Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attribution patterns of learning-disabled boys : correlates and implications 1986

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1986_A1 H36_6.pdf [ 11.98MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0076863.json
JSON-LD: 1.0076863+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0076863.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0076863+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0076863+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0076863+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0076863.ris

Full Text

ATTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF LEARNING-DISABLED BOYS: CORRELATES AND IMPLICATIONS by DONNA MARIE HAQQ B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 M.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Studies) We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1986 © D o n n a Marie Haqq, 1986 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my d e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f J ^ l U t ^ ^ ^ ^ J C X J J \ The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE -6 (3/81) A b s t r a c t Using i n t e r v i e w t e c h n i q u e s , r e s e a r c h e r s have shown that l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n have maladaptive c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . In t h i s study, which i n v o l v e d both i n t e r v i e w s and an e x p erimental m a n i p u l a t i o n , a t t r i b u t i o n s of 30 l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d (LD) and 38 normally a c h i e v i n g (NLD) boys, 9- 12 y e a r s , were compared. On a p r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l task q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r "academic s u c c e s s , " LD boys gave g r e a t e r a t t r i b u t i o n s to " l u c k " and to "task ease." On a p r e - t a s k q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r "academic f a i l u r e , " both LD and NLD boys a s c r i b e d s i m i l a r l e v e l s of c a u s a l i t y to "bad l u c k , " "task d i f f i c u l t y , " and " l a c k of a b i l i t y . " However, NLD boys were more w i l l i n g to a t t r i b u t e academic f a i l u r e to t h e i r own l a c k of e f f o r t . A f t e r an experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n v a r y i n g task d i f f i c u l t y , t h ere were no group e f f e c t s . Both LD and NLD boys a t t r i b u t e d g r e a t e r c a u s a l i t y to " e f f o r t " and " a b i l i t y " i n the "easy" condi t i on. While t h e r e were no changes in s c o r e s ( p r e - , v e r s u s p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l task) on s i x c o g n i t i v e measures, LD and NLD performances were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on a l l s i x measures, e s p e c i a l l y on S e r i a l R e c a l l (LDs poorer i n s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s i n g ) and on C o l o r Naming (LDs slower i n speed of p r o c e s s i n g ) . There were no pre-task group d i f f e r e n c e s on expectancy f o r " s e l f , " but a f t e r the e x p e r i m ental m a n i p u l a t i o n the LD boys expected to do better, o v e r a l l , and both LD and NLD boys had higher self-expectancy in the easy condition. There were no group differences on expectancy for "other," pre-task, but, after the experimental task, the LD group had higher expectancy for "another boy," and both groups had higher expectancy for "other" in the easy condition. Using Achenbach's C h i l d Behavior Checklist, LD boys were found to be l e s s competent, s o c i a l l y and s c h o l a s t i c a l l y , and more depressed, hyperactive, obsessive/compulsive, aggressive, and delinquent. Despite these LD/NLD differences, the LD boys were better than a c l i n i c a l l y r e f e r r e d group (except for lower school competence). The NLD group was comparable to a non- c l i n i c norm group (except for higher school competence). Implications of t h i s research l e d to recommendations for a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g , both a s c r i p t i o n s of f a i l u r e s to lack of e f f o r t or i n e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , and a s c r i p t i o n of successes to good e f f o r t and a b i l i t y . Table of Contents Page Abstract i i Table of Contents iv L i s t of Tables ix L i s t of Appendices x i i Acknowledgements xiv Chapter I: The Problem Background 1 Statement of the Problem 3 D e f i n i t i o n s 4 General Theoretical Assumptions 13 Delimitation of the Study 15 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study 16 Chapter I I : Survey of the L i t e r a t u r e A t t r i b u t i o n : Theory and Research 19 What Is A t t r i b u t i o n Theory? 19 Origins of A t t r i b u t i o n Theory 20 A t t r i b u t i o n and Achievement 21 Weiner's Reformulation of Achievement-related A t t r i b u t i o n s 23 Learned Helplessness 26 Learned Helplessness C r i t i c i z e d 29 Learned Helplessness Revised (1978) 30 V a l i d i t y of the A t t r i b u t i o n a l Analysis of Helplessness 32 Learned Helplessness Update (1984) 35 i v Page Seligman's Learned Helplessness and Beck's Cognitive Model of Depression C r i t i c i z e d 37 The Learned Helplessness Reformulation and Children. 43 Helplessness versus Mastery-Orientation in Children. 44 Description of Childhood Depression 50 Current Thoughts Regarding Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s and Depression 58 Assessment of Childhood Depression 63 Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s 65 Def i n i tion 65 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s 66 Prevalence of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s 69 Etiology or Types of Learning D i s a b i l i t y 71 Follow-up of Children with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s : Outcomes and Predictors 73 The Brain and Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s 78 Chapter I I I : Hypotheses Hypotheses 83 Rationale of the Hypotheses 85 Chapter IV: Method Subject Sample 92 Research Design 96 Summary of Method and Procedures 96 Preliminary Measures Chi l d Behavior Checklist 99 v Page Socioeconomic Status 103 Nechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC-R) 105 Bannatyne's Recategorization of WISC-R Scores . 106 Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery - Reading Cluster 108 I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire 108 Pre-, and Post-Measures I l l Measure One: Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices 115 Measure Two: S e r i a l Recall (SR) 118 Measure Three: Free Recall (FR) 120 Measure Four: Color Naming (CN) 120 Measure Five: Ideational Fluency ( F i ) 121 Measure Six: Aiming (A) 124 Experimental Task: Description and Procedure ....... 126 Cover Story 126 Game Instructions for Round-Robin Racing 126 Stimuli and Sequence for the Picture Cards .... 127 Post-experimental Task A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaire ... 128 Expectancy of Future Success for Self and Other .... 129 A n c i l l a r y Measures 129 Mood Measure . 129 Debriefing 130 vi Page Chapter V: Results of the Study Demographic and Selection Variables 133 Pre-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s 135 Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s 139 Performance on Pre-, Post-Measures 142 Expectancy Measures 145 Expectancy for Self 145 Expectancy for Other 151 Chi l d Behavior Checklist 156 Results of A n c i l l a r y Measures ...................... 169 At t r i b u t i o n s for Ninning/Losing Baseball Game . 169 I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale and Dweck's Measure of Mastery-Orientation versus Helplessness 172 Aff e c t or Mood Measure 174 Enjoyment of the Experimental Task 175 Bannatyne's Recategorization of WISC-R Scores . 176 Chapter VI: Discussion and Recommendations Overview 178 Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s 179 Pre-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s 179 Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s 181 Pre-, Post-Measure Differences 187 Supplementary Interpretations Regarding Pre-, Post- Measures 191 Bannatyne's Recategorization of WISC-R Scores ...... 194 v i i P a g e Expectancies for Self 195 Expectancies for Other 196 C h i l d Behavior Correlates 196 Af f e c t and Enjoyment of the Task 202 Implications 205 Future Directions 208 Bibliography 210 v i i i L i s t of Tables Page Table 5.1 Analysis of Variance Results for Descriptive Variables 134-135 Table 5.2 Analysis of .Variance Results of A t t r i b u t i o n s for Academic Success (Pre-experimental Ques- tionnaire) 136 Table 5.3 Analysis of Variance Results of A t t r i b u t i o n s for Academic F a i l u r e (Pre-experimental Ques- tionnaire) 138 Table 5.4 Table of Means and Standard Deviations for the Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s According to Group and Condition 141 Table 5.5 Analysis of Variance Results for Expectancy for Self Pre-Task According to Group 146 Table 5.6 Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Ex- pectancy for Self According to Group and Con- d i t i o n , Pre-, and Post-Task 148 Table 5.7 Analysis of Covariance Results for Expectancy for Self Post-Task According to Group and Con- d i t i o n with'Pre-Task Expectancy for Self as the Covariate 149 Table 5.8 Summary Table of Adjusted Means for Expectancy for Self (Post-Task) 150 Table 5.9 Analysis of Variance Results for Expectancy for Other, Pre-Task, According to Group 152 i x Table 5.10 Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Ex- pectancy for Other According to Group and Con- d tio n , Pre-, and Post-Task 153 n Table 5.11 Af a l y s i s of Covariance Results for Expectancy i\ fur Other Post-Task According to Group and Con- d i t i o n with Pre-Task Expectancy for Other as the Covar i ate 154 Table 5.12 Summary Table of Adjusted Means for Expectancy for Other (Post-Task) 155 Table 5.13 Analysis of Variance Results for the S o c i a l Competence Scales (Achenbach, 1981) 157 Table 5.14 Analysis of Variance Results for the Behavior Problem Scales 159-160 Table 5.15 Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the NLD Group with the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) Non-clinic Norm Group on the S o c i a l Competence Scales 162 Table 5.16 Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the NLD Group with the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) Non-clinic Norm Group on the Behavior Problem Scales 163-164 Table 5.17 Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the LD Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) C l i n i c Group on the Soc i a l Competence Scales 166 x Table 5.18 Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the LD Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) C l i n i c Group on the Behavior Problem Scales 167-168 Table 5.19 Analysis of Variance Results for A t t r i b u t i o n s for Winning Game 170 Table 5.20 Analysis of Variance Results for A t t r i b u t i o n s for Losing Game 171 Table 5.21 Analysis of Variance Results for the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale and Dweck's Measure of Mastery-Orientation versus Helpless- ness 173 Table 5.22 Pre-Task Aff e c t Mean Scores According to Group 174 Table 5.23 Post-Task Aff e c t Mean Scores According to Group and Condition 175 Table 5.24 Means and Standard Deviations for Last Aff e c t . 175 Table 5.25 Means and Standard Deviations for Enjoyment of the Experimental Task According to Group and Condition 176 Table 5.26 Means and Standard Deviations for Bannatyne's Recategorization of WISC-R Scaled Scores 177 Table 6.1 Means and Standard Deviations of " A l l Mastery- Oriented LD versus NLD Children" on Three Post- Measures 192 x i L i s t of Appendices Page Appendix 1. Letter to P r i n c i p a l s and Teachers 249-251 Appendix 2. Letter to Parent(s)/Guardian(s) 252-254 Appendix 3. Parent Consent Forms 255-258 Appendix 4. Student Consent Form -. . 259-260 Appendix 5. Mood (Affect) Measure 261 Appendix 6. A t t r i b u t i o n Rating Scale Train i n g 262-265 Appendix 7. Pre-experimental A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaire 266-268 Appendix 8. I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (Crandall et a l . , 1965) ... 269-274 Appendix 9. Directions and Sample for "Aim" Test .... 275-276 Appendix 10. Expectancy of Success Measure for Self and for Other, Pre-Task 277-278 Appendix 11. Schematic Drawing of "Round Robin Racing" Board Game 279 Appendix 12. Post-Experimental Task A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaire, Easy Condition and D i f f i c u l t Condition 280-283 Appendix 13. Expectancy of Future Success for Self and for Other 284-285 Appendix 14. Means and Standard Deviations for Pre- Measures According to Group, Condition, and Order 286-288 Appendix 15. Means and Standard Deviations for Post- Measures According to Group, Condition, and Order 289-291 x i i i Acknowledgements I wish to thank my d i s s e r t a t i o n committee for their assistance and guidance in t h i s research. I thank Dr. Peggy R. Koopman, Chair (Educational Psychology/Special Education), Drs. Bryan R. Clarke and David C. Kendall (Educational Psychology/Special Education), Drs. Kenneth D. Craig and Demetrios Papageorgis (Psychology), and Dr. John U. Crichton ( P a e d i a t r i c s ) . I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to Dr. Demetrios Papageorgis for h i s expert assistance in the e d i t i n g of the text. The following i n d i v i d u a l s gave valuable advice on methodological issues: Drs. Todd Rogers (Educational Psychology/Special Education), A. Ralph Hakstian (Psychology), and Guy James Johnson (Psychology). For assistance with the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses, I thank Dr. Michael McRae (Human Learning and Instruction), Dr. Ronald F. Jarman (Educational Psychology/Special Education), and Marsha Schroeder. For assistance with both methodology and s t a t i s t i c s , I thank Dr. Walter B. Boldt (Educational Psychology/Special Education). I also wish to thank Dr. Ewart A. C. Thomas (Chair, Department of Psychology, Stanford University) for h i s expert advice on the methodological and s t a t i s t i c a l approach taken in t h i s study. I g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge the cooperation of the Vancouver School Board, the Burnaby School Board, and the Vancouver Catholic School Board in allowing me access to their respective elementary schools. Thanks are extended to a l l the p r i n c i p a l s , teachers, and parents who gave consent and to a l l the children xiv who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h i s study. A sp e c i a l "thank you" i s given to Pam Healey for her assistance as a confederate experimenter. This research was supported by a discretionary grant from the Educational Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia, and by a Tina and Morris Wagner Foundation Fellowship. I want to express my thanks to the Educational Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia and to the University of B r i t i s h Columbia for t h i s assistance. I am g r a t e f u l to my family and f r i e n d s for a l l their help, encouragement, and support. CHAPTER I The Problem Background Issues of motivation - how to i n s t i l l motivation in ch i l d r e n , or how to match programs of in s t r u c t i o n to children's motivational predispositions - have been of concern since the beginnings of formal education. While motivation i s central to the o v e r a l l schema of in s t r u c t i o n for normally-achieving students, i t i s probably c r u c i a l for those students who have d i f f i c u l t i e s in learning. How does the teacher or spe c i a l educator nourish a c h i l d ' s interest and desire to succeed in a learning s i t u a t i o n when the c h i l d often demonstrates few, slow, or awkward successes in academic achievement? Children's a f f e c t i v e reaction to the experience of continuing success or f a i l u r e in school has been shown l i k e l y to aff e c t their academic motivation and behavior (Bloom, 1976; Phares, 1973). In t h i s regard, concepts such as poor s e l f - esteem, poor motivation, and depression have been considered as di r e c t e f f e c t s of a c h i l d ' s o v e r a l l experience of success or f a i l u r e across a variety of learning s i t u a t i o n s (Beck, 1971; Black, 1974; Coopersmith, 1967). Several researchers have shown, in support of these propositions, that attempts to help underachieving children may be hindered, i f not rendered i n e f f e c t u a l , i f the children develop negative a f f e c t i v e responses toward school tasks (Covington & Beery, 1976; Hamachek, 1978). In addition, learning-disabled children are seen as more l i k e l y than are nondisabled children to have negative self-concepts, to believe that their successes are the r e s u l t of luck or other external f a c t o r s , and that their f a i l u r e s are insuperable and due to i n t e r n a l causes such as lack of a b i l i t y (Bingham, 1980; Bryan & Pea r l , 1979; F r i e z e , 1980; Johnson, 1981; Patten, 1983; Pearl, Bryan, & Donahue, 1980; Smith, 1979). There i s also some indi c a t i o n that these maladaptive b e l i e f s or a t t r i b u t i o n s increase over time, at least through grade eight (Boersma & Chapman, 1978; Pearl et a l . 1980). In the l a s t several years, interest has been renewed in children's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , intentions, and expectations as s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s in learning. Based upon the t h e o r e t i c a l framework of a t t r i b u t i o n theory, research has demonstrated r e l a t i o n s h i p s between such variables as self-concept, causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , school achievement, and expectancy and persistence at tasks (e.g., Stipek & Weisz, 1981; Weiner, 1974; 1976; 1984). Learning-disabled children are often described as no longer able to believe that they can achieve, even at tasks which are well within their c a p a b i l i t i e s . It has been noted that even when exhaustive, c a r e f u l l y structured remedial programs have been used to t r a i n learning-disabled children on very s p e c i f i c types of tasks, they w i l l sometimes f a i l to use such w e l l - learned problem sol v i n g s t r a t e g i e s on the same or s i m i l a r tasks when they are presented to them l a t e r (Douglas, 1980a; 1980b; Thomas, 1979). The p a r a l l e l s between t h i s lack of achievement success and "learned helplessness" phenomena (e.g., Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978; Garber & Seligman, 1980) are quite 2 s t r i k i n g . By "learned helplessness" i s meant the perception that one's responses have no e f f e c t or are independent of one's outcomes (see Seligman, Maier, & Geer, 1968). In simpler words, nothing an i n d i v i d u a l can do i s perceived to matt r to what w i l l happen. On an achievement task, for example, a c h i l d might perceive independence between a response and f a i l u r e by a t t r i b u t i n g the outcome to the influence of some external agent such as a teacher; or the c h i l d might perceive independence between the response and the outcome by a t t r i b u t i n g i t to a personal i n a b i l i t y to perform the required response, whether or not t h i s in f a c t i s true. In either case, the s i t u a t i o n i s seen as uncontrollable, and performance, motivational, and a f f e c t i v e d e f i c i t s may r e s u l t . Perceiving that one i s unable to overcome f a i l u r e can have highly d e b i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t s on s c h o l a s t i c performance, as demonstrated in studies of learned helplessness in children (e.g., Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973). These studies w i l l be examined in greater d e t a i l l a t e r since they elucidate the r o l e of expectations and a t t r i b u t i o n s in the learned helplessness of normally-achieving school-aged c h i l d r e n . Statement of the Problem Since the phenomenon of learned helplessness has been demonstrated in normal school populations (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973), there i s good reason to expect an even greater degree of learned helplessness among learning-disabled children who may meet with proportionately greater amounts of school f a i l u r e . Learning-disabled children may be more disposed to childhood depression, as presently understood (Schulterbrandt & Raskin, 1977). There may be certain personality t r a i t s or other behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that d i f f e r e n t i a t e learning- disabled from normal school c h i l d r e n . There may be differences in expectancies and/or a t t r i b u t i o n s both before and after easy or d i f f i c u l t task conditions. Although some studies have examined the a t t r i b u t i o n a l systems of normal school children (e.g., Bar-Tal & Darom, 1979; Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Weiner, 1974; Young & Egeland, 1976), very few studies have explored the a t t r i b u t i o n a l systems of learning-disabled c h i l d r e n , who are characterized by failure-dominated school h i s t o r i e s (e.g. Bryan & Pearl , 1979; Grimes, 1981; Pearl et a l . , 1980). However, in the Pearl, Bryan, and Donahue (1980) study, and in the Pearl (1982) study, children were asked to rate the importance of four f a c t o r s ( a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , luck, task e a s e / d i f f i c u l t y ) for success and f a i l u r e in reading, in s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s , and on puzzles, but using structured interviews. There was no actual experimental manipulation of suc c e s s - f a i l u r e with a le a r n i n g - disabled subject population. Moreover, there may be p a r t i c u l a r types of tasks that are esp e c i a l l y vulnerable to the a f f e c t i v e consequences of success- f a i l u r e . These are some of the questions that w i l l be addressed in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Defini tions The following d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l prove helpful to the reader of t h i s study. These d e f i n i t i o n s are expanded in Chapter I I , the survey of the l i t e r a t u r e , and are operationalized, where 4 necessary, in Chapter IV, the method chapter. A t t r i b u t i o n . The study of perceived causation i s i d e n t i f i e d by the term " a t t r i b u t i o n theory," with an " a t t r i b u t i o n " r e f e r r i n g to the inference or perception of cause. The main idea of a t t r i b u t i o n theory i s that i n d i v i d u a l s interpret behavior in terms of i t s causes, and these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s play an important r o l e in determining reactions to the behavior. Motivation. Meiner (1980; 1984) has outlined the many approaches to the problem of motivation that have been taken according to researchers' c l i n i c a l and/or experimental o r i e n t a t i o n s . For example, motivation, as conceptualized by Freudian psychoanalytic t h e o r i s t s and Hullian drive t h e o r i s t s , involves tension or need reduction as the basic p r i n c i p l e of act ion. Other researchers conceive motivation to be a function of the expectancy of goal attainment together with the incentive value of the goal. These expectancy-value theories include Lewin's (1938; 1951) f i e l d theory, Atkinson's (1964) theory of achievement motivation, and Rotter's (1966) theory of s o c i a l learning. Theorists who espouse a t t r i b u t i o n theory (Heider, 1958, for example) and humanistic psychology (e.g., Maslow, 1971; Rogers, 1959) assume that i n d i v i d u a l s s t r i v e to understand themselves and their environment. While Hull and Freud accepted a deterministic view of humans, which emphasized the importance of past events, a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i s t s and humanists are more concerned with the mental processes involved in explaining or i n t e r p r e t i n g behavior. Like the expectancy-value t h e o r i s t s , a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i s t s such as Heider and Kelley, and humanists such as Maslow, Rogers, and A l l p o r t , accept a cognitive view of human beings. They assume that mental events intervene between input-output r e l a t i o n s and that thought influences action. In addition, they assume that i n d i v i d u a l s are always "active" and, to various degrees, future-oriented. A t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i s t s accept a mastery p r i n c i p l e , a contention that i n d i v i d u a l s seek competence (Bandura, 1977; Schunk, 1981). They espouse a cognitive approach to human motivation, studying the "how" and "under what conditions" s p e c i f i c cognitions ( i . e . , a t t r i b u t i o n s ) influence behavior. A t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i s t s are concerned with the perceptions of ca u s a l i t y , or the perceived reasons for the occurrence of a pa r t i c u l a r event. For the purposes of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , the approach to motivation taken by a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i s t s i s adopted. Accordingly, motivation - i s defined as the impetus or d i r e c t i o n of a person's behavior given that person's s p e c i f i c cognitions and perceptions of c a u s a l i t y . A f f e c t and mood. Affec t and mood are not, generally, sharply d i f f e r e n t i a t e d constructs. Both deal with "emotional" responses, e s p e c i a l l y when these are contrasted, somewhat a r t i f i c i a l l y , to cognitive a c t i v i t i e s . When a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made (e.g., Diagnostic and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.) [DSM-I113. American P s y c h i a t r i c Association, 1980), a f f e c t r e f e r s to a usually s h o r t - l i v e d subjective f e e l i n g or emotional tone often accompanied by bodily expression noticeable by other 6 people. On the other hand, mood r e f e r s to a rather prolonged emotional state that colors the whole psychic l i f e . The i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a f f e c t (mood) and cognition are the subject of an extensive l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Deci, 1975; Mischel, 1971; 1973) which i s beyond the scope of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . S u f f i c e to say that the connection i s a very close one and perhaps the d i s t i n c t i o n i t s e l f i s more a matter of conceptual convenience: "Cognition provides the structure for a f f e c t i v e states, and a f f e c t provides the energy for cognitive functioning (Deci, 1975, p. 67)." Of more d i r e c t relevance to the present study are the e f f e c t s of mood and a f f e c t on se l f - r e g u l a t e d performance. For example, Masters and Santrock (1976) demonstrated that contingently verbalized or imagined a f f e c t i v e responses s i g n i f i c a n t l y influence behavioral persistence. Children who talked about how much fun a task was (contingent upon working at the task) showed greater task persistence than those children who verbalized a task-irrelevant phrase ( c o n t r o l s ) , who, in turn, persisted longer than did those children asked to talk about how l i t t l e fun the task was. In addition, there are sex differences in the e f f e c t s of mood on self-management, with g i r l s generally being more susceptible to the emotional concomitants of goal-directed behavior (e.g., Karoly, 1977). The subjective construct of " a f f e c t " may be tapped by a ra t i n g scale (to be f u l l y described in Chapter IV, Methodology). Learned Helplessness Theory. Seligman (1974) proposed that depression often comes about through learned helplessness. He suggests that although anxiety i s the i n i t i a l response to a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n or event, i t i s replaced by depression i f the i n d i v i d u a l comes to believe that control i s unattainable. Perceived independence between responding z;>a reinforcement i s hypothesized to lead to performance decrements which may dele t e r i o u s l y a f f e c t performance in s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s which can, in f a c t , be c o n t r o l l e d . Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . These are d i f f i c u l t i e s in mastering reading, arithmetic, language or a r t i c u l a t i o n , w r i t i n g , o r other important s k i l l s , that are not caused by mental retardation, impairment of v i s u a l or auditory functions, other psychological disorders, or c u l t u r a l disadvantage. These problems are c a l l e d " s p e c i f i c developmental disorders" in DSM-111 (American P s y c h i a t r i c Association, 1980). Learning disabled c h i l d . In recent reviews on diagnostic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , Adelman (1979a; 1979b) discusses both the research and e t h i c a l problems and p r a c t i c a l and procedural problems involved. He states that " . . . l i m i t a t i o n s of current diagnostic procedures make i t very d i f f i c u l t to id e n t i f y homogeneous groups of subjects with regard to c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e s , thereby almost guaranteeing that the youngsters in any given sample w i l l d i f f e r as to the source of the problem and the 'syndrome' manifested. This, of course, l i m i t s analyses and generalizations of findings (Adelman, 1979b, p. 13)." Most researchers use as their learning disabled sample children who have d i f f i c u l t y reading. Torgesen (1975) reported that about 80% of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s researchers have used chi l d r e n s ' reading scores to define their samples. 8 The most commonly used d e f i n i t i o n of the learning disabled sample i s that i t consists of children reading six months below grade l e v e l in the primary grades, and one and one-half grades below grade l e v e l in the higher grades. Thus, much of the research on learning disabled children reduces to research on poor readers (Bryan & Bryan, 1980). The other major consideration i s that the learning disabled c h i l d should demonstrate a normal pote n t i a l to l e a r n . This i s generally translated as the c h i l d who has an i n t e l l i g e n c e test score within the normal range. For c l i n i c a l purposes, t h i s means an IQ of at least 70 on the NISC-R (Wechsler In t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children - Revised), For research purposes, however, many professionals (e.g., Douglas, 1981) suggest an IQ of at l e a s t 80. L o v i t t and Jenkins (1979) suggest that researchers define learning disabled populations within at least the four following categories: s i t u a t i o n a l variables (such as where and how the study took place, the time involved, how many students were included, and the number and t r a i n i n g of teachers or other managers involved), demographic variables ( i n c l u d i n g subject's age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, and l a b e l ) , i n s t r u c t i o n a l variables (including a description of subjects' past performance on s k i l l s r e l a t e d to the topic behavior, an account of the techniques used to i n s t r u c t the s k i l l , and the length of time required to reach c r i t e r i o n ) , and motivational l e v e l (information about the current and past motivational l e v e l s of p u p i l s ) . The f a l l , 1981 (volume 4), issue of the Learning D i s a b i l i t y 9 Quarterly published several a r t i c l e s (Harber, 1981; Kavale & Nye, 1981; Olson & Mealor, 1981) which surveyed the research l i t e r a t u r e for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a used to select learning disabled (LO) populations. In up to 50% of the studies reviewed (e.g., Kavale & Nye, 1981), LD subjects were selected on the basis of previous c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or diagnosis, in other words, by " l a b e l " or placement. Other c r i t e r i a used variously were exclusion (e.g., children with sensory handicaps - v i s u a l or auditory; children with behavioral d i f f i c u l t i e s - behavior disorders, environmental disadvantage, or mental retardation; and children with physical or communication handicaps); discrepancy between subject matter knowledge and i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y (e.g., magnitude of discrepancy ranged from one to f i v e years with an average of 1.76 years across 209 s t u d i e s ) ; process (e.g., perceptual problems, attention, memory, ps y c h o l i n g u i s t i c , language, and cognitive s t y l e ) ; neurological (e.g., minimal brain dysfunction as indicated by "soft" or "hard" signs, and most investigators including neurological involvement as an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i o n offered only tentative evidence and admitted that their i d e n t i f i e d LD group only possibly included subjects with neurological dysfunction); i n t e l l i g e n c e (although average i n t e l l i g e n c e i s considered p r e r e q u i s i t e for LD designation, only one quarter - 26% - of the surveyed studies s p e c i f i e d an i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l ; most s p e c i f i e d a t o t a l IQ (83%), while 11% s t i p u l a t e d a verbal IQ, and 7% s p e c i f i e d a performance IQ only); behavior (over one-half of the studies used teacher ratings as the primary indica t i o n of behavioral 10 status - other behavioral ratings were based on measures of peer status, and s o c i a l interaction) (Kavale & Nye, 1981). In reviewing 229 LD research reports from two major LD journals, from 1978 to 1981, Harber (1981) found that (1) most of these studies were quasi-experimental in nature; (2) extraneous variables (e.g., i n t e l l i g e n c e ) were not appropriately c o n t r o l l e d ; (3) comparability between experimental and control groups was not adequately established in many studies; (4) l e s s than half of the studies used subjects c l a s s i f i e d as LD; (5) in more than two-fifths of the studies involving LD subjects, the c r i t e r i a for such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were not given; and (6) the studies which did operationally define learning d i s a b i l i t i e s u t i l i z e d a wide range of c r i t e r i a . Torgesen and Dice (1980) examined almost 90 studies reported in major education/psychology journals over the previous three year period and found that none of them used any system to reduce the heterogeneity of their samples of LD ch i l d r e n . Thus, p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of the current LD research i s being conducted on heterogeneous samples of LD c h i l d r e n . However, a systematic taxonomy of LD subtypes i s yet to be devised (Torgesen, 1982) so the requirement of reading achievement, rather than mathematical achievement or s p e l l i n g achievement, lower than the 20th p e r c e n t i l e , for example, i s at least one attempt at dealing with a more homogeneous subject population. This strategy has been t a c i t l y supported by the many researchers who concentrate on studying reading (and language) d i s a b i l i t i e s (e.g., Leong, 1982; Matt i s , French, & Rapin, 1975). For example, Das, Leong, and Williams (1978), in their second experiment (Study 2), selected only those dyslexic boys who demonstrated s p e c i f i c reading d e f i c i t s as subjects. The 58 dyslexic boys from t h i s study were compared with a control group of 58 boys who were above-average readers (75th p e r c e n t i l e on Gates-MacGinitie). These two groups were equated on age (mean chronological age for LD group: 111.07 months; for NLD group: 110.93 months), and on Lorge-Thorndike nonverbal IQ (mean nonverbal IQ for LD group: 102.45; for NLD group: 107.57). [These researchers found that the reading d e f i c i t group was consistently low in simultaneous and successive tests, and poorer on two d i c h o t i c l i s t e n i n g tasks, in s p i t e of the fact that the two groups were matched on nonverbal IQ.] Leong also matched retarded readers and control children on nonverbal IQ in h i s e a r l i e r (1974) doctoral study. To have matched on verbal IQ would have eliminated the verbal processes which naturally d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the groups (Das et a l . , 1978). For the purposes of t h i s study, the learning disabled c h i l d was operationally defined as a male c h i l d between the ages of 9- 0 and 12-0 years, whose IQ (verbal and performance) was at l e a s t 80, and whose reading achievement was at the 40th p e r c e n t i l e for age or lower. In addition, these children had to be English- speaking ( i . e . , not recently a r r i v e d in Canada with English as a second language) and had no serious p h y s i c a l , emotional, or c u l t u r a l handicaps. Normal Control C h i l d . For the purposes of t h i s study, the normal control c h i l d was operationally defined as a male c h i l d between the ages of 9-0 and 12-0 (matched, for example, from the 12 next boy's name on the index c h i l d ' s c l a s s r e g i s t e r whose birthday and general a b i l i t y was judged closest to that of the index c h i l d by the classroom teacher), whose f u l l scale IQ on the HISC-R was at l e a s t 80, and whose academic performance, in both reading and arithmetic, was at least at expected age and grade l e v e l (.> 50th p e r c e n t i l e ) . In addition, these children had to be English-speaking ( i . e . , not recently a r r i v e d in Canada with English as a second language) and had no serious p h y s i c a l , emotional, or c u l t u r a l handicaps. By choosing the control c h i l d from the same c l a s s or school as the index c h i l d , i t was anticipated that differences in socioeconomic status might be c o n t r o l l e d . Male children only were used as subjects because, as w i l l become apparent aft e r reading Chapter I I , the l i t e r a t u r e review, there are well-documented sex differences in variables c r i t i c a l to t h i s study (e.g., patterns of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , as well as incidence of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s ) . Note that the term "LD" w i l l often be used throughout the text and w i l l refer either to the "learning disabled c h i l d ( r e n ) , " or to "learning d i s a b i l i t i e s ; " while the term "NLD" w i l l refer either to the "not learning disabled c h i l d ( r e n ) , " or to "no learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , " i . e . , normally achieving c h i l d or normal achievement. General Theoretical Assumptions Most psychologists who have written, for example, about i n t r i n s i c motivation and development, have worked within a Piagetian framework (e.g., Deci, 1975), with the main assumptions being that humans are active organisms in continual i n t e r a c t i o n with their environment, and that a l l humans are born with the basic and undifferentiated need for f e e l i n c ; competent " "h and self-determining. ti\ i} Also assumed i s that children show q u a l i t a t i v e l y 1 d i f f e r e n t modes of knowing at d i f f e r e n t junctures in their development and that the l e v e l of their cognitive maturity at any p a r t i c u l a r moment w i l l place obligatory l i m i t s upon their a b i l i t y to appreciate the existence of various kinds of knowledge both within themselves and in others (Chandler & Boyes, 1982; Ruble & Rholes, 1981). B r i e f l y , Piaget (1926) describes the ontogenetic course of knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n as an ordered sequence beginning with a zero-order plane of material things and events and including: 1) a f i r s t order non-symbolic mode of enactive (Bruner, 1964) or sensory-motor knowing which takes material r e a l i t y as i t s object; 2) a second order symbolic mode of knowing which "re- presents" and references what i s already known on the broader, f i r s t - o r d e r plane of non-symbolic knowledge; and 3) a t h i r d or meta-representational mode of knowing which involves symbolizing symbols ( i . e . , metacognition), and which takes as i t s object second-order representational knowledge. Thus, these three modes of knowing refer to, and in part define, Piaget's pre- operational . concrete operational, and formal operational stages of cognitive development. Growth in cognitive structures occurs through the processes of assimilat i ng and accommodat i ng to the environment. Assimila t i o n i s the process whereby the organism incorporates or 14 merges aspects of the environment into i t s preexisting cognitive structures. And accommodation i s the process whereby the organism adapts i t s own cognitive structure to f i t the environment. According to Piaget, organisms are i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated to approach a c t i v i t i e s which involve a s s i m i l a t i o n , but not completely so ( i . e . , which provide some challenge) and then accommodate and assimilate those s i t u a t i o n s ( i . e . , conquer the challenge involved). Also assumed in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s that as the c h i l d develops and in t e r a c t s with the environment, the basic u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d need for competence and self-determination begins to d i f f e r e n t i a t e into s p e c i f i c motives, such as those for achievement, s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n , etc. These motives or processes may be affected by one's own f e e l i n g s of competence and s e l f - worth (Darley & Goethals, 1980), and by many other f a c t o r s , such as l e v e l of aspiration (Atkinson & Feather, 1966), fear of f a i l u r e or fear of success (Zuckerman et a l . , 1980), perception of e x t e r n a l / i n t e r n a l control (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; Rotter, Chance, & Phares, 1972), learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975; Abramson et a l . , 1978), and so f o r t h . Delimitation of the Study In addition to the pertinent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s already mentioned under Defini tions. the subjects of t h i s study were boys only, between the ages of 9-0 and 12-0, who were English- speaking. It was important for these children to come from English-speaking homes because the parents were c«*<ed to complete Achenbach's (1981a) C h i l d Behavior Che c k l i s t , and competence in the English language was necessary for t h i s . Subjects were obtained from both the public school system and the p a r o c h i a l school system in two metropolitan c i t i e s . J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study The questions posed in the Background and Statement of the Problem sections are those which have d i r e c t relevance to the health and education of school-aged c h i l d r e n , e s p e c i a l l y those children who have d i f f i c u l t y in learning. Issues of motivation have been of concern to educators since the beginnings of formal education. Answers to questions concerning motivation have ranged from the use of the rod or strap, to the use of systematic incentive programs designed to promote children's inter e s t and achievement. If motivation i s central to the o v e r a l l schema of i n s t r u c t i o n for normally-achieving students, think how important motivation i s in optimizing i n s t r u c t i o n for those children who are having d i f f i c u l t i e s in learning. A great number of social-psychological f a c t o r s a f f e c t school performance, and a p a r t i c u l a r set of variables re l a t e d to p u p i l s ' b e l i e f s about why they do well or poorly on school tasks i s e s p e c i a l l y relevant. A l l i n d i v i d u a l s have somewhat s i m i l a r ideas about why students do well (or not) in reading, arithmetic, etc., but these same in d i v i d u a l s may d i f f e r in the degree to which one causative factor or another i s stressed. B e l i e f s about the causes of success and f a i l u r e are known as causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . Research based on the implications of various patterns of a t t r i b u t i o n has shown that the i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e l i e f about why a p a r t i c u l a r success or f a i l u r e occurs i s an important predictor both of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s reaction to the 16 event, and of expectancies regarding future s i m i l a r events. Perception of control over events i s an important intervening construct which i s most relevant to the discussion of motivation. It has been noted that students who have been exposed to unsolvable problems or other uncontrollable events have become l e t h a r g i c ; their usual e f f o r t s at f i n d i n g solutions have been c u r t a i l e d ; and their s e l f - a t t i t u d e s regarding i n t e l l e c t u a l performance and competence have become so negative that general self-esteem has suffered (e.g., Hiroto & Seligman, 1975). Most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , pupils who have been exposed to such f a i l u r e experiences have also shown peformance d e f i c i t s on tasks which they were i n i t i a l l y able to complete successfully (Thornton & Jacobs, 1971). Teachers and other professionals dealing with LD children have often remarked that these children may not only evidence poor a b i l i t y on those tasks r e l a t e d to their s p e c i f i c d e f i c i t ( s ) , but also that they may show a lack of a b i l i t y or proficiency on tasks t o t a l l y unrelated to such d i s a b i l i t i e s (Douglas, 1980a; 1980b). In the l a s t several years, concepts such as poor s e l f - esteem, poor motivation, and depression have been seen as d i r e c t e f f e c t s of the c h i l d ' s o v e r a l l experience of success or f a i l u r e across a variety of learning s i t u a t i o n s (Beck, 1971; Coopersmith, 1967; Phares, 1973). Cognitive psychologists have highlighted the importance of i n t e r n a l , intervening variables which influence learning (Mischel, 1973). Children's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , intentions, and expectations are now being examined as s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s in learning (Thomas, 1979). Therefore, i t i s most appropriate and worthwhile to examine the patterns of a t t r i b u t i o n of LD c h i l d r e n , and to investigate their reactions to success or f a i l u r e . This w i l l provide information regarding the cognitive variables associated with s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e . After such knowledge i s a v a i l a b l e , i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs and/or management systems which take into consideration the patterns of a t t r i b u t i o n s of learning-disabled children may be devised in order to optimize both learning and p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e g a r d . For example, with normal achieving youngsters, i t has already been suggested as desirable to change students' a t t r i b u t i o n s in the d i r e c t i o n of emphasizing a b i l i t y and e f f o r t as the causes of success, and lack of e f f o r t as the cause of f a i l u r e . These causal perceptions have been found to maximize the academic performance of students (e.g., Bar-Tal, 1978). 18 CHAPTER II Survey of the L i t e r a t u r e T his chapter reviews the areas of a t t r i b u t i o n theory, the theory of learned helplessness, and childhood depression, along with various theories of depression. In addition, an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y overview of the f i e l d of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , together with neurological substrates as these a f f e c t the learning disabled c h i l d , w i l l be outlined. A t t r i b u t i o n : Theory and Research Research on learned helplessness has often focused on a t t r i b u t i o n s as indices of b e l i e f regarding control over outcomes. S p e c i f i c a l l y , a t t r i b u t i o n s of f a i l u r e s to r e l a t i v e l y stable f a c t o r s , such as lack of a b i l i t y , have been associated with performance decrements under f a i l u r e conditions, while a t t r i b u t i o n s of f a i l u r e s to r e l a t i v e l y unstable or modifiable f a c t o r s , such as lack of e f f o r t , have been associated with maintenance or increments in performance following f a i l u r e (e.g., Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Weiner, 1972; 1974). Hhat i s A t t r i b u t i o n Theory? A t t r i b u t i o n i s the process through which people attempt to understand and predict their own and others' behaviors, t r a i t s , and motives. The study of perceived causation i s termed • a t t r i b u t i o n theory," a t t r i b u t i o n r e f e r r i n g to the perception or inference of cause. The main thrust of a t t r i b u t i o n theory i s that i n d i v i d u a l s interpret behavior in terms of i t s causes (antecedents) and that these interpretations play an important r o l e in determining reactions to the behavior (consequences). 19 Origins of A t t r i b u t i o n Theory The f i e l d of a t t r i b u t i o n research grew out of a convergence of various l i n e s of inquiry with a recognition of their common core problems. The e a r l i e s t work grew out of the subject area known as " s o c i a l perception" or, more s p e c i f i c a l l y , "person perception" (see Hastorf, Schneider, and Polefka, 1970, for an excellent synopsis of the study of person perception). The a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach to understanding behavior f i r s t gained prominence through Heider's (1958) comprehensive work. He f i r s t outlined the conditions and e f f e c t s of the perception of e n t i t i e s (acknowledging the t h e o r e t i c a l contribution of Egon Brunswik, e.g., 1955), and then extended h i s discussion to the conditions and e f f e c t s r e l a t i n g to "person perception." By observing others" behavior, and then i n f e r r i n g stable and enduring t r a i t s , motives and intentions, the naive perceiver could optimize the order, p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and, thus, the functioning of the world. While person perception focuses on the description of the stimulus person, a t t r i b u t i o n theory deals with the l o c i of causality of the person's behavior (Heider, 1958). Soc i a l s c i e n t i s t s studying human motivation, p a r t i c u l a r l y achievement motivation, have contributed to the development of a t t r i b u t i o n theory. These researchers (e.g., Atkinson and Feather, 1966; deCharms, 1968; 1972; 1976; Feather, 1967; Weiner et a l . , 1972) have examined cognitive f a c t o r s involved in i n d i v i d u a l s ' diverse reactions in achievement or s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e s i t u a t i o n s . Work dealing with "locus of control" (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; Rotter, 1966) has also become 20 integrated with subsequent a t t r i b u t i o n a l research. Relevant, as we l l , have been Jones' research on person perception (Jones et a l . , 1961) and self-presentation (Jones & Wortman, 1973), Schachter's (1964) theory of emotion, and Bern's (1967) writings on s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n . The common themes in these diverse l i n e s of work were i d e n t i f i e d and elucidated in t h e o r e t i c a l papers by Jones and Davis (1965) and Kelley (1967), and these have sparked much subsequent research. A t t r i b u t i o n theory, then, attempts to specify the processes within the perceiver that are involved in the explanation and prediction of behavior. The elements or stages of t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n process can be affected by any number of v a r i a b l e s , from the perceiver's l e v e l of information to the biases inherent in d i f f e r e n t perceptual or psychological perspectives (see Haqq, 1979; Jones & Nisbett, 1972; M i l l e r , 1976; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Taylor & Fiske, 1978; Weary, 1980). For a more det a i l e d background of a t t r i b u t i o n theory and research, the reader i s referr e d to Jones and others (1972), Shaver (1975), the volumes edited by Harvey, I ekes, and Kidd (1976; 1978; 1981), and the review a r t i c l e by Kelley and Michela (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n and Achievement A t t r i b u t i o n s have been found to be important determinants of behavior in achievement s i t u a t i o n s . The e f f e c t of a t t r i b u t i o n s upon achievement s t r i v i n g s was f i r s t examined by Phares (1957) who found that when subjects were t o l d that their success on a judgement task was due to s k i l l , their expectancy 21 of future success was higher than when success was sai d to be due to chance. Contrariwise, f a i l u r e a t t r i b u t e d to chance rather than s k i l l yielded higher expectancy of future success. These outcomes were construed as r e f l e c t i n g the fact that s k i l l i s i n t e r n a l to the person (and , therefore, more cont r o l l a b l e ) while chance i s external (and, hence, l e s s c o n t r o l l a b l e ) . Neiner and colleagues (1972) have shown how cognitive reactions to success and f a i l u r e are of great importance in understanding achievement-oriented behavior. Their model i s based on the assumption that b e l i e f s about the causes of success and f a i l u r e ( i . e . , causal a t t r i b u t i o n s ) mediate between antecedent stimulus-organism transactions and r e s u l t i n g achievement behavior. Weiner and h i s associates (1972) noted that the two causes used by Phares (1957), s k i l l versus chance, not only d i f f e r e d in locus ( i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l ) , but also varied in their perceived s t a b i l i ty (stable-unstable) over time. They therefore i d e n t i f i e d four possible causes used to interpret and predict the outcome of an achievement-related event: a b i l i ty. e f f o r t . task d i f f i c u l t y , and luck (Weiner et a l . , 1972; Weiner, 1976; 1984). These causes can be represented along two dimensions: an "internal-external dimension" (or locus of control dimension), and a "stable-unstable dimension." A b i l i t y and e f f o r t are both i n t e r n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , while task d i f f i c u l t y and luck are external c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A b i l i t y and task d i f f i c u l t y are both stable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , while e f f o r t and luck are unstable. Thus, t h i s model predicts that for any success or f a i l u r e experience, there are four possible causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , with each of these a t t r i b u t i o n s associated with a 22 l i k e l y a f f e c t i v e reaction and an expectation regarding future performance (see Bar-Tal, 1975). Bar-Tal (1975) also pointed out important sex differences in a t t r i b u t i o n behavior. G i r l s tend to d i f f e r from boys in that they are l e s s w i l l i n g to a t t r i b u t e success to high a b i l i t y , while being more w i l l i n g to see f a i l u r e as caused by a lack of a b i l i t y (e.g., Bar-Tal & Frieze , 1974). These findings appear to be robust as they have been reported, reviewed, or extended, by Dweck and G i l l i a r d (1975), Dweck and Bush (1976), Deaux (1976), Bar-Tal and Frieze (1976;1977), Frieze et a l . (1978), Iekes and Layden (1978), Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, and Enna (1978), Dweck and Goetz (1978), Goetz and Dweck (1980), Dweck, Goetz, and Strauss (1980), and Licht and Dweck, (1984). This sex difference p e r s i s t s even in adult females (e.g., Crittenden & N i l e y , 1980). It i s possible that these sex differences in a t t r i b u t i o n behavior are related to the well-documented epidemiological f i n d i n g that rates of depression are higher for women than for men ( Neissman & Klerman, 1977; Woodruff, Goodwin, & Guze, 1974). Radloff (1975), for one, has in fact speculated that the higher l e v e l s of depression among women are best explained as a res u l t of learned helplessness. The theory of learned helplessness may prove to be a h e u r i s t i c framework within which to conduct research on depression, e s p e c i a l l y in women. Weiner's Reformulation of Achievement-related A t t r i b u t i o n s In a recent reformulation, Weiner (1979) outl i n e s a theory of motivation based upon a t t r i b u t i o n s of causality for success 23 and f a i l u r e . He i d e n t i f i e s three central causal dimensions: s t a b i l i ty. locus, and c o n t r o l . with these dimensions associated, r e s p e c t i v e l y , with expectancy change, esteem-related emotions, and interpersonal judgements. The stab i 1 i ty dimension depicts causes as either stable (invariant) or unstable ( v a r i a n t ) . For example, i n t e l l i g e n c e or task d i f f i c u l t y may be considered stable, whereas e f f o r t or mood may more often be considered unstable. Generally, expectancy s h i f t s after success and f a i l u r e are dependent upon the perceived s t a b i l i t y of the cause of the p r i o r outcome. A t t r i b u t i o n or a s c r i p t i o n of an outcome to stable f a c t o r s r e s u l t s in greater t y p i c a l s h i f t s in e x p e c t a n c y , i . e . , increments in expectancy after success and decrements after f a i l u r e , than do a s c r i p t i o n s to unstable causes. In other words, i f the conditions or causes of an outcome, success or f a i l u r e , are perceived as remaining unchanged, then that outcome w i l l be expected with a greater degree of certainty (Weiner et a l . , 1976). The locus of causality dimension may be conceptualized as i n t e r n a l or external to the i n d i v i d u a l . Weiner makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between Rotter's (1966) dimension, locus of co n t r o l , and h i s locus of c a u s a l i t y . In Weiner's context, locus i s viewed as a "backward-looking b e l i e f " and i s therefore referred to as locus of c a u s a l i t y . Internal sources of caus a l i t y may include a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , mood, maturity, and health, while external sources of caus a l i t y may include teacher, task, or family. However, the r e l a t i v e placement of a cause on t h i s dimension may not be invariant over time or between people. 24 Neiner (1979, p.6) gives the example: "...health might ,< be perceived as an in t e r n a l ('I am a s i c k l y person') or as ;;an external ('The " f l u bug" got me') cause of f a i l u r e . " Weiner (1979, p.6) explains f u r t h e r : Inasmuch as a t t r i b u t i o n theory deals with phenomenal c a u s a l i t y , such personal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s must be taken into account. That i s , the taxonomic placement of a cause depends upon i t s subjective meaning. Nonetheless, in s p i t e of possible i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n , there i s general agreement when d i s t i n g u i s h i n g causes as in t e r n a l or external. The locus dimension of causa l i t y has implications for s e l f - esteem. For example, an i n d i v i d u a l with a high self-concept of a b i l i t y would believe that she or he would have a high p r o b a b i l i t y of success at a task. If f a i l u r e then occurred, i t would probably be ascribed to unstable causes ( i . e . , luck or mood) which would l i k e l y not reduce expectancy of success on future tasks and would allow the in d i v i d u a l to maintain a high a b i l i t y self-concept. Success, on the other hand, would be ascribed to a b i l i t y , also increasing the subsequent expectancy of success and confirming high self-esteem. Given an i n i t i a l low self-concept of a b i l i t y and low expectancy of success, the converse analysis would hold. Success would be ascribed to unstable f a c t o r s , and f a i l u r e , to low a b i l i t y . These l a t t e r a t t r i b u t i o n s are prec i s e l y what distinguishes "learned helpless" students from "mastery-oriented" students (e.g., Diener & Dweck, 1980). Such patterns of a t t r i b u t i o n s would r e s u l t in the 25 preservation of i n i t i a l sef-concept (e.g., Ames, 1978; F i t c h , 1970; Gilmor SMinton, 1974; I c k e s S Layden, 1978). The foregoing analysis suggests that in modification programs involving self-concept or expectancies, the perceived causes of performance must be a l t e r e d or retrained. Just such " a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g " e f f o r t s w i l l be described l a t e r in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n (e.g., Andrews & Debus, 1978; Chap in & Dyck, 1976; Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980; Dweck, 1975). A t h i r d dimension of caus a l i t y (Weiner, 1979) categorizes causes as c o n t r o l l a b l e versus uncontrollable. For example, both mood and e f f o r t are i n t e r n a l and unstable causes, but e f f o r t d i f f e r s from mood in that only i t i s perceived as subject to v o l i t i o n a l c o n t r o l . Weiner (1979) f e e l s that t h i s dimension plays an important r o l e in interpersonal judgement s i t u a t i o n s . Independent construct v a l i d a t i o n was obtained by Meyer (1980) who also found the three dimensions suggested by Weiner (1979) through a factor analysis of a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g data. Learned Helplessness When in d i v i d u a l s perceive their actions as irr e l e v a n t to subsequent outcomes, they may come to exhibit "learned helplessness" (e.g. Seligman, Maier, & Geer, 1968). The phenomenon of learned helplessness, conceptually re l a t e d to the e a r l i e r view of "hopelessness" proposed by Mowrer (1960), was f i r s t studied by Seligman and Maier (1967) and Overmeier and Seligman (1967). They drew attention to the e f f e c t s of control versus lack of control in operant responding through research conducted with animal subjects. In i n i t i a l 26 studies (see Maier and Seligman, 1976, for a review of the infrahuman l i t e r a t u r e ) i t was found that animal subjects exposed to a s e r i e s of inescapable shocks, who then were given a chance to escape further punishment by the simple response of jumping from one compartment of an experimental apparatus to another, f a i l e d to learn t h i s simple response. Rather, they often remained in the f i r s t compartment and "took their punishment." Contrariwise, animal subjects who had not previously been exposed to inescapable shocks r e a d i l y learned to escape by jumping over a b a r r i e r in a s h u t t l e box to the safe compartment. Seligman (1975) termed the maladaptive phenomenon "learned helplessness," and a t t r i b u t e d i t to the fact that the animal subjects learned that their responses were independent of reinforcement, that they could do nothing to stop the shocks. He suggested that they demonstrated lowered motivation, which caused them to make few responses in the new s i t u a t i o n , and experienced reduced cognitive functioning, which lowered their a b i l i t y to learn an e f f e c t i v e escape response. The e f f e c t s of uncontrollable events in humans were also examined (Hiroto, 1974; Hiroto & Seligman, 1975). In the Hiroto and Seligman (1975) study, for example, subjects were f i r s t exposed to a s e r i e s of either soluble or insoluble problems. Following t h i s experience, both groups attempted to. solve a s e r i e s of anagrams. Those who had been exposed to the insoluble problems in the f i r s t part of the study did much worse on the anagrams, consistent with the theory of learned helplessness. Other studies r e p l i c a t e d these findings and demonstrated that the greater subjects' experience with insoluble problems or 27 other uncontrollable events, the greater their f e e l i n g s of helplessness, and the lower their performance on l a t e r tasks (e.g., K l e i n , Fencil-Morse, & Seligman, 1976; Roth & Kubal, 1975; Tennen & E l l e r , 1977). The basic tenet of the learned helplessness hypothesis then, i s that learning that outcomes are uncontrollable ( i . e . , non-contingent with reinforcement) r e s u l t s in three types of d e f i c i t s : motivational, cognitive, and emotional. The motivational d e f i c i t includes retarded i n i t i a t i o n of voluntary responses and i s interpreted as a consequence of the expectation that responding i s useless. The cognitive d e f i c i t c o n s i s t s of d i f f i c u l t y in learning that responses r e s u l t in outcomes. For example, i f one has derived a cognitive set that A i s i r r e l e v a n t to B, then i t becomes more d i f f i c u l t for one to learn l a t e r that As produce Bs when such i s indeed the case. L a s t l y , the learned helplessness hypothesis predicts depressed a f f e c t as a consequence of learning that outcomes are independent of responding (see Garber & Seligman, 1980, or Seligman, 1975). Many investigators subsequently r e f i n e d the learned helplessness hypothesis. Benson and Kennelly (1976) concluded that only exposure to uncontrollable aversive events le d to learned helplessness. Eisenberger, Park, and Frank (1976) found that exposure to c o n t r o l l a b l e events led to corresponding increments in performance, an e f f e c t sometimes c a l l e d learned industriousness (see also, Klein and Seligman, 1976). Generally speaking, researchers have found that i t takes continued persistent f a i l u r e accompanied by the perception of 28 noncontingency of responding to produce learned helplessness. Learned Helplessness C r i t i c i z e d In order to explain the seeming paradox whereby depressed i n d i v i d u a l s and college students who have been experimentally rendered "helpless" hold two apparently inconsistent b e l i e f s , namely, that they are both helpless to control what happens to them and are themselves to blame for f a i l u r e s , Janoff-Bulman (1979) has drawn a d i s t i n c t i o n between two types of s e l f - b l a m e — "behavioral" and "characterological." Accordingly, self-blame may be seen as either adaptive and f a c i l i t a t i n g , or maladaptive and d e b i l i t a t i n g . Behavioral self-blame i s control r e l a t e d , e n t a i l s a t t r i b u t i o n s to a modifiable source (such as one's behavior), and i s associated with a b e l i e f in the future a v o i d a b i l i t y of a negative outcome. Characterological s e l f - blame, on the other hand, i s esteem-related, involves a t t r i b u t i o n s to a r e l a t i v e l y non-modifiable source (such as one's character), and i s associated with a b e l i e f in personal deservingness for past negative outcomes. The author gives, as an example, the case of rape where a woman can blame herself for having walked down a dark street alone at night or for having l e t a s p e c i f i c man into her apartment (behavioral blame), or , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , she can blame herself for being "too t r u s t i n g and unable to say no" or a "careless person who i s unable to stay out of trouble (Janoff-Bulman, 1979, p. 1799)." Janoff-Bulman (1979) points out that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between characterological and behavioral self-blame corresponds to the d i s t i n c t i o n s drawn by Weiner and h i s associates (1972) in their scheme of a t t r i b u t i o n s in achievement-related areas. 29 Individuals who make an a t t r i b u t i o n to lack of a b i l i t y believe that there i s l i t t l e they can do to control the s i t u a t i o n and succeed, because a b i l i t y i s stable and r e l a t i v e l y unchangeable. Individuals who make an a t t r i b u t i o n to e f f o r t , on the other hand, can believe that as long as they try harder, they w i l l be able to obtain a p o s i t i v e outcome (e.g. Dweck, 1975). Analogously, characterological self-blame corresponds to an a b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n , while behavioral self-blame corresponds to an e f f o r t a t t r i b u t i o n , each having very d i f f e r e n t implications for perceived personal c o n t r o l . Thus, the dimension which best distinguishes between behavioral and characterological s e l f - blame appears to be perceived c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y or modifiabi1ity of the factor or facto r s blamed in any p a r t i c u l a r instance. Learned Helplessness Revised (1978) Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978) reformulated the o r i g i n a l learned helplessness hypothesis by proposing an a t t r i b u t i o n a l framework in order to resolve several of the the o r e t i c a l controversies regarding the e f f e c t s of u n c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y in humans. B a s i c a l l y , the reformulated hypothesis states that when people f i n d themselves helpless, they either i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y ask why they are helpless. The causal a t t r i b u t i o n s subsequently made then influence the generality and chroni c i t y of the helplessness d e f i c i t s as well as l a t e r self-esteem. Succinctly, once an in d i v i d u a l perceives noncontingency in a given s i t u a t i o n , he a t t r i b u t e s h i s helplessness to a cause. This cause may be stable or unstable, global or s p e c i f i c , 30 i n t e r n a l or external. The a t t r i b u t i o n chosen w i l l influence whether expectation of future helplessness w i l l be chronic or acute, broad or narrow, and whether or not helplessness w i l l lower self-esteem. Low self-esteem, in f a c t , i s a fourth d e f i c i t of human helplessness deduced by Abramson and associates (1978) in the reformulated hypothesis (the others being motivational, cognitive, and emotional d e f i c i t s ) . They suggest that persons who believe that desired outcomes are not contingent on acts in their r e pertoires but are contingent on acts in the repe r t o i r e s of relevant others, w i l l show lower self-esteem than w i l l persons who believe that desired outcomes are neither contingent on acts in their repertoires nor contingent on acts in the repe r t o i r e s of relevant others. In other words, only people in a "personal helplessness" condition should experience l o s s of self-esteem. Low self-esteem has been regarded as a hallmark symptom of depression by the authors of several t h e o r e t i c a l t r e a t i s e s (e.g., Beck, 1967; 1976; Bibring, 1953; Freud, 1917/1957). The universal versus personal helplessness d i s t i n c t i o n predicts that depressed persons who a t t r i b u t e their helplessness to inter n a l f a c t o r s ( i . e . , personal helplessness) w i l l evidence lower s e l f - esteem than w i l l persons who make external a t t r i b u t i o n s ( i . e . , universal helplessness). Ickes and Layden (1978) for example, found that i n d i v i d u a l s with low self-esteem tend to a t t r i b u t e negative outcomes to int e r n a l f a c t o r s and p o s i t i v e outcomes to external f a c t o r s , while the opposite pattern was found for high s*»lf-esteem i n d i v i d u a l s . 31 V a l i d i t y of the A t t r i b u t i o n a l Analysis of Helplessness Recently, Abramson, Qarber, and Seligman (1980) suggested that the e a r l i e r studies on human helplessness may be more ea s i l y explained by the reformulated hypothesis. F o r e x a m p l e , Douglas and Anisman (1975) found that subjects who f a i l e d on what they believed to be a simple task evidenced l a t e r cognitive d e f i c i t s , whereas subjects who f a i l e d on an assumed complex task did not. It i s possible that subjects a t t r i b u t e d their f a i l u r e on the simple tasks more to global and i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s (e.g., "I'm stupid."), whereas the subjects who f a i l e d on the complex tasks l i k e l y a t t r i b u t e d their f a i l u r e more to external and s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s (e.g., "These problems are too d i f f i c u l t . " ) . The e f f e c t s of therapy and immunization are also better explained by the a t t r i b u t i o n a l reformulation, with the c r u c i a l a t t r i b u t i o n a l dimension being g l o b a l - s p e c i f i c . Success experiences have been shown to both reverse and prevent the d e f i c i t s associated with helplessness. For example, afte r success therapy (4 or 12 solvable cognitive problems), nondepressed subjects made helpless with uncontrollable noise and depressed subjects given no noise, subequently c o n t r o l l e d noise successfully and showed normal expectancy changes after success and f a i l u r e (Klein & Seligman, 1976). The reformulated model suggests that the therapy induced subjects to revise their o r i g i n a l global a t t r i b u t i o n for the inescapable noise (e.g., "I'm incompetent" or "laboratory tasks are unsolvable") to a more s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t i o n ("I'm only incompetent on some tasks" or "only some laboratory tasks are too d i f f i c u l t " ) after the 32 intervening success experiences, thereby increasing an expectation of c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y . Teasdale (1978) also found that while both r e a l success experiences and r e c a l l i n g past successes were equally e f f e c t i v e in s h i f t i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s for i n i t i a l f a i l u r e from i n t e r n a l to external f a c t o r s , only r e a l success was e f f e c t i v e in reversing the helplessness performance d e f i c i t s . The e f f e c t s of immunization (Jones, Nation, & Massad, 1977; Klee & Meyer, 1979) may be s i m i l a r l y explained: I n i t i a l success experience should make the a t t r i b u t i o n for a subsequent helplessness experience l e s s g lobal, and consequently l e s s l i k e l y to lead to an expectation of helplessness. It i s important to note that debriefing has been found to a l t e r subjects' a t t r i b u t i o n s (Ko l l e r & Kaplan, 1978). In s p i t e of whether subjects had received contingent or noncontingent reinforcement during the pretreatment phase of the experiment, a l l subjects who were l a t e r informed that the experimenter had been c o n t r o l l i n g the tone and problem solution during the pretreatment phase, performed well on the test task (op. c i t . , 1978). A d d i t i o n a l l y , Tennen and G i l l e n (1979), using a c l a s s i c laboratory induced helplessness paradigm (with escapable or inescapable tones) found that debriefing actually f a c i l i t a t e d performance on the test task (anagrams). The performance of debriefed subjects surpassed that of subjects in the inescapable condition who were not debriefed and matched the performance of subjects in the escapable condition. The a t t r i b u t i o n a l reformulation of the learned helplessness model (Abramson et a l . , 1978; M i l l e r & Norman, 1979) suggests that debriefing 33 should be e f f e c t i v e in reversing helplessness d e f i c i t s because i t leads the subject to make s p e c i f i c rather than global causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . Tennen and G i l l e n (1979) found that while debriefed subjects tended to a t t r i b u t e u n c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y more to experimenter control than did other inescapable groups, implying more s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t i o n s , t h i s d ifference was marginal. Tennen and G i l l e n (1979) c i t e several possible explanations for the debriefing-produced r e v e r s a l , including the idea that debriefed subjects, whose f a i t h in the experimenter i s reaffirmed through v e r i f i c a t i o n of their pre-existing perceptions regarding the u n c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of the noise task, may increase their e f f o r t s on the anagram task. In any case, the r o l e of debriefing in learned helplessness research i s of paramount importance (note also Ross et a l . ' s , 1975, d i s t i n c t i o n between "outcome debriefing," where a subject i s set straight regarding any deception, and "process debriefing," where the subject i s given the same information as in outcome debriefing plus further emphasis on the personal relevance of f a l s e impression perseverance). Several other studies have found improved rather than impaired performance by subjects exposed to uncontrollable events (Roth & Kubal, 1975; Wortman, Panciera, Shusterman, & Hibscher, 1976; Tennen & E l l e r , 1977; and Hanusa & Schulz, 1977). Abramson et a l . (1980) propose that such f a c i l i t a t i o n may represent compensatory attempts to reassert control once the subject leaves the o r i g i n a l s i t u a t i o n in which he or she was helpless. (See, for example, Solomon and Corbit, 1973, for a 34 relevant rebound theory.) In accordance with an a t t r i b u t i o n a l analysis of f a c i l i t a t i o n , subjects who make i n t e r n a l , s p e c i f i c , and unstable " e f f o r t " a t t r i b u t i o n s for their early f a i l u r e ( s ) may try to compensate by tryi n g harder on subsequent task(s). F a c i l i t a t i o n may also occur when subjects cannot f i n d a c o n t r o l l i n g response but have not yet concluded that they are helpless. Learned Helplessness Update (1984) The c e n t r a l prediction of the 1978 reformulation (Abramson et a l . , 1978) was that an explanatory s t y l e in which bad events are explained by i n t e r n a l , stable, and global causes i s associated with depressive symptoms and, in addition, such an explanatory s t y l e was claimed to be a r i s k factor for subsequent depression upon the experiencing of bad events. Peterson and Seligman (1984) have more recently described several investigations of the helplessness reformulation that employed f i v e research s t r a t e g i e s : (a) cross-sectional c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies, (b) lon g i t u d i n a l studies, (c) experiments of nature, (d) laboratory experiments, and (e) case studies. O v e r a l l , the authors (op. c i t . , 1984) f i n d that these studies converge in their support for the learned helplessness reformulation. The primary method used by these researchers to assess a t t r i b u t i o n s or explanatory s t y l e has been with the A t t r i b u t i o n a l Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Peterson, Semmel, et a l . , 1982). This self-^report instrument furnishes scores for the explanation of six bad events and six good events with int e r n a l versus external, stable versus unstable, and global versus s p e c i f i c causes. Subjects are asked to generate their own cause 35 for each event described and then to rate that cause along seven-point scales corresponding to the i n t e r n a l i t y , s t a b i l i t y , and g l o b a l i t y dimensions. The questionnaire i s generally group administered but may be given i n d i v i d u a l l y . In addition, Peterson and Seligman (1984) regard an " a t t r i b u t i o n " or "causal explanation" as a hypothetical construct which may be measured with a number of d i f f e r e n t converging operations, no one of which defines or exhausts the construct, so that, for example, behavioral observations as well as answers to questionnaires may be relevant to knowing about an i n d i v i d u a l ' s causal explanations. The authors (Peterson & Seligman, 1984) discussed how causal explanations are determined by both s i t u a t i o n a l (e.g., Tennen & E l l e r , 1977) and d i s p o s i t i o n a l (e.g., A l l o y , Peterson, Abramson, & Seligman, 1984; Dweck & L i c h t , 1980) f a c t o r s and how, i f r e a l i t y i s ambiguous enough, an i n d i v i d u a l may project and impose habitual explanations. In such cases, the ASQ would work as a p r o j e c t i v e test and could be used to measure an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c explanatory s t y l e . They also described converging evidence in support of the central prediction of the learned helplessness reformulation, that i f an explanatory s t y l e invokes i n t e r n a l , stable, and global causes, then the i n d i v i d u a l tends to become depressed when bad events occur. Such an explanatory s t y l e i s claimed to be a " r i s k factor" for subsequent depression when bad events are encountered. Also, they f i n d that i f respondents are asked to offe r explanations about several (hypothetical) bad events, 36 rather than for a s i n g l e event, the chances are then greater that the average of these explanations w i l l r e f l e c t a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e . Seligman's Learned Helplessness and Beck's Cognitive Model of Depression C r i t i c i z e d Coyne and G o t l i b (1983), in summarizing and evaluating the research data regarding the r o l e of cognition in depression, suggest that neither Beck's model of depression (1967; 1976; Kovacs & Beck, 1978) nor Seligman's learned helplessness model of depression (1975; Abramson et a l . , 1978) has a strong empirical base. They (Coyne & G o t l i b , 1983) point out the problems found in subject samples: mildly depressed college students versus non-depressed college students (perhaps the r e s u l t s are not generalizable to c l i n i c a l l y depressed i n d i v i d u a l s ) ; depressed patients versus nondepressed nonpatient controls (when a nondepressed patient control group i s necessary to r u l e out the "psychological deviation" hypothesis). [Few studies have included two control groups.] The authors (Coyne & G o t l i b , 1983) reported that, o v e r a l l , differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects regarding changes in performance expectations have not been as strong or as consistent as o r i g i n a l l y hypothesized (e.g., Prkachin et a l . , 1977). Coyne and G o t l i b (1983) remind the reader that person variables other than depression have been associated with low s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . For example, in the absence of differences in observer r a t i n g s , nonassertive i n d i v i d u a l s evaluate their s o c i a l behavior l e s s p o s i t i v e l y than do assertive i n d i v i d u a l s (Alden & 37 Cappe, 1981); in the absence of performance differences, high- test-anxious females evaluate their anagram performance l e s s p o s i t i v e l y than do low-test-anxious females (Holroyd, Westbrook, Wolf, & Badhorn, 1978). Regarding perceptions of environmental s t i m u l i , from Beck's model one would postulate that i n d i v i d u a l s d i s t o r t feedback in a negative manner, both s e l e c t i v e l y f i l t e r i n g out p o s i t i v e information and perceiving neutral or negative information as being more negative than i t actually i s . And from the learned helplessness model, one would postulate that the depressed i n d i v i d u a l , b e l i e v i n g that his/her responses are i n e f f e c t i v e in bringing about a desired outcome, f a i l s to accurately perceive response-outcome dependence when consequences are, in f a c t , contingent upon responses. In the research reviewed by Coyne and G o t l i b (1983) no support was found for Beck's model: depressed i n d i v i d u a l s were not more inaccurate than were nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s with respect to their perception of the evaluative nature of environmental s t i m u l i . No support was found for the learned helplessness model e i t h e r . In a study by Abramson, A l l o y , and Rosoff (1981), for example, depressed students in a "self-generated hypothesis" condition (task: contingency learning problem in which the response-outcome contingency was set at 75%; half of the subjects were asked to generate their own hypotheses concerning the contingency, and half 'were given a small set of hypotheses, including the correct one) were l e s s l i k e l y to perform the 38 correct c o n t r o l l i n g response, and judged that they exercised l e s s control over the outcome. It was noted that although the depressed students' judgments were an underestimate of the control they could have p o t e n t i a l l y exerted, they were actual r e f l e c t i o n s of the amount of control which they a c t u a l l y did exert. O v e r a l l , the studies examining r e c a l l of information, r e c a l l of feedback, and r e c a l l of p o s i t i v e and negative experiences, are equivocal, given Beck's hypothesis of the depressives' negative schema a f f e c t i n g perception and inter p r e t a t i o n of environmental s t i m u l i . Some studies (e.g., Go t l i b , 1981) report that depressed.patients r e c a l l , for example, administering fewer self-rewards and a greater number of self-punishments than was actually the case (compared with subjects in two nondepressed groups - nondepressed p s y c h i a t r i c inpatients and nondepressed nonpatient c o n t r o l s ) . Other studies have found no differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects (Buchwald, 1977). A number of studies have examined depressed-nondepressed differences in a t t r i b u t i o n s for experimenter-controlled success and f a i l u r e . A f a i r l y consistent f i n d i n g of such studies i s that depressed subjects make more inter n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e than do nondepressed subjects (e.g., Rizley, 1978; Zemore & Johansen, 1980). However, two studies that examined a t t r i b u t i o n s following success and f a i l u r e in patient populations both f a i l e d to f i n d hypothesized group differences (Abramson, Garber, Edwards, and Seligman, 1978; Got l i b and Olson, 1983). Several studies have analyzed the a t t r i b u t i o n s of depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s for hypothetical good and bad 39 events, in most part through use of the A t t r i b u t i o n a l Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Seligman et al.,1979). Seligman et a l . (1979) reported that, as hypothesized by the learned- helplessness model, depressed students made more i n t e r n a l , stable, and global a t t r i b u t i o n s for bad outcomes than did nondepressed students. Metalsky, Abramson, Seligman, Semmel, and Peterson (1982) found that, for a univ e r s i t y student sample, in t e r n a l and global a t t r i b u t i o n s for negative events on the ASQ were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with an increase in depressed mood following receipt of a low grade on a midterm exam. A number of investigations using the ASQ, however, have obtained much weaker r e s u l t s (e.g., Blaney et a l . , 1980; Golin et a l . , 1981). And several studies have f a i l e d to f i n d the hypothesized depressed-nondepressed differences on any ASQ a t t r i b u t i o n a l dimension (e.g., Manly et a l . , 1982; M i l l e r et a l . , 1982). In examining whether tendencies to make p a r t i c u l a r kinds of a t t r i b u t i o n s constitute a source of v u l n e r a b i l i t y to subsequent depression, Golin et a l . (1981), for example, found that stable and global a t t r i b u t i o n s for negative events in a univ e r s i t y student sample were related to depressed mood one month l a t e r . However, there was no support for the hypothesis that i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for bad outcomes i s a causal factor in depression, since the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n s for s t a b i l i t y and g l o b a l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s accounted for only 1054 and 3% of the variance, respectively, in subsequent Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores. Other studies (e.g., 40 Lewinsohn et a l . , 1381; Manly et a l . , 1982) also demonstrated that a t t r i b u t i o n s did no : predict subsequent depressed mood. Thus, studies examining t i e causal r e l a t i o n s h i p of a t t r i b u t i o n s to depression have yielded mixed r e s u l t s , and the issue needs further c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Studies examining the responses of depressed and nondepressed subjects to s t r e s s f u l l i f e events (e.g., Barthe & Hammen, 1981; Hammen & DeMayo, 1982) have demonstrated that depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s do not d i f f e r consistently in their a t t r i b u t i o n s for s t r e s s f u l events. The most consistent f i n d i n g seems to be a tendency for depressed subjects, r e l a t i v e to nondepressed subjects, to a t t r i b u t e s t r e s s f u l events more to int e r n a l causes. In many studies (e.g., Seligman et a l . , 1979; Zuroff, 1981) therefore, although depressed subjects may make more in t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e than do nondepressed subjects, their a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e are nevertheless absolutely more external than i n t e r n a l . According to Coyne and Got l i b (1983), one explanation for t h i s f a c t involves the possible heterogeneity of depression. Blatt and colleagues ( B l a t t , 1974; B l a t t , Quinlan, Chevron, McDonald, & Zuroff, 1982) have i d e n t i f i e d two types of depression in both c l i n i c a l and s u b c l i n i c a l samples. One type focuses on helplessness and dependency, while the other focuses on fee l i n g s of i n f e r i o r i t y , g u i l t , and s e l f - c r i t i c i s m . Supposedly, these two types of depressives would demonstrate d i f f e r e n t a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s , with the helpless, dependent depressives showing a t t r i b u t i o n s to external causes, and the over-responsible, s e l f - c r i t i c a l 41 depressives manifesting more in t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Thus, c o l l a p s i n g across these two types of depression would tend to erode any r e a l a t t r i b u t i o n a l differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects. A number of researchers have found other i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s important for a t t r i b u t i o n s . Arkin, Appieman, and Burger (1980), for example, found a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l anxiety and a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e on a therapy task. They (Arkin et a l . , 1980) also found that s o c i a l l y anxious students' a t t r i b u t i o n s were affected by whether they believed that their performance would be evaluated by an expert or not. Arkin et a l . (1980) report t h i s f i n d i n g as support for their p osition that a t t r i b u t i o n s r e f l e c t s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s rather than, or as well as, i n t e r n a l i z e d data-analysis processes (see also Baumeister, 1982; Tetlock, 1981). In summary, Coyne and G o t l i b (1983) suggest that while depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , from either patient or student samples, tend to make negative and self-deprecating responses to laboratory tasks and to hypothetical and r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s , t h i s tendency i s not as strong or as consistent as advocates of the learned-helplessness and Beck's cognitive models have assumed. They (Coyne & G o t l i b , 1983) also challenge the assumption that experimental tasks capture the processes t y p i c a l l y involved in d i r e c t i n g behavior. People may not routinely be as r e f l e c t i v e as researchers have hoped, but may instead behave according to more t y p i c a l , automatic, or r e f l e x i v e behavioral processes (Langer, 1978). Moreover, what 42 people think probably depends more on what their external circumstances or environment provide than the learned- helplessness or Beck models assume ( c f . Coyne, 1976; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982). The Learned Helplessness Reformulation and Children In a recent study, Seligman et a l . (1984) investigated predictions of the learned helplessness reformulation among 96 eight to 13-year-old boys and g i r l s . Seligman et a l . (1984) found that children who a t t r i b u t e d bad events to i n t e r n a l , stable, and global causes were more l i k e l y to report depressive symptoms than were children who a t t r i b u t e d these events to external, unstable, and s p e c i f i c causes. Moreover, t h i s depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e predicted depressive symptoms six months l a t e r , suggesting that i t may be a r i s k factor for depression. [The children completed the Children's Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs & Beck, 1977), and the Children's A t t r i b u t i o n a l Style Questionnaire (CASQ; see Peterson & Seligman, 1984) at two times, separated by a six-month i n t e r v a l . ] F i n a l l y , Seligman et a l . (1984) found that the mother's composite s t y l e for bad events correlated with her c h i l d ' s composite for bad events and with her c h i l d ' s depressive symptoms, that mother's depressive symptoms correlated with her c h i l d ' s depressive symptoms, and that father's a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e and depression were not re l a t e d to scores of h i s mate or their c h i l d . [Parents had been asked to complete the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, 1967) and the adult A t t r i b u t i o n a l Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Peterson et a l . , 1982).] 43 Helplessness versus Mastery-Orientation in Children A group of studies by Dweck and her associates (e.g. Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) demonstrated the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e to lack of a b i l i t y versus lack of e f f o r t in elementary school-aged c h i l d r e n . These researchers also provided evidence of how s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n s acquired during the childhood s o c i a l i z a t i o n process can a f f e c t subsequent behavior. S p e c i f i c a l l y , they examined the ro l e of a t t r i b u t i o n s in determining the response to f a i l u r e of both "learned helpless" and "mastery-oriented" c h i l d r e n . These ch i l d r e n , i t i s important to note, s t a r t out with v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l performance before a f a i l u r e experience - for example, equivalent speed, accuracy, and so p h i s t i c a t i o n of problem- solving s t r a t e g i e s on tasks, and si m i l a r r e s u l t s on standardized measures of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Nhat l a t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t e s these children are their cognitions about their successes and f a i l u r e s . In achievement s i t u a t i o n s , helpless children may be t y p i f i e d as having cognitions that imply the i n e v i t a b i l i t y or insurmountability of f a i l u r e , whereas mastery-oriented children would be characterized as having cognitions that imply that their successes are r e p l i c a b l e , and their errors r e c t i f i a b l e . In one experiment, Dweck and Reppucci (1973) gave one group of children soluble problems, the other, insoluble ones (subjects in their studies were in grades four to six and care was taken to ensure that children in the f a i l u r e conditions were subsequently given mastery experiences and made to f e e l that their performance had been commendable). Nhat subsequently distinguished the two experimental groups were their 44 a t t r i b u t i o n a l patterns,, their c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways of explaining their academic successes and f a i l u r e s (see Weiner, 1972; 1974). Measuring children's /'Attributions by means of the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale (Crandall, Katkovsky, & i !' U Crandall, 1965), Dweck and Reppucci (1973) found that children who persisted in the face of f a i l u r e placed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more emphasis on motivational f a c t o r s as determinants of outcomes, thus implying that f a i l u r e i s surmountable through e f f o r t . a factor that i s generally perceived to be under the control of the i n d i v i d u a l . The children whose performance deteriorated tended more than persistent children to place the blame for their f a i l u r e s on largely uncontrollable external f a c t o r s rather than e f f o r t . If they did take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for f a i l u r e s , they were . r e l a t i v e l y more l i k e l y than the persistent children to blame their f a i l u r e on lack of a b i l i t y . In another experiment (Dweck, 1975), an attempt was made to a l t e r children's responses to f a i l u r e by a l t e r i n g their a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e . Children who showed the a t t r i b u t i o n a l pattern i n d i c a t i v e of helplessness on the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale (Crandall et a l . , 1965) were divided into two groups. One group received only success experiences in the treatment s i t u a t i o n , a procedure recommended by advocates of the so-called "deprivation theory" of maladaptive responses to f a i l u r e . The second group received a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g with success experience predominating but with several f a i l u r e t r i a l s each day. When f a i l u r e occurred the c h i l d ' s actual performance was compared to c r i t e r i o n performance 45 and the f a i l u r e was e x p l i c i t l y a t t r i b u t e d by the experimenter to a lack of e f f o r t (internal/unstable a t t r i b u t i o n ) . By the end of t r a i n i n g the second group showed no appreciable impairment, and, unexpectedly, most of them showed improvement in performance as a re s u l t of f a i l u r e . Children in the f i r s t group showed no improvement (they were given a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g , however, at the end of the experiment). Thus, these two studies (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) focused on a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e as indicants of children's b e l i e f s regarding the c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of f a i l u r e . That i s , f a i l u r e a t t r i b u t i o n s to stable f a c t o r s , such as lack of a b i l i t y , imply that f a i l u r e i s l i k e l y to continue or recur, whereas f a i l u r e a t t r i b u t i o n s to l e s s stable f a c t o r s such as i n s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t , suggest that future success remains a via b l e p o s s i b i l i t y (e.g. Neiner, 1972; 1974). Note, however, that a t t r i b u t i o n s were assessed (either through questionnaires or v i a probes within the experimental si t u a t i o n ) at pres p e c i f i e d times in these two experiments, and that by assessing a t t r i b u t i o n s , these researchers had ipso facto defined the s i t u a t i o n as a f a i l i n g one, in simply asking the children to explain their f a i l u r e ( s ) . There remained the p o s s i b i l i t y that without the cues given by the questionnaires, some children may perhaps not have perceived themselves to have f a i l e d at that s p e c i f i e d point in time. Or, i f acknowledging f a i l u r e , would they then have spontaneously made a t t r i b u t i o n s ? In order to answer these and other questions, Diener and Dweck (1978), in a l a t e r experiment, employed a procedure that would enable children ( f i f t h graders) to t e l l them what their 46 cognitions were as they occurred. In two studies, they monitored the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of problem-solving s t r a t e g i e s used by children in solving a three-dimensional, two-choice discrimination problem. In both studies, the helpless children's stategies deteriorated with the onset of f a i l u r e . Conversely, the mastery-oriented children were not only able to maintain mature s t r a t e g i e s over the f a i l u r e t r i a l s , but some of them also began using more sophisticated s t r a t e g i e s . The c r i t i c a l findings came in the second of the two otherwise i d e n t i c a l studies, where the children were asked (afte r the s i x t h of eight success t r a i n i n g problems) to verbalize aloud as they did the task. The two groups did not d i f f e r in types of statements during the two success problems preceding the onset of fail»'rs. However, over the course of the f a i l u r e t r i a l s , clear differences emerged. Helpless children began making causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e to a lack of a b i l i t y (e.g., poor memory) or to a l o s s of a b i l i t y (e.g., confusion). They began to express negative a f f e c t toward the task and a wish to withdraw from the s i t u a t i o n , in s p i t e of the fact that only moments before they were quite content with i t . Helpless children also gave numerous task-irrelevant statements which may have represented attempts to escape from the task c o g n i t i v e l y , since i t was not possible to do so ph y s i c a l l y (see discussion in Dweck and L i c h t , 1980). In contrast, mastery-oriented children didn't make a t t r i b u t i o n s for the f a i l u r e s . Though they acknowledged that they were making "mistakes, 8 there was l i t t l e to suggest that 47 they regarded their present state to constitute " f a i l u r e " or that they expected to remain in that state nuch longer. Most of their statements s i g n i f i e d greater tat>k involvement and 4 increased orie n t a t i o n toward f i n d i n g the s o l u t i o n . They engaged in a f a i r amount of s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n (e.g., reminding themselves to concentrate), and self-monitoring (e.g., checking to see that they were engaging in the behaviors that would expedite performance). [This categorization of v e r b a l i z a t i o n s , thus, lends support to the r a t i o n a l e of therapeutic programs of psychologists such as V i r g i n i a Douglas (1980a; 1980b), Donald Meichenbaum (1975; 1980; Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971), and Sebastiano Santostefano (1978), who teach just such s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques to learning-disabled/hyperactive children.] Moreover, the mastery-oriented children gave a number of statements i n d i c a t i v e of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t toward the task; they welcomed the challenge. They expressed unflagging confidence that no matter what the cause of their mistakes - bad luck, i n s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t , greater d i f f i c u l t y of the task, or lesser a b i l i t y than previously believed - success could be achieved either by i n t e n s i f y i n g their e f f o r t s , or changing problem-solving s t r a t e g i e s . In summary, when f a i l u r e s occurred, the cognitions of the helpless children r e f l e c t e d their tendency to dwell on the present, to dwell on the negative, and to seek an escape from the s i t u a t i o n at hand. The cognitions of the mastery-oriented ch i l d r e n , on the other hand, r e f l e c t e d their tendency to look toward the future, to s t r e s s the p o s i t i v e , and to invest their energies in a c t i v e l y pursuing relevant st r a t e g i e s for problem 48 s o l u t i o n . In a more recent study (Diener & Dweck, 1980), children performed a task on which they encountered success and then f a i l u r e (the task was the same three-dimensional, two-choice discrimination problem used in the e a r l i e r , 1978, study). Half of the children were questioned about their performance after success and the other half a f t e r f a i l u r e . Pronounced differences emerged. Compared to mastery-oriented c h i l d r e n , helpless children both underestimated the number of successes and overestimated the number of f a i l u r e s . They did not perceive successes as i n d i c a t i v e of a b i l i t y , and did not expect successes to continue. Subsequent f a i l u r e l e d them to devalue their previous performance, unlike the mastery-oriented c h i l d r e n . It appeared that helpless children viewed f a i l u r e as more "diagnostic" of their l e v e l of a b i l i t y , whereas mastery-oriented children seemed to view success as more diagnostic (see Trope and Brickman, 1975). The authors (Diener & Dweck, 1980) concluded that for helpless c h i l d r e n , successes are l e s s s a l i e n t , l e s s p r e d i c t i v e , and l e s s enduring - in t o t a l , l e s s successful. A b r i e f overview of the area of childhood depression may now provide some insight regarding differences between helpless and mastery-oriented c h i l d r e n . 49 Description of Childhood Depression In general, there i s agreement on the most common symptoms and signs of depression in adults (e.g., Beck, 1967; 1976; Robins & Guze, 1970). S i m i l a r l y , some f e e l that there i s general agreement regarding symptoms of depression in children (e.g., Ling et a l . , 1970; McConville et a l . , 1973; Poznanski & Z r u l l , 1970; Puig-Antich et a l . , 1978). Kovacs and Beck (1977) l i s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of childhood depressive disorders from nine studies published between 1968 and 1973. A l l of the studies reviewed concur that childhood depression involves some type of cognitive change in the negative d i r e c t i o n , and most studies l i s t a t t i t u d i n a l and motivational changes and disturbances in psychomotor functioning. However, not a l l of the studies place an emphasis on dysphoric mood, per se. as a primary symptom of childhood depression (Weinberg et a l . , 1973). Frommer (1968) notes that presenting complaints are most commonly of a nonspecific, somatic nature (increasing abdominal pain, for example). Frommer (1968) and A r a j a r v i and Huttunen (1972) l i s t enuresis and encopresis as symptoms of depression in c h i l d r e n . On the other hand, Pearce (1978) found enuresis and encopresis to be negatively associated with depression in c h i l d r e n . Poznanski and Z r u l l (1970), based on the data records selected, l i s t e d negative self-image as the most frequent disturbance seen within the depressive symtomatology. They (Poznanski & Z r u l l , 1970) also noted that d i f f i c u l t y in handling aggression was the most frequent symptomatic behavior which i n i t i a t e d r e f e r r a l for treatment. Kuhn and Kuhn (1972), in a study of the imipramine 50 treatment of 100 depressed c h i l d r e n , found "morning tiredness" to be the cardinal symptom of a f f e c t i v e depression. In general, these authors include descriptions or symptoms that c l o s e l y resemble the adult depressive syndrome, sometimes noting that the character of these symptoms may be somewhat d i f f e r e n t (e.g., Krakowski, 1970). Several researchers (Bakwin, 1972; Connell, 1972; Glaser, 1967; Lesse, 1974; Toolan, 1962) have noted that psychosomatic or behavioral complaints among children often mask an underlying a f f e c t i v e disturbance. Glaser (1967), for example, observed that the following symptom pictures may indicate or mask an underlying depression in older children and .adolescents: (1) behavioral problems and delinquent behavior; (2) psychoneurotic reactions; and (3) psychophysiologic reactions. Cytryn and McKnew (1974) also view "masked depressive reaction" as the most common form of depression in children and include these signs of masked depression in their d e s c r i p t i o n : hy p e r a c t i v i t y , aggressiveness, school f a i l u r e , delinquency, and psychosomatic symptoms. These authors note, however, that among latency-age c h i l d r e n , there i s a group that tends to present a more c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e depressive syndrome, with accompanying symptoms such as sad a f f e c t , s o c i a l withdrawal, hopelessness, helplessness, psychomotor retardation, anxiety, school and s o c i a l f a i l u r e , eating and sleeping disturbances, and s u i c i d a l ideation. Other authors view depression as masked, or as evidenced in depressive equivalents, at various phases of development. For example, in addition to the symptoms noted by others (as above), 51 Renshaw (1974) asserts that f i r e s e t t i n g i s a means of acting out childhood depression, and Malmquist (1972) includes anorexia nervosa and obesity syndromes q!s depressive equivalents. Kovacs and Beck (1977, ( j . l l ) , however, suggest that the term "masked" depression may be misleading and unnecessary: Me know from adult c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e that patients often present with either nonspecific somatic complaints or general malaise. Yet we do not refer to such adult presenting complaints as "masking" depression. We view them either as "somatizations" or as c u l t u r a l l y accepted ways of construing or manifesting psychological discomfort. Consequently, concepts such as masked depression in childhood are unnecessary. The concept seems to have no c l i n i c a l or h e u r i s t i c s i g n i f i c a n c e and e s s e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i e s : (1) events that i n i t i a t e r e f e r r a l , or (2) manifestations of a psychological disturbance acceptable or appropriate to that age category. Nelner (1978) provided an excellent overview of the p s y c h i a t r i c l i t e r a t u r e on childhood to that date. She f e l t that there i s no general agreement on c r i t e r i a for childhood depression. Instead, she found that the diagnosis of depression in childhood was based upon c l i n i c a l impression (e.g., Cytryn & McKnew, 1972; Frommer, 1968), a r b i t r a r i l y selected c r i t e r i a (e.g., Anthony & Scott, 1960; Weinberg et a l . , 1973), or on a favorable response to antidepressant drug therapy (e.g.,Frommer, 1968; Rapoport et a l . , 1974). No d i s t i n c t i o n was made between primary and secondary depression in the l i t e r a t u r e . In 52 l o n g i t u d i n a l studies, Robins (1966) found that l e s s than one per cent of the children who were seen in a c h i l d guidance c l i n i c early in l i f e l a t e r developed depressive i l l n e s s ; and Dahl (1972), in h i s follow-up study of a large s e r i e s of severely disturbed Danish ch i l d r e n , did not f i n d a s i n g l e case of manic- depressive psychosis. In the I s l e of Might epidemiological study of 2,199 children between the ages of 10 and 11, Rutter, T i z a r d , and Whitmore (1970) discovered that the rate of "pure" depression was low: 0.1 per cent. Rutter et a l . (1970) i d e n t i f i e d three groups of disturbed c h i l d r e n : a group with conduct disorders, a group with emotional disorders, and a mixed group containing components of both types. They (Rutter et a l . , 1970) found that the disturbed c h i l d r e n , in general, had more depressive symptoms than nondisturbed c h i l d r e n , but that there was no difference among the three subgroups either in the presence of or the rate of depressive symptoms. Weiner, Weiner, McCrary, and Leonard (1977) found, based on their study of children of depressed parents, that the c l i n i c a l symptomatology of depression in children i s very s i m i l a r to that found in adults. Five of the 75 youngsters (about 7%) who were evaluated in the study met the adult diagnostic c r i t e r i a (Feighner et a l . , 1972). Only one, however, was a prepubertal c h i l d . Weiner et a l . (1977) judged that i t would seem reasonable to use the adult c r i t e r i a (Feighner et a l . , 1972), with some minor modification, in c l i n i c a l studies of c h i l d r e n . They (Weiner et a l . , 1977) also f e l t that since they found a s i g n i f i c a n t number of children with depression, and yet did not f i n d more hyperactivity, learning, or behavior problems in t h i s 53 high r i s k group, the theory of "masked" depression l o s t support. I • Nelner (1978, p. 59; ) concluded: "It i s not unusual to f i n d depressive symptoms as </;ell as low self-esteem in children with disorders other than depression. Children with learning problems, hype r a c t i v i t y , and even behavior problems are known to have low self-esteem and to express unhappiness (26,35). In our study of hyperactive children and their s i b l i n g s (40) we also found that the hyperactive probands had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more depressive symptoms than the normal contr o l s . Yet, as mentioned e a r l i e r , based on follow-up and family studies of hyperactive c h i l d r e n , they are not at a high r i s k to develop primary a f f e c t i v e disorder. Therefore, in our opinion, the unhappiness of hyperactive children i s secondary to their hyperactivity rather than a manifestation of depressive i l l n e s s . " [References 26, 35, and 40 r e f e r , r e s p e c t i v e l y , to Mendelson, Johnson, and Stewart, 1971; Rutter, T i z a r d , and Whitmore, 1970; and Nelner, Welner, Stewart, Palkes, and Nish, 1977.] Lefkowitz and Burton C r i t i c i z e the Concept of Childhood Depression. Lefkowitz and Burton (1978) discussed the various points of view regarding childhood depression in terms of i t s existence, prevalence, and long-term outcome. They admonished, for example, that any c l i n i c a l diagnosis of childhood behavior should be based upon knowledge of the incidence of such behavior in the normal population and the v a r i a t i o n s in incidence as a function of development. They surveyed several epidemiological studies (e.g., Chess & Thomas, 1972; Kovacs & Beck, 1977; Lapouse, 1966; MacFarlane et a l . , 1954; Pearce, 1977; Shepherd 54 et a l . , 1971; Werry & Quay, 1971) and concluded that since the incidence of several behaviors seemingly associated with depression did not meet the c r i t e r i o n of 10% or l e s s established by some epidemiologists (Shepherd, Oppenheim, & M i t c h e l l , 1971) for being considered s t a t i s t i c a l l y deviant, such behaviors should be regarded as transient developmental phenomena which, i f l e f t alone, would diminish with the passage of time. They (Lefkowitz & Burton, 1978) approached the phenomenon of childhood depression from the epidemiological perspective of s t a t i s t i c a l deviations from.norms according to age and other va r i a b l e s (sex, socioeconomic status, e t c . ) , rather than from a c l i n i c a l perspective of childhood depression as a disease process and an independent e n t i t y . Coste.il:> Rebuts Lefkowitz and Burton. While agreeing with Lefkowitz's and Burton's (1978) concern regarding r e l i a b l e and v a l i d methods of assessment for childhood depression, and with their c a l l for more rigorous research in the area of childhood depression, Costello (1980), nevertheless, questioned three assumptions put f o r t h in the Lefkowitz and Burton (1978) c r i t i q u e . These three assumptions were: (1) If the behaviors thought to make up the syndrome of depression are prevalent in normal chi l d r e n , they cannot be regarded as pathological, and therefore the syndrome does not e x i s t . (2) If the behaviors thought to compose the syndrome of depression are discovered to disappear as a function of time, they cannot be regarded as pathological. (3) Those problems that remit spontaneously do not require c l i n i c a l intervention. Regarding the f i r s t assumption, Costello (1980) pointed out 55 c that Shepherd et a l . (1971) had used an a r b i t r a r y c r i t e r i o n of 10% for "operational purposes," and that they emphasized di s t i n g u i s h i n g between s t a t i s t i c a l and c l i n i c a l abnormality. r! I- Rather than look; ng at prevalence data for s p e c i f i c behaviors, Costello (1980) advocated obtaining data on the prevalence of the c o n s t e l l a t i o n s of behaviors considered to constitute the syndrome of depression (see Lapouse, 1966; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978). Achenbach (1978) also found a syndrome of depression in h i s study of the behavior problems of boys aged six through eleven. As he d i d not f i n d such a syndrome in h i s e a r l i e r work (Achenbach, 1966), he commented that the emergence of such a factor for boys may have resulted from c u l t u r a l changes leading to a greater incidence of depression in young boys. Costello (1980) also noted that although a s p e c i f i c problem or behavior may occur with high frequency in normal children of a certain age, such behaviors may occur with s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher frequency among children who have a number of behavior problems (e.g., Richman, 1977). Regarding the second assumption, Costello (1980) f e l t that data on prevalence as a function of age are not a s u f f i c i e n t base upon which to judge normality and abnormality. He gave the example of arguing that hy s t e r i a i s normal, since h i s t o r i c a l data have shown that hy s t e r i a was prevalent among women in A u s t r i a in the 19th century. Rather, Costello (1980) suggested that i t i s the degree of t r a n s i t o r i n e s s of c o n s t e l l a t i o n s of behaviors that i s important. And, regarding the t h i r d assumption, Costello (1980) 56 questioned the wisdom of providing c l i n i c a l intervention only when a problem p e r s i s t s , arguing that while a problem may l a s t a short time, i t might be well to try to shorten i t further or prevent i t altogether because of i t s possible functional r e l a t i o n s h i p to l a t e r more persistent d i f f i c u l t i e s . He gave the example of childhood fears such as fears of the dark, of being alone, and of strangers, which Solyom, Beck, Solyom and Hugal (1974) found to be more common in adult phobic patients than in matched normal controls. While Lefkowitz and Burton (1978) cautioned against l a b e l i n g a c h i l d depressed so that the l a b e l i n g i t s e l f might not have iatrogenic e f f e c t s , Costello (1980) suggested that i t may be advisable to intervene even though the "interventions might be better directed at the l a b e l i n g processes of the c h i l d ' s observers than at the c h i l d ' s behavior ( C o s t e l l o , 1980, p.188)." Costello also f e l t that the data i n d i c a t i n g that children who attend c l i n i c s don't have a greater r i s k of adult disorder (Rutter, 1972) are very d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t , since some of the r e f e r r e d children would l i k e l y have received e f f e c t i v e therapy. Costello (1980, pp. 188-189) commented, "A rel a t e d reason for the d i f f i c u l t y in researching t h i s problem i s that the occurrence of the childhood problem behavior w i l l probably have s i g n i f i c a n c e in r e l a t i o n to the p r o b a b i l i t y of adult disorder only when the behavior occurs in the presence of one or more other organismic or environmental f a c t o r s . The r o l e played by the behavior may be s i m i l a r to that played by temperamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in the work of Rutter and h i s colleagues (e.g., Graham, Rutter, & George, 1973; Rutter, 1978). They found that 57 children l i v i n g in disharmonious f a m i l i e s who had negative temperamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as low m a l l e a b i l i t y were three times as l i k e l y as other children to develop p s y c h i a t r i c problems during the four-year follow-up period of the study." Costello (1980) concluded that studies of childhood depression should account for and evaluate issues such as (1) the d i s t i n c t i o n between symptoms and syndromes, (2) knowledge of what constitutes the same behavior at d i f f e r e n t ages, (3) the l i m i t s of a s t a t i s t i c a l c r i t e r i o n of abnormality, and (4) the l i k e l y complexities of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between transient problems of childhood and adult psychopathology. [See Lefkowitz (1980) for a further reply to Costello (1980).] Current Thoughts Regarding Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s and Depression Many c l i n i c i a n s and researchers have hypothesized that learning d i s a b i l i t i e s or underachievement lead to depression ( Bemporad, 1982; Kashani, 1982; Shapiro, 1985; Stevenson & Romney, 1984). Stevenson and Romney (1984), for example, investigated the prevalence of depression amongst LD c h i l d r e n . F i r s t they had 103 children enrolled in LD classes complete the Children's Depression Inventory (CDI) (Kovacs & Beck, 1977). They designated students scoring in the top q u a r t i l e of the CDI "most depressed" and the bottom q u a r t i l e "least depressed" (25 in each group). These chosen subjects were then v i s i t e d at home and o r a l l y administered the Children's Personality Questionnaire (CPQ) (Porter & C a t t e l l , 1979), and the Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory for Children (SEI) (B a t t l e , 1981). No differences were 58 found between the two groups - "most depressed" versus "least depressed" - with respect to age, sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e (measured by the WISC-R), type of learning d i s a b i l i t y (academic, e.g., reading, w r i t i n g ; or developmental, e.g., attention d e f i c i t , perceptual or expressive disor d e r s ) , or parental expectations. The "most depressed" group was found to be much lower in s e l f - esteem, tended to be oversensitive, and shared t r a i t s associated with neuroticism. The authors (Stevenson & Romney, 1984) suggest that in dealing with depressed LD c h i l d r e n , their a f f e c t i v e state and their personality be taken into account as well as their obvious cognitive handicap. As mentioned e a r l i e r , Bemporad (1982) described a youngster with a severe learning d i s a b i l i t y who was unconcerned with her problem at age f i v e , but who, at age nine, f e l t very inadequate and blamed herself for her academic d i f f i c u l t i e s and had developed depressive symptoms secondary to her basic learning d i s a b i l i t y . The author explained how, during middle childhood, a c h i l d ' s g r a t i f i c a t i o n comes "from a d i r e c t apprehension of the environment and i s not yet generated from within in the form of deeper evaluations of one's own s e l f and others (Bemporad, 1982, p.277)." The older a c h i l d becomes, the greater seems the cognitive component involved in depression. For example, Poznanski and Z r u l l (1970) reported that maturing latency-aged children reacted l e s s to unpleasantness in the environment and more to a f e e l i n g of disappointment within themselves. S i m i l a r l y , McConville et a l . (1973) found that depressed youngsters, aged eight through ten, expressed ideas of low self-esteem, ideas 59 which had been absent in younger dysphoric c h i l d r e n . Once a sense of dysphoria i s generated from within, evaluations may remain stable across multiple s i t u a t i o n s . Thus, older children may remain despondent despite an amelioration of their surroundings, and their unhappiness may a f f e c t many a c t i v i t i e s , such as r e l a t i o n s h i p s with peers and school work, as well as behavior at home (Bemporad, 1982). Bemporad (1982) f e e l s that a c h i l d with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , who f i n d s his/her poor school performance a source of shame and humiliation, may retreat from society back to the security of the family. This may create problems for independence and autonomy in l a t e adolescence and early adulthood. Therefore, therapy with such children often involves providing a c t i v i t i e s outside the family to help the c h i l d form a new estimation of the s e l f that i s based on l e s s demanding, or at l e a s t l e s s d i s t o r t e d , expectations. Other researchers have hypothesized that depression a f f e c t s learning (Brumback & Staton, 1983; Colbert et a l . , 1982; Goldstein & Dundon, 1985-1986). For example, Colbert et a l . (1982) f e e l that teachers may be misdiagnosing depressed children as having a s p e c i f i c learning problem. Their study indicated that depression resulted in poor school performance in children who were i n t e l l e c t u a l l y capable and without a s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t y . The subjects of their study were 212 children admitted to the Family P s y c h i a t r i c Unit of the Royal Jubilee Hospital in V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, between Feb., 1974, and June, 1977. A l l children had 60 scores from the WISC-R (Wechsler In t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children - Remised), the WRAT (Wide Range Achievement T e s t ) , and the PIAT (Peabody Individual Achievement T e s t ) . Where learning problems were suspected, more in-depth t e s t i n g was done with instruments such as the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, and so f o r t h . Informal tests and observations were also conducted. An independent observer reviewed the c h i l d ' s chart in order to determine whether a c h i l d was depressed or not. The DSM III c r i t e r i a , as described in Diagnostic and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of Mental Disorders (American P s y c h i a t r i c Association, 1978), were applied. The subjects in t h i s Colbert et a l . (1982) study were tr u l y a c l i n i c a l sample. The study i d e n t i f i e d 153 children (54%) as depressed. Of these, 117 were boys and 36 were g i r l s . [In the age group of 9 to 11 years, the r a t i o was three boys to one g i r l . ] Results of the I.Q. tests of the 153 children showed a normal curve skewed s l i g h t l y to the lower end. Seventeen children (11%) tested in the mildly retarded range of i n t e l l i g e n c e ; 34 (22%) tested in the low normal range; 73 (48%) tested in the average range; 25 (16%) tested in the high normal range; and 4 (.03%) tested in the superior range. When admitted to the Family P s y c h i a t r i c Unit, 111 children (73%) were in regular classes, while 42 (27%) attended sp e c i a l classes. These sp e c i a l classes varied and included programs for mentally retarded, a u t i s t i c , severely disturbed, and learning disabled youngsters. Of the 111 children in regular classes, 79 (71%) were judged to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y underachieving one year or more below grade l e v e l in one or more academic areas in r e l a t i o n to 61 expectations based on their i n t e l l i g e n c e and grade placement. T h i r t y children (27%) were judged to be doing average work, while two children (2%) were considered overachievers. Despite the disproportionate number of underachievers (79 children or 71%), only 11 (7.2%) were diagnosed as having s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , using the battery of tests previously described together with the unit classroom teachers' observations. [The authors (Colbert et a l . , 1982) used very s t r i c t LD c r i t e r i a - explained as a function of defective cerebral processes.] They found that many of these c h i l d r e n , when appropriately treated for their depression, responded well to the learning s i t u a t i o n without any p a r t i c u l a r remedial education and began producing schoolwork that was pleasing to themselves, their teachers, and their parents. They f e e l that learning retardation i s often a re s u l t of the lessened energy and attention a v a i l a b l e to the depressed c h i l d . While acknowledging that i t i s sometimes d i f f i c u l t to recognize the depressed c h i l d in a large classroom s e t t i n g , Colbert et a l . (1982, pp. 335-336) out l i n e cer t a i n behaviors that may be useful i n d i c a t o r s of childhood depression, including: "dysphoria; sadness; hopelessness; l o s s of appetite; sleep disturbance; psychomotor retardation; l o s s of pleasure; low self-esteem; decreased concentration; aggressive behavior; s u i c i d a l behavior; s o c i a l , family, and general school disturbances; g u i l t ; l o s s of i n t e r e s t ; somatic complaints; separation anxiety; restlessness; sulkiness; l o s s of energy; and i r r i t a b i l i t y (Cytryn, McKnew, & Bunney 1980)." 62 Brumback and Staton (1983) also believe that the examination of a c h i l d who i s experiencing academic school problems must include evaluation for depressi on-induced or depressi on- aggravated cognitive dysfunction. They (op. c i t . , 1983) suggest that antidepressant treatment of childhood endogenous depressive i l l n e s s r e s u l t s in marked improvement in cognitive functioning (Brumback et a l . , 1980; Staton et a l . , 1981). For reactive childhood depression, Brumback et a l . (1980) suggest counselling and supportive psychotherapy. In many respects i t i s not f r u i t f u l to argue about t h e d i r e c t i o n of depressive i l l n e s s and learning d i s a b i l i t i e s in children - - whether depression a f f e c t s learning or whether learning d i s a b i l i t i e s bring about depression. As Poznanski (1982, p. 306; i t a l i c s in the o r i g i n a l ) has commented: "With some young children i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to sort out whether the c h i l d ' s learning d i s a b i l i t i e s have p r e c i p i t a t e d a secondary depression or whether a primary depression has i n t e r f e r e d with learning at school.... Where a parent can give a good h i s t o r y , t h i s may help to separate which condition, the learning problems or the depression, occurred f i r s t in the c h i l d ' s l i f e . In one sense, of course, the question i s academic. An improvement in the c h i l d ' s depression, whether i t i s primary or secondary, w i l l generally lead to improved school performance." Assessment of Childhood Depression As one can determine from the preceding section, a number of c l a s s i f i c a t o r y schemata exist for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the depressed c h i l d . The lack of agreement on nosology notwithstanding, however, a number of researchers have attempted 63 to develop r e l i a b l e standardized tools for the assessment of depression in school-aged c h i l d r e n . Structured p s y c h i a t r i c interviews (some as yet unpublished) have been developed for the c l i n i c a l evaluation of children (Kovacs, 1978; Puig-Antich et a l . , 1978), and several types of r a t i n g scales have been developed to assess childhood depression. Some of the children's scales have been modeled after adult instruments such as Beck's s e l f - r e p o r t inventory (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974) and Hamilton's (1960) c l i n i c i a n - r a t e d p s y c h i a t r i c scale. The types of scales developed include s e l f - r e p o r t scales [e.g., Children's Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1978; 1980/1981); Children's Depression Scale (CDS; Lang & Tisher, 1978)3, c l i n i c i a n - r a t e d scales [e.g., Children's Depression Rating Scale (CDRS; Poznanski et a l . , 1979; Bellevue Index of Depression (BID; P e t t i , 1978)], and a newly developed peer-nomination scale (Lefkowitz & Tesiny, 1980). In addition, several r a t i n g scales have been developed for "relevant others" to complete. One excellent example of t h i s type of scale i s Achenbach's (1981a) Chi l d Behavior Checklist for Ages 4-16 (Achenbach, 1978; 1979; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979; 1983). The advantage of t h i s type of scale i s that i t allows the c l i n i c i a n or researcher to determine i f other types of psychopathology are to be found together with depression. [The C h i l d Behavior Checklist for Ages 4 - 16 (e.g., Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) w i l l be reviewed in Chapter IV of t h i s dissertation.3 The following major section examines the l i t e r a t u r e in the f i e l d of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . 64 Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s Def i n i t i on On Sept. 22, 1984, the Board of Directors of the (U.S.) Association for Children and Adults with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s adopted the following d e f i n i t i o n of the condition, S p e c i f i c Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s : S p e c i f i c Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s i s a chronic condition of presumed neurological o r i g i n which s e l e c t i v e l y i n t e r f e r e s with the development, integration, and/or demonstration of verbal and/or non-verbal a b i l i t i e s . S p e c i f i c Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s e x i s t s as a d i s t i n c t handicapping condition in the presence of average to superior i n t e l l i g e n c e , adequate sensory and motor systems, and adequate learning opportunities. The condition varies in i t s manifestations and in degree of s e v e r i t y . Throughout l i f e the condition can a f f e c t self-esteem, education, vocation, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and/or d a i l y l i v i n g a c t i v i t i e s . An important point to r e a l i z e i s that while, no d e f i n i t i o n of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s i s u n i v e r s a l l y accepted by parents, educators, psychologists, or doctors, most d e f i n i t i o n s agree in s t a t i n g that "there i s a discrepancy between actual achievement or development and what might be expected on the basis of estimates of capacity or mental a b i l i t y , and that learning d i s a b i l i t i e s as so defined are not secondary to general mental retardation, c u l t u r a l , sensory and/or educational deprivation, or serious emotional disturbance (Crichton et a l . , 1981, p. 13) ." 65 In DSM-111 (American Psychological Association, 1980), learning d i s a b i l i t i e s are categorized under the Axis II heading, S p e c i f i c Developmental Disorders. Among these disorders are included developmental reading di sorder ("dyslexia"); developmental arithmetic disorder: developmental language disorder (which involves d i f f i c u l t y in comprehending oral language - receptive type, or d i f f i c u l t y in expressing verbal language - expressive type); mixed s p e c i f i c developmental disorder (when there i s more than one s p e c i f i c developmental disorder, but none i s predominant); and a t y p i c a l s p e c i f i c developmental disorder (for those not covered by any of the previous s p e c i f i c categories). Age of onset, course, impairment, complications, predisposing f a c t o r s , and sex r a t i o , are discussed under the general S p e c i f i c Developmental Disorders heading, while the more s p e c i f i c disorders (e.g., Developmental Reading Disorder) include a discussion of associated features, prevalence, f a m i l i a l pattern, and d i f f e r e n t i a l diagnosis. [See the a r t i c l e by Forness and Cantwell, 1982, for DSM III p s y c h i a t r i c diagnoses and s p e c i a l education categories.] C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s Many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been ascribed to children with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . The ten most frequently mentioned c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( c u l l e d from several studies) l i s t e d by Clements (1966) were: 1. Hyperactivity 2. Perceptual-motor impairments 66 3. Emotional l a b i l i t y 4. General orientation defects 5. Disorders of attention (e.g., short attention span, d i s t r a c t i b i l i t y ) 6. Impulsivity 7. Disorders of memory and thinking 8. S p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : reading, arithmetic, w r i t i n g and s p e l l i n g 9. Disorders of speech and hearing 10. Equivocal neurological signs, and electroencephalographic i r r e g u l a r i t i e s . Related Diagnostic Labels. Diverse terminology and varying conceptualizations have been used by d i f f e r e n t researchers and c l i n i c i a n s in defining children who exhibit the c l i n i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i s t e d in the previous section. Some of the terms used include: minimal cerebral dysfunction (MCD), minimal brain dysfunction (MBD) (Rutter & Chadwick, 1980), s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s (Satz & F r i e l , 1973), learning disorders, dyslexia, strephosymbolia (Orton, 1928), hyperkinetic syndrome, hyperkinetic impulse disorder, psychoneurological learning d i s a b i l i t y , s p e c i f i c developmental dyslexia (Ingram, 1960; Cr i t c h l e y , 1962), and attention d e f i c i t disorder (DSM-III). The Concept of Minimal Brain Dysfunction (MBD). Crichton et a l . (1981) point out that, from the medical aspect, learning d i s a b i l i t i e s involve the concept of "minimal brain dysfunction," defined as a subtle and mild abnormality in brain function which may manifest i t s e l f in any of the four spheres of brain a c t i v i t y 67 - motor, sensory, i n t e l l e c t u a l , or e l e c t r i c a l . In other words, i t r e f e r s to a syndrome encompassing: 1. Minimal motor defects, l i k e clumsiness or very mild cerebral palsy, 2. Minimal sensory defects, l i k e perceptual disorder or disturbances of ki n e s t h e t i c (body movement) information, 3. Minimal i n t e l l e c t u a l defects, l i k e d i f f i c u l t i e s with abstract concepts or concept formation, and 4. Minimal e l e c t r i c disturbances, l i k e spike-wave discharges without frank seizures. In any event, i t i s agreed that minimal brain dysfunction encompasses a wide and heterogeneous group of disorders which may a l l be found in children who have d i f f i c u l t i e s with learning. (Crichton et a l . , 1981, p. 21). Rutter (1977), upon reviewing the evidence for "brain damage" in what he termed " p s y c h i a t r i c disorder" in c h i l d r e n , concluded that i t i s "highly l i k e l y that in addition to those children with cerebral palsy and obvious neurological conditions, there are many others with some degree of damage or dysfunction of the brain (Rutter, 1977, p.9)." Of relevance to t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s Rutter's (1977, p.13) paragraph regarding the association between brain damage and s p e c i f i c reading d i f f i c u l t i e s : However, quite apart from low I.Q., brain damage i s also associated with s p e c i f i c reading d i f f i c u l t i e s . This was found in the I s l e of Wight study of children with neuro-epileptic disorders (Rutter et a l . . 1970 a), and again in the North London study (Seidel et a l . . 1975). Half 68 the cerebral p a l s i e d children in the l a t t e r study had severe reading d i f f i c u l t i e s compared with only 15% of children with other c r i p p l i n g disorders not involving brain pathology. S i m i l a r l y , in the head injury study, 38% of the children (whose mean I.Q. was 97) were at least two years backward in reading (Chadwick and Shaffer, 1975). As shown in several studies (see Rutter et a l . . 1970 a; Rutter et a l . . 1970 b) both low I.Q. and reading d i f f i c u l t i e s are associated with an increased r i s k of behavioral deviance at school and , to lesser extent, with p s y c h i a t r i c disorder as shown at home. Thus, the cognitive sequelae of brain damage are one of the important mechanisms leading to p s y c h i a t r i c disorder. [Chadwick and Shaffer, 1975, was a personal communication to M. Rutter, c i t e d in Rutter (1977).] Rutter, Chadwick, and Schachar (1980, p. 41) added that "the concept of an MBD as a genetic or metabolic syndrome remains an i n t e r e s t i n g hypothesis worth further study but i t i s just that - - a speculative idea of i n t e r e s t and not a f a c t . . . nevertheless, the f i e l d of study of hyperkinesis and of p s y c h i a t r i c syndromes due to organic brain dysfunction remains a r i c h source of ideas which warrant further exploration." Prevalence of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s Prevalence rates are greatly dependent upon the c r i t e r i a used to determine learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . In one study, for example, 2,800 children in the t h i r d and fourth grades in a U.S. public school population were screened as part of a research 69 project at Northwestern University (Myklebust & Boshes, 1969). Using an educational-discrepancy d e f i n i t i o n of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , with a c r i t e r i o n of underachievement a r a t i o or learning quotient of l e s s than 90, 15 percent of the research population were i d e n t i f i e d as underachievers. Using more stringent c r i t e r i a . , the prevalence rate was determined to be 7 to 8 percent. The U.S. National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children (1968) recommended that 1 to 3 percent of the school population be considered as a prevalence estimate, at least u n t i l further research provides objective c r i t e r i a for more c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y i n g these c h i l d r e n . In their I s l e of Wight study, Rutter et a l . (1970a) found a 3.7% prevalence rate, among 2,334 9-11 year olds, for s p e c i f i c reading retardation (defined as reading 28 months or more below l e v e l of predicted reading age). Extending their study to London school c h i l d r e n , Rutter and Yule (1975) and Berger, Yule, and Rutter (1975) found a higher prevalence rate - 6 to 8% - than that found among I s l e of Wight ch i l d r e n . There i s a preponderance of males with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , with male/female sex r a t i o s ranging from 3.3:1 (Rutter, T i z a r d , & Whitmore, 1970b) to 6.8:1 (three sources) and 8.0:1 (school) ( i n a study by Lambert and others, 1978). For further information, see Belmont's (1980) review of the l i t e r a t u r e regarding the epidemiology of learning disorders and MBD in the H.E. Rie and E.D. Rie (editors) handbook (1980). 70 Etiology or Types of Learning D i s a b i l i t y Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s may be a t t r i b u t e d to any factor or f a c t o r s which may af f e c t neurologic functioning adversely (Illingworth, 1980). Such f a c t o r s include genetic v a r i a t i o n s (Finucci et a l . , 1976; Sladen, 1972; Stewart, 1980; Zerbin- Rudin, 1967) , low b i r t h weight (Dunn, in preparation; Wiener et a l . , 1968), biochemical i r r e g u l a r i t i e s (Lansdell, 1980), per i n a t a l i n s u l t s such as anoxia or trauma (Towbin, 1971; 1978; 1980) or other i l l n e s s e s or i n j u r i e s , e s p e c i a l l y brain i n j u r i e s (Brown et a l . , 1981; Chadwick et o l - , 1981; Rutter, 1977; Rutter et a l . , 1980) sustained during the years which are c r i t i c a l for the development and maturation of the central nervous system. Such postnatal brain damage may r e s u l t from meningitis, progressive hydrocephalus, cerebro-vascular accidents, status e p i l e p t i c u s , and severe i n t o x i c a t i o n s from drug ingestion or poisonous fumes (Schain, 1977). In addition, environmental fa c t o r s (Werner, 1980) such as early severe sensory deprivation, parental i l l n e s s , poor n u t r i t i o n (Birch & Gussow, 1970), r a i s e d lead l e v e l s (Rutter, 1980), d i f f e r i n g c u l t u r a l norms, and poor or inappropriate i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, have also been implicated in the etiology of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . [Recent research by Smith, Kimberling, Pennington, and Lubs (1983) has pointed to a gene on chromosome 15 as playing a major e t i o l o g i c r o l e in one form of reading d i s a b i l i t y . Linkage analysis in f a m i l i e s with apparent autosomal dominant reading d i s a b i l i t y produced a lod score of 3.241, and since the t r a d i t i o n a l l y accepted s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l for linkage i s a lod score of 3.0, the authors are encouraged and w i l l continue their study u n t i l a 71 lod score of at least 5 i s obtained.] With such a plethora of e t i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s to choose from, i t i s no wonder that researchers have great d i f f i c u l t i e s in r e l a t i n g educational phenomena to brain functions or external influences. Nevertheless, Crichton, Catterson, Kendall, and Dunn (1981, p. 23) have outlined a two-category schema which lends some coherence to the epidemiology of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . In b r i e f , they d i s t i n g u i s h two broad groups of learning-disabled c h i l d r e n : those in whom there i s probably an inherited and therefore " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " abnormality of language ( i . e . , reading) which i s largely s p e c i f i c ; and those in whom there are reasonable grounds for postulating the disorder to be more d i f f u s e and large l y acquired through conditions such as peri n a t a l anoxia or severe head in j u r y . The authors point out that "The importance of making the d i s t i n c t i o n i s twofold: (1) the more s p e c i f i c , s o -called c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s a b i l i t y may also be found in other members of the family, and (2) the response to stimulant drugs may be better in the second type and may be of great help in management (Crichton et a l . , 1981, p.22)." In an e a r l i e r follow-up study of s p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i l i t y , S i l v e r and Hagin (1964) distinguished between a "developmental group," synonymous with Rabinovitch's concept of primary reading d i s a b i l i t y (Rabinovitch et a l . , 1954), and an "organic group," having the basic syndrome plus evidence of st r u c t u r a l organic defect. Comparing their patients after a ten to twelve year i n t e r v a l , S i l v e r and Hagin (1964) found that the 72 tendency f o r the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h " o r g a n i c " r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y was to r e t a i n h i s p e r c e p t u a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a l l a r e a s , w h i l e the person w i t h "developmental" r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y r e c o v e r e d p a r t i a l l y or adopted cues that enabled him to d e a l w i t h h i s temporal and s p a t i a l problems. They recommended the c o n t r i v a n c e of new t e a c h i n g procedures a p p r o p r i a t e to the p a t t e r n of the " o r g a n i c ' s " n e u r o l o g i c a l and p e r c e p t u a l d e f i c i e n c i e s . Thus, i t appears important to d i s t i n g u i s h between the types of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s from a p r o g n o s t i c and e d u c a t i o n a l management p e r s p e c t i v e as w e l l . Follow-up of C h i l d r e n w i t h L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s : Outcomes and P r e d i c t o r s In t h i s a r e a , e s p e c i a l l y , the caveat to keep i n mind i s that outcomes f o r l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n , r e g a r d i n g p e r s o n a l i t y , e d u c a t i o n , and long-term l i f e g o a l s , are dependent upon many i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c v a r i a b l e s , and each study must be e v a l u a t e d a c c o r d i n g to the s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and v a r i a b l e s examined. Helper (1980) o u t l i n e d and reviewed the s a l i e n t f a c t o r s and f i n d i n g s of 33 f o l l o w - u p s t u d i e s . Only f i v e s t u d i e s had a m a j o r i t y of s u b j e c t s 12 years and under, and another f i v e s t u d i e s concerned s u b j e c t s aged 19 and o v e r . The m a j o r i t y examined a d o l e s c e n t s between 12 and 18 y e a r s of age. Most s u b j e c t s were male, w i t h r a t i o s r a n g i n g from 64 male, 4 female (Weiss et a l , 1971) to 34 male, 13 female (Eaves and C r i c h t o n , 1974-1975), i n s t u d i e s not l i m i t e d by design to males o n l y . Regular and summer s c h o o l , r e a d i n g c l i n i c , h o s p i t a l c l i n i c , and p r i v a t e c l i e n t / p a t i e n t s o u r c e s were tapped by these 73 i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Mean i n t e r v a l s between diagnosis and follow-up varied between approximately two years (Riddle and Rapaport, 1976), and about 24 years (Menkes, Rowe, and Menkes, 1967; Rawson, 1968). Few of the studies employed control groups, either at the time of i n i t i a l diagnosis or at follow-up. Notable exeptions are studies by Ackerman, Dykman, and Peters (1977a; 1977b), and S i l v e r and Hagin (1964). The l a t t e r investigators ( S i l v e r and Hagin, 1964) selected their control group from children evaluated in the same s e t t i n g as the MBD c h i l d r e n , but who were found to have some other i d e n t i f i a b l e problem (thus c o n t r o l l i n g for the e f f e c t s of being evaluated, l a b e l l e d , e t c . ) . Treatment given the LD/MBD children included medication, counseling or psychotherapy and s p e c i a l educational management. Helper (1980), who r e s t r i c t e d his review to studies with follow- up i n t e r v a l of at l e a s t two years, comments that "No study was found in which a program combining medical, psychotherapeutic and educational management was c a r r i e d out over a period of years (Helper, 1980, p. 85)." [ S a t t e r f i e l d , Cantwell, and S a t t e r f i e l d , in 1979, reported the r e s u l t s of multimodality treatment at the end of the f i r s t year of a three-year prospective study of 84 hyperactive boys. Measures of the c h i l d ' s behavior at home and at school, academic performance, delinquent behavior, and emotional status were obtained i n i t i a l l y and at one-year follow-up. Their r e s u l t s suggest that the combination of a c l i n i c a l l y useful medication, together with appropriate psychological treatment and educational management, 74 simultaneously directed to each of the c h i l d ' s d i s a b i l i t i e s , i s associated with an unexpectedly good outcome. Only further follow-up w i l l show whether these good r e s u l t s w i l l continue.] It i s d i f f i c u l t to summarize or generalize from the data of these follow-up studies. One can say that, in general, there i s a persistence, over time, of d e f i c i t s in attention and information processing, and a persistence in d e f i c i t s in learning s k i l l s (e.g. Ackerman, Dykman, and Peters, 1977a; 1977b). Yule (1973), in a four-and five-year follow-up of children in the I s l e of Wight studies, found that the presence of severe reading d i s a b i l i t y at age 9 to 11 had ominous implications for future reading progress and that the presence of high IQ could not be considered to off e r much hope for reading progress, though i t might for progress in mathematics. The five-year follow-up of MBD children by Eaves and Crichton (1974-1975) i s representative of outcome research in the f i e l d of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . They found that only seven of the 39 children o r i g i n a l l y diagnosed MBD had no school problems at follow-up, and only three of those seven were also free of behavioral symptoms at home. Thus, only 3 of the 39 cases diagnosed as MBD were found to be free of both learning and behavior problems at follow-up (at mean age of twelve years, two months). Twenty-five to 35% of the children were s t i l l reported d i s t r a c t a b l e , r e s t l e s s , or overactive; and almost 60% were below grade l e v e l in academic subjects. Thus, in t h i s study, with a c l i n i c sample admittedly more severe than a random or school sample would l i k e l y be, there was a strong tendency for problems to p e r s i s t . In her doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Eaves (1983) reported the findings of a follow-up of a random sample of 2,000 kindergarten c h i l d r e n , tested in the spring of 1972 with the De Hirsch battery (De Hirsch et a l . , 1966). She found that between kindergarten and grade three, f i v e out of 106 children o r i g i n a l l y diagnosed LD had caught up to grade l e v e l , but that aft e r grade three, no more such children caught up to grade l e v e l . Are there any variables which presage a better outcome? Rawson (1968) reported highly favorable outcomes for 20 dyslexic boys from a private school, acknowledging that her group was unusually i n t e l l i g e n t at the outset, and received exceptionally intensive and systematic remedial i n s t r u c t i o n . The average IQ of the 20 dyslexic boys was 122 on the Stanford- Binet, while the 36 control non-dyslexic boys had even higher IQs; average IQ for a l l 56 boys was reported as 131. Upon follow-up at i n t e r v a l s between 17 - 35 years (at a mean age of 33 years), these dyslexic boys had completed an average of 6.0 years of post high school education, s l i g h t l y more than the non-dyslexics. Eighteen of the 20 were college graduates and 10 had advanced degrees; two were physicians, one a lawyer, two professors, two s c i e n t i s t s , and four were school p r i n c i p a l s or teachers. Two were in laboring jobs, one a foreman and one a s k i l l e d laborer. A number of these subjects, however, reported that reading and s p e l l i n g were s t i l l d i f f i c u l t in adulthood. Relatively good outcomes were also reported by Robinson and 76 Smith (1962; 10-year follow-up), and Preston and Yarington (1967; 8-year follow-up) who studied e x - c l i e n t s of university reading c l i n i c s (University of Chicago and University of Pennsylvania, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The median IQ of the Robinson and Smith (1962) subjects was 120, while the mean reported by Preston and Yarington (1967) was 98. Robinson and Smith (1962) found that 33 of their 44 subjects were reported by their parents to read as much as or more than average; forty-one of the 44 were high school graduates; and 27 were college graduates. Only one subject was out of school and out of work. Preston and Yarington (1967) used population data as reference points and found no elevation of dropout rates and only 4 of the 50 subjects unemployed and out of school. About 25% of those of college age were in college, and 12 of the 21 who were employed had whitecollar jobs. None of the. latter-mentioned studies ( Preston & Yarington, 1967; Rawson, 1968; Robinson & Smith, 1962), however, made mention of emotional or behavioral d i f f i c u l t i e s . It would have been i n s t r u c t i v e to know what, i f any, problems a r i s e in the adult years of dyslexics who were bright but poor readers when young. Many of their d i f f i c u l t i e s apparently p e r s i s t , but presumably, es p e c i a l l y because of their higher i n t e l l i g e n c e , they are able to adapt more su c c e s s f u l l y . These studies do demonstrate the general f i n d i n g that the LD/MBD c h i l d has a better prognosis, both for academic achievement and vocational success, when his/her IQ i s high, s o c i a l status i s high, and intensive and systematic educational e f f o r t s have been 77 undertaken. In a recently published ten-year follow-up study from Stanford Medical School ( H a r t z e l l & Compton, 1984), interview data revealed s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower l e v e l s of school attainment, academic success, and s o c i a l success for 144 LD students, when compared with 144 s i b l i n g s without learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . No differ e n c e was found in l e v e l of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s which contributed to school success in the LD group included high IQ, l e s s severe learning d i s a b i l i t y , p o s i t i v e personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in the c h i l d , e f f e c t i v e family function, strong family support, high occupational l e v e l of family breadwinner, and high education l e v e l attained by the mother. Negative f a c t o r s included a more severe degree of learning d i s a b i l i t y , the presence of hyperactivity, and a concomitant d i s a b i l i t y in mathematics. More comprehensive l o n g i t u d i n a l research should be undertaken in the future, using well-defined populations, c o n t r o l l i n g for IQ and socioeconomic status, and examining cognitive and behavioral aspects of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , both separately and in i n t e r a c t i o n . Short-term and long-term evaluations of multi-faceted interventions (pharmacological, remedial education, behavior management, psychotherapeutic, etc.) would contribute to the knowledge, now sparse and equivocal, that professionals working with learning-disabled children so badly need. The Brain and Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s A thorough discussion of the brain and neurological 78 substrates involved in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s i s beyond the scope of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . However, the author has found many recent studies which would prove e x c i t i n g and h e u r i s t i c f or those p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in such topics. One example follows to give the reader an idea of the type of research being done. Most e x c i t i n g research has been c a r r i e d out recently by D u f f y and colleagues (1980a; 1980b). In the f i r s t study r e p o r t e d (Duffy et a l . , 1980a), EEG and evoked p o t e n t i a l data were recorded during behavioral t e s t i n g from 8 dyslexic and 10 normal boys aged 9 to 11 years. (These researchers adopted the d i s t i n c t i o n between "dyslexia-pure" and "dyslexia-plus" proposed by Hughes and Denckla, reported in Hughes, 1978, and l i m i t e d their considerations to dyslexia pure - the "plus" r e f e r r i n g to the common accompanying symptoms of hyperactivity, d y s c a l c u l i a , and motor incoordination). Spontaneous EEG was recorded during ten d i f f e r e n t t e s t i n g conditions or states, which were designed to permit recording during simple r e s t i n g brain a c t i v i t y (with eyes open or closed), and during tests designed to act i v a t e the l e f t hemisphere (speech and reading tasks), the right hemisphere (music and geometric f i g u r e s ) , and both hemispheres at once (paired v i s u a l - verbal a s s o c i a t i o n s ) . The three evoked pote n t i a l (EP) test states were: (1) vi s u a l evoked pote n t i a l (VEP) - over 500 flashes from a Grass PS-2 strobe stimulator presented at random interstimulus i n t e r v a l s always exceeding one second; the unit was set at inten s i t y 8 and placed 20 cm. from the subject's closed eyes; (2) auditory evoked pote n t i a l (AEP) - over 500 c l i c k s s i m i l a r l y 79 presented v i a earphones at 92 db sound pressure l e v e l ; and (3) "tight-tyke" auditory evoked pote n t i a l (TTAEP) - over 250 presentations of the tape-recorded word t i ght randomly presented, and intermixed with a s i m i l a r number of the word tyke: subjects were asked to count the number of t i g h t s heard for half the presentation and tykes for the remainder of the presentation. Topographic mapping of the subjects' brain e l e c t r i c a l a c t i v i t y disclosed four d i s c r e t e regions of difference between the two groups, involving both cerebral hemispheres, the l e f t more than the r i g h t . Aberrant dyslexic physiology was not r e s t r i c t e d to a s i n g l e locus but was found in much of the c o r t i c a l region generally involved in reading and speech. Conspicuous group differences were noted in the b i f r o n t a l area o in addition to the more expected l e f t temporal and l e f t posterior quadrant regions. Although a c t i v a t i o n tasks produced more prominent group differences, dyslexics d i f f e r e d from normal subjects even when at r e s t . EEG alpha a c t i v i t y was increased for the dyslexics, suggesting r e l a t i v e c o r t i c a l i n a c t i v i t y in that group when compared with the normals. Having demonstrated differences in the topographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of brain e l e c t r i c a l a c t i v i t y between eight dyslexic and ten normal boys (Duffy et a l . , 1980a), Duffy et a l . (1980b) then went on to explore the usefulness of quantified measures of such brain a c t i v i t y in the diagnosis of dyslexia. EEG and EP data recorded from 13 normal and 11 dyslexic boys were used. Regional measurements taken from the subsequent topographic maps 80 were used to: (1) ca l c u l a t e the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the difference between dyslexic and control subjects by mult i v a r i a t e analysis, (2) develop a formal set of diagnostic r u l e s , and (3) test r u l e v a l i d i t y on subjects not used for the ru l e development. Using a s t a t i s t i c a l l y based technique, the authors developed rules for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that accurately i d e n t i f i e d 80 to 90% of subjects not used in the i n i t i a l r ule development. The nature of the most help f u l measurements suggested that aberrant neurophysiology in dyslexia involves both hemispheres and i s present at rest as well as during complex t e s t i n g . ( It should be noted also that an area previously unexplored in dyslexia, in the l e f t anterior region, provided the best features derived from EEG data.) While such prospective success suggests that measurements of brain e l e c t r i c a l a c t i v i t y (BEAM methodology) may prove useful in the c l i n i c a l diagnosis of dyslexia, and in dyslexia research, the authors (Duffy et a l . , 1980b) do suggest that their r e s u l t s do not yet j u s t i f y the routine application of their method. They f e e l that they have not yet demonstrated the r e l a t i v e s p e c i f i c i t y that would allow dyslexia to be diagnosed from among other forms of learning d i s a b i l i t y , and note the caveat r a i s e d by Ransohoff and Feinstein (1978), who emphasized that f a i l u r e to include tests of speci f i c i ty in addition to sensi t i v i ty has been a major reason why promising diagnostic tests have f a i l e d when put into p r a c t i c e . Nevertheless, the work of Duffy and colleagues (1980a; 1980b), using such objective neurophysiological t e s t i n g , o f f e r s e x c i t i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s . C l i n i c a l l y , i t allows freedom from 81 subjective s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l bias in diagnosis. It may also be used prophylac: i c a l l y at the preschool l e v e l , before school f a i l u r e can lead to secondary symptomatology. From a research viewpoint, i t cm y soon be possible to determine whether there i s only one syndrome of dyslexia, or many syndromes, whether dyslexia represents a developmental or maturational l a g or a " d i f f e r e n t " brain organization, and whether dyslexia physiology responds to therapy of whatever s o r t . The newer techniques for assessing brain structure and function are at present infrequently used with learning disabled youngsters (except for the commonly given neuropsychological and educational t e s t s ) . But those procedures found safe and h e l p f u l may one day give researchers some insight into better methods of classroom, i n s t r u c t i o n and behavioral management for learning disabled youngsters. The next b r i e f chapter w i l l o u t l i n e the hypotheses of t h i s study. A discussion of the r a t i o n a l e for the hypotheses w i l l also be given. 32 CHAPTER III Hypotheses [For convenience in testing, and b e c a u s e the l i t e r a t u r e i s not altogether clear with respect to many of the measures, the writer has chosen to state these hypotheses in the n u l l form, although the conjecture i s that in many cases the a l t e r n a t i v e hypotheses w i l l hold. Rationale for the hypotheses w i l l follow t h i s l i s t i n g . ] PRE-TASK ATTRIBUTIONS: Hypothesis I. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) in external a t t r i b u t i o n s (ease of the task or luck) on the "academic success" pre-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire. Hypothesis I I . There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) in inter n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s (lack of a b i l i t y or lack of e f f o r t ) on the "academic f a i l u r e " pre-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire. POST-TASK ATTRIBUTIONS: Hypothesis I I I . There w i l l be no group ef f e c t (LD/NLD) in external a t t r i b u t i o n s (ease of the task or luck) after success on the experimental task. Hypothesis IV. There w i l l be no group ef f e c t (LD/NLD) in internal a t t r i b u t i o n s (lack of a b i l i t y or lack of e f f o r t ) after f a i l u r e on the experimental task. 83 PERFORMANCE ON PRE-. POST-MEASURES: Hypothesis V. 1. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) on the six pre-, post-measures scores. 2. There w i l l be no condition e f f e c t ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t / n o task) on the six pre-, post- measures scores. 3. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group membership and condition on the six pre-, post- measures scores. Hypothesis VI. In the d i f f i c u l t ( f a i l u r e ) condition, there w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) regarding performance change on those post- measures, S e r i a l Recall and Color Naming, which are most rela t e d to s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . EXPECTANCY FOR SELF: Hypothesis VII. 1. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) on the post- task "expectancy for s e l f " measure. 2. There w i l l be no condition e f f e c t ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t ) on the post-task "expectancy for s e l f " measure. 3. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group membership and condition on the post-task "expectancy for s e l f " measure. 84 EXPECTANCY FOR OTHER Hypothesis VIII. 1. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) on the post- task "expectancy for other" measure. 2. There w i l l be no condition e f f e c t ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t ) on the post-task "expectancy for other" measure. 3. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group membership and condition on the post-task "expectancy for other" measure. CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST Hypothesis IX. There w i l l be no group differences (LD/NLD) on the various subscales of Achenbach's (1981a) Ch i l d Behavior Checklist ( e s p e c i a l l y the Depression subscale). Rationale of the Hypotheses Hypotheses I and II and Hypotheses III and IV are based in great part upon the experimental findings of two recent studies - Bryan and Pearl, 1979, and Pearl, Bryan, and Donahue, 1980. Pearl et a l . (1980) found that learning-disabled children are more l i k e l y than nondisabled children to have negative s e l f - concepts, to believe that their successes are the r e s u l t of luck or other people, and that their f a i l u r e s are insurmountable. They found that these maladaptive b e l i e f s and a t t r i b u t i o n s are established by about nine years of age and become increasingly more negative with age (through grade eight, at l e a s t ) . [The Bryan and Pearl (1979) a r t i c l e reported the general findings 85 which were subsequently published with f u l l methodology and r e s u l t s sections in Pearl, Bryan, and Donahue, 1980.3 In a l a t e r study, Pearl (1982) examined t h i r d and fourth grade LD children's a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e . The subjects in t h i s study d i f f e r e d from those in the Pearl et a l . (1980) study in that these subjects had received the " l a b e l " of LD - they had been i d e n t i f i e d as such by school" personnel, and were receiving d a i l y assistance from a learning d i s a b i l i t y teacher in a resource room. Results indicated that the p e s s i m i s t i c b e l i e f s about the causes of their successes and f a i l u r e s that were held by the underachieving children in the Pearl et a l . (1980) study were also held by formally labeled LD c h i l d r e n . One difference between the r e s u l t s of the two Pearl studies i s that the LD children in the more recent study (Pearl, 1982) a t t r i b u t e d f a i l u r e s l e s s to a lack of e f f o r t than the control children only for f a i l u r e s in reading and on puzzles, not for s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . In other words, the LD children in t h i s study believed that further e f f o r t could be e f f e c t i v e in overcoming s o c i a l f a i l u r e . The author suggested that i t may be that the l a b e l "learning disabled" allows the children to l i m i t their negative s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s to their performance in achievement-related a c t i v i t i e s . These Pearl studies asked children to rate the importance of the four f a c t o r s ( a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , luck, task e a s e / d i f f i c u l t y ) for success and f a i l u r e in reading, on puzzles, and in s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s in structured interviews. There was no actual experimental manipulation of s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e . Therefore, the r a t i o n a l e for Hypotheses I and II stems d i r e c t l y from the 86 v Pearl et a l . (1980) and the Pearl (1982) studies, while Hypotheses III and IV are an extension of the same studies. The expectation i s that success w i l l be at t r i b u t e d to external f a c t o r s (easy task or lu c k ) , while f a i l u r e w i l l be at t r i b u t e d to int e r n a l f a c t o r s (absence of a b i l i t y or lack of e f f o r t ) . The r a t i o n a l e s for Hypotheses V. 1., 2., and 3. stem from a number of findings in the a t t r i b u t i o n l i t e r a t u r e . For example, i t has been found that success generally f a c i l i t a t e s performance on s i m i l a r tasks - in t h i s study, p a r a l l e l forms of the same tasks (e.g., Weiner et a l . , 1972). Regarding expectancy of success on future tasks, however, (Hypotheses VII, 1., 2., and 3.) such expectancy i s rela t e d as well to the s t a b i l i ty of the causal a t t r i b u t i o n made to explain the outcome (e.g., Fontaine, 1974; McMahan, 1973; V a l l e and Frieze , 1976; Weiner, Nierenberg, & Goldstein, 1976). A t t r i b u t i o n s to r e l a t i v e l y stable causes, such as a b i l i t y or e a s e / d i f f i c u l t y of the task, produce expectancies that outcomes w i l l continue to be the same on sim i l a r tasks, whereas more unstable a t t r i b u t i o n s , such as to luck, e f f o r t , or mood, tend to produce expectancy s h i f t s away from the o r i g i n a l l y anticipated outcome. In general, too, unexpected outcomes, or outcomes that vary widely from i n i t i a l expectancy, tend to be at t r i b u t e d to unstable causes (such as l u c k ) , while expected outcomes are more l i k e l y to be at t r i b u t e d to stable f a c t o r s (such as a b i l i t y ) (e.g., Feather & Simon, 1971a; 1971b; V a l l e & Frieze , 1976). Th'_-̂ , an expected outcome i s at t r i b u t e d to stable f a c t o r s (e.g., Simon & Feather, 1973; V a l l e & Frieze, 1976), which in turn 8 7 leads to an expectancy that future outcomes w i l l continue at the same l e v e l . If the outcome i s unexpectedly high or low, however, an a t t r i b u t i o n w i l l be made to unstable f a c t o r s which in turn leads to the b e l i e f that t h i s s p e c i f i c outcome was unusual and w i l l not continue, r e s u l t i n g in l i t t l e change in future expectancy from the i n i t i a l pretest expectancy (V a l l e & F r i e z e , 1976). This has been seen to lead to a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy where those who expect to do well w i l l continue to hold high expectations, while those who have low expectations w i l l maintain them regardless of how they actually perform (see Friez e , 1980, for a thorough discussion of expectancies). Studies have also shown that LD children are lower in s e l f - esteem than are NLD children (e.g., Boersma & Chapman, 1981; Patten, 1983; Stevenson & Romney, 1984; Thomas, 1979) and that t h i s lower self-esteem leads to a lower expectancy for s e l f regarding future tasks (Boersma & Chapman, 1981). This lower self-esteem in LD children (e.g., Black, 1974; Patten, 1983) has been hypothesized to a f f e c t task performance (Hypotheses V, 1., 2., and 3.) as well as expectancy for s e l f on future tasks (Hypotheses VII, 1., 2., and 3.). Also, according to the reformulated model of learned helplessness (Abramson et a l . , 1978), f a i l u r e i s a subset of helplessness, primarily overlapping with personal helplessness (Abramson, Garber, & Seligman, 1980; Abramson et a l . , 1978). The LD c h i l d would l i k e l y have experienced more instances of learned helplessness (noncontingency of responses and outcomes) than the control c h i l d , thereby leading to stable, global, and i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for f a i l u r e . If the LD c h i l d a t t r i b u t e s 88 f a i l u r e i n t e r n a l l y ( i . e . , lack of a b i l i t y ) , and e s p e c i a l l y i f th i s c h i l d f e e l s that other children would probably have the a b i l i t y to succeed, she or he would experience "personal helplessness," accompanied by a l o s s of self-esteem (Abramson et a l . , 1978; also see the section e n t i t l e d Learned Helplessness Revised in Chapter II of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ) . Hypothesis IX stems from information given by Achenbach (1981b) at a conference e n t i t l e d C l i n i c a l Concerns in Ch i l d Development: A Focus on Cognition. He has found that the two best discriminators for children needing sp e c i a l professional help are "unhappy, sad, or depressed" and "poor schoolwork" (also see Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983). He f i n d s that children are seldom referred for depression, but that sad mood may be a by-product or end point of some other d i f f i c u l t y . Regarding poor schoolwork, some disorders or behavior problems may preclude e f f i c i e n t learning, while some children may have s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Information regarding any differences between LD and NLD children on Achenbach's (1981a) Ch i l d Behavior Checklist should prove helpful for professionals providing s p e c i a l services to LD ch i l d r e n . [The sections dealing with Childhood Depression in Chapter II out l i n e the various current theories and thoughts regarding LD and depression - some hypothesizing that LD or underachievement lead to depression (Stevenson & Romney, 1984), some hypothesizing that depression a f f e c t s learning (Brumback & Staton, 1983; Colbert, Newman, Ney, & Young, 1982; Goldstein & Dundon, 1985-1986), while s t i l l others have commented on the b i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of, for example, 89 a f f e c t and cognition (Barden et a l . , 1981; Barnett et a l . , 1982; Cairns & V a l s i n e r , 1984)]. Hypothesis VI was generated from the l i t e r a t u r e dealing with cognitive learning s t y l e s of LD ch i l d r e n . One might predict that LD children would have p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y with the S e r i a l Recall task, which involves sequential or successive processing, and with the Color Naming task, which involves speed of mental processing as well as verbal responding (Das et a l . , 1979; Das et a l . , 1980). Bannatyne's recategorization of WISC-R (Wechsler In t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children - Revised) subtest scores could be useful in the resolution of t h i s question. His e a r l i e r categorization (Bannatyne, 1968) was revised in 1974 (see Bannatyne, 1974), giving the following conceptual categories for four areas: S p a t i a l : Picture Completion, Block Design, Object Assembly; Conceptual:. Comprehension, S i m i l a r i t i e s , Vocabulary; Sequential: D i g i t Span, Arithmetic, Coding; Acquired Knowledge: Information, Arithmetic, Vocabulary. In h i s e a r l i e r work, Bannatyne (1968; 1971) reported that children with genetic dyslexia scored highest in the Spa t i a l category, intermediate in the Conceptual category, and lowest in the Sequential category. This same ordering was found by Rugel (1974) who reviewed 25 published and unpublished studies of reading disabled children which reported WISC subtest scaled scores. Factor a n a l y t i c research (e.g., Bortner & Birch, 1969; Rugel, 1974) has also provided j u s t i f i c a t i o n for Bannatyne's categorization (as well as being instrumental in Bannatyne's 90 1974 decision to drop the Picture Arrangement subtest from the Sequential category and to replace i t with the Arithmetic subtest). In l a t e r research, Smith et a l . (1977) reported the same Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential pattern for s c h o o l - v e r i f i e d LD c h i l d r e n . Given the Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential pattern for LD c h i l d r e n , i t would be reasonable to predict greatest disruption of performance on those tasks involving sequencing, i . e . , tasks tapping successive processing, such as s e r i a l r e c a l l , although a study by Das et a l . (1978) has demonstrated that disabled readers perform poorly on both successive and simultaneous tasks (such as the Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices; Raven, 1956, 1962). The reader i s also reminded that the "Sequential* category outlined by Bannatyne (1974) i s i d e n t i c a l to the "Freedom from D i s t r a c t i b i l i t y " factor (Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, and Coding triad) outlined by Kaufman (1975; 1979a; 1979b; 1981) through his factor a n a l y t i c work with the WISC-R. 91 CHAPTER IV Method Subject Sample Experimental subjects were boys between the ages of 9-0 and 12-0 years, in Grades Four, Five, or Six, whose IQs as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC- R) were at l e a s t 80 on both the verbal and performance scale, and whose reading achievement as measured by the reading cl u s t e r score of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Battery was at the 40th p e r c e n t i l e or lower. These youngsters were Eng l i s h - speaking ( i . e . , not recently a r r i v e d in Canada with English as a second language) and did not have serious p h y s i c a l , emotional, or c u l t u r a l handicaps. The s t i p u l a t i o n of IQ > 80 (low average range) stems from the consideration that the LD c h i l d should demonstrate a normal p o t e n t i a l to lea r n . While for c l i n i c a l purposes t h i s means an IQ of at least 70, for research purposes, many professionals (e.g., Douglas, 1981) suggest an IQ of at lea s t 80. A reading p e r c e n t i l e of 20 or lower was used as the operational d e f i n i t i o n for learning d i s a b i l i t y ( i . e . , reading d i s a b i l i t y ) since t h i s f i g u r e i s comparable to the t y p i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of LD in the higher elementary grades of children reading one and one-half grades below grade l e v e l (e.g., Bryan & Bryan, 1980; Kavale & Nye, 1981). Control subjects were boys, aged 9-0 to 12-0, in Grades Four, Five, or Six, chosen from the same classrooms.(or at le a s t the same school) who met the same c r i t e r i a - IQ > 80 (measured on the WISC-R), English-speaking, and free from serious p h y s i c a l , 92 emotional, or c u l t u r a l handicap. They were within the normal range (>. 50th percentile) in reading achievement as measured by the reading cl u s t e r score of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- educational Battery. Boys only were used as subjects because, as outlined in Chapter I I , there are well-documented sex differences in variables c r i t i c a l to t h i s study (e.g., incidence of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , and patterns of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s ) . From an o r i g i n a l sample of 108 children (50 LD; 58 NLD), 10 children were eliminated from the analyses because they did not meet the reading achievement c r i t e r i o n : six o r i g i n a l l y - designated LD children had reading achievement p e r c e n t i l e scores > 50th p e r c e n t i l e ; four originally-designated NLD children had reading achievement p e r c e n t i l e scores < 50th p e r c e n t i l e . Upon i n i t i a l analyses of the d e s c r i p t i v e data, i t was found that a large discrepancy existed between the two groups (LD;NLD) on a l l scales of the WISC-R. Therefore, a decision was made-to equate the two groups of c h i l d r e n , LD and NLD, on performance IQ alone, as i t has been demonstrated that for LD children the performance IQ score provides a more v a l i d i n d i c a t i o n of i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l than do either the verbal IQ score or the f u l l scale IQ score (Torgesen, 1975). The verbal scale encompasses the Acquired Knowledge (Bannatyne, 1974) c o n s t e l l a t i o n of subtests (Information, Arithmetic, and Vocabulary) which i s known to be adversely affected by learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y reading d i s a b i l i t i e s ( S a t t l e r , 1982). 93 The f u l l scale IQ score, composed as i t i s of a combination of verbal scale IQ and performance scale IQ, may be an i n v a l i d indicator of i n t e l l i g e n c e for LD ch i l d r e n , p a r t i c u l a r l y when there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t discrepancy between the verbal and performance scales (performance > verbal) (Kaufman, 1979a; 1979b; S a t t l e r , 1982). Kaufman (1979b) discusses the d i s t i n c t i o n between a b i l i t y and achievement. Reading and learning disabled populations have been found to score low on two of the three subtests, i . e . , Information and Arithmetic, l i s t e d in Bannatyne's (1974) Acquired Knowledge grouping (e.g., C l a r i z i o & Bernard, 1981; Smith, Coleman, Dokecki, & Davis, 1977). "Consequently, depressed V and FS IQs may be a d i r e c t e f f e c t of poor school achievement and inadequate acquired learnings for these youngsters, thereby providing an incorrect estimate of their so- c a l l e d a b i l i t y , p o t e n t i a l , capacity, etc. Any d e f i n i t i o n s of learning or reading disorders that include the s t i p u l a t i o n of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e as a prereq u i s i t e for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are therefore suspect (Kaufman, 1979b, p.20)." Torgesen (1975, p. 418) concludes: "Investigators who ascribe a large r o l e to verbal processes in reading f a i l u r e often use the performance scale of a test l i k e the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (NISC) to i d e n t i f y poor readers with otherwise normal i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y . " Consequently, a rank ordering of both LD and NLD groups on performance IQ was made and the groups were matched by taking the highest 30 LD children and the lowest 38 NLD children on performance IQ. Thus, the f i n a l sample of subjects had 30 LD and 94 38 NLD children (68 t o t a l ) , matched on performance IQ. In terms of r a c i a l / e t h n i c background, subjects included 60 Caucasian, three Chinese, one Japanese/Caucasian, two East Indian, one native Indian, and one native Indian/Caucasian c h i l d . Of the LD subjects, 27 were Caucasian, one Chinese, one East Indian, and one native Indian. Of the NLD subjects, 33 were Caucasian, two Chinese, one Japanese/Caucasian, one East Indian, and one native Indian/Caucasian. S i x t y - f i v e children were students in the public school systems of two metropolitan school d i s t r i c t s (55 from one d i s t r i c t and 10 from another d i s t r i c t ) , while three children were students from two urban parochial schools. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of both LD and NLD subjects was f a c i l i t a t e d by examination of the school-recorded Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s (King et a l . , 1981) r e s u l t s , a v a i l a b l e for a l l students in both public school d i s t r i c t s . P e r c e n t i l e scores were a v a i l a b l e for vocabulary and reading (comprehension). In addition, classroom teachers, learning assistance teachers, and p r i n c i p a l s aided in sele c t i o n of LD and NLD subjects according to the experimental c r i t e r i a outlined e a r l i e r . (See Appendix 1 for Letter to P r i n c i p a l and Teachers.) 95 Research Design Using the conventional notation of Campbell and Stanley (1963), the quasi-experimental design was: LD °1 °2 R X easy °3 [n=12] LD °1 °2 R X d i f f i c u l t °3 [n=10] LD °1 °2 R X (no task) °3 Cn= 8] NLD °1 °2 R X easy °3 [n=12] NLD °1 °2 .3 X d i f f i c u l t °3 [n=16] NLD °1 °2 R X (no task) °3 [n=10] where LD stands for learning disabled experimental subject; NLD stands for normally achieving control subject; C^ r e f e r s to observations taken during Session I; 0^ re f e r s to observations taken during Session I I ; and 0^ r e f e r s to observations taken during Session I I I . Fourteen days (or more in a few instances due to i l l n e s s of subject or school professional day) separated 0^ from Og to prevent confounding due to pra c t i c e e f f e c t s . R stands for random assignment to the experimental condition, and X (easy task; d i f f i c u l t task; no task) represents the experimental event or manipulation. Summary of Method and Procedures Parents received a covering l e t t e r (Appendix 2), consent form (Appendix 3), and Ch i l d Behavior Checklist , together with a stamped return envelope. If consent was granted, parents completed the C h i l d Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1981a), and 96 a l l children (LD and NLD) p a r t i c i p a t e d in three t e s t i n g sessions oyer a two to two and one-half week period, with each testing session l a s t i n g from one to two hours. (See Appendix 4 for Student Consent Form.) Session I. (C^) Administration of: 1. Af f e c t measure (Appendix 5) 2. WISC-R (Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children - Revised) 3. Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Battery - Reading Cluster (three subtests: Letter-Word. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; Word Attack; Passage Comprehension) 4. Af f e c t measure Sessi on I I . (Og) A t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g scale t r a i n i n g (Appendix 6) and administration of: 1. Affe c t measure 2. Pre-task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire ( a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , luck, and task d i f f i c u l t y ) (Appendix 7) 3. I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility (IAR) Scale, in order to determine helplessness vs. mastery-oriented categories (Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980) (Appendix 8) 4. Pre-measures (counterbalanced with post-measures, also 1i sted below): (a) Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices, Form A or Ag (Raven, 1956, 1962) 97 (b) Free Recall and S e r i a l R e c a l l , f i r s t or second set of 12 word groups (Das et a l . , 1979) (c) Color Naming (Das et a l . , 1979), I or II (d) Ideational Fluency (Hakstian & C a t t e l l , 1976), I or II (e) Aiming (Hakstian & C a t t e l l , 1976), I or II (Appendix 9) 5. Affe c t measure Session I I I . (Og) Administration of: * 1. Pre-affect measure * 2. Expectancy of success measure for s e l f (Appendix 10) * 3. Expectancy of success measure for other (Appendix 10) * 4. Experimental manipulation: task = Round-Robin Racing, a board game (easy, d i f f i c u l t , or no task condition) (Appendix 11) * 5. Post-task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire ( a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , luck, and task e a s e / d i f f i c u l t y ) (Appendix 12) * 6. Expectancy of future success measure for s e l f (Appendix 13) * 7. Expectancy of future success measure for other (Appendix 13) * 8. Post-task af f e c t measure 9. Post-measures (counterbalanced with pre-measures l i s t e d in Session I I . ) : P a r a l l e l forms of 3. a, b, c, d, e. 98 10. Debriefing (including the administration of the easy task and the a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire for the easy task those i n i t i a l l y given the d i f f i c u l t task) 11. F i n a l a f f e c t measure * A second experimenter administered steps 1 through 8 in Session I I I . in order to reduce experimenter bias. This assistant randomly assigned experimental and control subjects to the easy, d i f f i c u l t , or no experimental task treatment condi tions. Preliminary Measures Chi l d Behavior Checklist Parents were asked to complete a C h i l d Behavior Checklist for Ages 4 - 16 (Achenbach, 1981a) for their c h i l d . T h is c h e c k l i s t provided information for answering Hypothesis IV: On Achenbach's (1981a) C h i l d Behavior Checklist, LD children w i l l d i f f e r from the NLD children at the conventional l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (p < .05) on the various subscales, in p a r t i c u l a r on the Depression subscale, while the NLD children w i l l correspond to Achenbach's n o n - c l i n i c norm group. Achenbach's goal in developing the Child Behavior Checklist was to develop a d e s c r i p t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system that could be used to group children for research and c l i n i c a l purposes, to r e f l e c t adaptive competencies as well as behavior problems, and to f a c i l i t a t e quantitative assessment of behavioral change. This d e s c r i p t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s embodied in a s e r i e s of C h i l d Behavior P r o f i l e s that are standardized separately for 99 children of each sex at ages 4-5, 6-11, and 12-16. The Child Behavior P r o f i l e used in t h i s study was for boys aged 6-11. The C h i l d Behavior Checklist i s comprised, then, of s o c i a l competence items as well as behavior problem items. Social Competence Items. The s o c i a l competence scale taps involvement and attainment in the three areas described below. A c t i v i t i e s Scale. This scale consists of scores for the amount and quality of a c h i l d ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in (a) sports; (b) nonsports hobbies, a c t i v i t i e s , and games; and (c) jobs and chores. Social Scale. This scale consists of scores for (a) the c h i l d ' s membership and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in organizations; (b) number of f r i e n d s and contacts with them; and (c) behavior alone and with others. School Scale. The school scale consists of scores for (a) the average of the c h i l d ' s performance in academic subjects; (b) placement in a regular or sp e c i a l c l a s s ; (c) being promoted regularly or held back; and (d) the presence or absence of school problems. Behavior Problem Scales. For boys, aged 6-11, factor analysis of 450 disturbed boys yielded nine behavior problem scales labeled Schizoid, Depressed, Uncommunicative, Obsessive-Compulsive, Somatic Complaints, S o c i a l Withdrawal, Hyperactive, Aggressive, and Delinquent (narrow band s c a l e s ) . After successive r e v i s i o n s of p i l o t e d i t i o n s , Achenbach (1981a) f i n a l i z e d 118 behavior problem items. Note that space was a l l o t t e d for parents to indicate "other physical problems 100 without known medical cause" (Item 56h) and "any problems your c h i l d has that were not l i s t e d above" (Item 113). A three-step response scale (0,1,2) was chosen since i t i s t y p i c a l l y easier than a present versus absent scale for most untrained r a t e r s . For each item that describes the c h i l d currently or within the l a s t six months, parents are asked to c i r c l e 2 i f the item i s "very true" or "often true" of their c h i l d ; the 1 i f the item i s "somewhat" or "sometimes true" of their c h i l d ; and 0 i f the item i s "not true" of their c h i l d . The f i r s t f i v e problem scales load on a second-order factor labeled I n t e r n a l i z i n g , while the l a s t three load on a factor labeled E x t e r n a l i z i n g (the one mixed syndrome i s represented by the S o c i a l Withdrawal scale) (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The I n t e r n a l i z i n g - E x t e r n a l i z i n g dichotomy i s based on the two broad-band groupings of behavior problems repeatedly i d e n t i f i e d in other m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses (for reviews, see Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1978; Quay, 1979), and r e f l e c t s a d i s t i n c t i o n between f e a r f u l , i n h i b i t e d , overcontrolled behavior on the one hand, and aggressive, a n t i s o c i a l , undercontrolled behavior on the other. These broad- band groupings have been variously referred to as Personality Problem versus Conduct Problem (Peterson, 1961), Inhibition versus Aggression ( M i l l e r , 1967), I n t e r n a l i z i n g versus E x t e r n a l i z i n g (Achenbach, 1966), and Overcontrolled versus Undercontrolled (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978). For boys aged 6-11, the I n t e r n a l i z i n g Syndromes found through factor analysis of the C h i l d Behavior Checklist (syndromes are 1 0 1 l i s t e d in descending order of the loadings shown for the second- order I n t e r n a l i z i n g and E x t e r n a l i z i n g factors) include: Schizoid or Anxious .81 Depressed .74 Uncommunicative .73 Obsessive/Compulsive .68 Somatic Complaints .64 The E x t e r n a l i z i n g Syndromes include: Delinquent .87 Aggressive .85 Hyperactive .63 The one mixed syndrome i s the So c i a l Withdrawal s c a l e . Though the I n t e r n a l i z i n g and E x t e r n a l i z i n g groupings ou t l i n e contrasting types of behavior problems, they are not mutually exclusive. The degree and d i r e c t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n between the two broad-band groupings depends upon c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample studied. Through factor analyses, Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983, p. 33) report the average Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n between t o t a l I n t e r n a l i z i n g and t o t a l E x t e r n a l i z i n g T scores in six c l i n i c a l samples to be .48. Across their six normative samples, the average c o r r e l a t i o n was .63. (These c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed by deleting the few items that are scored on both an I n t e r n a l i z i n g scale and an E x t e r n a l i z i n g scale, but Appendix E, in Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983, presents the c o r r e l a t i o n s for a l l sex/age groups without deletion of redundant items. These Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n s between t o t a l I n t e r n a l i z i n g and t o t a l E x t e r n a l i z i n g T scores for boys aged 6-11 were .59 for their c l i n i c a l sample, and .73 for their n o n - c l i n i c a l sample.) 102 Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) report that even without the few overlapping items, there i s a p o s i t i v e association between behaviors that are often viewed as opposites. They explain that t h i s i s because there i s a general dimension among behavior problems that resembles the general (g) dimension among a b i l i t y t e s t s , so that i n d i v i d u a l s who score very high in one area tend to be above average in other areas as we l l , while i n d i v i d u a l s who score very low in one area tend to be low in other areas. Despite the p o s i t i v e association found in their samples as a whole, however, the authors f e e l that some children's problems are primarily I n t e r n a l i z i n g and other children's problems are primarily E x t e r n a l i z i n g . They f e e l that t h i s i s analogous to the r e l a t i o n between the Verbal IQ and the Performance IQ on the Wechsler i n t e l l i g e n c e tests - across groups, there i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the Verbal and Performance IQ, but some in d i v i d u a l s have much lower scores in one area than in the other. Socio-economic Status Of the status variables having an impact upon the behavior of children at r i s k for learning d i s a b i l i t i e s or behavior disorders, none i s seen as more c r i t i c a l than that of parental socio-economic status or SES (Robins, 1979; Werner, 1980). For example, Werner and Smith (1977) reported that three out of four children considered in need of placement in an LD c l a s s came from low SES homes. And in a comparison of low achievers (in reading/spelling) with academically successful controls, matched by IQ and race, Broman (1977) showed that indices of SES prior 103 to b i r t h and at age seven were more strongly re l a t e d to low achievement than Apgar scores, o b s t e t r i c a l complications, and neurological soft signs at age seven (though the l a t t e r were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more frequent among both black and white underachievers than among IQ matched c o n t r o l s ) . Thus, c a l c u l a t i o n of SES was included in t h i s study. Mueller and Parcel (1981), in their review of relevant l i t e r a t u r e , concluded that in the study of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , three dimensions - economic, power, and prestige - are t h e o r e t i c a l l y relevant, and that occupational status represents the s i n g l e best indicator of SES. These authors recommend using the Duncan SEI (Duncan, 1961) or the Siegel Prestige Scoring System ( S i e g e l , 1971), both measures req u i r i n g the same raw data, the three-digit U.S. Census occupation c o ^ c i . (They do not recommend use of the Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social P o s i t i o n , 1957, because i t i s outdated.) There i s now a v a i l a b l e , however, a revised socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada (Blishen & McRoberts, 1976), based on income l e v e l and educational status, using information from the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1963, and S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1971, 1972. In the present scale, income l e v e l i s expressed as the percentage of males who worked in an occupation in 1970 and whose 1970 employment income was $6,500 or over. The education variable i s expressed as the percentage of males who worked in an occupation in 1970 and who had attended at least grade 12 i f the province of schooling was Prince Edward Island, 104 New Brunswick, Ontario, B r i t i s h Columbia, Yukon, or outside Canada, or who had attended at least grade 11 i f their schooling had been undertaken in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta, thus taking p r o v i n c i a l differences into account. SES data for t h i s study were recorded from the occupational indices l i s t e d by Blishen and McRoberts (1976). On Achenbach's (1981a) C h i l d Behavior Checklist for Ages 4-16, there are spaces provided for "Father's Type of Work" and "Mother's Type of Work." If both parents reported paid occupations, the higher- status occupation was used to score SES according to the socioeconomic indices of Blishen and McRoberts (1976). This i s the procedure used by Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983), although they use Hollingshead's seven-point scale for assessing SES. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC-R) Description. The WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) was published twenty- f i v e years after the o r i g i n a l publication of the WISC (Wechsler, 1949), which was developed, in turn, as a downward extension of the adult i n t e l l i g e n c e tests, the Wechsler-Bellevue I (1939), and the Wechsler-Bellevue 11 or Army Wechsler (1942). The WISC-R was designed to test children whose ages range from 6-0 to 16-11 years, and contains twelve subtests. Wechsler (1974, p. 5) conceptualized i n t e l l i g e n c e as a "multidimensional and multifaceted entity rather than an independent, uniquely defined t r a i t , " and the construction of the WISC-R r e f l e c t s t h i s conceptualization. On the WISC-R, six of the subtests form the Verbal Scale - 105 Information, S i m i l a r i t i e s , Arithmetic, Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Dig i t Span - while another six form the Performance Scale- -Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Block Design, Object Assembly, Coding, and Mazes. The WISC-R provides three separate IQ scores: a Verbal Scale IQ, a Performance Scale IQ, and a F u l l Scale IQ. A l l three IQs are deviation IQs, obtained by comparing the subjects' scores with the scores earned by a representative sample of their own age group (the WISC-R was standardized on 2,200 white and nonwhite American children reasonably representative of the population based on 1970 U.S. census data). Deviation IQs are standard scores, so that each of the three IQs has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Bannatyne's Recategorization of WISC-R Scores Bannatyne (1968; 1971; 1974) developed a recategorization of the WISC-R subtests so that each category represents a s p e c i f i c a b i l i t y , thus diverging from Wechsler's (e.g., 1974) verbal- performance dichotomy. The groupings, together with the WISC-R subtests included, are as follows: Spatial = Picture Completion, Block Design, and Object Assembly; Conceptual = Comprehension, S i m i l a r i t i e s , Vocabulary; Sequential = Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, Coding; Acquired = Information, Arithmetic, Vocabulary. Bannatyne (1974) has hypothesized that LD children score highest on Spa t i a l tasks, next highest on Verbal Conceptualizing tasks, and lowest on Sequencing tasks (Spatial>Conceptual>Sequencing). This pattern has been found for 106 both reading-disabled (Rugel, 1974) and learning-disabled (Smith et a l . , 1977) youngsters. Recall also that Bannatyne's Sequencing category i s i d e n t i c a l to Kaufman's (1979a) Freedom from D i s t r a c t i b i l i t y factor (Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, and Coding) and that the Spa t i a l category comprises the three WISC-R subtests that have been found to be cl o s e l y associated with f i e l d independence (e.g., Witkin et a l . , 1974; Witkin et a l . , 1977). In addition, Kaufman (1979a) suggests that the higher Spatial/low Sequencing pattern may r e l a t e to superior simultaneous/holistic processing coupled with inadequate successive/sequential processing (see also, Kaufman, 1975). The WISC-R data from t h i s study were analyzed so that Bannatyne's Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential pattern for LD children could be examined. 107 Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery - Reading Cluster The Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (Woodcock, 1977; 1978; Woodcock & Johnson, 1977)) i s a comprehensive set of 27 t e s t s , i n d i v i d u a l l y administered, that assesses three areas of functioning: cognitive a b i l i t y , achievement, and i n t e r e s t . The Tests of Cognitive A b i l i t y , Part I of the battery, include twelve subtests that cover a variety of domains such as vocabulary, s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s , and so f o r t h . The Tests of Achievement in Part II include ten achievement areas, including reading, s p e l l i n g , c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , punctuation, and knowledge of science, humanities, and s o c i a l studies. The Tests of Interest, in Part I I I , cover f i v e areas: preference for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in reading, mathematics, language, physical a c t i v i t i e s , and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . In t h i s study, a l l children (LD/NLD) were given the three reading subtests (Letter-Word I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; Word Attack; Passage Comprehension) from The Tests of Achievement in Part II of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977) to determine reading p e r c e n t i l e (for age) l e v e l s . I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire The I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (IARQ) (Crandall et a l . , 1965) was designed to measure an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e l i e f in h i s own control over, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r , intellectual-academic successes and f a i l u r e s . The scale i s composed of 34 forced-choice items, with each item stem describing a p o s i t i v e or negative achievement event which 108 commonly occurs in a c h i l d ' s day-to-day experience. Each stem i s followed by one a l t e r n a t i v e s t a t i n g that the event was caused by the c h i l d (e.g., good work, e f f o r t ) and another a l t e r n a t i v e a s c r i b i n g the event to the behavior of someone else important in the c h i l d ' s environment (e.g., parent, teacher, peer). One half of the items tap the c h i l d ' s acceptance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for p o s i t i v e events ( I + , or in t e r n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for successes) and the other half tap the c h i l d ' s acceptance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for negative events (I , or in t e r n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for f a i l u r e s ) . The sum of the I**" and I scales gives a t o t a l I score ( t o t a l i n t e r n a l or s e l f - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) . Crandall et a l . (1965) administered the scale o r a l l y by means of a tape recorder, to children below the s i x t h grade, and allowed children above the s i x t h grade to do the scale on their own. In the present study, the IARQ was administered o r a l l y , by the author and without a tape recorder. The experimenter placed her chair in such a way as to aff o r d privacy to each c h i l d (LD or NLD) as he made h i s responses to the questionnaire. The decision to administer a l l questionnaires, scales, measures, and so f o r t h , o r a l l y , without the use of a tape recorder, was based upon p r a c t i c a l considerations. It was f e l t that the human voice could be better and more s w i f t l y altered to provide optimum stimulation given each tes t i n g s i t u a t i o n . From their t o t a l sample of 923 elementary- and high-school students, Crandall et a l . (1965) reported the following means and standard deviations for boys in Grades 4, 5, and 6, on the IARQ: 109 Total I I + I~ M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. Grade 4 (n=59) 24.83 3.00 12.41 2.07 12.42 2.08 Grade 5 (n=52) 24.04 3.69 12.38 2.52 11.65 2.46 Grade 6 (n=93) 24.74 4.57 12.99 2.54 11.75 2.79 Crandall et a l . (1965) reported v a r i a b l e , but generally low, r e l a t i o n s between I + and I scales (data include boys and g i r l s , grades 3 to 12). For grades 4 to 6, the c o r r e l a t i o n s were: I versus I Grade 4 (n=103) .11 Grade 5 (n= 99) .11 Grade 6 (n=166) .38* * p < .001 Crandall et a l . (1965) suggested that the low association of subscale scores for children in the lower grades may r e s u l t from the p o s s i b i l i t y that s e l f - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for successes and f a i l u r e s may be learned separately, and that the young c h i l d may assume more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the one than for the other. A subset of 10 items on the IARQ s p e c i f i c a l l y taps a c h i l d ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s of f a i l u r e to lack of e f f o r t . Diener and Dweck (1978; 1980) describe how t h i s subset may be used to c l a s s i f y children into helplessness and mastery-oriented categories. Those children obtaining scores greater than seven are c l a s s i f i e d as mastery-oriented, while those scoring below seven are designated as helpless. A "Dweck" score was calculated for a l l children in t h i s study. 110 Pre-, and Post-Measures Selection Rationale. An attempt had been made to choose these measures according to some h e u r i s t i c r a t i o n a l e . Apart from usefulness in testing the hypotheses of t h i s study, i t was hoped that such an attempt might provide important information regarding possible differences between normal-achieving and LD children in information processing and task performance, thus pointing the way to future studies with LD and NLD populations. P a r a l l e l forms of these tests were used to reduce p r a c t i c e e f f e c t s , although i t was recognized that knowledge of the task demands, alone, might r e s u l t in advantage to the subjects (both LD and NLD) at time two. If differences, e s p e c i a l l y decrements in the d i f f i c u l t condition, had been noted for the post- measures, these would have represented very strong evidence for the e f f e c t s of the experimental manipulation. Overall, however, s t r i c t matching of the task forms was not paramount because the point of inte r e s t was the degree of s h i f t , or the degree of i n t e r a c t i o n , rather than the absolute scores obtained by the LD and NLD groups in the easy, d i f f i c u l t , or no experimental task conditions. Information regarding the neurological c o r r e l a t e s of the tasks, outlined below, w i l l be given as a v a i l a b l e . Simultaneous/Successive Processing Model. I n t e l l e c t u a l behavior has been studied through several approaches or models. These include the f a m i l i a r a b i l i t i e s approach, as exemplified by the work of C a t t e l l (e.g., 1963; 1971; Hakstian & C a t t e l l , 1974), Thurstone (e.g., 1938; Thurstone & Thurstone, 1962), G u i l f o r d 111 (e.g., 1967; Gu i l f o r d £ H o e p f n e r , 1971), and many others. Other researchers have approached an understanding of i n t e l l e c t u a l behavior from a developmental perspective (e.g., Elkind, 1969; 1974; Kagan et a l . , 1963; 1964; Piaget, 1926). More recently, researchers, instead of assuming that " a b i l i t y " differences underlie differences in performance, have advocated a "process" approach, consistent with the view that an analysis of learning processes underlying an a b i l i t y i s much more useful (Estes, 1974). For example, information processing models have been outlined by Hunt and colleagues (Hunt, 1971; 1973; Hunt & Lansman, 1975; Hunt, Lunneborg, & Lewis, 1975). In addition, an attempt to describe the t r a d i t i o n a l primary mental a b i l i t i e s , in terms of the cognitive processes and memory stores which underlie them, has been made by C a r r o l l (1976). In recent years, a great deal of understanding of i n t e l l e c t u a l functions in terms of the workings of the brain has been accomplished, in great part, through the collaboration of North American and Soviet s c i e n t i s t s (e.g., Pribram and L u r i a , 1973). Das, Kirby, and Jarman (1975) have outlined an information processing model which has evolved from Soviet neuropsychology. In an interview, Das explains: "An a l t e r n a t i v e to an a b i l i t y approach i s a process model, which provides useful information by opening up the p o s s i b i l i t y for looking at str a t e g i e s used by the i n d i v i d u a l learner. These s t r a t e g i e s could be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to ways of structuring input. Then, of course, the manner in which input i s organized i s rel a t e d to i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods. So you see the educational implications of a process model are quite d i f f e r e n t from those based on an 112 a b i l i t i e s model, which focuses s o l e l y on output (Das & Malloy, 1981, p. 350)." Based on Luria's (1966a; 1966b; 1973) neurological inve s t i g a t i o n s , Das et a l . (1975) postulate that human information processing may be described in terms of a model containing four components: external input, sensory r e g i s t r a t i o n , central processing, and output. Stimuli may be presented for external input in either a simultaneous or successive manner. The stimuli are immediately subject to sensory r e g i s t r a t i o n , and depending upon the nature of the task, may be passed on for central processing. This processing in the central unit may take one of two basic forms — simultaneous synthesis or successive synthesis. Simultaneous synthesis r e f e r s to the organization of information into composites or groups, such that the r e l a t i o n s h i p of elements to one another may be determined. This organization may be s p a t i a l , or i t may be represented in speech in complex logical-grammatical structures. Contrariwise, successive synthesis i s a form of information organization which does not permit analysis of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of multiple elements to one another. Instead, information i s organized in a temporal, sequence-dependent fashion, with only l i m i t e d a c q u i s i t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l elements. Simultaneous and successive syntheses are merged with a planning and decision-making component in the central processing unit, with r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between them. Planning and decision making i s dependent upon the two forms of synthesis - simultaneous and successive - and also determines the form of 113 synthesis for some tasks. And, f i n a l l y , the output unit uses the information organized by the ce n t r a l processing unit for task completion (Das, 1980). The two forms of synthesis are found in perceptual, mnestic (memory), and conceptual tasks. Moreover, the types of synthesis are not dependent upon the form of information input - either successive or simultaneous input in any of the modalities may res u l t in one or the other form of synthesis. The type of synthesis e n t a i l e d in a p a r t i c u l a r task i s determined mainly by the planning function, and the demands of the task i t s e l f . Regarding the neurological c o r r e l a t e s of t h i s theory (Das et a l . , 1975), simultaneous synthesis i s seen as a function of the o c c i p i t a l - p a r i e t a l area, being concerned with the processing of information in forms which are non-linear, and for which the parts are mutually surveyable and accessible ( L u r i a , 1966a; 1966b; 1973). For example, arithmetic problem-solving i s regarded as simultaneous processing because l e s i o n s in the o c c i p i t a l - p a r i e t a l lobe re s u l t in a c a l c u l i a (Das et a l . , 1979). Lesions in the p a r i e t o - o c c i p i t a l regions have been reported to res u l t in a general i n a b i l i t y "...to integrate i n d i v i d u a l v i s u a l or t a c t i l e stimuli into simultaneous and. in p a r t i c u l a r , s p a t i a l l y organized groups (Luria, 1966b, p. 125, i t a l i c s in the o r i g i n a l ) . " Successive synthesis i s seen as a function of the anterior (fronto-temporal) regions, and r e f e r s to the processing of information in a temporal, sequence-dependent form, with only l i m i t e d a c q u i s i t i o n , therefore, to ind i v i d u a l elements. Lesions in the f r o n t a l and fronto-temporal regions have been reported to r e s u l t in a general i n a b i l i t y "... to integrate i n d i v i d u a l motor and acoustic stimuli into successive. s e r i a l l y organized groups (Lu r i a , 1966b, p. 125, i t a l i c s in the o r i g i n a l ) . " Measure One: Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM) The f i r s t pre- and post-measure used in t h i s study was Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices test (Raven, 1956; 1962; 1965), a task that loads highly on the simultaneous factor described by Das et a l . . (1975; 1979), since solutions require the construction of a s p a t i a l pattern or scheme. The ease of administration and the requirement of few verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s has resulted in wide use of the RCPM as a culturally-reduced test of i n t e l l e c t u a l reasoning for children between 5-0 and 11-11 years. Consisting of 36 matrices or designs, each having a piece which has been removed, the task i s to choose the missing insert from six possible a l t e r n a t i v e s . The 36 matrices are grouped into three s e r i e s , with each s e r i e s comprising 12 matrices of increasing d i f f i c u l t y . Set A requires the a b i l i t y to complete continuous patterns which, towards the end of the set, change,first in one and l a t e r in two d i r e c t i o n s at the same time. Set Ag requires the a b i l i t y to see dis c r e t e f i g u r e s as s p a t i a l l y r e l a t e d wholes, and to choose a f i g u r e which completes the missing part. Set B includes problems involving analogies and should show whether or not an in d i v i d u a l i s capable of abstract thinking. Heidi and Carlson (1976) administered the RCPM to 180 f i r s t , second, and t h i r d grade c h i l d r e n . Factor analysis revealed three orthogonal , f a c t o r s which were interpreted as (1) concrete and abstract ;-easoning, (2) continuous and d i s c r e t e pattern completion,-,!and (3) pattern completion through closure. A f a c t o r f a n a l y t i c study by Royce and others (1976), which was concerned with i d e n t i f y i n g the brain c o r r e l a t e s of cognitive f a c t o r s , found that Ravens Coloured Progressive Matrices I, I I , and I I I , loaded on Factor V, t e n t a t i v e l y interpreted as pattern recognition (factor loadings = -.64, -.63, and -.41, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Poor pattern recognition i s associated with damage to the l e f t p a r i e t a l and o c c i p i t a l areas while pattern recognition i s better for those with damage to the l e f t f r o n t a l region. The c o r r e l a t i o n of t h i s factor with only the l e f t hemisphere i s not consistent with the findings of several researchers (Costa, Vaughan, Horowitz, & R i t t e r , 1969; Colonna & F a g l i o n i , 1966; DeRenzi & F a g l i o n i , 1965; and Piercy & Smyth, 1962) who found b i l a t e r a l temporal lobe impairments for the Ravens Progressive Matrices (Royce et a l . , 1976, pp. 399-400). Thus, the f i r s t - o r d e r factor V, pattern recognition, on which the Ravens loads, i s more neurally d i f f u s e . C l a s s i f i e d by major neural c o r r e l a t e s , pattern recognition i s included in the o c c i p i t a l lobe, l e f t hemisphere; and temporal lobe, right hemisphere (Royce et a l . , 1976, Table 11, p. 410). In discussing the multidimensional s c a l i n g of a large battery of mental tests (the closer two points are in two-dimensional space, the more strongly these two tests are correlated), Snow 116 (1980, pp. 35-36) explains: ... The more central tests c o r r e l a t e with a wider range of other tests (hence the term general). and G^ tests appear to be the most c e n t r a l . Perhaps they represent to a greater degree the kinds of assembly and control processes needed to organize on a short-term basis adaptive s t r a t e g i e s for solving novel problems. The more complex and varied the sequence of novel problems, the more adaptive the processing system needs to be. The Raven Progressive Matrices Test i s perhaps the archetypical example of such a task, and one usually f i n d s i t in the center, as in F i g . 2.2. The central tests may also share p a r t i c u l a r performance processes, and/or si m i l a r organizations of such processes, with other t e s t s . . . . In t h i s study, therefore, the Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM) were used as a measure of simultaneous cognitive processing (Das & Molloy, 1975); as a measure of abstract reasoning; as a measure of Ĝ . or " f l u i d abi 1 i t y " ( C a t t e l l , 1971); as a measure that i s more general, c e n t r a l , and complex than most (Snow, 1980); and as a measure which engages both cerebral hemispheres, p a r t i c u l a r l y the o c c i p i t a l lobe in the l e f t hemisphere, and the temporal lobe in the right hemisphere (Royce et a l . , 1976). For the pre-measure, Series A was administered to one- half of a l l subjects, while Series Ag was administered to the second half of a l l subjects. For the post-measure, those who had been given Series A as a pre-measure were given Series Ag, while those i n i t i a l l y given Series Ag were given Series A. The choice of these two s e r i e s stems from the factor loadings found by Royce et al.,1976 (-.64 for RCPM I; -.63 for RCPM II; and -.41 for RCPM I I I ) , so that the f i r s t two sets appear most s i m i l a r . Also, s e r i e s B involves analogies, and may therefore be more unlike the other two sets. The aim was to use two as nearly p a r a l l e l forms of a test as possible, even though t h i s feature was not es s e n t i a l to the study. Measure Two: S e r i a l Recall (SR) The second pre, post-measure used was S e r i a l R e c a l l , which loads highly on the successive factor described by Das et a l . (1979). Description of S e r i a l Recall (SR) Stimuli were presented o r a l l y to each subject. The subject's task was to r e c a l l , v e r bally, immediately following each presentation, groups of four words which were either a c o u s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r (e.g., man. mat. mad. cab) or neutral (e.g., day., hot. cow. book) . Each s e r i e s of four words was scored for words in the correct s e r i a l p o s i t i o n . There were 24 groups of four words, so that 12 groups could be used as the pre-measure, while 12 groups could be used as the post-measure. By exchanging items 12 and 13 (Das et a l . , 1979, pp. 213- 214), one derives two p a r a l l e l tests of groups of four words, each with six a c o u s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r and six a c o u s t i c a l l y neutral word groupings. Examples for pr a c t i c e session: a. big long great t a l l b. cow day key few c. man mad map pan 118 F i r s t set of 12 groups: 1. key hot cow pen 7. key few hot book 2. cab cat mad can 8. can pan tap cab 3. day cow wall bar 9. tap mat pan cat 4. man mad pan mat 10. key day cow bar 5. pen wall book key 11. cab cap cat tap 6. book bar wall hot 12. cab man mad map Second set of 12 groups: 1. bar pen few day 7. few day cow book 2. mat can cap man 8. cap man mad tap 3. few pen hot wall 9. key book day hot 4. day cow bar wall 10. cab tap man cat 5. cap pan cat can 11. can cap pan mad 6. man mad mat pan 12. pen few wall cow Instruct ions for Ser i a l Recall "I am going to say some words. When I am f i n i s h e d I want you to say the words just the way I said them. There w i l l be four words in each group. I ' l l repeat the in s t r u c t i o n s . I am going to say some groups of words. When I am f i n i s h e d I want you to say the words just the way I said them. Let's try a group of words. Ready? b i g . long. great. t a l l . (Pause) You should have sa i d , big. long. great. t a l l . Each time I say a o'-siip of four words, I want you to say the words in exactly the same order that I do. Let's try another group of words. Ready? cow. day. key. few. (Pause) You should have sa i d , cow, day. key. few. Let's try one more group of words. Ready? man. mad. map. pan. (Pause) You should have said, man. mad. map. pan• You see, when I say a 119 group of words, I want you to say the same words just as I do. Now l e t ' s try some other groups of words. Ready? (Begin test.) (from Das et a l . , 1979, p. 214) Measure Three: Free Recall (FR) The S e r i a l Recall test was scored on a free r e c a l l basis, thus creating a second score from the one administration ( s e r i a l p o s ition was not required, only r e c a l l of a l l four words in each s e r i e s was counted). Measure Four: Color Naming (CN) This task taps the speed of processing factor outlined by Das et a l . (1979). It i s based on one of the three tasks developed by Stroop (1935) (also see Jensen and Rohwer, J r . , 1966). Eight rows of colored bars with f i v e p o s itions in a row were presented on a white background card measuring 28" x 30". The colored bars were 3" long and 3/4" wide, with red, green, yellow, and blue bars a l t e r n a t i n g , for a t o t a l of 10 presentations of each color, thus r e p l i c a t i n g the Stroop (1935) task. After a preliminary check for color blindness, the subject was placed seven feet from the card, and then was asked to name each color successively, by rows. The score was the time, in seconds, that i t took the c h i l d to complete the task. For the post-measure, the white background card was simply turned upside-down, providing a p a r a l l e l form of the task ( o r i g i n a l order of colored bars = Form I; upside-down version = Form I I ) . 120 Instructions for Color Naming: "I have here a board with s t r i p s of d i f f e r e n t colored bars. The colors are red, blue, green, and yellow. When I turn the board over, I want you to s t a r t here at the top l e f t (point) and name the co l o r s going across. When you f i n i s h the f i r s t row, go here (point to the second row l e f t ) and work across. Name a l l the colored bars in t h i s way (demonstrate the pattern with your f i n g e r ) . Remember, you are being timed, so name the colors as quickly as you can. Are you ready? (Turn board over.) Begin. (Start stopwatch.) (adapted from Das et a l . , 1979, p. 217) Color Chart Red Green Yellow Green Blue Green Blue Yellow Red Blue Blue Green Red Yellow Red Yellow Red Blue Green Yellow Blue Yellow Red Blue Green Yellow Red Green Yellow Blue Blue Green Red Yellow Green Red Yellow Blue Green Red Measure Five: Ideational Fluency (Fi) The l a s t two pre-, post-measures are taken from the Comprehensive A b i l i t y Battery, or CAB (Hakstian & C a t t e l l , 1976). The guiding p r i n c i p l e in the development of the CAB was to provide a broad battery of short tests providing researchers with an economical vehicle for assessing a wide, or comprehensive (Hakstian & Bennet, 1977) range of the important a b i l i t y constructs. There are 20 tests in the CAB, each one 121 designed to measure a si n g l e a b i l i t y f a c t o r . The f i f t h pre-, post-measure, Ideational Fluency <Fi), from the CAB, i s concerned with producing ideas about a given topic rapidly and without much attention to q u a l i t y . This Fi task i s of the " a t t r i b u t e - l i s t i n g " type, in which subjects must l i s t as many adjectives as they can, in a f i x e d time, that could be applied to a given thing. Ideational fluency i s important in school and occupational s i t u a t i o n s in which fluent and productive idea generation i s required. Directions for Ideational Fluency (Fi) Measure The d i r e c t i o n s in the CAB booklet require written responses. However, in order to lessen the d i f f i c u l t y of the task, e s p e c i a l l y for the LD chil d r e n , o r a l responses were requested and recorded by the examiner. The d i r e c t i o n s were also s i m p l i f i e d for use with school-aged children and were elaborated when necessary: "In t h i s test, you are to t e l l me as many s i n g l e words (adjectives) as you can that describe a certa i n thing. Remember, an adjective i s a word that describes or t e l l s about something. For example, i f I say 'blue sky,' 'blue' i s a word or adjective that describes 'sky;' i t t e l l s me what kind of sky i t i s . If I say ' l i t t l e puppy,' ' l i t t l e ' i s an adjective that describes 'puppy.' Can you t e l l me an adjective that you might use to describe 'cake?' ... Good. Can you t e l l me an adjective that you might use to describe a 'dark cave?' ... Good. Do not t e l l me objects r e l a t e d to the thing, l i k e 'children' for CLASSROOM. Do not t e l l me more than one word that means the 122 same thing, such as 'big,' 'large,' 'enormous,' and so f o r t h , because you would get only one point for a l l of them. But you may use opposites, so that 'big' and 'small,' to describe a CLASSROOM, would each get a point. Now try the following example: Example X (30 seconds) T e l l me as many words (adjectives) as you can that might describe a MOUNTAIN STREAM You might have l i s t e d : cold, warm, gurgling, rushing, b e a u t i f u l , etc. But saying ' f i s h , ' for example, would not get a point." Ideational Fluency I (Fi I ) : "Now you w i l l have two minutes to t e l l me as many words as you can that describe a NEN RED CAR." Ideational Fluency II (Fi I I ) : "Now you w i l l have two minutes to t e l l me as many words as you can that describe a LARGE CITY." [The CAB allows 1 1/2 minutes for t h i s test, but t h i s time l i m i t was modified to two minutes for a l l c h i l d r e n , LD and NLD.] Hakstian and C a t t e l l (1976) assess Ideational Fluency by taking the sum of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s scores on Fi-Part I, Fi-Part II, and Fi-Part I I I , but for the purposes of t h i s study, Ideational Fluency Part I (or Part II for counterbalancing) was taken as the pre-measure score, and Ideational Fluency Part II (or Part I for counterbalancing) was taken as the post-measure 123 score. [The Ideational Fluency scores for the post-measures were calculated by the main investigator before the children were f i n i s h e d with the session, and, therefore, before becoming aware of the children's experimental condition assignment.] Measure Six: Aiming (A) The Aiming (A) pre-, post-measure was also taken from the Comprehensive A b i l i t y Battery (CAB) (Hakstian & C a t t e l l , 1976). Aiming r e f e r s to the carrying out of precise movements which require eye-hand coordination and which are done under timed conditions. Aiming i s a psychomotor a b i l i t y which may be considered one of f i n e muscle dexterity, primarily manual. On the Aiming test, the examinee draws f i n e l y c o n t r o l l e d pencil l i n e s , as quickly as he can, in s p e c i a l l y constructed f i g u r e s . This test was chosen because t h i s researcher i s interested in eye-hand coordination s k i l l s , s k i l l s which are important in both school and work s i t u a t i o n s . This test also seemed more "pure" as a test of visual-motor coordination than the Bender Vi s u a l Motor Gestalt Test (Bender, 1938) or the Beery/Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (Beery, 1967), or the various coding tasks which have been used in other studies. Coding tasks, irv general, involve short-term v i s u a l memory, v i s u a l perception for d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of symbols, good f i x a t i o n a b i l i t y for keeping one's place while working, together with some understanding of a code's concept, in addition to eye-hand control and motor speed. The CAB Aiming test, on the other hand, uses only one f i g u r e so that i t becomes more exclusively a task of eye-hand coordination and motor speed. While the Color Naming 124 test required a verbal response, under timed conditions, t h i s test required a paper-and-penci1 motor response under timed conditions, and should thus provide add i t i o n a l information regarding respective performances of LD and NLD children on s i m i l a r s k i l l s important for school success. Directions for Aiming (A): The d i r e c t i o n s were i d e n t i c a l to those provided in the CAB test booklet. Each subject was given two sharp p e n c i l s and the i n s t r u c t i o n page was read aloud by the examiner as the subject read along. If necessary, the d i r e c t i o n s were repeated, extended, or elaborated u n t i l the examiner was s a t i s f i e d that they were understood. [See Appendix 9 for the complete page of d i r e c t i o n s along with a sample of the Aiming task.] Either Aiming, Part I or Aiming, Part II was given as a pre-, or post-measure. Both Part I and Part II were i d e n t i c a l and consisted of 35 test f i g u r e s to be completed within a 2 1/2 minute time l i m i t . The score was the number of c o r r e c t l y drawn fig u r e s completed within the time l i m i t . [The Aiming scores for post-measures were calculated by the main investigator before the children were f i n i s h e d with the session, before the main investigator became aware of the children's experimental condition assignment.] 125 Experimental Task: Description and Procedure Cover Story For those subjects randomly assigned to the experimental manipulation (easy or d i f f i c u l t conditions), the confederate experimenter was introduced as a f r i e n d who was helping out and when ushered into the testing room alone with the subject, she s a i d : "While we're waiting for Mrs. Haqq to do some more things with you, I wonder i f you'd be kind enough to try out a board game that we're developing for children between the ages of eight and 12. Usually, two or three children would play i t together, but since we're s t i l l making i t up, we'd l i k e to give i t to children one at a time to see i f i t w i l l work a l l r i g h t . " [Confederate experimenter lays out board game, with toy cars, stimulus cards, etc. A schematic drawing of the board game, Round-Robin Racing, may be found in Appendix 11.] Game Instructions for Round-Robin Racing "This i s a road race game. You begin by choosing either the red, yellow, or blue car. Beside each car you see a p i l e of cards in the same color as the car. So, for example, i f you choose the red car, your game cards are the red cards. You get to move one square closer to the f i n i s h l i n e each time you can t e l l me what i s on the face or front of a card. Some of the cards you w i l l f i n d easy, and others may be more d i f f i c u l t , but they are a l l pictures or si l h o u e t t e s of ordinary things. A silhouette i s l i k e t h i s : (pointing to s i l h o u e t t e of a cow). On each card you w i l l see a l e t t e r in the upper left-hand corner, 126 l i k e t h i s ...(pointing)... so you t e l l me, for example, 'I think Card A i s an elephant'... or, 'I think Card A i s a carrot,' or whatever. There are 10 cards in each p i l e , and you have to get at least seven cards right in order to reach the winner's box. When two or three children play the game, when one c h i l d misses a card, the turn goes to the c h i l d in the next clockwise p o s i t i o n , but since we are just t r y i n g t h i s game out, you can go through a l l ten of the cards in a row. Do you have any questions?" [The confederate experimenter ensured that the di r e c t i o n s were understood and then administered the expectancy of success measure for s e l f and for other - Appendix 10.] Then the confederate experimenter continued: "O.K. Now turn over the f i r s t card and give me the l e t t e r on i t and t e l l me what i t i s . " [Confederate experimenter recorded the responses.] Easy Condition D i f f i c u l t Condition 1. rabbit (A) [top card] easy easy 2. hand (I) easy d i f f i c u l t 3. chair (B) d i f f i c u l t easy 4. umbrella (U) easy d i f f i c u l t 5. s c i s s o r s (K) easy d i f f i c u l t 6. apple (S) d i f f i c u l t easy 7. lamp (R) easy d i f f i c u l t 8. basket (J) easy di f f i c u l t 9. tree (M) easy d i f f i c u l t 10. cup (C) easy d i f f i c u l t [The experimental picture cards are adapted from the Higgins- Wertman Test: Threshold of Visual Closure , 1968. The easy cards are from frame 1 of the booklets, and the d i f f i c u l t cards are from frame 13 of the booklets. The l e t t e r s in parentheses after each stimulus item served as the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n for that card.] An attempt had been made to choose an experimental task that would be straightforward in manipulating e a s y / d i f f i c u l t conditions, and also one that would not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y penalize LD c h i l d r e n . The former c r i t e r i o n i s met more e a s i l y , however, than i s the l a t t e r . It has been found (Rusch, 1971), for example, that good readers in Grade One scored higher on the Higgins-Wertman Test of Vi s u a l Closure than poor readers (p_ < .01). However, there may be no task on which no differences would be apparent, and with which one might e a s i l y manipulate easy versus d i f f i c u l t conditions. So i t was decided to use the relevant frames of the Higgins-Wertman Test: Threshold of Vi s u a l Closure, which does require a b i l i t i e s that should be common to a l l c h i l d r e n , whether learning disabled or not. The test requires knowledge of common objects and their structure or parts, and good v i s u a l functioning s k i l l s . P i l o t testing had revealed that the stimuli and sequence of presentation of the stimuli were s u f f i c i e n t for manipulating easy versus d i f f i c u l t experimental conditions! (See Rusch, 1970, for r e l i a b i l i t y of the Higgins-Wertman Test of Vi s u a l Closure.) Post-experimental Task A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaire Each c h i l d in the easy condition was given the post- experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire for evaluating the perceived contribution of the four causal f a c t o r s - e f f o r t , luck, a b i l i t y , and ease of the task - in successfully getting a 128 racing car to the winner's box. Each c h i l d in the d i f f i c u l t condition was given the post- experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire for evaluating the perceived contribution of the four causal f a c t o r s - e f f o r t , luck, a b i l i t y , and d i f f i c u l t y of the task - in f a i l i n g to get a racing car to the winner's box. [See Appendix 12 for the Post- Experimental A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaires.] Expectancy of Future Success for Self and Other Each c h i l d in either the easy or d i f f i c u l t condition was then given an expectancy of future success measure for s e l f and for other. [See Appendix 13 for the Expectancy of Future Success for Self and Other measures.] A n c i l l a r y Measures Mood Measure At the beginning and end of each testing session, each c h i l d (LD/NLD) in a l l conditions was given a mood measure (see Appendix 5), which consisted of a page with seven "faces 0 arranged v e r t i c a l l y , l a b e l l e d "very, very good" at the top, and "very, very bad" at the bottom. The faces had smiles or frowns representative of the range of af f e c t from "very, very happy" to "very, very sad." The ins t r u c t i o n s were: "Please put an ' X ' beside the face which best shows how you f e e l right now." Scores were recorded for the pre-experimental task a f f e c t measurement, and the post-experimental task a f f e c t measurement. This mood measure has been used by several researchers (e.g., Rholes et a l . , 1980) in order to tap children's a f f e c t . 129 Debrief in ci Eas!'1 Condition ).|pon completing the administration of the post-measures (including the immediate marking of the Ideational Fluency and Aiming tasks), the primary investigator (D. Haqq), who was theretofore unaware of the experimental condition assignment of the s p e c i f i c c h i l d , s a i d : "That's great, we're a l l f i n i s h e d . Just wait a moment and I ' l l see i f Mrs. Healey wants to ask you about anything else." [Mrs. Healey waited just outside the testing room at t h i s time.] Upon seeing that the post-measures had been given, Mrs. Healey said, "No, that's f i n e , we're a l l f i n i s h e d too." Then, in the easy condition, the c h i l d was thanked for h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n and cooperation and the importance of the research - "Finding out what children r e a l l y think about things" and "learning how children perform on various tasks such as remembering words, thinking up adjectives, and so f o r t h " - was emphasized. It was pointed out to each c h i l d that, no matter what el s e , " t r y i n g hard" was the most important factor involved in school success. Each c h i l d was queried to f i n d out i f he had any questions about the research, and to check that the experience had been enjoyable. D i f f i c u l t Condition In the d i f f i c u l t condition, following the administration of the post-measures (including the immediate marking of the Ideational Fluency and Aiming tasks), the primary investigator, who was theretofore unaware of the experimental condition 130 assignment of the p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d , s a i d : "That's great, we're a l l f i n i s h e d . Just wait a moment and I ' l l see i f Mrs. Healey wants to ask you about anything else." [Mrs. Healey, the confederate experimenter, waited just outside the te s t i n g room at t h i s time.] Upon seeing that the post-measures had been given, Mrs. Healey s a i d : "Oh, Mrs. Haqq, I'm so sorry, but I'm a f r a i d that I made a t e r r i b l e mistake when I gave [ c h i l d ' s name] the board game. Unfortunately, the cards got mixed up, and I gave him the cards that are meant for the ADULT VERSION of the game! [A discussion then ensued about how no c h i l d would be expected to get h i s car to the winner's box given the cards that were meant for adults. In f a c t , i t was pointed out that even adults had d i f f i c u l t y with the adult cards.] Mrs. Healey then had the c h i l d do the "easy" or success version of the board game, and upon successful completion, she administered the post-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire for the easy condition. The c h i l d was then thanked for h i s cooperation and debriefed in the same manner as described above (easy condition). [In exchange for the p r i v i l e g e of using children from the two public school d i s t r i c t s and the two parochial schools, e s p e c i a l l y since the WISC-R i s an important diagnostic tool which should not be re-administered within a two-year period, the author submitted a psychoeducational report for children, both LD and NLD, to the respective school p r i n c i p a l upon completion of a l l testing [with the consent of parent(s)/guardian(s)]. In many cases the author conferenced with p r i n c i p a l s , teachers, and parents for the LD and some NLD 131 children in the study. In a few cases there was also communication with family physicians and hospital personnel. As wel l , parents of g i f t e d NLD children were contacted by the author. If a medical problem became suspect during the test i n g , both school and parents were n o t i f i e d (e.g., suspected hearing impairment). Although parental permission was requested for release of certa i n scores ( i . e . , WISC-R and Woodcock-Johnson reading scores) to the school, the children in the study seemed unmindful of being s p e c i f i c a l l y evaluated on these measures.] 132 CHAPTER V Results of the Study Demographic and Selection Variables As shown in Table 5.1, r e s u l t s indicated that there were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the LD and NLD children on the age va r i a b l e , F (1,66) = .12, p_ < .73, on socioeconomic status (SES), F (1,66) = .63, p_ < .43, or grade l e v e l , F (1,66) = 3.46,p_ < .07. Results also indicated that there was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two groups, LD and NLD, on Performance IQ as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC-R). Means of the LD and NLD groups for performance scale IQ were 111.77 and 111.47, re s p e c t i v e l y , F (1,66) = .02, p_ < .88. Recall that the two groups had de l i b e r a t e l y been matched on Performance IQ, a more v a l i d i n d i c a t i o n of i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l for LD children than either the verbal IQ or the f u l l scale IQ score. The two groups (LD/NLD), however, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t with respect to reading a b i l i t y j with the mean for the LD group on reading achievement p e r c e n t i l e = 19.93 (S.D.= 10.64), and the mean for the NLD group = 76.34 (S.D.= 14.55),F (1,66) = 316.71, p_ < .0001, thus v a l i d a t i n g subject s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n of reading p e r c e n t i l e <. 40 (for age) for the LD subjects, and >. 50 (for age) for the NLD subjects. [ The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses tested were of the form: H^: mu^ - mug = 0; H^: mu^ - mu^ ? 0. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of group at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the variables l i s t e d . ] 133 Table 5.1. Analysis of Variance Results for Descriptive Vari ables. Variable Mean S.D. F(l,66) p_ Age ( i n mos.) LD a 127.67 8.92 NLD b 128.47 10.16 Grade LD 4.63 .81 NLD 5.00 .80 SES LD 45.78 13.62 NLD 49.03 18.77 Verbal IQ LD 100.00 6.65 NLD 116.18 10.13 Performance IQ LD 111.77 8.17 NLD 111.47 8.20 F u l l Scale IQ LD 105.70 6.21 NLD 115.50 8.48 Reading Percentile LD 19.93 10.64 NLD 76.34 14.55 .12 <.73 3.46 <.07 .63 <.43 57.03 <.0001* .02 <.88 28.11 <.0001* 316.71 <.0001* 134 Word I d e n t i f i c a t i o n LD 30.97 NLD 39.92 Nord Attack LD 9.43 NLD 20.34 Passage Comprehension LD 13.07 NLD 18.53 a n = 30. b n = 38. *p_ < .0001. Pre-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s : Hypothesi s i . There w i l l be no group ef f e c t (LD/NLD) in external a t t r i b u t i o n s (ease of the task or luck) on the "academic success" pre-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire. Hypothesi s I I . There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) in inter n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s (lack of a b i l i t y or lack of e f f o r t ) on the "academic f a i l u r e " pre-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire. [The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses tested were of the form: HQ: mu^ - mUg = 0; H^: mu^ - mu^ ^ 0. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on external or intern a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . ] 4.14 102.71 <.0001 3.15 3.70 173.27 <.0001 3.13 2.75 69.38 <.0001 2.63 135 .00 <.97 10.52 <.01* Table 5.2. Analysis of Variance Results of A t t r i b u t i o n s for Academic Success (Pre-experimental Questionnaire). Variable Mean S.D. £(1(66) p_ ••'ft E f f o r t A t t r i b u t i o n LD 6.60 .62 NLD 6.60 .68 Luck A t t r i b u t i o n LD 4.63 2.08 NLD 3.05 1.93 A b i l i t y A t t r i b u t i o n LD 5.80 1.60 NLD 5.58 1.22 E a s e / D i f f i c u l t y A t t r i b u t i o n LD 5.43 2.03 NLD 4.00 1.98 *p_ < .01. .42 <.52 8.61 <.01* 136 A m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOUA; SPSS X Users Guide, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983) examining group differences regarding causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for academic success revealed group differences s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l : F (4,63) = 3.53, p_ < .01. Further univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) revealed s i g n i f i c a n t group differences on a t t r i b u t i o n to luck, F (1,66) = 10.52, p_ < .01, and on a t t r i b u t i o n to ease of the task, F (1,66) = 8.63, p_ < .01. Thus, LD c h i l d r e n , to a greater extent than NLD c h i l d r e n , a t t r i b u t e d academic success to luck or ease of the task, both external a t t r i b u t i o n s . This f i n d i n g i s consistent with the l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Bryan and Pearl, 1979; Pearl, Bryan, and Donahue, 1980). Hypothesis I. i s therefore not supported, and the a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis i s tenable. 137 Table 5.3. Analysis of Variance Results of A t t r i b u t i o n s for Academic F a i l u r e (Pre-experimental Questionnaire) Variable Mean S.D. F(l,66) p_ E f f o r t A t t r i b u t i o n LD 3.90 2.31 NLD 5.08 2.15 Luck A t t r i b u t i o n LD 3.17 2.20 NLD 2.66 1.74 A b i l i t y A t t r i b u t i o n LD 3.00 2.18 NLD 3.13 2.12 Ea s e / D i f f i c u l t y A t t r i b u t i o n LD 4.87 1.81 NLD 4.53 1.81 p_ < .05. 4.72 <.03* 1.13 <.29 .06 <.80 .59 <.44 138 A m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOVA; SPSS*, 1983) examining group differences regarding a l l four causal a t t r i b u t i o n s - e f f o r t , luck, a b i l i t y , and d i f f i c u l t y - for academic f a i l u r e , f a i l e d to reach s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . [ A further univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), however, revealed that NLD children were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more w i l l i n g to ascribe academic f a i l u r e to their own lack of e f f o r t , F (1,66) = 4.72, p_ < .03. Dweck (1975) has demonstrated that w i l l i n g n e s s to ascribe f a i l u r e to e f f o r t i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mastery- oriented c h i l d r e n , children who persevere in the face of d i f f i c u l t y . ] Hypothesis II i s therefore tenable. There was no difference between the LD and NLD groups in the causal a s c r i p t i o n of lack of a b i l i t y for academic f a i l u r e , F (1,66) = .06, p_ < .80. However, they did d i f f e r in the a s c r i p t i o n of lack of e f f o r t for academic f a i l u r e , F (1,66) = 4.72, p_ < .03. Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s : Hypothesis I I I . There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) in external a t t r i b u t i o n s (ease of the task or luck) after success on the experimental task. Hypothesis IV. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) in internal a t t r i b u t i o n s (lack of a b i l i t y or lack of e f f o r t ) after f a i l u r e on the experimental task. 139 [ The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses tested were of the form: H Q: mû ^ mu2 - 0; : mu^ - mu^ rt 0. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of group at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on external i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . ] 1 4 0 Table 5.4. Table of Means and Standard Deviations for the Post- Task A t t r i b u t i o n s According to Group and Condition. EFFORT ATTRIBUTION Easy Condition M SD LD 5.33 1.56 NLD 6.08 1.00 D i f f i c u l t Condition M SD 2.20 1.81 2.69 1.74 LUCK ATTRIBUTION Easy Condition M SD LD 1.83 1.19 NLD 3.08 1.98 D i f f i c u l t Condition M SD 3.70 2.58 2.12 1.41 ABILITY ATTRIBUTION Easy Condition M SD LD 5.50 1.51 NLD 5.25 1.36 D i f f i c u l t Condition M SD 3.00 2.05 2.56 1.46 EASY/DIFFI CULT ATTRI BUTI ON Easy Condition M SD LD 4.42 1.78 NLD 3.83 2.25 D i f f i c u l t Condition M SD 4.50 2.17 4.50 1.71 141 A mul t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOVA; SPSS*, 1983) revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t group differences, and no s i g n i f i c a n t group by condition differences. There was a highly s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e due to condition, however, F (4,43) =18.21, p_ < .01. Both LD and NLD children ascribed greater causality to e f f o r t and a b i l i t y in the easy (success) condition. The univariate F- test for e f f o r t was F (1,46) = 54.08, p_ < .01; the univariate F- test for a b i l i t y was F (1,46) = 33.35, p_ < .01. Mention should be made as well of one s i g n i f i c a n t group by condition i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t for luck, univariate F (1,46) = 7.51, p_ < .01. In the easy condition, the NLD children made greater external a t t r i b u t i o n s to luck, while in the d i f f i c u l t condition, the LD children made greater external a t t r i b u t i o n s to luck. Overall, therefore, Hypotheses III and IV are tenable, since there were no group e f f e c t s . There was, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due to condition. Performance on Pre-. Post-Measures: Hypothesis V. 1. There w i l l be no group ef f e c t (LD/NLD) on the six pre-, post-measures scores. 2. There w i l l be no condition e f f e c t ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t / n o task) on the six pre-, post-measures scores. 3. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group membership and condition on the six pre-, post-measures scores. 142 [ The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses were of the form: H Q: mu^ - mug = 0; H^: m U j - mu^ ^ 0. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t , no condition e f f e c t , and no j o i n t e f f e c t s of group membership and condition at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the six pre-, post-measures.] [Refer to Appendix 14 for the Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-Measures According to Group. Condition. and Order. and to Appendix 15 for the Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Post-Measures According to Group. Condition, and Order.] Hypotheses V. 1., 2., 3., were studied through a s e r i e s of repeated measures analyses of variance (BMDP:2V, University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1981; see Dixon, 1981), mul t i v a r i a t e analyses of variance (MANCrVA; SPSS X, 1983), and discriminant analyses (SPSS*, 1983). I n i t i a l analyses. Two omnibus repeated measures analyses of variance were performed (taking LD and NLD data separately) with two grouping va r i a b l e s , condition at three l e v e l s (easy, d i f f i c u l t , and no task), and order of presentation of pre-, post-measures at two l e v e l s (Set A f i r s t ; Set Ag f i r s t ) (BMDP:2V, University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1981; see Dixon, 1981). The dependent variables were the six pre-, post-measures at two occasions and six (number of measures) l e v e l s . Results of these two i n i t i a l analyses demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s for measures only. The scores on the six measures d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y for the two groups, LD and NLD. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of condition, order of presentation, or occasion e f f e c t s , and only a very minor occasion x measure x order e f f e c t . Therefore, 143 Hypothesis V . l . i s not supported. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t on a l l six measures. Hypotheses V.2. and V.3., however, are tenable, since no condition e f f e c t s and no j o i n t group by condition e f f e c t s were found. Hypothesis VI. In the d i f f i c u l t ( f a i l u r e ) condition, there w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) regarding performance change on those post- measures, S e r i a l Recall and Color Naming, which are most rel a t e d to s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Repeated measures analyses (BMDP:2V, University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1981; see Dixon, 1981) examining pre-, post-measures alone revealed no interaction for LD chil d r e n , and very weak ordinal interaction for the NLD ch i l d r e n . While there were no s i g n i f i c a n t pre-, post-, differences, the two groups' performances were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the six measures. A mul t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOVA; SPSS*, 1983) on the pre-measures according to group (1,2), condition (1,2,3), and order (1,2), demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t order e f f e c t s , p_ < .02, and group e f f e c t s , p_ < .01. The discriminant analysis showed that the major contributing measure for group differences was the S e r i a l Recall task (standardized discriminant function c o e f f i c i e n t = -.76). A m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the post- measures according to group (1,2), condition (1,2,3), and order (1,2), demonstrated a s i g n i f i c a n t group x condition x order e f f e c t (p_ < .05), a s i g n i f i c a n t group x condition e f f e c t (p_ < 144 .02 p_ < .06), and a s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t (p_ < .01). The discy'jiminant analysis showed that two measures contributed to group d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n : S e r i a l Recall (-.72) and Color Naming (.54XJ(standardized discriminant function c o e f f i c i e n t s for group e f f e c t ) . A separate discriminant analysis (SPSS54, 1983) also demonstrated that the two groups, LD/NLD, were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d mainly on the S e r i a l Recall task (standardized canonical discriminant function c o e f f i c i e n t = .90) on the pre-measures, and on S e r i a l Recall and Color Naming (standardized canonical discriminant function c o e f f i c i e n t s = .70, and .50, respectively) on the post-measures. Thus, the LD children performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y poorer on S e r i a l R e c a l l , a task involving successive or sequential processing, both on the pre-measure and on the post-measure. The LD children also demonstrated slower speed of processing on the Color Naming post-measure task. Thus, Hypothesis VI i s not supported, but the a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis of a group e f f e c t on S e r i a l Recall and Color Naming i s tenable. Expectancy Measures: Expectancy for S e l f . Hypothesis VII. 1. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) on the post-task "expectancy for s e l f " measure. 2. There w i l l be no condition e f f e c t ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t ) on the post-task "expectancy for s e l f " measure. 145 3. There w i l l membership and s e l f " measure. be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group condition on the post-task "expectancy for Before discussing the r e s u l t s of the hypotheses regarding the post-task "expectancy for s e l f " measure, i t should be pointed out that, on the pre-task "expectancy for s e l f " measure, there was no difference between the LD and NLD groups, F (1,48) = .01, p_ < .94. Means of the LD and NLD groups were 7.00 and 7.04, r e s p e c t i v e l y . [See Table 5.5.] Table 5.5. Analysis of Variance Results for Expectancy for Self Pre-Task According to Group Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p_ Group .02 1 .02 .007 .94 Residual 134.96 48 2.81 Tot a l 134.98 49 2.76 146 Post-task "expectancy for s e l f " was examined through an analysis of covariance (SPSS*, 1983) with two l e v e l s of group (LD/NLD) and condition ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t ) with pre-task "expectancy for s e l f " as the covariate. [ The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses, for main e f f e c t s , were of the forms: h Q ! O C ^ = °» H o : / ^ / = °' w h i l e t h e s t a t i s t i c a l hypothesis for the inte r a c t i o n e f f e c t was of the form: H^ioC^J^ = 0. The corresponding s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses tested were: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of group at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the variable "post-task expectancy for s e l f " when adjusted on "pre-task expectancy for s e l f ; " there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of condition at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the vari a b l e "post-task expectancy for s e l f " when adjusted on "pre- task expectancy for s e l f ; " and there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group and condition at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the variable "post-task expectancy for s e l f " when adjusted on "post-task expectancy for s e l f . " ] 147 Table 5.6. Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Expectancy for Self According to Group and Condition. Pre-, and Post-Task. EXPECTANCY FOR SELF PRE-TASK LD NLD Easy Condition Mean S.D. 7.25 1.71 (n=12) 6.92 1.78 (n=12) [7.08] D i f f i c u l t Condition Mean S.D. 6.70 1.64 (n=10) [6.98] 7.12 1.67 (n=16) [7.02] [6.91] [7.02] EXPECTANCY FOR SELF POST-TASK LD NLD Easy Condition Mean S.D. 8.25 1.71 (n=12) 6.83 1.85 (n=12) [7.54] D i f f i c u l t Condition Mean S.D. 6.20 2.10 (n=10) [7.22] 5.81 1.22 (n=16) [6.32] [6.01] [6.72] Note. Marginal means are given in brackets, 143 Table 5.7. Analysis of Covariance Results for Expectancy for Self Post-Task According to Group and Condition with Pre-Task Expectancy for Self as the Covariate Source Sum of Squares df Mean Sauare F P. A Group 10.31 1 10 .31 4.28 .04 B Condition 25.96 1 25.96 10.78 .01 AB 1.51 1 1.51 .63 .43 Error 108.33 45 2.41 48 [A test for the equality of the slopes of the regression l i n e s for each group was c a r r i e d out. The test indicated that the n u l l hypothesis of equality of slopes was tenable at the alpha = .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . ] The analysis of covariance (refer to Table 5.7) revealed s i g n i f i c a n t group differences, F (1,45) = 4.28, p_ < .04; s i g n i f i c a n t differences according to condition, F (1,45) = 10.78, p_ < .01; and there was no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t of group and condition, F (1,45) = .63, p_ < .43. Therefore, Hypo theses VII, 1. and 2., are not supported, but Hypothesis VII, 3., i s tenable. Following the analysis of covariance, the means were adjusted for the covariate and are presented in Table 5.8. One notes that the adjusted means d i f f e r very l i t t l e from the unadjusted means. 149 Table 5.8. Summary Table of Adjusted Means for Expectancy for Self (Post-Task). Unadjusted Mean Adjusted Mean Group LD 7.22 7.24 NLD 6.32 6.32 Condi tion Easy 7.54 7.52 D i f f i c u l t 6.01 6.06 Overall, the LD children expected to do better than did the NLD ch i l d r e n , and both LD and NLD children in the easy condition had greater post-task self-expectancy. 150 Expectancy for Other. Hypothesis VIII. 1. There w i l l be no group e f f e c t (LD/NLD) on the post-task "expectancy for other" measure. 2. There w i l l be no condition e f f e c t ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t ) on the post-task "expectancy for other" measure. 3. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group membership and condition on the post-task "expectancy for other" measure. C The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses, for main e f f e c t s , were of the form: H Q : oC^ = 0; HQ:flj, = 0 ; w h i l e t h e s t a t i s t i c a l hypothesis for the inte r a c t i o n e f f e c t was of the form: °C fi> =0. The corresponding s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses tested were: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of group at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the variable "post-task expectancy for other" when adjusted on "pre-task expectancy for other;" there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of condition at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the variable "post-task expectancy for other" when adjusted on "pre- task expectancy for other;" and there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t j o i n t e f f e c t s of group and condition at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the variable "post-task expectancy for other" when adjusted on "pre-task expectancy for other."] 151 Before discussing the r e s u l t s of the hypotheses regarding the post-task "expectancy for other" measure, i t should be pointed out that, on the pre-task "expectancy for other" measure, there was a trend for the LD subjects to expect more of "another boy" than for the NLD subjects, F (1,48) = 2.96, p_ < .09. Means of the LD and NLD groups were 7.77 and 6.79, re s p e c t i v e l y . [See Table 5.9.] Table 5.9. Analysis of Variance Results for Expectancy for Other. Pre-Task. According to Group Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p_ Group 12.00 1 12.00 2.96 .09 Residual 194.58 48 4.05 Total 206.58 49 4.22 Post-task "expectancy for other" was examined through an analysis of covariance (SPSS X, 1983) with two l e v e l s of group (LD/NLD) and condition ( e a s y / d i f f i c u l t ) with pre-task "expectancy for other" as the covariate. [See Tables 5.10 and 5.11.] 152 Table 5.10. Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Expectancy for Other According to Group and Condition. Pre-, and Post-Task. EXPECTANCY FOR OTHER PRE-TASK Easy Condition M SD LD 8.17 1.70 <n=12) NLD 6.67 1.87 (n=12) [7.42] EXPECTANCY FOR OTHER POST-TASK Easy Condition M SD LD 8.58 1.68 (n=12) NLD 6.67 2.39 (n=12) D i f f i c u l t Condition M SD 7.30 2.36 (n=10) [7.74] 6.88 2.16 (n=16) [6.78] [7.09] [7.22] D i f f i c u l t Condition M SD 7.10 1.66 (n=10) [7.84] 5.69 1.54 <n.=16) [6.18] [6.90] [7.62] [6.40] Note. Marginal means are given in brackets. 153 Table 5.11. Analysis of Covariance Results for Expectancy for Other Post-Task According to Group and Condition with Pre-Task Expectancy for Other as the Covariate Source Sum of Sauares df Mean Square E P. A Group 14.40 1 14.40 6.96 .01 B Condition 13.18 1 13.18 6.37 .02 AB .03 1 .03 .02 .90 Error 93.07 45 2.07 48 [ A test for the homogeneity of the slopes of the regression l i n e s for each group was c a r r i e d out. The test indicated that the n u l l hypothesis of equality of slopes was tenable at the alpha = .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . ] Results of the analysis of covariance indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t , F (1,45) = 6.96, p_ < .01, a s i g n i f i c a n t condition e f f e c t , F (1,45) = 6.37, p_ < .02, but no s i g n i f i c a n t group x condition interaction e f f e c t , F (1,45) = .02, p_ < .90. Therefore, Hypotheses VIII, 1. and 2., are not supported, but Hypothesis VIII, 3., i s tenable. Following the analysis of covariance, the means were adjusted to take the covariate into account, and the adjusted means are presented in Table 5.12. One notes that the adjusted means d i f f e r very l i t t l e from the unadjusted means. 154 Table 5.12. Summary Table of Adjusted Means for Expectancy for Other (Post-Task). h Group LD NLD Unadjusted Mean 4 Ac justed Mean 7.84 6.18 7.55 6.43 Condition Easy 7.62 7.51 D i f f i c u l t 6.40 6.47 Overall, the LD children expected "another boy" in their c l a s s to do better than did the NLD ch i l d r e n . Both LD and NLD children had a higher post-task "expectancy for other" in the easy experimental condition. Hypothesis IX. There w i l l be no group differences (LD/NLD) on the various subscales of Achenbach's (1981a) Child Behavior Checklist ( e s p e c i a l l y the Depression subscale). [ The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses tested were of the form: H^: mu^ - mu2 =0; H^: mu^ - mu^ ? 0. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of group at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the Social Competence and Behavior Problem scales of the Chi l d Behavior Checklist.] 155 C h i l d Behavior Checklist Social Competence Scales A m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOVA; SPSS X, 1983) examining the s o c i a l competence items revealed group (LD/NLD) differences s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , F (3,64) = 42.86. Further univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) revealed s i g n i f i c a n t group differences on Social Competence S o c i a l , F (1,66) = 6.16, p_ < .02, on Social Competence School, F (1,66) = 127.57, p_ < .01, and on the Total Social Competence score, F (1,66) = 22.31, p_ < .01. There was no group difference on S o c i a l Competence A c t i v i t i e s , F (1,66) = .73, p_ < .40. [See Table 5.13.] 156 Table 5.13. Analysis of Variance Results for the Soc i a l Competence Scales (Achenbach. 1981) Scale Mean S.D. F(l,66) p_ Soci a l Competence Ac t i vi t i e s LD 7.92 NLD 8.30 1.89 1.73 .73 <.40 Social Competence Soci a l LD 6.41 NLD 7.56 1.86 1.92 6.16 <.02 Soci a l Competence School LD 3.06 NLD 5.15 Social Competence Total Score LD 17.40 NLD 21.02 1.01 .46 3.38 2.95 127.57 22.31 <.01 < .01 p_ < .02. p_ < .01. 157 Behavior Problem Scales A m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOVA; SPSS*, 1 9 8 3 ) examining the behavior problem scales revealed s i g n i f i c a n t group (LD/NLD) differences, F ( 1 2 , 5 5 ) = 2 . 1 6 , p_ < . 0 3 . Further univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) revealed s i g n i f i c a n t group differences at p_ < . 0 1 , or better, on the Depressed scale, F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 7 . 6 1 , p_ < . 0 1 , the Hyperactive scale, F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 1 8 . 0 6 , p_ < . 0 1 , for the Total Behavior Problem score, F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 7 . 7 1 , p_ < . 0 1 , and on the two second-order scales, I n t e r n a l i z i n g F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 6 . 8 4 , p_ < . 0 1 , and Ex t e r n a l i z i n g F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 9 . 1 1 , p_ < . 0 1 . Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) revealed s i g n i f i c a n t group differences at alpha l e v e l . 0 5 on the Obsessive/Compulsive scale, F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 4 . 9 1 , JJ < . 0 3 , the Aggressive scale, F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 3 . 8 3 , p_ < . 0 5 , and the Delinquent scale, F ( 1 , 6 6 ) = 5 . 5 7 , p_ < . 0 2 . [See Table 5 . 1 4 . 3 158 Table 5.14. Analysis of Variance Results for the Behavior Problem Scales. Scale Mean S.D. F ( l , 66) p_ Schizo i d LD 1.70 1.76 NLD 1.08 1.00 Depressed LD 5.43 5.06 NLD 2.84 2.51 Uncommun i cat i ve LD 2.87 2.49 NLD 1.97 2.02 Obsessi ve/Compulsiye LD 4.30 3.80 NLD 2.63 2.38 Somatic Complaints LD 1.33 1.09 NLD .79 1.68 Social Withdrawal LD 2.17 2.17 NLD 1.37 1.40 Hyperactive LD 6.47 4.58 NLD 2.76 2.50 Aggressi ve LD 10.73 7.85 NLD 7.50 5.78 3.36 <.07 7.61 <.01 2.67 < . l l 4.91 <.03* 2.35 <.13 3.37 <.07 18.06 <.01 3.83 <.05* 159 Delinquent LD 2.73 3.25 NLD 1.34 1.46 Other Problems LD 4.77 3.94 NLD 3.60 3.01 In t e r n a l i z i n g LD 12.93 10.44 NLD 7.71 5.82 Ex t e r n a l i z i ng LD 18.17 12.78 NLD 10.58 7.81 Total Behavior Problem Score LD 34.40 24.80 NLD 21.18 13.98 5.57 <.02* 1.90 <.17 6.84 <.01** 9.11 <.01** 7.71 <.01** * fi. < .05 ** fi < .01 Overall, Hypothesis IX i s not supported. Rather, the al t e r n a t i v e hypothesis i s tenable. The LD children do d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the NLD children on two of the s o c i a l competence scales, S o c i a l Competence S o c i a l , and Social Competence School, as well as on the Total Social Competence score; and they d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on f i v e of the nine behavior problem scales (Depressed, Obsessive/Compulsive, Hyperactive, Aggressive, Delinquent) as well as on the second- order f a c t o r s of In t e r n a l i z i n g and Ext e r n a l i z i n g , and on the Total Behavior Problem score. 160 As w e l l , data from the NLD children do not d i f f e r from the norm group data reported for n o n - c l i n i c children by Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983, in Appendices 16 and 17. In order to evaluate the correspondence of Achenbach's n o n - c l i n i c norm group with the NLD group from t h i s study, the MINITAB program (Ryan, Joiner, and Ryan, Pennsylvania State University, 1981) was used since t h i s program allows one to set the mean (mu) of one group to a s i n g l e value. The mean scale scores for boys aged 6 - 1 1 , n o n - c l i n i c group (Appendix D, p. 211, in Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983) were compared with the scale scores from the NLD data. [See Table 5.15 and Table 5.16.] 161 Table 5.15. Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the NLD Group with the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) Non-clinic Norm Group on the Social Competence Scales. Scale Mean S.D. Social Competence A c t i v i t i e s NLD 8.30 Non-clinic 7.9 1.73 1.9 1.42 <.16 Soci a l Competence Soci a l NLD 7.56 Non-cli n i c 7.2 1.92 1.7 1.16 <.25 Social Competence School NLD 5.15 Non-cli n i c 4.9 .46 1.0 3.33 <.01 Social Competence Total Score NLD 21.02 Non-clinic 20.1 2.95 3.2 1.93 < .06 * p. < .01 162 -1.37 <.18 - .88 <.39 - .08 <.94 Table 5.16. Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the NLD Group with the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) Non-clinic Norm Group on the Behavior Problem Scales. Scale Mean S.D. T p_ Schizoid NLD 1.08 1.00 Non-cli n i c 1.3 1.4 Depressed NLD 2.84 2.51 Non-cli n i c 3.2 3.4 Uncommun i cat i ve NLD 1.97 2.02 Non-cli n i c 2.0 1.9 Obsessi ve/Compulsi ve NLD 2.63 2.38 Non-cli n i c 2.9 2.8 Somatic Complaints NLD .79 1.68 Non-clinic .8 1.3 Social Withdrawal NLD 1.37 1.40 Non-clinic 1.7 1.8 Hyperact i ve NLD 2.76 2.50 Non-cli n i c 3.2 2.9 Aggressi ve NLD 7.50 5.78 Non-cli n i c 7.3 5.7 - .70 <.49 - .04 <.97 -1.46 <.15 -1.08 <.29 .21 <.83 163 Delinquent NLD 1.34 1.46 Non-clinic 1.0 1.7 In t e r n a l i z i ng NLD 7.71 5.82 Non - c l i n i c 8.4 6.7 Ex t e r n a l i z i n g NLD 10.58 7.81 Non-cli n i c 10.8 8.2 Total Behavior Problem Score NLD 21.18 13.98 Non-cli n i c 21.7 15.0 1.45 <.16 - .73 <.47 - .17 <.86 .23 <.82 The NLD group was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from Achenbach's n o n - c l i n i c norm group on the Social Competence A c t i v i t i e s scale, T = 1.42, p_ < .16, the Social Competence Social scale, T = 1.16, p_ < .25, or on the Social Competence Total Score, T = 1.93, p_ < .06. However, the NLD group did have a higher mean on the Social Competence School scale (5.15 vs. 4.90) , T = 3.33, p_ < .01. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the NLD group and Achenbach's n o n - c l i n i c norm group on any of the Behavior Problem scales: Schizoid, T = -1.37, p_ < .18; Depressed, T = - .88, p_ < .39; Uncommunicative, T = -.08, p_ < .94; Obsessive/Compulsive, T = -.70, p_ < .49; Somatic Complaints, T = -.04, p_ < -97'i S o c i a l Withdrawal, T = -1.46, p_ < .15; Hyperactive, X = -1-08, p_ < .29; Aggressive, T = .21, p_ < .83; 164 Delinquent, T = 1.45, p_ < .16; I n t e r n a l i z i n g , T = -.73, p_ < .47; Ex t e r n a l i z i n g , T = -.17, p_ < .86; Total Behavior Problem Score, T = -.23, p_ < .82. In the main, therefore, the NLD group did not d i f f e r from Achenbach's n o n - c l i n i c norm group. [The one exception of the Social Competence School scale may be explained because the NLD group for t h i s study was selected a p r i o r i as average or above in reading a b i l i t y , a c r i t e r i o n which would f a c i l i t a t e higher s c h o l a s t i c achievement. The Achenbach norm group was not selected on th i s basis.] While the LD and NLD groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y , and the NLD group corresponded generally with Achenbach's n o n - c l i n i c norm group, i t should be noted that the LD children were also s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the c l i n i c groups in Achenbach's studies. [See Table 5.17 and Table 5.18.] 165 Table 5.17. Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the LD Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) C l i n i c Group on the Social Competence Scales. Scale Mean Social Competence A c t i v i t i e s LD 7.92 CIi n i c 6.3 Soci a l Competence Soci a l LD 6.41 C l i n i c 4.8 Soci a l Competence School LD 3.06 CIi n i c 3.6 Social Competence Tot a l Score LD 17.40 C l i n i c 15.0 * p, < .01. The LD children had greater s o c i a l competence in the areas of a c t i v i t i e s , s o c i a l i z i n g , and on the t o t a l s o c i a l competence score than did the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) c l i n i c group. [Note, however, that the Social Competence School mean i s lower for the LD children in t h i s study as they had been selected a p r i o r i because of low reading a b i l i t y , a factor associated with lower s c h o l a s t i c performance.] 166 S.D. 1.89 2.3 1.86 1.9 1.01 1.2 3.38 3.7 4.71 4.73 -2.90 3.89 <.01* <.01* <.01* <.01* -5.59 <.01* -5.05 <.01* -5.14 <.01* Table 5.18. Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of the LD Group and the Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983) C l i n i c Group on the Behavior Problem Scales. Scale Mean S.D. T p_ Schi zo i d LD 1.70 1.76 C l i n i c 3.5 2.6 Depressed LD 5.43 5.06 CIi n i c 10.1 6.4 Uncommun i cat i ve LD 2.87 2.49 CIi n i c 5.2 2.9 Qbsessi ve/Compulsi ve LD 4.30 3.80 CIi n i c 7.6 4.6 Somatic Complaints LD 1.33 1.09 C l i n i c 1.9 2.3 Social Hi thdrauial LD 2.17 2.17 C l i n i c 4.8 3.1 Hyperact i ve LD 6.47 4.58 CIi n i c 9.1 4.1 -4.76 <.01* -2.84 <.01* -6.66 <.01* -3.15 <.01* 167 Aggressi ve LD 10.73 7.85 CIi n i c 19.1 9.2 Deli nquen t LD 2.73 3.25 CIi n i c 5.3 4.1 In t e r n a l i z i n g LD 12.93 10.44 CIi n i c 23.1 12.2 Ex t e r n a l i z i ng LD 18.17 12.78 CIi n i c 30.5 13.1 Total Behavior Problem Score LD 34.40 24.80 C l i n i c 58.9 24.0 -5.84 <.01* -4.33 <.01* -5.34 <.01* <.01* -5.41 < . O'l* * p. < .01. Thus, although the LD children displayed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more behavioral problems in some areas than did the NLD children in t h i s study, they are not so behaviorally disordered as are a group of children referred to a c h i l d p s y c h i a t r i c f a c i l i t y . And, in the main, correspondence was demonstrated between the NLD group in t h i s study and the norm group described by Achenbach and Edelbrock (1983). 163 Results of A n c i l l a r y Measures: A t t r i b u t i o n s to Baseball Game (from a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g scale t r a i n i ng). M u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of variance (MANDVAS; SPSS*, 1983) were s i g n i f i c a n t for group e f f e c t s at the .01 alpha l e v e l for winning a baseball game, F (4,63) = 4.14, p_ < .01, and at the .02 alpha l e v e l for l o s i n g a baseball game, F (4,63) = 3.32, p_ < .02. In both s i t u a t i o n s the LD children a t t r i b u t e d greater causality to luck than did the NLD ch i l d r e n . Univariate analyses for "winning game" revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t for luck, F (1,66) = 10.05, p_ < .01, and for "l o s i n g game," a s i g n i f i c a n t group ef f e c t for luck, F (1,66) = 10.27, p_ < .01. [See Tables 5.19, and Table 5.20.] 169 Table 5.19. Analysis of Variance Results for A t t r i b u t i o n s for Winning Game. WIN GAME At t r i b u t i o n Mean S.D. F(l,66) EFFORT LD 6.43 .94 NLD 6.18 1.20 LUCK LD 4.13 2.19 NLD 2.63 1.72 ABILITY LD 5.93 1.01 NLD 6.13 .81 EASE LD 4.10 2.31 NLD 3.37 1.53 .87 <.36 10.05 <.01* ,80 <.37 2.45 <.12 * p_ < .01. 170 Table 5.20. Analysis of Variance Results for A t t r i b u t i o n s for Losing Game. LOSE GAME At t r i b u t i o n Mean S.D. F(l,66) p_ EFFORT LD 4.10 2.34 1.87 <.18 NLD 4.82 1.97 LUCK LD 3.93 2.08 NLD 2.50 1.61 ABILITY LD 3.03 1.96 NLD 3.32 1.99 DIFFICULTY LD 4.50 2.24 NLD 4.53 1.83 * p_ < .01. 10.27 <.01* ,34 <.56 00 <.96 171 I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale ( IAR) (Crandall. Katkovsky,1 and Crandall. 1965) , and Dweck's Measure of Mastery-Orientati*n versus Helplessness (Deiner and Dweck. 1978; 1980). A mu l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance (MANOVA) i s inappropriate for analyzing the IAR scale because the subscales are l i n e a r l y dependent. However, a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA; SPSS , 1983) demonstrates that NLD children accept more personal c r e d i t ( i . e . , make in t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ) for p o s i t i v e events (l"*~) than do LD c h i l d r e n . There were no group differences in a s c r i p t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for negative events (I ), or for the t o t a l i n t e r n a l i z i n g score (Total I ) . As w e l l , there was no group difference on the Dweck mastery-orientation/helplessness measure, a subset of 10 items on the IAR scale (refer to Appendix 11). The median score on the Dweck measure was seven out of a possible ten, and i t f a i l e d to discriminate between the two groups. [Diener and Dweck (1978; 1980) designate those scoring eight or more on t h i s scale as mastery-oriented, and those scoring six or l e s s as helpless. Those scoring seven, at the median, are dropped from the analyses.] [See Table 5.21.] 172 Table 5.21. Analysis of Variance Results for the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale and Dweck's Measure of Mastery- Orientation versus Helplessness. Scale Mean S.D. F(l,66) p_ I + Scale LD 13.17 2.91 NLD 14.37 1.87 I~ Scale LD 11.40 2.66 NLD 11.63 2.70 Total I Score LD 24.57 4.20 NLD 26.00 3.76 Duieck Measure LD 6.90 1.84 NLD 7.34 1.95 4.26 <.04* .12 <.72 2.20 <.14 .90 <.34 p_ < .05. Crandall et a l . (1965) reported variable, but generally low, r e l a t i o n s between I + and I scales (data include boys and g i r l s , grades three to 12. For grades four to s i x , the c o r r e l a t i o n s were: Grade 4 (n = 103) r = .11 Grade 5 (n = 99) r = .11 Grade 6 (n = 166) r = .38 * p_ < .001. 173 In t h i s study, c o r r e l a t i o n s between the I and I scales were r_ = .13, p_ < .24, for LD students, and r_ = .33, p_ < .02, for NLD students. Af f e c t or Mood Measure The a f f e c t or mood measures were analyzed through analyses of variance (ANOVAS; SPSS X, 1983). The two groups, LD/NLD, did not d i f f e r on pre-exper imen t a l task a f f e c t , F (1,66) = .115, p_ < .74. Nor did the two groups, LD/NLD, d i f f e r on post-experimental task a f f e c t , no matter to which experimental condition they were randomly assigned: Main e f f e c t for group: F (1,46) = .004, p_ < .95, Main e f f e c t for condition: F (1,46) = .325, p_ < .32, Group x Condition i n t e r a c t i o n : F (1,46) = .408, p_ < .40. Thus, t h i s was one check that there were no d i f f e r e n t i a l deleterious e f f e c t s due to random assignment to the " d i f f i c u l t " experimental condition: a f f e c t scores were not influenced by either group membership or experimental condition. [See Table 5.22 and Table 5.23.] Table 5.22. Pre-Task Aff e c t Mean Scores According to Group. LD (n=30) 5.67 NLD (n=38) 5.58 174 Table 5.23. Condi t i o n . Post-Task Aff e c t Mean Scores According to Group and Easy Condition D i f f i c u l t Condition LD 6.17 (n=12) 5.80 (n=10) NLD 6.00 (n=12) 6.00 (n=16) In addition, for those LD and NLD subjects randomly assigned to the d i f f i c u l t condition, a l a s t a f f e c t measure was taken after the c h i l d subsequently completed the easy experimental task (upon d e b r i e f i n g ) . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the LD and NLD children on t h i s measure, F (1,24) = .70, p_ < .41. [See Table 5.24.] Table 5.24. Means and Standard Deviations for Last A f f e c t . Mean Standard Deviation LD (n=10) 5.90 1.37 NLD (n=16) 6.25 .77 ,Enjoyment of the Experimental Task - Round Robin Racing. On the post-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire (see Appendix 12), each c h i l d in both the easy or d i f f i c u l t condition was asked: "How enjoyable did you f i n d t h i s game?0 His response was recorded on a seven-point r a t i n g scale from "very, very enjoyable" to "not enjoyable at a l l . " There was a s i g n i f i c a n t group x condition i n t e r a c t i o n , F (1,46) = 4.82, p_ < .03. In the easy condition the NLD children expressed greater enjoyment of the experimental task, while in the d i f f i c u l t condi t i o n . the LD children expressed greater enjoyment. [See Table 5.25.] 175 Table 5.25. Means and Standard Deviations for Enjoyment of the Experimental Task According to Group and Condition. LD 5.75 NLD 5.83 Easy Condition Mean S.D. .87 .94 D i f f i c u l t Condition Mean S.D. 6.40 .84 5.31 1.01 Total Mean for LD = 6.04; Total Mean for NLD = 5.54 Bannatyne's Recategorization of NISC-R Scores Recall that Bannatyne (1974) hypothesized a Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential pattern for LD students' WISC-R subtest scores and that t h i s pattern has been consistently found for both reading disabled (Rugel, 1974) and learning disabled (Smith et a l . , 1977) c h i l d r e n . In t h i s study, 19 out of 30, or 63.33% of the LD c h i l d r e n , and seven out of 38, or 18.42% of the NLD children follow t h i s Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential pattern. This represents a s i g n i f i c a n t group difference, chi-square (1, N = 68)= 12.48,p_ < .01. A p a r a l l e l analysis of variance reveals F (1,66) = 17.60, p_ < .01. Thus, for t h i s sample, Bannatyne's hypothesized pattern of Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential for LD subjects i s upheld. [See Table 5.26.] The two groups were not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the S p a t i a l category (Picture Completion, Block Design, and Object Assembly). However, the two groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the Conceptual category (Comprehension, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Vocabulary), the Sequential category 176 (Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, and Coding), and by the category (Information, Arithmetic, and Vocabulary): Acqu i red Spatial category: x 2 (16, N = 68) = 8.05, p_ < .95; £ (1,66) = .02, p_ < .88; Conceptual category: x 2 (23, N = 68) = 35.88, p_ < .04; £ (1,66) = 33.09, p_ < .01; Sequential category: x 2 (22, N = 68) = 34.41, p_ < .04; £ (1,66) = 29.40, p_ < .01; Acquired category: x 2 (24, N = 68) = 50.46, p_ < .01; £ (1,66) = 79.03, p_ < .01. Table 5.26. Means and Standard Deviations for Bannatyne's Recategorization of NISC-R Scaled Scores Spat i a l Concep tual Sequen t i a l Acqu i red M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. LD 36.93 4.47 32.00 4.16 26.93 4.14 28.37 3.54 NLD 37.10 4.48 38.95 5.48 32.53 4.28 37.16 4.41 Note. The means l i s t e d indicate the average of the summed scaled scores for the three relevant subtests. 1 7 ^ CHAPTER VI Discussion and Recommendations Qverv i ew Professionals working with learning disabled children have long been f r u s t r a t e d by the slow academic progress shown by such children even after thorough medical, psychological, and educational diagnoses and recommendations have been given and implemented. In recent years i t has been recognized that academic achievement i s not s o l e l y determined by academic or i n t e l l e c t u a l f a c t o r s . Rather, several researchers (e.g., Weiner and colleagues, and Dweck and colleagues) have shown how cognitive/emotional reactions to success and f a i l u r e are of great importance in understanding achievement-oriented behavior. A c h i l d ' s b e l i e f s or a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding the causes of behavior may mediate between antecedent transactions and r e s u l t i n g achievement behavior (e.g., Butkowsky & Willows, 1980). In t h i s study, the contribution of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral f a c t o r s , in p a r t i c u l a r , a t t r i b u t i o n s for performance, was examined in order to evaluate the r o l e such fac t o r s play in the academic progress of learning disabled c h i l d r e n . The experimental manipulation, the "Round-Robin Racing" board game, was successful. A l l children (LD/NLD) randomly assigned to the easy (success) condition did, indeed, succeed on the experimental task. Three of the LD subjects and one of the NLD subjects o r i g i n a l l y assigned to the d i f f i c u l t condition also 178 managed to succeed on the task, thus becoming part of the "success" group. A l l other subjects randomly assigned to the d i f f i c u l t condition f a i l e d to succeed on the experimental board game task. On the whole, while t h i s study supports the r e s u l t s of e a r l i e r studies regarding learning disabled children's maladaptive a t t r i b u t i o n s for imagined s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e events, no support was found for d i f f e r e n t i a l LD/NLD a t t r i b u t i o n s given an actual success or f a i l u r e experience. In addition, several cognitive processing and behavioral differences between LD and NLD children were noted. Results pertaining to the d i s s e r t a t i o n hypotheses w i l l be discussed along with a n c i l l a r y r e s u l t s as these r e l a t e to the hypotheses. Following the discussion of the r e s u l t s , an out l i n e of the psychological and educational implications of the study w i l l be given. F i n a l l y , some thoughts regarding future pertinent research w i l l be. outlined. Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s Pre-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s . The r e s u l t s of Hypothesis I revealed that learning disabled boys, compared with normally-achieving boys, aged 9-0 to 12-0, give evidence of a maladaptive a t t r i b u t i o n a l system when ascribing causes for an imagined successful academic performance. Given the pre-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire for "academic success on a test," the LD boys gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater causal a s c r i p t i o n s to "luck" and to "ease of the task," both external a t t r i b u t i o n s . They viewed external forces as having a greater r o l e in their success than did the NLD boys. This f i n d i n g i s consistent with the 179 l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Bryan & Pearl, 1979; Pearl, 1982; Pearl, Bryan, & Donahue, 1980). Recall that Abramson et a l . (1978) emphasize that i n t e r n a l , stable, and global a t t r i b u t i o n s ( i . e . , a b i l i t y and consistent e f f o r t ) for success or p o s i t i v e events remain most adaptive. Note, however, that the LD boys, l i k e the NLD boys, did ascribe q u a n t i t a t i v e l y greater causality to a b i l i t y and e f f o r t ; they simply also ascribed a greater r o l e to the external f a c t o r s of luck and task ease. Given personal h i s t o r i e s of academic f a i l u r e , or at least lesser academic ease, t h i s pattern would seem l o g i c a l . Results of Hypothesis II revealed that the LD and NLD boys ascribed s i m i l a r l e v e l s of causality to bad luck, task d i f f i c u l t y , and lack of a b i l i t y , in a t t r i b u t i o n s for academic f a i l u r e (pre-experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire). This i s inconsistent with the l i t e r a t u r e which has generally reported greater a s c r i p t i o n of lack of a b i l i t y for f a i l u r e on the part of LD children (e.g., Pearl et a l . , 1980), and on the part of "helpless-oriented" children (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Wortman, 1982). Recall that the central prediction of the learned helplessness reformulation (Abramson et a l . , 1978) i s that i n d i v i d u a l s who have an explanatory s t y l e that invokes i n t e r n a l , stable, and global causes ( i . e . , a b i l i t y ) for bad events tend to become depressed when bad events occur. However, c o u n t e r i n t u i t i v e l y , in t h i s study i t was found that there were nearly equal numbers of mastery-oriented (13 LD; 17 NLD) or helpless-oriented (11 LD; 13 NLD) c h i l d r e n . The LD and NLD boys did d i f f e r , however, in the emphasis 180 placed upon " e f f o r t . " The NLD boys were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more w i l l i n g to ascribe academic f a i l u r e to their own lack of e f f o r t . Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) have demonstrated that willingness to a t t r i b u t e f a i l u r e to a lack of e f f o r t i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mastery-oriented c h i l d r e n , children who persevere in the face of d i f f i c u l t y . An a t t r i b u t i o n to e f f o r t r e f l e c t s an acknowledgement of "personal c o n t r o l , " something which the LD c h i l d may not endorse as r e a d i l y as the NLD c h i l d . In a recently published study, Licht et a l . (1985) examined the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of LD and NLD boys and g i r l s . Measuring causal a t t r i b u t i o n s through an EAX ( E f f o r t vs. A b i l i t y vs. External) Scale (modified from the scale used by N i c h o l l s , 1979, and Pearl, 1982), the authors (Licht et a l . , 1985) found that in comparison with NLD boys, LD boys were l e s s l i k e l y to a t t r i b u t e their f a i l u r e s to i n s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t , and more l i k e l y to blame external f a c t o r s . However, the LD boys did not d i f f e r from the NLD boys in the extent to which they a t t r i b u t e d their f a i l u r e s to i n s u f f i c i e n t a b i l i t y . Thus, the findings of t h i s study correspond with the Licht et a l . (1985) r e s u l t s , even though the measuring instruments for tapping causal a t t r i b u t i o n s d i f f e r e d . Post-Task A t t r i b u t i o n s . The unique part of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n pertains to LD/NLD a t t r i b u t i o n s after an actual easy (success) or d i f f i c u l t ( f a i l u r e ) s i t u a t i o n . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t group differences in a t t r i b u t i o n patterns, o v e r a l l . Results showed that both LD and NLD boys ascribed greater causality to " e f f o r t " and " a b i l i t y " in the success (easy) condition, a most 181 adaptive pattern. There was demonstrated a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due to experimental condition, thus providing evidence for the effectiveness of the su c c e s s / f a i l u r e or e a s y / d i f f i c u l t manipulation. In addition, there was an i n t e r e s t i n g group by condition in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t for "luck" where, in the easy condition, the NLD children made greater external a t t r i b u t i o n to luck, while in the d i f f i c u l t condition, the LD children made greater external a t t r i b u t i o n to luck. This appears to be contrary to what i s suggested by the l i t e r a t u r e . For example, in most studies, causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of mastery-oriented subjects are to their a b i l i t i e s in success s i t u a t i o n s , and to changeable f a c t o r s (such as luck) in f a i l u r e s i t u a t i o n s . Helpless subjects generally do just the reverse (Dweck & Reppucci, 1973). However, here again, i t i s wise to r e c a l l that in t h i s study the LD and NLD subjects were not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the Dweck mastery- orientation/helplessness-orientation measure. There were f a i r l y equal numbers of mastery-oriented and helpless boys within each group (LD = 13 mastery-oriented and 11 helpless boys; NLD = 17 mastery-oriented and 13 helpless boys). Generally, the most s a l i e n t cue for luck a t t r i b u t i o n s i s the structure of the task. For example, f l i p p i n g a coin, or drawing a playing card from a shuffled deck, w i l l l o g i c a l l y r e s u l t in luck a s c r i p t i o n s for both success and f a i l u r e . The more v a l i d information for a t t r i b u t i o n to luck, however, comes from the pattern of outcomes. Independence and randomness of outcome, generally, indicate that luck i s the causal factor responsible (although there can be a misperception of a chance task as 1 8 2 skill-determined). Unique events may also y i e l d luck a t t r i b u t i o n s , e.g., f i n d i n g money on the street or experiencing f a i l u r e after a s e r i e s of successes (e.g., Feather, 1969; Feather & Simon, 1971b). The experimental task, as i t was administered only one time, may accurately have been perceived as a unique event. [ P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , i t should be r e c a l l e d that the LD boys gave greater a s c r i p t i o n s to "luck" for both winning and l o s i n g a baseball game, during the a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g scale training.] It seems that the NLD boys perceived a greater element of chance in the experimental task given the easy (success) condition, while the LD boys perceived a greater contribution of chance in the d i f f i c u l t ( f a i l u r e ) condition. Perhaps the LD boys made greater, luck a s c r i p t i o n s in the d i f f i c u l t condition as a means of saving face. The clearest f i n d i n g of what appears to be a motivated error in a t t r i b u t i o n i s that i n d i v i d u a l s are prone to accept c r e d i t for success while placing the blame for f a i l u r e on an external cause (e.g., M i l l e r , 1976; M i l l e r & Ross, 1975). Objectively, there was only the s l i g h t e s t element of chance in the experimental task. The v i s u a l closure type of task was chosen to manipulate s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e but with an allowance for the p o s s i b i l i t y of success under both experimental conditions. Insoluble anagrams, for example, seemed too manipulative and a r b i t r a r y , and i t was desired that the children perceive some p o s s i b i l i t y of success under either condition. A l l children randomly assigned to the easy condition succeeded; and three of the LD subjects and one of the NLD subjects o r i g i n a l l y assigned 183 to the " d i f f i c u l t " condition managed to succeed on the experimental task, thereby ending up in the "success" or "easy" experimental condition. So while the cards were l i t e r a l l y "stacked against them" in the d i f f i c u l t condition, there also remained some outside chance of success. [ P i l o t testing of the experimental manipulation was c a r r i e d out before the study began.] Subjective task d i f f i c u l t y i s , in part, a function of the perceived performance of other i n d i v i d u a l s at the task. If many other i n d i v i d u a l s succeed, then the task i s "easy;" but i f few succeed, then i t i s " d i f f i c u l t . " Thus, consensus information i s a key cue in i n f e r r i n g d i f f i c u l t y . But in t h i s study, no information was given regarding the performance of others on the experimental task. In giving the in s t r u c t i o n s for the experimental board game, the confederate experimenter sai d only: "Some of the cards you w i l l f i n d easy, and others may be more d i f f i c u l t , but they are a l l pictures or silh o u e t t e s of ordinary things." The e a s y / d i f f i c u l t task a t t r i b u t i o n revealed no group dif f e r e n c e s . Indeed, the mean a t t r i b u t i o n to task d i f f i c u l t y in the d i f f i c u l t or f a i l u r e condition was i d e n t i c a l for both LD and NLD subjects. This f i n d i n g was heartening in that the task was de l i b e r a t e l y and painstakingly chosen to be equally e a s y / d i f f i c u l t for both LD and NLD subjects. The desire was to f i n d a task which would not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y penalize the LD student: the r e s u l t s suggest that t h i s was indeed the case. While the two groups (LD/NLD) were not differentiaterf c f i the Dweck mastery-orientation versus helplessness measure, they were 184 d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the I measure of the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale (Crandall et a l . , 1965). The LD boys accepted f a r l e s s c r e d i t or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for p o s i t i v e events than did the NLD boys. This corresponds with the f i n d i n g that the LD boys gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater causal a s c r i p t i o n s to "luck" and "ease of the task" (external factors) on the pre— experimental task a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire. The r e s u l t s of both these measures provide evidence of a sense of lack of personal control or s e l f - e f f i c a c y (e.g., Bandura, 1977; 1981; Schunk, 1981) regarding p o s i t i v e outcomes or events on the part of the LD c h i l d r e n . The two groups did not d i f f e r in as c r i p t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for negative events, I , or on the Total I score, which combines scores for both p o s i t i v e and negative events. Thus, the LD and NLD groups d i f f e r e d more on their a t t r i b u t i o n s for "success" than for " f a i l u r e . " The LD boys attr i b u t e d success on the pre-experimental task questionnaire to "luck" and "ease of the task" s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than did the NLD boys; and they a t t r i b u t e d winning the baseball game (a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g scale training) to "luck" more than did the NLD boys. As Licht (1983) has remarked: "It has been noted, however, that when explanations for success and f a i l u r e are examined separately, the tendency for LD children to make external a t t r i b u t i o n s occurs primarily when explaining their successes (Boersma & Chapman, 1981; Chapman & Boersma, 1979b; Pearl et a l . , 1980; . . . ) . " The LD boys in thi s study, on both the pre-experimental and 185 post-experimental a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaires, did not a t t r i b u t e f a i l u r e to "lack l<f a b i l i t y , " as in other reported studies (e.g., Pearl et a l . , 1980). It i s unlikely that t h i s i s due to subject population differences since researchers in t h i s area have used both American and Canadian subjects. Much of the learned helplessness research has used Canadian populations (e.g., Boersma & Chapman, 1978; 1981; Butkowsky & Willows, 1980; Chapman & Boersma, 1979(a); Kuiper, 1978; Thomas & Pashley, 1982). Butkowsky and Willows (1980), for example, reported that poor readers displayed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n d i c a t i v e of learned helplessness, i . e . , a t t r i b u t i o n s of f a i l u r e s to lack of a b i l i t y . A b i l i t y inferences are primarily determined by information about the past. Repeated success or f a i l u r e , in part, suggests whether an in d i v i d u a l "can" or "cannot" (Heider, 1958, gave the la b e l "can" to one's perceived l e v e l of a b i l i t y in r e l a t i o n to the perceived d i f f i c u l t y of the task). Therefore, consistency i s an important cue for a b i l i t y inferences. But learning disabled students are notorious for their variable and inconsistent performance. On some days an LD c h i l d w i l l accomplish very l i t t l e , while on other days he or she w i l l astound classroom teachers by producing quite praiseworthy schoolwork. Thus, the inconsistency of o v e r a l l performance may lead the LD c h i l d to ascribe f a i l u r e to causes other than lack of a b i l i t y , since there are some occasions when school performance demonstrates good a b i l i t y . Regarding e f f o r t a t t r i b u t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l s generally use performance or outcome information to infer how hard they t r i e d , 186 even in chance s i t u a t i o n s (e.g., Kukla, 1972; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). One a t t r i b u t i o n a l explanation of t h i s perception (or misperception) i s that, in one's l i f e , e f f o r t and outcome generally covary. Therefore, given a p o s i t i v e outcome, an i n d i v i d u a l i n f e r s the presence of e f f o r t , while given a negative outcome, the i n d i v i d u a l i n f e r s the absence of e f f o r t (Weiner, 1980). In t h i s regard, the LD boys were no d i f f e r e n t from the NLD boys. Given the easy (success) condition, they ascribed success to good e f f o r t , but given the d i f f i c u l t ( f a i l u r e ) condition, they ascribed a lesser r o l e to e f f o r t . Pre-. Post-Measure Differences It had been hoped, as outlined in Chapter IV, the Method chapter, that the selected pre-, post-measures might prove h e u r i s t i c for future studies comparing the performances of LD and NLD c h i l d r e n . Results of t h i s study showed that the tasks which most d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the LD and NLD children were the " S e r i a l Recall" (on both pre- and post-measures) and "Color Naming" (post-measure only) tasks (see Das et a l . , 1979). The S e r i a l Recall task has been found to contribute to a "successive factor" in many factor a n a l y t i c studies (e.g., Das, 1980; Das et al.', ' 1975; Das, Leong, & Williams, 1978). Successive synthesis i s a form of information organization which does not permit analysis of the rel a t i o n s h i p of multiple elements to one another. Instead, information i s organized in a temporal, sequence-dependent fashion, with only l i m i t e d a c q u i s i t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l elements (see Das et a l . , 1979). Successive synthesis i s seen as a function of the anterior 187 (fronto-temporal) regions. Lesions in the f r o n t a l and fronto- temporal regions have been reported to r e s u l t in a general i n a b i l i t y "...to integrate i n d i v i d u a l motor and acoustic stimuli into successive. s e r i a l l y organized groups (L u r i a , 1966b, p. 125, i t a l i c s in the o r i g i n a l ) . " Duffy et a l . (1980a; 1980b), who topographically mapped their dyslexic subjects' brain e l e c t r i c a l a c t i v i t y , disclosed four d i s c r e t e regions of difference between the two groups (dyslexics and normals), involving both cerebral hemispheres, the l e f t more than the r i g h t . Aberrant dyslexic physiology was not r e s t r i c t e d to a s i n g l e locus but was found in much of the c o r t i c a l region generally involved in reading and speech. Conspicuous group differences were noted in the b i f r o n t a l area in addition to the more expected l e f t temporal and l e f t posterior quadrant regions. They noted also that an area previously unexplored in dyslexia, in the l e f t anterior region, provided the best features derived from EEG data. Ongoing and future research w i l l undoubtedly further illuminate the neurological c o r r e l a t e s of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . The Color Naming task taps a "speed of processing" factor outlined by Das et a l . (1979). Color Naming has been found to contribute to a "speed" factor in many factor a n a l y t i c studies (e.g., Das et a l . , 1975; Das et a l . , 1978). [The speed factor i s generally unrelated to the simultaneous-successive .tests.] One can gain an understanding of t h i s Stroop-type task from the thorough review a r t i c l e by Jensen and Rohwer, J r . (1966). These reviewers found that the most basic of the Stroop fac t o r s 188 i s probably the speed factor or "personal tempo," as Thurstone and Mellinger (1953) c a l l e d i t . Thurstone (1944) found that fast readers (subjects were 46 college freshmen) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y faster at color naming (p_ < .05) than were slow readers. And Jensen and Rohwer, J r . (1966, p. 52) state that "Despite the s i g n i f i c a n t improvement in color naming with p r a c t i c e , i n d i v i d u a l differences in color naming speed show remarkably l i t t l e i n t e r a c t i o n with p r a c t i c e ; Ss maintain pretty much the same rank order at every stage." Five major neurological f a c t o r s are most frequently c i t e d as possible causes of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : (a) s t r u c t u r a l damage; (b) p h y s i o l o g i c a l dysfunction; (c) abnormal cerebral l a t e r a l i z a t i o n ; (d) maturational l a g ; and (e) environmental deprivation (Kolb & Whishaw, 1980). One view of the p h y s i o l o g i c a l or brain dysfunction hypothesis holds that the dysfunction r e s u l t s from defective "arousal mechanisms." Since the neocortex i s normally activated by s u b c o r t i c a l structures, i t i s argued that i f the s u b c o r t i c a l input were missing or abnormal, than a s p e c i f i c c o r t i c a l region would dysfunction. This conclusion has been deduced from two p r i n c i p a l sources. F i r s t l y , Douglas and her colleagues (e.g., Douglas, 1976; Firestone & Douglas, 1975) have found that learning-disabled children have d i f f i c u l t y on continuous-performance tests which require them to react to p a r t i c u l a r stimuli while ignoring others (e.g., Stroop Color-Word Interference Test; Cohen, Weiss, and Minde, 1972). In a similar fashion, reaction-time studies show the children to have slower mean reaction times to signals (see Campbell et a l . , 1971). On tasks which involve v i s u a l 189 searching, where the c h i l d i s asked to search among several a l t e r n a t i v e s for a picture i d e n t i c a l to a standard picture (e.g., Matching Familiar Figures Test; Kagan et a l . , 1964), learning disabled children choose impulsively and quickly, making many more errors than do normal c h i l d r e n , who perform more slowly. Douglas (1976) concludes that the d e f i c i t s on these types of tasks res u l t from some form of inadequate cerebral a c t i v a t i o n . Douglas and several of her doctoral students have indeed found that performance on these forementioned tests i s improved with cerebral stimulants such as amphetamine and ca f f e i n e (see Cohen et a l . , 1971). Jensen and Rohwer, J r . (1966, p. 66) had reported e a r l i e r that "In general, stimulant drugs improve performance on a l l Stroop cards and decrease interference measures, while depressants and psychotomimetics ( v i z . LSD) have the opposite e f f e c t . " Recall that, in general, the visual-evoked responses (VER) of MBD/SLD children have been reported as immature, demonstrating longer l a t e n c i e s and larger amplitudes, resembling the responses of younger normal c h i l d r e n . Given that l a t e n c i e s presumably r e f l e c t the speed of mental processing, and given that l a t e n c i e s decrease with age, longer l a t e n c i e s represent immature responses (Accardo, 1980). In any case, perhaps the s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the LD and NLD groups on a task such as Color Naming, which taps speed of mental processing or "personal tempo" (Thurstone & Mellinger, 1953), should indicate to teachers of LD children that such children l e g i t i m a t e l y require extra time to both process information and to react to i t . 190 Supplementary Interpretations Regarding Pre-, and Post-Measures. Interesting differences on the pre-, post-measures were noted when a comparison was made of " a l l helpless LD versus NLD subjects", and " a l l mastery-oriented LD versus NLD subjects." The a l l helpless LD and NLD children d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on only two of the pre-measures, Free Recall 1 (LD = 34.18; NLD = 39.15; F (1,22) = 4.52, p_ < .04), and S e r i a l Recall 1 (LD = 28.73; NLD = 35.85; F (1,22) = 6.32, p_ < .02) and on none of the post-measures. The a l l mastery-oriented LD and NLD ch i l d r e n , however, d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on a l l six pre-measures (immediately following) and on three post-measures (see Table 6.1): Raven 1 (LD = 10.31; NLD = 11.18; F (1, 28) = 5.72, p_ < .02); Free Recall 1 (LD = 36.08; NLD = 40.12; F (1, 28) = 9.94, p_ < .01); S e r i a l Recall 1 (LD = 31.85; NLD = 37.24; F (1, 28) = 12.46, p_ < .01); Color Naming 1 (LD = 33.31; NLD = 28.47; F (1, 28) = 4.79, p_ < .04); Ideational Fluency 1 (LD = 5.38; NLD = 9.29; F (1, 28) = 5.83, p_ < .02); Aim 1 (LD = 10.31; NLD = 15.76; F (1, 28) = 16.17, p_ < .01). The a l l mastery-oriented LD and NLD children also d i f f e r e d on three post-measures (see Table 6.1). 191 Table 6.1. Means and Standard Deviations of " A l l Mastery- Q-jented LD versus NLD Children" on Three Post-Measures. Ccilor Naming 2 " i . ) Mastery LD Mastery NLD ij* Easy Condition 32.00 (5.57) 27.00 (6.23) D i f f i c u l t Condition 31.60 (6.11) 26.40:(3.47) Main e f f e c t for Group, F (1, 20) = 5.06, p_ < .04. Ideational Fluency 2 Mastery LD Mastery NLD Easy Condi tion 4.00 (5.29) 10.17 (5.04) D i f f i c u l t Condition 3.60 (2.41) 8.50 (5.15) Main e f f e c t for Group, F (1, 20) = 6.89, p_ < .02. Aim 2 Mastery LD Mastery NLD Easy Condition 16.00 (1.73) 12.83 (3.76) D i f f i c u l t Condition 9.60 (3.21) 18.80 (2.10) Main e f f e c t for Group, F (1, 20) = 5.77, p_ < .03. Group x Condition i n t e r a c t i o n , F (1, 20) = 24.25, p_ < .01 192 From t h i s data, i t appears that children who have a "helpless" orientation are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d only on those two tasks requiring sequencing or successive processing. When comparing a l l "mastery-oriented" LD and NLD ch i l d r e n , s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on a l l of the six pre- measures, and on three of the post-measures. The three post- measures involved speed of mental processing ( a l l three tasks), verbal fluency (Ideational Fluency 2), and v i s u a l motor dexterity (Aim 2). In analyzing data from LO subjects only, who are divided into helpless (n. = 11) versus mastery-oriented (n, = 13) categories, no differences arose on the pre-, or post-measures. However, when analyzing data from NLD subjects only, divided into helpless (n. = 13) versus mastery-oriented (n, = 17) categories, differences were noted on the pre-measure, Aim 1 (helpless NLD = 11.15; mastery-oriented NLD = 15.76; F (1, 28) = 14.39, p_ < .01), and on the post-measures Color Naming 2 (helpless NLD = 30.08; mastery-oriented NLD = 26.59; F (1, 28) = 4.47, p_ < .04) and Aim 2 (helpless NLD = 12.92; mastery-oriented NLD = 16.24; F (1, 28) = 5.05, p_ < .03). It would appear that speed of mental processing or "reaction time" i s affected by a helpless orientation for NLD subjects. In general, analyses and interpretations according to "helplessness orientation" versus "mastery or i e n t a t i o n " are beyond the scope of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , which deals more s p e c i f i c a l l y with comparisons between LD and NLD students in a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . However, these few forementioned r e s u l t s may i n s p i r e future research in the area of helplessness versus 193 mastery-orientation. Bannatyne's Recategorization of WISC-R Scores For LD subjects, Bannatyne's hypothesized pattern of Spatial>Conceptual>Sequential was upheld in t h i s study. This pattern i s consistent with Bannatyne's (1971) description of genetic dyslexia. Moreover, the LD subjects in t h i s study also f i t Ryckman's and Elrod's (1983) subgroup of "genetic dyslexia," which required that Spatial be greater than Conceptual and that Sequential be 10 or more lower than S p a t i a l . [The Ryckman and Elrod (1983) study demonstrated f i v e subgroups of LD children within Bannatyne's recategorization paradigm. They (Ryckman & Elrod, 1983) f e l t that recognition of such intragroup v a r i a t i o n would help c l a r i f y issues of diagnosis and remediation.] The LD and NLD groups in t h i s study were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the Conceptual, Sequential, and Acquired categories (NLD scores were higher for a l l categories), but were not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the Spa t i a l category. Remember, though, that the LD and NLD groups were i n i t i a l l y matched on WISC-R performance scale IQ, and that the Spa t i a l category i s composed of three performance scale subtests - Picture Completion, Block Design, and Object Assembly. [Indeed, before matching, with a subject sample of 98 subjects (44 LD; 54 NLD), the two groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on a l l categories, including the Spatial category beyond the alpha = .01 l e v e l . ] 194 Expectancies for Self There were no differences between LD and NLD boys in "expectancy for s e l f , " pre-task. However, group differences were revealed in post-task self-expectancy ratings. The LD children, across conditions, expected to do better. In addition, on the post-task r a t i n g scale, both LD and NLD children gave higher self-expectancy ratings in the "easy" condition, and lower self-expectancy ratings in the " d i f f i c u l t " condition. Such t y p i c a l s h i f t s in expectancy, i . e . , increments in expectancy after success and decrements after f a i l u r e , have been found to r e s u l t from a t t r i b u t i o n or a s c r i p t i o n of an outcome to stable f a c t o r s (Weiner et a l . , 1376). These stable f a c t o r s may be perceived a b i l i t y or perceived easiness or d i f f i c u l t y of the task ( i n s k i l l - rather than luck-determined s e t t i n g s ) . Success ascribed to high a b i l i t y or to the ease of the task has been found to lead to greater increments in the subjective expectancy of future success at that task than does success ascribed to good luck (McMahan, 1373). As w e l l , f a i l u r e ascribed to low a b i l i t y or to the d i f f i c u l t y of the task decreases the expectancy of future goal attainment more than does f a i l u r e ascribed to bad luck or to a lack of e f f o r t ( V a l l e & Frie z e , 1376). Overall, the LD youngsters expected to do better than did the NLD youngsters. Both groups displayed t y p i c a l s h i f t s in s e l f - expectancy, i . e . , increments after success, and decrements after f a i l u r e . 195 Expectancies for Other On the "expectancy for other," pre-taskj there was a trend for the LD c h i l d r e n , compared to the NLD ch i l d r e n , to expect better performance for "another boy." And, for "expectancy for other," post-task, regardless of condition, the LD children gave higher expectancy of success ratings for "other" than did the NLD c h i l d r e n . Both LD and NLD children had a higher post-task "expectancy for other" in the easy experimental condition. Ch i l d Behavior Correlates Examination of the C h i l d Behavior Checklist (CBCL) r e s u l t s lead to the conclusion that the LD and NLD boys are indeed s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in a number of competency areas and on a number of behavior problem scales. Achenbach and Edelbrock (1981) reported that among the s o c i a l competence items, the open-ended item requesting parents to report school problems showed the largest e f f e c t s of c l i n i c a l status, with other items tapping school functioning and s o c i a l behavior also showing large e f f e c t s of c l i n i c a l status. However, the t o t a l scores for behavior problems and for s o c i a l competence showed larger e f f e c t s than any of their i n d i v i d u a l component items. In t h i s study, there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between LD and NLD boys on a l l the forementioned scores. There were group differences at the alpha = .01 l e v e l for Social Competence School, and Social Competence Total Score; and a group difference at the alpha = .02 l e v e l for the Social Competence Soc i a l scale. (There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference, however, 196 between the LD and NLD boys on the S o c i a l Competence A c t i v i t i e s scale.) The reader should nevertheless also keep in mind the fact that the LD boys' scores on both the competency scales and the behavior problem scales were also s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of Achenbach's c l i n i c population (at alpha = .01 l e v e l ) . The LD children had s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater competence for Social Competence A c t i v i t i e s , Social Competence S o c i a l , and on the S o c i a l Competence Total Score. However, the LD children were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the Social Competence School scale, having been chosen a p r i o r i for low reading a b i l i t y . On the behavior problem scales, the c l i n i c sample scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (worse) than the LD group (alpha = .01 l e v e l ) . Regarding the behavior problem scales, Achenbach and Edelbrock (1981) have reported that the largest main e f f e c t s of c l i n i c a l status across age/gender groups were the items "Unhappy, sad, or depressed," and "Poor school work." The item "Unhappy, sad, or depressed," #103, contributes to two behavior scales, the Depressed scale, and the Uncommunicative scale, and the second-order I n t e r n a l i z i n g scale, while the item "Poor school work," #61, contributes to the Hyperactive behavior scale, and the second-order E x t e r n a l i z i n g scale. The LD boys in t h i s study d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the NLD boys on a l l of the forementioned scales, Depressed, Hyperactive, I n t e r n a l i z i n g , and E x t e r n a l i z i n g , at the alpha = .01 l e v e l . Achenbach and Edelbrock (1981) suggest that the fact that "Unhappy, sad, or depressed" was most strongly associated with r e f e r r a l status lends j u s t i f i c a t i o n to the current upsurge in concern for childhood depression (e.g., Schulterbrandt & Raskin, 1977). 197 In addition to the Depressed, Hyperactive, I n t e r n a l i z i n g , and Ext e r n a l i z i n g scales, the LD and NLD boys d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the Tot a l Behavior Problem Score (alpha = .01), and on the Obsessive/Compulsive, Aggressive, and Delinquent scales (alpha = .05 or l e s s ) . Again, i t i s important to keep in mind the fact that while LD boys' scores are s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher when compared with NLD boys', their scores are s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower when compared to a c l i n i c a l l y referred population (alpha = .01 on a l l behavior problem s c a l e s ) . It should also be mentioned that the NLD boys in t h i s study were comparable to the nonreferred boys used in Achenbach's norm group. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferences between NLD and n o n - c l i n i c groups on any of the behavior scales, and no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on a l l but one of the s o c i a l competency scales. Understandably, the NLD chi l d r e n , who were selected as subjects by the c r i t e r i o n of a reading p e r c e n t i l e score >. 50, had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores on the Soc i a l Competence School scale. It should be mentioned here that McConaughy and Ri t t e r (1385) have recently published data on s o c i a l competence and behavioral problems for 123 learning disabled boys aged 6 - 11. However, their subjects were those who had been referre d for a psychoeducational assessment at the Center for Disorders of Communication at the University of Vermont, while the subjects in t h i s study were " s c h o o l - i d e n t i f i e d " learning disabled youngsters. In the McConaughy and R i t t e r (1985) study, LD boys were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the normative samples in their 198 p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a c t i v i t i e s (unlike t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ' s sample), and in their s o c i a l involvement and school performance (corresponding to t h i s study's LD sample). As w e l l , on the behavior problem scales, the LD boys had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores for both "externalizing" and " i n t e r n a l i z i n g " types of problems, including those related to depression, uncommunicativeness, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, s o c i a l withdrawal, hype r a c t i v i t y , aggressiveness and delinquency. These r e s u l t s correspond to those of t h i s study except that the McConaughy and R i t t e r (1985) r e s u l t s demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the two additional behavior scales, " s o c i a l withdrawal" (p_ < .07 in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ) , and "uncommunicati veness" (p_ < .11 in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ) . In addition, the t o t a l number of behavior problems was within what i s considered the c l i n i c a l range for children referred to mental health c l i n i c s , suggesting s i g n i f i c a n t behavior disturbance, in the McConaughy and R i t t e r (1985) study. The t o t a l number of behavior problems reported in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , however, while s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the t o t a l for the NLD control group, was also s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the t o t a l for a c l i n i c group. The " s c h o o l - i d e n t i f i e d " LD boys from t h i s study seem l e s s disturbed, o v e r a l l , than the " c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d " LD boys of the McConaughy and R i t t e r (1985) study. It would appear that LD c h i l d r e n , as a whole, in r e l a t i o n to NLD chi l d r e n , are at a somewhat greater r i s k for psychopathology. Educators and other professionals dealing with LD children should be aware of t h i s , and should attempt to evaluate LD children in psychological and behavioral areas as 199 well as in educational ones. For example, several of the behaviors outlined by Colbert et a l . (1982) as i n d i c a t i v e of childhood depression (e.g., dysphoria; sadness; aggressive behavior; restlessness) are behaviors which d i f f e r e n t i a t e LD and NLD c h i l d r e n . At the same time, i t has to be recognized that for any s p e c i f i c LD c h i l d , personality or behavioral f a c t o r s may or may not be p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to in-school or out-of-school performance. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e regarding depression, for example, points to the substantial contribution of genetic fac t o r s in the etiology of major depressive disorder. Recall that Weiner (1978), in reviewing childhood depression, concluded that while i t i s not unusual to f i n d depressive symptoms as well as low self-esteem in children with learning disorders and/or hypera c t i v i t y , such ch i l d r e n , based upon follow-up and family studies of hyperactive children (Mendelson, Johnson, & Stewart, 1971; Menkes, Rowe, & Menkes, 1967), are not at a high r i s k to develop primary a f f e c t i v e disorder. Organismic as well as environmental f a c t o r s play a r o l e in the development of p s y c h i a t r i c disorder. It may be the case that another variable, together with s o c i a l competency and behavioral f a c t o r s , may provide a better means of understanding a c h i l d ' s motivation and subsequent performance. For example, i f the LD and NLD groups are subdivided into mastery-oriented versus helpless categories and " a l l mastery-oriented LD and NLD children" are compared, there are s i g n i f i c a n t group differences only for Social Competence 200 School (LD = 3.00; NLD = 5.18; £ (1, 28) = 46.38, p_ < .01), Tota l S o c i a l Competence (LD = 17.50; NLD =21.17, £ (1, 28) = 11.05, p_ < .01), and Hyperactive (LD = 5.69; NLD = 3.06; £ (1, 28) = 4.11 p_ < .03) scales. However, when " a l l helpless LD and NLD children" are compared, there are s i g n i f i c a n t group differences on Social Competence School (LD = 3.16; NLD = 5.06; £ (1, 22) = 51.65, p. < .01), Total Social Competence (LD = 17.58; NLD = 20.47; £ (1, 22) = 4.65, p_ < .04), Schizoid (LD = 2.36; NLD = 1.00; £ (1, 22) = 6.01, p. < .02), Obsessive/Compulsive (LD = 5.45; NLD = 2.00; £ (1, 22) = 7.72, p. < .01), Somatic Complaints (LD = 1.54; NLD = .54; £ (1, 22) = 6.66, p_ < .02), Hyperactive (LD = 7.09; NLD = 2.23; £ (1, 22) = 8.92, p_ < .01), and In t e r n a l i z i n g (LD = 14.82; NLD = 7.54; £ (1, 22) = 4.31 p_ < .05) scales, as well as on T score for In t e r n a l i z i n g (LD = 59.27; NLD = 50.38; £ (1, 22) = 5.40, p_ < .03), and T score for Ex t e r n a l i z i n g (LD = 58.27; NLD = 48.69; £ (1, 22) = 4.21, p_ < .05) . Intere s t i n g l y , the " a l l mastery-oriented LD and NLD children" d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the I + scale of the I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Scale (p < .03), on the Total I scale (p < .02), and on the Dweck mastery/helplessness score (p < .05), with NLD children having higher scores on a l l of these measures. But the mastery-oriented LD and NLD children did not d i f f e r in a s c r i p t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for negative events, the I scale. Recall that a mastery-oriented c h i l d , by d e f i n i t i o n (Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980), i s one who accepts personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for negative events. He i s the c h i l d who ascribes f a i l u r e to h i s own lack of e f f o r t and who p e r s i s t s in the face 201 of d i f f i c u l t y . A t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g (see Dweck, 1975; Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980; Li c h t , 1983), which involves either i n d i r e c t or d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n in a t t r i b u t i n g f a i l u r e s to a "lack of e f f o r t , " thus appears quite j u s t i f i e d . There were no group differences on the IAR scales or on the Dweck measure, however, for the " a l l helpless LD and NLD chil d r e n . " Overall, learning disabled children appear es p e c i a l l y r e t i c e n t about accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or c r e d i t for p o s i t i v e events, even those LD children who are mastery-oriented! It was outlined beforehand how LD ch i l d r e n , more than NLD ch i l d r e n , a t t r i b u t e success (on a questionnaire) to external f a c t o r s such as luck and ease of the task. Perhaps a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g for LD children should include both teaching them to a t t r i b u t e f a i l u r e to a "lack of e f f o r t , " and teaching them to a t t r i b u t e success to their "good e f f o r t " and " a b i l i t y . " A f f e c t and Enjoyment of the Task There were no differences in reported af f e c t or mood between the LD and NLD boys either before or after the experimental task. Aff e c t scores were not influenced by either group membership or experimental condition. In addition, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between LD and NLD children randomly assigned to the d i f f i c u l t condition on the " l a s t a f f e c t " measure, taken after debriefing and subsequent completion of the easy experimental task. A l l subjects, both LD and NLD, seemed to thoroughly enjoy their p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the study. Many expressed disappointment when the three testing sessions were 202 f i n i s h e d . Children in both the easy and the d i f f i c u l t conditions were asked, after the experimental task, "How enjoyable did you f i n d t h i s game?" Their responses revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t group by condition i n t e r a c t i o n . In the easy condition, the NLD children expressed greater enjoyment of the experimental task, while in the d i f f i c u l t condition, the LD children expressed greater enjoyment. Perhaps the LD children were l e s s upset by a (contrived) f a i l u r e experience because, in general, they have had more exposure to f a i l u r e events. Or t h i s r e s u l t may simply r e f l e c t a motivational bias ( M i l l e r , 1976; M i l l e r & Ross, 1975). Affec t was measured during t h i s study to monitor the children's f e e l i n g states during the three t e s t i n g sessions, e s p e c i a l l y during the t h i r d (experimental task) session. Recent research has shown, for example, that p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e states enhance learning, while negative states retard learning (Masters et a l . , 1979). P o s i t i v e and negative expressed a f f e c t i v e states were strongly associated with the o v e r a l l rate and accuracy of children's learning, and negative states influenced the speed of cognitive processing ( i . e . , the r a p i d i t y with which a solution was reported). Masters and h i s colleagues (Masters & Furman, 1976; Masters et a l . , 1979) have demonstrated that young nursery school children have the p o t e n t i a l for the cognitive s e l f - c o n t r o l of their own a f f e c t i v e states, and "the e f f e c t s on learning indicate that even transient mood states may produce l a s t i n g changes in behavior (Masters et a l . , 1979, p. 380).• 203 ...The influence of a f f e c t i v e variables on persistence at e f f o r t f u l behavior may be mediated by reinforcement e f f e c t s , i f the variables are of p o s i t i v e or negative valence, such as favorable or unfavorable sel f - e v a l u a t i o n (Masters & Santrock, 1976) and i f they are consequent to the e f f o r t f u l behavior. There i s some evidence, however, that the impact of self-e v a l u a t i o n s and their emotional concomitants may a f f e c t learning through incentive or other motivational mechanisms that are not consequent to learning but actually occur in a n t i c i p a t i o n of i n t e l l e c t u a l mastery (Masters, Furman, & Barden, 1977). Thus, mood states bearing no contingent r e l a t i o n s h i p to performance may a f f e c t performance, learning, or mastery not through reinforcement processes but through motivational or arousal components (Masters, Barden, & Ford, 1979, pp. 380 - 381). Weiner (1983) and colleagues are also in the process of examining the r o l e of af f e c t in achievement-related behavior (e.g., Weiner, Russell, & Lerman, 1978). 204 Implications In recent years, i t has been suggested (e.g., Black, 1974; L i c h t , 1983; Thomas, 1979) that LD children are caught in a chain of events wherein early school f a i l u r e (for whatever reason or combination of factors) leads them to doubt their i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s , and, therefore, to doubt that anything they do w i l l help them overcome their problems. They then lessen their achievement e f f o r t s , e s p e c i a l l y when dealing with d i f f i c u l t m a terial, and t h i s , in turn, increases the l i k e l i h o o d of continued f a i l u r e which, again, strengthens the LD children's b e l i e f s that they lack the a b i l i t y to overcome their d i f f i c u l t i e s . As these b e l i e f s become strengthened, they become generalized so that even easier academic experiences come to be interpreted in a maladaptive fashion. Even i f the c h i l d does experience some success (e.g., as a re s u l t of a s p e c i f i c remedial program or an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d educational program) he or she may not acknowledge personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i t . Instead, he or she may a t t r i b u t e success to external f a c t o r s , such as luck or ease of the task. The implication of the foregoing analysis i s that more than remediation of academic d e f i c i t s i s required i f the LD c h i l d i s to be disentangled from t h i s c y c l i c a l pattern. The c h i l d ' s maladaptive b e l i e f s or a t t r i b u t i o n s must be dealt with as w e l l . Dweck and colleagues ( Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980; Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) have outlined excellent s t r a t e g i e s for optimizing adaptive patterns of a t t r i b u t i o n for elementary school-aged c h i l d r e n . They have demonstrated that children who. 205 tend to hold b e l i e f s which imply that their d i f f i c u l t i e s are surmountable through their own e f f o r t s w i l l be most l i k e l y to engage in adaptive achievement-oriented behaviors. Dweck (1975) demonstrated that " a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g " treatment, whereby children were taught to a t t r i b u t e the programmed f a i l u r e s they received to a lack of e f f o r t , was more successful than a "success only" treatment in a l t e r i n g children's responses to f a i l u r e . The " a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g " group showed a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater tendency to emphasize e f f o r t over a b i l i t y as a determinant of f a i l u r e . In essence, helpless children who were taught to a t t r i b u t e their f a i l u r e s in the manner of mastery-oriented children began to cope with f a i l u r e in a mastery-oriented s t y l e as w e l l . They began to p e r s i s t at d i f f i c u l t tasks and their performance improved. [Training materials should be arranged in such a way that the c h i l d ' s increased e f f o r t s w i l l , indeed, r e s u l t in improved task performance.] In addition, Licht (1983; also see Torgesen and L i c h t , 1983) recommends a t t r i b u t i n g one's f a i l u r e s to " i n e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . " She reasons that i f a c h i l d increases e f f o r t , and s t i l l f a i l s , she or he may become even more discouraged than before e f f o r t s at " a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g " had been i n i t i a t e d . There i s a considerable body of l i t e r a t u r e , as w e l l , that suggests that an important contributing factor to the poor performance of LD children i s their f a i l u r e to use planned, organized s t r a t e g i e s that are within their l e v e l of a b i l i t y (e.g., Douglas, 1976). "Perhaps, when children confront d i f f i c u l t y , the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e that they should consider i s 206 increasing their e f f o r t s . In the event that t h i s does not succeed, changing to an a l t e r n a t i v e strategy might be considered ( L i c h t , 1983, p. 48?)." ^ Several researchers ha e attempted to match i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods to children's p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . For example, Pascarella and Pflaum (1981) and P a s c a r e l l a , Pflaum, Bryan, and Pearl (1983) found that children with an external locus of c o n t r o l , i . e . , those who do not believe that they are responsible for their successes and f a i l u r e s , learned more in a "teacher determination of errors" condition (task: using context cues in o r a l reading); while children with an i n t e r n a l locus of control ( p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f o r t ) learned more in a "student determination of errors" condition. In an e a r l i e r study, Bugental, Nhalen, and Henker (1977) also found an i n t e r a c t i o n between locus of control and most e f f e c t i v e type of tutoring program used for hyperactive c h i l d r e n . A " s e l f - c o n t r o l " intervention produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater error reduction on the mazes (task: Porteus Mazes; Porteus, 1942) for children with (a) high perceived personal c a u s a l i t y and (b) nonmedicated chi l d r e n ; while a "social-reinforcement" intervention produced trends toward greater error reduction for (a) children with low perceived personal causality and (b) medicated children ( R i t a l i n or methylphenidate). From the findings of t h i s study, one might recommend emphasis upon a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g regarding " p o s i t i v e events or success." Learning disabled children e s p e c i a l l y should be encouraged to accept c r e d i t or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for their 207 successes. A s c r i p t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y to i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s such as good e f f o r t and good a b i l i t y should be encouraged. Special attention might be paid to those LD students who are "learned helpless" in orientation to f a i l u r e . Future Directions The r e s u l t s of t h i s study lead one to a number of suggestions. F i r s t and foremost, t h i s study should be r e p l i c a t e d with LD g i r l s since i t has been demonstrated in the l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Dweck & Bush, 1976; Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978) that g i r l s , when compared with boys, exhibit an a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e that i s more p r e d i c t i v e of learned helplessness and, perhaps, even l a t e r depression (e.g., Dweck & Wortman, 1982; also see Radloff, 1975; Weissman & Klerman, 1977). The Dweck and Bush (1976) and the Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, and Enna (1978) studies used as subjects g i r l s who were normal achievers. It would be i n s t r u c t i v e to see what r e s u l t s would be found with learning disabled g i r l s . The experimental task was chosen with great care so as not to d i f f e r e n t i a l l y penalize the LD boys. But the experimental s i t u a t i o n , o v e r a l l , was a contrived one. E c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y would be enhanced by obtaining the children's a t t r i b u t i o n s in their own classrooms, preferably immediately after a n a t u r a l l y - occurring event such as, for example, tes t i n g on the reading sections of the Stanford Achievement Tests (Gardner et a l . , 1973) or the Canadian Tests of Basic S k i l l s (King et a l . , 1981). Most school d i s t r i c t s administer these standardized tests at prescribed i n t e r v a l s , and i t should not be too d i f f i c u l t to 208 coordinate a f i e l d experiment within such a context. This study demonstrated that LD boys d i f f e r e d from NLD boys in several competency and behavior problem areas of the Chi l d Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1981a). Nhy are there differences? Is there something i n t r i n s i c in the LD c h i l d ' s personality that causes these differences? Do these differences a r i s e a f t e r several years of experiencing d i f f i c u l t y in school? Only l o n g i t u d i n a l research w i l l provide some acceptable explanations. Perhaps each school board could ask parents to complete a Ch i l d Behavior Checklist for each c h i l d entering kindergarten. With repeat CBCLs at i n t e r v a l s of, perhaps, every two or three years, i t should be possible to answer some of the questions regarding competency and behavior problems for various subpopulations of school c h i l d r e n . F i n a l l y , a closer examination of that sub-population of learning disabled children who are "helpless" in orient a t i o n to learning tasks, rather than "mastery-oriented," may lead to even clearer remedial and ameliorative recommendations. Data from t h i s study indicated differences on both performance measures and behavioral measures according to mastery versus helpless orien t a t i o n for both LD and NLD boys. 209 Bibliography Abramson, L.Y., A l l o y , L.B., & Rosoff, R. (1981). Depression and the generation of complex hypotheses in the judgment of contingency. Behavior Research and Therapy. 19. 75-86. Abramson, L.Y., Garber, J . , Edwards, N.B., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1978). Expectancy changes in depression and schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 102-109. Abramson, L.Y., Garber, J . , & Seligman, M.E.P. (1980). Learned helplessness in humans: An a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . In J . Garber and M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: theory and app l i c a t i o n s . New York: Academic Press. Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: C r i t i q u e and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 49-74. Accardo, P.J. (1980). A neurodevelopmental perspective on s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Achenbach, T.M. (1966). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of children's p s y c h i a t r i c symptoms: A factor a n a l y t i c study. Psychological Monographs. 80, (7, Whole No. 615). Achenbach, T.M. (1978). The c h i l d behavior p r o f i l e : I. Boys aged 6-11. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 46. 478-488. Achenbach, T.M. (1979). The c h i l d behavior p r o f i l e : An empirically based system for assessing children's behavioral problems and competencies. International Journal of Mental Health. 7, 24-42. Achenbach, T.M. (1981a). Child behavior c h e c k l i s t for ages 4-16. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 05405. Achenbach, T.M. (1981b, May 4). Norkshop B: Chi l d Behavior Checklist for Ages 4 - 16. Address and workshop presented at the conference e n t i t l e d " C l i n i c a l Concerns in Child Development: A Focus on Cognition." Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C.S. (1978). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical e f f o r t s . Psychological B u l l e t i n . 85. 1275-1301. Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C.S. (1979). The c h i l d behavior p r o f i l e : I I . Boys aged 12-16 and g i r l s aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47, 223-233. 210 Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged 4 through 16. Monographs of the Society for Research in C h i l d Development. 46. ( S e r i a l No. 188). Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C.S. (1983). Manual for the c h i l d behavior c h e c k l i s t and revised c h i l d behavior P r o f i l e . Queen City P r i n t e r s Inc. Ackerman, P.T., Dykman, R.A., & Peters, J.E. (1977a). Learning disabled boys as adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of C h i l d Psychiatry. 16. 296-313. Ackerman, P.T., Dykman, R.A., & Peters, J.E. (1977b). Teenage status of hyperactive and non-hyperactive learning disabled boys. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 47. 577-596. Adelman, H.S. (1979a). Diagnostic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of LD: A p r a c t i c a l necessity and a procedural problem. Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 2, 56-62. Adelman, H.S. (1979b). Diagnostic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of LD: Research and e t h i c a l perspectives as rel a t e d to p r a c t i c e . Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 2, 5-16. Alden, L., & Cappe, R. (1981). Nonassertiveness: S k i l l d e f i c i t or s e l e c t i v e self-evaluation? Behavior Therapy. 12, 107- 114. A l l o y , L.B., Peterson, C., Abramson, L.Y., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1984). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e and the generality of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46, 681-687. American P s y c h i a t r i c Association (1980). Diagnostic and s t a t i s t i c a l manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Ames, C. (1978). Children's achievement a t t r i b u t i o n s and s e l f - reinforcement: E f f e c t s of self-concept and competitive reward structure. J o u r n a l o f Educational Psychology. 70, 345-355. Andrews, G.R., & Debus, R.L. (1978). Persistence and causal perception of f a i l u r e : Modifying cognitive a t t r i b u t i o n s . Journal of Educational Psychology. 70, 154-166. Anthony, E.J., & Scott, P. (1960). Manic depressive psychosis in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. lf 53-72. 211 A r a j a r v i , T., & Huttunen, M. (1972). Encopresis and enuresis as symptoms of depression. In A.L. Annell (Ed.): Depressive States in Childhood and Adolescence (pp. 212-217). Stockholm: Almquist & H i k s e l l . Arkin, R.M., Appieman, A.J., & Burger, J.M. (1980). So c i a l anxiety, self-presentation and the s e l f - s e r v i n g bias in causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 38. 23-39. The (U.S.) Association for Children and Adults with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s (1984). Answering the c r i s i s in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association for Children and Adults with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . Atkinson, J.N. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Van Nostrand. Atkinson, J.W., & Feather, N.T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley. Bakwin, H. (1972). Depression—a mood disorder in children and adolescents. Maryland State Medical Journal. 21, 55-61. Bandura, A. (1977). Self e f f i c a c y : Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84. 191-215. Bandura, A. (1981). Se l f - r e f e r e n t thought: A developmental analysis of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . In J.H. F l a v e l l & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: F r o n t i e r s and possible futures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bannatyne, A. (1968). Diagnosing learning d i s a b i l i t i e s and wr i t i n g remedial p r e s c r i p t i o n s . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 7, 272-273. Bannatyne, A. (1971). Language. reading and learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . S p r i n g f i e l d , I I : Charles C. Thomas. Bannatyne, A. (1974). Diagnosis: A note on recategorization of the WISC scaled scores. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 7, 272-273. Barden, R.C., Garber, J ., Duncan, S.W., & Masters, J.C. (1981). Cumulative e f f e c t s of induced a f f e c t i v e states in c h i l d r e n : Accentuation, inoculation, and remediation. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 40, 750-760. Barnett, M.A., Howard, J.A., Melton, E.M., & Dino, G.A. (1982). E f f e c t of inducing sadness about s e l f or other on helping behavior in high- and low-empathic c h i l d r e n . Chi Id Development. 53. 920-923. 212 Bar-Tal, D. (1975). Individual differences and a t t r i b u t i o n a l analysis of achievement-related behavior. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pi ttsburgh. Bar-Tal, D. (1978). A t t r i b u t i o n a l analysis of achievement- re l a t e d behavior. Review of Educational Research. 48. 259- 271. Bar-Tal, D., & Darom, E. (1979). Pupil's a t t r i b u t i o n s of success and f a i l u r e . C h i l d Development. 50, 264-267. Bar-Tal,D., & Frieze, I. (1974). Achievement motivation and gender as determinants of a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e . Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Bar-Tal, D., & Friez e , I.H. (1976). A t t r i b u t i o n s of success and f a i l u r e for actors and observers. Journal of Research in Personali tv. 10. 256-265. Bar-Tal, D., & Friez e , I.H. (1977). Achievement motivation for males and females as a determinant of a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e . Sex Roles. 3, 301-313. Barthe, D.G., & Hammen, C.L. (1981). The a t t r i b u t i o n a l model of depression: A n a t u r a l i s t i c extension. Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n . 7, 53-58. Bat t l e , J . (1981). Culture-free self-esteem inventories for children and adults. Se a t t l e : Special C h i l d Publications. Baumeister, R.F. (1982). A s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a l view of s o c i a l phenomena. Psychological B u l l e t i n . 91. 3-26. Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: C l i n i c a l . experimental and th e o r e t i c a l aspects. New York: Harper & Row. Beck, A.T. (1971). Cognition, a f f e c t , and psychopathology. Archives of General Psychiatry. 24, 495-500. Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press. Beck, A.T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: the depression inventory. In P. Pichot (Ed.) Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology. Modern Problems in Pharmacopsvchiatry. 7. Karger, Basel, Switzerland. Beery, K.E. (1967). Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Chicago: F o l l e t t Educational Corporation. Belmont, L. (1980). Epidemiology. In H.E. Rie and E.D. Rie (Eds.), Handbook of minimal brain dysfunctions. New York: John Niley & Sons. 213 Bern, D.J. (1967). Self-perception: an a l t e r n a t i v e interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review. 74, 183-200. Bemporad, J.R. (1982). Childhood depression from a developmental perspective. In L. Grinspoon (Ed.), Psychiatry 1982: Annual Review. Washington, DC: American P s y c h i a t r i c Press, Inc. Bender, L. (1938). A V i s u a l Motor Gestalt Test and i t s c l i n i c a l use. American Orthopsychiatric Association Research Monograph. No. 3. Benson, J.S., & Kennelly, K.J. (1976). Learned helplessness: The r e s u l t of uncontrollable reinforcements or uncontrollable aversive s t i m u l i ? Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology. 34. 138-145. Berger, M., Yule, W., & Rutter, M. (1975). Attainment and adjustment in two geographic areas. I I . The prevalence of s p e c i f i c reading retardation. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychiatry.. 126. 510-519. Bibring, E. (1953). The mechanism of depression. In P. Greenacre (Ed.), A f f e c t i v e disorders. New York: International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press. Bingham, G. (1980). Self-esteem among boys with and without s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . C h i l d Study Journal. 10. 41-47. Birch, H.G., & Gussow, J.D. (1970). Disadvantaged c h i l d r e n : Health. n u t r i t i o n . and school f a i l u r e . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Black, F.W. (1974). Self-concept as r e l a t e d to achievement and age in learning-disabled c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development. 45. 1137-1140. Blaney, P.H., Behar, V., & Head, R. (1980). Two measures of depressive cognitions: Their association with depression and with each other. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 89, 678-682. B l a t t , S.J. (1974). Levels of object representation in a n a c l i t i c and i n t r o j e c t i v e depression. Psychoanalytic Study of the C h i l d . 29, 107-157. 214 B l a t t , S.J., Quinlan, D.M., Chevron, E.S., McDonald, C.,6 Zuroff,D. (1982). Dependency and s e l f - c r i t i c i s m : Psychological dimensions of depression. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 50, 113-124. Blishen, B.R., & McRoberts, H.A. (1976). A revised socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. 13. 71-79. Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and school learning. New York: McGraw H i l l . Boersma, F.J., & Chapman, J.W. (1978). Self-perceptions of a b i l i t y , expectations and locus of control in elementary learning disabled c h i l d r e n . University of Alberta. Boersma, F.J., & Chapman, J.W. (1981). Academic self-concept, achievement expectations, and locus of control in elementary learning disabled c h i l d r e n . Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 13. 349-358. Bortner, M., & Birch, H.G. (1969). Patterns of i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y in emotionally disturbed and brain damaged ch i l d r e n . Journal of Special Education. 3, 351-369. Broman, S.H. (1977, March). Early development and family c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of low achievers. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference of the Association for Children with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , Washington, DC. Brown, G., Chadwick, O.P.D., Shaffer, D., Rutter, M., & Traub, M. (1981). A prospective study of children with head i n j u r i e s : I I I . P s y c h i a t r i c sequelae. Psychologi c a l Medicine. 11. 63-78. Brumback, R.A., & Staton, D.R. (1983). Learning d i s a b i l i t y and childhood depression. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 53, 264-281. Brumback, R.A., Staton, D., & Wilson, H. (1980). Neuropsychological study of children during and aft e r remission of endogenous depressive episodes. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 50, 1163-1167. Bruner, J.S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist. 19. 1-15. Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design p r o b a b i l i s t i c theory. Psychological Review. 62. 193-217. Bryan, T.H., & Bryan, J.H. (1980). Learning disorders. In H.E. Rie and E.D. Rie (Eds.), Handbook of minimal brain dysfunctions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 456-482. 215 Bryan, T., & Pearl, R. (1979). Self concepts and locus of control of learning disabled c h i l d r e n . Journal of C l i n i c a l and C h i l d Psychology. 8, 223-226. Buchwald, A.M. (1977). Depressive mood and estimates of reinforcement frequency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 86f 443-446. Bugental, D.B., Nhalen, C , & Henker, B. (1977). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of hyperactive children and motivational assumptions of two behavior change approaches: Evidence for an i n t e r a c t i o n i s t p o s i t i o n . C h i l d Development. 48. 874-884. Butkowsky, I.S., & Willows, D.M. (1980). Cognitive-motivational c h a r a c t e r s t i c s of children varying in reading a b i l i t y : Evidence for learned helplessness in poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 72. 408-422. Cairns, R.B., & Val s i n e r , J . (1984). C h i l d psychology. Annual Review of Psychology. 35. 553-578. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963).Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. [Also published as Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research (1966). Chicago: Rand McNally.] Campbell, S.B., Douglas, V.I., & Morgenstern, G. (1971). Cognitive s t y l e s in hyperactive children and the e f f e c t of methyphenidate. Journal of Chi l d Psychology and Psychiatry. 12, 55-67. C a r r o l l , J.B. (1976). Psychometric tests as cognitive tasks: A new structure of i n t e l l e c t . In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. C a t t e l l , R.B. (1963). Theory of f l u i d and c r y s t a l l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e : A c r i t i c a l experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology. 54. 1-23. C a t t e l l , R.B. (1971). A b i l i t i e s : Their structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Chadwick, O.P.D., Rutter, M., Brown, G., Shaffer, D., & Traub, M. (1981). A prospective study of children with head i n j u r i e s : I I . Cognitive sequelae. Psychological Medicine. 11, 49-61. Chandler, M., & Boyes, M. (1982). So c i a l - c o g n i t i v e development. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: Prentice H a l l . 216 Chapin, M. , & Dyck, D.G. (1976). Persistence in children's reading behavior as a function of N length and a t t r i b u t i o n r e t r a i n i n g . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 85. 511-515. Chapman, J.W., & Boersma, F.J. (1979a). Academic self-concept in elementary learning disabled c h i l d r e n : A study with the Student's Perception of A b i l i t y Scale. Psychology in the Schools. 16, 201-206. Chapman, J.N., & Boersma, F.J. (1979b). Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , locus of c o n t r o l , and mother a t t i t u d e s . Journal of Educational Psychology. 71. 250-258. Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1972). Differences in outcome with early intervention in children with behavior disorders. In M.F. Roff, L.N. Robins, & M. Pollack (Eds.), L i f e history research in psvchopathology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. C l a r i z i o , H., & Bernard, R. (1981). Recategorized WISC-R scores of learning disabled children and d i f f e r e n t i a l diagnosis. Psychology in the Schools. 18. 5-12. CIsments, S.D. (Project d i r e c t o r ) (1966). National" project on minimal brain dysfunction in children - Terminology and i den t i f i cat i on (Phase one of a three phase project; monograph No. 3; Public Health Service Publication No. 1415, Superintendent, of Documents, Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington, DC). Cohen, N.J., Douglas, V.I., & Morgenstern, G. (1971). The e f f e c t of methylphenidate on attentive behavior and autonomic a c t i v i t y in hyperactive c h i l d r e n . Psychopharmacologia. 22. 282-294. Cohen, N.J., Weiss, G., & Minde, K. (1972). Cognitive s t y l e s in adolescents previously diagnosed as hyperactive. Journal of Chi l d Psychology and Psychiatry. 13. 203-209. Colbert, P., Newman, B., Ney, P., & Young, J . (1982). Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s as a symptom of depression in ch i l d r e n . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 15. 333-336. Colonna, A., & F a g l i o n i , P. (1966). The performance of hemispheric damaged patients on s p a t i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . Cortex. 2, 293-307. Connell, H.M. (1972). Depression in childhood. C h i l d Psychiatry and Human Development.4. 71-85. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. 217 Costa, L.D., Vaughan, H.G., J r . , Horowitz, M., & R i t t e r , W. (1969). Patterns of behavioral d e f i c i t associated with v i s u a l s p a t i a l neglect. Cortex. 5, 242-263. Cos t e l l o , C.G. (1980). Childhood depression: Three basic but questionable assumptions in the Lefkowitz and Burton c r i t i q u e . Psychological B u l l e t i n . 87. 185-190. Covington, M.V., & Beery, R.G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Coyne, J.C. (1976). Depressions and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 85. 186-193. Coyne, J.C., & Go t l i b , I.H. (1983). The r o l e of cognition in depression: A c r i t i c a l a p p r a i sal. Psychological B u l l e t i n . 94> 472-505. Crandall, V.C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V.J. (1965). Children's b e l i e f in their own control of reinforcements in i n t e l l e c t u a l achievement s i t u a t i o n s . C h i l d Development. 36. 91-109. Crichton, J . , Catterson, J . , Kendall, D., & Dunn, H. (1981). Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : A p r a c t i c a l o f f i c e manual. 2nd Ed., V i c t o r i a , BC: Morriss P r i n t i n g Co. Ltd. Cr i t c h l e y , M. (1962). Developmental dyslexia: A c o n s t i t u t i o n a l dysymbolia. In A.W. Franklin (Ed.), Word-blindness or s p e c i f i c developmental dyslexia (pp. 45-48). London: Pitman Medical Publishers. Crittenden, K.S., & Wiley, M.G. (1980). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n and behavioral response to f a i l u r e . S ocial Psychology Quarterly. 43. 353-358. Cytryn, L., & McKnew, D.H. (1972). Proposed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of childhood depressions. American Journal of Psychiatry. 129, 149-155. Cytryn, L., & McKnew, D.H. (1974). Factors influencing the changing c l i n i c a l expression of the depressive process in ch i l d r e n . American Journal of Psychiatry. 131. 879-881. Cytryn, L., McKnew, D.H., & Bunney, W.E. (1980). Factors influencing the changing c l i n i c a l expression of the depressive process in c h i l d r e n . American Journal of Psvchi atrv. 137. 22-25. 218 Dahl, V. (1972). A follow-up study of a c h i l d p s y c h i a t r i c c l i e n t e l e , with s p e c i a l regard to manic-depressive psychosis. In A.L. Annell (Ed.), Depressive states in childhood and adolescence (pp. 534-541). Stockholm, Sweden: Amquist and N i k s e l l . Darley, J.M., & Goethels, G.R. (1980). People's analyses of the causes of a b i l i t y - l i n k e d performances. In Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology (Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press. Das, J.P. (1980). Planning: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Psychological Research. 41. 141-151. Das, J.P., Kirby, J . , & Jarman, R.F. (1975). Simultaneous and successive syntheses: An a l t e r n a t i v e model for cognitive a b i l i t i e s . Psychological B u l l e t i n . 82. 87-103. Das, J.P., Kirby, J.R., & Jarman, R.F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. NY: Academic Press. Das, J.P., Leong, C.K., & Williams, N.H. (1978). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between learning d i s a b i l i t y and simultaneous- successive processing. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 11, 618-625. Das, J.P., & Malloy, G.N. (1975). V a r i e t i e s of simultaneous and successive processing in c h i l d r e n . Journal of Educational Psychology. 67. 213-230. Das, J.P., & Malloy, G. (1981). Of brain d i v i s i o n s and functions. Academic Therapy. 16. 349-358. Das, J.P., Mulcahy, R., & Wall, A.E. (Eds.) (1980). Theory and research in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . New York: Plenum Press. Davison, G.C., & Neale, J.M. (1982). Abnormal psychology (3rd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Deaux, K. (1976). Sex: A perspective on the a t t r i b u t i o n process. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, and R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research (Vol. 1, pp. 335-352). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press. de Charms, R. (1972). Personal causation t r a i n i n g in the schools. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2, 95-113. de Charms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: A change in the classroom. New York: Irvington, Halstead-Wiley. Deci, E.L. (1975). I n t r i n s i c motivation. New York: Plenum Press. 219 de Hirsch, K., Jansky, J . J . , & Langford, W.S. (1966). Predicting reading f a i l u r e ; A preliminary study. New York: Harper & Row. De Renzi, E., & F a g l i o n i , P. (1965). The comparative e f f i c i e n c y of i n t e l l i g e n c e and v i g i l a n c e tests in detecting hemispheric cerebral damage. Cortex. 1, 410-433. Diener, C.I., & Dweck, C A . (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following f a i l u r e . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36. 451-462. Diener, C.I., & Dweck, C A . (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: I I . The processing of success. Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology. 39. 940-952. Dixon, W.J. (Chief Editor) (1981). BMDP S t a t i s t i c a l Software 1981. Berkeley, CA: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1961, Census of Canada. B u l l e t i n 3.1-9, Ottawa, ON: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1963. Douglas, V.I. (1976). Perceptual and cognitive f a c t o r s as determinants of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : A review chapter with sp e c i a l emphasis on attentional f a c t o r s . In R.M. Knights and D.J. Bakker (Eds.), The neuropsychology of learning disorders. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Douglas, V.I. (1980a). Higher mental processes in hyperactive c h i l d r e n : Implications for t r a i n i n g . In R.M. Knights and D.J. Bakker (Eds.). R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . treatment and management of learning disorders. Baltimore: University Park Press. Douglas, V.I. (1980b). Treatment and t r a i n i n g approaches to hy p e r a c t i v i t y : E s t a b l i s h i n g i n t e r n a l or external c o n t r o l . In CK. Whalen and B. Henker, Hyperactive c h i l d r e n : The s o c i a l ecology of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and treatment. New York: Academic Press. Douglas, V. (1981, May 5). Workshop A: A cognitive t r a i n i n g approach for the impulsive c h i l d . C l i n i c a l Concerns in C h i l d Development: A Focus on Cognition Conference. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B C Douglas, D., & Anisman, H. (1975). Helplessness or expectation incongruency: E f f e c t s of aversive stimulation on subsequent performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1, 411-417. 220 Duffy, F.H., Denckla, M.B., Bartels, P.H., Sandini, G., & K i e s s l i n g , L.S. (1980a). Dyslexia: Regional differences in brain e l e c t r i c a l a c t i v i t y by topographic mapping. Annals of Neurology. 7, 412-420. Duffy, F.H., Denckla, M.B., Bartels, P.H., Sandini, G., & K i e s s l i n g L.S. (1980b). Dyslexia: automated diagnosis by computerized c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of brain e l e c t r i c a l a c t i v i t y . Annals of Neurology. 7, 421-428. Duncan, O.D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for a l l occupations. In A.J. Reiss, J r . (Ed.), Occupations and s o c i a l status. New York: Free Press. Dunn, H.G. ( i n preparation). Sequelae of Low B i r t h Weight: Vancouver Study. New York: Heinemann. Dweck, C.S. (1975). The r o l e of expectations and a t t r i b u t i o n s in the a l l e v i a t i o n of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31. 674-685. Dweck, C.S., & Bush, E.S. (1976). Sex differences in learned helplessness: I. D i f f e r e n t i a l d e b i l i t a t i o n with peer and adult evaluators. Developmental Psychology. 12, 147-156. Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: I I . The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and I I I . An experimental ana l y s i s . Developmental Psychology. 14. 268- 276. Dweck, C.S., & G i l l i a r d , D. determinants of reactions persistence and expectancy and So c i a l Psychology. 32. (1975). Expectancy statements as to f a i l u r e : Sex differences in change. Journal of Personality 1077-1084. Dweck, C.S., & Goetz, T.E. (1978). A t t r i b u t i o n s and learned helplessness. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, and R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research. (Vol. 2, pp. 157-179). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dweck, C.S., Goetz, T.E. , & Strauss, N.L.(1980). Sex differences in learned helplessness: IV. An experimental and n a t u r a l i s t i c study of f a i l u r e generalization and i t s mediators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38, 441-452. Dweck, C.S., & L i c h t , B.G. (1980). Learned helplessness and i n t e l l e c t u a l achievement. In J . Garber & M.E.P. Seligman Human Helplessness: Theory and applications (pp. 197-221). New York: Academic Press. Dweck, C.S., & Reppucci, N.D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in c h i l d r e n . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 25. 109-116. 221 Dweck, C.S., & Wortman, C.B. (1982). Learned helplessness, anxiety, and achievement motivation. In H.W. Krohne and L. Laux (Eds.), Achievement. s t r e s s . and anxiety. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp. Eaves, L.C. (1983). Some p r e d i c t i v e antecedents of poor school achievement. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Eaves, L . C , & Crichton, J.U. (1974-75). A five-year follow-up of children with minimal brain dysfunction. Academic Therapy. 10, 173-180. Eisenberger, R., Park, D.C, & Frank, M. (1976). Learned industriousness and s o c i a l reinforcement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 33. 227-232. Elkind, D., (1969). Piagetian and psychometric conceptions of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Harvard Educational Review. 39. 319-337. Elkind, D. (1974). Children and adolescents: Interpretive essays on Jean Piaget. London: Oxford University Press. Estes, W.K. (1974). Learning theory and i n t e l l i g e n c e . American Psvchologi s t . 29. 740-749. Feather, N.T. (1967). Valence of outcome and expectation of success in r e l a t i o n to task d i f f i c u l t y and perceived locus of c o n t r o l . Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 7, 372-386. Feather, N.T. (1969). A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and valence of success and f a i l u r e in r e l a t i o n to i n i t i a l confidence and task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 13, 129-144. Feather, N.T., & Simon, J.G. (1971a). A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and valence of outcome in r e l a t i o n to i n i t i a l confidence and success and f a i l u r e of s e l f and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18. 173-188. Feather, N.T., & Simon, J.G. (1971b). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e in r e l a t i o n to expectations of success based upon s e l e c t i v e or manipulative c o n t r o l . Journal of Personali ty. 39. 527-554. Feighner, J . , Robins, E., Guze, S., et al.(1972). Diagnostic c r i t e r i a for use in p s y c h i a t r i c research. Archives of General Psychiatry. 26. 57-63. F i n u c c i , J.M., Guthrie, T.T., Childs, A.L., Abbey, H., & Childs, B. (1976). The genetics of s p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i l i t y . Annals of Human Genetics. 40, 1-23. 222 Firestone, P., & Douglas, V.I. (1975). The e f f e c t s of reward and punishment on reaction times and autonomic a c t i v i t y in hyperactive and normal c h i l d r e n . Journal of Abnormal Ch i l d Psychology. 3, 201-215. F i t c h , Q. (1970). E f f e c t s of self-esteem, perceived performance, and choice on causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16. 311-315. Fontaine, Q. (1974). So c i a l comparison and some determinants of expected personal control and expected performance in a novel s i t u a t i o n . Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology. 29. 487-496. Forness, S.R., & Cantwell, D.P. (1982). DSM III p s y c h i a t r i c diagnoses and s p e c i a l education categories. The Journal of Special Education. 16. 49-63. Freud, S. (1957). Mourning & melancholia. In J . Strachey (Ed. and trans.), Standard e d i t i o n of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. V o l . 14. London: Hogarth Press, 1957 ( O r i g i n a l l y published, 1917). Frieze , I. (1980). B e l i e f s about success and f a i l u r e in the classroom. In J.H. McMillan (Ed.), The s o c i a l psychology of school learning (pp. 39-78). New York: Academic Press. Fr i e z e , I.H., Fisher, J . , Hanusa, B., McHugh, M.C., & V a l l e , V.A. (1978). A t t r i b u t i o n s of the causes of success and f a i l u r e as i n t e r n a l and external b a r r i e r s to achievement in women. In J.A. Sherman and F.L. Denmark (Eds.), The Psychology of Women: Future d i r e c t i o n s in research. New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc. Frommer, E. (1968). Depressive i l l n e s s in childhood. Bri t i s h Journal of Psychiatry. 2, 117-123. Garber, J . , & Seligman, M.E.P. (Eds.) (1980). Human helplessness: Theory and app l i c a t i o n s. New York: Academic Press. Gardner, E.F., Rudman, H.C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J.C. (1973). Stanford Achievement Test: 7th e d i t i o n . San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Gilmor, T.M., & Minton, H.L. (1974). Internal versus external a t t r i b u t i o n s of task performance as a function of locus of c o n t r o l , i n i t i a l confidence and su c c e s s - f a i l u r e outcome. Journal of Personality. 42, 159-174. Glaser, K. (1967). Masked depression in children & adolescents. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 21. 565-574. 223 Goetz, T.E., & Dweck, C.S. (1980). s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Journal of Psychology. 39. 246-255. Learned helplessness in Personality and Soc i a l Goldstein, D., & Dundon, W.D. (1985-1986). A f f e c t a n d cognition in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . In S. J . Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive. soci a l . and neuropsychological aspects of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s (2 vol s . in one, Vols. 1 and 2). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ ates. Golin, S., Sweeney, P.D., & Schaeffer, D.E. (1981). The caus a l i t y of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s in depression: A cross- lagged panel c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 90, 14-22. Go t l i b , I.H. (1981). Self-reinforcement and r e c a l l : D i f f e r e n t i a l d e f i c i t s in depressed and nondepressed p s y c h i a t r i c inpatients on chance and s k i l l e d tasks. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 90, 521-530. Gotl i b , I.H., & Olson, J.M. (1983). Depression, psychopathology, and s e l f - s e r v i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s . B r i t i s h Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology. 22. 309-310. Go t l i b , I.H., & Robinson, L.A. (1982). Responses to depressed i n d i v i d u a l s : Discrepancies between s e l f - r e p o r t and observer- rated behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 91, 231-240. Graham, P., Rutter, M., & George, S. (1973). Temperamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as predictors of behavior disorders in chi l d r e n . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 43. 328-339. Grimes, L. (1981). Learned helplessness and a t t r i b u t i o n theory: Redefining children's learning problems. Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 4, 91-100. Gu i l f o r d , J.P. (1967). The nature of human i n t e l l i g e n c e . New York: McGraw-Hill. Gu i l f o r d , J.P., & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of i n t e l l i g e n c e . New York: McGraw-Hill. Hakstian, A.R., & Bennet, R.N. (1977). V a l i d i t y studies using the Comprehensive A b i l i t y Battery (CAB): I. Academic achievement c r i t e r i a . Educational and Psychological Measurement. 37. 425-437. Hakstian, A.R., & C a t t e l l , R.B. (1974). The checking of primary a b i l i t y structure on a broader basis of performances. B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology. 44, 140-154. 224 Hakstian, A.R., & C a t t e l l , R.B. (1976). Manual for the Comprehensive A b i l i t y Battery (CAB). 1976 E d i t i o n . Champaign, IL: I n s t i t u t e for Personality and A b i l i t y Test i ng. Hamachek, D.E. (1978). Encounters with the s e l f . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hamilton, M. (1960). A r a t i n g scale for depression. Journal of Neurology. Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 23. 56-61. Hammen, C.L., & deMayo, R. (1982). Cognitive c o r r e l a t e s of teacher s t r e s s and depressive symptoms: Implications for a t t r i b u t i o n a l models of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 91, 96-101. Hanusa, B.H., & Schulz, R. (1977). A t t r i b u t i o n a l mediators of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology. 35. 602-611. Haqq, D.M. (1979). Temporal perspective in actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n . Unpublished master's thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Harber, J . (1981). Learning d i s a b i l i t y research: How far have we progressed? Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 4, 372-381. H a r t z e l l , H.E., & Compton, C. (1984). Learning d i s a b i l i t y : 10- year follow-up. P e d i a t r i c s . 74. 1058-1064. Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W.J., & Kidd, R.F. (Eds.) (1976). New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research (Vol. 1). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W.J., & Kidd, R.F. (Eds.) (1978). New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research (Vol. 2). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W.J., & Kidd, R.F. (Eds.) (1981). New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research. (Vol. 3). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hastorf, A., Schneider, D., & Polefka, J . (1970). Person perception. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . New York: Wiley. Helper, M.M. (1980). Follow-up of children with minimal brain dysfunctions: Outcomes & p r e d i c t o r s . In H.E. Rie and E.D. Rie (Eds.) Handbook of minimal brain dysfunctions (pp. 75- 114). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 225 Higgins, C , & Wertman, H. (1968). V i s u a l closure assessment. Albany, NY: Authors. Hiroto, D.S. (1974). Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 102. 187-193. Hiroto, D.S., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 31, 311-327. Hollingshead, A.B. (1957). Two-factor index of s o c i a l p o s i t i o n . Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. Holroyd, K.A., Westbrook, T., Wolf, M., & Badhorn, E. (1978). Performance, cognition, and phys i o l o g i c a l responding in test anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 442- 451. Hughes, J.R. (1978). Electroencephalographic and neurophysiological studies in dyslexia. In A.L. Benton & D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 205-240). New York: Oxford University Press. Hunt, E. (1971). What kind of computer i s man? Cogni t i v e Psychology. 2, 57-98. Hunt, E. (1973). The memory we must have. In R. Shank and K. Colby (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language. San Francisco: Freeman. Hunt, E., & Lansman, M. (1975). Cognitive theory applied to ind i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . In W.K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 1). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Hunt, E., Lunneborg, C., & Lewis, J . (1975). What does i t mean to be high verbal? Cognitive Psychology. 7, 194-227. 226 Ickes, N.J., & Layden, M.A. (1978). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s . In J.H. Harvey, N.J. Ickes, and R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research ( v o l . 2). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Illingworth, R.S. (1980). Developmental v a r i a t i o n in r e l a t i o n to minimal brain dysfunction. In H.E. Rie and E.D. Rie (Eds.), Handbook of minimal brain dysfunctions (pp. 522-565). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ingram, T.T.S. (1960). P e d i a t r i c aspects of s p e c i f i c developmental dysphasia, dyslexia and dysgraphia. Cerebral Palsy B u l l e t i n . 2, 254-277. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology. 37. 1798-1809. Jensen, A.R., & Rohwer, J r . , W.D. (1966). The Stroop color-word te s t : A review. Acta Psychologica. 25. 36-93. Johnson, D.S. (1981). Naturally acquired learned helplessness: The r e l a t i o n s h i p of school f a i l u r e to achievement behavior, a t t r i b u t i o n s , and self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73. 174-180. Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965). From acts to d i s p o s i t i o n s : The a t t r i b u t i o n a l process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2, 219-266. Jones, E.E., Davis, K.E., & Gergen, K.J. (1961). Role playing v a r i a t i o n s and their informational value for person perception. Journal of Abnormal So c i a l Psychology. 63. 302- 310. Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Kelley, H.H., Nisbett, R.E., V a l i n s , S., Weiner, B. (Eds.) (1972). A t t r i b u t i o n : Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Jones, E.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones et a l . (Eds.) A t t r i b u t i o n : Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Jones, S.L., Nation, J.R., & Massad, P. (1977). Immunization against learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 86. 75-83. Jones, E.E., & Wortman, C. (1973). In g r a t i a t i o n : An a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. 227 Kagan, J . , Moss, H.A., & Si g e l , I.E. (1963). Psychological s i g n i f i c a n c e of s t y l e s of conceptualization. In J.C. Wright and J . Kagan (Eds.), Basic cognitive processes in c h i l d r e n . Monograph of the Scciety for Research in C h i l d Development, S e r i a l No. 86. Kagan, J . , Rosman, B.'L., Day D. , A l b e r t , J . , & P h i l l i p s , W. (1964). Information processing in the c h i l d : S i g n i f i c a n c e of a n a l y t i c and ;) r e f l e c t i v e a t t i t u d e s . Psvchologi c a l Monographs: General and Applied. 78. (1, Whole No. 578). Karoly, P. (1977). Behavioral self-management in c h i l d r e n : Concepts, methods, issues, and d i r e c t i o n s . In M. Hersen, R.M. E i s l e r , & P.M. M i l l e r (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification. New York: Academic Press, 5, 197-262. Kashani, J.H. (1982). Epidemiology of childhood depression. In L. Grinspoon (Ed.), Psychiatry 1982: Annual Review. Washington, DC: American P s y c h i a t r i c Press, Inc. Kaufman, A.S. (1975). Factor analysis of the WISC-R at eleven age l e v e l s between 6.5 and 16.5 years. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 43. 135-147. Kaufman, A.S. (1979a). I n t e l l i g e n t testing with the WISC-R. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kaufman, A.S. (1979b). WISC-R research: Implications for in t e r p r e t a t i o n . School Psychology Digest. 8, 5-26. Kaufman, A.S. (1981). The WISC-R and learning d i s a b i l i t i e s assessment: State of the a r t . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 14, 520-526. Kavale, K., & Nye, C. (1981). I d e n t i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a for learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : A survey of the research l i t e r a t u r e . Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 4, 383-388. Kelley, H.H. (1967). A t t r i b u t i o n theory in s o c i a l psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, H.H., & Michela, J.L. (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n theory and research. In Rosenzweig & Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. (Vol.31, pp. 457-501). King, E.M. and others (1981). Canadian test of basic s k i l l s : Teacher's guide [ o r i g i n a l test by E.F. Lindquist, A.N. Hieronymus, and others]. Scarborough, ON: Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canada) Limited. Klee, S., & Meyer, R.6. (1979). Prevention of learned helplessness in humans. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47. 411-412. 228 K l e i n , D.C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1976). Reversal of performance d e f i c i t s and perceptual d e f i c i t s in learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 85. 11-26. K l e i n , D.C., Fencil-Morse, E., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1976). Learned helplessness, depression, and a t t r i b u t i o n of f a i l u r e . Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 33. 508-516. Kolb, B., & Nhishaw, I.Q. (1980). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co. K o l l e r , P.S., & Kaplan, R.M. (1978). A two-process theory of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology. 36, 1177-1183. Kovacs, M. (1978). Children's depression inventory (CDI). Unpublished Manuscript, University of Pittsburgh. Kovacs, M. (1980/81). Rating scales to assess depression in school-aged c h i l d r e n . Acta paedopsychiatrica. 46. 305-315. Kovacs, M., & Beck, A.T. (1977). An e m p i r i c a l - c l i n i c a l approach toward a d e f i n i t i o n of childhood depression. In J.G. Schulterbrandt and A. Raskin (Eds.), Depression in childhood: Diagnosis. treatment. & conceptual models. New York: Raven Press. Kovacs,. M., & Beck, A.T. (1978). Maladaptive cognitive structures in depression. American Journal of Psychiatry. 135. 525-533. Krakowski, A.J. (1970). Depressive reactions of childhood and adolescence. Psychosomatics. 11. 429-433. Kuhn, B., & Kuhn, R. (1972). Drug therapy for depression in ch i l d r e n . In A.L. Annell (Ed.), Depressive states in childhood and adolescence (pp. 163-203). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Kuiper, N.A. (1978). Depression and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36. 236-246. Kukla, A. (1972). A t t r i b u t i o n a l determinants of achievement- re l a t e d behavior. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 21, 166-174. Lambert, N.M., Sandoval, J . , & Sassone, D. (1978).Multipie prevalence estimates of hyperactivity in school children and the rate of occurrence of treatment regimens. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 48. 446-463. Lang, M., & Tisher, M. (1978). Children's Depression Scale. Aus t r a l i a n Journal of Psychology. 13. 293. Langer, E.J. (1978). Rethinking the r o l e of thought in s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In J . Haryey, W. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research ( y o l . 2). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Lansdell, H. (1980). Theories of brain mechanisms in minimal brain dysfunctions. In H.E. Rie & E.D. Rie (Eds.), Handbook of minimal brain dysfunctions (pp. 117-151). New York: John Niley & Sons. Lapouse, R. (1966). The epidemiology of behavior disorders in c h i l d r e n . American Journal of Diseases of Children. I l l . 594- 599. Lefkowitz, M.M. (1980). Childhood depression: A reply to C o s t e l l o . Psychological B u l l e t i n . 87. 191-194. Lefkowitz, M.M., & Burton, N. (1978). Childhood depression: A c r i t i q u e of the concept. Psychological B u l l e t i n . 85. 716- 726. Lefkowitz, M.M., & Tesiny, E.P. (1980). Assessment of childhood depression. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 48, 43-50. Leong, C.K. (1974). An investigation of spatial-temporal information processing in children with s p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i 1 i ty. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Department of Educational Psychology, University of A l b e r t a , Edmonton, Canada. Discussed in Das et a l . , 1979. Leong, C.K. (1982). Promising areas of research into learning d i s a b i l i t i e s with emphasis on reading d i s a b i l i t i e s . In J.P. Das, R.F. Mulcahy, and A.E. Wall (Eds.), Theory and research in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s (pp. 3-26). New York: Plenum Press. Lesse, S. (1974). Depression masked by acting-out behavior patterns. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 28. 352-361. Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Lewin, K. (1951). F i e l d theory in s o c i a l science. New York: Harper. Lewinsohn, P.M., Steinmetz, J.L., Larsen, D.W., & Franklin, J . (1981). Depression-related cognitions: Antecedent or consequence? Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 90, 213-219. 230 L i c h t , B.G. (1983). Cognitive-motivational f a c t o r s that contribute to the achievement of learning-disabled c h i l d r e n . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 16. 483-490. L i c h t , B.G., & Dweck, C.S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The i n t e r a c t i o n of children's achievement orient a t i o n s with s k i l l area. Developmental Psychology. 20, 628-636. L i c h t , B.G., Kistner, J.A., Ozkaragoz, T., Shapiro,S., & Clausen, L. (1985). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of learning disabled c h i l d r e n : Individual differences and their implications for persistence. Journal of Educational Psychology. 77. 208-216. Ling, W. , Oftedal, G., & Weinberg, W. (1970). Depressive i l l n e s s in childhood presented as severe headache. American Journal of Diseases of Children. 120. 122-124. L o v i t t , T.C., & Jenkins, J.R. (1979). Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s research: Defining populations. Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 2, 46-50. Lu r i a , A.R. (1966). Higher c o r t i c a l functions in man. New York: Basic Books, (a). L u r i a , A.R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper & Row, (b). L u r i a , A.R. (1973). The working brain. Harmondsworth, England: Pengu i n. 231 MacFarlane, J.N., A l l e n , L., & Honzik, M.P. (1954). A developmental study of the behavior problems of normal children between 21 months and 14 years. Berkeley, CA: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Maier, S.F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 105. 3-46. Malmquist, C P . (1972). Depressive phenomena in c h i l d r e n . In B.B. Nolman (Ed.), Manual of C h i l d Psvchopathology (pp. 497-540). New York: McGraw-Hill. Manly, P.C, McMahon, R.J., Bradley, C.F., & Davidson, P.O. (1982). Depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e and depression following c h i l d b i r t h . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 91, 245-254. Maslow, A.H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Vikin g Press. Masters, J . C , Barden, R.C, & Ford, M.E. (1979). A f f e c t i v e states, expressive behavior, and learning in c h i l d r e n . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37. 380-390. Masters, J . C , & Furman, W. (1976). E f f e c t s of a f f e c t i v e states on noncontingent outcome expectancies and b e l i e f s in in t e r n a l or external c o n t r o l . Developmental Psychology. 12, 481-482. Masters, J . C , Furman, W. , & Barden, R.C. (1977). E f f e c t s of achievement standards, tangible rewards, and self-dispensed achievement evaluation on children's task matters. C h i l d Development. 48. 217-224. Masters, J . C , & Santrock, J.W. (1976). Studies in the s e l f - regulation of behavior: E f f e c t s of contingent cognitive and a f f e c t i v e events. Developmental Psychology. 12, 334-348. Mattis, W., French, J.H., & Rapin, I. (1975). Dyslexia in children and young adults: Three independent neuropsychological syndromes. Developmental Medicine and Ch i l d Neurology. 17, 150-163. McConaughy, S.H., & R i t t e r , D.R. (1985). S o c i a l competence and behavioral problems of learning disabled boys aged 6-11. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 18. 547-553. McConville, B.J., Boag, L . C , & Purohit, A.P. (1973). Three types of depression. Canadian P s y c h i a t r i c Association Journal. 18. 133-138. 232 McMahan, I. (1973). Relationships between causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and expectancy of success. Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology. 28. 108-114. Meichenbaum, D. (1975). S e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods. In F.H. Kanfer and A.P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change (pp. 357-391). New York: Pergamon. Meichenbaum, D. (1980). Cognitive behavior modification with exceptional c h i l d r e n : A promise yet u n f u l f i l l e d . Exceptional Education Quarterly. 1., 83-88. Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Train i n g impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing s e l f - c o n t r o l . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 77. 115-126. Mendelson, W., Johnson, N., & Stewart, M.A. (1971). Hyperactive children as teenagers: A follow-up study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases. 153. 273-279. Menkes, M.J., Rowe, J.S., & Menkes, J.H. (1967). A twenty-five year follow-up study on the hyperkinetic c h i l d with minimal brain dysfunction. P e d i a t r i c s . 39. 393-399. Metalsky, G.I., Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., Semrnel, A., & Peterson, C. (1982). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s and l i f e events in the classroom: V u l n e r a b i l i t y and i n v u l n e r a b i l i t y to depressive mood reactions. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 43. 612-617. Meyer, J.P. (1980). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n for success and f a i l u r e : A m u l t i v a r i a t e investigation of dimensionality, formation, and consequences. Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology. 38. 704-718. M i l l e r , D.T. (1976). Ego involvement and a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e . Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology. 34.. 901-906. M i l l e r , D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). S e l f - s e r v i n g biases in the a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y : Fact or f i c t i o n ? Psvchological B u l l e t i n . 82, 213-225. M i l l e r , I., & Norman, J . (1979). Learned helplessness in humans: A review and a t t r i b u t i o n theory model. Psvchologi c a l B u l l e t i n . 86. 93-118. M i l l e r , I.N., Klee, S.H., & Norman, N.H. (1982). Depressed and nondepressed inpatients' cognitions of hypothetical events, experimental tasks, and s t r e s s f u l l i f e events. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 91, 78-81. M i l l e r , L.C. (1967). L o u i s v i l l e behaviour c h e c k l i s t for males, 6- 12 year of age. Psychological Reports. 21, 885-896. 233 Mischel, T. (1971). Piaget: Cognitive c o n f l i c t and the motivation of thought. In T. Mischel (Ed. ), Cogni t i ve development and epistemology (pp. 311-355). New York: Academic Press. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive s o c i a l learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review. 80, 252-283. Mowrer, O.H. (1960). Learning theory and behavior. New York: Wiley. Mueller, C.W., & Parcel, T.L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: A l t e r n a t i v e s and recommendations. C h i l d Development. 52. 13-30. Myklebust, H., & Boshes, B. (1969, June). Minimal brain damage in c h i l d r e n . F i n a l report, U.S. Public Health Service Contract 108-65-142. U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University P u b l i c a t i o n . N i c h o l l s , J.G. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology. 71. 94- 99. Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T. (1977). T e l l i n g more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. 84. 231-259. Olson, J.L., & Mealor, D.J. (1981). Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Do researchers have the answer? Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 4, 389-400. Or ton, S.T. (1928). S p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i l i t y - strephosymbolia. Journal of the American Medical Association. 90, 1095-1099. Overmier, J.B., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1967). E f f e c t s of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 63. 28-33. Pascarella, E., & Pflaum, S.W. (1981). The int e r a c t i o n of children's a t t r i b u t i o n and l e v e l of control over error corrections in reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Journal of Educational Psychology. 73. 533-540. Pascar e l l a , E.T., Pflaum, S.W., Bryan, T.H., St Pearl, R.A. (1983). Interaction of i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n for e f f o r t and teacher response mode in reading i n s t r u c t i o n : A r e p l i c a t i o n note. American Educational Research Journal. 20, 269-276. 234 Patten, M.D. (1983). Relationships between self-esteem, anxiety, and achievement in young learning disabled students. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 16. 43-45. Pearce, J . (1977). Depressive disorders in childhood. Journal of Chi l d Psychology and Psychiatry. 18. 79-83. Pearce, J.B. (1978). The recognition of depressive disorder in ch i l d r e n . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 71, 494-500. Pearl, R. (1982). LD children's a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e : A r e p l i c a t i o n with a labeled LD sample. Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s Quarterly. 5, 173-176. Pearl, R., & Bryan, T., & Donahue, M. (1980). Learning disabled children's a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e . Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly.3. 3-9. Peterson, C , Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C. , Abramson, L.Y., Metalsky, 6.I., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1982). The A t t r i b u t i o n a l Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 6, 287-299. Peterson, C , & Seligman, M.E.P. (1984). Causal explanations as a r i s k factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review. 91, 347-374. Peterson, D.R. (1961). Behavior problems of middle c h i l d r e n . Journal of Consulting Psychology. 25. 205-209. P e t t i , T.A. (1978). Depression in h o s p i t a l i z e d c h i l d psychiatry patients. Journal of the American Academy of Chi l d Psychiatry. 17, 49-59. Phares, E.J. (1957). Expectancy changes in s k i l l and chance s i t u a t i o n s . Journal of Abnormal So c i a l Psychology. 54. 339- 342. Phares, E.J. (1973). Locus of c o n t r o l : A personality determinant of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Piaget, J . (1926). The language and thought of the c h i l d . New York: Harcourt, Brace. Piercy, M.F., & Smyth, V. (1962). Right hemisphere dominance for certain non-verbal i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s . Brain. 85. 775-790. Porter, R.B., £ C a t t e l l , R.B. (1979). Handbook for the Children's Personality Questionnaire. Champaign,IL: I n s t i t u t e for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, Incorporated. 235 Porteus, S.E. (1942). Q u a l i t a t i v e performance in the maze te s t . Vineland, NJ: Smith. Poznanski, E.O. (1982). The c l i n i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of childhood depression. In L. Grinspoon (Ed.), Psychiatry 1982. Annual Review. Washington, DC: American P s y c h i a t r i c Press. Poznanski, E.O., Cook, S.C., & C a r r o l l , B.J. (1979). A depression r a t i n g scale for c h i l d r e n . P e d i a t r i c s . 64. 442-450. Poznanski, E.O., Cook, S.C., & C a r r o l l , B.J. (1979). A depression r a t i n g scale for c h i l d r e n . P e d i a t r i c s . 64. 442- 450. Poznanski, E., & Z r u l l , J.P. (1970). Childhood depression: C l i n i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of overtly depressed c h i l d r e n . Archives of General Psychiatry. 23. 8-15. Preston, R.C., & Yarington, D.J. (1967). Status of f i f t y retarded readers eight years after reading c l i n i c diagnosis. Journal of Reading. 11, 122-129. Pribram, K.H., & L u r i a , A.R. (1973). Psychophysiology of the f r o n t a l lobes. New York: Academic Press. Prkachin, K.M., Craig, K.D., Papageorgis, D., & Reith, G. (1977). Nonverbal communication d e f i c i t s and response to performance feedback in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 86. 224-234. Puig-Antich, J . , Blau, S., Marx, N., G r e e n h i l l , L.L., & Chambers, W. (1978). Prepubertal major depressive disorder; P i l o t study. Journal of the American Academy of C h i l d Psychiatry. 17. 695-707. Quay, H.C. (1979). Residential treatment. In H.C. Quay & J . Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. i 236 Rabinovitch, R.D., Dr ew( A.L.| De Jong, R., Ingram, W., & Withey, L. (1954). A research approach to reading retardation. In R. Mcintosh & C.C. Hare, (Eds.) Neurology and psychiatry in childhood (pp. 363-395). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins. Radloff, L. (1975). Sex differences in depression. The e f f e c t s of occupation and marital status. Sex Roles. 1., 249-265. Ransohoff, D.F., & F e i n s t e i n , A.R. (1978). Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the e f f i c a c y of diagnostic t e s t s . New England Journal of Medicine. 299. 926-930. Rapoport, J.L., Quinn, P.O., Bradbard, G., Riddle, K.D., & Brooks, E. (1974). Imipramine and methylphenidate treatments of hyperactive boys. Archives of General Psychiatry. 30, 789-793. Raven, J.C. (1956,1962). Coloured Progressive Matrices. London: H.K. Lewis & Co., Ltd. Raven, J.C. (1965). Guide to using the Coloured Progressive Matrices. London: H.K. Lewis & Co., Ltd. Rawson, M.B. (1968). Developmental language d i s a b i l i t y : Adult accomplishments of dyslexic boys. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Renshaw, D.C. (1974). Suicide and depression in c h i l d r e n . Journal of School Health. 44. 487-489. Rholes, W.S., Blackwell, J . , Jordan, C., & Walters, C. (1980). A developmental study of learned helplessness. Developmental Psychology. 16. 616-624. Richman, N. (1977). Short term outcome of behavior problems in three year old c h i l d r e n . In P.J. Graham (Ed.), Epidemiological approaches in c h i l d psychiatry. New York: Academic Press. Riddle, K.D., & Rapoport, J.L. (1976). A 2-year follow-up of 72 hyperactive boys. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 162. 126-134. Rie, H.E., & Rie, E.D. (1980). Handbook of minimal brain dysfunctions. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rizley, R.C. (1978). Depression and d i s t o r t i o n in the a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87, 32-48. 237 Robins, E. , & Guze, S. • (1970). Establishment of diagnostic v a l i d i t y in p s y c h i a t r i c i l l n e s s : I t s ap p l i c a t i o n to schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry. 126. 983- 987. Robins, L.N. (1966). Deviant children grown U P . Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Robins, L.N. (1979). Follow-up studies. In H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (Eds.), Psvchopathological disorders of childhood (pp. 483-513). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Robinson, H.M., & Smith, H.K. (1962). Reading c l i n i c c l i e n t s - 'ten years a f t e r . The Elementary School Journal. 63. 22-28. Rogers, C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , as developed in the c l i e n t - centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ross, L., Lepper, M.R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and s o c i a l perception: Biased a t t r i b u t i o n a l processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology. 32. 880-892. Roth, S., & Kubal, L. (1975). E f f e c t s of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of d i f f e r i n g importance: F a c i l i t a t i o n and learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 32. 680-691. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for i n t e r n a l versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 80, (1, Whole No. 609). Rotter, J . C , Chance, J.E., & Phares, E.J. (1972). Applications of a s o c i a l learning theory of personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Royce, J.R., Yeudall, L.T., & Bock, C. (1976). Factor a n a l y t i c studies of human brain damage: I. F i r s t and second-order f a c t o r s and their brain c o r r e l a t e s . M u l t i v a r i a t e Behavioral Research. 4, 381-418. Ruble, D.N., £ Rholes, W.S. (1981). The development of children's perceptions and a t t r i b u t i o n s about their s o c i a l world. In J.H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s in a t t r i b u t i o n research (Vol. 3, pp. 3-36). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rugel, R.P. (1974). WISC subtest scores of disabled readers: A review with respect to Bannatyne's recategorization. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 7, 48-55. Rusch, R.R. (1970). R e l i a b i l i t y of the Higgins-Wertman Test of Vis u a l Closure. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 30, 879-885. 238 Rusch, R.R. (1971). Note on the v a l i d i t y of the claim that f i n a l closure i s r e l a t e d to reading achievement. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 32. 394. Rutter, M. (1972). Relationship between c h i l d and adult p s y c h i a t r i c disorders. Acta P s v c h i a t r i c a Scandinavica. 48. 3- 21. Rutter, M. (1977). Brain damage syndromes in childhood: Concepts and f i n d i n g s . Journal of C h i l d Psychology and Psychiatry. 16, 181-197. Rutter, M. (1978). Early sources of security and competence. In J.S. Bruner & A. Garton (Eds.), Human growth and development. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rutter, M. (1980). Raised lead l e v e l s and impaired cognitive/behavioral functioning: A review of the evidence. Supplement to Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology. Vol.22, No. 1. Supplement No. 42. Spastics International Medical Publications in association with Wm. Heinemann Medical Books Ltd., Tadworth, Surrey; J.B. Lippincott Co., East Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA., 19105. London: 1980. (b) Rutter, M., & Chadwick, 0. (1980). Neurobehavioral associations and syndromes of "minimal brain dysfunction." In F.C. Rose (Ed.), C l i n i c a l neuro-epidemiology. Tunbridge Wells: Pitman Medical. Rutter, M., Chadwick, 0., & Schachar, R. (1980). Hyperactivity and minimal brain dysfunction: Epidemiological perspectives on questions of cause and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Presented at Symposium on Minimal Brain Dysfunction and Hyperkinetic Behavior in Children. A p r i l 25, 1980, Omaha, Nebraska. Rutter, M., Chadwick, 0., Shaffer, D., & Brown, G. (1980). A prospective study of children with head i n j u r i e s : I. Design and methods. Psychological Medicine. 10. 633-645. Rutter, M., Graham, P., & Yule, W. (1970a). A neuropsychiatric study in childhood. London: Spastics International Medical Publications. Rutter, M., T i z a r d , J . , & Whitmore, K. (Eds.) (1970b). Education, health and behavior. The I s l e of Wight Study. London: Longmans. Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of s p e c i f i c reading retardation. Journal of C h i l d Psychology and Psychiatry. 16. 181-197. 239 Ryan, T.A., J r . , Joiner, B ' L - » « *van, B.F.(1981). MINITAB Reference Manual. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. A companion to MINITAB Student Handbook. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press. Ryckman, D.B., & Elrod, G.F. (1983). Once i s not enough. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 16. 87-89. Santostefano, S. (1978). A biodevelopmental approach to c l i n i c a l psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. S a t t e r f i e l d , J.H., Cantwell, D.P., & S a t t e r f i e l d , B.T. (1979). Multimodality treatment. Archives of General Psychiatry. 36. 965-974. S a t t l e r , J.M. (1982). Assessment of children's i n t e l l i g e n c e and spe c i a l a b i l i t i e s . 2nd e d i t i o n . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. Satz, P. & F r i e l , J . (1973). Some prediction antecedents of s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t y : A preliminary one year follow-up. In P. Satz and J. Ross (Ed.s), The disabled learner: Early detection and treatment (pp. 79-98). Rotterdam University Press. Schachter, S. (1964). The inte r a c t i o n of cognitive and physi o l o g i c a l determinants of emotional state. Advances in Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 1, 49-80. Schain, R.J. (1977). Neurology of childhood learning disorders. (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co. Schulterbrandt, J.G., & Raskin, A. (1977). Depression in childhood: Diagnosis, treatment, and conceptual models. New York: Raven Press. Schunk, D.H. (1981). Modeling and a t t r i b u t i o n a l e f f e c t s on children's achievements A s e l f - e f f i c a c y a n a l y s i s . Journal of Educational Psychology. 73. 93-105. Sei d e l , V.P., Chadwick. O.F.D., & Rutter, M. (1975). Psychological disorders in c r i p p l e d c h i l d r e n . A comparative study of children with and without brain damage. Developmental Medicine and Chi l d Neurology. 17. 563-573. Seligman, M.E.P. (1974). Depression and learned helplessness. In R.J. Friedman & M.M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Washington: V.H. Winston. Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development. and death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Seligman, M.E.P., Abramson, L.Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 88. 242-247. 240 Seligman, M.E.P., Abramson, L.Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 88. 242-247. Seligman, M.E.P., & Maier, S.F. (1967). F a i l u r e to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 74, 1- 9. Seligman, M.E.P., Maier, S.F., & Geer, J. (1968). The a l l e v i a t i o n of learned helplessness in the dog. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 73. 256-262. Seligman, M.E.P., Peterson, C , Kaslow, N.J., Tanenbaum, R.L., A l l o y , L.B., & Abramson, L.Y. (1984). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e and depressive symptoms among c h i l d r e n . Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 93. 235-238. Shapiro, J . (1985, March 6). Letter to the e d i t o r . Vancouver Sun, p. A5. Shaver, K.G. (1975). An introduction to a t t r i b u t i o n processes. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Pub. Inc. Shepherd, M., Oppenheim, B., & M i t c h e l l , S. (1971). Childhood behavior and mental health. New York: Grune & Stratton. S i e g e l , P.M. (1971). Prestige in the American occupational structure. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Chicago. S i l v e r , A.A., & Hagin, R.A. (1964). S p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i l i t y : follow-up studies. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 34. 95-102. Simon, J.G., & Feather, N.T. (1973). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for success and f a i l u r e at university examinations. Journal of Educational Psychology. 64, 46-56. Sladen, B.K. (1972). Some genetic aspects of dyslexia. B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society. 22. 41-53. Smith, M.D. (1979). Prediction of self-concept among learning disabled c h i l d r e n . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 12, 664-669. Smith, M.D., Coleman, J.M., Dokecki, P.R., & Davis, E.E. (1977). Recategorized NISC-R scores of learning disabled c h i l d r e n . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 10., 437-443. Smith, S.D., Kimberling, N.J., Penningtcr* r B.F. , & Lubs, H.A. (1983). S p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i l i t y : I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an inherited form through linkage a n a l y s i s . Science. 219. 1345- 1347. 241 Snow, R.E. (1980). A p t i * u d e processes. In R.E. Snow, P.A. F e d e r i c o , £ N.E. Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and i n s t r u c t i o n . Vol. I; Cognitive process analyses of apti tude. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Pub. Solomon, R.L., & Corbit, J.D. (1973). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I I . Cigarette addiction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 81, 158-171. Solyom, L., Beck, P., Solyom, C., & Hugal, R. (1974). Some e t i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s in phobic neurosis. Canadi an P s y c h i a t r i c Association Journal. 19. 69-78. 8PS8i X (1983). User's Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. S t a t i s t i c s Canada, (1971) Canadian C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Dictionary of Occupations. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r . S t a t i s t i c s Canada, (1972). Dictionary of 1971 Census Terms. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r . Staton, R.D., Wilson, H., & Brumback, R. (1981). Cognitive improvement associated with t r i c y c l i c antidepressant treatment of childhood major depressive i l l n e s s . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 53. 219-234. Stevenson, D.T., & Romney, D.M. (1984). Depression in learning disabled c h i l d r e n . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 17. 579-582. Stewart, M.A. (1980). Genetic, p e r i n a t a l , & c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s in minimal brain dysfunctions. In H.E. Rie and E.D. Rie (Eds.), Handbook of minimal brain dysfunctions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 155-168. Stipek, D.J., & Weisz, J.R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research. 51, 101-137. Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in s e r i a l verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 18. 643-661. Taylor, S.E., & Fiske, S.T. (1978). Salience, attention, and a t t r i b u t i o n : Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology ( v o l . 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press. Teasdale, J.D. (1978). E f f e c t s of r e a l and r e c a l l e d success or learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 155-164. Tennen, H., & E l l e r , S.J. (1977). A t t r i b u t i o n a l components of learned helplessness and f a c i l i t a t i o n . Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 35. 265-271. 242 Tennen, H., & G i l l e n , R. (1979). The e f f e c t of debriefing on laboratory induced helplessness: An a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . Journal of Personality. 47. 629-642. Tetlock, P.E. (1981). The influence of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a l goals on a t t r i b u t i o n a l reports. S o c i a l Psychology Quarterly. 44, 300-311. Thomas, A. (1979). Learned helplessness and expectancy f a c t o r s : Implications for research in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Review of Education Research. 49. 208-221. Thomas, A., & Pashley, B. (1982). E f f e c t s of classroom t r a i n i n g on LD students' task persistence and a t t r i b u t i o n s . Learning D i s a b i l i t y Quarterly. 5, 133-144. Thornton, J.W., & Jacobs, P.D. (1971). Learned helplessness in human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 87. 367-372. Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary mental a b i l i t i e s . Psychometric Monographs. No. 1. Thurstone, L.L. (1944). A f a c t o r i a l study of perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thurstone, L.L., S M e l l i n g e r , J . J . (1953). The Stroop Test. Chapel H i l l , NC: The Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina, no. 3. Thurstone, L.L., & Thurstone, T.S. (1962). SRA Primary Mental A b i l i t i e s . Chicago: SRA. Toolan, J.M. (1962). Depression in children & adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 32. 404-414. Torgesen, J . (1975). Problems and prospects in the study of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . In E. Mavis Hetherington (Ed.), Review of C h i l d Development Research ( v o l . 5), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Torgesen, J. (1982). Use of r a t i o n a l l y defined subgroups in research. In J.P. Das, R.F. Mulcahy, and A.E. N a i l (Eds.), Theory and research in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . New York: Plenum Press. Torgesen, J . , & Dice, C. (1980). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of research on learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 13, 531-535. Torgesen, J.K., & L i c h t , B.6. (1983). The learning disabled c h i l d as an in a c t i v e learner: Retrospect and prospects. In J.D. McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. 2 4 3 Towbin, A. (1971). O r g a n i c causes of minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n : P e r i n a t a l o r i g i n of minimal c e r e b r a l l e s i o n s . J o u r n a l of the American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 217. 1207-1214. Towbin, A. (1978). C e r e b r a l d y s f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d to p e r i n a t a l o r g a n i c damage: C l i n i c a l - n e u r o p a t h o l o g i c c o r r e l a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 87, 617-635. Towbin, A. (1980). N e u r o p a t h o l o g i c f a c t o r s i n minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n . In H.E. R i e & E.D. Rie ( E d s . ) , Handbook of minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n s (pp. 185-209). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Trope, Y., & Brickman, P. (1975). D i f f i c u l t y and d i a g n o s t i c i t y as determinants of c h o i c e among t a s k s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 31. 918-926. 244 V a l l e , V.A., & Frieze , I.H. (1976). S t a b i l i t y of causal a t t r i b u t i o n s as a mediator in changing expectations for success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 33. 579-587. Weary, G. (1980). Examination of a f f e c t and egotism as mediators of bias in causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38. 348-357. Wechsler, D. (1939). Wechsler-Bellevue I. Wechsler, D. (1942). Wechsler-Bellevue I I . Army Wechsler. Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual for the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children. New York: Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children - Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation. Weidl, K.H., & Carlson, J.S. (1976). The f a c t o r i a l structure of the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 36. 409-413. Weinberg, W.A., Rutmen, J . , S u l l i v a n , L., Penick, E.C., & Dietz, S.G. (1973). Depression in children r e f e r r e d to an educational diagnostic center: Diagnosis & treatment. Journal of P e d i a t r i c s . 83. 1065-1072. Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cogni t i o n . Chicago: Rand McNally. Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and a t t r i b u t i o n theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Weiner, B. (1976). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach for educational psychology. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education ( v o l . 4, pp. 179-209). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology. 71, 3-25. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology. 71, 3-25. Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Weiner, B. (1983). Speculations regarding the r o l e of a f f e c t in achievement-change programs guided by a t t r i b u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s . In J.M. Levine & M.C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 57-73). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 245 Weiner, B. (1984). P r i n c i p l e s for a theory of student motivation and their a p p l i c a t i o n within an a t t r i b u t i o n a l framework. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, Student Motivation, pp. 15-38). New York: Academic Press. Weiner, B., Frieze , I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., Rosenbaum, R.M. (1972). Perceiving the causes of success and f a i l u r e . In E.E. Jones et a l (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n : Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95-120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An a t t r i b u t i o n a l analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 15. 1-20. Weiner, B., Nierenberg, R., & Goldstein, M. (1976). Social learning (locus of control) versus a t t r i b u t i o n a l (causal s t a b i l i t y ) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of expectancy of success. Journal of Personality. 44. 52-68. Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). The cog n i t i v e - emotion process in achievement-related contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37. 1211-1220. Weiss, G., Minde, K., Werry, J . Douglas, V., & Nemeth, E. (1971). Studies on the hyperactive c h i l d , VIII. Five-year follow-up. Archives of General Psychiatry. 24. 409-414. Weissman, M.M., & Klerman, G.L. (1977). Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry. 34i 98-111. Weiner, Z. (1978). Childhood depression: An overview. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 166. 588-593. Weiner, Z., Weiner, A., McCrary, M.A., & Leonard, M.A. (1977). Psychopathology in children of inpatients with depression: A c o n t r o l l e d study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 164. 408-413. Weiner, Z., Weiner, A., Stewart, M., Palkes, H., & Wish, E. (1977). A co n t r o l l e d study of s i b l i n g s of hyperactive c h i l d r e n . Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 165. 110- 117. Werner, E.E. (1980). Environmental int e r a c t i o n in minimal brain dysfunctions. In H.E. Rie and E.D. Rie (Eds.), Handbook of minimal brain cysfunctions (pp. 210-231). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Werner, E.E., & Smith, R.S. (1977). Kauai's children come of age. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 246 Werry, J.S., & Quay, H.C. (1971). The prevalence of behavior symptoms in younger elementary school c h i l d r e n . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 41, 136-143. Wiener, 6., Rider, R.V., Oppel, W.C., & Harper, P.A. (1968). Correlates of low b i r t h weight. Psychological status at eight to ten years of age. P e d i a t r i c Research. 2, 110-118. Witkin, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.G., Goodenough, D.R., & Karp, S.A. (1974). Psychological d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Potomac, MD: Erlbaum. Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive s t y l e s and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research. 47. 1-64. Woodcock, R.W. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psvcho-educat i onal Battery: Technical Report. Boston: Teaching Resources. Woodcock, R.W. (1978). Development and standardization of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation. Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation. Woodruff, R.A., Goodwin, D.W., & Guze, S.B. (1974). P s y c h i a t r i c Diagnosis. New York: Oxford University Press. Wortman, C.B., Panciera, L., Shusterman, L., & Hibscher, J . (1976). A t t r i b u t i o n s of cau s a l i t y & reactions to uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 12. 301-316. Young, E., & Egeland, B. (1976). Repetition choice behavior as a function of chronological age, task d i f f i c u l t y and expectancy of success. C h i l d Development. 47. 682-689. Yule, W. (1973). D i f f e r e n t i a l prognosis of reading backwardness and s p e c i f i c reading retardation. B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology. 43. 244-248. Zemore, R., & Johansen, L.S. (1980). Depression, helplessness and f a i l u r e a t t r i b u t i o n s . Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 12. 161-174. Zerbin-Rudin, E. (1967). Congenital word blindness. B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society. 17. 47-54. Zuckerman, M., Larrance, D.T., Porac, J.F.A., & Blanck, P.D. (1980). E f f e c t s of fear of success on i n t r i n s i c motivation, causal a t t r i b u t i o n , and choice behavior. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology. 39. 503-513. 247 Zuroff, D.C. (1981). Depression and a t t r i b u t i o n : Some new data and a review of old data. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 5, 273-281. 248 Appendix 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall University Campus Vancouver, B.C., Canada VST 1Z5 January 17, 1984 Dear P r i n c i p a l and Teachers: The School Board has given us permission to conduct research for a doctorate in I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Studies (Special Education; C l i n i c a l Psychology; P e d i a t r i c s ) in the elementary schools. We are interested in children's motivation, e s p e c i a l l y children's a t t r i b u t i o n s or explanations regarding performance on game-like tasks. Such in t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the causes of good or poor performance have been shown to be important predictors of future persistence on many kinds of tasks. It would be valuable for educators to know the a t t r i b u t i o n a l systems of both children who are doing well in school, and those who are having d i f f i c u l t y . Although we w i l l be administering the WISC-R in order to determine i n t e l l i g e n c e l e v e l , and the three reading subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery in order to determine achievement l e v e l in reading, we would be grateful i f you could make an i n i t i a l judgment regarding subject s e l e c t i o n for us. B a s i c a l l y , we want to compare the a t t r i b u t i o n s and performances of learning-disabled boys with those of normally achieving boys. For experimental subjects, we are interested in boys only, 249 between the ages of 9 years 0 months to 11 years 11 months, in Grades 4, 5, or 6, or in a s p e c i a l i z e d c l a s s placement for learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , whose IQs are at least 80 (on the Verbal, Performance, or. F u l l Scale scores), and whose reading achievement i s at the 20th p e r c e n t i l e for their age or lower on a standardized reading test (such as on the Canadian Tests of Basic S k i l l s that was given on a d i s t r i c t - w i d e basis before the Christmas break). These youngsters must be native English speakers ( i . e . , not ESL) and must not be seriously handicapped p h y s i c a l l y , emotionally, or c u l t u r a l l y . (Children with glasses, hearing aids, or other corrected sensory or minor d e f i c i t s , for example, are acceptable.) These learning-disabled youngsters often have h i s t o r i e s of school d i f f i c u l t i e s from Grade One; have uneven performance records, i . e . , good in some subjects and poor in others; and have had an early diagnosis of LD (medical, psychological, or educational). For control subjects we are interested in boys between the ages of 9 years 0 months and 11 years 11 months, in Grades 4, 5, or 6, preferably boys from the same classes (or at least the same school) as the experimental subjects. The best method i s to choose the boy on the c l a s s l i s t whose birthday comes closest to that of the experimental c h i l d . He must meet the same c r i t e r i a - IQ >. 80, native language English, and be free from serious physical, emotional, or c u l t u r a l handicap. But he must be within the normal range (expected grade l e v e l ) in reading. It i s best not to select "stars" as control subjects, as a close match i s preferable, even regarding socioeconomic status ( i f , for example, family occupations are known). 250 Appendix 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall University Campus Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z5 January 15, 1984 Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s) : The School Board has given us permission to conduct research for a doctorate in I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Studies (Special Education; C l i n i c a l Psychology; Pediatrics) in the elementary schools. Ne are interested in children's motivation and how i t a f f e c t s school performance. It would be valuable for educators to Know the motivational systems of both children who are doing well in school, and those who are having d i f f i c u l t y . Ne would l i k e to include your c h i l d in t h i s study and would be g r a t e f u l i f you would allow him/her to p a r t i c i p a t e in our research. There w i l l be three i n d i v i d u a l testing sessions over a two-week period, each l a s t i n g approximately one hour. Testing w i l l be done at your c h i l d ' s school at a time arranged with your c h i l d ' s classroom teacher. A l l testing w i l l be done i n d i v i d u a l l y and p r i v a t e l y . Results w i l l remain s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l ; information w i l l not be given to teachers or to school personnel. The f i r s t session involves the administration of an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e test and achievement tests commonly used in the schools. The second session involves the completion of two questionnaires that show what fa c t o r s children f e e l are 252 important in achievement s i t u a t i o n s , and completion of f i v e short tasks. The t h i r d session involves further motivational survey questions and completion of f i v e or six games or tasks. For some of the students one of the games w i l l be made more d i f f i c u l t than for others. The f i n a l tasks for a l l children are simple ones to ensure that they leave the experimental s i t u a t i o n with p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s of success. The purpose of the study w i l l be explained to them; previous research has revealed that children f i n d these tasks/games i n t e r e s t i n g and enjoyable. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in the project i s voluntary and withdrawal at any time i s permissible. A l l i d e n t i f y i n g information w i l l be coded to ensure anonymity, and access to the data c o l l e c t e d w i l l be r e s t r i c t e d to the researchers (below) and members of the doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n committee. If you agree to allow your c h i l d ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s study, we would ask you to complete the enclosed C h i l d Behavior Checklist (either parent or guardian may f i l l i t out) and return i t together with the attached consent form in the envelope provided. If you have any questions regarding the research project, please f e e l free to telephone either of us at the numbers given below. Thank you. Yours t r u l y , 253 Appendix 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall University Campus Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z5 PARENT CONSENT FORM Project T i t l e : A t t r i b u t i o n Patterns of School-Aged Children P r i n c i p a l Investigator: Dr. Peggy R. Koopman I consent to 's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the educational research project being conducted by the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. I am aware that t h i s w i l l involve three sessions of approximately one hour each, over a period of two weeks, conducted by a graduate student experimenter and a research a s s i s t a n t . I understand that the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the test r e s u l t s w i l l be maintained and that no in d i v i d u a l scores w i l l be released. I understand that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s project i s voluntary and may be terminated at any time. I hereby give my permission for my c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e in the educational research being conducted by the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. YES ( s i gnature) I have completed the Ch i l d Behavior Checklist and am returning i t in the envelope provided. (Please check.) I would rather not have my c h i l d p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s research project and am returning the unanswered Ch i l d Behavior 255 Checklist in the envelope provided. NO (signature) School: 256 Appendix 3 (Parent consent for release of two t e s t s ' scores) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall University Campus Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z5 January 23, 1984 Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s): As you w i l l note in the l e t t e r attached (dated January 15, 1984), the f i r s t session of my research project involves the administration of an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e test - the WISC-R, or Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised, and the administration of the three reading achievement subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Battery. Your c h i l d ' s p r i n c i p a l has expressed a desire to receive and reta i n the scores from these two tests only in order to best help your c h i l d at school. Please indicate your consent by completing the form below. If you wish your c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study, but do not wish any scores given to the school, please indicate t h i s below and complete the consent form at the end of the l e t t e r attached. Thank you. Donna M. Haqq, M.A. 257 Appendix 4 STUDENT CCNSFNT FORM By way of introduction to the study, and in order to obtain consent from the c h i l d subject, the following w i l l be said or paraphrased to each c h i l d before Session I begins: "I am interested in your ideas and opinions about some tasks. You w i l l probably f i n d some of these tasks easy and some of them hard. Children usually f i n d a l l of these tasks very i n t e r e s t i n g though. I w i l l ask you to explain how you think you did and why you think you did well or not well on some of the tasks. The important thing i s that you do your best and answer a l l the questions as well as you can. The f i r s t task I'm going to give you, for example, i s meant for children between the ages of 6 and 16; so some of the questions w i l l be easy and some of them w i l l be hard - meant for older c h i l d r e n . Just do the best that you can. Later, when I ask for your opinion on some questions I w i l l read the questions out loud while you follow along. If you don't understand a word or sentence, please ask about i t . A l l of your answers are private and c o n f i d e n t i a l . No one except me and my teachers at U.B.C. w i l l know about them, and, in f a c t , I w i l l be coding everyone's papers so that no one's name w i l l be on them - only an i d e n t i f y i n g number to keep track of them. (Coded questionnaires may then be shown to the c h i l d to show what i s meant by "coded.") Your parent(s) has/have given permission for you to take part in our project, but you have to agree to take part too. You have 259 the right to discontinue or stop being in the project at any time without anyone saying anything about i t . And you may ask for a break to rest or s t r e t c h i f you l i k e . Ne w i l l meet at three times, for about 1 to 1 1/2 hours, though, so that, hopefully, you won't get t i r e d and you w i l l f i n d everything quite i n t e r e s t i n g and enjoyable. At the end of the l a s t session we have together I w i l l explain why I've asked the questions I w i l l be asking, and why I have given you the tasks that I w i l l be giving you. You w i l l understand why we are doing t h i s project when I explain i t a l l to you then. Do you have any questions before we begin? * i . e . , the Nechsler Intelligence Test for Children - Revised (WISC-R) 260 Appendix 5 MOOD MEASURE Please put an "X" beside the face which best shows how you f e e l r i g h t now. Very, very good Very good Good Don't know Bad Very bad Very, very bad 261 Appendix 6 v. Att -jbution Rating Scale T r a i n i n g I am interested in how you think or f e e l about some things. One way to show h w you f e e l about something i s to rate i t on a scale. For example, i f I ask you "How much do you l i k e i c e cream? Put an 'X' beside the words that best describe how much you l i k e i c e cream." Nhere would you put your 'X'? My f e e l i n g s about i c e cream are that 1. I love i t . 2. I r e a l l y l i k e i t 3. I l i k e i t 4. I don't care one way or the other 5. I don't l i k e i t 6. I r e a l l y don't l i k e i t 7. I hate i t Now, put an 'X' beside the words that best describe how you f e e l about doing dishes. Where would you put your 'X'? My f e e l i n g s about doing the dishes are that 1. I love i t 2. I r e a l l y l i k e i t 3. I l i k e i t 4. I don't care one way or the other 5. I don't l i k e i t 6. I r e a l l y don't l i k e i t 7. I hate i t Remember, there i s no right way to answer these questions; it_ 262 a l l depends on your own f e e l i n g s and opinions. Now I'm going to t e l l you about a s i t u a t i o n and I want you to t e l l me how much you think each thing i s important. For example, pretend that you are on a baseball team, and your team wins. 1. How much do you think that your team won because the whole team was trying hard to win? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 2. How much do you think that your team won because the whole team was lucky? 1. very, very much - 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 3. How much do you think that your team won because your teammates are good players - they have good a b i l i t y ? • 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 263 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 4. How much do you think that your team won because the opposite team did not have good players - the game was easy? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l Now, pretend that your team l o s t the baseball game. 1. How much do you think that your team l o s t because the whole team wasn't tryi n g hard to win? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 2. How much do you think that your team l o s t because the whole team was unlucky? 1. very, very much 2. very much 264 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l How much do you think that your team l o s t because your team has poor players - they have poor a b i l i t y ? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat • 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l How much do you think that your team l o s t because the opposite team had good players - the game was hard? ^ 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 265 Appendix 7 Pre-experimental a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire Now, pretend that you are doing a test in school and you do very well on i t ; you get an 'A.' 1. How much do you think that you did well on the test because you t r i e d hard? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 2. How much do you think that you did well on the test because you were lucky? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 3. How much do you think that you did well on the test because of your a b i l i ty - you were smart? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 266 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 4. How much do you think that you did well on the test because the test was easy? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l Now, pretend that you are doing a test in school and you do very badly on i t ; you get an 'F' or 'E.' 1. How much do you think that you did poorly on the test because you didn't try hard enough? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 2. How much do you think that you did poorly on the test because you were unlucky? 1. very, very much 267 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e bi t 7. not much at a l l 3. How much do you think that you did poorly on the test because of your poor a b i l i t y - you were dumb? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t • 7. not much at a l l 4. How much do you think that you did poorly on the test because the test was hard? 1. very, very much • 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 268 Appendix 8 I n t e l l e c t u a l Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall, 1965) Dire c t i o n s : This i s a questionnaire to f i n d out how you f e e l about some things that happen to you in your d a i l y l i f e . For each question put a check in front of the one choice that best describes what happens or how you f e e l . This i s not a te s t . There are no rig h t or wrong answers. Your answers w i l l not be shown to anyone else in your school. Please be sure to answer a l l of the questions. [Note: Item numbers preceded by + are those items which comprise the I + subscale. Those preceded by - comprise the I subscale. In addition, those items marked with an as t e r i s k , *, are those used to c l a s s i f y subjects into helplessness and mastery-oriented categories (Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980).] 1. If a teacher passes you to the next grade, would i t probably be a. because she l i k e d you, or + b. because of the work you did? 2. When you do well on a test in school, i s i t more l i k e l y to be +_ a. because you studied for i t , or b. because the test was es p e c i a l l y easy? * 3. When you have trouble understanding something in school, i s i t usually a. because the teacher didn't explain i t c l e a r l y , or 269 -_ b. because you didn't l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y ? When you read a story and can't remember much of i t , i s usually a. because the story wasn't well written, or b. because you weren't interested in the story? Suppose your parents say you are doing well in school, t h i s l i k e l y to happen +_ a. because your school work i s good, or _ b. because they are in a good mood? Suppose you did better than usual in a subject at scho< Would i t probably happen a. because you t r i e d harder, or b. because someone helped you? When you lose at a game of cards or checkers, does usually happen a. because the other player i s good at the game, or -_ b. because you don't play well? Suppose a person doesn't think you are very bright cle v e r . -_ a. Can you make him change h i s mind i f you try to, o b. are there some people who w i l l think you're no very bright no matter what you do? If you solve a puzzle quickly, i s i t a. because i t wasn't a very hard puzzle, or +_ b. because you worked on i t c a r e f u l l y ? If a boy or g i r l t e l l s you that you are dumb, i s i t mo l i k e l y that they say that a. because they are mad at you, or 270 -_ b. because what you did r e a l l y wasn't very bright? * 11. Suppose you study to become a teacher, s c i e n t i s t , or doctor and you f a i l . Do you think t h i s would happen * -_ a. because you didn't work hard enough, or b. because you needed some help, and other people didn't g i v e ' i t to you? 12. When you learn something quickly in school, i s i t usually +_ a. because you paid close attention, or b. because the teacher explained i t c l e a r l y ? 13. If a teacher says to you, "Your work i s f i n e , " i s i t a. something teachers usually say to encourage pupils, or __+_ b. because you did a good job? * 14. When you f i n d i t hard to work arithmetic or math problems at school, i s i t * a. because you didn't study well enough before you t r i e d them, or b. because the teacher gave problems that were too hard? * 15. When you forget something you heard in c l a s s , i s i t a. because the teacher didn't explain i t very w e l l , or * b. because you didn't try very hard to remember? 16. Suppose you weren't sure about the answer to a question your teacher asked you, but your answer turned out to be r i g h t . Is i t l i k e l y to happen a. because she wasn't as p a r t i c u l a r as usual, or + b. because you gave the best answer you could think 271 When you read a story and remember most of i t , i s i t usually a. because you were interested in the story, or b. because the story was well written? If your parents t e l l you you're acting s i l l y and not thinking c l e a r l y , i s i t more l i k e l y to be a. because of something you did, or . b. because they happen to f e e l cranky? When you don't do well on a test at school, i s i t . a. because the test was es p e c i a l l y hard, or b. because you didn't study for i t ? When you win at a game of cards or checkers, does i t happen a. because you play r e a l w e l l , or . b. because the other person doesn't play well? If people think you're bright or clever, i s i t _ a. because they happen to l i k e you, or +_ b. because you usually act that way? If a teacher didn't pass you to the next grade, would i t probably be a. because she "had i t in for you," or b. because your school work wasn't good enough? Suppose you don't do as well as usual in a subject at school. Would t h i s probably happen _ a. because you weren't as car e f u l as usual, or b. because somebody bothered you and kept you from working? 272 If a boy or g i r l t e l l s you that you are bright, i s i t usually + a. because you thought up a good idea, or b. because they l i k e you? Suppose you became a famous teacher, s c i e n t i s t , or doctor. Do you think t h i s would happen a. because other people helped you when you needed i t , or + b. because you worked very hard? Suppose your parents say you aren't doing well in your school work. Is t h i s l i k e l y to happen more a. because your work i s n ' t very good, or b. because they are f e e l i n g cranky? Suppose you are showing a f r i e n d how to play a game and he has trouble with i t . Mould that happen a. because he wasn't able to understand how to play, or -_ b. because you couldn't explain i t well? When you f i n d i t easy to work arithmetic or math problems at school, i s i t usually a. because the teacher gave you es p e c i a l l y easy problems, or + b. because you studied your book well before you t r i e d them? When you remember something you heard in c l a s s , i s i t usually a. because you t r i e d hard to remember, or 273 _ b. because the teacher explained i t well? If you can't work a puzzle, i s i t more l i k e l y to happen _ a. because you are not e s p e c i a l l y good at working puzzles, or _ b. because the i n s t r u c t i o n s weren't written c l e a r l y enough? If your parents t e l l you that you are bright or clever, i s i t more l i k e l y a. because they are f e e l i n g good, or +_ b. because of something you did? Suppose you were explaining how to play a game to a f r i e n d and he learns quickly. Mould that happen more of ten a. because you explained i t w e l l , or b. because he was able to understand i t ? Suppose you're not sure about the answer to a question your teacher asks you and the answer you give turns out to be wrong. Is i t l i k e l y to happen a. because she was more p a r t i c u l a r than usual, or b. because you answered too quickly? If a teacher says to you, "Try to do better," would i t be because t h i s i s something she might say to get pupils to try harder, or b. because your work wasn't as good as usual? 274 Appendix 9 Dir e c t i o n s and Sample of the "Aim" Pre-, Post-Measure CAB-A . this test, you are to draw lines on a page full of figures just like this: LTJ orking as quickly and carefully as you can (1) draw a line freehand all the way around between the outer and inner squares, and then (2) draw a circle around the dot. 'AMPLES: careful (1) not to let your line touch either of the squares or the dot, and (2) to make the lines complete: that is. go all the way around between the squares and around the dot. e following would not get a point because the line either touched one of the squares or the dot. or was incomplete: E H S ® n't use a ruler to draw the lines. All pencil marks must be drawn freehand. Finish each figure completely before going on he next one. u score will be the number of figures with correctly drawn lines, so you should go as fast as you can without making errors. AMPLES: practice, do the following examples as quickly and accurately as you can. You will have 30 seconds: E3 a • • • Ice sure you have two sharp pencils ready. If not. sharpen two pencils in the space below, so that you will have a sharp cil for each of the two pans of this test. You will have 2lA minutes for each of two pages of figures. DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO. 275 PART I H 3. iH • H H • 10. H 11 . i H 12. • 13. • 14, • 15. • 16. 17. • 18. • 19, • 20. H 21. H ! 22, H 23. • 24. • 2.5. H 26. 27. H 28. !H 29, • 30. H 31 . 32. Hi 33, B 34, H 35, H 27S Appendix 10 Exped%ancv of Success Measure for S e l f . Pre Task Before you 1 play the game, I wonder i f you c o u l d show me how w e l l you thinkMyou w i l l do on t h i s game. Do you thin k you w i l l \i be a b l e to guess none of the p i c t u r e c a r d s ? one of them? two of them? th r e e of them? f o u r of them? a l l of them? Put an 'X' b e s i d e the number on the page that shows how many of them you think you w i l l be a b l e to get r i g h t . I think I w i l l be a b l e to guess c o r r e c t l y 1 p i c t u r e c a r d 2 p i c t u r e c a r d s 3 p i c t u r e c a r d s 4 p i c t u r e c a r d s 5 p i c t u r e c a r d s 6 p i c t u r e c a r d s 7 p i c t u r e c a r d s 8 p i c t u r e c a r d s 9 p i c t u r e c a r d s 10 p i c t u r e c a r d s 277 Expectancy of Success Measure for Other (Pre-Task) If another boy from your c l a s s were given t h i s same game, how many picture cards do you think he would get r i g h t ? Put an 'X' beside the number on the page showing how many of them he would be able to get r i g h t . I think another boy from my c l a s s would be able to guess c o r r e c t l y 1 picture card 2 picture cards 3 picture cards 4 picture cards 5 picture cards 6 picture cards 7 picture cards 8 picture cards 9 picture cards 10 picture cards 273 Appendix 11 Schematic Drawing of Board Game "Round-Robin Racing" if (Experimental Manipulation Task for Easy and D i f f i c u l t / [ C o n d i t i o n s ) Scale = 4:1 279 Appendix 12 Post-experimental Task A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaire Easy Condition Good for you. You got your car to the winner's box. 1. How much was t h i s because you t r i e d hard? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 2. How much was t h i s because you were lucky? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 3. How much was t h i s because you are good at t h i s kind of game - you have good a b i l i t y ? • 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 280 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 4. How much was t h i s because the game was easy? 1. very, very much 2. yery much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 5. How enjoyable did you f i n d t h i s game? 1. very, very .enjoyable 2. very enjoyable 3. enjoyable . 4. can't decide 5. somewhat enjoyable . 6. a l i t t l e enjoyable 7. not enjoyable at a l l 6. Do you have any suggestions about how t h i s game can be improved? 281 Post-experimental Task A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaire D i f f i c u l t Condition You were unable to get your car to the winner's box. 1. How much was t h i s because you didn't try hard enough? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter ' 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 2. How much was t h i s because you were unlucky? 1. very, very much _ _ _ _ _ 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 6. a l i t t l e b i t 7. not much at a l l 3. How much was t h i s because you are poor at t h i s kind of game - you have poor a b i l i t y ? 1. very, very much 2. very much 3. much 4. didn't matter 5. somewhat 282 6. 7. 4. How much was t h i s because 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 5. How enjoyable d i d you f i n d 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 6. Oo you have any sugges improved? a l i t t l e b i t not much at a l l he game was hard? very, very much very much much didn't matter somewhat a l i t t l e b i t not much at a l l t h i s game? very, very enjoyable very enjoyable enjoyable can't decide somewhat enjoyable a l i t t l e enjoyable not enjoyable at a l l ions about how t h i s game can be 283 Appendix 13 Expectancy of Future Success for Self If you were give 10 more picture cards to do, how many of them do you think you would get r i g h t ? Put an "X" beside the number showing how many picture cards you think you would be able to guess c o r r e c t l y . 1 picture card 2 picture cards 3 picture cards 4 picture cards 5 picture cards 6 picture cards 7 picture cards 8 picture cards 9 picture cards 10 picture cards 284 Expectancy of Future Success for Other If another boy from your c l a s s were given 10 more picture cards to do, how many of them do you think he would get ri g h t ? Put an "X" beside the number showing how many picture cards you think he would be able to guess c o r r e c t l y . I think another boy from my c l a s s would be able to guess c o r r e c t l y 1 picture card 2 picture cards 3 picture cards 4 picture cards 5 p i cture cards 6 p i cture cards 7 picture cards 8 picture cards 9 picture cards 10 picture cards 285 Appendix 14 Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-Measures According to Group. Condition, and Order Ravenl LD Mean Easy Condition Order 1 10.57 Order 2 10.00 D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 10.00 Order 2 9.00 No Task Condition Order 1 11.25 Order 2 11.00 Free Recall 1 LD Mean Easy Condition Order 1 32.86 Order 2 39.80 D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 35.17 Order 2 33.25 No Task Condition Order 1 36.00 Order 2 39.75 NLD S.D. Mean Easy Condition .98 (n=7) Order 1 11.00 1.41 (n=5) Order 2 10.83 D i f f i c u l t Condition .63 (n=6) Order 1 10.78 .82 <n=4) Order 2 11.14 No Task Condition .96 (n=4) Order 1 11.00 S.D. 2.00 <n=4) Order 2 11.20 .89 (n=6) 1.17 (n=6) .44 (n=9) 1.07 (n=7) 1.00 (n=5) .84 (n=5) N L D S.D. 4.45 (n=7) 5.07 <n=5) 4.07 (n=6) 7.09 (n=4) 2.45 (n=4) 4.64 (n=4) Mean S.D, Easy Condition Order 1 35.67 4.46 (n=6) Order 2 40.83 2.71 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 38.89 4.23 (n=9) Order 2 41.43 3.21 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 41.20 2.77 (n=5) Order 2 42.40 1.14 (n=5) 286 S e r i a l Recall 1 LD Easy Condition Order 1 26.71 Order 2 34.40 D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 31.33 Order 2 28.25 No Task Condition Order 1 31.25 Order 2 36.25 5.41 (n=7) 8.20 (n=5) 6.92 (n=6) 6.65 (n=4) 3.10 (n=4) 6.08 (n=4) NLD Easy Condition Order 1 30.50 3.94 (n=6) Order 2 38.17 2.32 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 36.11 4.57 (n=9) Order 2 38.28 4.54 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 36.80 3.83 (n=5) Order 2 39.60 1.14 (n=5) Color Naming l LD Easy Condition Order 1 39.14 12.03 (n=7) Order 2 30.60 4.83 (n=5) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 32.83 Order 2 36.00 No Task Condition Order 1 33.25 Order 2 31.25 7.25 (n=6) 6.98 (n=4) 6.18 (n=4) 3.59 (n=4) NLD Easy Condition Order 1 26.67 8.57 (n=6) Order 2 33.17 7.52 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 30.00 6.08 (n=9) Order 2 30.14 5.58 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 28.00 3.81 (n=5) Order 2 33.00 4.30 (n=5) 287 Ideational Fluency 1 LD Mean S.D. Easy Condition Order 1 6.00 4.00 (n=7) Order 2 6.20 1.64 (n=5) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 6.83 5.84 (n=6) Order 2 4.75 5.50 (n=4) No Task Condition Order 1 7.50 5.32 (n=4) Order 2 5.00 3.74 (n=4) Aim 1 LD Easy Condition Order 1 11.14 7.15 (n=7) Order 2 15.80 3.42 (n=5) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 9.17 4.62 (n=6) Order 2 9.75 4.11 (n=4) No Task Condition Order 1 10.00 1.41 (n=4) Order 2 9.00 2.45 (n=4) NLD Mean S.D. Easy Condition Order 1 11.50 4.37 (n=6) Order 2 9.33 5.32 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 7.67 4.47 (n=9) Order 2 6.86 4.30 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 10.80 3.49 (n=5) Order 2 4.20 4.21 (n=5) NLD Easy Condition Order 1 13.67 1.50 (n=6) Order 2 12.67 4.50 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 13.11 4.62 (n=9) Order 2 15.43 4.24 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 14.00 1.87 (n=5) Order 2 11.40 4.56 (n=5) 288 Appendix 15 Means and Standard Deviations for Post-Measures According to Group. Condition, and Order of Presentation Raven 2 LD Mean Easy Condition Order 1 10.86 Order 2 10.60 D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 9.50 Order 2 11.25 No Task Condition Order 1 10.50 Order 2 10.75 S.D. .90 (n=7) .55 (n=5) 2.34 (n=6) 1.50 (n=4) 1.29 (n=4) .96 (n=4) NLD Mean S.D. Easy Condition Order 1 9.67 2.25 (n=6) Order 2 11.17 .75 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 11.33 .71 (n=9) Order 2 11.14 .90 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 11.20 .84 (n=5) Order 2 11.00 .71 (n=5) Free Recall 2 LD Easy Condition Order 1 37.00 5.03 (n=7) Order 2 36.80 4.32 (n=5) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 36.67 3.98 (n=6) Order 2 35.50 3.51 (n=4) No Task Condition Order 1 38.00 4.69 (n=4) Order 2 39.00 2.00 (n=4) NLD Easy Condition Order 1 37.67 5.64 (n=6) Order 2 39.17 3.87 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 40.44 2.13 (n=9) Order 2 39.00 3.65 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 43.00 3.08 (n=5) Order 2 39.80 2.77 (n=5) 289 S e r i a l Recall 2 LD Mean Easy Condition Order 1 32.00 Order 2 32.20 D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 32.33 Order 2 32.50 No Task Condition Order 1 35.00 Order 2 33.25 Color Naming 2 LD Easy Condition Order 1 37.14 Order 2 29.80 D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 30.33 Order 2 33.00 No Task Condition Order 1 33.50 Order 2 36.00 NLD S.D. Mean S.D. Easy Condition 7.39 (n=7) Order 1 34.83 5.00 (n=6) 7.33 (n=5) Order 2 35.67 4.55 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition 5.43 (n=6) Order 1 37.33 3.54 (n=7) 6.14 (n=4) Order 2 36.14 4.10 (n=7) No Task Condition 5.66 (n=4) Order 1 41.60 3.29 (n=5) 3.59 (n=4) Order 2 37.40 3.97 (n=5) NLD Easy Condition 7.82 (n=7) Order 1 25.83 6.31 (n=6) 4.60 (n=5) Order 2 32.33 5.78 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition 5.46 (n=6) Order 1 28.44 4.30 (n=9) 5.77 (n=4) Order 2 27.28 4.11 (n=7) No Task Condition 5.92 (n=4) Order 1 28.40 4.50 (n=5) 9.34 (n=4) Order 2 29.60 3.78 (n=5) 290 S.D. 3.91 (n=7) 1.30 (n=5) Ideational Fluency 2 LD Mean Easy Condition Order 1 4.43 Order 2 6.20 D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 4.50 3.08 (n=6) Order 2 10.50 4.93 (n=4) No Task Condition Order 1 4.25 4.99 (n=4) Order 2 9.25 4.27 (n=4) NLD Mean S.D. Easy Condition Order 1 9.00 7.48 (n=6) Order 2 10.83 4.62 <n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 4.89 2.93 <n=9) Order 2 10.28 5.99 (n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 10.20 6.76 (n=5) Order 2 9.00 2.92 (n=5) Aim 2 LD Easy Condi t i on Order 1 12.57 5.35 (n=7) Order 2 14.20 1.64 <n=5) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 11.17 5.08 (n=6) Order 2 10.75 4.79 (n=4) No Task Condition Order 1 10.25 1.89 (n=4) Order 2 8.50 3.70 (n=4) NLD Easy Condition Order 1 11.67 3.01 (n=6) Order 2 12.17 4.12 (n=6) D i f f i c u l t Condition Order 1 15.67 4.24 (n=9) Order 2 18.57 3.78 <n=7) No Task Condition Order 1 14.80 4.49 (n=5) Order 2 13.00 3.16 (n=5) 291

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 23 0
United Kingdom 5 2
Japan 1 0
United States 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 23 0
Cardiff 3 0
Dalbeattie 2 2
Tokyo 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items