Psychological distress of adolescents with learning disabilities: the moderating effects of age, gender, and social support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research indicates that adolescents with learning disabilities are at an increased risk of developing mental health issues relative to their non-learning disabled peers (e.g., Svetaz, Ireland, & Blum, 2000). Age, gender (e.g., Valas, 1999), and social support (e.g., Choenarom, Williams, & Hagerty, 2005) appear to be important variables that can influence the mental health status of both learning disabled and non-learning disabled individuals. The current study examined the effects of four types of social support (tangible, affective, positive social interaction, and emotional/informational) as well as age and gender on the level of distress being experienced by 454 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 with diagnosed learning disabilities. Data for the study were taken from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (Statistics Canada, 2006). Multivariate analyses based on the entire sample indicated that female adolescents with learning disabilities reported significantly higher levels of distress than male adolescents with learning disabilities. In addition, adolescents with higher levels of perceived tangible social support and emotional/informational support were found to report less distress. Separate analyses based on gender indicated that older male adolescents reported higher levels of distress. In addition, males with higher levels of perceived tangible social support and positive social interactions reported lower levels of distress. For female adolescents, higher levels of perceived affection were associated with lower levels of distress. The clinical implications of the study's findings are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".