View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Disability Acceptance and Affirmation among U.S. Adults with Learning Disabilities and ADHD

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Disability Acceptance and Affirmation among U.S. Adults with Learning Disabilities and ADHD
Language: English
Authors: Mercedes A. Zapata (ORCID 0000-0002-5500-213X), Frank C. Worrell
Source: Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2024 57(2):79-90.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Attitudes toward Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, Adults, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Self Concept, Life Satisfaction, Self Efficacy, Mental Health
DOI: 10.1177/00222194231186665
ISSN: 0022-2194
1538-4780
Abstract: Personal disability identity is a predictor of psychosocial functioning among adults with predominantly physical disabilities. In the present study, we examined personal disability identity in adults with learning disabilities (LD) and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In samples of 541 adults with LD, 475 with ADHD, and 433 with comorbid LD and ADHD, we examined the structural validity of disability acceptance and disability affirmation scores and the association between these scores and anxiety/depression, life satisfaction, and general self-efficacy. Factor analyses supported a 4-item disability acceptance and 3-item disability affirmation scale in LD-only and ADHD-only samples. Among adults with LD or ADHD, disability affirmation was a meaningful predictor of life satisfaction, and disability acceptance predicted general self-efficacy. Disability identity attitudes are worthy of clinical and scholarly attention in adults with LD and ADHD, and adults with comorbid LD and ADHD may warrant special consideration in the personal disability identity literature.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1417031
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGyj4iumTv6HIefdFkgS6JuAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE2Z2Kpr-0R94H5d6wIBEICBmn3yhcLH0Zxty6ncfKLASeG2mjdKsYUN4XiFDez18cCAeoYyhmJx0ld-4CNxzhDbWxvG8bTkPYeR7in4SEoNlu0jdW8HG0YQnc48sXA3HDPIZ2PDXcD-iTWlLqOE-6P-y7bd6TGxY1G9Vxpjo1WChAZ-C62vZ2N2IlyJblVkfLuhqPyfCqR5PgMDmYuaOUFuT1S8cPX5mXxw1pA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176004878;led01mar.24;2024Mar15.03:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176004878-1">Disability Acceptance and Affirmation Among U.S. Adults With Learning Disabilities and ADHD </title> <p>Personal disability identity is a predictor of psychosocial functioning among adults with predominantly physical disabilities. In the present study, we examined personal disability identity in adults with learning disabilities (LD) and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In samples of 541 adults with LD, 475 with ADHD, and 433 with comorbid LD and ADHD, we examined the structural validity of disability acceptance and disability affirmation scores and the association between these scores and anxiety/depression, life satisfaction, and general self-efficacy. Factor analyses supported a 4-item disability acceptance and 3-item disability affirmation scale in LD-only and ADHD-only samples. Among adults with LD or ADHD, disability affirmation was a meaningful predictor of life satisfaction, and disability acceptance predicted general self-efficacy. Disability identity attitudes are worthy of clinical and scholarly attention in adults with LD and ADHD, and adults with comorbid LD and ADHD may warrant special consideration in the personal disability identity literature.</p> <p>Keywords: disability identity; anxiety and depression; life satisfaction; general self-efficacy; learning disability; ADHD</p> <p>Research has demonstrated vulnerability to negative psychosocial outcomes in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref2">48</reflink>]) and learning disabilities (LD; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref3">38</reflink>]). Adults with LD or ADHD experience higher anxious and depressive symptomatology compared to the general population ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]). More ADHD symptoms and greater functional impairment have been associated with lower life satisfaction among adults with ADHD ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>]), and adult LD status has been associated with lower domain-specific life satisfaction ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref7">49</reflink>]). Adults with ADHD have been found to report lower perceived general self-efficacy than their non-ADHD counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]), and a similar finding has been reported for adults with LD ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although most research on psychosocial functioning in these populations has focused on risk factors, some researchers have also identified protective factors that promote resilience ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref10">50</reflink>]). Research is needed on factors with potential to protect against negative psychosocial outcomes in adults with LD and ADHD ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref11">34</reflink>]). Disability identity may be one such set of factors. Disability identity attitudes have been found to predict positive psychosocial functioning in individuals with physical disabilities (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref12">54</reflink>]) and may act as protective factors in adults with ADHD and LD. Disability identity has just begun to be investigated in adult LD and ADHD ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref13">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-2">Correlates of Disability Identity</hd> <p>Personal disability identity (PDI) is a set of attitudinal constructs that represent self-concept as a disabled person and involve both cognitive and emotive processes ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]). PDI has been operationalized as disability pride ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>]), disability denial versus acceptance, disability affirmation ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]), disability self-worth ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref17">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref18">55</reflink>]), and personal meaning in disability ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref20">55</reflink>]). Higher scores on positive PDI constructs have been found to predict life satisfaction ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]), lower anxiety and depression ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref23">56</reflink>]), self-esteem ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]), general self-efficacy ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref25">52</reflink>]), and hopeful thinking ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref26">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref27">56</reflink>]) in samples of adults with predominantly physical, or else non-specified, disabilities. In contrast to the predominantly physical disabilities that have been examined in previous studies on PDI, neurodevelopmental disabilities are commonly diagnosed in childhood and adolescence and may be conceptualized as invisible disabilities, such that their manifestations may be non-noticeable, concealable, or mis-attributable to other factors ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref28">42</reflink>]). The applicability of current PDI conceptualizations to neurodevelopmental disability communities is worthy of investigation.</p> <p>Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and LD, which include dyslexia, are neurodevelopmental disabilities that frequently co-occur ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]) and, together, represent almost half of all students with disabilities served through special education ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]) and in postsecondary institutions ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref32">51</reflink>]). As neurodevelopmental versus physical disabilities that are commonly served in educational settings, LD and ADHD may benefit from special consideration in disability research within psychology. In a recent study, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref33">57</reflink>] examined disability self-worth and personal meaning in disability—PDI scales that were recently developed by the author—as predictors of psychosocial outcomes in a sample of adults with LD, ADHD, or comorbid LD and ADHD. Zapata and Worrell found that (a) self-worth (<emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>ß</emph> = −.25) and personal meaning (<emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>ß</emph> = −.24) predicted lower anxiety/depression, (b) self-worth predicted general self-efficacy (<emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>ß</emph> =.31), and (c) personal meaning predicted life satisfaction (<emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>ß</emph> =.30). These recent results provide support for the emerging finding that PDI constructs represent separate and independent attitudes toward having disability, which are differentially associated with psychosocial outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref35">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref36">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref37">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref38">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-3">The Current Study</hd> <p>The relationship of disability acceptance and affirmation –the oldest and most popular PDI constructs ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>])–to previously-explored psychosocial factors has yet to be explored in adults with LD and/or ADHD. Informed by empirical findings from their original measurement development study, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>] described disability affirmation (vs shame) and disability acceptance (vs denial) as indicating "different perspectives that may be the outcome of varied experiences in the process by which disabled people develop feelings about their own disabilities" (p. 458). In the present study, we examined the structural validity of scores on Hahn and Belt's disability acceptance and affirmation scales in adults with LD and ADHD, as well as these constructs' associations with psychosocial outcomes that were previously explored in relation to PDI (i.e., anxiety/depression, life satisfaction, general self-efficacy).</p> <p>Considering findings by [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref41">57</reflink>], the authors hypothesized that, in the present study, disability acceptance and affirmation would positively predict life satisfaction and general self-efficacy and would negatively predict anxiety/depression. Based on research precedent (see [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref42">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref43">57</reflink>]), the regression models on psychosocial outcome variables also took into account various sociodemographic and disability-related characteristics that have been theorized to relate to psychosocial functioning among people with disabilities, including age at diagnosis, multiple disabilities, presence of friend or family with the same disability, and satisfaction with disability-related services. Considering recent findings from [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref44">57</reflink>], the authors further hypothesized that overall higher satisfaction with disability services would predict higher general self-efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004878-5">Participants and Procedures</hd> <p>Participants were U.S. adult residents with LD (<emph>n</emph> = 541), ADHD (<emph>n</emph> = 475), or comorbid LD and ADHD (<emph>n</emph> = 433). See Table 1 for participant characteristics by disability type. An online questionnaire was developed in Qualtrics and included items related to demographic information, attitudes toward disability, and psychosocial functioning. A link to the questionnaire was posted, using social media, to online groups related to ADHD or LD in the summer of 2021. Inclusion criteria were having a diagnosis of ADHD, LD, or both and being 18 years of age or older. Participants provided informed consent prior to beginning the questionnaire. When they reached the end of the questionnaire, interested participants were entered into a drawing for 1 of 10 US$50 Amazon gift cards. All analyses were conducted in Stata ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref45">47</reflink>]). The institutional review board at the authors' institution approved this study. Throughout this article, the authors have adopted person-first language to describe disability status, but we recognize that the exclusive use of person-first language may not be preferred by some members of disability groups (see [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>], for a discussion of identity-first language).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Characteristics of Participants in Study of Personal Disability Identity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Characteristic</th><th align="center">LD (<italic>n</italic> = 541)</th><th align="center">ADHD (<italic>n</italic> = 475)</th><th align="center">Comorbid (<italic>n</italic> = 433)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>28 (8)</td><td>27 (6)</td><td>30 (5)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Gender</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td>66% (352)</td><td>71% (335)</td><td>54% (232)</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>34% (183)</td><td>29% (140)</td><td>46% (201)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Race/ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>81% (436)</td><td>71% (336)</td><td>42% (183)</td></tr><tr><td> Non-White</td><td>19% (103)</td><td>29% (139)</td><td>58% (250)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Income</td></tr><tr><td> <US$10,000</td><td>4% (23)</td><td>3% (16)</td><td><1% (2)</td></tr><tr><td> US$10,000–US$19,999</td><td>8% (44)</td><td>6% (29)</td><td>2% (7)</td></tr><tr><td> US$20,000–US$39,999</td><td>15% (79)</td><td>12% (59)</td><td>27% (117)</td></tr><tr><td> US$40,000–US$59,999</td><td>15% (83)</td><td>16% (76)</td><td>24% (106)</td></tr><tr><td> US$60,000–US$79,999</td><td>18% (96)</td><td>16% (77)</td><td>19% (82)</td></tr><tr><td> US$80,000–US$99,999</td><td>16% (84)</td><td>15% (73)</td><td>22% (95)</td></tr><tr><td> US$100,000–US$119,999</td><td>12% (64)</td><td>13% (60)</td><td>3% (15)</td></tr><tr><td> US$120,000–US$139,999</td><td>7% (40)</td><td>12% (56)</td><td>1% (6)</td></tr><tr><td> US$140,000 or more</td><td>5% (25)</td><td>6% (29)</td><td><1% (3)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree or higher</td><td>48% (259)</td><td>53% (251)</td><td>46% (197)</td></tr><tr><td>Employed (part- or full-time)</td><td>89% (463)</td><td>89% (398)</td><td>96% (415)</td></tr><tr><td>Age at diagnosis (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>17 (7)</td><td>16 (6)</td><td>11 (6)</td></tr><tr><td>Presence of other disability</td><td>14% (73)</td><td>16% (76)</td><td>5% (20)</td></tr><tr><td>Presence of family member with same condition</td><td>41% (222)</td><td>45% (208)</td><td>56% (242)</td></tr><tr><td>Presence of close friend with disability</td><td>54% (290)</td><td>62% (296)</td><td>58% (251)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Percentages might not sum to 100 as a result of rounding; totals might not sum to subsample totals due to multiple selection or participant response omission. Values in parentheses represent total number of participants, unless otherwise indicated. The statistic for age represents the mean. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; LD = learning disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004878-7">Disability Affirmation and Disability Acceptance</hd> <p>Personal disability identity was investigated using a two-factor instrument developed by [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>] to measure disability affirmation (four items) and disability denial versus acceptance (four items). Disability affirmation items included "I feel proud to be a person with a disability." Disability acceptance items were reverse-scored and included "I do not feel good about being a person with a disability." Responses for both acceptance and affirmation were on a 5-point Likert-type scale which ranged from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). A mean score was calculated for each of two subscales. In previous studies, factor loadings have ranged from.29 to.91 for affirmation scores and from.44 to.91 for acceptance scores ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref49">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref50">54</reflink>]) Cronbach's alphas were.83 for acceptance and.82 for affirmation in a recent study involving adults with physical disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref51">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-8">Additional Independent Variables</hd> <p>Participants self-reported age, gender (coded as <emph>female</emph> = 0, <emph>male</emph> = 1), race (coded as <emph>non-White</emph> = 0, <emph>White</emph> = 1), education (coded as <emph>less than bachelor's degree</emph> = 0, <emph>bachelor's degree or higher</emph> = 1), and employment status (coded as <emph>unemployed</emph> = 0, <emph>part or full-time employment</emph> = 1). Participants reported household income as one of nine ordinal categories ranging from <emph>less than $10,000 to $140,000 or more</emph> and increasing in increments of $10,000 up to $100,00, and then in increments $20,000 per year (see Table 1). Participants self-reported age at LD or ADHD diagnosis and presence of other disabilities (coded as <emph>no additional disabilities</emph> = 0, <emph>at least one other disability</emph> = 1). Participants also reported whether they have at least one member of their family who has the same disability (e.g., LD or ADHD; coded as <emph>no one else in the family has condition</emph> = 0, <emph>at least one family member has the same condition</emph> = 1) and whether they had a close friend with any disability (<emph>no close friend with a disability</emph> = 0, <emph>at least one close friend with a disability</emph> = 1).</p> <p>Satisfaction with disability-related services was measured with one item on a seven-point Likert-type scale. In a recent study, satisfaction with disability-related services was found to predict self-efficacy in a sample of adults with LD and/or ADHD that was drawn from the present dataset ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref52">57</reflink>]). Disability-related variables were included based on previous PDI research, which has included variables related to age at diagnosis and secondary disability. Congenital disability onset has been found to predict higher life satisfaction among adults with mobility disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>]), but variables related to age at diagnosis or onset have generally not been found to predict psychosocial functioning in PDI research (see [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref55">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref56">56</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref57">54</reflink>] found that the presence of secondary disability predicted lower agentic thinking, a domain of hope (see [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref58">46</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>] found that adults with disabilities who had more friends sharing a diagnosis reported higher life satisfaction; this study included variables related to disability status of family members and friends.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-9">Anxiety and Depression</hd> <p>Symptoms of anxiety and depression experienced over the past 2 weeks were measured using a 4-item, 4-point Likert-type scale instrument ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref60">32</reflink>]). A single mean score was calculated, with higher scores indicating higher anxiety/depression. Depression items were "feeling down, depressed, or hopeless" and having "little interest or pleasure in doing things." Anxiety items were "feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge" and "not being able to stop or control worrying." Structural validity and internal reliability evidence for the use of the scale with adults with physical disabilities has been reported. Cronbach's alpha was.86 for the scores and factor loadings ranged from.73 to.85 ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>]). In a more recent study, Cronbach's alpha for anxiety/depression scores was.65 in a sample of adults with LD and/or ADHD that was drawn from the same dataset ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-10">Life Satisfaction</hd> <p>Life satisfaction was measured using a 5-item, 7-point Likert-type scale instrument ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref63">16</reflink>]). A mean composite score was calculated, with higher scores representing higher life satisfaction. Items included "I am satisfied with my life" and "In most ways my life is close to the ideal." Structural validity and internal reliability evidence for the use of the scale with adults with physical disabilities has been reported: Cronbach's alpha was.89 and factor loadings ranged from.65 to.92 ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref64">53</reflink>]). More recently, Cronbach's alpha for life satisfaction scores was.70 in a sample of adults with LD and/or ADHD that was drawn from the same dataset ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref65">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-11">General Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>General self-efficacy was measured using a 10-item, 7-point Likert-type scale instrument designed to measure a general sense of personal efficacy, or capability to organize and execute tasks, and to predict adaptation to and coping with life stressors ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref66">27</reflink>]). A mean composite score was calculated, with higher scores representing greater perceived self-efficacy. Items included "I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort" and "I can usually handle whatever comes my way." Supporting the internal reliability of the scale, Cronbach's alpha was.90 in a previous study among adults with physical disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>]). More recently, Cronbach's alpha for general self-efficacy scores was.81 in a sample of adults with LD and/or ADHD that was drawn from the same dataset ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref68">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004878-13">Structural Validity of PDI Scales</hd> <p>In order to evaluate the acceptability of using the subscales in later regression analyses, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted on the two-factor PDI instrument in three subsamples: participants with LD, ADHD, and comorbid ADHD and LD. Model fit was evaluated using the following fit indices: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Acceptable model fit was determined based on an RMSEA value at or below.08, CFI and TLI values at or above.90, and an SRMR value of <.08 ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]). Factor loadings were interpreted based on recommendations by [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref70">12</reflink>];.71 = excellent,.63 = very good,.55 = good,.45 = fair, and.32 = poor.</p> <p>The two-factor model of PDI initially demonstrated poor fit across subsamples. The factor loading on Item 3 of affirmation ("I have a clear sense of what my disability means to me") was below.30 across subsamples and was subsequently removed. This item has consistently yielded a low factor coefficient in previous studies (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref71">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref72">54</reflink>]), and [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref73">52</reflink>] previously found the 3-item affirmation scale to have moderate reliability (ω =.77). Thus, CFAs were rerun using the 4-item acceptance subscale and the 3-item affirmation subscale. Fit indices were acceptable in all three samples (see Table 2), and this model was accepted. However, the results also indicated that several factor loadings were poor in the comorbid ADHD and LD sample, yielding very low internal consistency estimates for subscale scores in that sample. Factor loadings on disability affirmation were.73,.63, and.70 in the LD sample;.69,.59, and.64 in the ADHD sample; and.12,.69, and.20 in the comorbid ADHD and LD sample. Similarly, factor loadings on disability acceptance ranged from.45 to.72 in the LD sample, from.44 to.71 in the ADHD sample, and from.18 to.47 in the comorbid ADHD and LD sample. As the items were not capturing reliable variance in the comorbid sample, this sample was not included in subsequent analyses.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Fit Indices for Two-Factor Model of Acceptance and Affirmation.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Sample</th><th align="center">χ<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>Df</italic></th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">RMSEA (90% CI)</th><th align="center">SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LD-only</td><td>36.79<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">*</xref></td><td>13</td><td>.97</td><td>.94</td><td>.06</td><td>(.04,.08)</td><td>.04</td></tr><tr><td>ADHD-only</td><td>42.35<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">*</xref></td><td>13</td><td>.94</td><td>.91</td><td>.07</td><td>(.05,.09)</td><td>.06</td></tr><tr><td>Comorbid</td><td>9.46</td><td>13</td><td>1.00</td><td>1.00</td><td><.01</td><td>(.00,.04)</td><td>.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note.</emph> CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; LD = learning disabilities.</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176004878-14">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Table 3 displays statistics on skewness and kurtosis as well as means and standard deviations for scales used in regression analyses. Participant scale scores were generally normally distributed. Internal consistency estimates on all scale scores ranged from modest to good based on parameters by [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]. Table 4 displays intercorrelations among scales used in regression analyses.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Subscales Used in Regression Analyses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Sample</th><th align="center">Variables</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center">Α</th><th align="center">ω</th><th align="center"><italic>S</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>K</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LD</td><td>Internalizing</td><td>2.08</td><td>.63</td><td>.76</td><td>.75</td><td>.04</td><td>2.70</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 471)</td><td>Life satisfaction</td><td>4.82</td><td>1.10</td><td>.80</td><td>.81</td><td>−.35</td><td>3.03</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>2.72</td><td>.58</td><td>.90</td><td>.90</td><td>−.23</td><td>3.26</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td>3.10</td><td>.82</td><td>.71</td><td>.73</td><td>−.40</td><td>2.97</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>2.65</td><td>.71</td><td>.66</td><td>.68</td><td>.05</td><td>2.67</td></tr><tr><td>ADHD</td><td>Internalizing</td><td>2.07</td><td>.61</td><td>.73</td><td>.74</td><td>.05</td><td>2.70</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 401)</td><td>Life satisfaction</td><td>4.70</td><td>1.02</td><td>.79</td><td>.79</td><td>−.29</td><td>2.69</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>2.79</td><td>.48</td><td>.86</td><td>.86</td><td>.14</td><td>3.38</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td>2.88</td><td>.75</td><td>.66</td><td>.68</td><td>−.04</td><td>2.68</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>2.87</td><td>.71</td><td>.66</td><td>.67</td><td>.19</td><td>2.92</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note.</emph> Internalizing = anxiety and depression symptoms; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; LD = learning disabilities.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Correlations Among Scales Used in Regression Analyses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Sample</th><th align="center">Variables</th><th align="center">(1)</th><th align="center">(2)</th><th align="center">(3)</th><th align="center">(4)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LD-only</td><td>(1) Acceptance</td><td>−</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>(2) Affirmation</td><td>−.10</td><td>−</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>(3) Internalizing</td><td>−.14</td><td>−.18</td><td>−</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>(4) Life satisfaction</td><td>−.11</td><td>.47</td><td>−.32</td><td>−</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(5) Self-efficacy</td><td>.31</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.19</td><td>.13</td></tr><tr><td>ADHD-only</td><td>(1) Acceptance</td><td>−</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>(2) Affirmation</td><td>−.21</td><td>−</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>(3) Internalizing</td><td>−.12</td><td>−.10</td><td>−</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>(4) Life satisfaction</td><td>.11</td><td>.36</td><td>−.24</td><td>−</td></tr><tr><td /><td>(5) Self-efficacy</td><td>.27</td><td>.01</td><td>−.37</td><td>.33</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note.</emph> Pearson correlations. Internalizing = anxiety and depression symptoms; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; LD = learning disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-15">Regression Analyses</hd> <p>Each of the three psychosocial outcome variables was included in regression analyses with both the LD-only sample and the ADHD-only sample. Scores on each psychosocial outcome were regressed on disability acceptance, disability affirmation, and the demographic and disability-related variables. To control for Type I error, the Bonferroni adjustment was calculated, yielding a critical alpha of.004.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-16">Anxiety/Depression</hd> <p>Results regarding anxiety/depression are presented in Table 5. Among participants who had only LD, the negative association between disability affirmation and anxiety/depression was statistically significant but the beta coefficient was low ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref75">20</reflink>]). The model accounted for 2% of the variance in anxiety/depression scores, a small effect ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref76">20</reflink>]). Among participants who had only ADHD, satisfaction with services meaningfully predicted lower anxiety/depression. The model accounted for 13% of the variance in anxiety/depression scores, which is a meaningful effect ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 5. Multiple Regression on Anxiety and Depression.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Sample</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center" colspan="2">95% CI</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th align="left">LL</th><th align="center">UL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LD</td><td>Constant</td><td>2.56</td><td>.25</td><td>2.07</td><td>3.04</td><td /><td><.001</td><td>.05<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 461)</td><td>Age</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.05</td><td>.340</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Male</td><td>−.08</td><td>.07</td><td>−.21</td><td>.05</td><td>−.06</td><td>.202</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>White</td><td>.07</td><td>.08</td><td>−.09</td><td>.23</td><td>.04</td><td>.406</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>.17</td><td>.08</td><td>.02</td><td>.32</td><td>.13</td><td>.031</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Income</td><td>.02</td><td>.02</td><td>−.02</td><td>.06</td><td>.07</td><td>.254</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Employed</td><td>.06</td><td>.10</td><td>−.14</td><td>.26</td><td>.03</td><td>.558</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Age diagnosis</td><td>.001</td><td>.01</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.817</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Other disability</td><td>.05</td><td>.10</td><td>−.15</td><td>.25</td><td>.03</td><td>.622</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td> Services</td><td>−.01</td><td>.02</td><td>−.05</td><td>.03</td><td>−.03</td><td>.537</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Family</td><td>−.06</td><td>.08</td><td>−.21</td><td>.09</td><td>−.04</td><td>.467</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Friend</td><td>.08</td><td>.07</td><td>−.05</td><td>.23</td><td>.07</td><td>.227</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>−.09</td><td>.04</td><td>−.18</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.10</td><td>.039</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td>−.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td><td>.04</td><td>−.19</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.15</td><td>.003</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ADHD</td><td>Constant</td><td>2.46</td><td>.26</td><td>1.94</td><td>2.97</td><td /><td><.001</td><td>.16<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td><td>.13</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 400)</td><td>Age</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.05</td><td>.260</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Male</td><td>−.16</td><td>.06</td><td>−.28</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.12</td><td>.013</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>White</td><td>−.01</td><td>.07</td><td>−.15</td><td>.12</td><td>−.01</td><td>.853</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>.05</td><td>.07</td><td>−.09</td><td>.18</td><td>.04</td><td>.520</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Income</td><td>.04</td><td>.02</td><td><.01</td><td>.07</td><td>.12</td><td>.029</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Employed</td><td>−.06</td><td>.10</td><td>−.26</td><td>.15</td><td>−.03</td><td>.578</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Age diagnosis</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td><−.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.09</td><td>.084</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Other disability</td><td>−.19</td><td>.09</td><td>−.38</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.11</td><td>.042</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td> Services</td><td>−.09<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td><td>.02</td><td>−.12</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.<bold>23</bold></td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Family</td><td>.15</td><td>.07</td><td>.01</td><td>.26</td><td>.12</td><td>.041</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Friend</td><td>.09</td><td>.07</td><td>−.04</td><td>.22</td><td>.07</td><td>.173</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>−.10</td><td>.04</td><td>−.18</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.12</td><td>.019</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td>−.05</td><td>.04</td><td>−.14</td><td>.03</td><td>−.07</td><td>.189</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note</emph>: Family = family member who has same disability (i.e., LD or ADHD; friend = close friend who has same disability; services = satisfaction with services. Bolded coefficients reflect interpretable effect sizes. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; LD = learning disabilities.</item> <item>7 <emph>p</emph> <.004.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176004878-17">Life Satisfaction</hd> <p>Results regarding life satisfaction are presented in Table 6. Among participants who had only LD, life satisfaction was significantly predicted by disability affirmation and later age at diagnosis, with interpretable betas ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref78">20</reflink>]). The negative association with disability acceptance was not significant. The model accounted for 24% of the variance in life satisfaction scores, a moderate effect. Among participants who had only ADHD, higher life satisfaction was significantly predicted by disability affirmation, disability acceptance, satisfaction with services, male gender, and being non-White, although only disability affirmation had meaningful associations with life satisfaction. The model accounted for 26% of the variance in life satisfaction scores, a moderate effect.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 6. Multiple Regression on Life Satisfaction.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Sample</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center" colspan="2">95% CI</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th align="left">LL</th><th align="center">UL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LD</td><td>Constant</td><td>2.46</td><td>.38</td><td>1.72</td><td>3.21</td><td /><td><.001</td><td>.<bold>26</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.24</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 471)</td><td>Age</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.04</td><td>.396</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Male</td><td>−.01</td><td>.10</td><td>−.21</td><td>.18</td><td>−.01</td><td>.894</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>White</td><td>−.29</td><td>.13</td><td>−.54</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.10</td><td>.020</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>−.11</td><td>.12</td><td>−.35</td><td>.12</td><td>−.05</td><td>.338</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Income</td><td>.07</td><td>.03</td><td>.02</td><td>.13</td><td>.13</td><td>.013</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Employed</td><td>.36</td><td>.16</td><td>.05</td><td>.67</td><td>.10</td><td>.024</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Age diagnosis</td><td>.03<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.05</td><td>.<bold>20</bold></td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Other disability</td><td>.14</td><td>.15</td><td>−.17</td><td>.44</td><td>.04</td><td>.374</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Services</td><td><.01</td><td>.03</td><td>−.06</td><td>.06</td><td>.00</td><td>.941</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Family</td><td>.03</td><td>.12</td><td>−.21</td><td>.27</td><td>.01</td><td>.802</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Friend</td><td><.01</td><td>.11</td><td>−.21</td><td>.22</td><td>.00</td><td>.988</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>−.17</td><td>.07</td><td>−.31</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.11</td><td>.008</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td>.55<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.06</td><td>.44</td><td>.66</td><td>.<bold>41</bold></td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ADHD</td><td>Constant</td><td>1.75</td><td>.41</td><td>.95</td><td>2.56</td><td /><td><.001</td><td>.<bold>29</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 401)</td><td>Age</td><td>.02</td><td>.01</td><td><−.01</td><td>.03</td><td>.09</td><td>.065</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Male</td><td>.31<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.10</td><td>.11</td><td>.50</td><td>.14</td><td>.002</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>White</td><td>−.37<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.11</td><td>−.58</td><td>−.16</td><td>−.16</td><td>.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>.02</td><td>.11</td><td>−.19</td><td>.23</td><td>.01</td><td>.845</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Income</td><td>.01</td><td>.03</td><td>−.04</td><td>.06</td><td>.02</td><td>.658</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Employed</td><td>.23</td><td>.16</td><td>−.08</td><td>.55</td><td>.07</td><td>.147</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Age diagnosis</td><td>−.02</td><td>.01</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.13</td><td>.007</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Other disability</td><td>.17</td><td>.15</td><td>−.12</td><td>.45</td><td>.06</td><td>.252</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Services</td><td>.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.03</td><td>.06</td><td>.18</td><td>.19</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Family</td><td>.13</td><td>.11</td><td>−.09</td><td>.34</td><td>.06</td><td>.252</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Friend</td><td>.02</td><td>.10</td><td>−.17</td><td>.22</td><td>.01</td><td>.808</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>.21<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.07</td><td>.08</td><td>.33</td><td>.14</td><td>.002</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td>.47<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td>.06</td><td>.34</td><td>.59</td><td><bold>.34</bold></td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 <emph>Note. B</emph> indicates unstandardized coefficient. Family = family member who has same disability (i.e., LD or ADHD; friend = close friend who has same disability; services = satisfaction with services. Bolded coefficients reflect interpretable effect sizes. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; LD = learning disabilities.</item> <item>9 <emph>p</emph> <.004.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176004878-18">General Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>Results regarding general self-efficacy are presented in Table 7. Among participants who had only LD, higher general self-efficacy was significantly predicted by disability acceptance, satisfaction with services, and older age, although the betas for disability acceptance and age were small. The model accounted for 32% of the variance in general self-efficacy scores, a moderate effect. Among participants who had only ADHD, higher general self-efficacy was significantly predicted by disability acceptance, satisfaction with services, and being non-White, again with low betas for disability acceptance as well as being non-White. The model accounted for 27% of the variance in general self-efficacy scores, a moderate effect.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 7. Multiple Regression on General Self-Efficacy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Sample</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center" colspan="2">95% CI</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Adjusted <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th align="center">LL</th><th align="center">UL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LD</td><td>Constant</td><td>1.45</td><td>.19</td><td>1.08</td><td>1.82</td><td /><td><.001</td><td>.<bold>34</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td>.32</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 461)</td><td>Age</td><td>.01<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td><.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.15</td><td>.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Male</td><td>−.05</td><td>.05</td><td>−.15</td><td>.05</td><td>−.04</td><td>.29</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>White</td><td>−.13</td><td>.06</td><td>−.25</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.09</td><td>.038</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>.03</td><td>.06</td><td>−.09</td><td>.14</td><td>.02</td><td>.679</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Income</td><td>.04</td><td>.02</td><td>.01</td><td>.07</td><td>.14</td><td>.006</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Employed</td><td>.03</td><td>.08</td><td>−.12</td><td>.19</td><td>.02</td><td>.694</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Age diagnosis</td><td><.01</td><td><.01</td><td><−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.05</td><td>.219</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Other disability</td><td>−.13</td><td>.08</td><td>−.28</td><td>.02</td><td>−.07</td><td>.099</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td> Services</td><td>.11<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td>.02</td><td>.08</td><td>.14</td><td>.<bold>34</bold></td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Family</td><td>.01</td><td>.06</td><td>−.11</td><td>.13</td><td>.01</td><td>.917</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Friend</td><td>−.13</td><td>.06</td><td>−.24</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.11</td><td>.016</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>.15<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td>.03</td><td>.08</td><td>.21</td><td>.18</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td>−.02</td><td>.03</td><td>−.08</td><td>.04</td><td>−.03</td><td>.49</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ADHD</td><td>Constant</td><td>1.86</td><td>.19</td><td>1.49</td><td>2.24</td><td /><td><.001</td><td>.<bold>30</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td>.27</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n</italic> = 397)</td><td>Age</td><td><.01</td><td><.01</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.688</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Male</td><td>.07</td><td>.05</td><td>−.02</td><td>.16</td><td>.07</td><td>.129</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>White</td><td>−.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td>.05</td><td>−.27</td><td>−.07</td><td>−.17</td><td>.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>.13</td><td>.05</td><td>.03</td><td>.23</td><td>.14</td><td>.01</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Income</td><td>−.03</td><td>.01</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.14</td><td>.005</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Employed</td><td>.20</td><td>.08</td><td>.05</td><td>.35</td><td>.12</td><td>.008</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Age diagnosis</td><td><.01</td><td><.01</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.00</td><td>.999</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Other disability</td><td>.14</td><td>.07</td><td>.001</td><td>.27</td><td>.10</td><td>.048</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td> Services</td><td>.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td>.01</td><td>.10</td><td>.15</td><td>.<bold>41</bold></td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Family</td><td><.01</td><td>.05</td><td>−.10</td><td>.11</td><td>.00</td><td>.937</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Friend</td><td>−.07</td><td>.05</td><td>−.16</td><td>.02</td><td>−.07</td><td>.146</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Acceptance</td><td>.13<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">*</xref></td><td>.03</td><td>.07</td><td>.19</td><td>.19</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Affirmation</td><td><−.01</td><td>.03</td><td>−.06</td><td>.06</td><td>−.00</td><td>.926</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 <emph>Note. B</emph> indicates unstandardized coefficient. Family = family member who has same disability (i.e., LD or ADHD; friend = close friend who has same disability; services = satisfaction with services. Bolded coefficients reflect interpretable effect sizes. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; LD = learning disabilities.</item> <item>11 <emph>p</emph> <.004.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176004878-19">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we examined the internal consistency and structural validity of disability affirmation and disability acceptance scores in samples of adults with ADHD, LD, and both ADHD and LD. The scores were psychometrically sound in the ADHD and LD samples but not in the sample with comorbid disabilities. Satisfaction with services predicted lower anxiety/depression for adults with ADHD and higher self-efficacy for adults with LD and adults with ADHD. Disability affirmation predicted higher life satisfaction for individuals with LD and with ADHD, and being diagnosed at a later age also predicted higher life satisfaction for individuals with LD. The present study contributes to the emerging literature on psychosocial correlates of positive disability identity by generally replicating prior findings in two samples of adults with neurodevelopmental disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-20">Disability Acceptance and Affirmation</hd> <p>Disability affirmation was a meaningful predictor of life satisfaction in both samples. Although disability acceptance was a significant predictor of general self-efficacy in both samples and a significant predictor of life satisfaction in the ADHD-only sample, the effect sizes of these associations were low. These findings support the conceptualization of PDI as consisting of diverse attitudes toward having disability which may warrant separate consideration in the literature. These findings further suggest that disability identity constructs, particularly disability affirmation, have relevance to two neurodevelopmental disability communities commonly served within educational settings.</p> <p>Professionals working with adults with LD or ADHD may benefit from recent scholarship on disability-affirmative therapeutic approaches ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref79">39</reflink>]), cultural competence in service provision—so-called <emph>disability-humility</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>]), how practitioners can serve as disability allies to clients with disabilities, and how practitioners should individualize facilitated exploration of disability identity based on client readiness ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]). PDI has yet to be explored in younger disability populations. Pending replication in child and adolescent samples, these findings suggest that such fields as special education and school psychology may also benefit from recent scholarship on disability identity development among children and adolescents ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref83">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]). The emergence of research on disability identity, which includes such constructs as acceptance and affirmation, parallels the rise of the neurodiversity movement (see [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]). The neurodiversity framework conceptualizes autism and, more recently, other disabilities in social terms of human rights and identities to accept rather than in medical terms, as deficits and symptoms to cure ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref86">28</reflink>]). The neurodiversity framework has also been extended to people with ADHD and LD ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>]) as well as to people with hidden, or nonvisible, disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref88">43</reflink>]). Thus, the findings regarding disability identity may have relevant implications for the neurodiversity movement.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-21">Comorbidity and PDI Measurement</hd> <p>Results from CFA and internal consistency estimates did not support the use of the PDI scales among adults with comorbid LD and ADHD. Participants in this subsample had sociodemographic differences from ADHD-only and LD-only subsamples that may have explained or contributed to this finding (see Table 1). Most notably, participants with comorbid ADHD and LD were predominantly non-White (58%), whereas the LD and ADHD subsamples were over 70% White. Moreover, previous research on PDI constructs has been limited by majority White and European American samples ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref89">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref90">56</reflink>]; see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref91">21</reflink>]). In other words, research has yet to demonstrate the extent to which PDI measurement generalizes to non-White adults with disabilities. Citing research on disproportionality in the representation of Black students in special education, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>] argued for the importance of addressing the intersection of disability and race in research and intervention.</p> <p>Other possible explanations for this finding are at the item- and construct level. For example, participants with comorbid ADHD and LD may have been less certain on how to respond to PDI items, which were worded in terms of a single disability. Participants may have alternated between frames of reference (e.g., remembering disability experiences attributed to one or the other diagnosis) or have otherwise been inconsistent in their responding as a result of their dual diagnosis. Beyond the item level, the PDI constructs themselves might not fully capture how—in the case of LD and ADHD—the experiences and significance of different disabilities are integrated or consolidated. Participants with this particular comorbidity may have been diagnosed at two different time points, with or without a difficult differential diagnosis experience, thus creating interaction or even interference between trajectories of disability adjustment and identity formation.</p> <p>Learning disabilities and ADHD are also commonly co-occurring, and it may be harder to delineate the significance of one from the other, compared to people with less frequently co-occurring disabilities or different disability types (e.g., physical vs neurodevelopmental). It is also possible that, given the high frequency of co-occurrence, participants with comorbid LD and ADHD may constitute a distinct disability community, with some degree of shared disability experience that does not fit current models of disability acceptance and affirmation. By exploring potential underlying mechanisms, emerging models of disability identity development have potential to inform present findings (see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref93">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-22">Other Correlates of Psychosocial Functioning</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004878-23">Satisfaction With Disability-Related Services</hd> <p>Satisfaction with services was meaningfully associated with general self-efficacy in both samples and with lower anxiety/depression in the ADHD subsample. This variable may represent tangible features of disability services, including quality of services and service delivery, but may also represent more psychological factors involved in the pursuit and receipt of disability services. Such experiences may include decisions regarding disclosure and self-advocacy on the part of the consumer and may involve the navigation of ableism and discrimination. Present findings indicate that participants with an overall more positively perceived experience with disability-related services also reported higher self-efficacy, which has been theorized as an important factor in coping with disability-specific challenges and demands ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref94">13</reflink>]). People with high self-efficacy exert more effort and persist longer on goal-directed actions than do those with low self-efficacy ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>]), and they have quicker recovery and are more likely to maintain goal commitments in the face of setbacks ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref96">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-24">Age at Diagnosis</hd> <p>Later age at diagnosis predicted life satisfaction in adult LD. Receiving a dyslexia diagnosis has been found to be experienced as both a positive reframing of past events and as a potential counter-narrative to behavioral misattributions (see [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>]). A hypothesis for future investigation, perhaps participants who were diagnosed later were able to experience diagnosis as a positive reframing of previous events. For example, a later LD diagnosis could signal that academic difficulties were due to specific and remediable challenges rather than to negatively perceived traits such as laziness. Limiting interpretability of findings, it is also plausible that individuals with more severe or inhibiting LD were diagnosed earlier.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-25">Limitations</hd> <p>Several study limitations are worthy of discussion. Limiting the generalizability of findings, LD and ADHD are highly co-occurring conditions ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref98">19</reflink>]), and participants with comorbid ADHD and LD were not represented in regression analyses due to concerns with the measurement of the identity constructs in this group. Second, we did not account for severity of disability or level of functional impairment, considerations which may partially explain findings regarding such variables as age at diagnosis. Third, the internal reliability of the PDI subscales was not as high as in other samples of adults with predominantly physical disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref99">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref100">54</reflink>]). Although analyses supported the structural validity and internal consistency of the PDI subscales in the present sample, there may be conceptual differences regarding disability identity attitudes that are unaccounted for by current measurement of disability acceptance and affirmation.</p> <p>Fourth, as evidenced by the small proportion of variance in anxiety/depression scores explained by the regression model, more comprehensive prediction models are needed to fully understand the correlates of internalizing symptoms in adult LD. Fifth, limiting the interpretability of findings, satisfaction with services was measured using a single item representing an overall feeling of satisfaction with all disability-related services received, currently and historically. Sixth, participants were recruited over social media platforms through groups related to LD and ADHD; thus, the sample represents adults with computer literacy who previously sought disability-specific information or social connectedness and the findings may not generalize to the general population of adult LD and ADHD. Relatedly, the fact that participants self-identified as having LD, ADHD, or both, is an additional limitation. Future studies will be needed in which diagnostic categories are confirmed independent of the participants.</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-26">Future Research</hd> <p>We recommend that researchers continue to investigate variables that yielded significant associations but low effect sizes. General self-efficacy was predicted by older age among participants with only LD and by being non-White among those with only ADHD. In contrast to present findings regarding adults with ADHD, previous research has found that, in the general population, White people have higher general self-efficacy, as explained by socioeconomic factors (i.e., education and income; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref101">5</reflink>]). Future research using more comprehensive prediction models is necessary for further interpretation. Scholars have proposed that more promising explanations of the association between risk and protective factors and LD or ADHD should depend on compounding multiple factors as well as interactive relationships between risk factors and environmental context (see [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref102">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref103">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004878-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>The present findings suggest that disability identity constructs have relevance to two neurodevelopmental disability communities commonly served within educational settings, adults with LD and those with ADHD. Consistent with research findings from samples of adults with predominantly physical disabilities, disability acceptance, and affirmation were differentially related to psychosocial outcome variables. Taken together, these findings contribute to the literature which theorizes that positive disability identity may protect against the negative psychosocial ramifications of disability-related life stressors (see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref104">21</reflink>]). The present results also support previous findings that PDI consists of diverse attitudes with unique relationships to areas of psychosocial functioning ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref105">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref106">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref107">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref108">56</reflink>]). Developing interventions to cultivate positive disability identity should not, based on present and recent research, follow a one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref109">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref110">39</reflink>]). Additionally, analyses of PDI scores from adults with comorbid LD and ADHD, who were majority non-White, did not support current measurement of disability acceptance and affirmation. Current conceptualizations and measures of PDI may not capture the disability experiences and attitudes of adults with both LD and ADHD.</p> <ref id="AN0176004878-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref80" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews E. E. (2019). Disability as diversity: Developing cultural competence. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref92" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Annamma S. A., Connor D., Ferri B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref97" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong D., Humphrey N. (2009). Reactions to a diagnosis of dyslexia among students entering further education: Development of the "resistance–accommodation" model. British Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00408.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref87" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong T. (2015). The myth of the normal brain: Embracing neurodiversity. AMA Journal of Ethics, 17, 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.msoc1-1504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref101" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Assari S. (2017). General self-efficacy and mortality in the USA; Racial differences. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(4), 746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-016-0278-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref95" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In Pervin L. A., P. John O. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 154–196). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref102" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beauchaine T. P., Hinshaw S. P. (2017). Child and adolescent psychopathology (3rd ed.). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bernfort L., Nordfeldt S., Persson J. (2008). ADHD from a socio-economic perspective. Acta Paediatrica, 97(2), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00611.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bogart K. R. (2014). The role of disability self-concept in adaptation to congenital or acquired disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bogart K. R. (2015). Disability identity predicts lower anxiety and depression in multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 60(1), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bogart K. R., Lund E. M., Rottenstein A. (2018). Disability pride protects self-esteem through the rejection-identification model. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Comrey A. L., Lee H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cramm J. M., Strating M. M., Roebroeck M. E., Nieboer A. P. (2013). The importance of general self-efficacy for the quality of life of adolescents with chronic conditions. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2013.00040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling R. B., Heckert D. A. (2010). Orientations toward disability: Differences over the lifecourse. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349121003750489</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeMatthews D. E., Mueller C. (2022). Principal leadership for inclusion: Supporting positive student identity development for students with disabilities. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751211015420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diener E. D., Emmons R. A., Larsen R. J., Griffin S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn D. S., Andrews E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists' cultural competence using disability language. American Psychologist, 70(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn D. S., Burcaw S. (2013). Disability identity: Exploring narrative accounts of disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031691</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DuPaul G. J., Weyandt L. L., O'Dell S. M., Varejao M. (2009). College students with ADHD: Current status and future directions. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13(3), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054709340650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538. https://doi.org/19.1037/a0015808</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forber-Pratt A. J., Lyew D. A., Mueller C., Samples L. B. (2017). Disability identity development: A systematic review of the literature. Rehabilitation Psychology, 62(2), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forber-Pratt A. J., Merrin G. J., Espelage D. L. (2021). Exploring the intersections of disability, race, and gender on student outcomes in high school. Remedial and Special Education, 42(5), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520941201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forber-Pratt A. J., Mueller C. O., Andrews E. E. (2019). Disability identity and allyship in rehabilitation psychology: Sit, stand, sign, and show up. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregg N. (2009). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and ADHD: Assessment and accommodation. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gudjonsson G. H., Sigurdsson J. F., Smari J., Young S. (2009). The relationship between satisfaction with life, ADHD symptoms, and associated problems among university students. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(6), 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hahn H. D., Belt T. L. (2004). Disability identity and attitudes toward cure in a sample of disabled activists. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerusalem M., Schwarzer R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In Schwarzer R. (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195–213). Hemisphere Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapp S. K. (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline (p. 330). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kessler R. C., Adler L., Barkley R., Biederman J., Conners C. K., Demler O., Faraone S. V., Greenhill L. L., Howes M. J., Secnik K., Spencer T., Bedirhan Ustun T., Walters E. E., Zaslavsky A. M. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: Results from the national comorbidity survey replication. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(4), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.4.716</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen R. M., Tze V. M., Hannok W. (2013). Internalizing problems of adults with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411422260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kroenke K., Spitzer R. L., Williams J. B., Löwe B. (2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ–4. Psychosomatics, 50(6), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182(09)70864-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayes S. D., Calhoun S. L., Crowell E. W. (2000). Learning disabilities and ADHD: Overlapping spectrum disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrison G. M., Cosden M. A. (1997). Risk, resilience, and adjustment of individuals with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller C. O. (2021). " I didn't know people with disabilities could grow up to be adults": Disability history, curriculum, and identity in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406421996069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2017). The state of learning disabilities. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncld.org/research/state-of-learning-disabilities/identifying-struggling-students/">www.ncld.org/research/state-of-learning-disabilities/identifying-struggling-students/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newark P. E., Elsässer M., Stieglitz R. D. (2016). Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and resources in adults with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 20(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054712459561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien G. (2001). Adult outcome of childhood learning disability. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 43(9), 634–638. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162201001153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olkin R. (2017). Disability-affirmative therapy: A case formulation template for clients with disabilities. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pallant J. (2001). SPSS survival manual–A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (version 10). Buckingham Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam M. (2005). Conceptualizing disability: Developing a framework for political disability identity. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(3), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073050160030601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santuzzi A. M., Waltz P. R., Finkelstein L. M., Rupp D. E. (2014). Invisible disabilities: Unique challenges for employees and organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shmulsky S., Gobbo K., Donahue A., Klucken F. (2021). Do neurodivergent college students forge a disability identity? A snapshot and implications. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 34(1), 53–63. https://<ulink href="http://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped">www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman A. M., Molton I. R., Smith A. E., Jensen M. P., Cohen G. L. (2017). Solace in solidarity: Disability friendship networks buffer well-being. Rehabilitation Psychology, 62(4), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slemon J. C. (1998). Self-efficacy in adults with and without learning disabilities [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Toronto]. Tspace repository. https://hdl.handle.net/1807/10771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> StataCorp. (2021). Stata statistical software: Release 17. StataCorp LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uchida M., Spencer T. J., Faraone S. V., Biederman J. (2018). Adult outcome of ADHD: An overview of results from the MGH longitudinal family studies of pediatrically and psychiatrically referred youth with and without ADHD of both sexes. Journal of Attention Disorders, 22(6), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054715604360</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Undheim A. M. (2003). Dyslexia and psychosocial factors. A follow-up study of young Norwegian adults with a history of dyslexia in childhood. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 57(3), 221–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480310001391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilmshurst L., Peele M., Wilmshurst L. (2011). Resilience and well-being in college students with and without a diagnosis of ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 15(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054709347261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf L. E. (2001). College students with ADHD and other hidden disabilities: Outcomes and interventions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 931(1), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05792.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapata M. A. (2018). Personal disability identity in retinitis pigmentosa. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapata M. A. (2019). Personal disability identity measurement: Self-worth and personal meaning [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. ProQuest ID: Zapata_berkeley_0028E_19275. Merritt ID: ark:/13030/m5t20b0n. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1s79b3gt</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapata M. A. (2020). Disability affirmation and acceptance predict hope among adults with physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 65(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapata M. A. (2021). Disability self-worth and positive personal meaning in disability: Correlates of hope among U.S. residents with physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 65(2). 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355221100956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapata M. A., Pearlstein J. G. (2022). Disability self-worth relates to lower anxiety and depression in people with visual impairment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 78(7), 1491–1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapata M. A., Worrell F. C. (2023). Disability self-worth and personal meaning relate to psychosocial functioning among employed U.S. adults with LD and ADHD. Rehabilitation Psychology, 68(2), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000484</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0176004878-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The article has been updated to correct the following sentence to include 'from less than $10,000 to $140,000 or' in the following sentence: Participants reported household income as one of nine ordinal categories ranging from less than $10,000 to $140,000 or more and increasing in increments of $10,000 up to $100,00, and then in increments $20,000 per year (see Table 1).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This study was not preregistered and the data set analyzed is not publicly available.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This study was funded by a grant from the Schwab Dyslexia and Cognitive Diversity Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercedes A. Zapata</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5500-213X</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mercedes A. Zapata and Frank C. Worrell</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref98"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1417031
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Disability Acceptance and Affirmation among U.S. Adults with Learning Disabilities and ADHD
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mercedes+A%2E+Zapata%22">Mercedes A. Zapata</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5500-213X">0000-0002-5500-213X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Frank+C%2E+Worrell%22">Frank C. Worrell</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Learning+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Learning Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2024 57(2):79-90.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes+toward+Disabilities%22">Attitudes toward Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention+Deficit+Hyperactivity+Disorder%22">Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Life+Satisfaction%22">Life Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00222194231186665
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-2194<br />1538-4780
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Personal disability identity is a predictor of psychosocial functioning among adults with predominantly physical disabilities. In the present study, we examined personal disability identity in adults with learning disabilities (LD) and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In samples of 541 adults with LD, 475 with ADHD, and 433 with comorbid LD and ADHD, we examined the structural validity of disability acceptance and disability affirmation scores and the association between these scores and anxiety/depression, life satisfaction, and general self-efficacy. Factor analyses supported a 4-item disability acceptance and 3-item disability affirmation scale in LD-only and ADHD-only samples. Among adults with LD or ADHD, disability affirmation was a meaningful predictor of life satisfaction, and disability acceptance predicted general self-efficacy. Disability identity attitudes are worthy of clinical and scholarly attention in adults with LD and ADHD, and adults with comorbid LD and ADHD may warrant special consideration in the personal disability identity literature.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1417031
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1417031
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00222194231186665
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 79
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes toward Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Life Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Disability Acceptance and Affirmation among U.S. Adults with Learning Disabilities and ADHD
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mercedes A. Zapata
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Frank C. Worrell
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-2194
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1538-4780
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Learning Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1