo; (Piers, 1994, p. 43). The PHCSCSincludes six cluster scales: Behavior,Intellectual and School Status, PhysicalAppearance and Attributes, Anxiety,Popularity, and Happiness and Satis-faction. These were developed from afactor analysis based on the notion thatself-concept is not a unitary dimen-sion. Children are not characterized

solely by global self-concept; rather,they view themselves quite differentlyacross different areas. Piers (1994)stated, &dquo;From a global perspective,self-concept refers to a person’s self-perceptions in relation to important as-pects of life&dquo; (p. 43).

This study compares children withLD and their peers without LD on self-

concept and contributes to the litera-ture by using a primarily Hispanicsample and by examining gender dif-ferences. We hypothesized that chil-dren with LD would score lower on the

Intellectual and School Status scale

than their peers without LD as mea-sured by the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. We also hypothesizedthat children with LD would not differin their global self-concept from chil-dren in general education classes. Fur-thermore, we predicted that girls withLD would have lower self-conceptthan boys with LD.

Method

ParticipantsOne hundred twenty-four participantswere selected from a large middleschool in a public school district in theSoutheast (fourth largest in the United

States). The school was selected basedon the large number of students whowere enrolled in exceptional studenteducation (ESE). In this school, specialeducation teachers identified childrenin Grades 6, 7, and 8 who were classi-fied as having LD. All students whowere so labeled had been evaluated

prior to placement. The evaluation pro-cess in this school district consisted ofa referral for assessment including a vi-sion, hearing, and speech screeningand a review of social, psychological,medical, and achievement data in thestudent’s cumulative record. The as-sessment was conducted by a profes-sional (e.g., school psychologist) whoadministered intellectual and achieve-ment tests individually to each stu-dent. For all the students with LD in

this study, there was evidence that theyexhibited a discrepancy of 1.5 SD ormore between their intellectual stan-dard score and their achievement stan-dard score in math, reading, or writtenexpression. A multidisciplinary evalu-ation team met and made recommen-

dations for class placement using anIndividualized Education Program (IEP)that specified long- and short-termgoals for each student. Students werethen enrolled in various exceptionalityclasses, where they received instruc-tion from a certified special educationteacher. In class, students were pro-vided with small-group and individu-alized instruction that was geared to-ward meeting their needs as specifiedon their IEP. The students with LD werein special education classes through-out the day. They were primarily inself-contained classrooms, with the ex-

ception of such classes as physical ed-ucation and art, when they wereplaced in general education courses.The mean reading level of these stu-dents, as assessed by the Gates-

MacGinities Reading Tests (MacGinitie,MacGinitie, Maria, & Dryer, 2000) was4.0 (fourth-grade level), whereas theirmean math level, as assessed by theShaw-Hiehle Individualized Computa-tional Skills Program (Shaw & Hiehle,1972) was 3.5 (third year, fifth month).Reading and math level scores for the



290

students without LD were not ob-

tained, as they were expected to be atgrade level and thus were not assessed.There was a total of 50 children with

LD (29 boys, 21 girls ) and 74 childrenwithout LD (33 boys, 41 girls). Forty-one percent of the children were insixth grade, 40% in seventh grade, andthe remaining 20% of the children werein eighth grade. The children in Grades7 and 8 were pooled for statistical pur-poses, given the low number of chil-dren with LD in the eighth grade. Thechildren ranged in age from 11 to 14(M = 12.52, SD = .82). The participantswere self-identified as Hispanic (84%)or non-Hispanic (16%). The non-

Hispanic participants included Euro-pean Americans and African Ameri-

cans ; they were grouped together forstatistical purposes. Fifty-two percentof the children came from intact

homes, whereas 40% had parents whowere divorced. The remaining childrenwere either living with relatives or in asingle-parent (nondivorced) home. Ta-ble 1 provides the demographic char-acteristics for each group.

Procedure

Informed consent forms along with aletter (available both in Spanish andin English) describing the study weregiven to children in several sixth-,

seventh-, and eighth-grade classes atthe middle school. The Spanish versionof the consent form was created by aprocess of translation and independentback-translation of the English version.Consent forms were available in both

languages because many parents wereSpanish speaking. However, all stu-

dents were fluent in English; thus, thetest was administered only in this lan-guage. On the day of the test adminis-tration, the children who returned

signed consent forms were brought toa separate classroom. The children

were given verbal instructions on howto complete the Piers-Harris Children’sSelf-Concept Scale (Piers,1994). The mea-sure was group-administered in a class-room by a member of the researchteam, who read the items aloud andcirculated in the classroom observingthe children’s understanding of theinstrument and providing assistancewhen necessary. Demographic vari-

ables such as age, gender, and ethnic-ity were obtained as well. When thechildren had completed the measure(approximately 20 minutes later), theyreturned to their classroom.

Measure

The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-ConceptScale was developed as a measure ofchildren’s self-concept and is appro-

TABLE 1

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample by Group

Note. LD = learning disabilities.an = 50. bn = 74. included European Americans and African Americans.

priate for children in the fourth- totwelfth grade with at least a third-

grade reading level. Children completethis 80-item scale by responding yes orno to the test statements. The instru-

ment can be individually or group-administered and is an excellent

screening tool that can be used with anentire classroom (Piers, 1994). It has sixsubdomains:

1. Physical Appearance and Attrib-utes (e.g., &dquo;My looks bother me,&dquo;&dquo;I have a pleasant face&dquo;);

2. Anxiety (e.g., &dquo;I feel left out of

things,&dquo; &dquo;I am often afraid&dquo;);3. Intellectual and School Status (e.g.,

&dquo;I am smart,&dquo; &dquo;I am an importantmember of my class&dquo;);

4. Behavior (e.g., &dquo;I am well behavedin school,&dquo; &dquo;I am obedient at

home&dquo;);5. Happiness and Satisfaction (e.g.,

&dquo;I am cheerful,&dquo; &dquo;I am a good per-son&dquo;) ; and

6. Popularity (e.g., &dquo;I have manyfriends,&dquo; &dquo;It is hard for me to make

friends&dquo;).

The internal consistency estimates forthe cluster scales and total scale rangefrom .74 to .90 (Piers, 1994). For the

present study, the internal consistency(obtained using Cronbach’s alpha) forthe cluster scales ranged from .66 to .79and .84 for the total score, which ex-

ceeded the minimally acceptable stan-dard of reliability (.50; Nunally, 1967).The PHCSCS has been compared toother measures of self-concept withcorrelations ranging from .32 to .85,with lower correlations among tests

using younger age groups, thus estab-lishing concurrent validity. Overall,the PHCSCS has received heavy clini-cal use and has been recommendedover other measures of self-concept(Piers, 1994).

Results

Quantitative data were analyzed usingSPSS Version 10.0. The LD and non-LD

groups did not differ on age, F(l,



291

122) = 0.3, p = .86, partial B2 = .00; gen-der, X2(l, N = 124) = 2.15, p = .14, 0 =.13; or ethnicity, x2(1, N = 124) = .22,p = .64, (D = .04. The groups did differon grade, x2(1, N = 124) = 5.73, p = .02,(D = .22. There were significantly morechildren with LD in sixth grade, butthere were more students without LDin seventh and eighth grade. A 2 x 2x 2 MANOVA of ESE by gender bygrade was performed on the PHCSCSsubscales and revealed a marginallysignificant difference for ESE, F(6,111) = 1.94, p = .081, partial 112 = .095,and a significant main effect of gender,F(6, 111) = 3.01, p = .009, partial B2 = .14.A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA of ESE by genderby grade on PHCSCS total score wasmarginally significant for childrenwith LD and children without LD, F(l,116) = 3.56, p = .062, partial r~z = .03.A significant main effect of ESE on

the Intellectual and School Status sub-

scale was found, F(1, 116) = 6.13, p =.015, partial B2 = .05, with studentswith LD (M = 11.36, SE = .45) scoringlower than students without LD (M =12.85, SE = .40). A significant main ef-fect of ESE on the Behavior subscore,F(1, 116) = 7.03, p = .009, partial r~2 =.057, revealed that students with LD

(M = 11.36, SE = .44) scored lower thanstudents without LD (M = 12.90, SE =

.38). None of the other subscales

yielded significant differences betweenstudents with LD and their peers (seeTable 2). A main effect of Gender on Be-havior, F(1,116) = 6.42, p = .013, partialB2 = .052, was also found, with girls(M = 12.86, SE = .42) scoring signifi-cantly higher than boys (M = 11.39,SE = .41). To examine possible differ-ences due to ethnicity, two additionalanalyses were performed. A 2 x 2 x 2MANOVA of ESE by ethnicity by gradewas performed on the six PHCSCS

subscales, and a 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA wasrun on the total score. No main effects

or interactions were found for ethnic-

ity. Pearson product-moment correla-tion coefficients of the subscales of the

PHCSCS are presented for the studentswith LD (see Table 3) and the studentswithout LD (see Table 4). The correla-tion of Happiness with Behavior was

TABLE 2

Means and Standard Errors of PHCSCS Subscales for ChildrenWith and Without Learning Disabilities

TABLE 3

Correlations of PHCSCS Subscales for Students with

Learning Disabilities (n = 50)

Note. PHCSCS = Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (Piers, 1994).*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

I .

significantly higher for the studentswith LD than for the students without

LD, z = 3.08, p < .001. No other subscalecorrelations were significantly differ-ent (see Table 5).

Discussion

We evaluated sixth-, seventh- and

eighth-grade students, primarily His-panic, in a large public school to deter-mine if students who were labeledwith LD differed in their self-concept,both global and specific, from theirtypically achieving peers. Our primaryhypothesis was supported; namely,children with LD scored significantlylower on the PHCSCS subscale of In-tellectual and School Status. This find-

ing is consistent with previous re-

search (e.g., Bear et al., 1991; Harteret al., 1998). Given that children withLD are by definition somewhat cogni-tively challenged and experience aca-demic difficulties, it is understandablethat they would unfavorably evaluatetheir own intellectual ability (Chap-man, 1988). Most students with LDknow that they have been labeled witha disability and, thus, somehow differfrom their peers. Specifically, the chil-dren in this sample were in separateclasses with other ESE students, in-

cluding students with mental retarda-tion or emotional disturbances. Our

findings support the notion that chil-dren with LD have a negative self-

concept of their abilities and academic



292

TABLE 4

Correlations of PHCSCS Subscales for Students Without

Learning Disabilities (n = 74)

TABLE 5

Differences in Correlations of PHCSCS Subscales Between Groups

Note. LD = learning disabilities; PHCSCS = Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (Piers, 1994).***p < .001, two-tailed.

skills and one that is lower than that oftheir peers. Our second hypothesis-that students with LD would not havea lower global self-concept than theirpeers-was also confirmed. Thus, thestudents in the LD group did not

generalize their feelings of academicweakness to more generalized self-

concept perceptions. This may be at-tributed to their perceived self-conceptin areas other than academic skills

(e.g., physical appearance, popularity).

A nonpredicted finding was that thechildren with LD scored lower than

their peers without LD on the self-

concept subscale of Behavior. Thus,children with LD either were more

willing to acknowled ge their behav-ioral difficulties or had more behav-ioral difficulties than the childrenwithout LD. This confirms the findingsof previous research (e.g., Bear et al.,1991; Vaughn et al., 1993) and might beexplained by the findings of many

studies that have found students with

LD to be frequently off task and dis-tracted, which in turn may cause be-havior problems. In a meta-analysis,Bender and Smith (1990) found thatteachers’ ratings and classrooms obser-vations revealed excessive off-task be-

havior, conduct disorders, and otherbehavioral problems for children withLD. They concluded that students withLD may not understand how to do

their schoolwork and become frus-

trated and act out as a result (Bender &Smith, 1990). The connection betweenLD and behavioral disorders has been

evaluated, but a clear relationship hasnot been established, although thesefindings support the children’s percep-tion that they have more behavioraldifficulties.

Contrary to our hypothesis, there wasno difference between boys with LDand girls with LD on self-concept. Thispreliminary finding suggests that gen-der may not play a role in the develop-ment of self-concept in children withLD. There was no interaction effect be-

tween gender and ESE. One differencethat emerged was the girls’ higherscores on the Behavior subscale. This

may be the result of the expectationthat girls should be better behavedthan boys. However, these findingsneed to be replicated and exploredwith a larger sample.The present sample demonstrates a

facet of exceptional education-namely,the presence of Hispanic children. Theschool in which this study was con-ducted is not unlike other schools in

large urban districts. The ethnic com-position is primarily Hispanic (72%),followed by European American (12%)and African American (3%). Althoughno differences were found for self-

esteem based on ethnicity, it is impor-tant to examine diverse exceptional ed-ucation populations. Contrary to thefindings of Martinez and Dukes (1997),the Hispanic students in this sampledid not report lower self-concept thantheir non-Hispanic peers. This may bedue to their majority presence in thisschool. As some schools acquire in-

creasingly larger Hispanic popula-



293

tions, there will be a need to study theseunique environments. Valles (1998) cau-tioned that as the number of childrenfrom diverse backgrounds increases inpublic schools, exceptional educationshould be prepared to serve them.The finding that students with LD

have a lower self-concept with regardto their intellectual ability than theirpeers without LD can provide direc-tion for educators and parents. Someresearchers have suggested that educa-tors be aware of the potential stigma-tizing effects of the selection processfor special education on children withLD (Stone, 1997; Valas, 1999). Individ-uals who work with children with LD

need to know how to prevent low self-concept in children with LD and beaware of the interventions available to

help them (Gurney, 1998). These find-ings can help educators develop pro-grams and strategies to assist studentsin special education to gain a senseof success in their lives. Teachers and

parents can have a significant impacton helping children build their self-

concept by providing positive feed-

back (Bear, Minke, Griffin, & Deemer,1998). Untreated, low self-esteem canlead to involvement with drugs andschool dropout and affect the generalwell-being of children (Martinez &

Dukes, 1997; Vaughn, LaGreca, & Kut-

tler,1999). Johnson (1995) cautioned edu-cators to examine a variety of areas inchildren with LD, as problems in onearea (self-concept) can influence others(e.g., social activities, leisure pursuits,mental health). Intervention needs tobe early and efficient because interven-tions applied later in the child’s schoolyears may not be effective due to the

student’s declining motivation and al-ready impaired self-concept (Lyon,1996).

Limitations and Directions forFuture Research

A variety of methodological issues

arise when conducting research onself-concept in children with LD. Manyvariables that may influence the results

are difficult to control. Such variables

include the physical attractiveness ofthe student (Gresham & McMillan,1997), which may influence his or herpopularity and self-concept. Moreover,socioeconomic status, family variables(such as home environment), and thechild’s relationship with teachers mayalso contribute to the child’s self-

concept (Hagborg, 1996; Wiest, Wong,& Kreil, 1998). This sample contained avariety of children with LD, withoutsubgrouping by types of learning dis-abilities (e.g., reading, writing, mathe-matics), which may affect self-concept(San Miguel, Forness, & Kavale, 1996).Although this study sought to use a

more diverse sample than previous re-search, it contained primarily Hispanicchildren from only one school in anurban area. Thus, the results are gener-alizable only to other schools with sim-ilar populations. There were no differ-ences in self-concept by ethnicity, soHispanic children were similar to theirEuropean American and African Amer-ican peers in this sample on the

PHCSCS. However, future researchshould employ larger samples of Afri-can Americans and other ethnic groups.The present study used children’s

self-report, believing this to provide anaccurate assessment of self-concept.However, past research has revealeda discrepancy between the self-assessments of students with LD and

their teachers’ judgments, with stu-dents perceiving themselves to be

more capable than their teachers judgethem (Meltzer et al., 1998). Other re-search has confirmed a discrepancy be-tween children’s self-perceptions andthose of their parents and teachers

(Stone, 1997). Future research may in-clude both a teacher and a child ratingfor comparison purposes and to fur-ther examine the relationship betweenchild self-report and teacher percep-tions (Bear et al., 1998). Kling et al.

(1999) recommended the use of alter-native types of self-concept measures,such as those completed by observers.Continued research in this area

could include studies illuminating theconflicting data on self-concept andclassroom setting (e.g., Bear et al.,1991;

Gresham & MacMillan, 1997). It wouldbe helpful to compare students withLD in self-contained settings to thosewho are mainstreamed. Students’ rat-

ing of their self-concept may vary de-pending on whom they use as their ref-erence group (i.e., LD or peers withoutLD). Also, longitudinal research wouldprovide more information on the de-velopmental changes that affect indi-viduals and their self-concept, withspecial attention to gender issues (Bearet al., 1998; DesRosiers, Vrsalovic,Knauf, Vargas, & Busch-Rossnagel,1999; Kling et al., 1999; Knox et al.,1998; Valas,1999). Finally, research thatexamines the process through whichchildren with LD form judgmentsabout their self-concept would be ben-eficial (Harter et al., 1998).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Amy M. Gans, MS, is a school counselor at anelementary school in southern Florida, workingwith the students to meet their educational,emotional, and social needs. She was previouslya special education teacher for 6 years. She isworking on getting her license as a mental

health counselor and plans to work in privatepractice specializing in the treatment of chil-dren. Maureen C. Kenny, PhD, is an associateprofessor in the Department of Educational andPsychological Studies at Florida InternationalUniversity. She teaches in the graduate programin counselor education. She has published re-search in the area of child psychopathology andmaltreatment and cross-cultural issues in coun-

seling. She also has a private practice specializ-ing in the treatment of children and their fami-lies. Dave L. Ghany, MS, was a research

consultant at the University of Miami. His re-search interests include exceptional student ed-ucation and HIVIAIDS in minority popula-tions. Address: Amy Gans, 7750 Southwest 136St., Miami, FL 33156.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (1994).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Au-thor.

Bear, G. G., Clever, A., & Proctor, W. A.

(1991). Self-perceptions of nonhandi-

capped children and children with learn-



294

ing disabilities in integrated classes. TheJournal of Special Education, 24, 409-426.

Bear, G. G., & Minke, K. M. (1996). Positivebias in the maintenance of self-worth

among children with LD. Learning Dis-ability Quarterly, 19, 23-32.

Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., Griffin, S. M.,& Deemer, S. A. (1998). Achievement-related perceptions of children with

learning disabilities and normal achieve-ment : Group and developmental differ-ences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31,91-104.

Beltempo, J., & Achille, P. A. (1990). The ef-fect of a special class placement on theself-concept of children with learning dis-abilities. Child Study Journal, 20, 81-103.

Bender, W. N., & Smith, J. K. (1990). Class-room behavior of children and adoles-

cents with learning disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 23, 298-306.

Boetsch, E. A., Green, P. A., & Pennington,B. F. (1996). Psychosocial correlates of dys-lexia across the life span. Development andPsychopathology, 8, 536-539.

Chapman, J. W. (1988). Learning disabledchildren’s self-concepts. Review of Educa-tional Research, 58, 347-371.

Cooley, E. J., & Ayres, J. (1988). Self-conceptand the mildly handicapped: The role ofsocial comparisons. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 17, 37-45.

DesRosiers, F., Vrsalovic, W. T., Knauf,D. E., Vargas, M., & Busch-Rossnagel,N. A. (1999). Assessing the multiple di-mensions of the self-concept of youngchildren: A focus on Latinos. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 45, 543-566.Florida Department of Education. (2002).

Profiles of Florida school districts 2000-2001.Tallahassee: Author.

Forman, E. A. (1988). The effects of social

support and school placement on the self-concept of LD students. Learning Disabil-ity Quarterly, 11, 115-124.

Gresham, F. M., & MacMillan, D. L. (1997).Social competence and affective charac-teristics of students with mild disabilities.

Review of Educational Research, 67, 377-415.

Gurney, P. W. (1998). Self-esteem in childrenwith special educational needs. New York:Routledge, Chapman & Hall.

Hagborg, W. J. (1996). Self-concept andmiddle school students with learning dis-abilities : A comparison of scholastic com-petence subgroups. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 19, 117-126.

Harter, S. (1987). The determinants and me-diational role of global self-worth in chil-dren. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporarytopics in developmental psychology (pp. 219-242). New York: Wiley.

Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Junkin, L. J.(1998). Similarities and differences in

domain-specific and global self-evalua-tions of learning-disabled, behaviorallydisordered, and normally achieving ado-lescents. American Education Research Jour-nal, 35, 653-680.

Hughes, J. N., & Baker, D. B. (1990). Psy-chological development: Children’s self-esteem and coping. In S. N. Elliot & J. C.Witt (Eds.), The clinical child interview

(pp. 53-61). New York: Guilford Press.Impara, J. C., & Murphy, L. L. (Eds.). (1994).

Buros desk reference: Psychological assess-ment in the schools. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.

Johnson, D. (1995). An overview of learningdisabilities: Psychoeducational perspec-tives. Journal of Child Neurology, 10 (Suppl.1 ), S2-S8.

Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., &

Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differencesin self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 125, 470-500.

Kloomok, S., & Cosden, M. (1994). Self-

concept in children with learning dis-abilities : The relationship between globalself-concept, academic "discounting,"nonacademic self-concept, and perceivedsocial support. Learning Disability Quar-terly, 17, 140-153.

Knox, M., Funk, J., Elliot, R., & Bush, G. E.

(1998). Adolescents’ possible selves andtheir relationship to global self-esteem.Sex Roles, 39(1/2), 61-77.

Lyon, R. G. (1996). Learning disabilities. TheFuture of Children, 6(1), 54-76.

MacGinitie, W., MacGinitie, R., Maria, K., &

Dryer, L. (2000). Gates-MacGinities readingtests (4th ed). Itasca, IL: Riverside.

MacMillan, D., & Reschly, D. (1998). Over-representation of minority students: Thecase for greater specificity or reconsider-ation of the variables examined. The Jour-nal of Special Education, 32, 15-24.

Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). Theeffects of ethnic identity, ethnicity, andgender on adolescent well-being. Journalof Youth and Adolescence, 26, 503-516.

Meltzer, L., Roditi, B., Houser, R. F., Jr., &

Perlman, M. (1998). Perceptions of aca-demic strategies and competence in stu-dents with learning disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 31, 437-451.

Nunally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Office of Special Education Programs.(2000). Twenty-second annual report to Con-gress on the implementation of the Indi-

viduals with Disabilities Education Act.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Ed-ucation.

Piers, E. V. (1994). Revised manual for thePiers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale.Los Angeles: Western Psychological Ser-vices.

Renick, M. J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact ofsocial comparisons on the developingself-perceptions of learning-disabled stu-dents. Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 631-638.

Rothman, H. R., & Cosden, M. (1995). The

relationship between self-perception of alearning disability and achievement, self-concept, and social support. Learning Dis-ability Quarterly, 18, 203-212.

San Miguel, S. K., Forness, S. R., & Kavale,K. A. (1996). Social skills deficits in learn-

ing disabilities: The psychiatric comor-bidity hypothesis. Learning Disability Quar-terly, 19, 252-260.

Shaw, R. A., & Hiehle, P. (1972). Shaw-Hiehleindividualized computational skills program,computation test (Form A). Boston: Hough-ton Mifflin.

Silver, L. (1991). Developmental learningdisabilities. In M. Lewis (Ed), Child andadolescent psychiatry: A comprehensive text-book (pp. 522-528). Baltimore: Williams &

Wilkins.

Stone, C. A. (1997). Correspondences amongparent, teacher, and student perceptionsof adolescents’ learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 660-669.

Tansy, M., & Miller, J. (1997). The invarianceof the self-concept construct across Whiteand Hispanic school populations. Journalof Psychoeducational Assessment, 15, 4-14.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000) U.S. census bu-reau, population division: Difference in

population by race and Hispanic or Latinoorigin, for the United States: 1990 to

2000. Retrieved November 19, 2001, from

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1 /tab04.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office ofCivil Rights. (1997). Elementary and sec-ondary school survey. Washington, DC:Author.

Valas, H. (1999). Students with learning dis-abilities and low-achieving students:



295

Peer acceptance, loneliness, self-esteem,and depression. Social Psychology of Edu-cation, 3, 173-192.

Valles, E. (1998). The disproportionate rep-resentation of minority students in spe-cial education. The Journal of Special Edu-cation, 32, 52-54.

Vaughn, S., LaGreca, A. M., & Kuttler, A. F.

(1999). The why, who, and how of socialskills. In W. W. Bender (Ed.), Professional

issues in learning disabilities (pp. 187-218).Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Vaughn, S., Zaragoza, N., Hogan, A., &

Walker, J. (1993). A four-year longitudinalinvestigation of the social skills and be-havior problems of students with learn-ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities, 26, 404-412.

Wiest, D. J., Wong, E. H., & Kreil, D. A.(1998). Predictors of global self-worth

and academic performance among regu-lar education, learning disabled, and con-tinuation high school students. Adoles-cence, 33, 601-618.

Wright-Strawderman, C., & Watson, B. L.

(1992). The prevalence of depressivesymptoms in children with learning dis-abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25,258-264.

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ....

The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD) accepts clas-sified advertising notices announcing professionalopportunities, special services available, and noticesfrom individuals seeking employment.RATE: $20 for 25 words or less; each additional word

650. A 10% discount is offered for ads run more than onetime. No telephone orders accepted. Checks must ac-company orders. Indicate contact person, telephonenumber, and number of times the ad is to run.

DEADLINES: Ad copy deadlines are as follows:

January/February issue, October 15; March/April is-sue, December 15; May/June issue, February 15; July/August issue, April 15; September/October issue,June 15; November/December issue, August 15. Sendcopy and payment to Journal of Learning Disabilities,Classified Advertising Department, 8700 Shoal CreekBlvd., Austin, TX 78757; 512/451-3246.

ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATIONALTHERAPISTS 25TH ANNUALNATIONAL CONFERENCE

October 23-26, 2003

Berkeley, CAFeaturing Rick Lavoie

on Motivation and Memory

Gala 25th anniversary celebration cruising the SanFrancisco Bay aboard the ship the Hornblower!CEU’s for MFTs, LCSWs, Sp/Lang (ASHA)

Information & registration at www.aetonline.orge-mail: [email protected], ph: 800/286-4267

DORDT COLLEGE EDUCATIONFACULTY POSITIONS

Three positions beginning August 2003: Introduction,upper-level (elementary and secondary methods), andone position requiring expertise in special education.EdD or PhD preferred. Qualified persons committed toa Reformed, biblical perspective and educational phi-losophy are encouraged to send an e-mail/letter of in-quiry and a curriculum vitae/resume to: Dr. RockneMcCarthy, Vice President for Academic Affairs, DordtCollege, 498 4th Ave., NE, Sioux Center, IA 51250-1697;Fax: 712/722-4496; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site:www.dordt.edu/offices/academkL.affairs



comparing the self-concept of students with and without learning disabilities

Documents