You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Self-Concept in Children with Learning Disabilities: The Relationship between Global Self-Concept, Academic "Discounting," Nonacademic Self-Concept, and Perceived Social Support
Shauna Kloomok and Merith Cosden
Learning Disability Quarterly
Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp. 140-153
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511183
Page Count: 14
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The purpose of this study was to explore how some children with learning disabilities maintain a positive self-concept despite academic difficulties. The study used Harter's model to investigate the relationship between global self-concept and perceived competence in general intellectual ability, specific academic subjects, athletics, behavior and appearance, and perceived social support. Data were collected on 72 elementary-school students with learning disabilities. Five hypotheses were tested: (a) children would vary in their global and academic self-concept; (b) children with high global self-concept would discount the importance of academics; (c) children with high global self-concept would perceive themselves as more intelligent; (d) children with high global self-concept would perceive themselves as more competent in other, nonacademic domains; and (e) children with high global self-concept would perceive higher levels of social support. Data supported all hypotheses except discounting. Implications for interventions with students with learning disabilities are discussed.
Learning Disability Quarterly © 1994 Hammill Institute on Disabilities