copy - University of Toronto

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the

text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and

dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of

computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the qual'rty of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

can adversely affect reptoduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright

material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning

the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to

right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic

prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for

an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA

Psychofogical Adjustment of Children with Learning Disabilities:

Do Friends Make the Difference?

Susannah Power

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

University of Toronto

O Copyright by Susannah Power 1999

National Library Bibliothwue nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliogtaphiques

395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1 A ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts &om it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive pennettant ii la Bibliothi?que nationale du Canada de reproduire, preter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la forme de microfiche/6lm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique .

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent Stre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

ABSTRACT

Psychological Adjustment of Children with Learning Disabilities:

Do Friends Make the Difference?

Doctor of Philosophy, 1999

Susannah Power

Department of Human Development and Applied Psi

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

University of Toronto

The present study examined the psychological adjustment and peer relations of

children with (n=108), and without (n=104) learning disabilities (LD) in grades 4 to 8.

Loneliness, depressive symptoms, global self-worth and self-perception of social acceptance

were the four aspects of psychological adjustment measured. The Loneliness and Social

Dissatisfaction Scale, the Children's Depression Inventory and the Self-perception Profile for

Learning Disabled Students were administered. Peer acceptance and friendship were the two

forms of peer relations measured.

Results indicate that children with learning disabilities are less accepted by peers, and

they are at greater risk for loneliness and depression than the children without LD. Peer

relations differentiated children in terms of psychological adjustment. Children with low

peer acceptance were lonelier and more depressed and reported lower self-perceived social

acceptance (SA) and global self- worth (GSW) when compared to children with average to

high peer acceptance. Children with LD who had reciprocated school friends reported higher

global self-worth than the children with LD who did not have reciprocated school fiends.

Children with two or more reciprocated and/or corroborated friends reported less loneliness

and higher self-perceived social acceptance than children with less than two reciprocated

andlor corroborated friends. Children who nominated five or more friends also reported

higher self-perceived social acceptance than children who nominated fewer than five friends.

The results demonstrated that Friendship is a protective factor for children with and

without LD, but it does not act as a buffer against the effects of low peer acceptance.

Friendship! Mysterious cement of the soul!

Robert Blair (1 699- 1747)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

. . ................................*.....**....... * . . . . * - . ...... . . . I1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION . . ... ..... ..... . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . ......... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview ...................................................................................... 1

. Defimtion of Terms ................................................................................... 2

Theoretical Basis of the Study.. ................................................................ 4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The

and

Relationship between Peer Acceptance, Friendship,

Psychological Adj ustrnent.. .. . . .... ...... ............. . .... . . . .. . . . . .. . .. ...... . . . .. .......

Friendship and Psychological Adjustment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

Comparisons between Children with and without LD

in Peer Relations and Psychological Adjustment ..................................... 15

Peer Acceptance ............................................................................ 15

Loneliness ..................................................................................... 17

Depression .................................................................................... 18

................................................................................. Self-concept 19

Friendship ..................................................................................... 20

......................................................................... Summary and Hypotheses 21

Hypothesis 1 ................................................................................ 22

Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................. 23

Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................. 23

................................................................. Secondary Research Questions 23

CHAPTER 3

METHOD ......................................................................................... 25

........................................................................................... Participants 25

Measures .......................................................................................... 28

Demographic. Achievement. and Intellectual

. . Functiomg Data ........................................................................... 28

............................................................................ Peer Acceptance 30

Number of Close Mutual Friendships ........................................... 31

........................................... Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction 33

............................................................ Students' Self-Perceptions 34

........................................................ Depressive S ymptomatology 35

vii

........................................................................................ Procedures 35

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS ......................................................................................... 37

Comparisons of Children with and without LD on

Peer Relation Variables ............................................................................. 39

Correlations between Peer Relation Variables and

Psychological Adjustment Variables ....................................................... 42

Peer Acceptance Analyses ........................................................................ 45

Friendship Analyses .................................................................................. 51

........................................................ Reciprocated School Friends 52

RSF and Grade Effects ...................................................... 52

RSF and Peer Acceptance Effects ..................................... 54

Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends ................................... 56

..................................................... RCF and Grade Effects 56

RCF and Peer Acceptance Effects .................................... 59

Nominated Friends ........................................................................ 62

........................................................ NF and Grade Effects 62

NF and Peer Acceptance Effects ....................................... 64

Posthoc Analysis ....................................................................................... 67

viii

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................

Summary of Results .................................. ,. .......... ... ..........................

Discussion of Risk and Resilience ............................................................

Friendship and Peer Acceptance ...............................................................

Measuring Friendship ...............................................................................

Limitations of the Smdy and

Implications for Clinical and

............... Implications for Future Research

................................... Educational Practice

REFERENCES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Judy Wiener,

who led me through a very challenging experience with patience and encouragement. A

special thanks to my committee, Michele Peterson-Badali, Carol Musselman, and Solveiga

Meidtis for their guidance .

I would like to thank Sue Elgie for her assistance with n y stat is t id analyses. Many

thanks to Stephanie Bourke, who helped edit this thesis.

I am truly than.kh1 to all the children, parents, and teachers who participated in this

study.

Special thanks to my kiends, who were all very supportive and helped me to keep my

sense of humour throughout this experience.

I would like to thank my family for all their encouragement a d helpfulness and my

two children, Nicholas and Jonathan Wall who have taught me so much. Finally, I wish to

thank my husband, Gervas Wall, I believe no words can express my appreciation for all his

help, encouragement and patience.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A:

Appendix B :

Appendix C:

Appendix D:

Appendix E:

Appendix F:

Appendix G:

Appendix H:

Appendix I:

Appendix J:

Appendix K:

Cover Letter and Consent Form for Parents ........................................ 98

Subject Information Form ..................................................................... 101

Sociometric Rating Scale .................................................................. 104

. . ................................................................ Friendship Nomlnatlon Form 106

........................................................ Teacher Friendship Questionnaire 108

Parent Friendship Questionnaire ........................................................... 110

......................................... Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale 112

....................... Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Students 116

................................................................... Cell size for Tables 8 to 1 5 121

Summary of the Results of Group Differences ..................................... 125

Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment

for Children with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance

and Grade with SES as a Covariate ............................... ... ............. 127

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 :

Table 2:

Table 3 :

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

PAGE

. . Description of Participants .......................................................................... 26

The D e f ~ t i o n s of the Friendship Variables ............................................... 32

Means and Standard Deviations of Children with

and without LD by Gender on Peer Relations Variables ............................ 40

The Proportion of Children with and without LD and

.............................................................................. Peer Acceptance Levels 4 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Loneliness, Self-perceived Social

Acceptance, Global Self Worth and Depression by Gender ....................... 43

Pearson Correlations between Psychological Adjustment

...................................................................... and Peer Relations Variables 44

Pearson Correlations between CDI Subscales and

............................................................................. Peer Relations Variables 46

Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment

Variables for Children with and without LD by Level of

........................................................................................... Peer Acceptance 47

Means and Standzd Deviations of CDI Subscales for Children

with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance ............................ ..... 50

xii

Table 10: Means and Standard Deviations of PsychoIogicaf Adjustment

Variables for Children with and without LD by Level of Grade

and Reciprocated School Friend .................................................................

Table 1 1 : Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment

Variables for Children with and without LD by Level of Peer

Acceptance and Reciprocated School Friend ............................................

Table 12: Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment

Variables for Children with and without LD by Grade Levei and

Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friend ...................................................



Acceptance and Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friend ........................


Variables for Children with and without LD by Grade Level

and Nominated Friend .................................................................................



Acceptance and Nominated Friend .............................................................

Table 16: Participants with no Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends ................

Table 1 7: The Psychological Adjustment of Participants with no

Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends .................................................

Table 18: The CDI Subscale Scores of the Participants with no

Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends ................................................. 68

Table 19: Means and Standard Deviations for Peer Acceptance and

Psychological Adjustment Variables for Children with and

................................... without Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends. 69

Table 20: Means and Standard Deviations of CDI Subscales for Children

..................... with and without Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends 70

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Overview

The move to integrate children with learning disabilities (LD) into regular education

classrooms has not necessarily led to them becoming accepted by their peers without LD

(Swanson & Malone, 1992; Wiener, Harris, & Duval, 1993). Considerable research has

demonstrated that children who are socially rejected are more likely to have difficulties with

social skills (e.g., Swanson & Malone, 1992). They are at increased risk of developing

internalizing (e.g., Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994), and externalizing (e-g., French & Waas,

1985) behaviour problems, and to have attentional difficulties that are consistent with a

profile of ADHD (Flicek, 1992; Wiener, Harris, & Duval, 1993). Developmental research

has shown that children who are socially rejected, especially rejected children who are

withdrawn, tend to feel lonelier, are more likely to be depressed, and have a greater negative

social selEconcept than children who are socially accepted (Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994;

Parkhurst & Asher, 1992). However, these studies of peer rejection have not specifically

included children with LD in the samples and frequently tend to be correlational. It is

important to gain a better understanding of the internal and external factors that place

children with LD at greater risk for developing psychological adjustment problems in order

that children with LD may be successfully identified and treated.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the relationship between friendship,

peer acceptance and the psychological adjustment of school age children with learning

disabilities. Four aspects of psychological adjustment were measured in this study:

loneliness, depression, global self-worth, and self-perception of social acceptance. Children

with a learning disability are thought to be at risk for psychological adjustment problems. It

is proposed that children with a learning disability who are not accepted by peers are at even

greater risk. However, for these children having friends may act as a buffer and protect them

from psychological maladjustment.

Definition of Terms

There are several key terms that will be used in this study. Peer acceptance refers to

the experience of being liked by one's peers (Parker & Asher, 1987). In the literature peer

acceptance is measured in a number of ways. I have chosen to define peer acceptance as

reflecting how well liked the child is by hisher classmates.

Mutual friendship is a close intimate relationship between two children (Sullivan,

1953). Unlike peer acceptance it is a form of voluntary peer relations.

Psychological adjustment is measured using four variables: loneliness, depressive

symptomatology, self perception of global self-worth, and self-perception of social

acceptance. These four aspects of psychological adjustment were chosen for this study as

they have been associated with peer acceptance (Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994; Parkhurst &

Asher, 1992; Boivin, Thomassin, & Alain, 1989) and friendship (Parker & Asher, 1993;

Buhrmester, 1990; Bishop & Inderbitzen, 1995; Vernberg, 1990). Children with LD tend to

report more difficulties with these forms of psychological adjustment than children without

LD (Margalit, 1991; Bender & Wall, 1994; Chapman, 1988; Renick & Harter, 1988).

Loneliness, depressive symptomatology, global self-worth and self-perceived socia1

acceptance were measured using self-report instruments in order to gain a better

understanding of the children's subjective view of their feelings and how they are associated

with their peer relations.

Self-perception of global self-worth is the child's evaluation of hisher worth as a

person and is similar to self-esteem and general self-concept (Harter, 1982). The child's self-

perception of social acceptance refers to the child's evaluation of how well hekhe is accepted

(liked) by hisher peers (Harter, 1982).

Loneliness is defined as the unpleasant affective experience that a person has when

hisher social relationships are perceived as deficient (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). It is

associated with a cognitive perception of a discrepancy between the achieved pattem of

social relationships and the desired pattem of social relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982).

Depression is used in this study to refer to depressive symptoms such as sad affect,

self-blame, low interest level and suicidal ideation that are experienced by the child, which

do not necessarily constitute a major depressive disorder (Kovacs, 1992). This definition of

depression differs from the clinical diagnosis of a major depressive disorder for children

found in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders IV (1994), in that the criteria for a major depressive disorder requires at least five

symptoms to be present during the same two weeks and that at least one of the symptoms is

depressed mood or loss of interest in activities.

Theoretical Basis of the Study

Risk and resiliency theory (Garmezy, Masten, & Teilegen, 1984; Rutter, 1979)

provides the theoretical basis for this study. The risk factors that are associated with an

individual being more likely to develop emotional or behavioural disorders, when compared

to the general population, are internal (within the individual), external (within the

individual's environment), or those which are formed by an interaction between the

individual and the environment (Morrison & Cosden, 1997). Internal risk factors for children

include difficult temperament (Werner, 1986), developmental delay (Werner & Smith, I982),

and biological and genetic factors (Garmezy, 1983). For children with LD, researchers have

shown that there are specific internal factors that place them at greater risk: impulsivity,

hyperactivity, denial of the LD, and having a nonverbal LD (Morrison & Cosden, 1997).

Several external risk factors for children have been identified including poverty

( G m e z y et al., 1984), parental psychopathology (Hutchings & Mednick, 1974), chronic

family conflict (Rutter, 1979), lack of social support for the child and family (Sameroff &

Seifer, 1990), and disturbed peer relations (Roff, Sells, & Golden, 1972). Low peer

acceptance has also been shown to place children at risk for psychologica1 adjustment

problems (Hartup, 1983; Parker & Asher, 1987). Rejection by peers may lead to

internalizing problems, such as loneliness, depression, and psychosomatic symptoms

(Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994; Parkhurst & Asher, 1992).

There are four possible explanations for any potential association between low peer

acceptance and affective problems such as loneliness, depression, and low self-worth. First,

it is not unreasonable to assume that children who are depressed and have low self-worth

may avoid or alienate peers; their affect causes the peer rejection. A second explanation is

that loneliness, depression, low self-worth and poor self-perception of social acceptance are

the result of being socially rejected. Third, it is also possible that both the peer rejection and

the affective problems are caused by another factor and are unrelated. Fourth, the

relationship between peer rejection and affective problems may be reciprocal; children who

are socially rejected become lonely and depressed, and acquire lower global self-worth and

social self-perceptions which contribute to inappropriate social behaviour and avoidance of

peer interactions, which leads to hrther rejection.

Morrison and Cosden (1997) postulated that having a learning disability is a risk

factor which may be exacerbated by other risk factors. As low peer acceptance is considered

a risk factor for children without LD (Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994; Parkhurst & Asher,

1992), for children with LD low peer acceptance would be expected to exacerbate the risk

associated with a learning disability. Thus, it is postulated that the combination of a learning

disability and low peer acceptance would increase the likelihood of the development of

psychological adjustment problems. As there is little evidence to indicate that there is a clear

linear relationship between risk, resilience, and emotional disorder, it is necessary to consider

the interaction of two or more risk factors when exploring their effects on emotional disorder.

When risk factors combine in an interactive manner, so that one intensifies and

increases the impact of the other, Jenkins and Smith (1990) have stated that they "potentiate"

one another. Learning disabilities and low peer acceptance may potentiate one another and

have an increased negative effect on psychological adjustment (1 9 87).

Research has shown that having a close f iend is a protective factor for

children (Buhrrnester, 1990; Lustig, Wolchik, & Braver, 1992). Protective factors lead to

resiliency in the risk and resiliency framework. Resilience has been described by Garmezy

and Masten (1991) as "a process of, capacity for, or the outcome of successfid adaptation

despite challenging and threatening circumstances" @. 459). A protective factor provides a

buffer only when it reduces the level of psychological disturbance in an at-risk group.

Sullivan (1953) drew our attention to the importance of children's friendships and the

distinction between peer acceptance and friendship. As discussed above, peer acceptance

refers to acceptance of the child by the group, typically classmates. Friendship, on the other

hand, is a mutual dyadic relationship characterized by ongoing companionship. Current

research has demonstrated that academic grades, standardized test scores, and social self-

concept are more closely associated with friendship, while other attributes such as peer

interactions, compliance, and cognitive, physical, and general self-concepts are related to

peer acceptance (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Vandell & Hembree, 1994). Given the central

importance of friendship in the social and affective development of children in the age group

of the present study, the possible protective role of mutual fiendships needs to be considered

when studying the psychological adjustment of children who have low peer acceptance and

children with LD. Thus, one of the questions that will be explored is whether children, with

and without LD, who are not well accepted by the group but who have a mutual school friend

are less likely to experience loneliness, and depression and more likely to have positive

global self-worth and social self-perceptions than children who are not accepted and who do

not have a mutual school fiiend.

Three categories of protective factors have been identified: child factors, family

factors, and community factors (Garmezy, 1983). Child factors include positive temperament

and social competence. Family protective factors include such factors as supportive,

consistent parenting and low conflict marital relationship. Community protective factors

include having a significant adult relationship and a supportive school environment.

Although, research has shown that having a close friend is a protective fkirjr for children

(Buhrmester, 1990; Lustig, Wolchik, & Braver, 1992) this has not been studied in children

with LD.

Two risk models will be compared in the present study: the main effect risk model

and the interactive risk model (Rutter, 1983). The main effect risk model postulates that LD

status and peer acceptance are both risk factors, and that one does not exacerbate the other.

According to this model, children with LD are more likely than children without LD to be

lonely, depressed, have low global self- worth and low self-perception of social acceptance.

Furthermore, children with low peer acceptance are more likely to be lonely, depressed, have

low global self-worth and self-perception of social acceptance than children with average or

above average peer acceptance. According to this model, the impact of iow peer acceptance

on psychological adjustment is not likely to be greater for children with LD than for those

without LD. In contrast, the interactive risk model postulates that the impact of low peer

acceptance on psychological adjustment would be greater for children with LD than children

without LD.

With regard to mutual fiendships, the main effect model predicts that children who

have close mutual friends show better psychological adjustment than children who do not

have close mutual friends, and that this is equally likely for low accepted and average to high

accepted children with and without LD. The interactive model, on the other hand, postulates

that having mutual friends acts as a buffer. Children with low peer acceptance or a learning

disability or both who have mutual friends will display higher psychological adjustment

scores than similar children who do not have mutual fiends. Further, the interactive model

predicts that the difference in adjustment between children with and without mutual fiends

will be greater for children with LD, low peer acceptance, or both, than for children without

LD or those whose peer acceptance is average to above.

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

In this study I have reviewed three sets of literature. First, I review the literature on

the relationship between peer acceptance and psychological adjustment in children with and

without LD. Both low peer acceptance and having a learning disability are factors that place

a child at risk for psychological adjustment problems. In this section I will also discuss some

relevant issues involved in measuring peer acceptance. Second, some of the research on

friendship as a protective factor for children will be described. How peer acceptance and

friendship are related, and the differences between peer status and friendship in terms of their

respective roles in the psychological adjustment of children is also delineated. Third, I

summarize the results of studies comparing the peer relations and psychological adjustment

of children with and without learning disabilities.

The Relationship between Peer Acce~tance. Friendship and Psvcholoeical Adjustment

Research has shown consistently that children's peer acceptance is a strong predictor

of their psychological adjustment in childhood and adulthood (Hartup, 1983; Parker & Asher,

1987). Studies have shown that children who are rejected by peers are more likely than well-

accepted children to have both internalizing problems, including loneliness, depression and

psychosomatic problems (Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994; Parkhurst & Asher, 1 W2), and

externalizing problems including aggression (French & Waas, 1985). Several studies have

also shown that peer rejection in childhood is associated with dropping out of school,

adolescent delinquency, adult criminal behaviour and adult psychopathology (Parker &

Asher, 1987).

One of the main controversies in this area of research is the directionality of the

relationship between peer acceptance and these affective corre!ates. &searchers exploring

the relationship between poor peer relations and depression and loneliness have adopted one

of three approaches. The first approach is to view poor peer relations as leading to loneliness

and depression (Feldman, Rubenstein, & Rubin, 1988; Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995).

The second is to view loneliness and depression in a person as socially stigmatizing, and thus

contributing to poor peer relations (Comolly, Geller, Marton, & Kutcher, 1992; Faust, Baum,

& Forehand, 1985; Rotenburg & Kmill, 1992). The third approach is to view depression and

loneliness as having a bi-directional relationship with peer relations.

One study that adopted this third view of the relationship between depression and peer

relations was conducted by Vemberg (1990). He examined the longitudinal relationship of

three aspects of peer relations (contact with fiends, intimacy with best fiend, and peer

rejection) to self-perceived social acceptance and depressive affect. The results provided

support for a reciprocal relationship between peer relations and depressive affect. Less

contact with Wends, less closeness with a best friend and greater peer rejection contributed to

increased depressive affect over time. Higher levels of depressive affect contributed to

increases in peer rejection over time. Greater closeness with a friend seemed to act as a

buffer against a decrease in self-perceived social acceptance after the adolescent had been

rejected by peers. Thus, there appears to be some evidence to demonstrate that the

relationship between poor peer relations and depression is bi-directional, and that self-

perceptions play a role in this reciprocal relationship. No research studies were found that

examined the bi-directional relationship between loneliness and poor peer relations.

Several studies have examined the association between peer acceptance, global seIf-

worth, and self-perception of social acceptance. Two patterns appear to exist for children

who are rejected (Boivin & Begin, 1989). Firstly, there are some rejected children who seem

to be unaware of their social difficulties, and have relatively high self-perceptions of social

acceptance and global self-worth. They may not be able to admit that they have difficulties.

They perceive their peer interactions positively which in turn protects their self-perceptions

of social acceptance and global self-worth. This protective position would undermine any

motivation to change and would result in a destructive self-perpetuating cycle (Patterson,

Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990). Children in both these groups tend to have externalizing

behaviour problems. Secondly, socially rejected children who display internalizing

behaviour problems are more likely to rate their social acceptance as low and to have low

global self-worth scores (Boivin, Thomassin, & Alain, 1 989). Research examining the social

information-processing abilities of rejected and accepted boys has shown that hyperactive-

rejected boys tend to show more encoding and cue utilization deficiencies than other boys

(Moore, Hughes, & Robinson, 1992).

friends hi^ and Psvchological Adiustment

Sullivan (1953) placed great emphasis on the significance of friendship in childhood

and adolescence, and how it relates to the psychological fimctioning of children. There is

evidence in the research literature on children's friendships that both the quantity and the

quality of friendships are important to children (Bukowski, 1994). Sullivan postulated that,

as children enter preadolescence, they will experience a stronger need to have an intimate

relationship with another child. He clearly distinguished between children being accepted by

other children in the social environment and children having a more intimate relationship

with one peer. Intimate relationships, or fkiendships, play a crucial role in children's

acquisition of interpersonal sensitivity and sense of self-worth. With an intimate friendship,

children are able to work through their doubts and fears with someone they trust and

someone who respects their thoughts and values their advice. When children are unable to

have an intimate relationship with a peer they may feel lonely, may not be able to develop

interpersonal sensitivity, and may not gain a strong sense of self-worth.

Peer acceptance and friendship are closely related in that they are both associated with

children liking one another. However, the two constructs are also distinct. Bukowski, Hoza,

and Boivin, (1993) demonstrated that popular children have more opportunities to make

friends. Peer acceptance and friendship however, are distinguished by directionality and

specificity (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989). Peer acceptance is unidirectional while friendship is

bi-directional; peer acceptance is non specific and friendship is specific.

The life events literature suggests that a close, supportive relationship will serve as a

buffer against the effects of negative events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). There is evidence to

support the buffering role of relationships, but it has been recommended by Cohen and Wills

(1985) that researchers identify the more specific elements of an intimate, supportive

relationship that are important in protecting against specific effects of negative events.

Research by Offord and his colleagues (Ontario Child Health Study, 1989) found that having

regular contact with fiiends was a preventative and protective factor for children, and reduced

the likelihood of school problems and psychiatric disorder. Vemberg (1990) proposed that a

child's close friendship can enhance self-esteem, provide pleasure, and improve problem-

solving efforts and this may protect children from developing adjustment problems. The

greater the closeness with a best friend, the more likely it is to act as a buffer against feelings

of non-acceptance for children who have been rejected by their larger peer group (Vernberg,

1990).

Children who have close friends have been shown to be less lonely, less depressed,

less anxious, and to have a more positive self-concept than children who do not have a close

friend (Bishop & Inderbitzen, 1995; Buhrmester, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1993; Townsend,

McCncken & Wilton, 1988). Friendship has also been shown to act as a buffer which

protects peer-rejected children from high levels of loneliness (Sanderson & Siegal, 1995).

Recently, research studies have examined how both fkiendship and peer acceptance are

associated with psychological adjustment. The results have shown that friendship and peer

acceptance have a distinct and inverse relationship to loneliness (Hicks, 1994), and to

depression (Oldenburg & Kerns, 1997). However, an absence of close fiends was a stronger

predictor of loneliness than the absence of a peer social network (Hicks, 1994). The presence

of a peer social network tended to modify the emotional impact of an absence of close

friendships. The adolescent's social self-concept acted as a mediator in the relationship

between both types of peer relations and loneliness. It would appear that peer status and

friendship are distinct; however Hicks (1994) found that conceptually the function of these

two domains cannot be easily separated. A close fiiendship can provide social experience

and companionship just as a peer group can, and a peer group experience can provide

emotional support, admiration, and advice as does a fiiendship.

Vandell and Hembree (1994) examined the specific effects of fiiendship and peer

acceptance on psychological adjustment and found that Eendships were positively associated

with social self-concept, level of academic achievement, and standardized test scores. Low

peer acceptance in the form of rejection was negatively associated with a child's interactions

with hisher peers, compliance, conduct, and work habits. Children who experienced neglect

rather than rejection had negative cognitive, physical and general self-concepts.

A longitudinal study to examine how peer rejection and friendship in preadolescence

predicts psychological adjustment in adulthood was conducted by Bagwell, Newcomb, and

Bukowski (1998). Those adults who had a reciprocated friend in grade 5 later reported

significantly higher levels of global self-worth and lower levels of depressive

symptomatology than adults who had not had a reciprocated friend. Peer rejection in

childhood was associated with lower school performance, vocational competence,

aspirational levels, less participation in social activities, and somatization in adulthood. Both

peer rejection and fiiendship were associated with a measure of overall adjustment for adults.

Both Lustig et al. (1992) and Buhrmester (1990) have proposed a positive bi-

directional, transactional process in which an intimate friendship facilitates psychological

adjustment, and the child's better psychological adjustment level promotes more intimacy in

the friendship and more supportive interactions. However, further research using a

longitudinal design is needed to fully examine the bi-directional relationship between

friendship and psychological adjustment.

Comparisons between Children with and without LD

in Peer Relations and Psvchological Adiustment

Peer Acceptance

There are two methods of measuring peer acceptance or peer status, rating scales and

nomination scales. For the rating scale method each child in the class is asked to rate each

classmate on a Likert scale with respect to their desirability as social companions. This

results in a peer acceptance score for each child in the class. For the nomination method,

children are asked to name the children in their class whom they like and dislike. From this

information each child is placed into one of five categories; popular, rejected, neglected,

controversial and average (Coie, Dodge & Coppotelli, 1982). As asking children to name the

children they like is similar to asking the children to name their friends, Schneider, Wiener,

and Murphy (1994) recommended that researchers who are attempting to differentiate

between friendship and peer acceptance use the rating scale method for assessing peer

acceptance.

Children with learning disabilities are less likely to be accepted, and more likely to be

neglected or rejected by their peers than children without learning disabilities (Kavale &

Forness, 1996; Swanson & Malone, 1992; -Wiener, 1987). The peer status of children with

LD is less stable than the peer status of children without LD; it is often associated with social

skill problems and it is more likely to deteriorate over the academic year (Swanson &

Malone, 1992; Wiener, Harris, & Shirer, 1990). Children with learning disabilities are

vulnerable to peer rejection before they are referred to special education and labeled (Vaughn

& Hogan, 1994). Children with LD who are neglected by other children in their grade are

more likely to be attending self-contained special education classes for more than half the

school day than accepted children with LD (Coben & Zigmond 1986; Wiener, Harris, &

Duval, 1993). Children with LD who are rejected by peers are more likely to have symptoms

of ADHD and to be seen as aggressive, disruptive and dependent than accepted children with

LD (Wiener, Harris, & Duval, 1993).

Furthermore, being placed in a general education class does not offset the negative

peer response to children with learning disabilities (Vaughn, 1995). This peer rejection takes

place when they are at play and at school (Ochoa & Palmer, 1991). It seems to be stable

across time with different classmates (Bryan, 1976) and often continues through high school

and into adulthood (Bruck, 1 985; Gregory, Shanahan, & Walberg, 1 986; Minskoff, Sautter,

Sheldon Steidle, & Baker, 1986). It has been estimated that 34% (Sabomie, Marshall, &

Ellis, 1990) to 59% (Kistner & Gatlin, 1989) of children with LD are rejected by their peers.

The results of a meta-analysis by Ochoa and Olivarez (1 995) indicated that children with LD

have consistently lower sociometric status than children without LD and they found that the

moderator variables of ratee gender, grade level, research design and sociometric scale type

do not influence the results of the studies.

Loneliness

Children with learning disabilities are considered to be at risk of being rejected by

their peers and of feeling isolated (Vaughn, 1985). When children perceive that they have no

friends or are not accepted by their peers, they tend to experience loneliness and feelings of

social discomfort, such as social anxiety (Juvonen & Bear, 1992). Margalit (199 1) concluded

from her research that peer acceptance, social skills and computer activities predicted the

level of loneliness in children with learning disabilities. Lower peer acceptance levels and

lower social skills predicted a higher level of loneliness as reported by children with ieaming

disabilities. Increased computer activity was associated with less loneliness being reported

by children with LD. These results regarding social skills and peer acceptance are similar to

the results of studies involving children without learning disabilities, where lower social

s and lower peer acceptance predicted higher levels of loneliness.

In their study of 122 Israeli children with LD, aged 9 to 15 years, in self-contained

;es Margalit and Levin-Alyagon (1994) identified four groups of children: two non-

lonely groups, one reporting no maladjustment and one reporting externalizing symptoms;

two highly lonely groups, one reporting high externalizing maladjustment and one reporting

high internalizing maladjustment. Those children who displayed internalizing symptoms

reported the highest levels of loneliness. They perceived themselves as having poor social

competence and experienced the lowest ievel of peer acceptance. Those high lonely children

who displayed externalizing behaviours were also not accepted by their peers; they

acknowledged their social problems and wanted to have friends.

Margalit and Efrati's study (1 996) examined loneliness in children with learning

disorders and found that they reported higher levels of loneliness, lower levels of peer

acceptance, and had fewer friends than children without learning disorders. The children

with learning disorders reported that they experienced less caring from their fiends, and they

were less able to resolve conflicts.

Depression

Children with learning disabilities have been found to be at a greater risk for high

levels of depression and suicide when compared to children without learning disabilities

(Bender & Wall, 1994; Heath, 1992; Hails & Haws, 1989). It has also been found that the

number of suicides and suicide attempts increase with age for children with LD (Huntington

& Bender, 1993). In Heath's (1992) research, children, with and without LD were equally

likely to experience moderate levels of depression, but children with LD were more likely to

experience high levels of depression. For the children with learning disabilities, self-

perceptions of intelligence, academic achievement, and social acceptance predicted

symptoms of depression. Although research has been done to examine the self-perceptions

of social acceptance and depression held by children with learning disabilities (Heath &

Wiener, 1996), there is no published research that examines the relationship between

symptoms of depression and actual peer acceptance levels in children with leaming

disabilities.

A review of 21 studies indicated that students with learning disabilities typically have

general self-concepts that are within the normal range, but which are lower than the general

self-concept of students without leaming disabilities (Chapman, 1988). Chapman stressed

the importance of distinguishing between general self-perception or global self-worth,

academic self-perception, and social self-perception of students with learning disabilities.

Based on a review of 20 studies examining academic self-concept, he found that students

with Ieaming disabilities tend to have significantly lower academic seif-perceptions than

students without learning disabilities (Chapman, 1988). This significant difference in

academic self-concept between students with and without LD is evident by Grade 3 (Cullen,

Boersman, & Chapman, 198 1) and then remains relatively stable (Chapman, 1988).

The results of the research on the self-perceptions of social acceptance for children

with LD have been inconsistent. Some researchers have found that children with LD report

higher self-perceptions of social acceptance than children without LD (Winne, Woodlands, &

Wong, 1982), while others report that children with and without LD describe similar levels of

self-perceived social acceptance (Colangelo, Kelley, & Schrepfer, 1987). Results of other

studies have indicated that children with LD report lower self-perceptions of social

acceptance than children without LD (Renick & Harter, 1988).

As described earlier, Heath (1992) has conducted research to examine the self-

perceptions of depressed children with learning disabilities and found that their self-

perceptions of social acceptance, academic achievement and intelligence were associated

with symptoms of depression. It has been demonstrated that children with a learning

disability in grades 5 and 8, who report symptoms of depression perceive themselves as

having much lower social acceptance than children who have a learning disability but no

symptoms of depression (Heath & Wiener, 1996). For the children without a leaming

disability, their self-perceptions of social acceptance were not associated with depressive

symptomatology.

Friendshi0

The few studies on the fiendship patterns of children with LD suggest that children

with and without LD do not differ in the number of friends they isport they have, nor in the

number of their friendship nominations which are reciprocated by the fiends or corroborated

by parents or teachers ( Bear, Juvonen, & McInemey, 1993; Vaughn, McIntosh, Schumm,

Haager & Callwood, 1 993; Wiener and Sunohara, 1 995). Wiener and Sunohara (1 993 ,

however, found that the children with LD in their clinical sample, most of whom were boys,

had more friends from different schools, more friends with leaming disabilities and more

younger friends than a school-based comparison group of children without LD. The quality

of the relationships of the children with LD were also deficient in comparison with the

children without LD.

In a follow up to their 1995 study, Wiener and Sunohara (in press) interviewed the

parents of the children with LD in order to understand some of the dynamics of the

relationships of the children. The parents stressed the importance of their children having at

least one mutual, close, high quality relationship. In some cases the parents were concemed

because their children did not appear to be interested in developing a close relationship; in

other cases the parents were concemed because the chidren seemed to be lonely or depressed,

presumably as a result of their social isolation. The results of this qualitative study suggested

that having a close mutual friendship may be protective for some children with LD in terms

of maintaining a healthy self-concept and preventicg loneliness and depression.

Nevertheless, there was a significant subgroup of children with LD who, in their parents'

view, did not have any close friendships but seemed to not be aware that this was a problem

or express interest in changing their situation.

Summary and Hypotheses

In summary, the research in this area of study has indicated that peer acceptance and

friendship are two forms of peer relations that are associated with children's psychological

adjustment. Children who are not accepted by their peers are at risk for psychological

maladjustment. There is also some indication that even one mutual friendship can act as a

buffer for those children who are at risk, and protect them fkom psychological adjustment

problems. Very little research has examined how fiendship and peer acceptance are

associated with psychological adjustment in children with LD. However, as children with

LD tend not to be accepted by their peers, they may be at more risk for psychological

adjustment problems such as low global self-worth, poor self-perception of social acceptance,

loneliness and depression. A reciprocated friendship may act as a buffer for these children

and reduce the occurrence of some of the psychological problems often experienced by

children with LD. It is the aim of the present study to examine how peer acceptance and

friendship are related to psychological adjustment in children with learning disabilities.

This study was guided by three hypotheses and three secondary research questions.

On the basis of the research reported in the literature, I anticipate that children with and

without LD, children with low and average to high peer acceptance, and children with and

without a dose fiiend would be differentiated on the basis of their scores on measures of

psychological adjustment. Hypothesis 1 reflects this expectation. Hypotheses 2 and 3 reflect

the Main Effect and Interactive risk models discussed in Chapter 1. Depending on which of

hypotheses 2 or 3 are c o d m e d , the data would support either the Main Effect or Interactive

risk model.

Hmothesis 1

Since both learning disabilities and low peer acceptance have been shown to be risk

factors for children, and friendship is thought to act as a protective factor it was

hypothesized:

A) that children with LD would report more depression, loneliness, and lower levels

of self-perceived social acceptance and global self-worth than children without LD;

B) that children who have low peer acceptance would report more loneliness, more

symptoms of depression, and lower levels of self-perceived social acceptance and global self-

woah than children who have average to high peer acceptance;

C ) that children who have at least one friend would report less loneliness, fewer

symptoms of depression and higher self-perceived social acceptance and global self-worth

than children who do not have one friend.

Hmothesis 2

Based on the Main Effect Risk Model it was hypothesized that there would be no

significant interaction effects between learning disability status, peer acceptance level and

fiendship but that each would have an independent effect on outcomes.

Hmothesis 3

Based on an Ordinal Interactive Risk Model it was hypothesized:

A) that the combination of having both an LD and Low peer acceptance luld result

in an ordinal interaction effect bemeen LD status and peer acceptance. That is, the

difference in adjustment between children with and without LD would be significantly

greater for children with poor peer acceptance than for those whose peer acceptance is

average to high.

B) that friendship would act as a buffer against these two risk factors and this would

be demonstrated by a three way interaction effect between LD status, peer acceptance and

Eendship.

Secondary Research Questions

1) The participants in the present study were children with and without LD in grades 4 to 8.

Previous research has shown that as children get older, they are at more risk for depressive

symtomatology (Angold & Rutter, 1992). In this study I explore whether having a learning

disability or low peer acceptance are greater risk factors in terms of psychological adjustment

(i.e., depression, loneliness, global self-worth and self-perception of social acceptance) for

children in grades 7 and 8 than for children in grades 4 to 6.

2) The Children's Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1992) was the measure of depressive

symtomatology used in the present study. This measure has five subscales: anhedonia,

interpersonal problems, ineffectiveness, negative self-esteem and negative mood. Whenever

differences between groups were evident on the total score of the CDI, I explored whether

these differences pertained to specific subscales.

3) As gender differences in fiendship patterns have been reported frequently in the literature

(e.g. Bukowski, Sippola, Gauze, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1993; Parker & Asher 1993), gender

was a factor in all the initial analyses in order to determine whether the hypothesized

relationships pertain only to boys or girls.

CHAPTER 3

Method

Participants

The sample was comprised of 108 children with LD (61 boys, 47 girls) in grades 4 to

8, and a comparison group of 104 same age children without LD (63 boys, 41 girls). A

stratified random sampling approach was implemented to select the students without LD;

they were matched to the students with LD on the basis of gender and grade within the same

school. The participants were enrolled in nine schools in the suburbs near Toronto and

represented a wide range of socioeconomic status (SES). The demographics of this sample

are shown in Table 1. No significant differences between children with and without LD were

evident for gender (1, N = 212) = ,366, e= -551 and age D (210)= 1.85, ~=.07].

Significant differences were evident for SES (184)= -2.09, g<.05].

The participants with LD were identified as exceptional by their school board and

met the academic achievement criteria for this study. The criteria included a verbal,

performance, or h l l scale IQ of 80 or more on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -

Revised (WISC-R) (Wechsler, 1974), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Third

Edition (WISC-111) (Wechsler, 1991), or the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of

Table 1

LD

Mean SD

NLD

Mean SD -

SES 46.58 11.82 50.31 12.48

IQ V d a i IQ Perforrrrance IQ Full Scale IQ

Academic Ac hieverrrwrt* R&g Decoding Comprehension Composite

Math Computation Applications Composite

Spelling

Academic Competence

SSRS Standard Score

Intelligence Revised (WPPSI-R) (Wechsler, 1989). The participants also obtained scores at

or below the 25Ih percentile in at least one of reading, spelling or mathematics on a valid

standardized achievement test.

The method of d e f ~ n g the sample of children with LD described above was used

for the following reasons: First, I decided to include only school identified children who were

receiving special education services because there is some research suggesting that the

experience of school identification may have an impact on the peer relationships of children

with LD (Wiener, Harris & Duval, 1993). Second, there is considerable current research

which contradicts the prevalent practice of calculating IQ!schievement discrepancies to

identify children with LD (Shaw, Cullen, Mcguire, Brinckerhoff, 1995; Siegel, 1989;

Stanovich, 199 1 ;). These arguments include are that IQ and achievement are not independent

constructs. Furthermore, children who are very poor readers, with and without

IQfachievernent discrepancy, display similar difficulties with phonological processing

(Siegel, 1 989; Stanovich, 1 98 8). Therefore, I followed Siegel's (1 989) recommendation that

the children with LD in the study have a verbal, performance, or full scale IQ score of at least

80, and that they obtain a score at or below the 25 Ih percentile in at least one of reading,

spelling or arithmetic on a standardized test of educational achievement.

The students without LD scored above the 25th percentile on the Academic

Competence Scale of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) as completed by their teachers;

they were also rated at or above average (a score of 3 to 5) on three items (#52, #53 and #56

for Grades 4 to 6, and #46, #47 and #50 for Grades 7 and 8) of the SSRS. Items 52 (grade 4

to 6) and 46 (grade 7 and 8) rate the reading skill level of the student; items 53 (grade 4 to 6)

and 47 (grade 7 and 8) rate the mathematics skill level; and items 56 (grade 4 to 6) and 50

(grade 7 and 8) rate the intellectual functioning of the students.

Of the 108 students with LD, 26 received in class support (which involves the child

remaining in the general education classroom for the entire school day and receiving extra

support fiom a teacher for less than 90 minutes per school day). Forty-five students received

resource withdrawal assistance (which involves the children leaving their general education

classroom for up to 90 minutes per school day, and receiving special education assistance in a

classroom with a small group of students and with more individualized teaching). Twenty-

three students with LD attended self-contained special education ciassrooms (they were in a

special education classroom for at least half of the school day). Twelve students with LD

were in full inclusion programs (they received instruction for the entire school day in a

general education classroom with two teachers). Information regarding the placement of two

of the students was missing. All of the children without LD attended general education

classes on a full time basis.

A cover letter, a consent form and information booklet (see Appendix A) were sent to

the parents of all of the students in the classrooms that had been selected for the study. Only

classes in which there was a consent rate of 50% or more were included in the study.

Measures

Demoma~hic, Achievement. and Intellectual Functioning Data

Information about each participant, which was recorded on the Subject Information

Form (see Appendix B), was gathered by using school records and interviewing parents and

students. Demographic information included the gender and age of the student, languages

spoken at home, special education placements, and the occupations of the parents. Data

regarding the student's academic achievement was obtained by reviewing the testing

administered by the school board, or the special education staff, within three years prior to

data collection. These tests included the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRPrT-R) (Jastak

& Wilkinson, l984), Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) (Wechsler, 1 9W),

K a h a n Test of Educational Achievement (K-TEA) (Kauhan & Kaufman, 1985),

Canadian Achievement Test I1 (CAT 2) (Canadian Test Centre & McGraw-Hill Ryerson,

1982), and the Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test (CCAT) (Thorndike & Hagen, 1981). If

achievement test data were not available fiom the school board, research staff administered

the K-TEA Brief Form.

Information regarding the intellectual functioning of the students with LD was

gathered by contacting the psychology departments at the Boards of Education. This

information consisted of the scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-I11

(WISC-111) (Wechsler, 199 I), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Revised (WSC-R)

(Wechsler, 1974) or the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised

(WPPSI-R) (Wechsler, 1989).

The socioeconomic status of each child was measured using the Blishen ScaIe

(Blishen, Carroll, & Moore, 1987) which is based on Canadian census data.The

occupation(s) of the child's parents were assigned a number based on this ordinal scale that

ranges fiom 17 to 101. Occupations with high SES are assigned high scores. As

recommended by Livingstone and Mangan (1996), when both parents have an occupation,

the occupation with the higher SES is chosen to represent the SES of the child.

Peer Acceptance

Peer acceptance was measured using a sociornetric rating scale (see Appendix C). All

consenting classmates from each participant's class completed a five-point liking rating scale.

The child's level of acceptance was determined in two separate ways: (1) the average same-

sex rating received from classmates, standardized within gender and within classroom; (2)

the average cross-sex ratings received from classmates, standardized within classroom. The

average same-sex rating score was calculated by using only the scores given to the participant

by classmates of the same sex as the participant. The average cross-sex rating score was

calculated by using all the scores given to the participant by classmates of both sexes. All

analyses were done with both same-sex and cross-sex ratings.

Some of the analyses, mainly those involving correlation of peer acceptance, were

computed for the entire sample as a continuous variable. For other analyses, peer acceptance

was used as a categorical variable. The children who were classified as average to high peer

accepted were those who had a mean z score of greater than or equal to 0. The children who

were classified as low peer accepted received a mean z score of less than or equal to -0.5.

The children who received a mean z score less than 0 and more than -0.5 were not included in

these analyses. It has been recommended that the upper limit of the low acceptance range

should be a z score of -1.0 (Parker & Asher, 1993) but as there were so few children without

LD who fell into this category the upper limit was decreased to a z score of -0.5. Due to the

size of the sarnpIe it was decided to combine the children with average and high peer

acceptance into one group.

Parker and Asher (1993) support the use of a sociometric rating scale for assessing

peer acceptance. Rating scales have been shown to be highly reliable and to have good

predictive validity (Asher & Dodge, 1986; Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Hartup, 1983).

Children who obtain consistentiy low scores on these scales tend to be rejected children.

The children were encouraged to maintain confidentidity due to the sensitive nature

of the data being collected. They were reminded on a number of occasions about the

importance of c ~ ~ d e n t i a l i t y and were given a high interest distracter task at the end of the

session.

Number of Close Mutual Friendships

The students' friendships were measured using three sources of information.

Each student was interviewed using a Friendship Interview (Wiener, 1995) (see Appendix C).

They were asked to provide the names of their best fkiends, their best school friend, and their

very best friend. Some information about the demographics of the friends was also gathered,

but was not used for the present study. The consenting classmates who were nominated as

friends by the participants were also interviewed using the Friendship Interview (Wiener,

1995) in order to verify the reciprocity of the friendship. The students' teachers completed

the Teacher Friendship Questionnaire (Wiener, 1995) (see Appendix E), and the parents were

interviewed by telephone using the Parent Friendship Interview (Wiener, 1995) (see

Appendix F). All of these measures ask for similar information from the respondents.

Three variables describing the friendships of the children were developed (see

Table 2). The first friendship variable is referred to throughout this thesis as reciprocated

Table 2

. . Defima01~ of thc Thrrt Friendshin Variables

Friendship Variables Definition as a Definition as a Continuous Categorical Variable Variable -

Reciprocated School The number of Friend (RSF) reciprocated

school &im&

RecipmcPted and/ or Corroborated Friend (RCF)

. Nominated Friend (NF)

The number of reciprocated and/or corroborated fiends. The children nomixlrrtcd each other or their teacher or parent corroborated their nomination- These fiends may or may not be school fiends

The number of friends the child nomitratd These fiends may or may not be

One or mom fiends vs. No rekiprocatmi school fiends

Two or more reciprocated and/or c0lltObOra;ted fiends vs. Less than two reciprocated and/or comborated fiends

Five or more nominated fiiends vs. less than five nominated fiiends

school friends (RSF). To be fiends according to this definition, the children had to have

nominated each other as friends during the structured interview. This variable is often used

in the research literature to measure fiiendship; however, it does not reflect those friendships

which involve children who did not consent to participate in the study, or children who do

not attend the same school. The second variable is referred to as reciprocated and/or

corroborated fiends (RCF). For this variable, the child's nomination was corroborated by a

parent or a teacher, or it was reciprocated by the nominee or both. The RCF may or may not

have attended the same school as the nominator and may or may not have consented to

participate in the study. The RCF variable is more inclusive than the RSF variable. As there

were only five children in the sample who did not have an RCF when the RCF variable was

dichotomized for some of the analyses, children who had two or more RCF were compared

with children who had one or no RCFs. The third variable is referred to as nominated fiends

(NF). This is all of the children the participant nominated as friends during the structured

interview. This variable was used to examine the participants' subjective view on the

number of friends they have. When this variable was dichotomized for some of the analyses,

children who had less than 5 (5 being the mean) nominated friends were compared with

children who had 5 or more nominated friends.

Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction

Loneliness and social dissatisfaction were measured using a 24-item

questionnaire developed by Asher, Hyrnel, and Renshaw (1984) (see Appendix G). Sixteen

of the 24 items focus on loneliness, feelings of social inadequacy and subjective estimations

of peer status. The other 8 items are about hobbies or activities and are filler items. A 5-

point scale is used for each item ranging fiom "always true" to "not true at all". The mean

item score for each child was used in the statistical analysis. Each item was read aloud to the

students. This scale has been shown to have good psychometric properties. According to

Asher, Hymel, and Renshaw (I 984), the internal consistency reliability coefficient is .9 1.

Students' Self-Perceptions

The students' self-perceptions were assessed with the Self-Perception Profile for

Learning Disabled Students (SPPLDS, Renick & Harter, 1988) (see Appendix H). This self-

report measure is comprised of 46 items and 10 subscales: General Intellectual Ability,

Reading Competence, Writing Competence, Spelling Competence, Mathematics

Competence, Athletic Competence, Physical Appearance, Social Acceptance, Behavioural

Conduct and Global SeIf-Worth. Each child's total score from two subscales, Social

Acceptance (SA) and Global Self-worth (GSW), were analyzed. The items from the entire

SPPLDS were read aloud to each student during an individual interview. The students were

asked to select which part of a two-part item is most like them and choose whether it is "sort

of true for me" or "really true for me." This scale yields a score between 1 and 4 for each

item. Renick and Harter (1988) found the scale to be reliable. The subscale internal

consistency reliability for the Social Acceptance subscale is .8 1, and the internal consistency

reliability for the Global Self-worth subscale is 3 3 (Renick & Harter, 1988).

Depressive symptomatology was measured using the Children's Depression Inventory

(CDI, Kovacs, 1992). This self-report scale is comprised of 27 items that assess common

symptoms of depression. These symptoms include mood disturbance, vegetative functions,

negative self-evaluation, restricted interpersonal behaviours and suicidai ideation. There are

five CDI subscales: Anhedonia (an inability to experience pleasure in normally pleasurable

acts), Interpersonal Problems, Feelings of Ineffectiveness, Negative Self-Esteem and

Negative Mood.

For each item on the CDI (Kovacs, 1992) there are three sentences; the student is

asked to choose the sentence that best describes how he or she has been feeling over the past

two weeks. Each child's total score on the CDI, and total score on each subscale were used

in the statistical analyses. This measure was read aloud. The CDI has been compared to

other self-report measures of depression. It has been recommended as one of the better

measures of depressive symptomatology for children as it has good reliability and validity,

and it requires only a grade 1 level of reading (Kazdin, 1990; Saylor, Finch, Spirito &

Bennett, 1984; Vella, Heath, & Miezitis, 1992).

Procedures

The data for this study was collected as part of a larger study on the friendship

patterns of children with learning disabilities (Wiener, Schneider, & Heath, 1993). Once

parents gave their consent for the students to participate, the measures were administered by

withdrawing the children to a separate room in their school for three sessions. The

Friendship Interview and the SPPLDS were administered individually in session 1; the

Sociometric measure was given in small groups in session 2; and the LoneIiness and Social

Dissatisfaction Scale and the CDI were administered as a group in session 3. During sessions

2 and 3, one research assistant read the questionnaire aloud while another research assistant

walked around the room to answer students7 questions, to ensure that the students understood

the items on the questionnaire and that they were completing each item on the questionnaire.

The students' teachers were asked to complete the Teacher Friendship Questionnaire

independently, and the students' parents were given the Parent Friendship Questionnaire by

means of a telephone interview.

CHAPTER 4

Results

This chapter provides the results of the analyses for this study. Children with

and without LD were compared in terms of their sociometric status, and their number of

reciprocated school Mends (RSF), reciprocated and/or corroborated friends (RCF), and

nominated friends (NF). Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships

between the peer relation variables and loneliness, self-perception of social acceptance (SA),

global self-worth (GSW), depression and the CDI subscales for the entire sample. Small

cells precluded the analysis of LD status, grade, peer acceptance and fiendship status

together in one MANOVA. Pterefore, several "sets" of MANOVAS were performed with

loneliness, SA, and total CDI scores as dependent variables. In the first set, LD status (LD

vs. non LD), peer acceptance (low vs. average-high) and grade (4-6 vs. 7-8) were the

independent variables. The following three sets included LD status, peer acceptance and one

of the three friendship variables ( RSF, RCF, and NF) as independent variables. Where there

were significant effects with respect to total CDI scores, a MANOVA was performed using

the CDI subscales as dependent measures. Because the distribution of GSW scores was

markedly non-normal, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed rather than traditional

parametric measures (i.e., ANOVA). M m - Whitney analyses were performed using LD

status, peer acceptance, grade, and each of the friendship measures as independent variables.

In addition, Mann-Whitney tests tested various "simple effects": the effect of peer acceptance

separately on the LD and non LD groups, the effect of friendship measures separately on the

low and average to high peer acceptance groups. The scores for two of the measures were

transformed for the parametric analysis because their fiequency distributions were not

normal. A natural log transformation was used for the mean item score on the Loneliness

and Social Dissatisfaction Scale because the fiequency distribution was skewed to the left. A

square root transformation was implemented for the total scores for the CDI scale and the

five CDI subscales scores because they were also skewed to thz left. The scores for two of

the measures were transformed for the parametric analysis because their fiequency

distributions were not normal. A natural log transformation was used for the mean item score

on the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale because the fiequency distribution was

skewed to the left. A square root transformation was implemented for the total scores for the

CDI scale and the five CDI subscales scores because they were also skewed to the left.

Due to the large number of MANOVAs performed, univariate follow-up analyses used -01

as the cuttoff for significance. Due to the large number of Mann-Whitneys done, a -0 1 cutoff

for significance was also used. For the cell sizes for Tables 8 to 15, see Appendix I. For a

summary of the results of group differences, see Appendix J.

Due to the significant differences between children with and without LD in SES, one

MANCOVA was done comparing the children with and without LD on loneliness,

depression and SA. The results are reported in Appendix K. Finally, a description of the five

children in this sample who did not have any RCF is provided as a post hoc analysis.

Com~arisons of Children with and without LD on Peer Relation Variables

Two way ANOVAs examined the effects of LD status and gender on each of five peer

relations vkables: same sex sociometric ratings, cross-sex sociornetric ratings, RSF, RCF,

and NF.

As shown in Table 3, children without LD were found to be more accepted than

children with LD on both the same sex E(3, 208) =24.65, ~<.001] and cross sex m 3 ,

208)=27.42, p<.00 1] sociometric ratings. Girls received higher ratings than boys E(3,

208)=5.47, g<.05] for same sex ratings only. No LD status by gezder interactions were

found.

Same-sex and cross-sex ratings were used for subsequent analyses. However, since

the results for both types of ratings were similar, and same sex ratings are considered to be

more valid for this age group(Hymel et al., 1983), only the results of the analyses of the data

using the same sex ratings will be reported.

The proportion of children, with and without LD who have low and average to high

peer acceptance is shown in Table 4. Children with LD were more likely to have low peer

2 acceptance than children without LD (1, s=170)=14.43, gc.00 I]. Children with peer

acceptance z scores between -0.5 and 0 were eliminated from this analysis.

As shown in Table 3, children with and without LD did not differ in terms of their

number of RSF, RCF, or NF. Girls had more reciprocated school friends than boys

m3,208)=3.86, pC.051. No LD status by gender interactions were found on any of the

friendship variables.

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Children with and without LD by Gender on Peer Relations Variables

Same-Sex Sodometrk Ratings

cross-Sex Sodome tric Ratings

Rdprocated School Friend

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Reciprocated and, Mean COrtObOrated SD Friend

Nominated Mean Friend SD

Girls

-0.13 1.05

-0.27 1.01

1.6 1.3

3.68 2.29

5.98 4.23

F Values Gender LD x Gender

5.45' 0.01

Table 4

The Proportion of Children with and without LD and Peer Acceptance - Level!

LD NLD

Low Acccptancc . . 44 20

Average to High Acceptance 4 1 48.2%

Total

Correlations between Peer Relations Variables

and Psvchologicai Adiustrnent Variables

Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of loneliness, SAY GSW and

depression scores by gender. As 1-tests for each of these variables showed no gender

differences, gender was not included as an independent variable in the remaining analyses.

Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationships between the peer

relations variables (peer acceptance and friendship) and the psychological adjustment

variables (loneliness, SA, GSW and depression) (see Table 6) . Significant negative

correlations were found between peer acceptance and loneliness, and between peer

acceptance and depression for children with and without LD. Significant positive

correlations were found between peer acceptance and the two self-perception variables, SA

and GSW, for children with and without LD.

All of the friendship variables were positively correlated with SA for children with

and without LD. The correlations between GSW and the various friendship variables were

generally low (1.25); nevertheless GSW was significantly correlated with reciprocated school

Friendship for both children with LD and the sample as a whole; with reciprocated and/or

corroborated friendship for the sample as a whole; and with nominated friendships for

children without LD. All of the friendship variables were negatively correlated with the

loneliness scores. The one exception was the RSF for children without LD. The correlations

between nominated friendships and depression were not significant. For children with LD,

g g s v v v

depression scores were negatively correlated with reciprocated fiendships and with

reciprocated and/or corroborated fiendships.

As shown in Table 7 all five CDI subscales were negatively correlated with peer

acceptance for the total sample. Anhedonia and negative mood were the two CDI subscales

that were significantly related to peer acceptance for children with LD. Feelings of

ineffectiveness and negative mood were significantly related to peer acceptance for children

without LD. Only anhedonia and feelings of ineffectiveness were significantly negatively

correlated with reciprocated friendship. Anhedonia was correlated significantly with

reciprocated school friendship for the total sample and for children with LDI and feelings of

ineffectiveness were significantly correlated with reciprocated school friendship for the total

sample and for children without LD. None of the five CDI subscales were significantly

correlated with RCF for children without LD. Anhedonia, feelings of ineffectiveness and

interpersonal problems were significantly negatively correlated with RCF for children with

LD. Anhedonia was also significantly negativeiy correlated with RCF for the total sample.

No significant correlations were found between the CDI subscales and nominated friends.

Peer Acceptance Analyses

A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA was done comparing average to high accepted and low

accepted children, with and without LD, by grade using their mean item scores on the

Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale, their total score on the Children's Depression

Inventory, and their SA score. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 8. The

MANOVA showed significant main effects for LD status E=(3, 158)=3.37, ~<.05], for peer

0

F A ? I l l

Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment Vaiiables for Children with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance and Crade

Loneliness Grade 4 - 6 Grade7-8

Total

GSW (2) Grade 4 - 6 Crade 7- 8

Total

SA Grade 4 - 6 Grade 7 - 8

Total

Depression Grade 4 - 6

Grade 7 - 8 Total

NLD

Mean - 2.48 2.39 2.44

3.06 2.97 3.01

2.86 2,55 2.70

9.05 12.32 1o.m

A-H Acceptance (1) Total Mean SD - - Mean SD -

Low Acceptance A-H Acceptance Mean SD ' Mean SD

Total Sig Mean SD Effects --

(1)- Average to High Peer Acceptance (2)Mann-Whitney analysis was used for GSW *p<.01; **p<.OOl Univariate effects in lowercase; Multivariate in uppercase A=LD effect; B=Peer Acceptance effect C=Grade effect. Note: Overall Multivariate A,B and C effects. No Interactions

acceptance, E(3, 158)=12.55, g<.001], and for grade E(3, 158)=5.82, ~<.001]. The LD

status by peer acceptance interaction E(3, 158)=.84, p--84.1, the LD by grade interaction

fF(3, ' 158)=. 17, ~=.92], the peer acceptance by grade interaction (3, 158)=1.35, Q =.26]

and the LD status by acceptance by grade interaction E(3, 158)=.50, ~=.68] were not

significant. Univariate analyses showed that children with LD were lonelier E(1, 160)=8.16,

~ c . 0 I] and more depressed E(1 , l60)=7.3 3, ~ < . 0 11 than children without LD.

Children with LD did not report significantly less SA [E(l, 160)=4.20, g=.04] than

children without LD. Children who had low peer acceptance were lonelier B(1, 160)=36.3 1,

pc.00 11, more depressed E(l, l60)=6.85, ~ c . 0 1) and had lower SA F(l,l60)=23 36 , ~ e . 0 0 11

than the children who had average to high peer acceptance. In addition, children in grades 7

and 8 reported more depression than the children in grades 4 to 6 B(l.160)=9.07, g<.0 11. No

grade differences were found for loneliness B(1,160)=.27, ~=.60] or SA E(l,l60)= 1.19,

~=.28].

As indicated in Chapter 3, the children with and without LD differed in SES.

Therefore one MANCOVA was done with LD status and peer acceptance as the independent

variables, loneliness, depression, and SA as the dependent variables and SES as a covariate.

As shown in Appendix K, the results of the MANCOVA with SES as a covariate indicated

that the difference between children with and without LD did not reach conventional levels of

significance E ( 3 , 142)= 2.47, ~ = . 0 6 ] .

The results of the Mann-Whitney indicated that children with LD did not report

significantly lower levels of GS W than children without LD m 4 7 1 6-50, z=-2.04, ~=.05].

The Mann Whitney also indicated that children who were not accepted by their peers

reported significantly lower GSW than children who were average to high accepted by their

peers m=2425.50, 2=3.14, g<.Ol]. Children with LD who had low peer acceptance

reported significantly lower levels of GSW than children with LD who had average to high

peer acceptance w=605.50, 2=2.62, ~<.01]. Children without LD who had low peer

acceptance, however, did not report significantly different levels of GSW than the children

without LD who had high peer acceptance m=540.00, 2-1.16, ~=.25]. No grade effects

were evident for GS W, m=5052.00, z=- 1 .O7, ~=.29].

As there were main effects for grade on the total CDI score, further analyses were

done for the CDI subscales. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table 9. The 2 x 2

x 2 MANOVA showed a significant main effect for LD status E(5, 156)=3 -46, ~ < . 0 11 and for

grade level E(5,156)=4.90, ~<.001]. No significant main effect was shown for peer

acceptance E(5,156)=1.90, E=. 101. None of the interactions were significant ; LD status by

peer acceptance interaction E(5,156)=.26, p=.93]; LD status by grade E(5,156)=.3 8, ~ = . 8 6 ]

peer acceptance by grade E(5,156)=.33, g=.90]; LD status by peer acceptance by grade

E(5,156)=.64, 2=.67]. Univariate analyses showed that children with LD reported more

feelings of ineffectiveness E(l,l6O)= 17.1 5, ~ c . 0 0 11 than children without LD. The results

of the univariate analyses also indicated that the children in grades 7 and 8 reported more

feelings of ineffectiveness ~(1,160)=5.98, p . 0 0 11 than the children in grades 4 to 6.

The above analyses showed that children with LD had higher Levels of loneliness and

depression, and lower SA and GSW than children without LD. Furthermore, children with

low peer acceptance had higher levels of loneliness and depression and lower SA and GSW

than children with average to high peer acceptance. The next step in the analysis was to

Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations of CDI Subscales for Children with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance and Grade

Anhedonia Grade 4 - 6 Grade 7 - 8

Total Interpersonal Pfobkm

G e e 4 - 6 Grade 7 - 8

Total Ineffectiveness

Grade4 - 6 Grade 7 - 8

Total Negative Self-Esteem

Grade 4 4 Grade 7 - 8

Total Negative Mood

Grade 4 - 6 Crade 7 - 8

Low Acceptance Mean SD

- - - - - - -

A-H Acceptance (1) Total Low Acceptance Mean SD Mean SD Mean - -

A-H Acceptance Total Sig Mean SD -- - MeanSD Effects --

Total 1.43 1.36 1.68 1.6 3 2.5 1.69 1 .M 1.61 2.01

(1)- Average-High Peer Acceptarm *p < .01; **p < .001 Univariate effects in lowerrase; Multivariate in uppercase A=LD effect; B=Peer Acceptance effect; C= Grade effect. Note: Overall Multivariate A and C effects. No Interactions

determine whether Eendship also differentiated children in terms of these psychological

adjustment variables.

friends hi^ Analyses

As previously discussed, fiendship was defined in three ways. Reciprocated School

Friendship (RSF) referred to whether the child had at least one school fi-iend who

reciprocated the participant's friendship nomination. Reciprocated and/or Corroborated

Friendship (RCF) referred to whether the child had at least two friends who either

reciprocated the participant's friendship nomination and/or the nomination was corroborated

by the child's parent or teacher. The variable Nominated Friendship (NF) was subdivided

into two categories, one in which the child nominated less than five friends and one in which

the child nominated five or more friends. The friendship hypotheses proposed that all three

forms of friendship would act as protective factors and buffer against the negative effects of

LD status, higher grade, and low peer acceptance.

I examined these three friendship variables using two sets of 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVAs.

In the first set I used LD status, grade level and each of the friendship variables as the

independent variables and psychological adjustment as the dependent variable. In the second

set of MANOVAs I used LD status, peer acceptance level and each of the Wendship

variables as the independent variables and psychotogical adjustment was the dependent

variable. Mann-Whitney analyses were used for the GSW variable.

Reciprocated School Friends

RSF and Grade Effects

A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA was employed to compare children with and without LD by

grade placement and RSF on the Loneliness scale, the total score on the CDI, and the Harter

SA subscale. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 10. The MANOVA did

show a significant main effect for LD B(3,199)=2.95, p<.05] and grade E(3,199)=5.62,

g<.OOl] but it did not show a significant main effect for reciprocated school friendship

E(3, I99)=2.40, ~=.07], nor did it show any significant interactions involving the

reciprocated school friendship variable; grade by reciprocated school friendship

B(3,199)=.63, g=.60]; LD status by reciprocated school friendship B(3,199)=.97, ~ = . 4 11;

LD status by reciprocated school friendship by grade E(3,199)=.89, e=.45].

A Mann-Whitney was done to compare the GSW scores for the children who have a

RSF and those who do not have a RSF (see Table 10). The results indicated that there was

no significant difference in GSW scores between children with one or more RSF and the

children who did not have a RSF u=3994.00, p-1.42, ~=.16]. However, for children with

LD, it was found that those children who have one or more RSF reported significantly higher

GS W than the children without any RSF D=98S SO, z=- 1.93, ~<.05]. For children without

LD there was no significant difference between those who have an RSF and those who do not

have a RSF on GSW scores m=95 1.00, +.28, E= .78].

Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment Variables for Children with and without LD by Crade Level and Reciprocated School Friend

LD NLD Grade 4-6 Mean SD - -

Grade 7-8 Mean SD

Grade 4-6 Mean SD

Grade 7-8 Total Sig Mean SD Mean SD Effects - . -

Loneliness No RSF RSF

GSW (1) No RSF RSP

SA No RSP RSF

Depression No RSF RSP

(1) - hhnn-Whihrey analyses for GSW *p < .01; *'p < .M)1 Univariate effects in lowercase; Multivariate in uppercase A=LD effect; B=Crade effect; C= Reciprocated School Friend effect. Note: Overall Multivariate A , and B effects No Interactions

There was no difference in GSW scores between the children in grades 4 to 6 and

children in grades 7 and 8 w=5052.00,2=- 1 -07, e= -291 There was no significant difference

between children in grades 4 to 6 who have one or more RSF and the children who do not

have less an RSF E=360.00, z=-1.53, p=. 131. Similarly, there was no significant difference

between children in grades 7 and 8 with one or more RSF[ U=919.50, Z=-.8 1, ~=.42] and

children with no RSF. For children with LD there was no significant difference in GSW

score by grade ~=1415.00, &. 12, ~ = . 9 11. For children without LD there was also no

significant difference in GS W score by grade m=1 I 14-00, z=- 1.43, E=. 151.

As no RSF effects were observed for the CDI total score, analyses were not done for

the subscales.

RSF and Peer Acceptance Effects

A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA compared children with and without LD, low arid average to

high peer acceptance, and whether they had an RSF on the Loneliness scale, the total score

on the CDI and the Harter SA subscale. The means and standard deviations are shown in

Table 11. The MANOVA did show a significant main effect for LD B(3,158)=3.44, g<05]

and peer acceptance B(3,15 8)= 12-87, ~<.00 11 but it did not show a significant main effect

for reciprocated school friendship B(3,l %)=I .33, e= .27]. Nor did it show any significant

interactions; LD status by peer acceptance by reciprocated school fkiendship E(3, 158)=1.11,

p=.35]; reciprocated school Wendship by peer acceptance F_(3,158)=.49, ~=.69]; and

reciprocated school fiendship by LD status E(3,15 8)=. 1 9, p=.90].

Table 11 Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment Variables for Children with and without 1.D by Level of Peer Acceptance and Reciprocated School Friend

ID NLD

Loneliness No RSF RSP

GSW (2) No U$F RSF

SA No RSP RSP

Depression No RSF RSP

Low Acceptance Mean SD

A-H Acceptance (1) Tohl Mean SD Mean SD

Lnw Acceptance Mean SD - -

A-H Acceptance Mean SD --

- Total Sig Mean SD Effects -- - .

I

(1) - Average to High Peer Acceptance (2) - Mann-Whitney analyses for CSW 'p c .01; *p < ,001 Univariate effects in lowercase; Multivariate in uppercase A=LD effect; B=Peer Acceptance effect; C= Reciprocated School Friend effect. Note: Overall Multivariate A, and 6 effects. No Interactions

As reported earlier, it was shown that there was no significant difference in

GSW scores between the children with one or more RSF and the children with no RSF

m=3994.00, Z=1.42, e=. 161. A Mann-Whitney was done to compare the GSW scores for

children, both low and average to high peer accepted children, who have RSF. The results

indicated that there was no significant difference u=1171 SO, *1.88, ~=.06]. Two Mann-

Whitneys were done to compare the GSW scores of the children with no RSF who have low

peer acceptance and average to high peer acceptance. The results indicated that for children

with low peer acceptance there was no significant difference between children who have one

or more RSF and children who have no RSF ~ 4 3 9 . 0 0 , z=--96, ~=.34]. Similarly, for

children with average to high peer acceptance there was no significant difference between the

children who had one or more RSF and the children who had no RSF p=772.50, z=--17,

p=.87].

As no RSF effects were observed for the CDI total score, analyses were not done for

the subscales.

Reciprocated andlor Corroborated Friends

RCF and Grade Effects

Children with and without LD were compared using a MANOVA in which grade

placement and whether they had a reciprocated or corroborated friend were the independent

variables; and their scores on the Loneliness scale, the total score on the CDI and the Harter

SA subscaie were the dependent variables. The means and standard deviations are shown in

Table 12. The MANOVA did show a significant main effect for RCF B(3,199)=5.49,

pC.00 11, LD E(3,199)=2.97, ~<.05] and grade E(3,199)=5.85, ~ c . 0 0 11 . It did not show any

significant interactions of LD status by grade by reciprocated and/or corroborated friendship

K(3,l 99)=.4O, ~=.75] . Nor did it show any significant interactions involving the

reciprocated and/or corroborated friendship variable by grade E(3,199)=2.43, p=.07];

reciprocated and/or corroborated friendship by LD status B(3,199)=.80, ~=.49]; or LD status

by grade B(3, l99)=.4O, p.751. Univariate analyses indicated that children who have two or

more RCF reported a higher level of SA ~(1,201)=16.58, g<.001], and a lower level of

loneliness E(1,20 l)=7.7OY p<.0 11 than the children who have less than two RCF.

A Mann-Whitney was done to compare the GSW scores of children who have two or

more RCF with those who have less than two RCF (see Table 12). The results indicated that

there was not a significant difference in GSW scores between the children with two or more

RCF and the children who had less than two RCF m4585.00, Z 4 . 0 9 , g=.28]. For

children with LD, it was found that those children who have two or more RCF did not report

significantly higher GSW than the children with less than two RCF E=1223.50, z=-1.03,

~=.30]. For children without LD there was no significant difference for those with two or

more and those with fewer than two RCF on GSW scores ~=1075.50, z=-.25, ~=.80]. There

was no difference in GSW scores between the children in grades 4 to 6 and children in grades

7 and 8 p=5052.00, s 1 . 0 7 , E= .29]. There was no significant difference in GSW between

those children in grades 4 to 6 who had two or more RCF and those children who had less

than two RCF m=534.00, z=--49, ~=.35]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in

GSW for children in grades 7 and 8 with one or more RCF m=1026.00, z=--45, ~=.68].

Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological ~djustment Variables for Children with and without LD by Grade Level and Reciprocated or Corroborated Friend

w NLlD Grade 4-6 Grade 7-8 Totrl Grade 4-6 Grade 7-8 Total Sig Mean SD Mean SD Mun SD Mean SD

- - _ _ I _ - - - Mean - SD -- Mean SD Effects Loneliness Q RCF 2.27 0.94 2.18 0.83 2.22 0.87 1.68 0.5 1.97 0.93 1.86 0.81 a * >2 RCP 1.95 0.87 1.74 0.73 1.83 0.8 1 .69 0.52 1.64 0.47 1.67 0.49 c*

GSW (1) Q RCP 3.09 0.76 3,12 0.74 3.11 0.74 3.38 0.81 3.35 0.57 3.36 0.65

u >2 RCP 3.33 0.53 3.22 0.75 3.27 0.65 3.51 0.54 3.34 0.55 3.42 0.55

SA <2 RCP 2.71 0.75 2.62 0.74 2.65 0.71 2.98 0.91 2.92 0.8 2.94 0.82 >2 RCF 3.21 0.61 3.18 0.61 3.19 0.61 3.31 066 3.11 0.58 3.2 0.62 l-l c**

Depffssion <2 RCF 9.65 5.66 11.08 7.45 10.49 6.72 6.73 5.04 7.26 7.65 >2 RCP 6.2 5.44 9.91 7.76 8.2 6.99 5.52 7.27 7.43 5.13

(1) - Mann Whitney analyses was used for GSW 'p < .01; "p < .001 Univariate e f f ~ t s in lowercase; Multivariate in uppercase A-LD effect; BSrade effect; C= Reciprocated or Corroborated Friend effect. Note: Overall Multivariate A , B and C effects No Interactions

As no RCF effects were observed on the CDI total score, analyses are not shown for

the subscales in this section.

RCF and Peer Acceptance Effects

A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA was done comparing children with and without LD,

with average to high vs. low peer acceptance, and two or more RCF or less than two RCF on

the psychological adjustment measures. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table

13. The 2 x 2 x2 MANOVA showed significant main effects for RCF B(3,158)=3.97,

p=.0 11, LD B(3, I58)=3.47, ~< .05 ] and peer acceptance E(3,l %)=I 3.39, ~ < . 0 0 11 but no

significant interactions; LD status by peer acceptance by RCF E(3, 158)=1.97~=. 121; LD

status by RCF B(3,158)=.09, ~=.97]; peer acceptance by RCF E(3,158)=.68, g=.56].

Univariate analyses indicated that children who have two or more reciprocated and/or

corroborated friends reported a higher level of SA than the children who have less than two

RCF E(l,l6O)=l 1.74, ~ c . 0 0 11.

A Mann-Whitney was done to compare the GSW scores of children with LD who had

two or more RCF and children with LD who have less than two RCF. There was no

significant difference between children who had two or more RCF and children who had less

than two RCF on GSW, m=4585, z=-1.09, ~=.30].

A Mann-Whitney was done to compare the GSW scores of children with low peer

acceptance who had two or more RCF and children who have low peer acceptance who have

less than two RCF. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between

Table 13 Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment Variables for Children with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance and Reciprocated or Corroborated Friend -

ID NLD Low Acceptancv A-H Acceptance (1) Tobl L o w A q t a n c e A-HAcceptance Total Sig Mean ' SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Effects - - - - --A_-.--..

Loneliness Q RCP 2.48 0.90 1.76 0.53 2.12 0.87 2.64 22 RCP 2.38 0.99 1.55 0.61 1.83 0.8 1.72

GSW (2) <2 RCP 3.12 0.77 3.38 0.39 3.11 0.75 2.95 L2 RCF 2.86 0.74 3.46 0.43 3.27 0.65 3.42

SA <2 RCP 2.6 0.76 2.81 0.71 2.65 0.74 2.18 0.77 3.15 0.69

' zZ RCP 2.38 0.64 3.34 0.52 3.19 0.61 3.13 0.69 3.32 0.23 Pepression <2 RCF 11.01 6.7 9.44 4.95 10.19 6.72 12.13 10,29 5.33 6. 18 7.07 6.72 a *

22 RCF 10.33 8.07 7.52 6.62 8.2 6.99 8 7.56 3,18 6.24 6.56 6.22 n b* -A-A.-

(1) - Average to High Peer Acroptance (2) - Mann Whitney analyses was used for GSW 'p < .01; "p < -001 Univariate effects in lowercase; Multivariate in: uppercase A=LD effect; B=Peer Acceptance effect; C= Reciprocated or Corroborated Priend effect. Note: Overall Multivariate A , B and C effects No Interactions

these two groups of children w=509.50, e . 0 1 , ~=.99] . Another Mann-Whitney showed

that for children with average to high peer acceptance there was no significant difference

between children with two or more RCF and children who have less than two RCF

B=955.50,2=.22, p.831.

As no RCF effects were observed on the CDI total score, analyses are not shown for

the subscales.

Nominated Friends

NF and Grade Effects

A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA was employed to compare children with and without LD by

grade placement and whether they had five or more NF using the Loneliness scale, the total

score on the CDI and the Harter SA subscale as the dependent variables. The means and

standard deviations are shown in Table 14. There were no significant interactions for LD

status by grade by nominated friendship B(3,199)=1.06, ~ 4 7 1 ; LD status by nominated

friendship E(3, W)=.6O, p=.62]; LD status by grade E(3,199)=.44, ~=.72], grade by NF

B(3,199)=2.50, ~=.06]. The MANOVA showed significant main effects for NF

B(3,199)=10.39 ~<.001], LD B(3>199)=2.92, p<.05], and grade E(3,199)=5.88, p<.001].

Univariate analyses indicated that children who have more than five nominated fkiends

reported a higher level of SA B(1,20 1)=25.64, g<.OOL] than children who have less than five

nominated fiends.

A Mann-Whitney was done to compare the GSW scores for those children who have

Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment Variables for Children with and without LD by Grade Level and Nominated Friend

U) NLD Grade 44 Grade 7-8 Total Grade 4-6 Grade 7-8 Total Sig Mean . SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD . Mean SD --- - Mean SD Effects

-> - - Loneliness 6 NP 2.16 1 -1.97 0.86 2.03 0.9 1.69 0.44 1.96 0.79 1.88 0,7 >5 NF A 2.03 0.88 1.87 0.74 1.96 0.82 1.69 0.54 1.54 0.44 1.62 0,s

GSW (1) <S NP 2.96 0.74 3.23 0.67 3.3 0.61 3.19 0.62 3.21 0.54 3.2 0.56 25 NP 3.23 0.57 3.13 0.8 3.17 0.68 3.6 0.57 3.47 0.54 3.52 0.55

SA

Depression <5 NF 7.91 6.2 9.56 7.54 9.08 7.13 6.31 3-35 7.86 6.99 7.38 6.1 TI

(1) - Mann-Whitney analyses was used for GSW *p<.01; **p c ,001 Univariate effects in lowercase; Multivariate in uppercase A=LD effect; B=Grade effect; C= Nominated Friend effect. Note: Overall Multivariate B and C effects No Interactions

five or more nominated fkiends and those children who have less than five nominated fiends

(see Table 14). The results indicated that there was a significant difference in GSW scores

w4173.00, z=-2.64, pc.0 11. For children with LD, it was found that those children who

have five or more nominated friends did not report significantly higher GSW than the

children with less than five nominated Friends B=1240.00, 2=.68, ~=.50]. In addition,

children without LD who had five or more nominated fiends reported significantly higher

GSW when compared to those children with less than five nominated friends w=8 16.00,Z=-

3.27, ~<.001]. There was no difference in GSW scores between children in grades 4 to 6 and

children in grades 7 and 8 m=5052.00, z=-2.07, ~=.29]. Children in grades 4 to 6 who have

five or more nominated friendships did not report higher levels of SA than those children

who have less than five nominated friends m=539.00, z=-2.49, ~=.05]. However, there was

no significant difference for children in grades 7 and 8 with five or more nominated fiends

and the children who have less than five nominated fiends m= 1596.00, z=- 1 .O6, p.291.

As no effects were observed on the CDI total score, analyses are not shown for the

subscales.

NF and Peer Acceptance Effects

A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA was done comparing children with and without LD, with low

or average to high peer acceptance and either five or more NF or less than five NF using their

scores on the Loneliness scale, the total score on the CDI and the Harter SA subscale as the

dependent variables. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 15. The

MANOVA showed significant main effects for nominated friendship B(3,158)=8.59,

Table 15 Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment Variables for Children with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance and Nominated Friend

Loneliness <5 NP >5 NF

GSW (2) < 5NP >5 NF

SA < 5NP >5 m

Depression <5 NP >5 NP

U)

Low A m p tame A-H Acceptance (1) T d Mean SD Mean SD - - h SD

LQW Acceptance Mean SD

A-H Acceptance Mean SD - -

Total Sig Mean SD Effects --

(1) -Avenge to High Peer Acceptance (2) - Mann-Whitney analyses was used for GSW *p < .01; "p < ,001 Univariate effects in lowercase; Multivariate in uppercase A=LD effect; B=Peer Acceptance effect; C= Nominated Friend effect. Note: Overall Multivariate A , B and C effects No Interactions

65

~<.001], LD E(3,158)=3.34, ~<.05] and peer acceptance B(3,158)=12.90, ~ < . 0 0 11 . It did

not show any significant interactions for LD status by peer acceptance level by nominated

fiendship E(3, 1 58)= 1 -82, g=. 1 51; LD status by nominated Eendship E(3,158)=.57, p=.64];

peer acceptance by nominated friendship B(3,158)=.80, ~=.50]. Univariate analyses showed

that children with average to high numbers of nominated friends reported a higher SA

F(l,l6O)= 17.05, ~ < . 0 0 11 than children with below average number of nominated friends.

A Mann-Whitney was done to compare the GSW scores for children with Low peer

acceptance and those who either have five or more nominated friends or less than five

nominated fiends. The results indicated that for those children vjiih low peer acceptance

there was not a significant difference in the GSW scores between children with five or more

nominated friends and those with fewer than five nominated friends, m=503.50, Z=-.05,

~=.96]. There was not a significant difference in GSW scores between those children with

average to high peer acceptance who nominated five or more friends and those children who

nominated less than five fiends m=933.00, z=--92, ~=.36]. For children with less than five

NF, those who had low peer acceptance did not report significantly different GSW scores

fiom those children with average to high peer acceptance NF m=367.00, 2 4 - 9 2 , ~=.06].

For children with five or more NF, those who had low peer acceptance did not report

significantly lower GSW scores from those children with average to high peer acceptance

w = 9 1 1 .00,+2.26, ~=.05].

As no effects were observed on the CDI total score analyses are not shown for the

subscaies in this section.

Posthoc Analysis

There were five children in the sample who did not have any RCF (see Table 16).

Three of these five children were children with LD. The ages of the five children ranged

between 12 and 14 years. Two of the students were female and three were male. The two

students without LD were in regular ~Iassrooms. The three students with LD were receiving

special education, one had in ciass support, one was in full-time special education, and the

other in a full inclusion program.

Table 16

Participants with no Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends

Participant LD Age Gender Grade Class* Status

LD 13 Male 8 4

LD 14 Female 8 2

NLD 13 Female 8 1

4 LD 12 Male 7 5

NLD 13 Male 8 1

* -Class Placement 1 - regular class 2 - in-class support 3 - resource withdrawal 4 - full-time special education 5 -inclusion

Three of these five children had low peer acceptance (see Table 17) and two of these

three were children with LD. One of the children did not nominate any fiiends, one

nominated only two friends, one nominated three, one nominated five, and one nominated

eight fiends. The one participant (Participant #3) who reported very high levels of

loneliness and depression and a low of level of SA did not nominate any friends.

Table 17

The Psychological Adjustment of Participants with no Reciprocated and/or Corroborated

Friends

Participants Peer Acceptance Loneliness GSW S A CDI

- -

Low 1.94 3 .OO 2.20 7.00

Average-High 1.81 3 -20 3 -20 1 1.00

Low 5.00 3 .OO 1 .OO 33.00

Low 2.88 2.20 2.88 13.00

Average-High 1 S O 3 -40 2.80 9.00

The children who had no RCF reported lower levels of GSW and SA and they

reported higher levels of loneliness, social dissatisfaction, and depression (see Table 17)

when compared with the total sample. They also reported higher levels of anhedonia,

interpersonal problems, feelings of ineffectiveness, negative self-esteem, and negative mood

(see Table 1 8)-

Table 18

The CDI Subscale scores of the Participants with no Reciprocated and/or Corroborated

Friends

Participants Anhedonia Ineffectiveness Interpersonal Negative Problems Self-Esteem

Negative Mood

- -

1 1 4 1 1 0

2 2 3 2 3 1

3 12 4 2 5 10

4 3 3 1 2 3

5 5 3 0 0 1

In Tables 19 and 20 the mean scores on the psychological adjustment variables for

this small group of children are compared with the means of the total sample. Inferential

statistical analysis was not conducted to compare these means as the group size was too

small; therefore it is not known whether the differences between these means is significant.

Table 19

Means and Standard Deviations for Peer Acceptance and Psychological Adjustment VariabIes

for Children with and without Reciprocated and /or Corroborated Friends

No Friends Friends

Variable Mean SD Mean SD

Peer Acceptance

Loneliness

GSW

Depression

Table 20

Means and Standard Deviations of CDI Subscales for Children with and without

Reciprocated and/or Corroborated Friends

No Friend Friends

Variable Mean SD Mean SD

Interpersonal Problems

Ineffectiveness

Negative Self-Esteem

Negative Mood

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

First, the results relating to the peer acceptance of children with and without LD and

their psychological adjustment are addressed. Then, the grade effects for children with and

without LD are examined, followed by a discussion of how the three friendship variables,

reciprocated school friends (RSF), reciprocated and/or corroborated friends (RCF), and

nominated friends (NF), are related to psychological adjustment in children. The results of

the post hoc analysis will then be discussed. This chapter will conclude with a description of

the limitations and the implications of the present study.

Summarv of Results

The analyses found certain main effects that supported the hypotheses. Children with

LD were less accepted by peers, and they were lonelier and more depressed than children

without LD. With regard to the subscales of the CDI, children with LD reported more

feelings of ineffectiveness than the children without LD.

The results also showed grade level effects; children in grades 7 and 8 reported more

depression than children in grades 4 to 6. No other psychological adjustment variables were

shown to vary with grade level. With regard to gender effects, girls rated their female

classmates higher in terms of peer acceptance than the boys rated their male classmates.

Girls also had more RSF than boys.

The peer relations variables also differentiated the children in terms of psychological

adjustment. ChiIdren with low peer acceptance were lonelier and more depressed, and

reported lower SA and GSW when compared to children with average to high peer

acceptance. Children with LD who had RSF did report higher GSW than the children with

LD who did not have RSF. Children with two or more RCF were compared to children with

less than two RCF. The results indicated that those children with more than two RCF

reported higher SA and less loneliness. Finally, children who nominated five or more friends

were compared with children who nominated fewer than five friends. Children with less than

five nominated friends reported lower SA than children with five or more nominated friends.

In this study I predicted several interaction effects. I predicted that children with LD

who had low peer acceptance would report more loneliness and depression, and lower GSW

and SA than the other children. I predicted that children with LD and low peer acceptance,

who had one or more RSF, would report less loneliness and depression, and higher GSW and

SA than the children with LD and low peer acceptance who did not have any RSF. I

predicted that children with LD and low peer acceptance, who had two or more reciprocated

and/or corroborated friends, would report less loneliness and depression, and higher GSW

and SA than the children with LD and low peer acceptance who had less than two RCF. I

predicted that children with LD and low peer acceptance, who had five or more nominated

friends, would report less loneliness and depression and higher GSW and SA than the

children with LD and low peer acceptance who had less than five nominated friends. None

of these interaction effects were significant.

Discussion of Risk and Resilience

As the theory of risk and resilience provided the theoretical basis for this study, it had

been postulated based on the main effect risk model that having a learning disability was a

risk factor for psychological maladjustment. It was further hypothesized that poor peer

acceptance was another risk factor. Based on the interactive risk model these two risk

factors would combine and would lead to greater psychological maladjustment for children.

The results did indicate that (1) having a learning disability was a risk factor; and (2) having

poor peer acceptance was also a risk factor. Both of these risk factors were associated with

greater Ioneiiness, depressive symptomatology, and lower GSW. However, the results did

not support the interactive risk model; peer acceptance has the same impact on psychological

adjustment for children with and without LD. An interaction between the risk factors was not

demonstrated, thus an interactive risk model does not explain the relationship between these

two risk factors. Similar results were found for the three friendship variables. Therefore, the

results supported a main effect risk model.

The one possible exception to the above is the findings regarding global self-worth.

As the distribution of this variable did not approach normalcy, non-parametric statistics,

which are not sensitive to interaction effects were used. 1 found that children with LD who

have low peer acceptance had lower GSW than children with LD with average to high peer

acceptance, whereas there were no significant differences in GSW between low and average

to high peer accepted children without LD. A similar pattern was found for reciprocated

school friends. In contrast, children with LD who nominated five or more friends did not

differ with respect to GSW from children who nominated less than five fiends, whereas

children without LD who reported 5 or more nominated friends had higher GSW than

children without LD who had fewer nominated fiends.

While the study did not generally provide support for the interactive model, it is

suggested that a component of the risk factor associated with LD does contribute to the

child's experience of low peer acceptance. Slightly more than half the children with LD were

classified as having Low peer acceptance while only a quarter of the children without LD

were classified as having low peer acceptance. The disproportionate representation of

children with LD who are poorly accepted by their peers has also been shown in the research

literature (Wiener, Harris, & Duval, 1993). If some of the risk associated with having a

learning disability is being poorly accepted by peers, an interactive risk model would not be

suitable.

In this study it was postulated that friendship would compensate for the two risk

factors, LD and low peer acceptance, and lessen their impact on psychological adjustment.

Instead, it was shown that friendship protects both children with and without LD and children

with low and average to high peer acceptance fiom some aspects of psychological

maladjustment. Thus, a main effect model may be a more suitable model by which to

understand how friendship protects children from developing psychological adjustment

problems.

Friendship and Peer Acceptance

It was hypothesized in this study that fiiendship would buffer against the effects of

low peer acceptance; however this hypothesis was not supported by the results. While

friendship and peer acceptance both constitute elements of peer relations, it was found that

each offered a distinct contribution to psychological adjustment. It was shown that low peer

acceptance is associated with loneliness, depressive symptoms, low GSW and SA. Having a

RSF or a RCF provides some level of protection against the risk af ioneiiness and a greater

feeling of social acceptance. However, friends provided this equally for all children

regardless of the child's LD status or level of peer acceptance. Thus, low peer acceptance

seems to be a powerful risk factor, and friendship appears to be a moderate protective factor.

Given the way peer acceptance is defined in this study, it constitutes a form of

involuntary peer relations in that children do not have any control over who is in their

classes. Friendship is a form of voluntary peer relations, such that children do have some

control over whom they choose for their friends. Children with atypical patterns of

development and behaviour choose friends who are likely to be similar (Schneider, Wiener,

& Murphy, 1994). However, in a larger group of peers, children with special characteristics

are less likely to be liked by all of the children. Therefore, there should be significant

differences between the peer acceptance of children who have atypical patterns of

development and behaviour and those who do not (B. Schneider, personal communication,

September 18, 1998). It is postulated that peer acceptance is a powerful factor for children

with atypical patterns of development and behaviour, and may be a more p o w e h l predictor

of psychological adjustment than friendship.

Measuring Friendship

Research has shown that having friends does protect children from psychological

adjustment problems (Buhrmester, 1990; Lustig, Wolchik, & Braver, 1992). Furthermore,

research has indicated that having a friend protects low peer accepted children from

loneliness (Sanderson & Siegal, 2995). Each of the three friendship variables measured in

this study has distinctive characteristics. The first fiendship variable, Reciprocated School

Friends (RSF), is an attempt to objectively measure the school friendships of the children in

this study. Since children with LD have problems at school, it was thought having a fi-iend at

school would play a critical role in providing support to children. It was found, however, that

having a school friend is just as important for children without LD as it is for children with

LD.

In this study the children with LD had just as many RSF as children without LD.

These results confirm the findings of other studies (Bear et al., 2993; Vaughn et at., 2993)

and may suggest that children with LD are just as competent at making school fkiends as

children without LD, and thus may not be any more vulnerable to psychological

maladjustment due to a lack of fiiends.

The variable of reciprocated school friendship that was used in the present study has

some limitations and these need to be considered when discussing the results. it only

measures the number of potentially reciprocating school friends who consented to participate

in the study. Therefore, it omits any fiends who do not attend the same school and it does

not measure the school Wends who were not willing to participate in the study. There were

60 children who did not have a reciprocated school friend. Of these, 55 did have &ends who

were corroborated by a parent or a teacher, leaving only five children who did not have a

reciprocated, or a corroborated, friend. Thus the RSF variable alone did not identify 55 of

the friendships. To address this limitation another friendship variable was created,

reciprocated andlor corroborated Wendship. This variable was more inclusive.

The children who had two or more RCF did report a significantly higher SA and

lower loneliness than the children with less than two RCF, but they did not report less

depression or higher GSW. It would appear that having two or more Wends is related to

feeling more socially accepted and less lonely, but it does not seem to protect children from

experiencing depression or low GSW. Further research is needed to compare the different

methods of measuring friendship.

These results are similar to those of a study by Sanderson and Siegal (1995) that

indicated that having a friend will protect a child from feeling lonely, and the study by

Vandell and Hembree (1994) that showed that having a friend is associated with higher social

self-concept. Bear et al. (1993) reported that children with LD are often not accepted by their

peers but they perceive themselves as socially accepted because they have close Wends.

These researchers postulated that the child may not be insensitive or oblivious to their peer

acceptance level. Rather, they emphasize the positive aspects of their peer relations, namely

their fiendships, and de-emphasize the negative aspects, namely their peer acceptance level.

The positive emphasis placed on friendship may also protect them from feelings of

Loneliness. However, it has been suggested that underestimating social problems may lead to

a lack of motivation to make changes in peer relationships which may then continue to

worsen and lead to loneliness (Renshaw & Brown, 1993).

The third friendship variable, number of nominated fiends, was created to assess

whether the child's perception of fiends constituted a protective factor against

maladjustment. While children who perceive that they have many friends report feeling

higher global self-worth and social acceptance, the child's perception of the number of

friends does not play a protective role against loneliness and depression.

The results of the post hoc analyses indicated that very few (5 of the 212) children

had no RCF. The five children who have no RCF are less accepted by their peers, feel more

lonely and depressed, and they have lower GSW and SA than the rest of the participants in

the sample. Although statistical analysis was not possible, these results do indicate that not

having any friends is associated with psychological adjustment problems and provides some

support for the hypothesis that a fiend can protect a child from psychological maladjustment.

The one child who did not nominate any friends was a 13-year-old girl in grade 8 who

did not have a LD. She was not accepted by her peers and she reported very high levels of

depressive symptomatology, particularly anhedonia and negative mood, and a high level of

loneliness and low SA. Surprisingly, she did report moderately high GSW. It would appear

that her level of GSW is not associated with her lack of peer relations or her psychological

maladj ustrnent.

Limitations of the Studv and Im~lications for Future Research

The methodological limitations of this study should to be taken into account when

interpreting the conclusions discussed above.

In this study, only one self-report inventory, the CDI (Kovacs, 1992) was used to

measure depressive symptoms. It has been recommended by other researchers (Clarizio,

1985; Maag & Forness, 1991) that in order to gather valid and reliable information more than

one method to measure depressive symptoms should be employed and that the symptoms

should be assessed over time. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the symptoms

associated with depression described in this study were measured only once and are based

only on the children's report of their feelings at that time. Loneliness was also measured

only once using one self-report measure. Due to time constraints it was not possible to repeat

the measures or to use other more objective measures of loneliness and depressive symptoms.

The participants' responses on the GSW subscale of the SPPLDS (Renick & Harter,

1988) were skewed toward a positive response. Thus non-parametric statistical analysis was

used with this variable. This response pattern may not be truly reflective of the participants'

feelings about their self-worth. It may be that the close individual supervision which was

provided when the test was being given resulted in the participants being more likely to

respond in a positive and socially desirable manner. The SA subscale results were also

skewed, although not to the extent that parametric analyses were not possible.

For the SA subscale of the SPPLDS (Renick & Harter, 1988), it is apparent that three

of the five items on this scale refer to having Wends, while only two refer to social

acceptance. Therefore the SA subscale is measwing both the child's perception of how they

make friends and how socially accepted they feel with their peers. Self-perception of peer

relations may be a more accurate label for this subscale as it includes both friendship and

social acceptance. An alternative is to design two self-perception subscaies, one measuring

peer acceptance and one measuring friendship.

A 5-point liking scale was used in this study to measure peer acceptance with an

additional point ("6") added to measure whether the respondent knew the child hekhe was

scoring. This sixth point confused some of the children who participated in the study in the

first year so the "6" was changed to a "?". This change reduced the participants' confusion.

It is important to know whether the participants know the child when they are reporting on

how much they like spending time with h i d e r . This is particularly true for children with

LD who often may be out of the classroom (Vaughn et al., 1993).

It is recommended in the literature that the ceiling for the low accepted group should

be a z score of -1.0 (Parker & Asher, 1993). Increasing the upper limit of the z score for low

accepted children to 4 . 5 , while necessary because of the small number of children without

LD in this group, does constitute a limitation in this study.

The difference between children with and without LD on SES is an important

limitation as the literature indicates that SES is correlated with various aspects of

psychological adjustment (Ontario Child Health Study, 1989). In the present study SES was

correlated with the CDI total score Cr--. 17, g<. 05). Research has shown that children who

report depressive symtomatology tend to come from families of lower SES (Garrison,

Schlucter, Schoenbach, & Kaplan, 1989; Stravraki & Gaudet, 1989). Therefore children with

LD who report more depressive symtomatology can be explained by these children with LD

coming from homes of lower SES. The difference between children with and without LD on

psychological adjustment variables was no longer significant @-.06) in the MANCOVA

with SES as a covariate. Nevertheless, the univariate comparisons were significant @<.0 1).

All of the measures of psychological adjustment used in this study were self-report. It

is important when measuring psychological adjustment to obtain information from the

person, but it is also recommended that measures from other sources be used.

As this study was examining the reciprocal relationship between peer acceptance,

friendship, and psychological adjustment it would have been more appropriate to use a

longitudinal research design. For children who experience low peer acceptance, it would be

expected that they would feel lonely and depressed and that these feelings would increase and

the peer acceptance would decrease over time. As a longitudinal research design was not

employed these changes over time could not be assessed. However, comparisons between

children in grades 4 to 6 and grades 7 and 8 were made in order to assess whether there were

any grade differences in psychological adjustment. These comparisons did demonstrate that

the grade 7 and 8 children did report more depressive symptoms than the children in grades 4

to 6, but these results do not provide sufficient evidence to support the proposed relationship

between peer acceptance and psychological adjustment.

This study showed few gender differences in peer acceptance, friendships or

psychological adjustment. However, it is important to note that previous research has shown

that boys tend to be considered to be at more risk for psychological maladjustment than girls

(Rutter, 1987). Boys also tend to report more externalizing symptoms. The lack of gender

differences found in this study may be related to the limited concept of psychological

adjustment employed and the way in which it was measured. It is possible that children with

LD who are not accepted may exhibit more psychological adjustment problems in the form of

externalizing behaviours rather than internalizing behaviours, but these were not measured.

Another limitation to this study was that the sample was not of sufficient size to

examine grade, peer acceptance, friendship and LD status in one MANOVA.

When studying the protective role of Wendship for psychological adjustment it would

also be important to measure the quality of the friendships. One high quality fiendship may

be more protective than two low quality friendships. Furthermore, children with LD report

having more conflict and more difficulty resolving conflicts with their friends than children

without LD (Wiener & Schneider, in preparation). Further resezich is needed to determine

whether the lower quality of the fiendships of the children with LD interferes with the

protective function of friendships.

It may also be necessary to develop a risk model that would explain the complex

nature of the relationship between LD and low peer acceptance and which would examine

other protective factors. Further research is needed in order to gain a better understanding of

the interaction between risk factors, protective factors, and the psychological adjustment of

children with LD. While this study showed that having more than one reciprocated and/or

corroborated friend enhanced the protective features provided by fiendship, it would be

important to determine whether additional fiends continue to increase the protective nature

of this variable.

Im~lications for Clinical and Educational Practice

Despite the limitations inherent in this study, the results have provided some

important indications of the type of clinical and academic intenrentions which are needed in

this area. Given that the results of this study indicate that children with LD do report greater

loneliness, specific depressive symptoms such as interpersonal problems and feelings of

ineffectiveness, and lower GSW, it is necessary to consider these aspects of psychological

adjustment when providing academic and clinical interventions.

The psychological maladjustment of a child effects, and is in turn affected by, his or

her academic and social life. Children with LD who feel lonely, depressed, worthless and not

accepted by their peers may not be able to learn effectively nor will they be able to interact

appropriately with their peers, teachers or family members. Therefore, it is imperative to

address their psychological adjustment problems, their learning problems, and their social

skills simultaneously. It is essential to provide a well orchestrated and consistent

intervention that takes into account the developmental stage and learning style of each child.

It is also important that teachers be educated about the psychological adjustment problems

that are associated with low peer acceptance and with having a learning disability.

Children with learning disabilities have been shown to have difficulty learning social

skills, and this results in their low peer acceptance (Swanson & Malone, 1992). Thus, it is

logical to assist children with LD to improve their social skills. As it has been demonstrated

that friendships can provide protection against some forms of psychological maladjustment it

would be beneficial to include the social skills that are necessary for both peer acceptance

and fiendships in social skill training programs.

As the results of this study indicate that children with LD are just as capable of

making friends as children without LD and these fiendships appear to provide just as much

protection, it would be important to encourage the development of these friendships. It has

previously been recommended that children join group activities to develop relationships

with other children, but it also seems appropriate to assist them in fostering individual

fiendships.

Furthermore, research has shown that some chiIdren with LD seem to be able to

emphasize the positive aspect of their peer relations, their friendships, and to de-emphasize

the negative aspect of their peer relations, their low peer acceptace level. This emphasis on

friendships may protect them fiom feelings of loneliness. Therefore, it would be helpful to

teach children this coping strategy to avoid feelings of loneliness.

This study is only the first step in exploring the relationship between peer acceptance,

friendship, and the psychological adjustment of children with learning disabilities. In order

to intervene in an effective manner it is essentid to gain a better understanding of how peer

acceptance and friendship interact and how they both affect the psychological adjustment of

children with learning disabilities.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1 994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Angold, A., & Rutter, M. (1992). Effects of age and pubertal status on depression in a

large clinical sample. Development and Psycho~atholoq, & 5-28.

Asher, S . R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their

peers. Developmental Psychology, 22,444-449.

Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child

Development, 55, 1456- 1464.

Asher, S. R., Parkhurst J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990). Peer rejection and

loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer re-iection in childhood @p.

253-273). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bagwell, C. L., Newcornb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship

and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140- 153.

Bear, G. F., Juvonen, J., & McInemey, F. (1993). Self-perceptions and peer relations of

boys with boys without learning disabilities in an integrated setting: A longitudinal study.

Learning Disability Quarterly, fi 127- 13 6.

Bender, W. N., & Wall, M. E. (1994). Social-emotional development of students with

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Ouarterlv, 323-34 1.

Bishop, J. A., & Inderbitzen, H. M. (1995). Peer acceptance and friendship: An

investigation of their relation to self-esteem. Journal of Earlv Adolescence, 15,476-489.

Blishen, B. B., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index of

occupations in Canada.. Canadian Review of Sociologv and Anthro~olow, 465-487.

Boivin, M., & Begin, G. (1989). Peer status and self-perception among early

elementary school children: The case of the rejected children. Child Develo~ment, 60, 59 I-

596.

Boivin, M., Thornassin, L., & Main, M. (1989). Peer rejection and self-perceptions

among early elementary school children: Aggressive rejectees vs. withdrawn rejectees. In

B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in

developmental perspective (pp. 392-393). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peer rejection in

childhood. Development and Psychopathoiog41,6,483-498.

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The role of social withdrawal, peer

rejection and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in

childhood. Develo~ment and Psvcho~athoIog.v, Z, 765-785.

Bruck, M. (1985).The adult hc t ioning of children with specific learning disabilities.

In I. Sigel (Ed.) Advances in applied developmental ~ s v c h o l o ~ (Vol. 1, pp. 91-129).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bryan, T. H. (1976). Peer popularity of learning disabled children: A replication.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, & 307-3 1 1.

Buhrrnester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence and

adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 6& 1 10 1 - 1 1 1 1.

Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory,

measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Bemdt, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child

development (pp. 15-45). New York: Wiley.

Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1994). Using rating scale and

nomination techniques to measure Eendship and popularity. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, ll, 485-488.

Bukowski, W. H., Hoza, B , & Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity, friendship, and emotional

adjustment during early adolescence. New Directions for Child Development, 60.23-37.

Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L., Gauze, C., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1993).

Differences in the processes, properties. and perceptions of friendship among boys and girls.

Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New

Orleans.

Canadian Test Centre & McGraw-Hill Ryerson. (1982). Canadian Achievement Tests.

Test Coordinator's Handbook, Form A. Toronto, ON: Authors.

Chapman, J. W. (1988). Learning disabled children's self concepts. Review of

Educational Research, 58.3 47-3 7 1 .

Clarizio, H. F. (1985). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of childhood depression.

Psvcholow in the Schools, 22.308-322.

Coben, S. S., & Zigmond, N. (1986). The social integration of learning disabled

students from self-contained to mainstream elementary school settings. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 19,6 14-6 1 8.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social

status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18,557-570.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis.

Ps~cholo~ica l Bulletin, 98,3 10-3 57.

Colangelo, N., Kelley, K. R., & Schrepfer, R.M. (1987). A comparison of gifted,

general and special learning needs students on academic and social self-concept. Journal of

Counselling and Development, 66, 73-77.

Comolly, S., Geller, S., Marton, P., & Kutcher, S. (1992). Peer response to social

interaction with depressed adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child P s v c h o i o ~ ~ , 365-370.

Cullen, J. L., Boersman, F. J., & Chapman, J.W. (1981). Characteristics of third grade

learning disabled children. Leamine Disabi l i~ Ouarterlv, & 224-230.

Faust, J., Baum, C., & Forehand, R. (1985). An examination of the association between

social relationships and depression in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Develo~mental

Psychologl: & 291-297.

Feldman, S. S., Rubenstein, J. L., & Rubin, C. (1 988). Depressive S e c t and restraint in

early adolescents: Relationships with family structure family process and friendship support.

Journal of Early AdoIescence, 5,279-296.

French, D. C., & Waas, G. A. (1985). Behaviour problems of peer neglected and peer

rejected elementary-aged children: Parent and teacher perspectives. Child Develo~ment,

246-252.

Fuerst, D. R., Fisk, J. L., & Rourke, B. P. (1 989). Psychosocial fbctioning of learning

disabled children: Replicability of statistically derived subtypes. Journal of Consultine and

Clinical Psycholog7r, 57,275-280.

Furman, W., & Robbins, P. (1985). What's the point? Issues in the selection of

treatment objectives. In B. H. Schneider, K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's

peers relations: Issues in assessment and Intervention @p. 4 1-54). New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Garmezy, N. (Ed.). (1983). Stressoe of childhood. Minneapolis, MN: McGraw-Hill.

Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1991). The protective role of competence indicators in

children at risk. In E. M. Cummings, A. L. Greene, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Life-span

developmental ~svcholosv: Perspectives on stress and coping. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Publishers.

Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence

in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development,

97-1 2 1.

Garrison, C. Z., Schlucter, M. D., Schoenbach, V. J., & Kaplan, B. K.(1989).

Epidemoilogy of depressive symptoms in young adolescents. Journal of the American

Academy of Child and Adoiescent P s y c h i a ~ , 28,343-35 1.

Gregory,J. F., Shanahan, T. & Wdberg, H. J. (1986). A profile of learning disabled

twelfth graders in regular classes. Leslrninn Disability Ouarterlv, g33-42.

Halls, C. W., & Haws, D. (1989). Depressive symptomatology in learning-disabled and

noniearning-disabled students. Psvcholow in the Schools, 26,359-364.

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

Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), Handbook of child

psvcholoq: Vol. 4. Socialization. personality and social development @p. 103-196). New

York: Wiley.

Heath, N. (1992). Domain-specific self perce~tion. achievement and de~ressive

svm~tomatologv in children with and without learn in^ disabilities. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Heath, N. L., & Wiener, 1. (1996). Depression and nonacademic self-perceptions in

children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabili~r Quarterly, 34-44.

Hicks, R. (1994). Peer relationshiws and loneliness. Unpilbiished doctoral dissertation,

York University, Toronto, ON.

Huntington, D. D., & Bender, W. N.(1993). Adolescents with learning disabilities at

risk? Emotional well-being, depression, suicide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 156-

166.

Hutchings, B., & Mednick, S. (1974). Registered criminality in adoptive and btological

parents of registered male adoptees. In S . A. Mednick et al. (Eds.), Genetics. environment

and ~svcho~a tho low @p. 2 15-227). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised

Administration Manual. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates Inc.

Jenkins, J., & Smith, M. A. (1990). Factors protecting children living in disharmonious

homes: Maternal reports. Journal of the American Academv of Adolescent Psychiatrv, a 60-69.

Juvonen, J., & Bear, G. (1992). Social adjustment of children with and without learning

disabilities in integrated classrooms. Journal of Educational Psvchoiow, fi 332-340.

Kaufinan, A. S., & KauFman, N. L. (1 985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement.

Circle Pines, MN: Amzrican Guidance Service.

Kavale, K., & Fomess, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: A

rneta-analysis. Journal of Learning; Disabilities, 29.226-237.

Kazdin, A.E. (1990). Childhood Depression. Journal of Child Psvchologv and

Psvchiatry, 31.121-160.

Keough, B. K., & Weimer, T. (1993). An ecoculturai perspective on risk and protective

factors in children's development: Implications for learning disabilities. Leamine Disabilities

Research and Practice, 8 , 3 - 10.

Kistner, I., & Gatlin, D. F. (1 989). Correlates of peer rejection among children with

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilitv Ouarterl~, 12. 133-140.

Kovacs, M. (1 992).ChiIdren's Depression Inventory Manual. Multi-Health Systems,

Inc.NY.

Livingstone, D. W. & Mangan, N. (1996). Recast Dreams: Class and Gender

Consciousness in Steeltown. Toronto, Garmond Press.

Lustig, J., Wolchik, S. A., & Braver, S. L. (1992). Social support in chumships and

adjustment in children of divorce. American Journal of C o m m u n i ~ Psycholom, 20,393-399

Maag, J. W., & Forness, S. R. (1991). Depression in children and adolescents:

Identification, assessment and treatment. Focus on Exce~tional Children, 24, 1 - 19.

Margalit, M. (1991). Understanding loneliness among students with learning

disabilities. Behaviour Change, 8, 167- 173.

Margalit, M., & Efrati, M. (1996). Loneliness, coherence and companionship among

children with learning disorders. Educational Psvchologv, 16, 69-79.

Margalit, M., & Levin Alyagon, M. (1994). Learning disability subtyping, loneliness

and classroom adjustment. Leamine; Disabilities Quarterlv, 17.297-3 10.

Minskoff, E. H., Sautter, S. W., Sheldon, K. L., Steidle, E. F., & Baker, M (1 988). A

comparison of learning disabled adults and high school students. Leamine. Disabilities

Research, A 1 1 5- 1 23.

Moore, L. A., Hughes, J.N., & Robinson, M. (1992). A comparison of the social

information-processing abilities of rejected and accepted hyperactive children. Journal of

Clinical Child Psycholog;y, 21. 123- 13 1.

Morrison, G. M., & Cosden, M. A. (1997). Risk. resilience, and adjustmeat of

individuals with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterlv, a 43-60.

Ochoa S. H., and Olivarez, A (1995). A meta-analysis of peer rating sociometric

studies with leaming disabled pupils. Journal of S~ecial Education, a 1 - 19.

Ochoa, S. H., & Palmer, D. J. (1991). A sociometric analysis of between group

differences and within-group status variability of Hispanic learning disabled and

nonhandicapped pupils in academic and play contexts. Learning Disabilitv Quarterlv,

208-2 18.

Oldenburg, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (1997). Associations between peer relationships and

depressive symptoms: Testing moderator effects of gender and age. Journal of Earlv

Adolescence, 17,3 1 9-337.

Offord, D. (1989). Ontario Child Health Study: Children at risk. Toronto: Ontario

Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Parker, J. G., & Asher. S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are

low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin. 102, 3 57-3 89.

Parker, I. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and fkiendship quality in middle

childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social

dissatisfaction. Develoumental PsychoIo~~ , 29,6 1 1-62 1.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup

differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psvcholop.~

28,231-241.

Patterson, C . I., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Griesler, P. C. (1990). Children's perceptions of

self and of relationships with others as a function of sociometric status. Child Development,

61. 1335-1349.

Peplau, L. A*, & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current

theory, research and therapy, New York: Wiley .

Ray, G. A., Cohen, R., & Secrist, M. E. (1995). Best friend networks of children across

settings. Child Studv Journal, 25, 169-1 87.

Renick, N. J., & Harter, S. (1988). Self-perception profile for learning disabled

students. Denver, CO : University of Denver.

Renshaw, P. D., & Brown, P. J. (1993). Loneliness in middle childhood: Concurrent

and longitudinal predictors. Child Development, 127 1 - 1284.

ROE, M., Sells, S. B., & Golden, M. M. (1972). Social ad-iustrnent and uersonal i~

development in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rotenburg, K. J. & Kmill, J. (1992). Perception of lonely and non-lonely persons as a

h c t i o n of individual differences in loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

% 325-330.

Rutter, M. (Ed.). (1979). Protective factors in children's responses to stress and

disadvantage. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Sabomie, E. J., Marshall, K.J., & Ellis, E. S. (1990). Restructuring of mainstream

sociometry with learning disabled and nonhandicapped students. Exceptional Children, 56,

3 14-323.

Sameroff, A., & Seifer, R. (1990). Early contributors to developmental risk . In J. Rolf,

A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Neuchterlein, & S. Swintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective

factors in the development of ~ s ~ c h o ~ a t h o l o g y @p 52-66). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

SarneroR, A., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., & Greenspan, S. (1987). Intelligence

quotient scores of 4 year old children: Social environmental risk factors. Pediatrics, a 3 4 3 -

350. -3 10).

Sanderson, J. A., & Siegal, M. (1995). Loneliness and stable friendship in rejected and

nonrejected preschoolers. Journal of Ap~iied Developmental Psycholoey, & 555-567.

Saylor, C. F., Finch, A. J., Spirito, A., & Bennett, B. (1984). The Children's Depression

Inventory: A systematic evaluation of psychometric properties. Joumal of Consulting and

Clinical PsvchoIogv, 52, 955-967.

Schneider, B. H., Wiener, I., & Murphy, K. (1994). Children's Friendships: The giant

step beyond peer acceptance. Joumal of Social and Personal Relationships, 323-340.

Shaw, S.F., Cullen, J.P., Mcguire, J. M. & Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1995). Operationalizing

a definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disability, 28,586-597.

Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 22,469-478.

Spekman, N. J., Goldberg, R. G., & Herman, K. L. (1993). An exploration of risk and

resilience in the ikes of individuals with learning disabilities. Learninn Disabilities Research

and Practice, 8. 1 1 - 1 8.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the

gaden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of

Learning Disability, 21.590-6 12.

Stanovich, K. E. (1 99 1). Conceptual and empirical problems with discrepancy

definitions of reading disability. Leamine Disabilitv Quarterly, fi 269-280.

Stocker, C. (1994). Children's perceptions of relationships with siblings, friends and

mothers: Compensatory processes and links with adjustment. Journal of ChiId P s v c h o l o ~

and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35. 1447-1459.

Stravraki, C. & Gaudet, M. (1 989). Epidemiology of affective and anxiety disorders in

children and adolescents. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, l2,79 1-802.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Horton.

Swanson, H. L., & Malone, S. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: A meta-

analysis of the literature. School Psycholorn Review, 21,427-443.

Thorndike, & Hagen (198 1). Canadian Co~nitive Abilities Test. Scarborough : Nelson

Canada Limited.

Townsend, M. A., McCracken, H. E., & Wilton, K. M. (1988). Popularity and intimacy

as determinants of psychological well-being in adolescent friendships. Journal of Early

Adolescence, &,42 1-43 6.

Vandell, D. L., & Hembree, S.E. (1994). Peer social status and fiendship: Independent

contributors to children's social and academic adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Ouarterly, a 4 6 1 -

477.

Vaughn, S. (1985). Why teach social skills to learning disabled students. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 18,588-593.

Vaughn, S . R. & Hogan, A. (1994). The social competence of students with learning

disabilities over time: A wirhin individual examination. JournaI of Learning Disabilities, 27,

292-303.

Vaughn, S., McIntosh, R., Schumrn, J. S., Haager, D., & Callwood, D. (1993). Social

status, peer acceptance and reciprocal friendships revisited. Learning Disabilities Research

and Practice, 8, 82-88.

Vella, D. D., Heath, N., & Meizitis, S. (1992). Childhood depression assessment issues.

In S. Meizitis (Ed.), Creating an alternative to deoression in our schools. Toronto: Hogrefe

Press

Vernberg, E. (1990). Psychological adjustment and experiences with peers during early

adolescence: Reciprocal, incidental, or unidirectional relationships? Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 1 8, 187- 198.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intellieence Scale for Children-Revised.

(WISC-R). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation

Wechsler, D. (1989). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of

Intelligence-Revised WPPSI). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation

Wechsler, D.(l!W 1). Manual for the Wechsler Intellipence Scale for Children-Third

Edition (WISC-IIT). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation

Wechsler, D. ( 2 992). Manual for the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.(WIAT).

San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation

Werner, E. E. (Ed.). (1986). A longitudinal studv of perinatal risk. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press.

Werner, E., & Smith, R. S.(1982). Vulnerable but invicible: A longitudinal studv of

resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wiener, J. (1987). Peer status of learning disabled children and adolescents: A review

of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research, &62-79.

, ~ ~ l u r e n with and without Wiener, J. (1995). Friendship selection and qualitv in J-'"

learning disabilities. Pilot study, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Montreal.

Wiener, J., Harris, P. J., & Shirer, C. (1990). Achievement and social-behavioural

correlates of peer status in LD children. Learning Disabilities Ouarterly, l3, 1 14- 127.

Wiener, J., Harris, P. J.,& Duval, L. (1993).Identification, placement and subtype

correlates of peer status in children with learning disabilities. Exceptionali~ Education

Canada, 3, 129-155.

Wiener, J., Schneider, B. H., & Heath, H. (1993). Friendship Patterns of Children and

Adolescents with Learning Disabilities. Social Sciences and Human Research Council.

Wiener, J., & Schneider, B. H. (in preparation). A multisource exploration of the

friendship patterns of children with and without learning disabilities.

Wiener, J., & Sunohara, G. (1995). Friendship selection and quaiitv in children with

and without learning disabilities. Paper presented at meeting of the Society for Research in

Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Wiener, J., & Sunohara, G.(in press)

Winne, P. H., Woodlands, M. J., & Wong, B. Y. L. (1982). Comparability of self-

concept among learning disabled, nornal and gifted students. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, li, 470-475.

Appendix A

Cover Letter and Consent Form for Parents

Date:

Dear Parcnt(s)

I am writing to you to inform you about a research study which will be conducted at School. and to ask your permission for your child's participation. ~t present

I am completing my doctoral dissertation on peer relations with Dr. Judith Wiener a t the Ontario instlrute for Studies in EducationNniversity of Toronto. This study will examine friendships and it is a foilow-up of Dr. Wiener's research that was done in 1995 and 19%. A summary of this study is enclosed.

If you consent to have your child take part in this project, hdshe will first be asked whether or not he/she wishes to participate. and be told that hdshe can withdraw at any time. if your child a p e s to participate. hdshe will k having one private interview and one group interview, each of about 40 minutes duration. at school. with the investigator. During the interview(s) your child will be asked some questions about hidher friendships. HJshe will also be asked to fill out questionnaires. Your child's teacher will be asked to complete a questionnaire about your child's friendships. One of the child's parenu will k briefly interviewed by telephone regarding the child's friendships. The investigator will need access to your child's Ontario School Record (OSR) andlor to fonner psychoeducational assessment repom. in order to obtain infomration regarding your child's reasoning and language skills- If chis i n fomion is unavailable or outdated. your child may k given measures of academic achievement.

will be shad with anyone including school staff or classmates and your child's narne will never be identified in any report or publication. There arc no known risks or discomforts associated with research of this kind (children often enjoy king able to calk about their thoughts and feelings. and filling out questionnaires).

This study has been approved by your Principal and the Board of Education Research Review Committee. While individual children may not receive obvious benefits immediately frbm participating, we hope that the results of this study will eventually enable educators and student suppon staff to help children kner initiate and maintain satisfying social relationships.

We would very much apprcciafe your help with this project, and would k pleased to send you a summary of the study results once all has been compteted. If you would like to receive such a summary, please include your address at the bottom of the enclosed consent fonn. and return the consent form to your school ofice to the attention of Sue Power. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any further questions about this project. I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Sue Power M.S.W. MEd. (4854 144)

Consent Fonn

Child's Name:

CIpss: Date of Birth:

1, , have read and understood the information form describing the study that is being conducted in my child's school by Sue Power and Dr. Judith Wiener. 1 understand that my child will be interviewed and asked questions about him(herse1f and hidher friendships.

A11 my questions so f u have been satisfactoriiy answered and I hereby consent to have my child participate in this study. I understand that I may withdraw my consent at any time and that this choice, along with any information collected frodabout my child, wili be kept confidential by the investigator.

If I need funher information at any time. I know that I may contact Sue Power at 485-4144.

Please check:

- Yes. I give permission for my child, , to participate in the study conducted by Sue Power and Dr. Judith Wiener.

- No. I do not give permission for my child to participate in the study conducted by Sue Power and Dr. Judith Wiener.

Nomt of Parent (please print)

-

Signature of Parent Date

If you consent to allow your child to participate in this study, please complete the following information:

Telephone numkr when you can be reached for a 5 minute interview about your child's fiiendships Best time of day/evening for telephone tnterview

I would like to receive a summary of the results of this study If yes, please print your address

Appendix B

Subiect Information Form

SUBJECT INFORMATION FORM

Subject Name Subject ID

Name of School Date of Birth YY/MM/DD

Age (as of Jan. '95) Sex G&-

Language other ban English spoken at home

T ie in Special Ed. (per we&) Placcnacnt (sptdal class)

Rural / Suburban Modc of Transportation to S c b d

Type of Housing: Dcmched Semi/Townhouse Apartment

I & n a c d (Y/N) Daot Identified

Number of Siblings

nt kc-: (brief description)

Mother

h e tlizence Measures and Scoxs:

Dart Tested

Date Tested

Date Tested

Verbal IQ ~t~orm;mct r~ Full Scdt IQ

Other I Q Data:

a1 Tes~:

Name of Test

decoding

comprehension

computation

applications

writing

Name

decoding

comprthcnsion

c~mputation

applications

w d k g

Daa: Tested

Name of Test

decoding

comprehension

coqumion

applications

witin g

Appendix C

Sociometric Rating ScaIe

(Sociometrics Revised General) SCHOOL: GRADE: Subject ID:

1. Find your ~UZDC on rhc h k10w and cross it OUL

HOW MUCH DO YOU LIKE TO BE WITH THIS PERSON AT SCHOOL?

Nicole

S tcphanie

Julia

Ryan

Robcn

Greg

Angel

Appendix D

Friendship Nomination Form

(Friendship Interview, Wiener, 1995)

Appendix E

Teacher Friendship Questionnaire

(Wiener, 1995)

TEACHER FRIEKDSHIP QUESTIOXNAIRE

Subject ID:

We would Wte you to answer some questions about fricndshipr We intutstcd in YOUR IMPRESSIONS of U child's fnendshps; please

1. Dots . have my friends? Please c k 1 e Yes or No

If you answered y e to question 1, please answer h e questions blow for each b n d md then go on to quudon 6.

If you uuwucd no to question 1, plcuc go directly ID guerdon 6.

n a l k you fot your coopurrion.

Plutc circle Yes a No If Yes, please in- which language

b) Dots hdshe have any learning problem? Plasc M e Yes a No

C) DOQ h&he d n sewice h n the DART? Plwc circle Yes ar No

Appendix F

Parent Friendship Questionnaire

(Wiener, 1995)

A ' I I:RlF.SI)SIIII' ()I'k;S*I'IOSNA I R I.: )%I m l ( s ) Occuprlion: Fat her- MIDI htr -

We would like you 10 answer chc loll ow in^ qucsc~ons aboul your child's friendships. Srbjcct name:

1. I)otryauchildhrvtmyfricndr? (circk) Ycs NO Srbjccl ID:

- Sb

W)ricA c k b

f l i e d in? I Q)tutLdicrcIht

-9) of your child's fricaqs).

Appendix G

Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale

(Asher, Hyrnel, & Renshaw, 1984)

FRIENDSHIP STUDY

NAME: SUBJECT ID:

SCHOOL: GRADE:

The following are s a n e starcarnu thu m y be always me, me most of the tim. some of the time. hardly ever me, or nor at all far. Please circle rhc number under the statements to show h e way you fed about them.

Example: "I like to go shopping". If it is not tm at all rhst I likc to go shoppmg, I would circle 5. On the aher hand if it is always mae t)lor I like to go shopping. I would circle I . If it is ~ m d a u s m e thrc I Like to go shoppins, I would circle 3.

I like playing cards AlvtyS TF!

I like watching football on TV. M-yr T r

I like writing letters to my friends. Alwryr TnE

Lit's easy lor me to make new friends at school. Nar Tmc At U1

5

Na True A1 All

5

Na True At Al l

5

Na Tnw At All

5

Na Tnu ALAU

5

Na TNC Al A1I

5

2 . I like to read. A l W Tnc

3 . I have nobody to talk to. M v True

4 . I'm good at working with other children. Al- Truc

S . I watch TV a lot. CJ* T n s

6 . It's hard for me to make friends. Always Tnrc

7 . I like school-

TNC Na T w At All

5

Nac Tnrc A1 All

5

Na Tnr At All

5

Na Ttu k A 1 I

5

Na TIUC Al Au

5

N a TNC At All

5

Na True Ar All

5

Na True At All

5

N a T w A1 All

5

Na T u At All

5

Nat TnJc AL All

5

8. 1 have lots of friends. Al'-yr Tnx

9 . I feel alone. awnyt TNC

10. I can find a friend when I need one. awryr Tnr

1 1. I enjoy spo- 8 lot. Awlyr Tnc

12. It's hard to get other kids to like me. A l t ~ y r Tnx

1 3 . I don't like science. fiw Tru

14. I don't have anyone to play with, urn Tnc

16. I get aloag with other kids. fim Tru

17. I feel left out of things A J v True

18. There's nobody I can go to when 1 need htlp. u-n Na Tme Tnt EJ AH

1 2 3 5

19. I like to paint and dm-. Alrnys Truc

20. I don't get along with other children. A l w y s Truc

21. I'm lonely. A h y s TnE

22 . I am well liked by the kids in my c l .u Al-ys T m

Na Tnm ALAll

23. 1 like playing board games r lot. Aim Tnr

24 . I don't have any friends. Al-fl T'

Na True AK All

Appendix H

Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Students

( " What I am Like", Renick & Harter, 1988)

What I Am Uke

Really Sart d w mJa mJa m a

fwrru form. fornu *m

S o r n W w o o l d n t h c p h y W w kh& would ramw :a outboarsinwrguam@ BUT wrm tx 0

kids haw a h u d bin8 mading -8s and books.

O&w kids are good at new games nght away.

0 t h ~ kids ham a hard when it ames to math.

m e r kids l i k ~ m i r facs and hair the way they are.

OUw kids find it hard to sgt(f most words.

W d R a q mm mm

W I N *m,

kids haw a hard time 1 7. %ma kids am good at math. BUT with math.

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

0- kids can spell a bt of words gletTy easily. U U

Some kids som8m fwl kind ol dumb whm a comes -

31. to doing thoif BUT

Other kids feel that are pretty Mght wtmn it comes to d o g their schoolwork.

BUT

BUT 33. %me kids read preefy fast Other kids are pretty slow readers.

Othu kids ue aftafd lhey might not do well at a new athletic aaivtty. -0 0 Other kids can write good sentences and paragraphs. BUT

Other kids find it hard to folbw these rules.

Some k i d s find it hafd to Other kids can understand understand mlh. BUT malh prefty eas14

Some kids am not hppy OVIer kids are happy w ~ t h wiVI (he way they b k BUT tne way mey imk.

mtinucd on nest page. ..

Ortnr kids donst fed they BUT cul play U W&

mef kids think ma way they do thingt iJ Kne.

Appendix I

Cell Sizes for Tables 8 to 15

Cell Size for Tables 8 to 1 5

Tables 8 and 9

LD NLD

Low A-H Total Low A-H Total

Grade 4-6 21 16 37 6 30 36

Grade 7-8 22 24 46 14 35 49

Total 43 40 83 20 65 85

Table 10

LD NLD

Gr.4-6 Gt.7-8 Total Gr. 4-6 Gr.7-8 Total

No RSF 13 2 1 44 8 16 24 .

RSF 34 38 72 36 43 79

Table 1 I

Low A-H To t d Low A-H Total

No RSF 21 8 29 8 10 18

RSF 22 32 54 12 55 67

Table 12

Gr.4-6 Gr.7-8 Total

NLD

Gr. 4-6 Gr.7-8 Total

<2 RCF

>2 RCF -

Table 13

NLD


<2 RCF

>2 RCF -

Table 14

LD NLD

Gr.4-6 Gr.7-8 Total Gr. 4-6 Gr.7-8 To td

Table 15

LD NLD


Appendix J

S~unrnaw of the Results of Group Differences

Summarv of the Results of Gioup Differences

Independent Variables

Dependent Variables

--

Depression Loneliness SA* GSW**

LD Status Yes

Peer Acceptance Yes

Reciprocated School Friend

Reciprocated No and/or Corroborated Friend

Nominated Friend

Grade Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No No

Yes Yes

No No

Yes Yes

* -Self-perceived Social Acceptance **-Global Self-worth

Appendix K

Means and Standard Deviations of Psvchological Adiustment for Children

with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance

and with SES as a Covariate

Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Adjustment Variables for Children with and without LD by Level of Peer Acceptance and Grade

Low Acceptance Mean

Loneliness Grade 4 - 6 Grade 7 - 8

Total

GSW (2) Grade 4 - 6

Grade 7 - 8 Tatal

SA Grade 4 - 6 Grade 7 - 8

Total

Depression Grade 4 - 6 Grade 7 - 8

Total Socioeconomic Status

Grade 4 - 6 42.52 Grade 7 - 8 42.38

Total 42.45

A-H Acceptance (1) Total Mean

1.61 1.57 1.59

3.50 3.42 3.46

3,19 3.30 3.25

5.63

9.60 7.83

51.44 46.35 48.61

Mean Low A c c e ~ tance Mean

1.87 2.24 2.13

3.27 3.15 3.19

3.03 2.59 2.73

8.67 10.54 9.95

42.58 53.72

50.2

A-H Acceptance Mean -

1.67 1 .SO 1.58

3.48

3.45 3.46

3.31 3.28 3.30

5.23 6.45 5.9

50.63 51 -64 51.18

Total Sin Mean SD Effects

(1)- Aversge to High Peer Acceptance (2)-Mann-Whitney analysis was used for GSW 'p<.01; "pc.001 Univariate effects in lowercase; Multivariate in uppercase .

A=LD effect; B=Peer Acceptance effect; C= Grade effect. Note Overall Multivariate B and C effects. No Interactions

copy - University of Toronto

Documents

Transcript of copy - University of Toronto