Socioemotional Self-Perceptions,Family Climate,and Hopeful Thinking Among Students With Learning Disabilities and Typically Achieving Students From the Same Classes

Abstract

This study aimed at examining the adjustment of students with learning disabilities (LD) and at exploring the mediating role of hope. By means of a multidimensional approach, the interactions between risk and protective factors emerging from internal and external resources among 856 high school students (10th to 12th grades) were analyzed. A total of 529 typically achieving students and 327 students with LD attending general education classes in seven high schools completed seven instruments measuring sense of coherence, basic psychological needs, loneliness, family climate, hope, academic self-efficacy, and effort. The students’ achievements in English, history, and mathematics were collected. The analysis used structural equation modeling, and the results emphasized the significant role of hope as a mediator between risk and protective factors and academic self-efficacy and its significance for students with and without LD in explaining achievements and effort investment.

Keywords

learning disabilities sense of coherence basic psychological needs loneliness family climate hope self-efficacy

The identification of individuals who are able to transcend exposure to adversity and who appear to avoid later adjustment problems has challenged research to identify factors associated with protective processes that mediate between the risks associated with adversity and positive adjustment. Recent trends in resilient research have moved from emphasizing the predictive role of individuals’ traits to the search for possible sources that may predict hopeful thinking and effort investment among students, in general, and among students with learning disabilities (LD), in particular.

The present study aimed at understanding the adjustment of students with LD and the importance of socioemotional self-perceptions and family climate in predicting hopeful thinking and learning achievements. Furthermore, the research aimed at exploring the mediating role of the hope construct for students with LD within multidimensional self-perceptions through the interactions between risk and protective factors consisting of personal aspects and the family’s role in supporting students with LD. The hypothesized multidimensional model of the interrelations among socioemotional self-perceptions (sense of coherence, basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness, loneliness, academic self-efficacy, subject-specific self-efficacy), family climate (cohesion and adaptability), students’ hopeful thinking, effort investment, and learning achievements (Figure 1) and the rationale for the model’s design are presented as follows. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that the interrelations among sense of coherence, basic psychological needs, loneliness, and family climate and learning achievements would be mediated by hopeful thinking, academic self-efficacy, and subject-specific self-efficacy.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized multidimensional model of the interrelations among socioemotional self-perceptions, family climate, students’ hopeful thinking, effort investment, and learning achievements among the LD group and the non-LD group.

Sense of coherence (SOC)

SOC is defined as a global orientation that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring (though dynamic) feeling of confidence that the stimuli deriving from one’s internal and external environment are structured, predictable, and explicable (comprehensibility); that resources are available to meet the demands posed by these stimuli (manageability); and that these demands are challenges worthy of investment and engagement (meaningfulness; Antonovsky, 1987; Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2007; Lindstrom & Eriksson, 2006). A student with a strong sense of comprehensibility believes that events experienced are structured, ordered, and explicable rather than chaotic or random; a student with a strong sense of manageability will not feel victimized by life but will have confidence that resources are available to meet the demands; and a student with a strong sense of meaningfulness will see demands as challenges, finding meaning in that which facilitates individual ability to be effective (Stanton, 2000).

SOC can be considered a measure of inner strength and a protective factor (Lundman et al., 2010). Children with high SOC feel in control of their lives and consider most of their tasks and functions in life as significant. When they face a stressful situation, they are able to select the strategy that seems most appropriate to cope with the stressor. Thus, a wide range of coping strategies leads to children’s resilience and SOC. Consistency, a special cognitive challenge for children, may strengthen comprehensibility; an overload–underload balance, a special risk for children who struggle with school demands, may strengthen manageability; and the participation in socially valued decision making may strengthen meaningfulness. Studies have shown that even preschool children who were identified as at risk for developing LD experienced a lower SOC, were less accepted by their peers, and were rated by their teachers as demonstrating less competencies and more academic competence and social interrelations difficulties (Al-Yagon, 2003). Students with LD reported lower levels of SOC than their typically achieving peers and low achievers (Al-Yagon & Mikulincer, 2004; Margalit, 2010).

Basic psychological needs: Autonomy, competence, and relatedness

Basic psychological needs are defined as “innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity, and well-being” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229). Self-determination theory assumes that individuals have natural, innate, and constructive tendencies to develop a unified self. This tendency toward integration is characterized as involving both autonomy, tending toward inner organization and self-regulation, and homonymy, tending toward integration of oneself with others. The theory suggests that there are clear and specifiable social-contextual factors that support this innate tendency and factors that hinder this process of human nature (Deci & Ryan, 2008). These inner resources, innate basic psychological needs, are the bases for integrating the differentiations of goal contents and regulatory processes. Should the basic needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—be satisfied, individuals will develop and function in healthy or optimal ways (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The concepts of basic psychological needs broaden the understanding of students with LD. Their need to experience competence and self-worth was presented in a study on students with LD (Meltzer et al., 2004). Students with ADHD expressed lower self-perceptions regarding behavioral difficulties and a preoccupation with dilemmas of control and autonomy, and students with LD were aware of their academic difficulties and expressed lower academic self-concept (Weiner, Humphries, Tannock, & Malone, 2004).

The importance of “relatedness” for explaining resilience has been commonly accepted by several researches, considering it an essential explainer for well-being and academic competence and social interrelations (Ryan, 2004). With respect to children’s global attachment orientation toward others, children with LD reported lower attachment security and more attachment avoidance and anxiety in their close relationships, at home and in inclusive classes, than their typically achieving peers. Furthermore, children with LD perceived their teachers as more rejecting, less available, and less accepting than their typically achieving peers in the same classes. In a study on teachers as a secure base among children with reading disabilities (Al-Yagon & Margalit, 2006), children’s perceptions of the teacher as a source of a secure base, as a more available and less rejecting figure, were significantly related to their higher SOC and lower feelings of loneliness.

Loneliness

Peplau and Perlman (1982) defined loneliness as the experience of individuals who perceive a discrepancy between the desired and the achieved patterns of social relations. It refers to the frustration experienced when individuals feel that their basic need for relatedness is not met as expected and may be considered a risk factor. Throughout different samples, different age groups, and different ecological conditions, students with LD reported higher levels of loneliness and greater risk for loneliness than their typically achieving peers (Sharabi & Margalit, 2011). A deficit in knowledge needed for developing satisfactory social relations, difficulties in translating age-appropriate social knowledge into effective interpersonal behaviors, and the adoption of the behavioral style of rejected and lonely children were identified as explaining social difficulties and loneliness experiences among children with LD (Margalit, 2010). The study of children with LD revealed that their loneliness experience was often a reflection of realistic social difficulties, resulting in unfulfilled relatedness needs, their low social status, and peer rejection (Valas, 1999). These students were less socially accepted and reported higher levels of loneliness than their typically achieving peers (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006; Yu, Zhang, & Yan, 2005). Al-Yagon and Mikulincer (2004) reported that children with LD experienced difficulties in socioemotional academic competence, social interrelations, and academic functioning at school. These experiences of loneliness reflected their social difficulties (Bakker, Denessen, Bosman, Krijger, & Bouts, 2007) but may have also played an important role in their ability to identify age-appropriate goals, pathways, and active coping strategies. A reciprocal relationship seems to exist between children’s difficulties with peers and significant adults and their psychological academic competence and social interrelations from infancy to adolescence (Al-Yagon & Margalit, 2006).

The family

The family is the child’s primary environment that interacts with personal characteristics of its members. Olson (2000) defined cohesion and adaptability as two major parameters for evaluating the functioning of a family. Cohesion refers to the extent of connection, closeness, and involvement among the family members; adaptability reflects the family’s capability to change as an adaptation to developmental and external pressures. A family system is considered balanced when it demonstrates moderate scores on these two dimensions and may be considered a protective factor. The circumplex model for assessing family functioning assumed a curvilinear form.

The quality of parent relationships was found to contribute to school functioning. Adolescent students, who felt more secure with their parents, reported more positive attitudes and motivation in school. Students who reported that they did not seek assistance from anyone when occupied with emotional and/or school concerns were likely to show poorer school academic competence and social interrelations (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). Research of family functioning has presented inconclusive differences between families of adolescent students with LD and families of typically achieving students (Al-Yagon, 2003; Heiman, Zinck, & Heath, 2008). Studies have demonstrated the contribution of factors such as mother’s SOC, parental disappointment, family rigidity or disorganization, and family cohesion. Family cohesion was explained by the mother’s SOC and contributed to the child’s SOC in children with typical development (Al-Yagon, 2003), whereas parents of children with special needs reported lower SOC compared to parents of children with typical development.

Characteristics associated with LD, such as information-processing deficits, may affect relationships between parents and their children with LD (Morrison & Cosden, 1997). Because of coping difficulties experienced by children and adolescents with LD, parents of children with LD may be required to play a more active role in providing assistance than parents of children without LD (Hoke, 2004). As children with LD enter adolescence, they appear less likely to form the strong peer networks that adolescents without LD begin to rely on for support and assistance (Tur-Kaspa, 2002) and, thus, may have greater dependence on parents for providing help with stressors and emotional distress (Wenz-Gross & Siperstein, 1998). Research has supported the centrality of parental social support in explaining behavioral and emotional problems (Windle & Mason, 2004), calling for additional studies examining students’ academic self-perception when confronted with developmental challenges and to promote their hope.

Hope, hopeful thinking, and students with LD

Hope has been defined by Snyder (2002) as a learned thinking pattern, a set of beliefs and thoughts, involving two relatively distinct ways of thinking about a goal: Agency thinking involves thoughts related to one’s successful determination about reaching goals, whereas pathways thinking involves thoughts about one’s effective abilities to pursue different means of obtaining goals. Hope is postulated to lead directly to corresponding hopeful behaviors that, in turn, strengthen hopeful thinking (Shorey, Snyder, Rand, Hockemeyer, & Feldman, 2002). There are reciprocal relations between hopeful thinking and achievements in different areas (Snyder, Lopez, Shorey, Rand, & Feldman, 2003). Moreover, hopeful thinking involves thoughts about the effective strategies to pursue different means of obtaining goals. High-hope individuals may identify routes that they are confident in, have a decisive nature, be good at producing alternative routes, and be more effective in reaching their goals. They may have a generalized expectancy of success, and thus any blockage of goals is viewed as temporary because new paths to achieve goals are frequently easily developed (Cheavens, 2000). Furthermore, high-hope individuals have the skills to cope more effectively with barriers toward achieving goals and demonstrate high levels of competence across a wide range of activities and attempts (Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002). In examining a hypothesized model of causal relationships among beliefs (i.e., hope and optimism), goal-specific expectancies (grade expectancy), and goal achievement (class grade), a recent study (Rand, 2009) demonstrated that hope contributed to the goal-specific expectancy that a student made for his or her academic performance. Moreover, a student’s goal-specific expectancy directly influenced his or her actual performance. In a study examining variables explaining high school grades, hope was the best explainer of grades (Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Davies, 2007). Unlike the SOC, which is considered a stable characteristic, hope is a learned skill that appears possible to enhance through structured interventions (Cheavens, Feldman, Woodward, & Snyder, 2006; Feldman & Dreher, in press).

Hope as an empirical paradigm (Snyder, 2002) has unique significance for understanding the resilience resources for students with LD. Studies have revealed that students with LD, when compared to typically achieving peers, had lower levels of hope and effort (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006). Students with lower levels of hope experienced high anxiety, especially in stressful academic situations. Such anxiety may reflect the fact that they often did not use feedback from failure experiences in an adaptive manner to improve their academic achievements. Instead of using such feedback constructively, low-hope individuals were prone to self-doubt and negative ruminations that interfered with attending to the appropriate cues in their learning (Snyder, 2002). Students with higher levels of hope, on the other hand, did not denigrate their abilities when they did not succeed and did not let such experiences affect their self-worth in the long run. In this regard, the high-hope students made adaptive acknowledgments regarding the “failure” feedback, investing sufficient effort and identifying the correct strategies to succeed (Snyder et al., 2003). Furthermore, students with high levels of hope were found to have positive emotional sets and a sense of enthusiasm that stemmed from their histories of success in goal pursuits, whereas students with low levels of hope had negative emotional sets and a sense of emotional flatness that stemmed from their histories of having failed in goals pursuits (Snyder et al., 2003). Hope is different from self-efficacy, although both constructs provide a measure of self-beliefs. More specifically, hope encompasses both the cognitive elements of planning (pathways) and motivation (agency) that lead an individual to behave so as to attain his or her goals as well as considering barriers and the ways to overcome them, whereas self-efficacy focuses attention on the individual’s belief in his or her abilities to reach the goal.

Self-efficacy

Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as beliefs in one’s ability to attain designated goals. In a recent review of self-efficacy, studies within education settings (van Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2011) confirmed that a strong sense of self-efficacy contributes to students’ growth and academic development. Human accomplishment and individual well-being are enhanced by a strong sense of self-efficacy. Individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy approach difficulties as a challenge rather than a threat to be avoided. These individuals set high goals for themselves and are committed to them (Schunk & Pajares, 2002).

Students with LD, when compared to typically achieving students, reported lower academic self-efficacy as well as lower academic competence (Klassen, 2007). Hampton and Mason (2003) suggested that the low self-efficacy scores that had been consistently found in research on students with LD may not be directly related to their difficulties but rather to a decreased availability of the sources for developing positive self-efficacy beliefs. Research demonstrated that even when the academic performance of students with LD was similar to that of typically achieving peers, their specific and global self-perceptions continued to reflect their ongoing emotional distress (Sharabi & Margalit, 2009). In his review of the self-efficacy beliefs of students with LD, Klassen (2002) suggested that in specific contexts, such as in the writing performance of students with specific writing disabilities, students appeared to miscalibrate their self-efficacy. Estimations of self-efficacy can be interpreted as a form of metacognition, and students with LD have been found to display significant metacognitive deficiencies (Butler, 1999). The current study differentiated between academic self-efficacy and subject-specific self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy (ASE) refers to the student’s self-efficacy regarding his or her academic abilities in general, whereas subject-specific self-efficacy refers to the student’s self-efficacy in learning a specific scholastic subject. As described in the hypothesized model (Figure 1), SOC, basic psychological needs, loneliness, and family were hypothesized to contribute to hopeful thinking, ASE, and subject-specific self-efficacy, which in turn would explain effort investment and learning achievements.

Effort

Effort may be perceived by students’ behavior and is often related to engagement and personal investment. Only few studies have examined effortful behavior among students with LD. Defining effort as well as its assessment is difficult, subjective, and dependent on self-reports. Effort varies in terms of intensity and persistence (Yeo & Neal, 2004). Meltzer et al. (2004) reported that during elementary school, students with LD rated themselves as hard workers who focused on their schoolwork, regardless of whether they considered themselves to be good or poor students. At the junior high level, differences in academic self-concept explained students’ perceptions of themselves as hard workers who were willing to make the effort to learn (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006).

Gender and students with LD

Research on gender differences among students with LD found girls to be more socially oriented than boys, not just in terms of their behavior but also in terms of their own self-concepts. Girls reported lower levels of loneliness than boys (Crosnoe, Riegle-Crumb, & Muller, 2007), were more ingrained in social ties and networks, especially close personal relationships, and were more likely to draw on social evaluations, whether real or perceived, when evaluating themselves (Giordano, 2003). Girls’ friendships were found to be quite intimate from early adolescence on, whereas boys developed less intimate relations during early and middle adolescence (Overhauser, 1994).

Furthermore, results of a study on loneliness and gender (Coplan, Closson, & Arbeau, 2007) provided support for the notion that socially withdrawn boys were at greater risk for experiencing loneliness since shyness and social withdrawal appeared to be viewed as less socially acceptable for boys than for girls (Rubin & Coplan, 2004). Moreover, this gender difference was evident when controlling for peer exclusion. Young boys who were shy and socially withdrawn faced more negative interactions with parents and teachers, which may have led them to feel less positively about themselves and their social relationships and less satisfied with their peer experiences at school (Coplan et al., 2007).

Recent research found that girls who had been diagnosed in the past as learning disabled did not tend to attribute poor performance to their internal aptitude, which may have protected their academic self-competence from the negative evaluations of teachers (Crosnoe et al., 2007). Gender comparisons in earlier studies revealed that girls with LD reported higher levels of self-efficacy than boys with LD (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003; Lackaye et al., 2006).

In conclusion, research provided different segments to the puzzle of LD and accentuated the need for a comprehensive multidimensional examination. In addition, research often scrutinized students in elementary and middle schools. It is surprising that students with LD in senior high school, a critical developmental stage before leaving the educational system, were often neglected.

Current study

The goals of this study were, first, to compare the interrelations among socioemotional self-perceptions, family climate, hopeful thinking, effort investment, and learning achievements among the LD and non-LD groups and, second, to identify the model and evaluate the contribution of socioemotional self-perceptions and family climate in predicting hopeful thinking and learning achievements. We hypothesized that students with LD would report lower levels of SOC, basic psychological needs, self-efficacy, family cohesion and adaptability, hopeful thinking, and effort and higher levels of loneliness. In addition, we hypothesized that hope would have a mediating role for students with LD between risk and protective factors emerging from their internal (personal) and external (interpersonal) resources; between socioemotional self-perceptions and family climate; and among self-efficacy, effort, and academic achievements (Figure 1).

Method

Participants

Participants in the current study were 856 high school students (10th–12th grades), including 396 girls and 460 boys. The age range of the sample was 15–18, and the students attended general education classes in seven high schools (28 classes of approximately 30 students) divided into two groups, students with LD (LD group; 327 students, 149 girls, 178 boys) and typically achieving students (non-LD group; 529 students, 247 girls, 282 boys), a comparison group, attending the same general education classes, who were matched by gender ratios.

Students with LD

All of these participants were previously diagnosed with LD as their primary handicapping condition using the Israeli Ministry of Education criteria consistent with Law of Special Education and Ministry of Education regulations. These criteria included the presence of a verbal and/or performance IQ score in the low to average range or above (ranging from 85 to 120), achievement scores at least one standard deviation below their IQ score in one or more areas of functioning, and evidence of a processing deficit in one or more cognitive or linguistic domains. The students with LD had been identified, via psychoeducational evaluation, as demonstrating LD in reading, writing, and/or mathematics. Most difficulties even at the high school levels were in slow reading and spelling mistakes. Diagnostic evaluations were conducted by the local municipal psychoeducational agencies and each school’s psychoeducational team. The diagnostic assessments included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) and/or the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983), the Bender–Gestalt Test (Koppitz, 1975), and the Hebrew adaptation of the Rey Auditory–Verbal Learning Test (Vakil & Blachstein, 1993), as well as evaluation of reading and writing levels in Hebrew as revealed in high school textbooks and writing. Because of confidentiality directives, group data, rather than specific information regarding an individual child’s disabilities, were provided by the school counselors for this study. Students with special difficulties other than LD were not included in the sample. In line with Israeli educational policy, following identification and diagnosis, these students were recognized by the Israeli Ministry of Education as entitled to classroom and testing accommodations, including accommodations on the national matriculation. Access to higher education in Israel requires the successful completion of high school bagrut (matriculation) exams in core subject areas.

Schools and teachers

Secondary public education in Israel is free and composed of Grades 10 through 12. The Israeli Ministry of Education divided districts for extended budgeting purposes according to the average of three social indicators: families’ income, parental education, and the size of families. In our study, five of the schools were located in predominantly middle-class districts and two were located in predominantly lower-class districts in Israel’s central region. The teachers were general education class teachers, graduates of teacher training programs at universities and colleges in a scholastic subjects in general and/or special education.

Instruments

Sense of Coherence Scale

The adaptation of the Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC Scale; Antonovsky, 1987) is a self-report scale consisting of 16 items tapping three interrelated dimensions of children’s sense of confidence in the world: (a) comprehensibility—feelings that one understands one’s environment (e.g., “I feel that I don’t understand what to do in class”), (b) manageability—feelings of control and confidence that positive rewards are available (e.g., “When I want something I’m sure I’ll get it”), and (c) sense of meaningfulness—motivation and interest in different tasks (e.g., “I’m interested in lots of things”), rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A higher score reflects a higher level of SOC. The SOC Scale was used in 32 countries, and a comprehensive survey of 251 studies (Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2005, 2007) reported that the SOC Scale seems to be a reliable, valid, and cross-culturally applicable instrument measuring how people manage stressful situations and stay well. Test–retest correlations showed stability and ranged from .69 to .78 (1 year). In a recent study (Davidson, Feldman, & Margalit, in press) the test–retest correlation after a month was .75. In the current study a Cronbach’s alpha of .80 was obtained.

Basic Psychological Needs Scale

The Basic Psychological Needs Scale (Deci & Ryan, 2000) consists of a general needs satisfaction scale tapping three innate psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The Hebrew adaptation is composed of 20 items divided into two subscales, (a) autonomy (e.g., “I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my life”) and competence (e.g., “Individuals I know tell me I am good at what I do”) and (b) relatedness (e.g., “I really like the individuals I interact with”), rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). Autonomy and competence refer to the individuals’ perceptions of themselves, whereas relatedness refers to their perceptions of their interrelations with others. External validity, collected by examining the differential relationships between the three needs and measures of well-being and worry, supported the distinctiveness of the three needs (Johnston & Finney, 2010). In our study we identified two subscales. A higher score reflected a higher level of autonomy/competence and relatedness. In the current study a Cronbach’s alpha of .75 was obtained for autonomy/competence and .82 for relatedness.

Loneliness

The Hebrew adaptation (Margalit, 1991) of the Loneliness Scale (Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel, & Williams, 1990) is a self-report scale consisting of 16 primary items tapping feelings of loneliness (e.g., “I have nobody to talk to in my class”) and 8 filler items (e.g., “I like television”) that cover various activity areas and are rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A higher score reflects more frequent feelings of loneliness. The scale was widely used and found reliable and valid (when compared to teachers’ and peer and play ratings) Test–retest reliability for a recent study in Turkey was .76 (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984; Bagner, Storch, & Roberti, 2004; Bakkaloglu, 2010; Goossens & Beyers, 2002). In the current study the Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .88.

Family Climate (FACES III)

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES III; Olson, 2000) assesses the degree of cohesiveness and adaptability within the family. The scale consists of 20 items composing two subscales of 10 items each rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The cohesion subscale refers to emotional bonding, family boundaries, and time spent together (e.g., “Family members feel closer to other family members than to people outside the family”). The adaptability subscale refers to discipline, roles, negotiation, and flexibility within the family, focusing on how the family system balances stability versus change (e.g., “We shift household responsibilities from person to person”). The score is the average of the items on the relevant subscale. Thus, a higher score reflects a higher level of cohesion and adaptability. The validity of the scale was established, as were consistent reliability (cohesion = .77, adaptability = .62–67) across studies and test–retest reliability (.80–.83; Olson, 1986). In the current study the students completed the FACES III, and a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 was obtained for cohesion and .70 for adaptability.

Hope

The Hope Scale taps belief in one’s ability to pursue desired goals and use strategies to achieve them. The Hebrew adaptation of the Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder, 2002) consists of six statements to which children respond on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 6 (all of the time). There are three agency items (e.g., “I think I am doing pretty well”) and three pathways items (e.g., “I can think of many ways to get things in life”). A higher score reflects a higher level of hope. The Cronbach’s alphas for the Children’s Hope Scale scores in several samples ranged from .72 to .86, and test–retest reliability for a 1-month interval ranged from .71 to .73 (Snyder et al., 1997). In the current study a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 was obtained.

Effort

The goal of this scale is to tap students’ self-ratings of their willingness to invest in their studies (Margalit, 2004). The current scale consists of four items (e.g., “I don’t give up even when it is difficult to me”) rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). A higher score reflects a higher level of effort. The scale reliabilities in earlier studies ranged between .76 and .90 (Al-Yagon, 2010; Lackaye & Margalit, 2006). In the current study a Cronbach’s alpha of .78 was obtained.

ASE

The Hebrew adaptation of the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) is composed of two parts: First is general learning skills, described in 11 statements rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all sure) to 7 (very sure). Examples include “to learn when there are more interesting things to do” and “to remember what was taught in class and in the textbook.” A higher score reflects a higher level of ASE. The Cronbach’s alphas in early studies ranged between .87 and .85 (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006, 2008). For the current study the Cronbach’s alpha for ASE was .88. Second is ASE in a scholastic subject, including six statements describing a sense of self-efficacy in three domains (English, history, and mathematics) rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all sure) to 7 (very sure). An example is “to what extent are you sure you will understand the material learned in class.” A higher score reflects a higher level of self-efficacy in a given subject. In the current study the Cronbach’s alpha for English was .92, for history was .92, and for mathematics was .94.

Students’ achievements

The students provided their numerical grades in English, history, and mathematics. The scholastic subjects of English, history, and mathematics represent three domains requiring the use of different skills: English is learned as a foreign language in Israel and requires the formal learning of linguistics skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking); history is a (native) language-based multiword subject that accounts for those students with reading and writing disabilities; and mathematics accounts for students with nonverbal LD. Because the sample was composed of students from different schools, this study focused on scholastic subjects that were identical in syllabi and teaching methods within different educational systems. Standardized achievement tests are not available in Hebrew.

Procedure

Following first the approval from the Israeli Ministry of Education and second parental and student consent, the questionnaires were handed out to the students in groups in their classrooms. The students were told that there were no right or wrong answers. The questionnaires were anonymous and took less than an academic hour to complete. Students who needed more time to complete the questionnaires were given it. The first author, who was present while the students completed the questionnaires to answer questions, confirmed the students’ cooperation. Teachers and school counselors indicated the questionnaires of students with LD who are entitled to testing and classroom accommodations.

Analysis Plan and Description

An exploratory descriptive analysis was initially conducted. Analysis of variance was conducted to compare means across gender and groups. Means and standard deviations for each variable are presented in Table 1. Second, to assess the theoretical model, analyses were conducted with AMOS 19 (Arbuckle, 2010) using maximum likelihood estimation procedures on covariance matrices. Conducting structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses is useful in that they provide information about whether the associations among personal, family systemic, hope, effort, and academic achievements are direct or indirect and, if indirect, through which pathways they occur. In evaluating the fit of models, multiple indexes of fit that correspond to different types of fit evaluation (Hoyle & Panter, 1995) were recorded. As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), we tested the model using several indices. Specifically, we followed Hu and Bentler’s (1999) recommendation to use the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and Bollen’s goodness-of-fit index (GFI) to assess the goodness of fit of our model. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), values less than .06 on the RMSEA and greater than .95 on the GFI indicate good fit. In addition to reporting the chi-square test statistic and the chi-square by degrees of freedom value as measures of absolute fit, values for the normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI), as measures of incremental fit, were recorded (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Jöreskog and Sörbom’s (1996) goodness-of-fit index (GFI), which indexes the relative amount of the observed variances and covariances accounted for by a model, and RMSEA, which accounts for the number of degrees of freedom in the model in assessing fit, were recorded (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). In assessing the adequacy of the models that were tested, recommendations by several researchers (Hoyle & Panter, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004) were followed. The cutoff points indicating adequate fit in the absolute measures were nonsignificance of the chi-square statistic and less than 2.00 for the chi-square by degrees of freedom ratio. For the incremental indexes (NFI, CFI, and GFI) a coefficient greater than .95 indicated an excellent or superior fit and a coefficient greater than .90 indicated an adequate fit (Byrne, 2011). Finally, for the RMSEA, a coefficient less than .05 with probability of greater than .50 indicated an excellent fit, and a coefficient less than .08 indicated an acceptable fit.

Table 1.

Group Differences in Self-Ratings.

	Non-LD Group (n = 529)		LD Group (n = 327)
	M	SD	M	SD	F(1, 852)	Partial η²
Sense of coherence	2.64	0.48	2.68	0.50	3.47**	.018
Autonomy and competence	5.05	0.84	4.96	0.73	5.72**	.029
Relatedness	5.88	0.87	5.80	1.03	22.69**	.105
Loneliness	2.32	0.38	2.38	0.39	20.23**	.094
Academic self-efficacy	4.93	1.19	4.81	1.17	6.73**	.033
Self-efficacy in history	5.32	1.25	4.87	1.24	7.87**	.039
Self-efficacy in English	5.62	1.06	5.29	1.18	14.67**	.070
Self-efficacy in math	5.37	1.23	5.26	1.29	6.42**	.032
Family cohesion	3.83	0.72	3.59	0.83	15.11**	.072
Family adaptability	3.03	0.64	3.09	0.57	4.47**	.022
Hope	4.51	0.80	4.35	0.99	20.08**	.094
Effort	4.49	0.98	4.28	1.01	26.20**	.119
History score	78.70	13.62	70.84	14.86	28.64**	.129
English score	82.27	11.74	79.73	12.03	5.41**	.027
Math score	83.63	15.54	79.24	17.43	10.60**	.052

p < .01.

Before turning to the results, it is important to add a word of caution about language. Thus far, in describing our results, we have been careful to refer to associations rather than effects because without experimental data we cannot establish that what we are estimating are causal effects. However, in discussing the SEM results, it is convenient to use the word effect because an important feature of SEM analyses is that they allow us to distinguish among direct, indirect, and total effects. In using the word effect here, we do not mean to imply that we have established causality with certainty. This remains a challenge with SEM models, as with other types of multivariate models used with observational data.

Results

Comparisons of Socioemotional Perceptions, Family Climate, and Learning Achievements Among the LD and Non-LD Groups

To compare students’ ratings of socioemotional perceptions (SOC, autonomy, competence, relatedness, loneliness, ASE, SE history, English, and math, hope, and effort), family climate (cohesion and adaptability), and learning achievements (scores in history, English, and math) among the LD group and the non-LD group, a MANOVA was performed with group membership and gender as the independent measures. The results revealed a main effect for groups, F(1, 838) = 8.429, p < .001, partial η² = .13; a main effect for gender, F(1, 838) = 16.86, p < .001, partial η² = .23; and interactions between groups and gender, F(1, 838) = 6.22, p < .001, partial η² = .10. Means, standard deviations, and F scores of the univariate analysis are presented in Table 1.

As presented in Table 1, students with LD reported higher levels than their peers in their loneliness and lower levels of autonomy, competence, relatedness, self-efficacy, family cohesion, SE history, English, and math, hope, and effort. The univariate comparisons of SOC and adaptability did not reveal significant differences. Furthermore, girls in the LD group reported the highest levels of relatedness, hope, and effort and the lowest levels of loneliness, SE history, and SE math among girls and boys from the two groups. Boys in the LD group reported the highest level of loneliness and the lowest levels of relatedness, cohesion, hope, and effort among girls and boys from the two groups. Gender differences (without group interaction) in self-ratings revealed that girls reported higher levels of ASE than boys. Moreover, results of the current research revealed that, as hypothesized, the LD group attained lower scores in history and math than the non-LD group. To test the study’s hypotheses and identify the factors that explain hopeful thinking, effort investment, and learning achievements among the LD group and the non-LD group, SEM was performed.

The Explanatory Model: Identifying the Factors That Explain Hopeful Thinking, Effort Investment, and Learning Achievements Among the LD Group and the Non-LD Group

Tables 2 and 3 present the correlations among the variables. First, the analysis involved confirming the measurement properties of the instruments for the two groups separately. Second, to test the main hypothesis and hypothesized model (Figure 1) relating socioemotional perceptions, family climate, and student achievements, a model for the LD group that posited direct relations among emotional perceptions, family climate, and student achievements was tested. Third, to test the hypothesis concerning the differences between the LD group and the non-LD group, a model for the non-LD group that posited the same relations as in the first model among emotional perceptions, family climate, and student achievements was tested. Because of nonsignificant correlations among the measures when positing the same relations as in the first model, a separate model for the non-LD group was tested. Finally, the results of the two models were compared.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix for the Assessed Measures Among the LD Group (n = 327).

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Sense of coherence	—
2. Autonomy/competence	.58**	—
3. Relatedness	.41**	.59**	—
4. Loneliness	−.43**	−.42**	−.64**	—
5. Academic self-efficacy	.16**	.35**	.23**	.04	—
6. Self-efficacy history	.34**	.34**	−.05	−.08	.29**	—
7. Self-efficacy English	.01	.00	.30**	.25**	.05	.43**	—
8. Self-efficacy math	−.10	.22**	.17**	.11	.33**	.19**	.10	—
9. Family cohesion	.20**	.32**	.40**	−.18**	.30**	−.06	−.01	−.03	—
10. Family adaptability	.16**	.23**	.26**	−.03	.39**	−.03	−.12*	−.04	.61**	—
11. Hope	.44**	.46**	.58**	−.42**	.35**	.08	.28**	.14**	.63**	.43**	—
12. Effort	.28**	.35**	.35**	−.16**	.63**	.14*	−.08	.19**	.60**	.41**	.65**	—

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.

Correlation Matrix for the Assessed Measures Among the Non-LD Group (n = 529).

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Sense of coherence	—
2. Autonomy/competence	.58**	—
3. Relatedness	.48**	.66**	—
4. Loneliness	−.36**	−.48**	−.64**	—
5. Academic self-efficacy	.31**	.36**	.27**	−.22**	—
6. Self-efficacy history	.20**	.26**	.15**	−.16**	.44**	—
7. Self-efficacy English	.14**	.20**	.15**	−.15**	.27**	.40**	—
8. Self-efficacy math	.25**	.29**	.19**	−.21**	.30**	.11**	.22**	—
9. Family cohesion	.26**	.34**	.33**	−.20*	.34**	.34**	.02	.14**	—
10. Family adaptability	.21**	.27**	.18**	−.14**	.27**	.27**	−.02	.12**	.61**	—
11. Hope	.45**	.61**	.41**	−.37**	.43**	.31**	.26**	.30**	.32**	.29	—
12. Effort	.32**	.34**	.35**	−.22**	.63**	.30**	.17**	.28**	.31**	.18**	.43**	—

p < .05. **p < .01.

The first step of the analysis involved testing the measurement model of the scales. This involved a confirmatory factor analysis procedure in which the assumptions regarding the factor structures of the various scales were tested. To reduce the number of items, parceling, a measurement practice used with latent variable analysis techniques, was tested. This was done to facilitate the analysis because of the large number of items. A parcel can be defined as an aggregate-level indicator composed of the sum (or average) of two or more items, responses, or behaviors. Random assignments of items and item-to-construct balance are two ways of creating parcels. In this study the method of random assignments of items was used. Following from a domain sampling rationale, one simple method for constructing parcels is to assign each item, randomly and without replacement, to one of the parcel groupings. Depending on the number of items to be assigned, two, three, or possibly four parcels, or groupings of items, can be created. Random assignment of items to parcels should, on average, lead to parcels that contain roughly equal common factor variance. Items should generally stem from a common pool, such as questionnaire items answered using a common scale (Little, Cunningham, & Shahar, 2002).

The issue of the optimal number of indicators needed to identify and represent a latent construct has concerned experts in SEM (Little et al., 2002). Even though latent constructs can be represented using one or two indicators (Holahan & Moos, 1994), such a practice is generally viewed as suboptimal because it reflects a locally underidentified latent variable. On the other hand, three indicators of a construct leads to a just-identified latent variable, whereas four or more indicators leads to an overidentified latent variable. In this study, the risk and protective factors were conceptualized in an integrative framework because of the accumulative effect this group of measures have, as opposed to limiting the focus to single factors, and were posited as separate indicators within the latent variable titled risk and protective. Modifications of the models showed both direct and indirect correlations.

All the scales’ items and parcels were entered into the same measurement model. The fit indexes suggested that the model was not sufficiently adequate, χ²(1858, N = 977) = 11005.506, p < .000 (χ²/df = 5.923, CFI = .783, GFI = .716, NFI = .750, RMSEA = .071). An examination of the modification indexes indicated that the items measuring autonomy/competence, relatedness, and adaptability had loadings less than .35 and were therefore dropped from further analyses. The modification indexes also indicated that there were correlated errors among pairs of items. The fit of the revised model (i.e., excluding the mentioned items and adding correlated errors) was improved, χ²(560, N = 977) = 2768.638, p < .000 (χ²/df = 4.944, CFI = .902, GFI = .863, NFI = .880, RMSEA = .064) indicating a high fit between the modified model and the empirical findings and that the observed variables were good indicators of the latent variables that represented separate constructs.

Testing the Paths Among Socioemotional Perceptions, Family Climate, and Student Achievements Among the LD Group: A Modified Model

The second step in the analysis included a test of a structural model, based on the hypothesized model (Figure 1) and the current study’s data and correlations, with direct paths from emotional perceptions, family climate, and gender to achievements among the LD group. A measurement model of the measures included in the model demonstrated a very good fit, χ²(28, N = 327) = 102.957, p < .000 (χ²/df = 3.677, CFI = .961, GFI = .953, NFI = .949, RMSEA = .081), indicating that the observed variables were good indicators of the latent variables and the latent variables represented separate constructs.

The need to reduce the number of highly correlated exogenous measures by eliminating one variable in each highly correlated pair involved an iterative procedure of testing the model while excluding one variable at a time, examining the effect on the paths, and mapping the change in paths among the various measures. The findings of attenuated coefficients among these measures were supported by the theoretical and logical relations of the processes they measure (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007). In line with their recommendation, the following measures were dropped from further analyses in this model: SE history, SE English, SE math, scores in English, and effort. The modified structural model had a very good fit, χ²(34, N = 327) = 46.322, p < .077 (χ²/df = 1.362, CFI = .994, GFI = .979, NFI = .979, RMSEA = .033). The structural part of this model is shown in Figure 2. Table 2 presents the correlations among the variables.

Figure 2.

Structural model for the LD group.

The results indicated that students’ scholastic scores in math, students’ scholastic scores in history, and students’ ASE were explained by hope (β = .23, β = .17, and β = .91, respectively). Thus, hope was found to contribute to students’ scholastic scores in math, students’ scholastic scores in history, and students’ ASE. Similarly, students’ risk and protective factors contributed to hope (β = .91). Gender was significantly related to risk and protective factors in general (β = .50) and also directly to SOC (β = –.37), loneliness (β = –.40), hope (β = –.24), ASE (β = .12), and scores in math (β = –.13). The boys’ higher levels of SOC, higher levels of loneliness, higher levels of hope, and higher scores in math were evident in the model (β = –.37, β = –.40, β = –.24, and β = –.13, respectively), as were the girls’ higher levels of ASE (β = .12) and risk and protective factors in general (β = .50).

Testing the Paths Among Socioemotional Perceptions, Family Climate, and Student Achievements Among the Non-LD Group

In the third step, to test the hypotheses concerning the differences between the two studied groups, a model for the non-LD group that posited the same relations as in the first model (see Figure 1) among emotional perceptions, family climate, and student achievements was tested. A measurement model of the measures included in the model indicated a very good fit, χ²(41, N = 529) = 71.351, p < .002 (χ²/df = 1.740, CFI = .983, GFI = .978, NFI = .961, RMSEA = .037), demonstrating that the observed variables were good indicators of the latent variables and the latent variables represented separate constructs.

The structural paths, from the risk and protective factors, including SOC, loneliness, and cohesion to ASE and hope, were added. In addition to paths from ASE and hope to scores in history and scores in math, paths from gender to all the measures were added. Similar to those for the first model, the results indicated the existence of attenuated coefficients because of high correlations between some of the measures. Standardized paths were negative and at times greater than 1.00, with very large standard errors, whereas the respective zero-order correlations were positive. Reducing the number of highly correlated exogenous measures involved an iterative procedure of testing the model, examining the effect on the paths, and mapping the change in paths among the various measures. In addition, variables that had been dropped from the structural model for students with LD in inclusive classes were included, one variable at a time. This led to the dropping of cohesion (one indicator) and score in history from further analyses in this model and the addition of SE English and SE history. The modified structural model had an excellent fit, χ²(52, N = 529) = 52.547, p < .453 (χ²/df = 1.011, CFI = 1.000, GFI = .985, NFI = .973, RMSEA = .004). The structural part of this model is shown in Figure 3. Table 3 presents the correlations among the variables.

Figure 3.

Structural model for the non-LD group.

The results indicated that ASEASE was explained by hope (β = .65), and in turn ASE explained students’ scores in math (β = .11) and subject-specific self-efficacy (β = .71). Similarly, students’ risk and protective factors contributed to hope (β = .88). Thus, hope mediated between risk protective factors and ASE, which in turn contributed to subject-specific self-efficacy (SE English and SE history) and scores in math. Gender was significantly related to ASE (β = .14) and SOC (β = –.21). The boys’ higher levels of SOC were evident in the model (β = –.21), as were the girls’ higher levels of ASE (β = .14).

Discussion

The primary goal of this analysis was to identify the factors that explain hopeful thinking, effort investment, and learning achievements among the LD group and the non-LD group. The results supported the hypothesis in part. The following findings emerged: (a) hope mediated between risk and protective factors and ASE in the two models, (b) the significant role of hope in both models was apparent beyond its importance to ASE, (c) loneliness contributed (negatively) to hope in both models, (d) the positing of two separate models pointed to the distinctiveness and uniqueness of each group, (e) gender differences were more evident in the LD model, and (f) SOC, experience of loneliness, cohesion, hopeful thinking, and ASE were found to contribute independently and jointly to the psychosocial processes of students, whether with or without LD.

Hope as mediator

The hypothesized current finding that hope mediated between the risk and protective factors and ASE in the two models is vital. The importance of hope in the current study extended the growing evidence that students’ hopeful thinking promotes ASE and effort investment, which contribute to higher learning achievements (Rand, 2009). This result emphasizes the students’ need for hopeful thoughts to positively reinforce the goal pursuit process and increase the levels of self-efficacy and effort necessary in attaining the desired goal. The consistently low expectations of hope expressed by students with LD (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006) and the current findings underline the significance of hope in promoting students’ motivation, ASE, subject-specific self-efficacy, effort, and learning achievements.

The contribution of hope to higher academic achievements, as found in the current study for the LD group, supports earlier research in which higher hope scale scores taken at the beginning of college explained better cumulative grade point averages and whether students remained in school. Furthermore, the contribution of hope to ASE and subject-specific self-efficacy, as found in both groups, supports previous research in which hope scale scores were related to various indices of elevated happiness, satisfaction, and positive emotions and in which hope was the common factor underlying the positive changes that happen in treatments and interventions (Snyder et al., 2002).

Earlier research established the importance of strong support and encouragement for students with LD, which can be provided by teachers, and a conviction that their academic achievements are fully within their control may act as an adaptive and functional response to a difficult reality (Klassen & Lynch, 2007). In other words, low-achieving students who receive high levels of support and guidance may experience motivational patterns that lead to higher achievements. The current study did not include teachers’ perspectives, but in recognition of this importance, future research and remedial interests should strive to focus on teachers’ roles in promoting hopeful thinking among students, especially students with LD whose beliefs about their own capabilities to carry out school assignments affect their effort investment and persistence.

A multidimensional approach and the importance of the family in predicting achievements

The current research has several theoretical contributions in demonstrating the combined impact of different resource factors on outcomes and emphasizing the unique role of hopeful thinking and future perspectives for decreasing the effects of adversity. The interaction of SOC, experience of loneliness, and cohesion in the family explained hopeful thinking among the LD group and the non-LD group. This demonstrates the important role of subjective perceptions, social interactions, and family climate for promoting future expectations for students, whether with or without LD, in regular educational settings.

Furthermore, the significance of hope within strength-based education may have an impact on the academic success of adolescents (Snyder, Ilardi, Michael, & Cheavens, 2000). As adolescents move through high school and encounter challenging situations within the academic and social spheres, they require improved skills and resources (Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2008). The ability to cope with difficult challenges in a more positive way and persevering in the face of difficulties emphasize the importance of hope in assisting students with learning difficulties to plan goal-directed behavior and deal with obstacles that hinder the achievement of these goals. Intervention programs that focus attention on promoting hope and future conceptions of the self in line with Snyder’s conceptualization (Cheavens et al., 2006), the Possible Selves approach (Hock, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2003), and the identity-based motivation approach (Oyserman & Destin, 2010) have been designed to improve future visions and have promising outcomes in students’ increased aspirations and motivation. For example, the Possible Selves program was developed to nurture academic and personal motivation in elementary through postsecondary students. Program activities guide students through the process of thinking about their hopes, expectations, and fears for the future. The program includes activities that help students identify short- and long-term goals that they value and to develop and pursue action plans that lead to goal attainment (Hock et al., 2003). This paradigmatic shift proposes that in examining differential paths of growth during adolescence, it is critical to study interactions between individuals and contexts together with current as well as future self-perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs in explaining future achievement (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003).

Second, in line with the conceptualization of resilience as the dynamic process of adaptation through the interaction between risk and protective factors, this research contributed theoretically to the developing of a multidimensional understanding of the psychosocial processes of students with LD by using a multidimensional approach that included several measures. Future studies have to include teachers and classroom environments to further clarify the complexity of the interactions. Finally, the findings of the current study emphasized the importance of the family’s functioning by demonstrating the interrelations among family climate, students’ socioemotional perceptions, and hopeful thinking.

Gender and students with LD

The higher levels of SOC and ASE among girls with LD compared to boys with LD in the current study may be related to previous research (Crosnoe et al., 2007) that found that girls who had been diagnosed in the past as with LD were found to attribute poor performance to something other than their internal aptitude, which may have protected their academic self-competence from the negative evaluations of teachers. Girls who had never had such a diagnosis lacked this so-called protection, and bad grades may have been evidence that they were not smart enough to do well in school. On the other hand, boys who were diagnosed in the past with LD demonstrated declining levels of perceived intelligence regardless of their academic achievement. This may demonstrate that boys may be more concerned with impersonal labeling removed from the classroom setting. Furthermore, the lower levels of loneliness reported by girls compared to boys are in line with research (Giordano, 2003) findings in which girls were more ingrained in social ties and networks, especially close personal relationships, and were more likely to draw on social evaluations, whether real or perceived, when evaluating themselves.

Educational implications

First, the present outcomes put forward the need to develop effective interventions using Snyder’s construct of hope theory (Snyder, 2002) embedded with the self-efficacy conceptualization for promoting students’ hope in general, and hope in students with LD in particular, whose beliefs about their own capabilities to carry out school assignments reflect their failure history and explain their effort investment and persistence. Students with LD, who were found to differ from the typically achieving students, may receive assistance in enhancing their academic and subject self-efficacy through exposure to models of positive self-efficacy, assistance in developing hopeful thinking through training to identify appropriate goals, alternative goals, effective strategies, and alternative strategies, and help in learning skills for challenging their lower levels of hope and higher levels of loneliness. In addition, activities promoting hopeful thinking within the family (members) and within the school (staff) should be expanded. Schools may be encouraged to help students identify their strengths, developing guidance programs that offer strength-based workshops for both students and parents in line with the positive impact of several existing programs such as those based on hope theory (Cheavens et al., 2006) and the conceptualization of Possible Selves (Hock et al., 2003; Oyserman & Destin, 2010). It is within this spirit that the continuum of intervention is proposed and that parents and teachers receive guidance on ways of encouraging hopeful thinking in the family and school environments as well.

Limitations and conclusions

The findings of the current study should be treated in light of several limitations. Limitations of the current study include the homogeneity of the sample with respect to age. A longitudinal study composed of different age levels can lead to a better understanding of the developmental differences in the experiences of students with LD in inclusive classrooms, typically achieving students from the same classes, and students with severe LD in a special school. An additional limitation is that all data were collected at one time point using students’ self-report questionnaires. Although the hypothesized relations in the proposed models depicted mediation, the correlational nature as well as the single time point of this study demonstrate that causal relations and longitudinal research that addresses reciprocal effects over time may add valuable knowledge to understanding of how socioemotional self-perceptions, family climate, and students’ hopeful thinking mutually influence each other over time. Additional sources of information, such as teachers and parents, and the use of children’s interviews may provide additional in-depth understanding to the results of this study.

In conclusion, the significance of hope in promoting students’ motivation, self-efficacy, effort, and learning achievements was demonstrated in the current study. Hope mediated between risk and protective factors, and self-efficacy and its significance for students with and without LD was apparent in explaining higher achievements and effort investment. The study of hopeful thinking provided a significant perspective in attempting to clarify the dynamic interactions between academic and socioemotional factors and students’ readiness to treat their difficulties as challenges worthy of effort investment. Students with LD face challenges that are beyond their academic difficulties. Studies of self-perceptions, based on past experiences as well as future expectations and intervention programs, may provide extended opportunities for promoting hopeful thinking, resilience, and positive academic competence and social interrelations in students, increasing their chances for a meaningful, engaging, and satisfying future.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Al-Yagon

(2003). Children at risk for learning disorders: Multiple perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 318–336.

Al-Yagon

(2010). Maternal emotional resources and socio-emotional well-being of children with and without learning disabilities. Family Relations, 59, 152–169.

Al-Yagon

Margalit

(2006). Loneliness, SOC, and perception of teachers as a secure base among children with reading difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21, 21–37.

Al-Yagon

Mikulincor

(2004). Socioemotional and academic competence and social interrelations among children with learning disorders: The mediational role of attachment-based factors. The Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 111-124.

Antonovsky

(1987). Unraveling the mystery of health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2010). IBM SPSS Amos 19 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Asher

S. R.

Hymel

Renshaw

P. D.

(1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456–1464.

Asher

S. R.

Parkhurst

J. T.

Hymel

Williams

G. A.

(1990). Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In Asher

S. R.

Cole

J. K.

(Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253–273). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bacchini

Magliulo

(2003). Self-image and perceived self-efficacy during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 337–349.

10.

Bagner

D. M.

Storch

E. A.

Roberti

J. W.

(2004). A factor analytic study of the loneliness and social dissatisfaction scale in a sample of African-American and Hispanic-American Children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 34, 237–250.

11.

Bakkaloglu

(2010). A comparison of the loneliness levels of mainstreamed primary students according to their sociometric status. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 330–336.

12.

Bakker

J. T. A.

Denessen

Bosman

A. M. T.

Krijger

E. M.

Bouts

(2007). Socio-metric status and self-image of children with specific and general learning disabilities in Dutch general and special education classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 47–63.

13.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

14.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

15.

Byrne

B. M.

(2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Butler

D. L.

(1999, April). Identifying and remediating students’ inefficient approaches to tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

17.

Cheavens

(2000). Hope and depression: Light through the shadows. In Snyder

C. R.

(Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 321–340). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

18.

Cheavens

J. S.

Feldman

D. B.

Woodward

J. T.

Snyder

C. R.

(2006). Hope in cognitive psychotherapies: On working with client strengths. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 135–145.

19.

Ciarrochi

Heaven

Davies

(2007). The impact of hope, self esteem and attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1161–1178.

20.

Coplan

R. J.

Closson

L. M.

Arbeau

K. A.

(2007). Gender differences in the behavioral associates of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 988–995.

21.

Crosnoe

Riegle-Crumb

Muller

(2007). Gender, self perception, and academic problems in high school. Social Problems, 54, 118–138.

22.

Davidson

O. B.

Feldman

D. B.

Margalit

(in press). A focused intervention for first-year college students: Promoting hope, sense of coherence and self-efficacy. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied.

23.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 227–268.

24.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23.

25.

Eriksson

Lindstrom

(2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence Scale: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 460–466.

26.

Eriksson

Lindstrom

(2007). Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence Scale and its relation with quality of life: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 938–944.

27.

Feldman

D. B.

Dreher

D. E.

(in press). Can hope be changed in 90 minutes? Testing the efficacy of a single-session goal-pursuit intervention for college students. Journal of Happiness Studies.

28.

Giordano

P. C.

(2003). Relationships in adolescence. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 233–259.

29.

Goossens

Beyers

(2002). Comparing measures of childhood loneliness: Internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31, 252–262.

30.

Hampton

N. Z.

Mason

(2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 101–112.

31.

Heaven

Ciarrochi

(2008). Parental styles, gender and the development of hope and self esteem. European Journal of Personality, 22, 707–724.

32.

Heiman

Zinck

L. C.

Heath

N. L.

(2008). Parents and youth with learning disabilities: Perceptions of relationships and communication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 524–534.

33.

Hock

Schumaker

Deshler

(2003). Possible Selves: Nurturing student motivation. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

34.

Hoke

J. K.

(2004). Parents as coping resources for adolescents with learning disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.

35.

Holahan

C. J.

Moos

R. H.

(1994). Life stressors, person and social resources, and depression: A 4-year structural model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 31–38.

36.

Hoyle

R. H.

Panter

A. T.

(1995). Writing about structural equation models. In Hoyle

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

37.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

38.

Johnston

M. M.

Finney

S. J.

(2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 280–296.

39.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

40.

Kaufman

A. S.

Kaufman

N. L.

(1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Administration and scoring manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

41.

Klassen

R.M.

(2002). A question of calibration: A review of the self efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 88–102.

42.

Klassen

R. M.

(2007). Using predictions to learn about the self-efficacy of early adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 173–187.

43.

Klassen

R. M.

Lynch

S. L.

(2007). Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with LD and their specialist teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 494–507.

44.

Koppitz

E. M.

(1975). The Bender–Gestalt Test for Young Children: Research and application. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.

45.

Lackaye

Margalit

(2006). Comparisons of achievement, effort and self perceptions among students with learning disabilities and their peers from different achievement groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 432–446.

46.

Lackaye

Margalit

(2008). Self-efficacy, loneliness, effort and hope: Developmental differences in the experiences of students with learning disabilities and their non-LD peers at two age groups. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6, 1–20.

47.

Lackaye

Margalit

Ziv

Ziman

(2006). Comparisons of self efficacy, mood, effort andhope between students with learning disabilities and their non-LD-matched peers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 111–121.

48.

Lindstrom

Eriksson

(2006). Contextualizing salutogenesis and Antonovsky in public health development. Health Promotion International, 21, 238–244.

49.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

50.

Lundman

Alex

Jonsen

Norberg

Nygren

Santamaki Fischer

Strandberg

(2010). Inner strength—A theoretical analysis of salutogenic concepts. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 251–260.

51.

Margalit

(1991). Understanding loneliness among students with learning disabilities. Behavior Change, 8, 167–173.

52.

Margalit

(2004). Second-generation research on resilience: Social-emotional aspects of children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 45–48.

53.

Margalit

(2010). Lonely children and adolescents: Self-perceptions, social exclusion and hope. New York, NY: Springer.

54.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–334.

55.

Meltzer

L. J.

Reddy

Pollica

L. S.

Roditi

Sayer

Theokas

(2004). Positive and negative self perceptions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 33–44.

56.

Morrison

G. M.

Cosden

M. A.

(1997). Risk, resilience, and academic competence and social interrelations of individuals with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 43–60.

57.

Olson

D. H.

(1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process, 26, 337–351.

58.

Olson

D. H.

(2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 144–167.

59.

Overhauser

S. M.

(1994). The significance of friendship intimacy and family warmth for adolescent identity development and individuation: A developmental study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

60.

Oyserman

Destin

(2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention. Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1001–1043.

61.

Patrick

Ryan

A. M.

Kaplan

(2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom school environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.

62.

Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: John Wiley.

63.

Rand

K. L.

(2009). Hope and optimism: Latent structures and influences on grade expectancy and academic performance. Journal of Personality, 77, 231–260.

64.

Rubin

K. H.

Coplan

R. J.

(2004). Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 506–534.

65.

Ryan

R. M.

(2004, July). The fully functioning self: Self-determination theory and the study of basic psychological needs across domains, time, relationships, and cultures. Paper presented at the Self Conference, Berlin, Germany.

66.

Ryan

R. M.

Stiller

J. D.

Lynch

J. H.

(1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as factors related to academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.

67.

Schunk

D. H.

Pajares

(2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In Wigfield

Eccles

(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16–31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

68.

Sharabi

Margalit

(2009). Learning disabilities among the young in Israel: From theory to research to intervention. In Levav

(Ed.), Psychiatric and behavioral disorders in Israel (pp. 47–62). Jerusalem, Israel: Gefen.

69.

Sharabi

Margalit

(2011). The mediating role of internet connection, virtual friends, and mood in predicting loneliness among students with and without learning disabilities in different educational environments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 215–227.

70.

Shorey

H. S.

Snyder

C. R.

Rand

K. L.

Hockemeyer

J. R.

Feldman

D. B.

(2002). Somewhere over the rainbow: Hope theory weathers its first decade. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 322–331.

71.

Snyder

C. R.

(2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275.

72.

Snyder

C. R.

Hoza

Pelham

W. E.

Rapoff

Ware

Danovsky

. . .Stahl

K. J.

(1997). The development and validation of the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 399–421.

73.

Snyder

C. R.

Ilardi

Michael

Cheavens

(2000). Hope theory: Updating a common process for psychological change. In Snyder

C. R.

Ingram

R. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychological change: Psychotherapy processes and practices for the 21st century (pp. 128–153). New York, NY: John Wiley.

74.

Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

Shorey

H. S.

Rand

K. L.

Feldman

D. B.

(2003). Hope theory, measurements, and applications to school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 122–139.

75.

Snyder

C. R.

Rand

K. L.

Sigmon

D. R.

(2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–276). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

76.

Snyder

C. R.

Shorey

Cheavens

Pulvers

K. M.

Adams

V. H.

III Wiklund

(2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 820–826.

77.

Stanton

(2000). Stress, coping, and health in families: SOC and resiliency. Family Relations, 49, 350–351.

78.

Tur-Kaspa

(2002). Social cognition in learning disabilities. In Bryan

T. H.

Wong

B. Y. L.

Donahue

(Eds.), The social dimensions of learning disabilities (pp. 11–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

79.

Vakil

Blachstein

(1993). Rey Auditory–Verbal Learning Test: Structure analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 883–890.

80.

Valas

(1999). Students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students: Peer acceptance, loneliness, self-esteem, and depression. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 173–192.

81.

van Dinther

Dochy

Segers

(2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6, 95–108.

82.

Wechsler

(1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

83.

Weiner

Humphries

Tannock

Malone

(2004). Self perceptions and behavioral attributions of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities. Thalamus, 22, 50–57.

84.

Wenz-Gross

Siperstein

G. N.

(1998). Students with learning problems at risk in middle school: Stress, social support, and academic competence and social interrelations. Exceptional Children, 65, 91–100.

85.

Windle

Mason

W. A.

(2004). General and specific factors related to behavioral and emotional problems among adolescents. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 49–62.

86.

Yeo

G. B.

Neal

(2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247.

87.

Zhang

Yan

(2005). Loneliness, peer acceptance, and family functioning of Chinese children with learning disabilities: Characteristics and relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 325–331.

88.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Bandura

Martinez-Pons

(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.