Soc Psychol Educ (2009) 12:113122

DOI 10.1007/s11218-008-9065-z
Achievement and self-concept of students with learning
disabilities
Jens Mller Lilian Streblow Britta Pohlmann
Received: 18 July 2007 / Accepted: 23 June 2008 / Published online: 26 August 2008
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract The internal/external frame of reference (I/E) model by Marsh (Am Educ
Res J 23:129149, 1986) assumes that, besides social comparisons with their class-
mates, students engage in intraindividual, dimensional comparisons, comparing their
own achievement in one subject with their achievement in other subjects. These dimen-
sional comparison processes are assumed to result in negative paths fromachievement
in one subject (e.g., math) to self-concept in another (e.g., the verbal domain). In a
study with N = 270 students, we investigated the generalizability of the I/E model
to students with learning disabilities. Analyses showed positive correlations between
math and German achievement and positive effects of achievement in both subjects on
the corresponding domain-specic self-concept. Verbal and math self-concepts were
almost uncorrelated. Moreover, there were negative effects of achievement in one
domain on self-concept in the other. Our results therefore indicate that the I/E model
can be generalized to students with learning disabilities.
Keywords Comparison processes Self-concept I/E model Students with
learning disabilities
According to Shavelson et al. (1976), self-concepts or self-images develop as a result
of ones experiences with the environment and ones evaluations of these experiences.
The opinions of significant others, concrete feedback, and causal attributions play a
decisive role in the process of self-concept development. Academic self-concepts are
J. Mller (B) B. Pohlmann
Psychologie fr Pdagogen, University of Kiel, Olshausenstr. 75, Kiel 24098, Germany
e-mail: jmoeller@psychologie.uni-kiel.de
L. Streblow
Department of Psychology, University of Bielefeld, Universittsstr. 31, Bielefeld 33501, Germany
1 3
114 J. Mller et al.
of particular relevance in the school context. These generalized, self-related cogni-
tions of ability are regarded as individual traits that can, to a large extent, explain
and predict achievement-related behavior. In fact, there is a broad consensus that aca-
demic self-concepts, mediated by motivational variables, foster learning processes
at school (see, e.g., Byrne 1996; Helmke and Van Aken 1995; Marsh 1990a; Marsh
and Hattie 1996; Mller and Kller 2001a; Shavelson and Bolus 1982; see also the
meta-analyses of Hansford and Hattie 1982; Valentine et al. 2004). Research has also
shown that academic self-concepts have a significant impact on students coursework
selection in American high schools (Marsh and Yeung 1997). Educators aiming to
foster learning in schools should, therefore, work to enhance students academic self-
concepts as well as their performance. These ndings are particularly relevant with
respect to learning disabled students, whose learning difculties can be expected to
have unfavorable effects on the development of their academic self-concepts. These
students are particularly likely to set themselves unrealistic goals and to shun appro-
priate intellectual challenges. In turn, these motivational processes lead to further
deterioration in performance. The key role of the self-concept of ability has also been
demonstrated in empirical studies on the effects of placement in inclusive classrooms,
where self-concept often emerges to be the main dependent variable besides achieve-
ment (Prout and Prout 1996). Several studies have shown that the self-concepts of
learning disabled students attending inclusive schools are lower than those of their
classmates without learning disabilities (see Chapmann 1988). Moreover, some stud-
ies have reported that learning disabled students enrolled in inclusive classrooms report
lower self-concepts than their peers in schools for students with special educational
needs. This is assumed to be the result of social comparisons being detrimental to
the self-concepts of weaker performing students in the heterogeneous learning envi-
ronment of an integrative classroom (Crabtree and Rutland 2001), where upward
social comparisons with higher performing classmates predominate. Research also
focuses on efforts to cultivate the self-concepts of students with learning disabilities.
Meta-analytic approaches (Elbaum and Vaughn 2001) have shown that learning dis-
abled students self-concepts of ability can be enhanced by measures such as tailoring
instruction to the needs of individual students.
Previous research on the self-concept of students with learning disabilities has
tended to focus on the academic self-concept of ability or self-esteem in general (see,
e.g., Chapmann 1988). Less is known about the domain-specicity of self-concepts
of ability in learning disabled students. However, the works of Marsh and Shavelson
(1985), Shavelson and Marsh (1986), and Marsh et al. (1988b) have shown that it
would be mistaken to assume a general academic self-concept. Although Shavelson
et al. (1976) initially worked on the assumption that domain-specic academic self-
concepts (in mathematics, the sciences, the mother tongue, and various other subjects)
are strongly intercorrelated and that the shared variance in students self-concepts in
these domains can be traced back to a general academic self-concept, conrmatory
factor analyses performed by Marsh et al. (1988b), for example, have revealed that
the academic self-concept can in fact be broken down into two distinct facets: verbal
and mathematical self-concept.
The near-zero correlation typically observed between verbal and math self-con-
cept is by no means trivial given the strong positive correlationsin the region of
1 3
Achievement and self-concept of students 115
r = .30.80 (Mller and Kller 2004)typically found between achievement in the
language arts and achievement in math/the sciences or, indeed, the strong positive
correlations generally found between achievement and self-concept within a given
domain. In their meta-analysis, Hansford and Hattie (1982) report a mean correla-
tion of r = .42 between indicators of achievement in a subject and the academic
self-concept in that subject. Our research (Mller and Kller 2000) has also shown
correlations between achievement indicators (grades) and domain-specic academic
self-concepts of around r = .60, depending on the domain in question.
In other words, weak correlations are usually observed between math and verbal
self-concept despite strong positive intercorrelations between achievement in the two
subjects and despite strong correlations between the self-concept and achievement
within a given subject.
In addition to the near-zero correlations observed between verbal and math
self-concept variables, a second pattern of results is usually cited to illustrate the
domain-specicity of academic self-concepts (e.g., Marsh 1986; Mller and Kller
2001a; Skaalvik and Rankin 1995): the negative regression or path coefcients
observed fromperformance indicators in one domain to self-concept in another (when
controlling for performance in the latter domain). Typically, the positive effects of
performance indicators on the academic self-concept in the same domain are stronger
than their negative effects on self-concept in the other domain.
The Internal/External Frame of Reference Model (I/Emodel) has been proposed by
Marsh (1986, 1990b) to account for this pattern of results, that is, to explain why verbal
and math self-concept are largely uncorrelated and why negative divergent effects are
observed across subjects. According to the I/E model, students compare their levels
of academic ability using two different, but connected, frames of reference. First, they
conduct interindividual or social comparisons (external frame of reference), compar-
ing their achievement in a subject with that of their classmates. Second, they engage in
intraindividual or dimensional comparisons (internal frame of reference), comparing
their own achievement in one subject with their achievement in another subject.
The assumptions of the I/E model have been substantiated by many empirical stud-
ies, most of them using regression and path analysis (see also Bong 1998; Kller
et al. 1999; Marsh 1986, 1990b; Marsh et al. 1985, 1991; Mller and Kller 2001a;
Skaalvik and Rankin 1990, 1992, 1995; Tay et al. 1995). The few longitudinal studies
conducted thus far (Mller and Kller 2001a; Skaalvik and Valas 1999) are particu-
larly noteworthy because they have shown that performance indicators also impact on
change in academic self-concepts. Furthermore, the effects of dimensional compar-
isons on task-specic self-concepts have been demonstrated in experimental studies
(Mller and Kller 2001b) and introspective studies (Mller and Husemann 2006).
Findings to support the I/E model have been documented for students of different
age groups in a variety of countries, and using various operationalizations of the self-
concept and of achievement (Mller et al. 2008). Thus far, however, the only student
population of atypical intellectual ability to have been examined in studies on the I/E
model is that of giftedstudents. Williams andMontgomery(1995) andMui et al. (2000)
tested whether the mechanisms assumed by the I/E model can be generalized to gifted
students. Their results are indeed in line with the I/E model, and show achievement
in one domain to have negative effects on self-concept in the other. In view of these
1 3
116 J. Mller et al.
negative cross-domain relationships between achievement and self-concept, Plucker
and Stocking (2001) point out that even teachers of gifted students should not assume
that their students perceive themselves as performing equally well in all subjects.
Similar questions arise with respect to the domain-specicity of self-concepts
among students with learning disabilities. To the best of our knowledge, no previous
international studies have explored the validity of the I/E model for leaning-disabled
students. However, ndings presented by Harter (1999) indicate that largely indepen-
dent subject-specic self-concepts (in addition to an independent factor of the general
self-concept of ability) can also be distinguished in this student population. The aim
of our study is thus to test whether the I/E model can be generalized to students
with learning disabilities and, in particular, to investigate whether, and to what extent,
achievement in one subject has negative effects on self-concept in another in a sample
of students attending schools for those with special educational needs.
We assume that the ndings for learning disabled students will be in line with pre-
vious ndings for other student populations, and that achievement in a subject will
have a positive effect on the self-concept in that subject and a negative effect on the
self-concept in the other subject. Dimensional comparisons may lead to students in
the present population overestimating their ability in their stronger subject and under-
estimating their ability in their weaker subject.
1 Method
1.1 Sample
A total of N = 270 students (55.9% female) attending grades 59 (mean age M =
14.64years; SD = 1.26) participated in the study. Students were enrolled in different
schools for students with special educational needs in SchleswigHolstein and North
Rhine Westphalia. After the school principals and teachers had been informed about
the goals of the study, the student questionnaire was handed over to the teachers and
parental consent was obtained. The teachers administered the questionnaires in regular
lesson time and returned them to the University of Kiel in reply-paid envelopes. It was
vital that the teachers made sure their students understood what was required by each
question. Nevertheless, there is a relatively high level of variation in the number of
usable responses.
1.2 Instruments
Students self-concepts of ability in math and German were assessed and the German
and math grades awarded in their last report card were obtained as a measure of
achievement feedback.
In contrast to other self-concept scales, the items selected to assess German and
math self-concept in the present study do not tap either social or dimensional com-
parisons. The wording of the ve items was as follows: I would much prefer math
if it werent so hard, Nobodys perfect, but Im just not good at math, Math just
doesnt appeal to me, With some of the topics in math, I know from the start that I
1 3
Achievement and self-concept of students 117
just wont get them, Even if I do my best in math, I do not perform very well. To
assess verbal self-concept, math was simply changed to German.
Previous studies have shown that the scale demonstrates satisfactory validity and
reliability in school contexts. In Mller and Kller (2000), all correlations between the
domain-specic self-concept scales andthe report cardgrades inthe respective subjects
were greater than r = .60, and the internal consistencies (Cronbachs ) were greater
than .75. In the present study, a six-point response format was used (1=disagree
completely to 6=agree completely). For the following analyses, the responses
were reverse coded, aggregated, and means calculated. The internal consistencies
proved to be satisfactory (mathematics: = .78; German: = .82). In line with
previous studies with other student populations, the correlations with grades (math:
r = .51, p < .001; German: r = .34, p < .001) indicate that these domain-specic
cognitions of ability are meaningful, and that grades are not the unique predictors of
domain-specic self-concept. Note that grades awarded using the six-level grading
system implemented throughout Germanyexcellent (1), good (2), satisfactory (3),
sufcient (4), poor (5), and fail (6)were also recoded so that high scores indicate a
high level of achievement.
2 Results
2.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and interscale correlations for all
participants and all scales. The mean grades and self-concepts for the two subjects
proved to be almost identical. Achievement in both German and mathematics corre-
lated positively and significantly with the self-concept in the corresponding domain,
but there was a near-zero correlation between the two self-concepts. Overall, then, the
pattern of results to emerge for the present student population is typical of that found
in studies on the I/E model.
Table 1 Correlations (sample sizes) between the variables for all participants are reported over the
diagonal
Mathematics German Mathematics German
self-concept self-concept achievement achievement
Mathematics self-concept 3.98 (1.21) .01
ns
.51*** .06
ns
(N =254) (N =241) (N =223) (N =228)
German self-concept 3.95(1.23) .12
ns
.34***
(N =254) (N =219) (N =226)
Mathematics achievement 3.77 (.97) .29***
(N =232) (N =224)
German achievement 3.76 (.94)
(N =240)
Notes: Grades and self-concept scores were recoded such that high scores indicate strong endorsements;
*** p < .001
Means (standard deviations) are presented in the diagonal
1 3
118 J. Mller et al.
Fig. 1 Path model showing the
relationships between grades
and self-concepts in
mathematics and German
(MG=mathematics grade,
GG=German grade,
MSC=mathematics
self-concept, GSC=German
self-concept); *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001
There were slight gender differences in mathematics grades. The boys grades
(M = 3.86, SD = .97) were somewhat higher than those of the girls (M = 3.57,
SD = .95; t (228) = 2.14, p < .05). Accordingly, the boys self-concepts (M = 4.11,
SD = .97) were also somewhat higher than those of the girls (M = 3.69, SD = 1.24;
t (250) = 2.62, p < .01).
2.2 Results of the path analyses
Path analyses were then conducted using Amos 4.01 (Arbuckle 1999). Our central
hypotheses relate to the effects assumed in the I/Emodel. In statistical terms, we expect
to see significant positive paths from the achievement indicators to the self-concept in
the same domain, and negative paths to the self-concept in the other domain.
Different goodness-of-t indices are used to gauge the quality of models in such
analyses. Based on key works on the suitability of various indices (Marsh et al. 1996,
1988a), priority is given to the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA), which are less sensitive to the sample size than the

2
, which was also used in the present study. A model is considered to be a good t
when the TLI is greater than .90, the RMSEA is less than .08, and when
2
/d f < 3.
Figure 1 shows the resulting path model. The t statistics indicate that the model
is a good t (TLI = .995, RMSE A = .058,
2
/d f = 1.928). In line with our expec-
tations, we observed the pattern between grades and self-concepts that is typical of
the I/E model. The math grade has a positive impact (.64, p < .001) on the math
self-concept, and a negative impact (.28, p < .001) on the German self-concept.
A similar pattern emerges for the German grade, which has a positive impact (.47,
p < .001) on the German self-concept, but a negative impact (.14, p < .05) on the
math self-concept.
3 Discussion
The overall pattern of results conrms that the relationships posited in the I/E model
can be generalized to our sample of students with learning disabilities. Our ndings for
this student population show that achievement in a subject has a positive effect on the
self-concept in the same subject. This is presumably the result of social comparison
processes, in which students compare their own academic achievement to that of other
students in the reference group of the class, meaning that students with weaker grades
1 3
Achievement and self-concept of students 119
develop lower self-concepts. By contrast, achievement in one subject has a negative
effect on the self-concept in the other subject. This is interpreted as the result of dimen-
sional comparisons. Students who perform better in math than in German develop a
lower German self-concept than their grade in the subject would warrant. Conversely,
dimensional comparisons have positive effects on a students better subject, where a
more positive self-concept is developed.
These ndings clearly showthat the I/Emodel also applies to students with learning
disabilities, and thus conrm the assumed domain-specicity of academic self-
concepts in this student population. The implications of this are far-reaching, given
that dimensional comparisons can be assumed to have similar effects on domain-spe-
cic motivational and behavioral variables. Skaalvik and Rankin (1995), for example,
explored students intrinsic motivation to engage in math and verbal tasks as well
as their general academic motivation, effort, and school anxiety. They found strong
positive correlations between academic achievement, on the one hand, and intrinsic
motivation, effort, and school anxiety in the corresponding domain, on the other hand,
and negative effects on the respective variables in the other domain. Kller et al.
(2000) found similar effects on domain-specic interests, which were mediated by
the corresponding self-concept. They also analyzed the courses that college-bound
students chose at upper secondary level, and found that students were more likely to
opt for an advanced course in mathematics or English if they had good grades, a high
self-concept, and marked interest in the subject. The same factors proved to have a
negative impact on the choice of an advanced course in the other subjectclearly
an effect of dimensional comparisons. To put it another way, given identical math
achievement, students who later opted for an advanced math course reported less
interest and a lower self-concept in English than their peers who later chose a basic
math course. Transferring these ndings to schools for students with special educa-
tional needs, it seems safe to assume that learning disabled students also act on their
contrasting self-concepts by tending to specialize in their stronger domain. It should
be emphasized that these processes of comparison and the ensuing specializations
can have both costs and benets. The costs are that students might tend to neglect
their weaker subjects, meaning that their performance in these areas deteriorates even
further. The benets are that the relative strengths of learning disabled students can
be developed and decisions about their academic or occupational future can be made
more easily. As mentioned above, when Plucker and Stocking (2001) found a similar
pattern of results in a sample of gifted students, they concluded that teachers should not
work on the assumption that gifted students perceive themselves as performing equally
well in all subjects. By the same token, we can conclude that students with learning
disabilities do not necessarily perceive their performance in all subjects to be below
average. In fact, processes of dimensional comparison make it rather unlikely that stu-
dents will develop homogeneous concepts of their own ability in different domains.
Teachers of learning disabled students should bear this in mind when attempting
to gauge their students domain-specic self-concepts. This is particularly relevant
when students in more exible forms of instruction, such as open instruction, are
allowed to select learning activities based on their subjective assessment of their own
ability. Recent ndings have shown that teachers tend to neglect the effects of dimen-
sional comparison processes when evaluating their students self-concepts of ability
1 3
120 J. Mller et al.
(Pohlmann et al. 2004). Particularly where students with learning disabilities are con-
cerned, it would thus be helpful if teachers had a better idea of where their students
perceive their own strengths and weaknesses to lie. A possible implication of these
ndings for classroom practice would thus be to discuss students strengths with them
directly or to focus on these strengths in other ways.
Finally, it should be noted that the present study was conducted in schools for
students with special educational needs. It remains to be seen whether the ndings
can be generalized to learning disabled students in inclusive classrooms. It may well
be that social comparisons have an unfavorable effect on learning disabled students
assessments of their own ability in inclusive measures, meaning that these students
develop relatively low self-concepts in all subjects and that the effects of dimensional
comparisons are barely perceptible. Empirical studies on this question have not yet
been undertaken.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos, Version 4.01. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
Bong, M. (1998). Tests of the internal/external frames of reference model with subject-specic aca-
demic self-efcacy and frame-specic academic self-concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
102110. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.102.
Byrne, B. M. (1996). Academic self-concept: Its structure, measurement, and relation to academic achieve-
ment. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 287316). New York: Wiley.
Chapmann, J. (1988). Learning disabled childrens self-concepts. Review of Educational Research, 58,
347371.
Crabtree, J., & Rutland, A. (2001). Self-evaluation and social comparison amongst adolescents with learn-
ing difculties. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11, 347359. doi:10.1002/casp.
634.
Elbaum, B., & Vaughn, S. (2001). School-based interventions to enhance the self-concept of students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101, 303329. doi:10.1086/499670.
Hansford, B. D., & Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement/performance mea-
sures. Review of Educational Research, 52, 123142.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Helmke, A., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (1995). The causal ordering of academic achievement and
self-concept of ability during elementary school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87, 624637. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.624.
Kller, O., Daniels, Z., & Baumert, J. (2000). Multiple frame of reference, academic interests, and course-
work selection in upper secondary schools in Germany. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting,
New Orleans, April 2428.
Kller, O., Klemmert, H., Mller, J., & Baumert, J. (1999). Leistungsbeurteilungen und Fhigkeitsselbst-
konzepte: Eine lngsschnittliche berprfung des internal/external frame of reference modells.
Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie, 13, 128134. Performance indicators and self-concepts of
ability: A longitudinal test of the internal/external frame of reference model. doi:10.1024//1010-0652.
13.3.128.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. Amer-
ican Educational Research Journal, 23, 129149.
Marsh, H. W. (1990a). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical
justication. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77172. doi:10.1007/BF01322177.
Marsh, H. W. (1990b). Inuences of internal and external frames of reference on the formation of math
and English self-concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 107116. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.
82.1.107.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental t indices: A clarication
of mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced
structural equation modeling techniques (pp. 315353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
1 3
Achievement and self-concept of students 121
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., &McDonald, R. P. (1988a). Goodness of t indexes in conrmatory factor analy-
sis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391410. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988b). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its
hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
366380. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.366.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on the structure of self-concept.
In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 3890). New York: Wiley.
Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational
Psychologist, 20, 107125. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1.
Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., &Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional self-concepts: Relations with sex and aca-
demic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 581596. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.581.
Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., & Debus, R. (1991). Subject-specic components of academic self-
concept and self-efcacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 331345. doi:10.1016/
0361-476X(91)90013-B.
Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Coursework selection: Relations to academic self-concept and
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 691720.
Mller, J., & Husemann, N. (2006). Internal comparisons in everyday life. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 342353.
Mller, J., & Kller, O. (2000). Spontaneous and reactive attributions according to academic achievement.
Social Psychology of Education, 4, 6786. doi:10.1023/A:1009690303176.
Mller, J., & Kller, O. (2001a). Frame of reference effects following the announcement of exam results.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 277287. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1055.
Mller, J., & Kller, O. (2001b). Dimensional comparisons: An experimental approach to the Inter-
nal/External frame of reference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 826835. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.93.4.826.
Mller, J., & Kller, O. (2004). Die Genese akademischer Selbstkonzepte: Effekte dimensionaler und
sozialer Vergleiche. Psychologische Rundschau, 55, 1927. The genesis of academic self-concepts:
Effects of dimensional and social comparisons. doi:10.1026/0033-3042.55.1.19.
Mller, J., Pohlmann, B., Kller, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). A meta-analytic path analysis on the inter-
nal/external frame of reference model of academic achievement and academic self-concept (in press).
Mller, J., Pohlmann, B., Streblow, L., &Kaufmann, J. (2002). Begabungsberzeugungen als Determinante
des verbalen und mathematischen Begabungsselbstkonzepts. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie,
16, 8797. Domain-specicity of ability beliefs as determinants of the verbal and mathematical
self-concept of ability. doi:10.1024//1010-0652.16.2.87.
Mui, F. L., Yeung, A. S., Low, R., & Jin, P. (2000). Academic self-concept of talented students: Factor
structure and applicability of the internal/external frame of reference model. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 23, 343367.
Plucker, J. A., & Stocking, V. B. (2001). Looking outside and inside: Self-concept development of gifted
adolescents. Exceptional Children, 67, 535548.
Pohlmann, B., Mller, J., & Streblow, L. (2004). Zur Fremdeinschtzung von Schlerselbstkonzepten
durch Lehrer und Mitschler. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie. The assessment of student
self-concepts by teachers and classmates, 18, 157169.
Prout, H. T., & Prout, S. M. (1996). Global self-concept and its relationship to stressful life conditions.
In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 259286). New York: Wiley.
Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 317. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.1.3.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., &Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations.
Review of Educational Research, 46, 407444.
Shavelson, R. J., &Marsh, H. W.(1986). On the structure of self-concept. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-related
cognitions in anxiety and motivation (pp. 305330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1990). Math, verbal, and general academic self-concept: The inter-
nal/external frame of reference model and gender differences in self-concept structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 546554. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.546.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1992). Math and verbal achievement and self-concepts: Testing the
internal/external frame of reference model. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 267279. doi:10.
1177/0272431692012003003.
1 3
122 J. Mller et al.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1995). A test of the internal/external frame of reference model at different
levels of math and verbal self-perception. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 161184.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Valas, H. (1999). Relations among achievement, self-concept and motivation in
mathematics and language arts. A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 135149.
Tay, M. P., Licht, B. G., & Tate, R. L. (1995). The internal/external frame of reference in adolescents math
and verbal self-concepts: A generalization study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 392402.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1026.
Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and aca-
demic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39, 111133. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep3902_3.
Williams, J. E., & Montgomery, D. (1995). Using frame of reference theory to understand the self-concept
of academically able students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 400409.
Author Biographies
Dr. Jens Mller is Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Kiel, Germany. His main research
interests are self-concept, cooperative teaching, and computer-simulated classrooms.
Dr. Lilian Streblow works at the Department of Psychology at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. Her
research interests are reading, teacher students, and self-concept.
Dr. Britta Pohlmann is at the University of Kiel, Germany, Departmenot of Psychology. Her research
interests are: teacher students research and self-concept research.
1 3