Exploring perceived stigma, risk and resilience among university students with learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students with learning disabilities (LD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are an emerging clientele in post-secondary institutions, and may have difficulties with various academic skills. The risk and resilience framework can be applied to this population in order to discern what factors contribute to academic successes and difficulties. Stigma theory (Blaine, 2000; Goffman, 1963; Jones et al., 1984; Link & Phelan, 2001) will be used to investigate self-perceptions of stigma as a potential risk factor for university students with LD and ADHD. Proponents of stigma theory hypothesize that self-perceptions of stigma arise from the perceived association between one’s disability and negative stereotypes. Such perceptions are proposed to contribute independently to reduced likelihood to disclose one’s disability, as well as emotional difficulties such as increased depressive symptoms and reduced self-efficacy. In this dissertation, the impact of perceived stigma on variables implicated in risk and resilience (i.e., disclosure, self-efficacy and depressive symptoms) was explored among a sample of university students with a diagnosis of LD and/or ADHD from 22 participating Canadian universities (n = 212; 126 females, 86 males). The objectives were twofold. First, an exploratory analysis examining variables that predict the degree of perceived stigma highlighted three significant predictor variables of gender, reported academic difficulty and reported family support. Specifically, males, individuals who reported high levels of academic difficulty and those who reported low levels of family support were significantly associated with a higher level of perceived stigma. Second, multiple regression analyses were employed to test both the direct effect of stigma on the outcome variables (i.e., depression, self-efficacy) and the mediating effect of disclosure using the path analytic approach. Results showed that perceived stigma had a significant direct effect on self-efficacy, but not depression. Further, mediation analyses indicated that this relationship was partially mediated by disclosure; individuals higher in disclosure ratings were associated with higher self-efficacy ratings, and the overall effect of stigma was reduced when disclosure ratings were accounted for. The findings support the theoretical importance of perceived stigma as an independent risk factor with negative implications for disclosure of one’s disability and self-efficacy, two potential protective factors. Findings were not supported for depression. Implications for stigma theory, school psychologists and service provision 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".