Research
Peer Status and Personality Characteristics of Learning Disabled and Nondisabled Students
Virginia L Bruininks,EdD
This study explored the peer status, self-concept, perceived peer status, friendship preferences, and interpersonal needs of LD and nondisabled students. Although some of these variables have been discussed before, they have not previously been studied in the same group of students. It was found that learning disabled students were less popular and had poorer self-concepts than contrast students and were less accurate than contrast students in assessing their own social status. They appear, however, to have chosen friends on the same basis as other students.They evidenced the same interpersonal needs as
contrast students, except they had a higher need to express control.
I
ncreasingly learning disabled students are receiving instruction in regular classrooms, but they may not be socially accepted by their peers. This is cause for concern since peer relations are important to social development (Lewis & Rosenblum 1975) and to the development of a positive self-concept (Bradley & Newhouse 1975, Sheare 1975). Good peer relations also are associated with academic achievement (Gronlund 1959, Lilly 1970).
Volume 11, Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
29
485 TABLE I. Achievementinformation. LD group (N = 23) Mtan SD
Mtasurt Word recognition Key math computation General information
2.45 2.81 2.80
1.20 1.40 1.84
Contrast group {N = 23) Maan SD 4.22 3.60 4.06
2.31 1.68 2.35
3.19* 1.69f 1.98t
•p < .005 tp < 05
Studies have shown that learning disabled students in elementary school are not as popular as their classmates (Bruininks 1978, Bryan 1974, 1976). They are less accurate than their classmates in assessing their own status in the group (Bruininks 1978), a factor which may affect adjustment within the peer group (Ausubel, Schiff, & Gasser 1952). They show poorer selfconcepts than nondisabled peers (Bingham 1974, Rosser 1973). Little is known, however, about the factors that contribute to their personal and social adjustment in regular classrooms. The present study explores the interpersonal needs and friendship preferences of learning disabled and nondisabled students, as well as peer status, perceived status, and self-concept. Although some of these variables have been discussed before, they have never been grouped for study in the same population of students.
SUBJECTS Subjects were 162 elementary school-aged children from seven regular classrooms in two suburban school districts in Minnesota. These districts had mainstream programs for learning disabled students. Twenty-three students were identified for the study by meeting the definition of learning disability through qualifying under state guidelines for special services as learning 30
disabled students in their district.* All received most instruction in the regular classroom with supplemental instruction from a special education teacher. Sixteen of these students were in grades 1 to 2, while seven were in grades 4 to 5. Fifteen were boys and eight were girls. Comparison subjects were 139 regular classroom peers (81 boys and 58 girls), including a sample of 23 subjects chosen at random from children of the same sex within the regular classroom of each of the learning disabled students. This sample was selected to permit comparisons on personality measures, while all same-sex classmates were involved in the analysis of peer status and friendship references. Ratings by children of the same sex are generally regarded as the most sensitive measure of status within the child's peer group (Bruininks 1978, Gronlund 1959). Table I presents achievement information on the learning disabled students and contrast • Minnesota uses the definition of learning (Usabilities provided by the l!SOE, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. 1961, and Public Uiw 91-230, dated April 13, 1970. In applying this definition to (fualify a ehild for services, psychological assessment and staff inu teams must discover "(1) learning problems... so dysfunctional us to seriously interfere with the child's own school progress or the educational rights of other children and which require attention and help beyond that which the rewtLir instructional profiram can provide; and (2) sufficient sensory integrity, motor skills, and general mental ability to make educational consideration as a mentally retarded, hearing, visum, or motor impaired child unnecessary" (State De)Hirtment of Education, 1973. p . 7).
Journal of Learning Disabilities Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
486
A STUDENTS NAME
All right Wouldn't like
Friend FIGURE 1. Response format for Peer Acceptance Scale.
students. Achievement was surveyed with the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division subtests of the Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test (Connolly, Nachtman, & Pritchett 1971), the word identification subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (Woodcock 1973), and the general information subtest of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Dunn & Markwardt 1970). Grade equivalents were used in these comparisons. Learning disabled students were significantly lower than contrast students in performance on all achievement measures.
TESTS AND PROCEDURES The Peer Acceptance Scale (Bruininks, Rynders, & Gross, 1974) was used to measure the social status or popularity of students. It is a forcedchoice scale on which every group member rates every other group member by circling the appropriate number on a line drawing adjacent to the name of each person in the group. Figure 1 shows the response format for the Peer Acceptance Scale.
All subjects completed the Peer Acceptance Scale, and scores were computed by totaling the ratings each subject received from all children of the same sex. Since peer status is relative to particular classroom settings, classrooms were used as the statistical unit of analysis. Perceived social status was assessed using the Peer Acceptance Scale in an individual testing situation with learning disabled students and contrast students. The same instrument was presented, but this time both groups of students were asked to indicate how they felt each of their classmates regarded them. A mean rating for each student was computed. The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith 1959) was used to measure selfconcept. Pilot data has shown test-retest reliability after a five-week period to be .88 for a sample of 30 fifth-grade children. Test-retest reliability after a three-year interval with a different sample of 56 children was .70 (Coopersmith 1967). In the present study, the inventory was read to subjects in an individual testing situation. The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation — Behavior (FIRO-B) measure
Volume 11, Number 8t October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
31
487 TABLE II. Mean scores on measures of perceived status and actual status. Ratings Parcalvad status Actual status Mtan SD Mtan SD LD group Contrast group
2.54
.434
2.26
.478
2.51
.335
2.51
.326
(Schutz 1967) was also read to subjects in an individual testing situation. This instrument is based on the assumption that three basic interpersonal needs account for interpersonal behavior: inclusion, control, and affection. These dimensions of personality may be reflected in the behavior an individual expresses toward others and the behavior he wants others to express toward him (Schutz 1958). The FIRO-B instrument is thus composed of six scales: inclusion expressed, inclusion wanted, control expressed, control wanted, affection expressed, and affection wanted. Test-retest reliabilities for adults average .77, and validity for the instrument has been established for adult populations (Underwood & Krafft 1973). All testing was conducted in the spring of the school year by trained examiners. The .05 level was the criterion of statistical significance for all data analyses.
RESULTS Table II shows the means and standard deviations for learning disabled and contrast students on measures of perceived status and actual status. A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures on one factor was used to explore these findings. This analysis yielded a significant difference between perceived and actual status scores (F = 5.00, df = 1,44, p < .05) and a significant interaction between groups (learning disabled versus contrast) and type of 32
status (perceived versus actual) (F = 5.00, df * 1,44, p < .05). Both of these findings derive from the lower actual status scores of learning disabled students. The learning disabled students had significantly lower social status than contrast students, and they rated themselves significantly higher in status than their actual status in the classroom. There was no difference between the perceived status of learning disabled students and contrast students, and there was no difference between the perceived and actual status of contrast students. Contrast students were generally more accurate than learning disabled children in perceiving their social status in the classroom. One possible reason that learning disabled children are less accurate is that they may be inclined to give higher social ratings generally to themselves and other children. To assess whether or not this finding of lower social perceptiveness was an artifact of response bias, comparisons were made between these students and all their classmates on ratings of children in the contrast group. A t test for related measures showed no differences between status scores given by learning disabled children and classmates to children in the contrast group (r = .67), indicating that possible response bias did not account for the different pattern of results. Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine whether or not learning disabled students chose as friends the same students that comparison students chose. First a correlation coefficient was computed for the learning disabled students' ratings of classmates and classmates' ratings of each other (r - .271). Then a correlation coefficient was computed for the contrast students' ratings of classmates and classmates' ratings of each other (r* .422). A test of difference between independent correlations (Bruning & Kintz 1968) was used to compare these results, and the difference was not statistically significant (Z = .452). Learning disabled students tended to choose as friends the same children that other students chose. Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
488 TABLE
III.
Statistical comparisons on personality LD group (N = 23)
Measure Coopersmith Self-esteem Firo-B Inclusion expressed Inclusion wanted Control expressed Control wanted Affection expressed Affection wanted
measures. Contrast group (N = 23) Mean SD
±
Mean
SD
65.65
13.01
73.39
13.22
2.00*
5.26 5.04 4.30 4.47 4.60 4.95
1.88 2.70 2.51 2.53 1.97 2.36
5.00 4.04 2.71 4.00 5.55 5.04
1.85 3.02 2.21 2.53 2.32 2.49
.46 1.13 2.17* .60 1.40 .12
#
p < .05
The r test for independent groups was used for statistical comparisons on personality measures for learning disabled students and contrast students. Table III shows the results of these analyses. Learning disabled students had significantly lower self-concept scores than contrast students, and they showed a significantly higher need to express control. There were no differences between the two groups on needs for inclusion and affection and the need to be controlled by others.
DISCUSSION This sample of learning disabled students in mainstream programs had significantly lower social status and lower self-concept scores than contrast students, and they were less accurate than contrast students in assessing their own popularity, as evidenced by overestimating their social status in the classroom. These findings confirm the results of previous studies (Bingham 1974, Bruininks 1978, Bryan 1974, 1976, Hosser 1973). These learning disabled students evidenced the same interpersonal needs for inclusion, affection, and wanted control as contrast students, but they had a higher need to express control. They appear to have chosen friends on the same basis as other students.
Interesting questions for further research are raised by the results of this study. For example, why would learning disabled students, who have relatively low self-concepts, overestimate their status in the group? One line of inquiry might suggest that this phenomenon was due to their lack of social perceptiveness, or the lack of sensitivity to the feelings expressed by others (Bachara 1976, Bryan 1977, Budreck 1975, Lippett & Gold 1959, Wiig & Semel 1976). The presumed lack of social perceptiveness among learning disabled students may not fully explain their inaccuracy in estimating their social position, however, since the findings of this study also suggest that they use the same criteria for judging desirable social characteristics as nondisabled students. They generally chose as friends the same children other students chose. Another line of inquiry might suggest that the relative tendency of learning disabled students to overestimate their social status was due to ego defensiveness. Kronick (1976) has suggested that the learning disabled child might not want to admit that he is different from others, and Rosser (1973) found that these students "do not perceive their ideal self-concept significantly different from the perceptions of the nondisabled child." In the present study, when asked to indicate how they felt their classmates regarded them, both
Volume 11, Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
33
489 learning disabled and nondisabled students might have answered with a reflection oi ideal self-concepts since no differences were found in perceived status scores for either group. Additional questions for investigation raised by the present study are related to the learning disabled students' higher need to express control. How is need for control related to overt behaviors? Are certain students attempting to control their environments with behaviors such as those labeled "hyperactive," "emotional," and so on? Is the high need for control related to aggressiveness, or to the competitiveness found in these students (Bryan 1977)? Further research is needed to understand the social perceptiveness, need for control, low peer status, low self-esteem, and other characteristics of learning disabled students. The learning disabled population is generally a heterogenous one. Perhaps future inquiry should focus on the clusters of characteristics found in various subgroups of the learning disabled population so that appropriate interventions can be developed to improve the integration of these students in regular educational settings. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Virginia Bruininks coordinates the training program in learning disabilities and teaches graduate courses in diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities at the University of Minnesota. Her previous experiences include work as a regular classroom teacher, special class teacher, psychological examiner, curriculum specialist, and consultant for inservice teacher training in more than 50 school districts in Texas and Minnesota. She recieved her doctorate degree from the University of Houston in Houston, Texas. Requests for reprints should be sent to the Department of Psychoeducational Studies, Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Dr. S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55455. REFEREXCES Ausuhel, D.D., Schiff, H.M., Gasser, E.B.: A preliminary study of developmental trends in socioemphthy: Accuracy of perception of own and others' sociometric status. Child Development, 1952, 23, 111128. Bachara, (».. Empathy in learning disabled children. Perceptual 6 Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 541-542. Bingham, CD.: Career attitudes and self-esteem among, hoys with and without specific learning disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-The State University of Xew Jersey, 1974 (University Microfilms Xo. 75-17, 340). Bradley, F.O., Xewhouse, R.C.: Sociometric choice and self perceptions of upper elementary school children.
34
Psychology in the Schools, 1975, 12, 219-222. Bruininks, R.H., Rynders, J.E., Gross, J.C.: Social acceptance of mildly retarded pupils in resource rooms and regular classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 78, 377-383. Bruininks, V.L.: Actual and perceived peer status of learning disabled students in mainstream programs. Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 51-58. Bruning, J.L., Kintz, B.L.: Computational Handbook of Statistics. Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman O Co., 1968. Bryan, T.H.: Peer popularity of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 621-625. Bryan, T.H.: Peer popularity of learning disabled children: A replication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 307-311. Bryan, T.H.: Learning disabled children's comprehension of nonverbal communication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10,501-506. Budreck, F.J.: A comparison of social perception of learning disabled children and normal children. Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1975 (University Microfilms Xo. 76-13, 226). Connolly, A.J., Xachtman, W., Pritchett, EM.: Key Math Diagnostic Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1971. Coopersmith, S.A.: Method for determining types of selfesteem. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1C59, 59, 87-94. Coopersmith, S.A.: The Antecedents of Self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1967. Dunn, L.M., Markwardt, F.C.: Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, Minn: American Guidance Service, 1970. Gronlund, X.E.: Sociometry in the Classroom. Xew York: Harper O Brothers, 1959. Kronick, D.: The importance of sociological perspective towards learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 115-119. Lewis, M., Rosenblum, L.A. (Eds.): Friendship and Peer Relations. Xew York: John Wiley O Sons, Inc., 1975. Lilly, S.: Classroom Sociometry: A Research-Related Review of Theory and Practice. Eugene, Ore.: Xorthwest Regional Special Education Instructional Materials Center, 1970. Lippett, R., Gold, M.. Classroom social structure as a mental health problem. Journal of Sociological Issues, 1959,15,4058. Rosser, G.J.: A comparative analysis of the real-ideal selfconcept of nondisabled and language and/or learning disabled children. Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, 1973 (University Microfilms No. 74-4294). Schutz, W.C.: FIRO — A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Xew York: Rinehart 6 Co., Inc., 1958. Schutz, W.C The FIRO Scales Manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1967. Sheare, J.B.: The relationship between peer acceptance and self-concept of children in grades 3 through 6. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1975 (University Microfilms Xo. 76-10, *783). Underwood, W.J., Krafft, L.J.: Interpersonal compatibility and managerial work effectiveness: A test of the fundamental interpersonal relations orientation theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 89-94. Wiig, E.H., Semel, EM.: Language Disabilities in Children and Adolescents. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1976. Woodcock, R.W.: Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1973.
Journal of Learning Disabilities Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
Peer Status and Personality Characteristics of Learning Disabled and Nondisabled Students
Virginia L Bruininks,EdD
This study explored the peer status, self-concept, perceived peer status, friendship preferences, and interpersonal needs of LD and nondisabled students. Although some of these variables have been discussed before, they have not previously been studied in the same group of students. It was found that learning disabled students were less popular and had poorer self-concepts than contrast students and were less accurate than contrast students in assessing their own social status. They appear, however, to have chosen friends on the same basis as other students.They evidenced the same interpersonal needs as
contrast students, except they had a higher need to express control.
I
ncreasingly learning disabled students are receiving instruction in regular classrooms, but they may not be socially accepted by their peers. This is cause for concern since peer relations are important to social development (Lewis & Rosenblum 1975) and to the development of a positive self-concept (Bradley & Newhouse 1975, Sheare 1975). Good peer relations also are associated with academic achievement (Gronlund 1959, Lilly 1970).
Volume 11, Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
29
485 TABLE I. Achievementinformation. LD group (N = 23) Mtan SD
Mtasurt Word recognition Key math computation General information
2.45 2.81 2.80
1.20 1.40 1.84
Contrast group {N = 23) Maan SD 4.22 3.60 4.06
2.31 1.68 2.35
3.19* 1.69f 1.98t
•p < .005 tp < 05
Studies have shown that learning disabled students in elementary school are not as popular as their classmates (Bruininks 1978, Bryan 1974, 1976). They are less accurate than their classmates in assessing their own status in the group (Bruininks 1978), a factor which may affect adjustment within the peer group (Ausubel, Schiff, & Gasser 1952). They show poorer selfconcepts than nondisabled peers (Bingham 1974, Rosser 1973). Little is known, however, about the factors that contribute to their personal and social adjustment in regular classrooms. The present study explores the interpersonal needs and friendship preferences of learning disabled and nondisabled students, as well as peer status, perceived status, and self-concept. Although some of these variables have been discussed before, they have never been grouped for study in the same population of students.
SUBJECTS Subjects were 162 elementary school-aged children from seven regular classrooms in two suburban school districts in Minnesota. These districts had mainstream programs for learning disabled students. Twenty-three students were identified for the study by meeting the definition of learning disability through qualifying under state guidelines for special services as learning 30
disabled students in their district.* All received most instruction in the regular classroom with supplemental instruction from a special education teacher. Sixteen of these students were in grades 1 to 2, while seven were in grades 4 to 5. Fifteen were boys and eight were girls. Comparison subjects were 139 regular classroom peers (81 boys and 58 girls), including a sample of 23 subjects chosen at random from children of the same sex within the regular classroom of each of the learning disabled students. This sample was selected to permit comparisons on personality measures, while all same-sex classmates were involved in the analysis of peer status and friendship references. Ratings by children of the same sex are generally regarded as the most sensitive measure of status within the child's peer group (Bruininks 1978, Gronlund 1959). Table I presents achievement information on the learning disabled students and contrast • Minnesota uses the definition of learning (Usabilities provided by the l!SOE, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. 1961, and Public Uiw 91-230, dated April 13, 1970. In applying this definition to (fualify a ehild for services, psychological assessment and staff inu teams must discover "(1) learning problems... so dysfunctional us to seriously interfere with the child's own school progress or the educational rights of other children and which require attention and help beyond that which the rewtLir instructional profiram can provide; and (2) sufficient sensory integrity, motor skills, and general mental ability to make educational consideration as a mentally retarded, hearing, visum, or motor impaired child unnecessary" (State De)Hirtment of Education, 1973. p . 7).
Journal of Learning Disabilities Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
486
A STUDENTS NAME
All right Wouldn't like
Friend FIGURE 1. Response format for Peer Acceptance Scale.
students. Achievement was surveyed with the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division subtests of the Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test (Connolly, Nachtman, & Pritchett 1971), the word identification subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (Woodcock 1973), and the general information subtest of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Dunn & Markwardt 1970). Grade equivalents were used in these comparisons. Learning disabled students were significantly lower than contrast students in performance on all achievement measures.
TESTS AND PROCEDURES The Peer Acceptance Scale (Bruininks, Rynders, & Gross, 1974) was used to measure the social status or popularity of students. It is a forcedchoice scale on which every group member rates every other group member by circling the appropriate number on a line drawing adjacent to the name of each person in the group. Figure 1 shows the response format for the Peer Acceptance Scale.
All subjects completed the Peer Acceptance Scale, and scores were computed by totaling the ratings each subject received from all children of the same sex. Since peer status is relative to particular classroom settings, classrooms were used as the statistical unit of analysis. Perceived social status was assessed using the Peer Acceptance Scale in an individual testing situation with learning disabled students and contrast students. The same instrument was presented, but this time both groups of students were asked to indicate how they felt each of their classmates regarded them. A mean rating for each student was computed. The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith 1959) was used to measure selfconcept. Pilot data has shown test-retest reliability after a five-week period to be .88 for a sample of 30 fifth-grade children. Test-retest reliability after a three-year interval with a different sample of 56 children was .70 (Coopersmith 1967). In the present study, the inventory was read to subjects in an individual testing situation. The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation — Behavior (FIRO-B) measure
Volume 11, Number 8t October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
31
487 TABLE II. Mean scores on measures of perceived status and actual status. Ratings Parcalvad status Actual status Mtan SD Mtan SD LD group Contrast group
2.54
.434
2.26
.478
2.51
.335
2.51
.326
(Schutz 1967) was also read to subjects in an individual testing situation. This instrument is based on the assumption that three basic interpersonal needs account for interpersonal behavior: inclusion, control, and affection. These dimensions of personality may be reflected in the behavior an individual expresses toward others and the behavior he wants others to express toward him (Schutz 1958). The FIRO-B instrument is thus composed of six scales: inclusion expressed, inclusion wanted, control expressed, control wanted, affection expressed, and affection wanted. Test-retest reliabilities for adults average .77, and validity for the instrument has been established for adult populations (Underwood & Krafft 1973). All testing was conducted in the spring of the school year by trained examiners. The .05 level was the criterion of statistical significance for all data analyses.
RESULTS Table II shows the means and standard deviations for learning disabled and contrast students on measures of perceived status and actual status. A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures on one factor was used to explore these findings. This analysis yielded a significant difference between perceived and actual status scores (F = 5.00, df = 1,44, p < .05) and a significant interaction between groups (learning disabled versus contrast) and type of 32
status (perceived versus actual) (F = 5.00, df * 1,44, p < .05). Both of these findings derive from the lower actual status scores of learning disabled students. The learning disabled students had significantly lower social status than contrast students, and they rated themselves significantly higher in status than their actual status in the classroom. There was no difference between the perceived status of learning disabled students and contrast students, and there was no difference between the perceived and actual status of contrast students. Contrast students were generally more accurate than learning disabled children in perceiving their social status in the classroom. One possible reason that learning disabled children are less accurate is that they may be inclined to give higher social ratings generally to themselves and other children. To assess whether or not this finding of lower social perceptiveness was an artifact of response bias, comparisons were made between these students and all their classmates on ratings of children in the contrast group. A t test for related measures showed no differences between status scores given by learning disabled children and classmates to children in the contrast group (r = .67), indicating that possible response bias did not account for the different pattern of results. Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine whether or not learning disabled students chose as friends the same students that comparison students chose. First a correlation coefficient was computed for the learning disabled students' ratings of classmates and classmates' ratings of each other (r - .271). Then a correlation coefficient was computed for the contrast students' ratings of classmates and classmates' ratings of each other (r* .422). A test of difference between independent correlations (Bruning & Kintz 1968) was used to compare these results, and the difference was not statistically significant (Z = .452). Learning disabled students tended to choose as friends the same children that other students chose. Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
488 TABLE
III.
Statistical comparisons on personality LD group (N = 23)
Measure Coopersmith Self-esteem Firo-B Inclusion expressed Inclusion wanted Control expressed Control wanted Affection expressed Affection wanted
measures. Contrast group (N = 23) Mean SD
±
Mean
SD
65.65
13.01
73.39
13.22
2.00*
5.26 5.04 4.30 4.47 4.60 4.95
1.88 2.70 2.51 2.53 1.97 2.36
5.00 4.04 2.71 4.00 5.55 5.04
1.85 3.02 2.21 2.53 2.32 2.49
.46 1.13 2.17* .60 1.40 .12
#
p < .05
The r test for independent groups was used for statistical comparisons on personality measures for learning disabled students and contrast students. Table III shows the results of these analyses. Learning disabled students had significantly lower self-concept scores than contrast students, and they showed a significantly higher need to express control. There were no differences between the two groups on needs for inclusion and affection and the need to be controlled by others.
DISCUSSION This sample of learning disabled students in mainstream programs had significantly lower social status and lower self-concept scores than contrast students, and they were less accurate than contrast students in assessing their own popularity, as evidenced by overestimating their social status in the classroom. These findings confirm the results of previous studies (Bingham 1974, Bruininks 1978, Bryan 1974, 1976, Hosser 1973). These learning disabled students evidenced the same interpersonal needs for inclusion, affection, and wanted control as contrast students, but they had a higher need to express control. They appear to have chosen friends on the same basis as other students.
Interesting questions for further research are raised by the results of this study. For example, why would learning disabled students, who have relatively low self-concepts, overestimate their status in the group? One line of inquiry might suggest that this phenomenon was due to their lack of social perceptiveness, or the lack of sensitivity to the feelings expressed by others (Bachara 1976, Bryan 1977, Budreck 1975, Lippett & Gold 1959, Wiig & Semel 1976). The presumed lack of social perceptiveness among learning disabled students may not fully explain their inaccuracy in estimating their social position, however, since the findings of this study also suggest that they use the same criteria for judging desirable social characteristics as nondisabled students. They generally chose as friends the same children other students chose. Another line of inquiry might suggest that the relative tendency of learning disabled students to overestimate their social status was due to ego defensiveness. Kronick (1976) has suggested that the learning disabled child might not want to admit that he is different from others, and Rosser (1973) found that these students "do not perceive their ideal self-concept significantly different from the perceptions of the nondisabled child." In the present study, when asked to indicate how they felt their classmates regarded them, both
Volume 11, Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
33
489 learning disabled and nondisabled students might have answered with a reflection oi ideal self-concepts since no differences were found in perceived status scores for either group. Additional questions for investigation raised by the present study are related to the learning disabled students' higher need to express control. How is need for control related to overt behaviors? Are certain students attempting to control their environments with behaviors such as those labeled "hyperactive," "emotional," and so on? Is the high need for control related to aggressiveness, or to the competitiveness found in these students (Bryan 1977)? Further research is needed to understand the social perceptiveness, need for control, low peer status, low self-esteem, and other characteristics of learning disabled students. The learning disabled population is generally a heterogenous one. Perhaps future inquiry should focus on the clusters of characteristics found in various subgroups of the learning disabled population so that appropriate interventions can be developed to improve the integration of these students in regular educational settings. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Virginia Bruininks coordinates the training program in learning disabilities and teaches graduate courses in diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities at the University of Minnesota. Her previous experiences include work as a regular classroom teacher, special class teacher, psychological examiner, curriculum specialist, and consultant for inservice teacher training in more than 50 school districts in Texas and Minnesota. She recieved her doctorate degree from the University of Houston in Houston, Texas. Requests for reprints should be sent to the Department of Psychoeducational Studies, Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Dr. S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55455. REFEREXCES Ausuhel, D.D., Schiff, H.M., Gasser, E.B.: A preliminary study of developmental trends in socioemphthy: Accuracy of perception of own and others' sociometric status. Child Development, 1952, 23, 111128. Bachara, (».. Empathy in learning disabled children. Perceptual 6 Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 541-542. Bingham, CD.: Career attitudes and self-esteem among, hoys with and without specific learning disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-The State University of Xew Jersey, 1974 (University Microfilms Xo. 75-17, 340). Bradley, F.O., Xewhouse, R.C.: Sociometric choice and self perceptions of upper elementary school children.
34
Psychology in the Schools, 1975, 12, 219-222. Bruininks, R.H., Rynders, J.E., Gross, J.C.: Social acceptance of mildly retarded pupils in resource rooms and regular classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 78, 377-383. Bruininks, V.L.: Actual and perceived peer status of learning disabled students in mainstream programs. Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 51-58. Bruning, J.L., Kintz, B.L.: Computational Handbook of Statistics. Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman O Co., 1968. Bryan, T.H.: Peer popularity of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 621-625. Bryan, T.H.: Peer popularity of learning disabled children: A replication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 307-311. Bryan, T.H.: Learning disabled children's comprehension of nonverbal communication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10,501-506. Budreck, F.J.: A comparison of social perception of learning disabled children and normal children. Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1975 (University Microfilms Xo. 76-13, 226). Connolly, A.J., Xachtman, W., Pritchett, EM.: Key Math Diagnostic Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1971. Coopersmith, S.A.: Method for determining types of selfesteem. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1C59, 59, 87-94. Coopersmith, S.A.: The Antecedents of Self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1967. Dunn, L.M., Markwardt, F.C.: Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, Minn: American Guidance Service, 1970. Gronlund, X.E.: Sociometry in the Classroom. Xew York: Harper O Brothers, 1959. Kronick, D.: The importance of sociological perspective towards learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 115-119. Lewis, M., Rosenblum, L.A. (Eds.): Friendship and Peer Relations. Xew York: John Wiley O Sons, Inc., 1975. Lilly, S.: Classroom Sociometry: A Research-Related Review of Theory and Practice. Eugene, Ore.: Xorthwest Regional Special Education Instructional Materials Center, 1970. Lippett, R., Gold, M.. Classroom social structure as a mental health problem. Journal of Sociological Issues, 1959,15,4058. Rosser, G.J.: A comparative analysis of the real-ideal selfconcept of nondisabled and language and/or learning disabled children. Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, 1973 (University Microfilms No. 74-4294). Schutz, W.C.: FIRO — A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Xew York: Rinehart 6 Co., Inc., 1958. Schutz, W.C The FIRO Scales Manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1967. Sheare, J.B.: The relationship between peer acceptance and self-concept of children in grades 3 through 6. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1975 (University Microfilms Xo. 76-10, *783). Underwood, W.J., Krafft, L.J.: Interpersonal compatibility and managerial work effectiveness: A test of the fundamental interpersonal relations orientation theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 89-94. Wiig, E.H., Semel, EM.: Language Disabilities in Children and Adolescents. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1976. Woodcock, R.W.: Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1973.
Journal of Learning Disabilities Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 17, 2015
