understanding the self-efficacy for learning beliefs … · findings suggest that motivational...
TRANSCRIPT
UNDERSTANDING THE SELF-EFFICACY FOR
LEARNING BELIEFS OF ADOLESCENTS WITH ADHD
by
Ashley C. Major
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
Graduate Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology
Ontario Institute of Studies in Education of the
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Ashley Major 2011
ii
Understanding the Self-Efficacy for Learning Beliefs
of Adolescents with ADHD
Ashley C. Major
Master of Arts
Graduate Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology
University of Toronto
2011
This study examined the self-efficacy for learning beliefs of male and female youth with
ADHD, and explored whether symptoms of inattention predict self-efficacy beliefs beyond
internalizing symptoms and academic achievement. Thirty-one youth with ADHD (18 males,
13 females) and 31 youth without ADHD (17 males, 14 females) between the ages of 13 and 18
completed self-report questionnaires examining self-efficacy for learning, ADHD
symptomatology, academic achievement, and internalizing problems. Results indicated that
female youth with ADHD felt less confident in their ability to regulate their learning effectively.
In addition, regression analyses with the full sample revealed that inattention predicted self-
efficacy for learning beliefs beyond internalizing difficulties and academic achievement. These
results suggest that youth reporting high levels of inattention may also have lower perceptions of
their ability to accomplish many academic tasks that require self-regulation.
iii
Acknowledgments
I wish to take this opportunity to express my sincerest gratitude to a number of people
whose constant guidance and support helped me to accomplish this research.
I am grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Rhonda Martinussen, who has been an incredible
source of support, inspiration, and mentorship. She has provided me with invaluable research
guidance, wise council, and demonstrated the utmost patience throughout the development of
this research project. Her dedication to research that will benefit the lives of children and youth
with ADHD is truly inspirational. She has set standards for research and scholarship that I can
only hope to achieve.
I also wish to thank Dr. Judy Wiener, without whose direction, insightful comments, and
challenging questions this thesis would not have been complete. Her generosity, openness, and
expert input regarding the self-perceptions of students with ADHD was invaluable to this
research project.
I am also grateful to the parents and adolescents who participated in this research.
Without their involvement, I would not have the pleasure of learning about the self-efficacy
beliefs of youth with ADHD. Special thanks to the many research assistants and student
volunteers who gave up hours of their time to collect and manage data related to this work.
Lastly, thanks to my family and friends who provided me with continual encouragement,
support, and humor along every step of the way.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... ix
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Self-Efficacy for Learning ................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Self-Efficacy for Learning in Adolescence ......................................................................... 4
1.3 ADHD in Adolescence ........................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Self-Perceptions in ADHD .................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Predictors of Self-Efficacy .................................................................................................. 9
1.5.1 Internalizing difficulties......................................................................................... 10
1.5.2 Internalizing difficulties......................................................................................... 11
1.5.3 ADHD symptoms. ................................................................................................. 13
1.6 Objectives and Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 14
2 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.2 Measures ............................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.1 Demographic information. ..................................................................................... 17
v
2.2.2 Intellectual functioning. ......................................................................................... 17
2.2.3 Academic achievement. ......................................................................................... 18
2.2.4 Internalizing difficulties......................................................................................... 18
2.2.5 ADHD symptoms .................................................................................................. 18
2.2.6 Self-efficacy for learning ....................................................................................... 19
2.3 Procedure ........................................................................................................................... 20
3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Sample Charateristics ........................................................................................................ 22
3.3 Group Differences in Self-Effiacy for Learning ................................................................ 24
3.4 Predictors of Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................ 25
3.4.1 Correlations............................................................................................................ 25
3.4.2 Regression analyses. .............................................................................................. 26
3.4.3 Supplementary analyses......................................................................................... 27
4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Group Differences in Self-Efficay for Learning ................................................................ 27
4.2 Predictors of Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................ 30
4.3 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 32
4.4 Implications and Conclusions ............................................................................................ 34
References...................................................................................................................................... 37
vi
Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 52
Tables ............................................................................................................................................. 64
Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 66
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Characteristics of Male and Female Youth in the ADHD and Comparison
Groups.
Table 2: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations among Academic Achievement, Self-Reported
Internalizing Symptoms, Self-Reported Inattention, and Self-Efficacy for Learning Beliefs.
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Scores on the Self-Efficacy for Learning Form (SELF) as a Function of Gender and
Group Status.
ix
List of Appendices
Appendix. Adolescent and Parent Assent and Consent Forms and Letters.
1
1 Introduction
In his Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (1986),
Bandura put forth the notion that self-regulatory processes play a central role in human
thought and behaviour. He also noted that ―among the mechanisms of personal agency, none
is more central or pervasive than people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control
over events that affect their lives‖ (Bandura, 1989, p. 1175). Bandura was referring to self-
efficacy beliefs, which he defined as subjective judgments of one’s ability to organize and
execute courses of action to attain designated goals (Bandura, 1986; 1993). Since Bandura
introduced his social cognitive theory, researchers have demonstrated that a strong sense of
self-efficacy can enhance performance in a variety of domains, including sports, business,
health, and education (see Pajares & Urdan, 2006, for a discussion).
The role of self-efficacy in learning has been studied extensively among typically developing
youth (Pajares & Urdan, 2006); however, we know very little about this motivational belief
in youth with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). ADHD is a chronic and
debilitating condition that is characterized by developmentally inappropriate inattentive
and/or hyperactive/impulsive symptoms (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Although
the disorder is typically diagnosed in childhood, it is estimated that 50 to 80% of cases
persist into adolescence (Biederman, Petty, Evans, Smally, & Farone, 2010; Resnick, 2005).
Moreover, researchers have found that even after ADHD symptoms have improved over
time, a substantial number of youth who are diagnosed with ADHD as children continue to
exhibit impairments in the social, emotional, and behavioural domains (Biederman, Mick, &
Farone, 2000; Hinshaw, Owens, Sami, & Fargeon, 2006; Lee, Lahey, Owens, & Hinshaw,
2008; Mick, Faraone, Biederman, & Spencer, 2004). Motivational deficits have been
frequently observed in this population, as students with ADHD have been found to display
less effort and persistence (Milich, 1994), a maladaptive response to failure (Barkley, 1997),
abnormally high reward thresholds (Brim & Whitaker, 2000), a performance goal orientation
(Dunn & Shapiro, 1999), and a greater preference for easy work compared to their normally
developing peers (Carlson, Both, Shin, & Canu, 2002). Furthermore, Volpe and colleagues
(2006) found that low motivation in elementary students with ADHD was associated with
poor study skills, which in turn, influenced achievement in reading and mathematics. These
2
findings suggest that motivational deficits in ADHD may play an important role in the
academic outcomes of these students. Therefore, to further our understanding of motivation
in ADHD, this study examined the self-efficacy beliefs of male and female youth with
ADHD. We focused on a particularly important form of self-efficacy in the academic
domain: self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (or self-efficacy for learning, for brevity
sake). In addition, we sought to uncover those factors that predict self-efficacy for learning in
youth with ADHD.
1.1 Self-Efficacy for Learning
The construct of self-efficacy has a variety of characteristics that distinguish it from other
self-perceptions, such as self-concept and self-esteem. For example, unlike self-concept,
which involves a judgment of perceived competence (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998),
self-efficacy involves perceptions of perceived confidence in successfully performing a given
task at a certain level (Bandura, 1989; 1993). That is, self-efficacy judgments are beliefs
about what a person can do versus a personal judgment about one’s physical or personal
attributes (Bandura, 1989; 1993). In addition, items that measure self-efficacy beliefs tend to
direct respondents toward future behavior (e.g., ―How confident are you that you can…?‖ or
―How well can you…?‖), whereas self-concept items are more past-oriented in that they
direct respondents toward previous accomplishments (e.g., ―I am good…‖ or ― I have done
well…‖) (see Bong & Skaalvik, 2003, for a review). Moreover, self-concept is a domain-
specific evaluation, whereas self-efficacy judgments are both domain and situation specific.
Thus, students may feel that they are good at math (self-concept), but they may
simultaneously judge their confidence in solving quadratic equations as low (self-efficacy)
(Bandura, 1989; Zimmerman, 2000).
Self-efficacy for learning refers to the beliefs that students hold about their ability to use self-
regulated learning strategies to cope with difficult learning conditions (Bandura, 2006). Self-
regulated learners are able to effectively use self-regulated learning strategies, such as
organizing information, planning, reflecting on one’s performance, and rehearsing or using
memory aids, in a manner that is directed at successfully acquiring information or academic
skills (Zimmerman, 2002; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Consistent with the
3
premises of Bandura’s social cognitive theory, how confident students feel in using self-
regulatory strategies can determine how well they are able to manage their learning
environment and self-regulate their learning effectively (Bandura, 1993; Pajares & Urdan,
2006; Zimmerman, 2000).
Self-efficacy for learning has received considerable attention from researchers over the years.
Studies have revealed this motivational belief is a key predictor of a variety of academic
outcomes, including grades, classroom engagement, academic achievement, the likelihood of
staying in school, expectations for academic success, and students’ actual use of self-
regulatory strategies (e.g., Caprara et al., 2008; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2009; Schunk,
1985; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005; 2007).
In addition, self-efficacy for learning beliefs have been found to correlate positively with
academic self-efficacy and self-concept, mastery goal orientation, value judgments towards
school, perceptions of responsibility for one’s academic outcomes, and the quality of
homework completion (e.g., Bandura, 1993; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987; Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2002; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Usher &
Pajares, 2008; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007; Zimmerman
& Martinez-Pons, 1990). It has been found to correlate negatively with anxiety,
procrastination, and performance goal orientation (Tan et al., 2008). What is particularly
interesting in the self-efficacy literature is the finding that these beliefs contribute to
academic outcomes above and beyond one’s knowledge, skills, intellectual ability, and
previous performance accomplishments (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Pajares & Urdan, 2006).
It is clear from the above studies on academic self-efficacy and self-efficacy for learning that
success in the classroom is not simply based on how capable students are, but also how
capable they truly believe they are. Thus, it is important to learn about the self-efficacy
beliefs of youth with ADHD, as these motivational beliefs may contribute to the academic
outcomes of these students.
Gender differences in self-efficacy for learning have been demonstrated, with girls exhibiting
higher self-efficacy for learning beliefs than boys (e.g., Pajares & Valiante, 2001; Vecchio,
Gerbino, Pastorelli, Del Bove, & Caprara, 2007). For example, Zimmerman and Martinez-
Pons (1990) examined gender differences in self-efficacy and strategy use in a sample of 90
4
boys and girls in grades 5, 8, and 11. Researchers found that girls exhibited more goal-
setting, planning, self-monitoring, and record-keeping behaviours compared to boys. In other
words, girls were better at structuring their environment in a manner that optimized their
learning and they also felt more confident in their ability to do so.
1.2 Self-Efficacy for Learning in Adolescence
A strong sense of self-efficacy for learning is especially important during the adolescent
years as young people are not only faced with a major shift in the difficulty of academic
work (Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996), but they must also become more independent and
assume responsibility for their own learning (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Youth are
expected to handle multiple courses and assignments, complete work at home, meet
deadlines, and seek help on their own. They are also required to develop and apply a number
of general learning skills such as note-taking, reading, essay-writing, studying, and test-
taking (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996). In addition to these diverse academic
challenges, youth must simultaneously focus on maintaining peer relationships, deal with a
number of physical changes, and prepare for adult life. Self-efficacy theorists have suggested
that the beliefs that young people hold about their capabilities are powerful determinants of
how well they are able to self-regulate their learning effectively amidst the diverse
challenges associated with this developmental period (Bandura, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000;
Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Simply stated, if youth do not feel capable of exercising the
necessary self-regulatory skills and strategies when they are faced with an obstacle towards
learning, then they are unlikely to do so (Pajares & Urdan, 2006).
Given the many challenges that are associated with the transition from childhood to
adolescence, it is not surprising that youth often experience a decrease in their self-
confidence, self-esteem, and motivation during this time (e.g., Anderman & Maehr, 1994;
Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Pajares & Valiante, 2002; Vecchio et al., 2007). In addition, with
adolescence comes an increasing awareness of the opinions and relative abilities of others
(Richman, Hope, & Mihalas, 2010). Consequently, by adolescence, students may hold more
realistic self-appraisals of their academic skills (Harter, 1999; Stipek, 1998). Indeed, Pajares
and Valiante (2002) found that students felt less confident in their ability to self-regulate
5
their learning as they progressed from elementary school to high school. These findings were
corroborated in a recent longitudinal study by Caprara and colleagues (2008), who also
demonstrated that youth experience a progressive decline in their self-efficacy for learning
from junior to senior high school. In addition, Caprara et al. found that, after controlling for
socioeconomic status, those students who experienced less of a drop in their self- efficacy for
learning were more likely to achieve higher grades and less likely to drop out of high school.
While it has been shown that both girls’ and boys’ self-efficacy for learning beliefs decrease
over time (e.g., Caprara et al., 2008), girls show less of a decline than boys (Vecchio et al.,
2007). Overall, the above findings suggest that adolescence is a period during which students
feel less confident in their self-regulatory abilities. Unfortunately, this lack of confidence
occurs during a time when academic achievement is considered crucial to the future
academic and vocational opportunities that become available to youth. Helping young people
develop an optimistic sense of personal efficacy can therefore play a key role in their
ultimate academic and career success (Bandura, 2006; Pajares & Urdan, 2006). This may be
particularly true for youth with ADHD, who are at a greater risk for poor academic and
vocational outcomes compared to typically developing youth (e.g., Barkley, Fischer,
Smallish, Fletcher, 2006; Frazier, Youngstrom, Glutting, & Watkins, 2007; Hinshaw, Carte,
Fan, Jassy, & Owens, 2007; Lee et al., 2008; Mannuzza & Klein, 2000).
1.3 ADHD in Adolescence
Similar to their peers, adolescents with ADHD must face the numerous challenges of high
school, but with the added impairments that accompany ADHD (Barkley, 1997; Pennington
& Ozonoff, 1996). There is strong empirical support that ADHD in childhood is associated
with poor outcomes in adolescence, including negative peer relations, high rates of comorbid
and psychiatric difficulties, as well as neuropsychological and executive function deficits
(Hinshaw et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2008; Mannuzza & Klein, 2000). Poor academic outcomes
are well-documented in ADHD and studies in youth have found that these students are more
likely to have lower grades, lower scores on standardized achievement measures, and are less
likely to complete high school and pursue post-secondary education (Barkley et al., 2006;
Frazier et al., 2007). Even in community samples of children, students with attention
problems are more likely to drop out of high school than students without attention problems,
6
suggesting that inattention may be a unique risk factor for high school dropout (Pagani et al.,
2008). Many students with ADHD struggle with academic underachievement and some
studies have found that up to 70 % of students with ADHD have a comorbid learning
disability (LD; e.g., Mayes, Calhoun, & Crowell, 2000). Of those youth with ADHD who
enter post-secondary education, many continue to demonstrate academic underachievement,
low motivation, and poor self-regulation well into college, university, and beyond (e.g.,
Gropper & Tannock, 2009; Frazier et al., 2007; Owens, Hinshaw, Lee, & Lahey, 2009;
Reaser, Prevatt, Petscher, & Proctor, 2007). In college, students with ADHD have
demonstrated greater impairments than their non-ADHD peers in the areas of test-taking,
summarizing, outlining, studying, and note-taking (Reaser et al., 2007; Zwart & Kallemeyn,
2001). These academic skills and strategies are necessary for success at the secondary and
post-secondary level where students are responsible for managing their own learning and
acquiring academic skills independently of teacher assistance.
ADHD symptoms tend to manifest themselves differently once children enter adolescence.
Mick et al. (2004) noted in their recent review that symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity
tend to subside in adolescence, whereas symptoms of inattention remain constant. Moreover,
executive functioning deficits are thought to become particularly salient during the
adolescent years, as youth are faced with increased autonomy and are required to juggle the
many demands of school, home, and work life (Toplack, Bucciarelli, Jain, & Tannock, 2009;
Wasserstein, 2005). Indeed, several researchers have demonstrated that male and female
youth with ADHD show worse performance than youth without ADHD on measures of
executive functioning, including response inhibition, delay of gratification, planning, self-
control, dividing and focusing attention, and set-shifting (Martel, Nikolas, & Nigg, 2007;
Toplack et al., 2009; Wasserstein, 2005). Compared to their non-ADHD peers, youth with
ADHD also score significantly lower on parent and teacher behavioural ratings of executive
functioning (Toplack et al., 2009). Day-to-day consequences of these executive functioning
difficulties in individuals with ADHD include forgetfulness, disorganization, difficulty
initiating tasks, and poor time management, among others (e.g., Resnick, 2005).
Furthermore, researchers have found that executive function deficits in ADHD may be more
closely related to inattentive symptoms than hyperactive-impulsive symptoms (e.g., Stavro,
Ettenhofer, & Nigg, 2007). Given the salience of inattention and executive functioning
7
difficulties in adolescents with ADHD, it is of no surprise that these studies struggle with
using self-regulatory strategies such as self-monitoring, goal setting, and planning to manage
their learning environment. If youth with ADHD struggle with self-regulation, it is
reasonable to assume that they may express lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs than their
non-ADHD peers. However, very few studies to date have examined the self-efficacy beliefs
of youth with ADHD. More is known about self-efficacy beliefs in community samples of
youth with symptoms of ADHD as well as more general self-perceptions such as self-
concept and self-esteem in children and youth with the disorder.
1.4 Self-Perceptions in ADHD
There is some limited research in community samples of adolescents and college students
with symptoms of ADHD that suggests that youth with ADHD may hold lower self-efficacy
perceptions than their non-ADHD peers. For example, Young and colleagues (2005)
followed a community sample of girls showing pervasive hyperactivity and conduct
problems across an 8-year span beginning from age 7. It is important to note, however, that
the measure of hyperactivity used in Young et al.’s study also included items that measured
symptoms of inattention, such as distractibility and sustaining attention. Nonetheless,
researchers found that hyperactivity was a risk factor for low academic self-efficacy at age
15, not conduct problems. In addition, girls who were more hyperactive as children were also
less likely to plan for their future academic or career paths. In college students, researchers
have found that students with higher levels of self-reported ADHD symptoms, including both
inattention and hyperactivity, also felt less confident in their ability to effectively make
decisions about, and plan for, their careers and education. Students with higher level of
ADHD symptoms also had lower grades, poorer social and academic functioning, and lower
levels of study habits and skills (Norwalk, Norvilitis, & MacLean, 2009). These results were
replicated in a sample of college students from China (Norvilitis, Sun, & Zhang, 2010).
In general, researchers know very little about the self-perceptions of youth with ADHD. In
children with ADHD, however, self-concept and self-esteem have been studied extensively
(see Owens, Goldfine, Evangelista, Hoza, & Kaiser, 2007, for a review). Results from these
studies suggest that, regardless of their functional difficulties across numerous domains,
8
children with ADHD will underreport the presence of these problems and actually
overestimate their own competence to a greater degree than their typically developing peers.
In studies that have examined absolute self-evaluations, children with ADHD report self-
appraisals of competence and global self-worth that are comparable to typically developing
children (Hoza Pelham, Milich, & Pillow, 1993). This overestimation of competence has
been termed the positive illusory bias (PIB) and it has been observed in other clinical
populations including children with learning disabilities (e.g., Heath & Glen, 2005; Stone &
May, 2002).Whether students with ADHD continue to exhibit overly optimistic self-
perceptions once they enter adolescence remains a question for future research; however,
existing literature suggests that youth with ADHD hold lower absolute perceptions of
competence than their peers without ADHD (e.g., Anderson, Williams, McGee, & Silva,
1989; Edbom, Granlund, Lichtenstien, & Larssonn, 2008; Hinshaw et al., 2006; Young,
Heptinstall, Sonuga-Barke, Chadwick, & Taylor, 2005). For example, Rucklidge and
Tannock (2001) found that females with ADHD (predominately inattentive and combined
type) who were between the ages of 13 and 16 displayed levels of self-esteem that were
significantly lower than females without ADHD. Similarly, Slomkowski, Klein, and
Mannuzza (1995) found that after controlling for the presence of a current mental disorder,
adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 23 who had ADHD symptoms in childhood
displayed lower self-esteem than adolescents who did not have ADHD symptoms in
childhood. Moreover, researchers found that in the hyperactive and control groups, youth
with higher self-esteem rated themselves as having fewer ADHD symptoms and were judged
by clinicians to have better psychosocial functioning. In terms of gender differences, female
youth with ADHD have been found to exhibit lower self-esteem compared to male youth
with ADHD, in addition to other psychosocial difficulties such as higher levels of anxiety
and depression, increased feeling of distress, and poorer coping skills (Rucklidge &
Tannock, 2001; Rucklidge, 2010; Young et al., 2005). Although self-esteem and self-concept
are conceptually different from self-efficacy, the above findings from studies in adolescents,
college students, and young adults suggest that youth with ADHD may have more negative
views of themselves and their abilities compared to their non-ADHD peers.
An examination of the LD literature also provides hints towards the self-efficacy for learning
beliefs of youth with ADHD, as both ADHD and LD are associated with deficits in academic
9
functioning, motivation, self-regulation, and executive functions (e.g., Baird, Scott, Dearing,
& Hamill, 2009; Harris, Reid, & Graham, 2004). Studies in youth with LD have found that
lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs are common in this population (e.g., Baird,et al.,
2009; Harris et al., 2004; Hampton & Mason, 2003; Klassen, 2007; 2010). For instance,
Klassen (2008) conducted three studies investigating the motivational beliefs of students
with LD. Participants in the first two studies were in high school, whereas participants in the
third study were undergraduate students. Klassen found that all students with LD, regardless
of their age, expressed low confidence in their ability to self-regulate their learning compared
to students without LD. In a more recent study, Klassen (2010) examined gender differences
in self-efficacy for learning among youth with and without LD and discovered that
adolescent girls showed higher levels of confidence to regulate their learning, regardless of
LD status. These results are consistent with gender differences found in the typically
developing literature (e.g., Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
Thus, findings from research in youth with LD combined with results from emerging studies
examining self-efficacy in community samples of students with symptoms of ADHD provide
strong support for the contention that youth with ADHD may experience less optimistic
beliefs about their ability to self-regulate their learning effectively, regardless of their actual
achievement levels. The current study will test this hypothesis, along with exploring whether
there are gender differences in self-efficacy.
1.5 Predictors of Self-Efficacy
Current research indicates that several factors are associated with youth’s self-efficacy for
learning beliefs (e.g., Caprara et al., 2008; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2009; Schunk, 1985;
Tan et al., 2008; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992; Zimmerman & Kitsantas,
2005; 2007). The present study will focus on the role of academic achievement and
internalizing difficulties as predictors of self-efficacy for learning because both are
implicated in ADHD and have been known to influence the self-perceptions of these students
(see Owens et al., 2007, for a review). In addition, there is recent evidence to suggest that
higher levels of ADHD symptoms may be associated with lower self-efficacy beliefs
regarding one’s future vocational choices (Norwalk et al., 2009). Therefore, in addition to
10
academic achievement and internalizing difficulties, this study will also examine the
contribution of inattention symptoms to the self-efficacy for learning beliefs of youth with
and without ADHD.
1.5.1 Academic achievement.
Most researchers have reported that higher self-efficacy beliefs are associated with better
grades and higher scores on measures of academic achievement (e.g., Zimmerman &
Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990; 1992). Due to the correlational nature
of these studies, however, it is plausible that the relationship may also exist in the opposite
direction: that is, higher academic abilities may lead to more optimistic self-efficacy beliefs.
Few researchers, however, have sought to examine this association. This is surprising given
that, in his social cognitive theory, Albert Bandura (1986) posits that previous academic
successes are one of the most powerful sources of academic self-efficacy beliefs.
Specifically, Bandura noted that once students have completed an academic task, they will
naturally interpret their performance and incorporate their judgments into their self-
perceptions. Furthermore, Bandura (1989) put forth the notion of reciprocal determinism to
describe the reciprocal interactions among personal, environmental, and behavioural factors.
More specifically, the way in which people interpret the results of their actions informs and
alters their environment and personal beliefs, which in turn, inform and alter future actions.
From this perspective, the relationship between previous academic performance and self-
efficacy beliefs can be described as reciprocal such that previous successes can enhance self-
efficacy beliefs, and higher self-efficacy beliefs can enhance future academic performance.
Based on Bandura’s view that past academic performance can inform self-efficacy
perceptions, students with poorer academic abilities may have lower self-efficacy for
learning beliefs because they do not have the necessary academic skills (e.g., reading,
writing, math) to successfully complete many common academic tasks, such as note-taking,
essay-writing, and reading comprehension, and they are also more likely to experience
repeated academic failure. Indeed, studies in students with LD have demonstrated that these
students report fewer experiences of academic success compared to their typically
developing peers, and this in turn is related to their lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs.
11
For example, Hampton and Mason (2003) examined the role of learning disability status and
various sources of self-efficacy, including previous academic accomplishments and
internalizing difficulties, in the self-efficacy beliefs of youth with LD. Structural equation
modeling revealed that LD status had indirect effects on self-efficacy through the various
sources (e.g., previous academic successes, encouragement from others, internalizing
difficulties), and the various sources of self-efficacy had a direct effect on self-efficacy
beliefs.
Like students with LD, lower academic achievement in ADHD may lead to lower self-
efficacy for learning beliefs because these students do not have many of the academic skills
necessary to successfully manage their learning environment. In addition, due to their
academic difficulties, youth with ADHD may be more commonly faced with repeated
academic failure. Bandura theorized that repeated failures lower self-efficacy beliefs;
therefore, over time, youth with ADHD may begin to internalize their failure experiences and
this may weaken their beliefs about their abilities and lower their expectations for future
success. Lowered perceptions of confidence may alter their willingness to attempt similar
tasks in the future and may also result in less effort and persistence in the face of difficulty.
Therefore, given the widespread academic impairments in youth with ADHD, it is important
to consider academic abilities as a predictor of self-efficacy for learning in youth with
ADHD, as academic skills may play an important role in the development of an adequate
sense of confidence in self-regulating one’s learning environment.
1.5.2 Internalizing difficulties.
Many researchers have explored the association between emotional functioning and self-
efficacy perceptions and have demonstrated that these two constructs relate in diverse areas
of functioning, including education (e.g., Nelson & Knight, 2010), sports (e.g., Nicholls,
Polman, & Levy, 2010), interpersonal relations (Thomasson & Psouni, 2010), as well as
stress and illness (e.g., Roddenberry & Renk, 2010). In general, results from these studies
suggest that higher levels of internalizing symptoms such as anxiety and depression are
related to lower levels of perceived self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1986; 1993),
students evaluate their physiological and emotional states as they judge their sense of
12
confidence; strong emotional reactions can send signals to students about expected success or
failure. Thus, feeling upset, anxious, or hopeless when faced with a particular task may lead
students to believe that they are not capable of performing that task. In contrast, a secure
sense of physical and emotional well-being and reduced negative emotional states can
strengthen feelings of confidence (Bandura, 1986; 1993). Bandura examined his theory and
discovered that academic self-efficacy beliefs contribute to depression directly as well as
though their influence on academic achievement. Bandura and colleagues (1999) found that
students with lower self-efficacy beliefs were also likely to obtain lower achievement scores,
which in turn, led to feeling of academic inadequacy and depression (Bandura, Pastorelli,
Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999). Similarly, McGee, Anderson, Williams, and Silva (1986)
found that depression was associated with lower levels of self-esteem and a negative view of
one’s academic ability in a group of 792 school-age children. These researchers concluded
that depression in may be more closely related to lower perceptions of competence than with
actual task performance per se.
Emotional disturbances such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem are common in
youth with ADHD (see Barkley, 1998, for a discussion). For example, in a recent
longitudinal study by Lee and colleagues (2008), researchers discovered that 37 % of youth
who were diagnosed with ADHD in preschool experienced internalizing difficulties in
adolescence, compared to 10% of youth in the comparison group. In addition, some
researchers have linked higher levels of internalizing symptoms in ADHD with lower levels
of self-esteem. Treuting and Hinshaw (2001) examined depression and self-esteem in a large
sample of boys with ADHD aged 7 to 12 years. These researchers found that children with
ADHD exhibited higher levels of depression and lower levels of self-esteem compared to
their typically functioning peers. In addition, researchers discovered that depression and self-
esteem were negatively related in both the ADHD and control groups. Furthermore,
symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity have been linked with depression in community
samples of children and youth (e.g., Herman, Lambert, Ialongo, & Ostrander, 2007). For
example, MacPhee and Andrews (2006) explored those factors that lead to depression in a
large community sample of pre-adolescent children. Although these researchers found that
low self-esteem was the strongest predictor of later depression, symptoms of
hyperactivity/inattention also significantly contributed the development of depressive
13
symptoms in early adolescence. Taken together, the above research suggests that students
with elevated levels of inattention and hyperactivity are more likely to experience symptoms
of depression, and symptoms of depression have, in turn, been linked with lower levels of
perceived competence and self-esteem.
1.5.3 ADHD symptoms.
To the best of our knowledge, there have been no published studies examining the concurrent
contributions of achievement and internalizing difficulties to self-efficacy for learning beliefs
of individuals with ADHD. However, research by Norwalk et al. (2009) has highlighted the
importance of considering symptoms of inattention in the self-efficacy perceptions of youth
with ADHD. Specifically, these researchers were interested in determining the relationship
between ADHD symptoms and factors associated with academic and social adjustment in
college, including career decision-making self-efficacy, study skills, and GPA. A total of 321
male and female undergraduate students completed self-report questionnaires assessing
ADHD symptoms and various areas of college adjustment. Norwalk and colleagues found
that higher symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention were related to lower career-decision-
making self-efficacy, academic adjustment, study skills, and grades in both male and female
college students. Results of the regression equation predicting career decision-making self-
efficacy revealed that, even after controlling for depression and gender, inattention emerged
as a significant predictor of career decision-making self-efficacy, whereas hyperactivity did
not. Findings from Norwalk and colleagues’ study adds to the growing body of literature
suggesting that symptoms of inattention are more strongly associated with academic
functioning than symptoms of hyperactivity. Students with the primarily inattentive and
combined subtypes of ADHD have been found to score lower on cognitive and achievement
tests, have worse grades, more frequent placement in special education, slower processing
speed, and greater deficits in executive functions compared to those with primarily
hyperactive symptoms (e.g., Todd et al., 2002). Norwalk and colleagues reasoned that the
greater cognitive and executive functioning deficits found in inattentive students may make it
difficult for them to plan ahead for their future, self-reflect, divide their attention, and
demonstrate the self-control necessary to make decisions about their future career goals. In
addition, poorer academic adjustment found in students with primarily inattentive symptoms
14
may also make these students feel less confident in their ability to achieve their educational
and vocational goals (Norwalk et al., 2009). This research has highlighted the importance of
inattention symptoms to self-efficacy beliefs. Although Norwalk et al.’s (2009) study
focused on career decision-making self-efficacy, their approach can be applied to
understanding the self-efficacy for learning beliefs of youth, as these two forms of self-
efficacy rely on similar strategies and skills associated with self-regulation (i.e., planning,
goal setting, self-reflecting, etc.).
1.6 Objectives and Hypotheses
According to social cognitive theory, the beliefs that youth with ADHD hold about their
capabilities may play a critical role in determining their success at school, even beyond their
actual knowledge and skills (Bandura, 1993; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Urdan, 2006). Given
that students with ADHD experience academic underachievement that extends past the
childhood years (e.g., Brassett-Harknett & Butler, 2007; Reaser et al., 2007; Rucklidge &
Tannock, 2001), understanding their motivational beliefs in adolescence is an important
research goal. Moreover, the study of self-efficacy and self-regulation is critical in
adolescence because of the shift toward more self-directed learning during this period of
development. As adolescents achieve greater independence, they must assume a greater
responsibility for their learning and develop diverse self-regulatory skills to cope with the
increasing demands of school. A strong sense of self-efficacy supports students’ ability to
sustain their efforts to learn and regulate their behaviour effectively (Pajares & Urdan, 2006;
Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Given that youth with ADHD experience cognitive and
academic impairments that that may interfere with their ability to effectively navigate their
learning environment, it is important to gain an understanding of their self-efficacy beliefs in
order to inform interventions designed to enhance the academic functioning of these
students. However, very few researchers have examined self-efficacy for learning in youth
with ADHD. Furthermore, in typically developing students, gender differences in self-
efficacy for learning frequently favour female students (e.g., Pajares & Valiante, 2002);
whether a similar gender difference exists in a population of youth with ADHD has yet to be
explored. Therefore, the first purpose of the present study was to explore the self-efficacy for
learning beliefs of adolescents with ADHD and examine whether self-efficacy beliefs differ
15
as a function of gender. In addition, although previous academic successes and emotional
functioning are important determinants of self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura, 2000; Bandura
et al. 1999 ); researchers have yet to explore whether this relationship holds true in youth
with ADHD. Studies examining career decision-making self-efficacy in college students with
ADHD also highlight the importance of considering symptoms of inattention when
predicting psychosocial outcomes in this population. Thus, the second purpose of this study
is to determine whether symptoms of inattention predict self-efficacy for learning beliefs
beyond academic achievement and symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Based on previous literature examining self-efficacy in community samples of youth with
symptoms of ADHD (e.g., Young et al., 2005), as well as self-efficacy research in youth with
LD (Klassen, 2002; 2004; 2007; 2010) , we hypothesized that youth with ADHD would
display lower self-efficacy for self-regulated learning compared to their non-ADHD peers.
Two alternate hypotheses were developed regarding gender differences in self-efficacy for
learning. The first hypothesis is based on prior research documenting that female youth with
and without LD show more optimistic judgments about their self-regulatory skills than male
youth with and without LD (Klassen, 2010). This data supports the hypothesis that females
with and without ADHD would have higher self-efficacy for learning beliefs than males with
and without ADHD. Alternatively, data from studies demonstrating that female youth with
ADHD have lower levels of self-esteem (e.g., Rucklidge, 2010; Rucklidge & Tannock, 2001;
Slomkowski, Klein, & Mannuzza, 1995) would suggest that female youth with ADHD may
feel less confident in their ability to cope with difficulty learning conditions compared to
male youth with ADHD. In terms of those factors that predict self-efficacy beliefs, because
higher ADHD symptoms have been shown to relate to lower career decision-making self-
efficacy (Norwalk et al., 2009; Norvilitis et al., 2010), we predicted that youth with higher
levels of inattention will have lower levels of self-efficacy for learning. Based on findings
from Norwalk and colleagues’ (2009) study, we expected that, after controlling for
achievement levels and symptoms of anxiety and depression, inattention would be a unique
predictor of self-efficacy for learning.
2 Method
16
2.1 Participants
Participants included 62 13- to 18-year-old youth; 31 (18 males, 13 females) were classified
as having ADHD, and 31 (17 males, and 14 females) were a typically functioning
comparison group. To be included in the study, adolescents in the ADHD sample were
required to have: (a) a full-scale IQ ≥80 on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
(WASI; Wechsler, 1999), (b) a previous Diagnostic & Statistical Manual for Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)-based diagnosis of ADHD from a physician or
psychologist, but no diagnosis of a neurological disorder or genetic syndrome (e.g.,
Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Psychotic Disorders, or Tourette’s Disorder), and (c)
clinically significant scores (T-score≥70) on at least one of the core ADHD indices (i.e.,
DSM-IV Hyperactive Impulsive, DSM-IV Inattentive, and DSM-IV Global) of the Conners'
3 Parent Rating Scale, Long Form (Conners 3-P; Conners, 2008) or the Conners' 3 Teacher
Rating Scale, Long Form (Conners 3-T; Conners, 2008) and a score in the clinical or
borderline range (T-score ≥ 60) by the second informant. Analogous inclusion criteria were
used for the youth in the comparison sample: (a) a full-scale IQ of 80 or above on the WASI,
(b) no previous diagnosis of ADHD or any learning or behaviour problems identified by their
parent, and (c) scores in the normal range of functioning (T-scores ≤ 65) on the DSM-IV
scales of the Conners 3-P and Conners 3-T.
Adolescents with and without ADHD were recruited through postings in the community,
including local agencies and clinics, community centers, libraries, and local newspapers.
Although some families did speak additional languages in the home, participating youth in
the study were proficient in reading, speaking, and writing in English. Of the youth with
ADHD, 20 (65%) were taking psychostimulant medication for their symptoms (e.g., Ritalin,
Concerta); however, on the testing date, participants were asked to be medication-free. As is
typical with an ADHD sample, 15 (48%) had one previously diagnosed comorbid diagnosis,
5 (16%) had two comorbid diagnoses, and 1 (3%) had three comorbid diagnoses based on
parent report. Of these comorbid diagnoses, 18 (58%) were Learning Disabilities, 6 (19%)
were Anxiety Disorders, 3 (10%) were Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and 2 (6%) were
Depression. Sixteen (52%) of the youth in the ADHD sample were considered low achievers
and 26 (83%) were receiving some form of special education services at the time of the
17
study, including withdrawal support (n = 10), a modified curriculum (n = 4), or support from
an educational assistant (n = 5). None of the youth in the comparison group had been
diagnosed with a learning or behaviour disorder, nor were they receiving special education
services. A greater number of adolescents with ADHD demonstrated impairments in the
academic and social domains than their non-ADHD peers. For example, 68% of youth with
ADHD obtained a score in the clinical or borderline range (T-score ≥ 60) on teacher-reported
learning problems (Conners 3-T Learning Problems) compared to 16% of adolescents in the
control group. Similarly, 55% of youth with ADHD scored in the clinical or borderline range
on teacher-reported peer relations (Conner 3-T Peer Relations) relative to 23% of comparison
youth.
2.2 Measures
2.2.1 Demographic information.
Demographic and background information was obtained via a brief questionnaire given to
the participant’s mother or father. The information collected included mother’s and father’s
highest level of education, marital status, language(s) spoken at home, comorbid disorders,
and medication status. The highest level of education obtained by each parent was averaged
as a broad indicator of socioeconomic status (SES). Parental education was chosen to
represent social class because it has been identified in previous literature as one of the most
stable components of a family’s social status (Featherman, Spenner, & Tsunematsu, 1988).
2.2.2 Intellectual functioning.
To screen for participation in the study, all youth were given the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale
of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999), a standardized abbreviated measure of cognitive
capacity. The WASI consists of four subtests: Block Design, Similarities, Vocabulary, and
Matrix Reasoning, and can be administered in a four- or two-subtest form. In the current
study, the two-subtest version was used (includes Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning) to yield
a full-scale IQ score. The full-scale IQ is represented as a T-score with a mean of 100 and a
standard deviation of 15. The WASI has been found to correlate highly with the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (r =.83 to .89), a widely used measure of intelligence
18
(Wechsler, 1999). There is also evidence for high reliability as well as concurrent and
construct validity (Sattler, 2001; Wechsler, 2003).
2.2.3 Academic achievement.
Academic achievement was estimated using selected subtests from the Woodcock Johnson
Test of Achievement—Third Edition (WJ-III; Mather & Woodcock, 2001). The WJ-III is a
widely-used, norm-referenced test of achievement that includes 22 achievement subtests
organized into reading, math, written language, and oral language clusters. Each
achievement subtest and cluster yields a standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15 (Mather & Woodcock, 2001). In the current study, the reading cluster
comprised the Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtests; the writing
cluster comprised the Spelling and Writing Samples subtests; the math cluster comprised
Calculation and Applied Problems. The WJ-III has good evidence for internal consistency
with subtest correlations exceeding .80 and .90 for the clusters (Mather & Woodcock, 2001).
2.2.4 Internalizing difficulties.
The Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) is a widely
used measure that yields standardized estimates of child and adolescent behaviour problems
and competencies. The YSR, a 118-item questionnaire, was administered to youth and
contains 8 subscales: anxious/depressed, withdrawal/depressed, somatic complaints, social
problems, thought problems, attention problems, delinquent behaviour, and aggression. T-
scores are derived for each subscale and overall scores are designated as reflecting
Externalizing Problems (composed of the delinquent and aggressive behaviour subscales),
and Internalizing problems (composed of the withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety, and
depression subscales). In the current study, the overall T-score representing Internalizing
Problems was used in the analyses. Higher T-scores indicate greater impairment. The YSR
has evidence for good reliability and validity (Achenbach, 1991; Achenbach & Rescorla,
2001).
2.2.5 ADHD symptoms.
19
The Conners Rating Scales-Third Edition (Conners 3; Conners, 2008) were used to measure
ongoing symptoms of ADHD. The Conners scales have been used widely for the clinical
assessment of ADHD in children and youth. In the current study, parents and teachers of
youth with and without ADHD completed parallel versions to screen for participation in the
study (Conners 3-P and Conners 3-T). Youth were administered the self-report version
(Conners 3-SR) as a measure of their own ADHD symptoms.
The Conners 3-SR (Conners 3-P) consists of 99 items that make up 10 subscales, 2 of which
were used in the current study: DSM ADHD Inattentive and DSM ADHD Hyperactive-
Impulsive. Youth rated their behaviour on a 4-point Likert scale: 0 (not true at all), 1 (just a
little true), 2 (pretty much true), and 3 (very much true). For each of the subscales, a T-score
is derived with higher T-scores suggesting more problematic functioning. Internal
consistency of the Conners is high (coefficient alphas range from .79 to .96 across subscales)
(Conners, Sitarenios, Parker, & Epstein, 1998).
2.2.6 Self-efficacy for learning.
Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was measured using the Self-Efficacy for Learning
Form (SELF) developed by Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005). The SELF is a 57-item
measure that assesses students’ beliefs about their ability to use specific self-regulatory
processes to cope with difficult learning conditions that involve reading, note taking, test-
taking, writing, and studying. Items on this scale include questions such as ―When you don’t
understand a paragraph you have just read, can you clarify it by careful rereading?‖ and
―When you feel very anxious before taking a test, can you remember all the material you
studied?‖ Students rate items such as these on a scale that ranges from 0 to 100 in 10-unit
increments. Written descriptors are provided alongside the following data points: 0
(definitely cannot do it), 30 (probably cannot do it), 50 (maybe), 70 (probably can), and 100
(definitely can do it). Higher scores on the SELF reflect more positive self-efficacy for
learning beliefs.
In the current study, we adapted the SELF from the traditional paper and pencil format to be
presented on computer. Each item appeared individually on the computer screen with the 0
to 100 scale (in increments of 10) and the corresponding descriptions. To reduce any
20
differences based on individual reading levels, items were also read out loud to students
through the computer. Once the item was read, students were asked to enter their response
using the numbers on the keyboard in a response box that appeared on the screen.
Cronbach alpha reliability for the SELF was .97. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005) reported
a reliability score of .99. In addition, they reported a correlation between the SELF and
teacher ratings of students’ actual self-regulatory behaviour of .72, providing evidence for
this measure’s strong predictive validity. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005; 2007) also found
that scores on the SELF reflect a single underlying self-regulatory factor. Unlike previous
measures of self-efficacy for learning (i.e., Bandura, 1989; Schunk, 1996), the predictive
validity of the SELF is optimized because the items extend beyond students’ beliefs about
their procedural knowledge and skill (e.g., setting goals, monitoring progress) to include their
self-perceptions of confidence regarding their ability to cope with particular academic
problems and contexts.
2.3 Procedure
The testing sessions were conducted in a laboratory at the Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education (OISE) of the University of Toronto. Parents of the adolescents who were
interested in participating were given a brief intake screen and asked to complete the Conners
3-Parent over the telephone to determine whether their child met the inclusion criteria. Those
families who were eligible to participate were scheduled for an assessment session and were
mailed consent forms. When participants arrived at the lab, consent forms were collected and
adolescents were given a verbal overview of the procedure by the research assistant. Parents
were asked to complete several questionnaires while their child was being tested. In the case
when parents did not attend the testing session, the parent measures were sent home with the
adolescent for completion and then returned by mail. The Conners 3-Teacher forms were
sent to teachers via the parents and/or adolescents and also returned by mail.
Adolescents worked individually with a research assistant for approximately 5 to 6 hours,
during which they completed a battery of self-report measures and standardized tests that
were included as part of a larger study. Research assistants were graduate students in school
and clinical child psychology who were well-trained in psychological test administration. As
21
an incentive for their participation in the study, all parents and adolescents received an
educational and social-emotional report describing their child’s functioning on the
standardized assessment measures. In addition to the report, adolescents were given the
choice of receiving $30.00 cash or community service hours (necessary to receive a high
school diploma in Ontario) to compensate for their time and travel expenses.
3 Results
3.1 Data Analyses
The first objective of this study was to determine whether male and female youth with and
without ADHD differ in terms of their self-efficacy for learning beliefs. Prior to addressing
this question, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with group status (ADHD,
comparison) and gender as the between-subject factors were conducted to examine whether
there were ADHD and/or gender differences on the demographic, behavioural, cognitive, and
academic achievement measures. Each of the continuous variables was examined for
normality. Except for the Conners 3 parent- and teacher-rated DSM ADHD Inattentive and
Hyperactive-Impulsive subscales, all other variables were normally distributed within each
subgroup and across the full sample. Attempts to transform the Conners 3 parent- and
teacher-rated Inattentive and Hyperactive-Impulsive T-scores were not successful; however,
because the F-test is considered robust to normality violations (see Lindman, 1974 for a
summary), the analyses were conducted using the untransformed variables. Chi-square
analyses were used to examine ADHD group differences on the categorical variables (e.g.,
marital status, parent employment status). Correlations were then conducted to determine
which of the examined variables, if any, correlated with self-efficacy for learning beliefs.
Those factors that were significantly related were then controlled for in a subsequent two
(ADHD, comparison) by two (male, female) ANCOVA using the SELF total score as the
dependent variable.
The second objective of this study was to examine whether inattention was a significant
predictor of self-efficacy for learning, above and beyond academic achievement and
internalizing difficulties. Partial correlations between self-efficacy for learning and self-
22
reported inattention were first explored, while controlling for internalizing difficulties and
achievement in each gender. Partial correlations were conducted in order to determine
whether inattention symptoms were associated with self-efficacy for learning independent of
achievement and internalizing problems in each group (i.e., ADHD, comparison, female,
male). Correlations among the dependent and independent variables within each subgroup
and across the total sample were then examined. Next, a hierarchical liner regression was
conducted to determine whether adolescents’ self-reported inattention symptoms were a
unique predictor of self-efficacy for learning beliefs beyond academic achievement and self-
reported internalizing difficulties (Question 2).
3.2 Sample Characteristics
Means and standard deviations for the sample characteristics are presented in Table 1. The
results of the ANOVAs revealed that there were no group status or gender differences in age;
however, there was a significant group effect for SES, F(1, 54) = 6.42, p < .05, partial η2 =
.11. Specifically, participants with ADHD came from families that were from a lower SES
than participants in the comparison group. There were no significant group by gender
interaction effects for age or SES. In addition, chi-square analyses indicated that the
participants with and without ADHD did not differ significantly from each other on mother,
Χ2(2) = .71, p = .70, or father, Χ
2(2 ) = .51, p = .77 employment status (full-time, part-time,
or unemployed), parent marital status (single, married, separated, divorced, common-law, or
widowed), Χ2(4) =2.70, p = .61; or languages spoken in the home, Χ
2(4) = 2.95, p = .57.
These results remained even when the analyses were stratified by gender.
There was an overall effect of group status on estimated Full Scale IQ, F(1, 58) = 31.54, p <
.001, partial η2 = .35, with youth in the ADHD group obtaining lower IQ scores than youth in
the comparison group. There were no significant gender or interaction effects for IQ. In
terms of academic achievement, there was a significant main effect of group status for WJ-III
Brief Achievement, F(1, 56) = 67.61, p < .001, partial η2 = .55, as well as Brief Reading,
F(1, 56) = 36.85, p < .001, partial η2 = .40, Writing, F(1, 56) = 45.24, p < .001, partial η
2 =
.45, and Mathematics, F(1, 56) = 44.34, p < .001, partial η2 = .44. Specifically, youth with
ADHD scored significantly lower than their typically developing peers on overall academic
23
achievement and achievement in the core academic areas of reading, writing, and math. In
addition, there was a significant main effect of gender for overall achievement, F(1, 56) =
9.90, p < .01, partial η2 = .15, and achievement in mathematics, F(1, 56) = 13.43, p < .01,
partial η2 = .19, with females scoring significantly lower on these scales than males. The
group status by gender interaction effect for mathematics achievement was also significant,
F(1, 56) = 7.20, p < .05, partial η2 = .11. Specifically, in the ADHD group, female youth
scored significantly lower than male youth in math, F(1, 56) = 19.48, p < .001, partial η2 =
.26; however, in the comparison group, males and females did not differ significantly in
terms of their mathematics achievement.
ANOVAs were conducted on each the parent-, teacher-, and self-report versions of the
Conners 3, with DSM ADHD Inattentive and DSM ADHD Hyperactive-Impulsive subscales
as the dependent variables. Significant group differences emerged across all three versions
on ratings of inattention (parent: F(1, 58) = 286.14, p < .001, partial η2 = .83; teacher: F(1,
50) = 32.59, p < .001, partial η2 = .40; and self: F(1, 58) = 34.40, p < .001, partial η
2 = .37),
and hyperactivity/impulsivity (parent: F(1, 58) = 101.98, p < .001, partial η2 = .64; teacher:
F(1, 50) = 24.93, p < .001, partial η2 = .33; and self: F(1, 58) = 10.33, p < .01, partial η
2 =
.15). Thus, parent-, teacher-, and self-reported symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity-
impulsivity were significantly higher in the ADHD group than in the comparison group.
There were no gender differences in parent-, teacher-, or self-reported symptoms of
inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity and there were no significant interaction effects.
The analysis of the YSR Internalizing Problems subscale indicated that there was a
significant main effect of group status (F(1, 54) = 9.91, p < .01, partial η2 = .15) with
participants in the ADHD group reporting more internalizing difficulties than participants in
the comparison group. The main effect of gender was not significant nor was there a
significant group status by gender interaction.
3.3 Group Differences in Self-Efficacy for Learning
Because there were significant group differences in SES as well as significant gender
differences in overall academic achievement, the degree to which these variables correlated
with self-efficacy for learning beliefs was explored to determine whether they should be
24
entered as covariates in a subsequent analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Although there
were other group differences that emerged from the preliminary analyses (i.e., IQ; parent-,
teacher-, and self-reported inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity; self-reported
internalizing symptoms), these variables were not considered as potential covariates because
they reflect qualities that are highly associated with ADHD. One of the assumptions of
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is that the covariates must be statistically independent
from the grouping variable (Miller & Chapman, 2001). Overall achievement was
significantly correlated with self-efficacy for learning beliefs (r = .41, p < .01); therefore, this
variable was entered as a covariate in a subsequent ANCOVA.
A two (ADHD, comparison) by two (female, male) ANCOVA (controlling for overall
achievement) was performed to test the hypothesis that male and female youth with ADHD
exhibit significantly lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs than male and female youth
without ADHD. There was a significant main effect of group status, F(1,55) = 12.97, p < .01,
partial η2 = .18, and a significant group status by gender interaction, F(1,55) = 13.39, p < .01,
partial η2 = .20. Youth with ADHD (M = 58.10, SD = 15.53) rated their self-efficacy for
learning beliefs significantly lower than comparison youth (M = 72.15, SD = 9.35).
Specifically, for youth with ADHD, their ratings corresponded to the ―maybe-probably can‖
range on the SELF, whereas for the comparison group, ratings fell closer to the ―probably
can‖ value. In other words, youth with ADHD felt less competent in dealing with
challenging learning situations related to reading, writing, note-taking, studying, and test-
taking compared to youth without ADHD.
To examine the interaction effects, SELF scores were analyzed across the ADHD and
comparison groups within each gender (see Figure 1). Specifically, among female youth,
those with ADHD reported lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs (M = 50.11, SD = 14.62)
(around the ―maybe‖ value on the SELF) compared to those without ADHD (M = 76.42, SD
= 8.34) (around the ―probably can‖ value on the SELF), F(1,54) =19.19, p < .001, partial η2
= .26. In other words, female youth with ADHD felt less able to cope with challenging
learning situations compared to female youth without ADHD. Among the male youth,
however, there were no significant differences between participants with and without ADHD
25
in their self-efficacy for learning beliefs (M = 64.59, SD = 13.38 and M = 68.63, SD = 8.85,
respectively).
3.4 Predictors of Self-Efficacy for Learning
3.4.1 Correlations.
Partial correlations were first conducted to explore whether inattention symptoms were
associated with self-efficacy for learning independent of achievement and internalizing
problems in each group. In youth with ADHD, partial correlations revealed that inattention
was significantly related to self-efficacy for learning after controlling for achievement and
internalizing difficulties (r = -.64, p < .001). Specifically, higher levels of inattention were
related to lower levels of self-efficacy. Similar results were found in the control group,
although the relationship was not significant (r =-.35, p = .067). In female and male youth,
inattention was significantly positively related to self-efficacy perceptions after controlling
for achievement and internalizing symptoms (r =-.58, p < .001, r =-.46, p < .05,
respectively).
To test the possibility of combining the youth with and without ADHD into a single sample,
separate Pearson correlations matrices were first examined to compare males and females in
each of the ADHD and comparison groups (i.e., ADHD male vs. ADHD female; comparison
male vs. comparison female). Within each of these subgroups, the difference in r between the
outcome variable (i.e., self-efficacy for learning beliefs) and each of the three predictor
variables (i.e., standardized achievement scores; self-reported internalizing problems; self-
reported inattention) was examined for significance using the Fisher r-to-z transformation.
This method calculates a value of z from r that can be applied to assess whether two
correlation coefficients differ significantly. Because the males and females in each of the
ADHD and comparison groups did not differ significantly on any one variable, this was
taken as evidence for combining the genders within the groups. Between group comparisons
were then made to determine whether youth with and without ADHD could be combined to
form a single ADHD/comparison group. There were no significant differences in the
correlation coefficients; thus, the groups were combined for the subsequent analyses.
26
Prior to conducting the regression analyses, Pearson correlations among the predictor and
outcomes variables were examined in the combined ADHD/comparison group. As seen in
Table 3, WJ-III Brief Achievement scores were positively correlated with SELF scores, such
that youth with higher achievement scores were also more likely to have higher self-efficacy
for learning beliefs. In contrast, scores on the Conners 3 Self-Report DSM-IV Inattention and
YSR Internalizing Problems subscales were negatively correlated with scores on the SELF.
Specifically, participants who reported more symptoms of inattention and internalizing
problems were less likely to feel capable of applying the necessary self-regulatory strategies
to deal with challenging learning situations.
3.4.2 Regression analyses.
A hierarchical liner regression was conducted in the full sample to determine whether self-
reported symptoms of inattention predict self-efficacy for learning beliefs beyond
achievement and internalizing difficulties. Brief Achievement scores on the WJ-III and YSR
Internalizing Problems T-Scores were entered in the first block of the regression, followed by
the Conners 3 self-reported DSM ADHD Inattentive T-scores. Results indicated that Brief
Achievement and Internalizing Problems predicted a significant proportion of the variance in
self-efficacy for learning (R2= .354, F(2,56) = 15.34, p < .001, ß = .260, p < .05, and ß = -
.459, p < .001, respectively) before inattention was included in the model. When this
variables was added in the second step, additional variance was predicted (Δ R2= .220,
F(4,55) = 24.65, p < .001), and overall achievement and internalizing difficulties were no
longer significant (ß = .140, p = .149, and ß = -.154, p = .164, respectively). In the final step,
only inattention was a unique predictor of self-efficacy for learning beliefs (ß = -.592, p <
.001).
3.4.3 Supplementary analyses.
Supplementary regression analyses were conducted to explore whether a) parent ratings of
inattention predict SELF scores, and b) self-reported inattention was still a unique predictor
of self-efficacy beliefs after controlling for IQ, gender, and mathematics achievement.
27
In the first regression, self-reported ADHD symptoms were replaced with parent-reports of
youth’s symptoms of inattention. Brief Achievement scores on the WJ-III and YSR
Internalizing Problems T-Scores were entered in step 1, and Conners 3 parent-reported DSM
ADHD Inattentive T-scores were entered in step 2. Self-reported internalizing problems
emerged as the only significant predictor of SELF scores (ß = -.434, p = .001), whereas
overall achievement (ß = .116, p = .424) and parent ratings of inattention (ß = -.227, p =
.122) were not. These results suggest that it is not others’ perceptions of the youth’s
symptoms of inattention, but rather the youth’s perceptions themselves that is most important
in predicting self-efficacy for learning beliefs. Youth who perceive themselves as struggling
to pay attention also feel that they cannot cope with many learning tasks that require self-
regulation.
In the second regression, WASI full scale IQ scores, WJ-III Brief Math scores, and gender
were entered in the first step, followed by the Conner 3-Self-Report DSM ADHD Inattention
scores. Results indicated that inattention remained as a unique predictor of self-efficacy for
learning, Δ R2= .365, F(4,55) = 16.77, p < .001, ß = -.647, p < .001. Gender (ß = .041 p =
.671), IQ (ß = .086, p = .499), and math achievement (ß = .130, p = .999) were not
significant predictors. These results suggest that self-reported inattention is critically
important in understanding the self-efficacy for learning beliefs youth with and without
ADHD.
4 Discussion
4.1 Group Differences in Self-Efficacy for Learning
The first objective of this study was to determine whether male and female youth with and
without ADHD differ in terms of their self-efficacy for learning beliefs. Results showed that
female adolescents with ADHD held lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs than their non-
ADHD peers. Interestingly, male youth with ADHD did not report significantly lower self-
efficacy beliefs than male youth without ADHD. Group differences in self-efficacy for
learning had moderate to large effect sizes and this finding cannot be explained by
28
differences in overall academic achievement, as this variable was ruled out as a potential
covariate in the analysis.
One important finding from the present research was that female participants with ADHD
had significantly lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs than female youth without ADHD.
Specifically, female youth with ADHD were only 50% confident (out of 100%) that they
could regulate their learning effectively, whereas female youth without ADHD were around
76% confident in their self-regulatory skills. Importantly, their beliefs were also lower than
the males with ADHD whose scores were closer to those of males without ADHD (65% and
69%. respectively). Previous research in typically developing adolescents and adolescents
with LD has demonstrated that females have an advantage in terms of their self-efficacy for
learning beliefs (e.g., Klassen, 2010; Pajares & Valiante, 2001; Vecchio et al., 2007;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). In the current study, this pattern was indeed observed
in the comparison group. It appears, however, that in youth with ADHD, females are at a
greater risk for low perceptions of confidence in their ability to cope with academic self-
regulatory demands. Although the present pattern of results is not consistent with research in
typically developing and LD youth, it is in line with findings from studies examining gender
differences in self-esteem in students with ADHD (Rucklidge, 2010; Rucklidge & Tannock,
2001; Young et al., 2005). These studies have shown that female youth with ADHD have
lower self-esteem, feel more ineffective, and are more affected by negative life events
compared to adolescent males with ADHD. Thus, it may be that these negative self-
perceptions also emerge when female adolescents are required to judge whether they are able
to effectively cope with difficult learning situations. Previous research has also found that
female youth with ADHD are more anxious and depressed than male youth with ADHD
(Rucklidge, 2010); however, in the current study, female and male youth with ADHD did not
differ significantly in terms of internalizing symptoms. This suggests that the lower self-
efficacy beliefs of female adolescents with ADHD is not likely due to females feeling more
anxious or depressed than male adolescents with ADHD.
It may be that female youth with ADHD rated their self-efficacy for learning beliefs lower
than their male counterparts because they have more difficulties than males with self-
regulatory tasks such as planning, self-monitoring, and goal setting. However, findings from
29
studies examining executive functions in youth with ADHD suggest that this is an unlikely
explanation (Martel et al., 2007; Toplack et al., 2009; Wasserstein, 2005). Rucklidge (2010)
recently reviewed the research on gender differences in ADHD and found that male and
female youth with ADHD do not perform differently on measures of executive functioning,
including planning, set-shifting, attention, working memory, and so forth. Gender differences
in learning skills, such as note-taking, summarizing, test-taking, and study skills have rarely
been examined; however, of the existing studies, no gender differences have been identified
(e.g., Norvilitis et al., 2010). Therefore, rather than females with ADHD actually being more
impaired than males with ADHD in their self-regulatory skills, an alternative explanation
may be that female youth with ADHD may be more accurate in judging their self-regulatory
skills compared to males. In other words, there may be gender differences in how
overconfident male and female youth are in estimating their abilities. Male youth with
ADHD rated their self-efficacy beliefs around 63% (compared to 68% in comparison males),
suggesting that these students still perceived themselves as quite capable of tasks that require
self-regulation. Given that underlying deficits in executive functions and self-regulation
characterize male and female youth with ADHD (Martel et al., 2007; Toplack et al., 2009;
Wasserstein, 2005), it is somewhat surprising that male youth with ADHD still judge
themselves at least somewhat capable of performing tasks that rely on these processes.
Female youth with ADHD, however, gave ratings closer to what would be expected based on
their neuropsychological difficulties. Although it was beyond the scope of this study to
determine whether there are gender difference in how overconfident adolescents with ADHD
are in estimating their abilities, this is an important question for future research. It is well-
known that children with ADHD exhibit a positive illusory bias when required to make
judgments about their abilities (Owens et al., 2007), although less is known about whether
there are gender differences in this bias. The current study suggests that males with ADHD
may continue to overestimate their abilities once they enter adolescence, whereas female
youth with ADHD may become more accurate at judging their confidence. Youth with LD
have been found to be overly confident in judging their self-regulatory and academic skills,
despite significant difficulties in these areas (Klassen, 2002; 2007; 2008). However, gender
differences in the degree to which male and female youth with LD overestimate their
confidence have not been found (Klassen, 2002). Given that youth with ADHD and LD both
30
experience academic and self-regulatory difficulties (e.g., Baird et al., 2009; Butler, 1998;
Harris et al., 2004), the likelihood of a similar miscalibration between one’s beliefs and
actual performance also occurring in youth with ADHD is highly plausible. Although
optimistic self-beliefs may be adaptive for male youth with ADHD in the short-term because
it may help protect their self-esteem, the long-term consequences may be maladaptive
because it may prevent them from recognizing the need for improvement, and they may be
less likely to seek help for their difficulties (Hoza & Pelham, 1995; Milich & Okazaki,
1991). Therefore, it is important to further understand the self-perceptions of youth with
ADHD in order to develop effective recommendations for those who are concerned with
enhancing the psychosocial and academic functioning of these students.
4.2 Predictors of Self-Efficacy for Learning
The second objective of this study was to examine predictors of self-efficacy for learning in
youth with and without ADHD. In support of previous research and Bandura’s self-efficacy
theory (1997), higher academic achievement was related to higher self-efficacy for learning,
whereas higher internalizing difficulties were related to lower self-efficacy for learning. In
addition, higher levels of self-reported symptoms of inattention were related to less
optimistic self-efficacy beliefs. The results of the partial correlation analyses within each
gender revealed that male and female youth who reported more inattention problems also
reported lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs, even after controlling for their achievement
levels and internalizing symptoms. Regression analyses within the full sample revealed that
inattention was a unique predictor of self-efficacy for learning, above and beyond
internalizing difficulties and achievement, accounting for 22% of the variance in self-
efficacy scores. It is important to note that the effect of academic achievement and
internalizing difficulties on self-efficacy for learning beliefs was eliminated once inattention
was present in the model. Both internalizing difficulties and academic achievement have
been found to play a strong role in the development of self-efficacy beliefs in both typically
developing youth and youth with LD (e.g., Hampton & Mason, 2003; Usher & Pajares,
2006); however, it appears that symptoms of inattention may be uniquely important in
predicting self-efficacy for learning among youth with ADHD.
31
With the onset of adolescence comes increased independence and a myriad of social,
educational, and physical changes. Previous research has demonstrated that typically
developing youth experience a loss of personal control and a decline in their self-confidence
during this time (Caprara et al., 2008; Pajares & Valiante, 2002). Therefore, it is of no
surprise that youth with high levels of inattention, who often experience more social,
academic, and behavioural challenges compared to students with fewer attention problems
(Nigg et al., 2005; Todd et al., 2002), are at a greater risk for lower self-efficacy beliefs. In
other words, male and female youth who perceive themselves to have significant attention
problems also appear to feel less confident in their ability to complete many tasks that
require the effective use of self-regulatory skills. This finding is consistent with studies in
community samples of adolescents and college students in which youth with elevated levels
of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity displayed lower academic and career decision-
making self-efficacy than youth in the comparison group (Norwalk et al., 2009; Norvilitis et
al., 2010; Young et al., 2005). Previous studies examining self-perceptions in youth with
ADHD have been limited to exploring self-esteem; however, our findings add to the
literature by demonstrating that youth with ADHD who have higher levels of inattention also
exhibit lower self-confidence in their ability to use self-regulatory skills to cope with
challenges in the classroom.
That inattention is a significant predictor of self-efficacy for learning is not surprising given
the growing consensus among researchers that symptoms of inattention are related to worse
academic outcomes than are symptoms of hyperactivity (Nigg et al., 2005; Todd et al.,
2002). For example, previous researchers have found that students with higher levels of
inattention score lower on cognitive and achievement tests, have worse grades, more frequent
placement in special education, and slower processing speed compared to students with
higher levels of hyperactivity (e.g., Todd et al., 2002). Findings from the current study add to
this literature by demonstrating that youth with ADHD who report significant attention
problems also feel less efficacious about their ability to overcome learning challenges that
are critical to academic success. Furthermore, there is research suggesting that individuals
with ADHD with primarily inattention symptoms may be uniquely susceptible to deficits in
executive functions compared to those with the primarily hyperactive-impulsive symptoms
(e.g., Stavro et al., 2007; Wasserstein, 2005). Given the link between executive functions and
32
inattention, youth with more attention problems may have particular difficulties with tasks
such as goal setting, planning ahead, self-control, and focusing attention. Therefore, it may
be that underlying deficits in executive functioning account for the relationship between
inattention and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. In addition, once students with
ADHD enter adolescence, inattention symptoms have been shown to remain constant,
whereas symptoms of hyperactivity gradually subside (e.g., Mick et al., 2004). At the same
time, students are transitioning into high school where they are expected to be self-directed
and take responsibility for their own learning. The environment is far more demanding and
less structured than in elementary school and there is more potential for distractions. To
succeed academically, students must develop and effectively use skills in planning,
organizing, goal setting, and so forth (Pajares & Urdan, 2006). Students with ADHD,
particularly those who are more inattentive, may struggle to manage these diverse
requirements and may consequently feel less confident in their self-regulatory skills.
4.3 Limitations and Future Directions
Findings from the current study must be considered in light of several limitations. Given the
correlational nature of this research, causal conclusions cannot be made regarding the
association between ADHD symptoms and self-efficacy for learning. In addition, the small
sample size limits statistical power. With a larger sample, different gender effects may have
emerged. The small sample size also limited the number of factors which could be entered
into the regression analyses to predict self-efficacy for learning. It is widely accepted that
ADHD is a heterogeneous population with high rates of comorbid disorders and multiple
subtype classifications (American Psychiatric Association 2000; Barkley 1990). Previous
research has demonstrated that along with comorbid depressive symptoms and academic
achievement, co-occurring symptoms of aggression can also alter the self-beliefs of students
with ADHD (see Owens et al., 2007, for a review). Specifically, researchers have shown that
boys with ADHD with high levels of aggression tend to overestimate their competence to a
greater degree than boys with ADHD and low levels of aggression, particularly in the social
and behavioural domains (Hoza et al., 2002). Thus, it is important to consider the
heterogeneous nature of ADHD in future research examining those factors that contribute to
the self-beliefs of youth with ADHD.
33
Due to constraints surrounding data collection, we were unable to measure past academic
achievements and emotional functioning in a manner that was faithful to Bandura’s (1993;
2000) description of these sources. For example, in reference to past academic achievement,
Bandura emphasized students’ interpretations of experienced events rather than measures of
objective performance (Bandura, 1993; 2000). Thus, instead of using academic achievement,
a more precise measure of this construct may have involved asking participants to rate the
degree to which they have successfully used self-regulatory skills and strategies to regulate
their learning in the past (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Similarly, the current study used a
measure of self-reported internalizing symptoms to closely approximate Bandura’s notion of
emotional and physiological arousal. Again, a measure of this construct that is closer to
Bandura’s interpretation may have involved asking youth to rate their feelings of anxiety,
arousal, or depressed mood when faced with difficult learning situations in which they are
required to employ self-regulatory strategies. According to Bandura (2000) predictors of self-
efficacy are strongest when measured at the same level of specificity as the self-efficacy
beliefs they are intended to predict. Furthermore, researchers may also find it fruitful to
examine the role of other potential sources of self-efficacy in youth with ADHD. For
example, Bandura (2000) noted that observational learning and verbal encouragement from
others may also be important in the development of a healthy sense of self-efficacy. Indeed,
previous research in youth with LD (e.g., Hampton & Mason, 2003) has found that these
variables are important for understanding their self-efficacy for learning beliefs. Lastly, past
research findings have shown that the relationship between various predictors of self-efficacy
and self-efficacy beliefs may differ as a function of ethnicity (Klassen, 2004; Usher &
Pajares, 2006). Although investigating this possibility was beyond the focus of the current
study, this relationship deserves additional empirical attention.
Results from the present study highlight the importance of considering both gender and
inattention symptoms in the self-efficacy for learning beliefs of youth with ADHD. Future
research may profit from exploring whether other factors not directly assessed in the current
study contribute to the formation of self-efficacy in male and female adolescence with
ADHD. Specifically, researchers may find it beneficial to examine a model that assesses the
relations among factors such as executive functions, comorbid diagnoses, or other sources of
self-efficacy such as verbal encouragement and observational learning in predicting self-
34
efficacy for learning in this population. Furthermore, longitudinal studies in this domain
would be ideal in expanding our understanding of the association between ADHD symptoms
and self-efficacy beliefs. Researchers may also attempt to explore self-efficacy as a predictor
of later academic outcomes in adolescents with ADHD. Although it is well-established in the
typically developing literature that the beliefs students hold about their self-regulatory
strategies powerfully influence their academic choices and performance (Bandura, 1993;
Pajares, 1996), less is known about whether this relationship holds true in ADHD. Are youth
with ADHD who have lower self-efficacy for learning beliefs less likely to remain in school
than those with higher self-efficacy beliefs? Are optimistic self-efficacy beliefs in youth with
ADHD a protective factor? Do youth with ADHD who have higher self-efficacy beliefs
achieve better grades and are they more likely to effectively regulate their learning
environment? These are important questions for future research, and the answers to these
questions will not only help provide better support for adolescents with ADHD, but will also
enhance our knowledge of how motivational factors function in these students.
4.4 Implications and Conclusions
This research was the first to examine the self-efficacy for learning beliefs of youth with
ADHD and the mechanisms that underlie these beliefs. Despite the above limitations, this
study provides researchers with preliminary evidence suggesting that youth with ADHD,
particularly female youth and those with more severe attention problems, have less optimistic
beliefs about their ability to regulate their learning and overcome challenging situations that
may be present in the classroom. It is unclear from the present study as to why female youth
with ADHD were particularly susceptible to lower self-efficacy beliefs compared to male
youth with ADHD. As previously discussed, it may be that female youth with ADHD are
more accurate in judging their self-regulatory skills, whereas male youth with ADHD may be
overly positive in their evaluations. Alternatively, given that this study demonstrated a link
between inattention symptoms and self-efficacy for learning, it is plausible that female youth
with ADHD rated their self-efficacy beliefs lower than their male counterparts because they
demonstrated more attention problems. Indeed, female youth with ADHD in the present
study reported more symptoms of inattention compared to male youth with ADHD. Although
the difference was not significant, it is possible that with a larger sample size, significant
35
group differences may have emerged. The next step for researchers in this area is to further
our understanding of precisely how gender and inattention relate to influence the
development of self-efficacy.
Findings from the present study have important practical implications. Specifically, this
research suggests that educators and clinicians working with youth with ADHD might
benefit from understanding their self-efficacy for learning beliefs, as these beliefs may be
contributing to the academic difficulties experienced by these students. Future research may
assist in this process by helping find practical ways in which those working with youth with
ADHD may assess the self-efficacy for learning beliefs of these students. Moreover,
clinicians and researchers must also work to develop appropriate interventions designed to
alter the negative self-beliefs of youth with ADHD. For example, studies have shown that
explicit training in the use of strategies promotes their acquisition and enhances self-efficacy
for learning (Schunk & Rice, 1993). Although both male and female youth with ADHD are
likely to benefit from training in self-regulatory skills given their difficulties in these areas,
the present study suggests that there may be differences in how one might target the self-
beliefs of these students. In female youth with ADHD, the focus may be on helping these
students develop a more optimistic view of their self-regulatory abilities. In male youth with
ADHD, however, the focus may be on making the link between performance and self-
efficacy beliefs salient and helping these students become more realistic in their self-
perceptions. Furthermore, as results from this study demonstrate, symptoms of inattention are
a powerful source of self-efficacy for learning in youth with and without ADHD, even
beyond academic skills and internalizing difficulties. Thus, helping students develop skills
and strategies to improve their focus and attention may consequently boost their self-efficacy
beliefs. Because symptoms of inattention have been known to remain stable throughout
adolescence in students with ADHD (Mick et al., 2004), it is important for those working
with students with attention problems to ensure that these students have both the skill and the
confidence to regulate their learning before entering college or university in order to help
them stay in school and reach their academic potential.
Youth with ADHD experience impairments in many skills required for self-regulation,
including planning, goal, setting, and self-monitoring (e.g., Martel et al., 2007; Toplack et
36
al., 2009; Wasserstein, 2005). Findings from the current study add to this literature by
demonstrating that youth with ADHD also feel less confident in their ability to manage
obstacles in their learning environment, particularly if they are female or exhibit greater
attention problems. Unfortunately, students who lack confidence in their ability to self-
regulate their learning are less likely to rely on adaptive strategies when faced with
challenging tasks and they are more likely give up in the face of difficulty (Pajares, 1996;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Poor self-efficacy for learning can also lead to learned
helplessness, especially for students with physical, emotional, or intellectual difficulties
(Gaskill & Hoy, 2002). Thus, the combination of a lack of skill and a lack of confidence can
be particularly impairing for these students, especially given that self-regulatory processes
are essential for healthy functioning not only in academic settings, but also in the world at
large (Zimmerman, 1998). Adolescence appears to be a time where youth with ADHD do not
hold positive perceptions of their skills and their abilities, and this can have a devastating
impact on their academic performance, willingness to stay in school, and future vocational
opportunities.
37
References
Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington,
VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms &
Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth,
& Families.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders. (Fourth Edition-Text Revision). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric
Association.
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309. doi:10.2307/1170696
Anderson, J., Williams, S., McGee, R., & Silva, P. (1989). Cognitive and social correlates of
DSM-III disorders in preadolescent children. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 842-846. doi:10.1097/00004583-198911000-00005
Baird, G. L., Scott, W. D., Dearing, E., & Hamill, S. K. (2009). Cognitive self-regulation in
youth with and without learning disabilities: Academic self-efficacy, theories of
intelligence, learning vs. performance goal preferences, and effort attributions. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 881-908. doi:10.1521/jscp.2009.28.7.881
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1175-1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association.
38
Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol.5, pp. 1–43). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Bandura, A., & National Inst of Mental Health, Rockville, MD, US. (1986). Social
foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
US: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways
to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.258
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis
and treatment. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions:
Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65-94.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65
Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In E. J. Mash, & R. A.
Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of childhood disorders (2nd ed.) ( pp. 55-110). New York,
NY, US: Guilford Press. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., & Fletcher, K. (2006). Young adult outcome of
hyperactive children: Adaptive functioning in major life activities. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 192-202.
doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000189134.97436.e2
Biederman, J., Mick, E., & Faraone, S. V. (2000). Age-dependent decline of symptoms of
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Impact of remission definition and symptom
type. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 816-818.
doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.5.816
39
Biederman, J., Petty, C. R., Evans, M., Small, J., & Faraone, S. V. (2010). How persistent is
ADHD? A controlled 10-year follow-up study of boys with ADHD. Psychiatry
Research, 177, 299-304. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.12.010
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different
are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1-40.
doi:10.1023/A:1021302408382
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 353-363. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Brassett-Harknett, A., & Butler, N. (2007). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: An
overview of the etiology and a review of the literature relating to the correlates and
lifecourse outcomes for men and women. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 188-210.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.06.001
Brim, S. A., & Whitaker, D. P. (2000). Motivation and students with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Preventing School Failure, 44, 57-60. doi:
10.1080/10459880009599784
Butler, R. (1998). Age trends in the use of social and temporal comparison for self-
evaluation: Examination of a novel developmental hypothesis. Child Development, 69,
1054-1073. doi:10.2307/1132362
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G. M., Barbaranelli, C., &
Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for
self-regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 525-534. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.525
Carlson, C. L., Both, J. E., Shin, M., & Canu, W. H. (2002). Parent-, teacher-, and self-rated
motivational styles in ADHD subtypes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 104-113.
doi:10.1177/002221940203500202
Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners 3rd
Edition Manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems
Inc.
40
Conners, C. K., Sitarenios, G., Parker, J. D. A., & Epstein, J. N. (1998a). The revised
conners' parent rating scale (CPRS-R): Factor structure, reliability, and criterion
validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An Official Publication of the
International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 26, 257-
268. doi:10.1023/A:1022602400621
Dunn, P.B., & Shapiro, S.K. (1999). Sex differences in the achievement goal orientations of
ADHD children. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 23, 327-344.
doi:10.1023/A:1018747716137
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139– 186). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1990). Changes in academic motivation and self-perception
during early adolescence. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.),
From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 134-155). Thousand Oaks,
CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon, &
N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed.: Vol 3. social, emotional,
and personality development. (pp. 1017-1095). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Edbom, T., Granlund, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Larsson, J. (2008). ADHD symptoms related to
profiles of self-esteem in a longitudinal study of twins: A person-oriented approach.
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 21, 228-237. Retrieved from
www.csa.com
Eisenberg, D., & Schneider, H. (2007). Perceptions of academic skills of children diagnosed
with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10, 390-397.
doi:10.1177/1087054706292105
41
Featherman, D. L., Spenner, K. I., & Tsunematsu, N. (1988). Class and the socialization of
children: Constancy, change, or irrelevance? In E. M. Hetherington, R. M. Lerner & M.
Perlmutter (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Retrieved from www.csa.com
Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and
achievement: Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a
concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 49-65.
doi:10.1177/00222194070400010401
Gaskill, P. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2002). Self-efficacy and self-regulated learning: The dynamic
duo in school performance. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement:
Impact of psychological factors on education. (pp. 185-208). San Diego, CA, US:
Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012064455-1/50012-9
Gropper, R. J., & Tannock, R. (2009). A pilot study of working memory and academic
achievement in college students with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 574-
581. doi:10.1177/1087054708320390
Hampton, N. Z., & Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-
efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School
Psychology, 41, 101-112. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00028-1
Harris, K. R., Reid, R. R., & Graham, S. (2004). Self-regulation among students with LD and
ADHD. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities, 3rd ed. (pp. 167-
195). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012762533-
1/50008-1
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York, NY,
US: Guilford Press. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Heath, N. L., & Glen, T. (2005). Positive illusory bias and the self-protective hypothesis in
children with learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 34, 272-281. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3402_6
42
Herman, K. C., Lambert, S. F., Ialongo, N. S., & Ostrander, R (2007). Academic pathways
between attention problems and depressive symptoms among urban African American
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 265-274. doi: 10.1007/s10802-
006-9083-2
Hinshaw, S. P., Carte, E. T., Fan, C., Jassy, J. S., & Owens, E. B. (2007).
Neuropsychological functioning of girls with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
followed prospectively into adolescence: Evidence for continuing deficits?
Neuropsychology, 21, 263-273. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.263
Hinshaw, S. P., Owens, E. B., Sami, N., & Fargeon, S. (2006). Prospective follow-up of girls
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder into adolescence: Evidence for continuing
cross-domain impairment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 489-
499. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.489
Hoza, B., & Pelham, W. E. (1995). Social-cognitive predictors of treatment response in
children with ADHD. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 23-35. Retrieved
from www.csa.com
Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Milich, R., & Pillow, D. (1993). The self-perceptions and
attributions of attention deficit hyperactivity disordered and nonreferred boys. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology: An Official Publication of the International Society for
Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 21, 271-286.
doi:10.1007/BF00917535
Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E. Jr., Dobbs, J., Owens, J. S., & Pillow, D. R. (2002). Do boys with
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder have positive illusory self-concepts? Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 111, 268–278. doi: 0.1037//0021-843X
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). College students’ homework and academic
achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition and
Learning, 4, 97-110. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9028-y
43
Klassen, R. (2002). A question of calibration: A review of the self-efficacy beliefs of
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 88-102.
doi:10.2307/1511276
Klassen, R. M. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy beliefs of south Asian
immigrant and anglo Canadian nonimmigrant early adolescents. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 731-742. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.731
Klassen, R. M. (2007). Using predictions to learn the self-efficacy of early adolescents with
and without learning disabilities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 173-187.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.001
Klassen, R. M. (2008). The optimistic self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning
disabilities. Exceptionality Education Canada, 18, 93-112. Retrieved from
www.csa.com
Klassen, R. M. (2010). Confidence to manage learning: The self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning of early adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
33, 19-30. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Lee, S. S., Lahey, B. B., Owens, E. B., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2008). Few preschool boys and
girls with ADHD are well-adjusted during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology: An Official Publication of the International Society for Research in Child
and Adolescent Psychopathology, 36, 373-383. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9184-6
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future
directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-382. doi:10.1016/0001-
8791(87)90010-8
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically derived
variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest
congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 293-
298. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.3.293
44
Lindman, H. R. (1974). Analysis of variance in complex experimental designs. Oxford,
England: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success.
School Psychology Review, 31, 313-327. Retrieved from www.csa.com
MacPhee, A. R., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2006). Risk factors for depression in early
adolescence. Adolescence, 41, 435-466. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Mannuzza, S., & Klein, R. G. (2000). Long-term prognosis in attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9, 711-726.
Retrieved from www.csa.com
Martel, M., Nikolas, M., & Nigg, J. T. (2007). Executive function in adolescents with
ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 1437-
1444. doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e31814cf953
Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Application of the woodcock-johnson tests of
cognitive Ability—Revised to the diagnosis of learning disabilities. In A. S. Kaufman,
& N. L. Kaufman (Eds.), Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and
adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation. (pp. 55-96). New York, NY,
US: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Crowell, E. W. (2000). Learning disabilities and ADHD:
Overlapping spectrum disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 417-424.
doi:10.1177/002221940003300502
McGee, R., Anderson, J., Williams, S., & Silva, P. A. (1986). Cognitive correlates of
depressive symptoms in 11-year-old children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
14, 517-524. doi: 009j-0627/86/1200-0517$05.00/0
Mick, E., Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., & Spencer, T. J. (Eds.) (2004). The course and
outcome of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. [Special issue]. Primary
Psychiatry: Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, 11, 42-48.
45
Milich, R. (1994). The response of children with ADHD to failure: If at first you don't
succeed, do you try, try, again? School Psychology Review, 23, 11-28. Retrieved from
www.csa.com
Milich, R., & Okazaki, M. (1991). An examination of learned helplessness among attention-
deficit hyperactivity disordered boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 607-
623. doi: 10.1007/BF00925823.
Miller, G. M., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40-48. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.40
Nelson, D. W., & Knight, A. E. (2010). The power of positive recollections: Reducing test
anxiety and enhancing college student efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 40, 732-745. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00595.x
Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R., & Levy, A. R. (2010). Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive
anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes. European Journal of Sport
Science, 10, 97-102. doi:10.1080/17461390903271592
Nigg, J. T., Stavro, G., Ettenhofer, M., Hambrick, D. Z., Miller, T., & Henderson, J. M.
(Eds.). (2005). Executive functions and adhd in adults: Evidence for selective effects
on ADHD symptom domains. [Special issue]. Journal of Abnormal Psychology:
Toward a Dimensionally Based Taxonomy of Psychopathology, 114, 706-717.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.3.706
Norvilitis, J. M., Sun, L., & Zhang, J. (2010). ADHD symptomatology and adjustment to
college in china and the united states. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 86-94.
doi:10.1177/0022219409345012
Norwalk, K., Norvilitis, J. M., & MacLean, M. G. (2009). ADHD symptomatology and its
relationship to factors associated with college adjustment. Journal of Attention
Disorders, 13, 251-258. doi:10.1177/1087054708320441
Owens, E. B., Hinshaw, S. P., Lee, S. S., & Lahey, B. B. (2009). Few girls with childhood
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder show positive adjustment during adolescence.
46
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 132-143.
doi:10.1080/15374410802575313
Owens, J. S., Goldfine, M. E., Evangelista, N. M., Hoza, B., & Kaiser, N. M. (2007). A
critical review of self-perceptions and the positive illusory bias in children with
ADHD. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10, 335-351.
doi:10.1007/s10567-007-0027-3
Pagani, L. S., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., McDuff, P., Japel, C., & Larose, S. (2008). When
predictions fail: The case of unexpected pathways toward high school dropout. Journal
of Social Issues, 64, 175-193. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00554.x
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578. doi:10.2307/1170653
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24), 124-139. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0991
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Adolescence and education: Vol. 5.Self-efficacy
beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement
of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 26, 366-381. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1069
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2002). Students' self-efficacy in their self-regulated learning
strategies: A developmental perspective. Psychologia: An International Journal of
Psychology in the Orient, 45, 211-221. doi:10.2117/psysoc.2002.211
Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S. (Eds.). (1996). Executive functions and developmental
psychopathology. [Special issue]. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry: Annual
Research Review, 37, 51-87. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01380.x
47
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 33-40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Reaser, A., Prevatt, F., Petscher, Y., & Proctor, B. (2007). The learning and study strategies
of college students with ADHD. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 627-638.
doi:10.1002/pits.20252
Resnick, R. J. (2005). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in teens and adults: They don't
all outgrow it. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(5), 529-533. doi:10.1002/jclp.20117
Richer, J. (Eds.). (1993). Avoidance behavior, attachment and motivational conflict. [Special
issue]. Early Child Development and Care: Enhancing Young Children's Lives, 96, 7-
18. doi:10.1080/0300443930960102
Richman, G., Hope, T., & Mihalas, S. (2010). Assessment and treatment of self-esteem in
adolescents with ADHD. In M. H. Guindon (Ed.), (pp. 111-123). New York, NY, US:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Roddenberry, A., & Renk, K. (2010). Locus of control and self-efficacy: Potential mediators
of stress, illness, and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 41, 353-370. doi:10.1007/s10578-010-0173-6
Rucklidge, J. J. (2010). Gender differences in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 33, 357-373. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2010.01.006
Rucklidge, J. J., & Tannock, R. (2001). Psychiatric, psychosocial, and cognitive functioning
of female adolescents with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 530-540. doi:10.1097/00004583-200105000-00012
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). La Mesa, CA,
US: Jerome M Sattler Publisher. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22,
208-223. doi:10.1002/1520-6807
48
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359-382. doi:10.2307/1163289
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-
efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. The
Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276. doi:10.1177/002246699302700301
Slomkowski, C., Klein, R. G., & Mannuzza, S. (1995). Is self-esteem an important outcome
in hyperactive children? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An Official
Publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent
Psychopathology, 23, 303-315. doi:10.1007/BF01447559
Stavro, G. M., Ettenhofer, M. L., & Nigg, J. T. (2007). Executive functions and adaptive
functioning in young adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 324-334.
doi:10.1017/S1355617707070348
Stipek, D. (1998). Differences between americans and chinese in the circumstances evoking
pride, shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 616-629.
doi:10.1177/0022022198295002
Stone, C. A., & May, A. L. (2002). The accuracy of academic self-evaluations in adolescents
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 370-383.
doi:10.1177/00222194020350040801
Tan, C. X., Ang, R. P., Klassen, R. M., See Yeo, L., Wong, I. Y. F., Huan, V. S., & Chong,
W. H. (2008). Correlates of academic procrastination and students’ grade goals.
Current Psychology, 27, 135-144. doi: 10.1007/s12144-008-9028-8
Thomasson, P., & Psouni, E. (2010). Social anxiety and related social impairment are linked
to self-efficacy and dysfunctional coping. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51,
171-178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00731.x
Toplack, M., E., Bucciarelli, S. M., Jain, U, & Tannock, R. (2009). Executive functions:
Performance-based measures and the behaviour rating inventory of executive function
49
(BRIEF) in adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Child
Neuropsyhcology, 15, 53-72. doi: 10.1080/09297040802070929
Treuting, J. J., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2001). Depression and self-esteem in boys with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Associations with comorbid aggression and explanatory
attributional mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An Official
Publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent
Psychopathology, 29, 23-39. doi:10.1023/A:1005247412221
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs
of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 125-
141. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.002
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation
study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 443-463.
doi:10.1177/0013164407308475
Vecchio, G. M., Gerbino, M., Pastorelli, C., Del Bove, G., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Multi-
faceted self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of life satisfaction in late adolescence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1807-1818. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.018
Volpe, R. J., DuPaul, G. J., DiPerna, J. C., Jitendra, A. K., Lutz, J. G., Tresco, K., & Junod,
R. V. (2006). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and scholastic schievement: A
model of mediation via academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 35, 47-61.
Retrieved from www.csa.com
Wasserstein, J. (2005). Diagnostic issues for adolescents and adults with ADHD. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 61, 535-547. doi:10.1002/jclp.20118
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
50
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and
25. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), (pp. 148-185). New York, NY, US:
Macmillan Library Reference USA; London, England: Prentice Hall International.
Young, S., Heptinstall, E., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Chadwick, O., & Taylor, E. (2005). The
adolescent outcome of hyperactive girls: Self-report of psychosocial status. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 255-262. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00350.x
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key
subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-313. doi:10.1016/0361-
476X(86)90027-5
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An
analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. (pp. 1-19).
New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications.
Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. [Special issue].
Contemporary Educational Psychology: Motivation
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In
M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education. (pp. 85-110). Mahwah,
NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing
course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.
doi:10.2307/1163397
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676. doi:10.2307/1163261
Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency:
The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
51
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45–69). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement:
The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 30, 397-417. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003
Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (Eds.). (2007). Reliability and validity of self-efficacy for
learning form (SELF) scores of college students. [Special issue]. Zeitschrift Für
Psychologie/Journal of Psychology: Self-Regulation, 215, 157-163. doi:10.1027/0044-
3409.215.3.157
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated
learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Perceptions of efficacy and strategy use in
the self-regulation of learning. In D. H. Schunk, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student
perceptions in the classroom. (pp. 185-207). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners:
Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/10213-000
Zwart, L. M., & Kallemeyn, L. M. (2001). Peer-based coaching for college students with
ADHD and learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
15, 1-15. doi: 10.1037/10213-000
52
Appendix
Adolescent and Parent Assent and Consent Forms and Letters
ADOLESCENT CONSENT LETTER
Dear ___________ :
My name is Judith Wiener, and I am a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT). My colleagues (Dr. Rosemary Tannock,
Dr. Tom Humphries, Dr. Martinussen, and I are doing a research project on teenagers with
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). We are writing to ask you if you would
like to take part in this research. For this, we need the participation of a group of teenagers
who have been previously been diagnosed with ADHD and a group of teenagers without
ADHD. We are asking you to take part in this research, because we believe that your
feelings and opinions are valuable information.
Purpose of the Research
We want to learn more about the beliefs that teenagers have about ADHD and about
behaviors that commonly occur with ADHD, their views about themselves, and their social
relationships. So far, there is little research on these areas of study. We believe that knowing
how teenagers think about their behaviors and about their ADHD is important, so that people
like teachers, parents, and other professionals can consider their beliefs when they try to help
them. This research has been funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council.
Description of the Research
If you take part in this research study, the testing session will take approximately 5 to 6
hours. The session will take place in a quiet room at OISE/UT. During the session, my
research assistant will ask you to answer some questions about yourself, such as what you
think about your behaviors, and about ADHD. He or she will read the questions to you if
you wish. Sometimes he or she will write the answers down for you and sometimes you will
have to check off or circle an item on a form or a questionnaire You will also fill out some
rating scales that tell about how you view yourself, your behaviors, your self-esteem and
your relationships with peers and others. You will also do some reading, writing, and math
activities. We will ask you to look at some pictures with a teenager in them behaving in
different ways and ask you to point out which of the pictures are like you. We will also
interview you about your beliefs about your behaviour and ADHD. We will give you a few
breaks, including a lunch break. We are also going to send a rating scale for your teacher to
fill out in a teacher package.
Benefits
53
A benefit of this study is that it will help us learn more about adolescents with ADHD. We
want to listen to what you say and think, and then use that information to help other teens
with ADHD.
Another benefit about this study is that your answers to the questions from the reading,
writing, and math activities and the questionnaires will let us know what your strengths are
and what areas you need to work on a little bit more. After about one month after you take
part in the study, we will mail a report to you and your family about these different areas, and
about some ways that might help you do better in school. Knowing these types of things is
important, because they can help you, your parents and teachers understand how to help you
do better in school and in life in general.
Potential Harms and Withdrawal
There are no harms associated with taking part in the study. The only thing that might
happen is that you may feel a little uncomfortable talking about yourself and how you feel
about some things. If you feel that you don’t want to answer some of the questions, you can
tell the research assistant, and talk about it. You may also say that you want to stop, skip a
question, or that you need a break and want to continue some other time. Also, if you say
that you will take part in the study and then change your mind, that is okay. You can decide
at any time to stop taking part in the study.
Confidentiality
Everything you tell me in the session will stay between you, the research assistant, and Dr.
Wiener. No information that reveals your identity will be released without consent unless
required by law. The information that we collect from you, your parents, and teacher will be
analyzed and stored in locked files in a locked office. The data will be kept at OISE/UT in
locked files for 10 years. The questionnaires will not have your name on them. A number
code will be used in place of your name. We will analyze the information, talk about it at
meetings, and write about it, so that parents, teachers, and doctors can learn from what we
have found. The results of the questionnaires and activities described above will be used for
research purposes only. We would need your permission and signed consent if you want to
send these scores to another professional.
Because we are working with many teenagers on this project, people hearing our
presentations or reading what we write will not know which teenager said what. When we
do this, or when we publish our research in academic journals/books, we will only present
group information. We will not tell anyone your name or give any information that could
help them know who you are.
We will not be able to provide you with your responses on some of the questionnaires and
interviews, because they were developed for the purpose of the research. We will not tell
your parents the specific answers that you gave to the questions, but we will write a report
about how you did and mail it to them.
The only time that we would have to tell somebody something you have said is if you tell us
that you will do serious harm to yourself or someone else, or someone is seriously harming
54
you. In that case, as required by law, we would have to make sure you get help by contacting
appropriate mental health, or law enforcement professionals. Otherwise, everything you tell
me is kept confidential.
Compensation
Participation in research is voluntary. If you do decide to take part in the study, you can
choose between getting $30.00 for your participation, or, (for teenagers in high school), the
time you spend taking part in the study can be counted towards your community service
hours, which we will provide a certificate for.
Access to Results
The results of this research will be shared in the form of a summary report upon completion
of the study. We are in the process of developing a website on which we will place all
relevant information and will contact you about this when it is ready.
You may contact Dr. Judith Wiener with any questions you may have about the study, and all
of your inquiries will be addressed.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Judith Wiener, Ph. D
Program Chair
School and Clinical Child Psychology
(416) 978-0935
Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT)
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6
55
ADOLESCENT CONSENT FORM
―I acknowledge that the research procedures described above have been explained to me and
that any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. As well, the
potential harms and discomforts have been explained to me and I also understand the benefits
of participating in the research study. I know that I may ask now, or in the future, any
questions that I have about the study. I have been assured that no information will be
released or printed that would disclose my identity without my permission, unless required
by law. I understand that I will receive a copy of this signed consent. I understand that
participation is voluntary and I can withdraw at any time.‖
I hereby consent to take part in this research.
___________________________________
Name of Teenager
__________________________________
Signature
___________________________________
Date
__________________________________
Name of person who obtained consent
___________________________________
Signature
―I agree to be contacted in the future regarding other studies being conducted by the ADHD
Laboratory at OISE/UT.‖
__________________________________
Signature
―I agree that the information collected about me in this study can be used for future data
analysis provided that all identifying is removed and that I cannot be identified.‖
___________________________________
Signature
The person who may be contacted
about this research is:
_________________________
who may be contacted at:
(416) 978-0933
56
ASSENT SCRIPT
Why are we doing this study?
My Professor and I are doing a research project on teenagers with ADHD. We are interested
in finding out about how teenagers who have been given a previous diagnosis of ADHD
think about their behaviours. We also want to know about their self-esteem and their social
relationships. We want to learn more about the beliefs that teenagers have about ADHD and
about some of their behaviours that commonly occur with ADHD. We believe that knowing
how teenagers think about their behaviours and about their ADHD is important, so that
people like teachers, parents, and other professionals can consider their beliefs when they try
to help them. I am asking you to participate in this research, because I believe that your
feelings and opinions are valuable information.
What will happen during the study?
If you take part in this study today, it will take approximately 5 to 6 hours. I will ask you to
answer some questions about yourself, such as what you think about your behaviours, and
about ADHD. I will read the questions to you if you want. Sometimes I will write the
answers down for you and sometimes you will have to check off or circle an item on a form.
Your answers to these questions will help me understand how you think about your
behaviours and about ADHD. I will also ask you to look at some pictures with a teenager in
them behaving in different ways and ask you to tell me which of the pictures are like you. I
will ask you about your beliefs about those behaviours. We will also do some reading,
writing, and math activities. Since you are here for a few hours, we will take a few breaks
including a lunch break.
Your mother/father filled out a rating scale before you came in. I am also going to send a
rating scale for your teacher to fill out.
Who will know about what I did in the study?
Do you know what confidentiality is? It means that everything you tell me today will stay
between you, myself, and Dr. Wiener, who is my Professor. My Professor and I will analyze
it, talk about it at meetings, and write about it, so that parents, teachers, and doctors can learn
from what we have found. The questionnaires will not have your name on them. A number
code will be used in place of your name. Because I am working with many teenagers on this
project, people hearing my presentations or reading what I write will not know which
teenager said what. When I do this, I will not tell anyone your name or give any information
that could help them know who you are.
For the reading, writing, and math activities and the other questionnaires, I will not tell your
parents the specific answers that you gave to the questions. But I will write a report about
how you did and mail it to them.
57
The only time that I would have to tell somebody something you have said is if you tell me
that you will do serious harm to yourself or someone else, or someone is seriously harming
you. In that case, I would have to tell your parents and make sure you get help. Otherwise,
everything you tell me is kept confidential.
Participation in this study is your choice.
Before you came here, your mother/father signed a letter saying that she/he agrees for you to
be in the study, but you don’t have to participate if you don’t want to. If you say you will
take part and then change your mind, that is okay. You can decide at any time to stop taking
part in the study.
If you do decide to take part in the study, you can choose between getting $30.00 for your
participation, or, (for participants in high school), the time you spend here can count towards
your community service hours, which we will provide a certificate for.
Are there good things and bad things about the study?
There are no bad things about the study. The only thing that might happen is that you may
feel uncomfortable talking about yourself and how you feel about some things. If you feel
that you don’t want to answer some of the questions, you can tell me, and we will talk about
it. You may also tell me that you want to stop, skip the question, or that you need a break
and want to continue some other time.
A good thing about this study is that it will help us learn more about adolescents with
ADHD. We want to listen to what you say and think, and then use that information to help
other teens with ADHD.
Finally, your answers to the questions from the reading, writing, and math activities and the
questionnaires will help me know what your strengths are and what areas you need to work
on a little bit more. Knowing these types of things is important, because they can help your
parents and teachers understand how to help you do better in school and will help you figure
out what you can do for yourself.
How do I find out the results of the study?
If you want information about the results of this research when it is completed, you can
check the website we are making for the research. We will let your parents know when it is
ready. Your name will not be in the report, but it will give you an idea of how other
teenagers think and feel about their behaviours and about ADHD.
58
Do you have any questions?
Do you agree to participate in this research?
―I was present when ____________________________read this form and gave his/her
verbal assent to participate in this study.‖
Name of person who obtained assent:
________________________________
________________________________ ________________________________
Signature Date
59
PARENTAL CONSENT LETTER
Dear Parent:
My name is Dr. Judith Wiener. I am a Professor in the Department of Human Development
and Applied Psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of
Toronto (OISE/UT). I am writing to ask your permission for your adolescent to participate
in a research project that I am conducting with my colleagues (Dr. Rosemary Tannock, Dr.
Tom Humphries, Dr. Molly Malone, and Dr. Martinussen) about adolescents with Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). For this, we need the participation of adolescents
who have been previously been diagnosed with ADHD as well as normally functioning
adolescents.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this research to enhance our understanding about the self-perceptions of
adolescents’ with ADHD including their self-esteem and self-concept, their beliefs regarding
ADHD and about behaviors that commonly occur with ADHD, and their perceptions of their
social relationships. Currently, little research exists on these areas of study. We believe that
gaining a better understanding of the self-perceptions of adolescents with ADHD will help
mental health professionals provide better services and develop appropriate interventions for
them. This study is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.
Description of the Research
If you agree to allow your son/daughter to participate, my research assistants, who are
graduate students in school and clinical child psychology, will work with him/her for a
period of 5 to 6 hours in a quiet room at OISE/UT. He or she will complete a standardized
educational test (Woodcock Johnson-Third Edition) that is recognized as being a valid
measure of achievement in reading, writing and mathematics, and a brief cognitive measure
(Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence). He or she will also fill out several
questionnaires designed to assess self-esteem, self-concept, peer relationships, social support,
and problem behaviors that commonly occur with ADHD. He or she will also be asked to
look at pictures with a teenager in them engaging in various behaviors characteristics of teens
with ADHD and asked whether they are like the teenager in the picture. This will be
followed up with an interview about his/her beliefs about why this behaviour is a problem,
how controllable it is, how often it occurs, and whether it bothers other people. A similar
interview will then be conducted about his or her beliefs about ADHD. The results of these
measures will be used for research purposes only in the context of this study. We would
need your permission and signed consent should you need to send these test scores to another
professional involved in your case. With your permission we will also send the teacher who
knows your son/daughter well a rating scale to complete. This rating scale assesses for
symptoms of ADHD and other disorders.
The results of the educational and cognitive measures will be interpreted by a registered
psychologist and be communicated to you in a written report. We will not be able to provide
60
you with your adolescent’s responses on some of the questionnaires and interviews, because
they were developed for the purpose of the research and we will not know what individual
adolescent’s scores mean until the data are collected and analyzed from all of the
participants.
Benefits
The direct benefit of this study is that you will receive a report on your son/daughter’s
educational and social-emotional functioning with specific recommendations for
intervention.
We believe that the study may also indirectly benefit adolescents with ADHD. More
specifically, enhanced knowledge about adolescents’ self-perceptions and beliefs about
ADHD and ADHD-related behaviors may provide important information for parents,
teachers, and clinicians working with them.
Potential Harms and Withdrawal
There are no known harms associated with participation in the study. The only potential risk
is that your son/daughter may feel some discomfort when talking about his/her behavior. We
will clearly inform him/her that he/she may decline to participate and that if he/she decides to
participate, he/she may skip any questions, request a break, or withdraw from the study at
any time. Following the session, if you find the discomfort to be more than minor, please
contact us so that we can discuss how to provide support for him/her. In addition, should we
feel, during or after the session that he/she would benefit from referral to a mental health
professional, we would inform you of that recommendation and would provide an
appropriate referral.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality will be respected and no information that discloses the identity of the
participants will be released without consent unless required by law. For your information,
all research files will be stored in locked files at OISE/UT. The results of the tests described
above will be used for research purposes only. We would need your permission and signed
consent should you need to send these scores to another professional.
The data we collect will be analyzed and stored in locked files in a locked office. The data
will be retained at OISE/UT in locked files for 10 years. Your name and that of your
son/daughter will be deleted and replaced by a number when filed in order to assure
anonymity. In these ways, the information provided by you, your son/daughter and his/her
teacher will be kept confidential. The one exception to this is in the event that your
adolescent indicates that he/she might do serious harm to him/herself or others, or that he/she
is being harmed. If that were to happen, as required by law, we would inform you and
appropriate mental health, child protection, or law enforcement professionals.
When the results of this research are published in the form of scholarly presentation and/or
academic journal/books, only group data will be presented, ensuring that it will be
impossible for anyone to identify you or your son/daughter.
61
Compensation
Participation in research is voluntary. If your son/daughter chooses to participate in this
study, he/she will receive $30 to defray expenses. If he/she is in high school, he/she may
alternatively opt to count his/her participation in the study toward his/her community service
hours; in this case, a certificate attesting to his/her participation would be provided. As
mentioned above, you will also receive a report of your adolescent’s academic and social
emotional competencies.
Access to Results
The results of this research will be shared in the form of a summary report upon completion
of the study. We are in the process of developing a website on which we will place all
relevant information and will contact you about this when it is ready.
You may contact Dr. Judith Wienermwith any questions you may have about the study, and
all of your inquiries will be addressed.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Judith Wiener, Ph. D
Program Chair
(416) 978-0935
Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT)
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6
62
PARENTAL CONSENT FORM
―I acknowledge that the research procedures described above have been explained to me and
that any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. As well, the
potential harms and discomforts have been explained to me and I also understand the benefits
of participating in the research study. I know that I may ask now, or in the future, any
questions that I have about the study. I have been assured that no information will be
released or printed that would disclose the personal identity of my son/daughter without my
permission, unless required by law. I understand that I will receive a copy of this signed
consent. I understand that participation is voluntary and I can withdraw my adolescent at any
time.‖
I hereby consent for my son/daughter to participate.
___________________________________
Name of Parent
___________________________________
Signature
___________________________________
Date
___________________________________
Name of person who obtained consent
___________________________________
Signature
―I agree to be contacted in the future regarding other studies being conducted by the ADHD
Laboratory at OISE/UT.‖
___________________________________
Signature of parent
―I agree that the information collected on my adolescent in this study can be used for future
data analysis provided that all identifying is removed and my adolescent cannot be
identified.‖
Signature of parent
The person who may be contacted
about this research is:
__________________________
who may be contacted at:
(416) 978-0933
63
64
Tables
Table 1
Sample Characteristics of Male and Female Youth in the ADHD and Comparison Groups
Comparison ADHD
Females (n = 14 ) Males (n = 17 ) Females (n = 13 ) Males (n = 18)
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Age (years) 15.03 1.30 15.08 1.33 15.92 1.80 15.09 1.62
SES*a
8.32 1.50 8.68 1.75 7.13 1.88 7.67 1.44
IQ (WASI Full Scale)***a
111.14 9.64 111.76 7.10 97.54 7.21 103.44 7.19
Overall achievement***a **
b
(WJ-III Brief Achievement)
109.86 8.79 114.06 8.27 87.08 11.27 97.81 8.39
Mathematics achievement***a**
b*
c
(WJ-III Brief Math)
106.14 12.56 109.41 9.94 75.08 16.23 96.19 12.63
Writing achievement***a
(WJ-III Brief Writing)
112.57 8.64 117.24 14.12 94.77 11.79 95.63 9.32
Reading achievement***a
111.14 10.65 111.59 9.57 87.15 17.21 98.19 9.61
(WJ-III Brief Reading)
Self-reported internalizing difficulties**a
(YSR Internalizing Problems)
44.08 5.20 47.94 11.14 57.46 10.43 54.28 11.84
Self-reported inattention***a
(Conners 3-SR DSM ADHD
Inattentive)
47.93 10.10 53.71 9.30 70.92 13.05 65.17 12.98
Self-reported hyperactivity-impulsivity**a
(Conners 3-SR DSM ADHD
Hyperactive-Impulsive)
49.93 9.40 55.41 9.10 65.31 17.36 62.17 16.07
Parent-reported inattention***a
(Conners 3-P DSM ADHD Inattentive)
50.86 6.30 49.65 8.30 83.46 6.46 82.56 8.38
Parent-reported hyperactivity-
impulsivity***a
(Conners 3-P DSM ADHD
Hyperactive-Impulsive)
53.07 8.29 50.59 7.91 79.54 13.85 78.72 11.59
Teacher-reported inattention***a
(Conners 3-T DSM ADHD Inattentive)
50.46 10.53 51.87 13.90 74.42 12.76 67.86 13.54
Teacher-reported hyperactivity-
impulsivity***a
(Conners 3-T DSM ADHD
Hyperactive-Impulsive)
51.54 10.67 52.13 12.05 75.42 17.36 66.50 15.49
a. Significant group difference.
b. Significant gender difference.
c. Significant interaction.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
65
Table 2
Pearson Correlations among Academic Achievement; Self-Reported Internalizing Symptoms;
Self-Reported Inattention; and Self-Efficacy for Learning Beliefs
1 2 3 5
1. Academic achievement (WJ-III
Brief Achievement) 1.0
2. Internalizing difficulties (YSR
Internalizing Problems) -.314* 1.0
3. Self-reported inattention (Conners
3-SR DSM ADHD Inattentive) -.350** .557** 1.0
4. Self-efficacy for learning beliefs
(SELF) .408** -.523** -.717** 1.0
∗p <05.
**p <.01. ***p <.001.
66
Figures
Figure 1. Scores on the SELF as a function of gender and group status.