Note-Perceived Control and Adaptive Coping

8/19/2019 Note-Perceived Control and Adaptive Coping

1/17

Perceived Control and

Adaptive Coping: Programsfor Adolescent StudentsWho Have LearningDisabilitiesby Sam SavageBy Firth, Nola Frydenberg, Erica; Greaves, Daryl

Abstract. This study explored the effect of a coping program and a teacher feedback intervention

on perceived control and adaptive coping for 98 adolescent students who had specific learning

disabilities. The coping program was modified to build personal control and to address the

needs of students who have specific learning disabilities. The teacher feedback program

emphasized use of effort and strategy in the face of difficulty. One-way analyses of covariance of

student responses indicated a greater perceived control of external situations and increased use

of productive coping strategies for the group who received the coping program. There was nochange in internal control of feelings or of use of non- productive coping. These results were

maintained over the two-month follow-up period. The study provides preliminary evidence that it

is possible to facilitate positive change in both sense of control and coping patterns for students

who have learning disabilities.

It is increasingly acknowledged that, even with skilled teaching, students who have learning

disabilities are likely to experience lifelong difficulty in some areas of academics, such as

reading and spelling (Raskind, Golberg, Higgins, & Herman, 1999; Reiff, Ginsberg, & Gerber,

1995). Consequently, there is a call for a focus, not only on literacy or numeracy, but also on

building the coping resources and sense of personal control that are known to be crucial to

achieving school and life success for those who have learning disabilities (Raskind, Goldberg,

Higgins, & Herman, 2002; Rodis, Garrod, Sc Boscardin, 2001; Westwood, 2004).

Research in the fields of self-regulation, academic motivation, and attribution has also shown

the importance for students who have learning disabilities to be proactive in response to

difficulty (Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998; Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988; Nuftez et al.,


2/17

2005). Importantly, such responses are being found to be independent of level of learning

disability (Hellendoorn & Ruijssenaars, 2000; Nuftez et al., 2005; Raskind et al., 1999; Sideridis,

Mouzaki, Simos, & Protopapas, 2006).

A major determinant for success for adults who have learning disabilities has been found to bethe ability to cope adaptively, and in particular to take personal control in the face of the

challenges their learning disabilities present. In their research involving successful adults who

had learning disabilities, Reiff et al. (1995) found that such "taking control" was the key factor for

this successful group. This finding has been corroborated by a longitudinal study of people who

have learning disabilities (Raskind et al., 1999). The successful adults in both studies set goals,

persevered, accessed help when they needed it, used effective strategies for coping with stress,

and were self-aware and creative in finding alternative strategies in the face of difficulty

(Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind, & Herman, 2003; Raskind et al., 1999; Reiff et al., 1995). The

success achieved by these people occurred in spite of continuing difficulties with reading,spelling, and some areas of mathematics (Raskind et al., 1999; Reiff et al., 1995). According to

Raskind et al. (1999), the attributes listed above are more powerful predictors of success than

"numerous other variables, including IQ, academic achievement, life stressors, age, gender,

ethnicity, and many other background variables" (p. 48).

Although sense of control is likely to be a key psychological resource for students who have

learning disabilities, many of these students are at risk of passivity in the face of difficulty, which

manifests as learned helplessness (Bender, 1987; Borkowski et al., 1988; Nunez et al., 2005;

Sideris et al., 2006). Students who have learning disabilities frequently attribute success to luck

rather than to their own ability or effort (Miranda, Villaescusa, & Vidal- Abarca, 1997). Dweck

(2000) found that such attributions held by low- achieving students created a helpless rather

than a mastery orientation to coping with future difficult circumstances. In their recent study of

students who had learning disabilities, Sideridis et al. (2006) noted the contrasting profile

between those who were high in motivation and those who were low in motivation and presented

as helpless. Nunez et al. (2005) also found this difference among students who had learning

disabilities and that a proactive rather than helpless attributional style was associated with

positive outcomes. Again, the choice of helpless or adaptive attributions made by this group of

children was independent of the level of the learning disabilities themselves.

Studies in the coping field also suggest that many students who have learning disabilities have a

passive, helpless approach to coping with difficulty. Such studies suggest a higher-than-average

use by students who have learning disabilities of passive coping strategies such as self-blame,

worry, and failure to cope, and a low use of productive coping strategies such as working at

solving the problem and positive thinking (Cheshire & Cambell, 1997; Geisthardt & Munsch,


3/17

1996; Greaves, 1998; Shulman, Carlton-Ford, & Levian, 1994). Associated risks are disruptive

behavior problems (Bender, 1987; Chan & Dally, 2000; Prior, 1996) and social withdrawal

(Bryan, 2005; Pearl, 2002; Wong & Donahue, 2002).

Based on these findings, there is a growing recognition of the need to identify effective ways toassist young people who have learning disabilities in developing adaptive coping resources

(Aune, 1991; Durlak, Rose, & Bursuck, 1994; Grainger & Fraser, 1999; Margalit, 2003;

McGrady, Lerner, & Boscardin., 2001; Raskind et al., 2002; Reiff et al., 1995; Rodis et al., 2001;

Westwood, 2004) before lifelong, maladaptive coping patterns are established (Raskind et al.,

1999). However, despite a focus on the development of psychosocial resources for the general

student population (Wyn, Cahill, Holdsworth, Rowling, & Carson, 2000), there has been less

response in this regard for students who have learning disabilities. For example, a recent

national enquiry into learning difficulties in Australian primary schools contained little reference

to addressing the emotional needs of students who have learning disabilities (Louden et al.,2000). Behavior problems, such as lack of self- regulation, exhibited by students with learning

disabilities, were reported as frequently being managed by psychostimulant medication rather

than by school-based interventions (Chan & Dally, 2000). Concerns with regard to such

medicated control include the side effects of the medication (Purdie, Hattie, & Carroll, 2002) and

the fact that the medication approach further reduces students' sense of control and personal

responsibility (Alien & Drabman, 1991; Chan & Dally, 2000; Reid & Borkowski, 1987; Weiner,

1979).

Thus, there appears to have been little investigation of the particular coping skill needs of

students who have learning disabilities or of interventions that are specifically designed to cater

to the access needs of these students. This study, therefore, investigated the effect of two

interventions on perceived control and coping style of adolescent students who had learning

disabilities: a coping skills program specifically modified for optional access by students who

have learning disabilities and a teacher feedback intervention that aimed to develop student

strategy use instead of a focus on ability. The coping skills program taught the efficacy of taking

control by using informed choice of productive coping strategies and learning to use positive

thinking and assertion. The teacher feedback intervention was based on achievement

attributional studies (Dweck, 2000; Nunez et al., 2005; Weiner, 1979) and involved teacher

feedback to students that emphasised use of effort and strategy in the face of difficulty rather

than self-blame and passive acceptance.

Adolescence was chosen as an optimum developmental stage in which to receive such coping

interventions (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2002; Skinner & Wellborn, 1997), as coping strategies

internalized at this stage of development are likely to have significant influence on the


4/17

development of later coping patterns (Seiffge-Krenke, 2000). This also addresses Deshler's

(2005) stress on the importance of not concentrating on early learning disabilities intervention

programs to the exclusion of adolescent programs and research.

The research question for the study was as follows: What is the effect on student perceivedcontrol and coping of the coping program and of the teacher feedback program.

METHOD

Participants and selection procedure are described, followed by a discussion of the measures,

interventions, procedures, and data analysis techniques used in the study.

Participants

Ninety-eight adolescent students from four coeducational secondary schools and with varying

specialist educational support participated in the study, along with their parents and teachers.

The four schools were (a) a high socio-economic independent regional school with weekly

specialist educational support classes, (b) a medium-level socio-economic government regional

school with no specialist support, (c) a medium socio-economic Catholic rural school with

weekly individual specialist support for some students, and (d) a low socio-economic

government regional school with some specialist in-class support. Table 1

Group Size and Gender

Consent to participate was originally obtained from 129 students and their parents and teachers.

Of these students, 98 students from the four school groups (N = 24, 26, 27, 21) were chosen to

take part. Although teachers believed 124 of the students had learning disabilities, when the

researcher assessed them, some were found not to fit the definition of learning disabilities used

in the study and were excluded from the study. A cut-off age of 16 years also resulted in the

exclusion of some students.

The study design involved dividing the four school groups into four subgroups consisting of

those who received the teacher feedback program, those who received the coping program, a

group that received both interventions, and a wait list control group. Each school received all

four treatments. This design allowed some accounting for effect of school culture as well as

analysis of the interaction between treatments. While schools were asked to avoid selection bias

and, where possible, to randomly allocate students to groups, school schedules and teacher

availability influenced the selection.


5/17

Groups were thus made up of combinations of intact class groups and/or students from different

classes, and numbers and gender composition in the groups varied somewhat from school to

school (see Table 1). Teachers were assigned to condition on the basis of interest and

availablity. Therefore, the grouping was not random, but it was not biased towards any particular

grouping of students. Additionally, the statistical analysis methodology adjusted for baselinedifferences between the groups.

Student ages ranged from 12 to 16 years (M =13.8). Forty-two students were female and 56

were male. Students and their parents from all the schools were primarily Australian born and of

Anglo/ European background. Exceptions were one student with a Chinese background, one

Middle Eastern migrant student and parent, and two migrant parents of Italian origin. Teachers

were Australian born and of Anglo/European background.

Selection Criteria

In Australia there is widespread confusion among teachers and the community surrounding the

terms learning difficulties and learning disabilities (Knight & Scott, 2004; Louden et al., 2000).

An Australian Commonwealth Government enquiry in 1976 argued against the existence of

specific learning disabilities as a phenomenon intrinsic to the child (Elkins, 2000; Select

Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties, 1976). Consequently, a diagnosis of specific

learning disabilities has not been a basis for educational support funding. Louden et al. (2000)

noted that many terms are used interchangeably to describe various groups of students (e.g.,

students at risk, specific learning difficulties, learning disabilities). Students who have specific

learning disabilities mostly, therefore, attend mainstream classes in regular schools where they

may be pulled out with other students for supplementary literacy teaching (Louden et al., 2000).

Prior's (1996) definition of specific learning difficulties provided the precision needed for

selection, comparison, and replication of this research study. Prior defined specific learning

difficulties as occurring when a student has an IQ score greater than 80 and has deficits in at

least one area of academic achievement such as reading, spelling, or mathematics, and specific

cognitive impairments such as short-term memory problems or poor auditory discrimination

ability. This discrepancy definition allowed inclusion of the various subsets of students who have

learning disabilities (Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2006; Scott, 2004) and of those who have

high ability in addition to their learning disabilities (Kavale et al., 2006). It also allowed

comparison to previous studies where the discrepancy definition was used.

All students included in the study were assessed with an IQ score greater than 80 and scores of

two or more years below chronological age in at least one area of academic achievement, such


6/17

as reading, spelling, or mathematics. Results of The Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children

(Wechsler, 1991) were available through school records for many students, and these were

used to establish IQ scores. This test is administered by qualified psychologists and remains

stable over time (Prifitera & Saklofske, 1998; Smart, Prior, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2001). It is

standard policy in Victorian schools in Australia to include a description of the results rather thanexact scores in students' reports. The description is in terms of relation to the average. Eighty is

the cut off point listed on the test for low average. Any students who were reported as below low

average were, therefore, excluded from the study.

Where a learning disability was suspected, but students were not already fully tested, the

researcher assessed students using the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Kaufman & Kaufman,

1996). The Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children (Wechsler, 1991) and the Kaufman Brief

Intelligence Test are similarly constructed, using separate verbal and nonverbal segments. The

manual of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test indicates that full-scale scores resulting from thattest are closely correlated (0.80) with those from The Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children.

The researcher undertook full or partial assessment of all the students at two schools and

approximately a third of the students at the other two schools.

Results from Australian normed, individually or group- administered spelling, reading, or

mathematics tests given by teachers within the past two years were used to establish levels in

reading, spelling, or mathematics (e.g., The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, Neale, 1999;

Tests of Reading Comprehension, Australian Council for Educational Research, 2003; The

South Australian Spelling Test, Westwood, 1999). The study was not concerned with

investigating matters related to literacy or numeracy acquisition per se but with teacher

interventions that may change students' attitudes to experiencing academic difficulty.

Consequently, results from normed tests from various subsets of learning disability were

accepted. Where students had not been so assessed, the researcher assessed students using

The South Australian Spelling Test (Westwood, 1999).

Measures

Two measures of perceived control and one measure of coping were used in the study.

The perceived control measures. The perceived control measures used in the study were The

Locus of Control Scale for Children (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) and the Children's Internal

Coping Self- Efficacy Scale (Cunningham, 2002; Pallant, 2000). The latter scale focuses on the

specific domain of internal state control; the former is a general perceived control measure.


7/17

The Locus of Control Scale for Children (Nowicki & Strickland 1973) is a widely used 40-item

generalized perceived control scale that measures children's locus of control orientation

(Mamlin, Harris, & case, 2001; Richardson, Bergen, Martin, Roeger, & Allison, 2005) that has

been shown to be amenable to change in response to programs (e.g., Firth, 2001; Gomez,

1997). The scale measures the extent to which individual children feel they have control overtheir lives (internal locus of control) as distinct from being controlled by external circumstances

(external locus of control). The scale focuses on the contingency or outcome expectancy aspect

of control. Higher scores reflect a higher sense of external control, whereas lower scores

indicate a higher internal sense of control. Example items from the scale are: Do you believe

that wishing can make good things happen, When you get punished does it usually seem that

it's for no good reason at all, and Do you usually feel that you have little to say about what you

get to eat at home? The Cronbach alpha in the study increased over the three data collection

times from 0.65 at pretest to 0.73 at posttest, to 0.77 at follow- up.

The Children's Internal Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (Cunningham, 2002) is a 15-item domain

specific scale that measures the extent to which individual children feel overall that they have

self-efficacy over their thoughts and feelings. The scale was adapted by Cunningham (2002) for

use with children from Pallant's Perceived Control of Internal States Inventory (Pallant, 2000).

Items elicit responses on a 4-point scale of "very wrong,""wrong,""right," and "very right." Some

items from the adapted scale are: When bad things happen I have a number of ways that help

me think more clearly about them, If I start to worry about something I can usually get my mind

off it and think of something nicer, and I have a number of ways that help me relax when I get

uptight. The Cronbach alpha in this study was 0.88 at pretest, 0.91 at posttest, and 0.86 at

follow-up.

The coping measure. Coping responses were assessed using the productive and non-

productive coping sections of the Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993), which

has been used extensively with adolescent students in schools within Australia. Responses are

on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "never" (1) to "often" (5) and relating to how the student

deals with his/her concerns. Productive coping strategies included in the scale are working hard,

working at solving the problem, relaxing, keeping fit and healthy, and thinking positively. Non-

productive coping strategies are ignoring the problem, self-blame, not having a way of coping,

tension-reduction activities such as screaming or drinking alcohol, worrying, keeping problems

to oneself, and wishful thinking. Examples of the 66 items from the scale are: Work at solving

the problem to the best of my ability, Work hard, Look on the bright side of things and think of all

that is good, Keep fit and healthy, Worry about what will happen to me, see myself as being at

fault, and Shut myself off from the problem so I can avoid it. In this study the Cronbach alpha for


8/17

productive coping was 0.84 at pretest, 0.93 at posttest, and 0.83 at follow-up. For non-

productive coping it was 0.89 at pretest, 0.83 at posttest, and 0.92 at follow-up.

The Reference to Others section of Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) was

not included in the study. Since students who have learning disabilities may use highdependence on others such as teachers (Greaves, 1998), the relationship of this coping style to

perceived control and adaptive coping for these students is less clear (Greaves, 1998).

Interventions

The two interventions used were a coping program and a teacher feedback program.

The coping program. The Best of Coping program (Frydenberg & Brandon, 2002) was modified

for use in this research. This EI- session program was developed in Australia from within acoping theoretical framework for general classroom use by adolescents in secondary schools. It

utilizes the Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) as a springboard for giving

students knowledge of a broad range of possible coping strategies and the expected

consequences of their deployment and also develops productive coping skills such as positive

thinking, assertion, goal setting, and problem solving as alternatives to non-productive strategies

such as self-blame. Several studies attest to the efficacy of Best of Coping when used with

Australian adolescents in secondary school settings (Frydenberg et al., 2004). Additionally, the

program has been successfully used with some Australian "at risk" students (Bugalski &

Frydenberg, 2000).

The inclusion of positive cognitive restructuring was expected to counter negative global

attributions associated with learned helplessness. Additionally, although positive cognitive

restructuring programs do not appear to have been tested yet with students who have learning

disabilities, positive thinking programs have been shown to be effective in changing negative

attributional thinking (Cunningham & Walker, 1999; Roberts et al., 2003).

The perceived control needs of students with learning disabilities were expected to be

addressed by the assertion component in the program. Assertiveness programs have been

found to be effective in increasing adolescents' internal locus of control orientation (Waksman,

1984a, 1984b) and assertion skills (Wise et al., 1991). An assertiveness program designed

specifically for students who have learning disabilities has also been successfully tested with

students who had learning disabilities (Firth, 2001).


9/17

The program content, structure, and process were modified to incorporate best-practice

processes for students who have learning disabilities and to increase the focus on perceived

control. Best- practice processes include explicit instruction (Purdie & Ellis, 2005; Westwood,

2001), teaching of strategies (Deshler, 2005; Gresham, 1998; Meltzer et al., 2004; Vaughn et al.,

2000), opportunity for metacognitive reflection (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992; Vaughn et al.,2000), clear structure, opportunity for intensive revision, opportunity for generalization of skills

(Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992; Gresham, 1998; Westwood, 2001), emphasis on student

motivation (Gresham, 1998), and the use of print- free media (Firth, 2001).

Clarity of structure, opportunity for intensive revision and metacognitive reflection were achieved

by reducing program modules to include only awareness and choice of coping strategies,

positive thinking, and assertiveness training. Additionally, increased time was allocated to each

of the retained modules, and duration of the program was increased by 1-11 weeks. Each

component was introduced and interspersed with explicit teaching of the efficacy of takingcontrol as well as the strategies of positive thinking and assertion. To increase student

motivation and opportunity for generalization, the program was restructured to center on goals

individually set by students and to include behavioral activities such as role-plays. A home

practice schedule was also introduced to further generalization of skills. This involved practicing

a small number of specific, chosen strategies that related to each student's goal. Finally, the

print content was reduced to a minimum and replaced by drawing, acting, or handouts that

contained only a few key words.

The program begins with a discussion of the importance to successful adults who have specific

learning disabilities of taking control in the face of difficulty. Students gain awareness of their

current coping style by completing the Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993).

This scale yields an individual coping profile for each student and is, thus, a basis on which to

make future decisions about coping choices. Students are encouraged to be flexible in choosing

their coping responses and to use active, productive coping strategies such as thinking

positively and working directly on the problem rather than non-productive responses such as

self-blame and ignoring the problem. Students choose personal goals, one of which relates to

academic work, and they are encouraged to use coping strategies that are likely to lead to

achievement of these goals. Progress towards these goals is monitored at the beginning of most

sessions, and goal-setting and problem-solving steps are taught within this context. Students

are also taught positive cognitive restructuring strategies. These include recognition of the link

between thought and feeling, avoiding overgeneralizing difficulty into the future or across

domains, and replacing negative self-talk with more realistic and empowering self- talk.


10/17

Examples of activities in this section of the program include creation of a personalized positive

self-talk sticker and peer coaching for challenging negative self-talk about the personalized

goals. The final assertion component of the program involves activities to develop awareness of

the differences between assertion, aggression, and passivity, and role-playing assertive verbal

responses and assertive body language. The content and sequencing of the modified programis summarized in Figure 1. Further details of the modified program are available in the manual

(see Firth, 2007).

Teacher Feedback Program

Strategy-based feedback involved feedback by teachers to individual students that emphasised

a strategy used by, or available to, the student, rather than the student's ability. The program

involved teachers encouraging students to use effort to find alternative strategies in the face of

difficulty and praising successful use of both effort and strategies. Rather than immediatelyadvising individual students on a solution or strategy, teachers encouraged students to

independently find and use strategies. Although students were encouraged to be flexible and

find their own individually appropriate strategies in the face of difficulty, teachers were directed to

provide strategies if the students were unable to find an effective solution. Teachers used

variations on the following questions or comments: What strategy could you use to help you

here? What did you do to achieve that? That strategy was an effective one, and your hard work

has paid off.

Teachers consciously used these questions, comments, and general approach to convey to

students the following assumptions: There is the possibility of positive change; failure and

difficulty are normal, and it is better to spend time and energy immediately searching for new

strategies than in depressive rumination; many alternative strategies are already available or can

be discovered; students who have learning disabilities may have strategies available to them

that use their areas of strength (e.g., social skills or high comprehension); and intelligence is a

dynamic rather than a fixed process and depends on many conditions, including effort and time.

In a mathematics class, for example, the teacher might see that a student who has specific

learning disabilities has not begun to work on the questions set for the class and has her hand

up to request assistance. Instead of immediately telling the student how to do the problem, the

teacher might ask her whether she has any idea of how to begin to solve the first problem. If the

student finds a strategy, the teacher leaves her to work independently. However, if the student

has no idea of a strategy, the teacher may suggest that she find a similar problem that she has

completed correctly and ask her to explain how she achieved the result. If she can articulate

how she completed the problem, the teacher would then tell her that the strategy she used was


11/17

an effective one and that the effort she put into that problem has resulted in success. He would

then ask if she feels she now has a strategy to begin the current problem. If the student is still

unable to do so, the teacher would then demonstrate an appropriate strategy and guide her in its

use.

Figure 1. Content and sequence of the modified Best of Coping program.

Another example would be a teacher asking a student who has specific learning disabilities to

explain to her individually or to the whole class the strategies that were used to design,

construct, or otherwise create something that is already achieved and is of high quality. This

could be implemented in relation to a variety of achievements such as a piece of art, a method

of defense in a soccer game, or an articulate oral or written presentation. Following the student's

response, the teacher would point out that the student's own strategy and effort have yielded a

successful outcome. For further description of the intervention and examples of diary entries byteachers regarding their implementation of the intervention and student responses, see Firth

(2007). Procedure

Students completed perceived control and coping measures pre- and post-program and at 10

weeks following completion of the program. All test and questionnaire items were read aloud to

the students.

The two programs continued concurrently for 10 weeks. The coping program involved eleven

50-minute lessons. Students in the combined coping program and teacher feedback group, like

those in the feedback-only group, received the teacher feedback during their regular classroom

experience, but these students also attended the coping program sessions. Class teachers

delivered the interventions in each of the four schools. Two of the four coping program teachers

had received training in special education.

The strategy-based feedback intervention was delivered by 12 core class teachers who taught

the students at least four times each week. These teachers were directed not to change the

number of times they interacted with students and to only use the feedback with the students

who were assigned to them. They were also given a diary in which to record their interactions

with the students.

The coping program and strategy based-feedback teachers participated in professional

development sessions of approximately two hours' duration. Teachers of both programs were

also given on- site weekly support during the 10-week intervention period. Coping program

teachers were provided with a manual.


12/17

Fidelity with regard to the intervention delivery was monitored by regular visits to the schools,

including to the coping program sessions and the classes where teachers were implementing

the teacher feedback. A field diary was written up after each visit to the school, and particular

attention was given to the fidelity of the intervention programs. Discussions with the teachers

recorded in the field diary and the teacher feedback diaries also served this purpose.

Data Analysis

Missing values were replaced using the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) method

(Enders & Bandalos, 2001). If more than 25% of items were missing from a scale response, it

was not included. Enders and Bandalos (2001) have shown that this procedure produces the

least bias. Further, Byrne (2001) demonstrated that up to 25% of data can be imputed in this

way without compromising the analysis.

The assumptions of normality, constant variance, and baseline interaction were tested. The tests

for normality and constant variance were acceptable, and the tests for interaction were not

statistically significant. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted to compare the

means of the groups at pre- and posttest and pretest and follow-up while controlling for

differences in these groups at pretest. The model was a main effects model with group as a

factor at four levels and the pretest score as a covariate. No adjustment was made for multiple

comparisons (Perneger, 1998; Rothman, 1990). Pre-, posttest, and follow-up means shown in

Tables 2-4 were calculated using data from subjects in the corresponding ANCOVA. Therefore,

they vary slightly due to missing data. The sample sizes (N) shown are for the analysis reported

in each case.

RESULTS

Changes to Perceived Control

Significant change in perceived control associated with the interventions occurred in one of the

two perceived control scales and for the coping program group only. Results of the analysis of

covariance for The Children's Locus of Control Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) showed that

the coping group reported a strong trend of a more internal locus of control at posttest, and this

was significant at follow-up testing. In contrast, the control group mean for locus of control

became higher (more external) at posttest, and this increased at follow-up.

Table 2


13/17

Results of Analysis ofCovariance at Posttest and Follow-Up for External Perceived Control on

The Children's Locus of Control Scale

Variation in the means for the other intervention groups was not significant. At posttest, the

overall test among the four groups, adjusted for pretest scores, was not statistically significant,F(3, 84) = 1.28, p = .28, but the coping group showed a trend in the direction of increased

internality with a mean of 14.15 (p = .06) in comparison with the adjusted control mean of 16.80.

At follow-up, however, the overall test among the four groups, adjusted for pretest scores, was

statistically significant, F(3, 78) = 2.99, p = .04. Mean scores adjusted for differences at pretest

were 17.56 for the control group, 13.51 (p = .008) for the coping group, 16.94 (p = .66) for the

teacher feedback group, and 15.27 (p = .13) for the combined feedback and coping group. Table

2 shows the complete posttest and follow-up mean scores (adjusted for pretest scores).

No significant difference was found in the means on the Children's Internal Coping Self-EfficacyScale (Cunningham, 2002; Pallant, 2000) between the intervention and the control groups when

compared at preand posttest, and at pretest and follow-up.

Changes to Coping

There were no significant differences between the groups in comparison to the control group for

overall productive coping style. However, the coping group reported an increase in the

productive coping strategies of working hard and working at solving the problem.

The strategies that comprised productive coping included working at solving the problem,

working hard on the problem, relaxing, physical recreation, and focusing on the positive. At

posttest with regard to working hard, the overall test among the four groups, adjusted for pretest

scores, was not statistically significant, F(3, 85) = 2.44, p = .07. However, at follow-up the overall

test, adjusted for pretest scores, was significant, F(3, 78) = 2.85, p = .04. The control group

adjusted mean at follow-up was 3.30, the coping group mean increase was at 3.72 (p = .02)

(see Table 3). Follow-up responses also indicated that the coping group reported higher use of

working at solving the problem than the control group. The overall test was significant, F(3, 78) =

5.22, p = .002. The control group adjusted mean was 2.70 for this strategy and the coping group

mean was 3.39 (p = .001) (see Table 4).

Table 3

Results of Analysis of Covariance Post-Program and Two-Month Follow-Up for the Productive

Coping Strategy of Work Hard on the Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS)


14/17

While the contrasts between the adjusted means for non- productive coping style were in the

expected direction, none was significant either at posttest or followup. Analysis was undertaken

to compare means of the non-productive coping strategies of not coping, worrying, tension

reduction, wishful thinking, ignoring the problem, self-blame, and keeping problems to oneself.

Investigation of these non-productive coping strategies also showed no significant differences.

Table 4

Results of Analysis of Covariance Post-Program and at Two-Month Follow-Up for the Productive

Coping Strategy of Solve the Problem on the Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS)

DISCUSSION

Changes in the intervention groups were definitive for the coping program group only. Indicatorsof changes in perceived control associated with the interventions occurred in one of the two

perceived control scales for the coping program group only. At posttest, this group reported a

strong trend of increased internality of locus of control, as measured on the Children's Locus of

Control Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973); that was significant at the follow-up data collection.

This outcome suggests that the coping program was effective, at least to some extent, in

increasing sense of control over external events.

The pattern of change associated with coping was similar to that for changes in perceived

control in that changes in coping associated with the intervention also occurred in relation to

productive coping strategies by the coping program group. Results of the Adolescent Coping

Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) indicated that the coping group reported a trend of increased

use of the strategies of working hard and solving the problem, and these were significant at the

follow-up data collection. There was no change in non-productive coping associated with

interventions.

Although the students who received both interventions reported change in the expected

direction, this change was not statistically significant. It is possible that combining the two

programs reduced the effect of increased personal control. Perhaps, contrary to expectations,

the increased exposure to teachers' input increased students' dependency. Further research

involving larger numbers of students and more intensive application of the interventions with

increased fidelity control may clarify this anomaly. The relatively small sample size of this study

meant that effects had to be relatively strong to clearly establish statistical significance (Compas

et al., 2001). In a larger study, the trends observed for the intervention groups may have been

statistically significant.


15/17

The findings also indicated that, contrary to expectations, there was no difference between the

control and any of the intervention groups with regard to internal control of thoughts and

feelings, as measured by the Children's Internal Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (Cunningham 2002;

Pallant, 2000). A likely explanation for this outcome, as given by teachers and recorded in the

field diary, is that the interventions were insufficient in duration and/or intensity to effect changein this area. It may also be that there was insufficient fidelity with regard to that aspect of the

program. The positive thinking section of the coping program directly addresses control of

feelings. Similar positive thinking programs have been associated with change in internal self-

efficacy (Cunningham, Brandon, & Frydenberg, 1999), and this may have been due to longer

and more intensive implementation. A further explanation with regard to the strategy-based

feedback intervention may be that, in contrast to the coping program, the strategy-based

feedback did not explicitly target control of thoughts and feelings. Effective interventions for

students who have learning disabilities may however need such explicit strategy teaching for

change to occur (Purdie & Ellis, 2005). Teachers indicated in conversations recorded in the fielddiary that the programs needed to be longer and more intensive for change to be well

established. If the changes were just beginning, as teachers suggested, it is likely that students

who were not self-aware and likely to attribute success to luck (Dweck, 2000) would fail to

recognize and report them. A related problem, noted particularly by the teachers of the strategy-

based feedback program, was lack of time to implement the lessons because of other school

priorities. Field diary entries also noted that several teachers wanted more time to build their

own skills in using the intervention and understanding the concepts (e.g., understanding the

connection between thoughts and feelings in the positive thinking section of the program). It

appears likely, therefore, that, despite the in-class follow-up support provided, more training and

longer program duration would have been beneficial. Finally, further modifications to the coping

program may increase engagement by those for whom the program was less effective. For

example, teachers suggested inclusion of attractive, computer-based modules especially for the

homework components of the coping program.

The study was strengthened by the fact that program evaluations took place within the

constraints of everyday school settings and the programs were implemented by different

teachers at participating schools rather than by the researcher or by only one teacher (Sandier,

Wolchik, MacKinnon, Ayers, & Roosa, 1997). This "real- world" research provided a contrast to

interventions that show positive effects when implemented by highly committed researchers in

ideal circumstances but fail to be reproduced in real-school settings (Schumaker & Deshler,

2003). Yet, despite its inherent strengths, the real-life setting of the study did affect experimental

control and group numbers. Grouping was according to school programming rather than

allocated at random. The factors of competing concerns and limited time are common difficulties

in educational research (Schumaker & Deshler, 2003). Variables such as the effect of first-time


16/17

delivery of the interventions (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000), school

environment in which programs were delivered, teacher relationships with the students, group

size, and teacher delivery style were not investigated. Even though the number of teachers

involved was designed to moderate such variables as well as control for some variation with

regard to program fidelity, these variables may have influenced the results (Frydenberg et al.,2004; Harnett & Dadds, 2004).

Additionally, the efficacy of the interventions for particular subgroups of students who have

learning disabilities such as personality, grade level, gender, IQ, and academic achievement and

effect of the interventions on academic as well as psychological outcomes was not investigated.

For example, the intelligence and achievement measures used to identify the sample were not

uniform; thus, means and standard deviations for the groups were not available. As a result, it

was not possible to assess whether level of intelligence scores may have been associated with

the outcomes of the study.

Further studies using larger samples and involving subgroups of students who have learning

disabilities may clarify and confirm the findings. Sample selection based on initial assessment of

low perceived control and/or use of non-productive coping strategies would also allow a focus

on the efficacy of the interventions for students with a clearly demonstrated need in these areas.

Finally, investigation of the effects of more intensive exposure to the programs would clarify the

extent to which the element of longer duration is crucial.

Implications for Practice

Replication of the study and further research that takes careful account of the study

recommendations with regard to research design and program development is needed.

However, the study has produced some evidence that it is possible to facilitate positive change

both in sense of control and coping. In particular, a coping program designed to meet the needs

of students who have learning disabilities has been shown to be worth pursuing.

Implementation of such programs at a younger age may be particularly beneficial. There may be

the advantage of less experience of failure at this age level. Additionally, at this stage of school,

where students have fewer teachers, there may be increased opportunities for skill

generalization. It is becoming clear that coping programs need ongoing reinforcement

(Frydenberg, 2004). This is especially likely to be the case with children who have learning

disabilities (Gresham, 1998). Indeed, some researchers involved in investigating interventions to

facilitate self- determination recommend that such interventions be in place throughout the

school years (Algozzine, Browder, Karvonen, Test, & Wood, 2001).


17/17

Such additional time allocation would require that high priority be given to the program by

participating schools. Intensity of exposure to the programs and program fidelity may also be

related to priority of the program within the schools. A problem noted particularly by the teachers

of the strategy-based feedback program of lack of time to implement the lessons because of

other school priorities is common for many single-issue curriculum programs (Kaftarian,Robinson, Compton, Watts Davis, & Volkow, 2004; Owens & Murphy, 2004). Thus, higher fidelity

may require more integration of the program into overall school priorities (Glover & Butler, 2004;

Greenberg, 2004; Trickett, 2005).

In view of the link that has been made between adaptive coping and academic and life success,

such programs, if shown to be efficacious and sustainable in school environments, would be of

great practical benefit to students who have learning disabilities.

Note-Perceived Control and Adaptive Coping

Documents

Transcript of Note-Perceived Control and Adaptive Coping