Coping Styles and Strategies: A Comparison

of Adolescent Students With and Without

Learning Disabilities

Journal of Learning Disabilities

43(1) 7785
Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219409345010
http://journaloflearningdisabilities
.sagepub.com

Nola Firth,1 Daryl Greaves,2 and Erica Frydenberg2

Abstract
In this study, the authors compared the results of a coping measure completed by 98 seventh through ninth grade students
who were assessed as having learning disabilities with published means from the general Australian student population.The
Adolescent Coping Scale was the measure used. The results suggested higher use by students aged 12 to 13 years who had
learning disabilities of an overall nonproductive coping style and in particular of the nonproductive strategies of ignoring the
problem and not coping. Although there was no difference in overall productive or nonproductive coping style for 14- to
15-year-olds, the students in this age group who had learning disabilities reported higher use of the strategies of not coping
and ignoring the problem. These findings are discussed in relation to a need for interventions that give students who have
learning disabilities strategies that address the risk of a passive coping style.
Keywords
resilience, middle school, dyslexia

Learning disabilities are currently associated with the risk for

negative life outcomes. These include school dropout
(Deshler, 2005; Prior, 1996; Scanlon & Mellard, 2002), juvenile delinquency (Prior, 1996; Svetaz, Ireland, & Blum,
2000), unemployment (Waring, Prior, Sanson, & Smart,
1996), social isolation (Bryan, Burstein, & Ergul, 2004;
Cheshire & Cambell, 1997; Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, &
Herman, 1999; Svetaz et al., 2000; Wong & Donahue, 2002),
and mental health problems (Bryan, 2005; Prior, Smart,
Sanson, & Oberklaid, 1999). However, it is becoming clear
that it is the associated coping patterns, rather than the learning disabilities themselves, that have the greatest influence
on outcomes in adult life (Margalit, 2003; Prior, 1996; Raskind et al., 1999).
This finding is particularly relevant given the current
findings regarding the likelihood of genetic basis for
learning disabilities (Galaburda, LoTurca, Ramus, Fitch,
& Rosen, 2006; Ramus, 2006), its lifelong nature (Prior,
1996; Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 2002;
Reiff, Ginsberg, & Gerber, 1995; Shaywitz, Morris, &
Shaywitz, 2008; Shessel & Reiff, 1999; Skinner, 1998)
and the likelihood that, despite skilled teaching, those
with learning disabilities are likely to always experience
difficulty in some areas of academic life (Raskind et al.,
1999; Reiff et al., 1995; Shaywitz et al., 2008). Because
coping patterns are established at a young age (Prior,
Sanson, Smart, & Oberklaid, 2001; Raskind et al., 1999;
Seiffge-Krenke, 2000), investigation of students current
coping with learning disabilities is therefore particularly
relevant and paves the way for targeted interventions that
facilitate increased adaptive coping by these students.

The association of learning disabilities and negative

long-term outcomes is not inevitable. A study of the characteristics of successful students who have learning disabilities
undertaken by Nez et al. (2005) yielded the finding that a
proactive rather than a helpless attributional style was associated with positive outcomes and that this was independent
of the level of the learning disabilities experienced. Studies
by Raskind et al. (1999) and Reiff et al.(1995) also found
that the major determinant of success for adults who have
learning disabilities was the ability to cope adaptively with
these learning disabilities. In these studies, the successful
adults persevered, accessed help when they needed it, and
were creative in finding alternative strategies to overcome
their challenges. Research in the fields of self-regulation,
academic motivation, and attribution has also shown the
importance of teaching students who have learning disabilities to be self-aware regarding their learning disabilities
(Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind, & Herman, 2003; Kotzer &
Margalit, 2007) and proactive in response to it (Alexander,
Graham, & Harris, 1998; Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr,
1988; Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993).
Unfortunately, however, although adaptive coping is likely
to be a key psychological resource for students who have
learning disabilities, these students are currently at risk for

Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Nola Firth, 2 Gatehouse Street, Parkville, Melbourne VIC, Australia 3437
E-mail: nola.firth@mcri.edu.au

78
passivity that manifests as learned helplessness in the face of
difficulty (Bender, 1987; Borkowski et al., 1988; Nez et al.,
2005; Sideridis, Mouzaki, Simos, & Protopapas, 2006), disruptive behavior problems (Bender, 1987; Chan & Dally,
2000; Prior, 1996), and social withdrawal (Bryan, 2005;
Forness & Kavale, 1996; Pearl, 2002; Wong & Donahue,
2002).
Despite the importance of the coping strategies of those
who have learning disabilities and the huge number of studies within the field of coping, few studies have directly
investigated the coping strategies and styles of students
who have learning disabilities or compared these with styles
and strategies used by students in the general population.
An exception is a study by Geisthard and Munsch (1996)
who, using the Coping Response Inventory (Ebata & Moos,
1994), studied the coping responses of 59 seventh grade
students with learning disabilities from two junior high
schools in Texas. Compared with 402 seventh grade students from these schools who did not have learning
disabilities, the students with learning disabilities reported
using more cognitive avoidance when coping with academic stress-related events and less peer support when
coping with academic or interpersonal problems. In that
study, the definition of learning disabilities was similar to
that used in our study. Other investigations have been less
clear about selection into the category of learning disabilities. Despite this problem, other smaller studies have also
suggested that there may be a high use of passive coping
strategies by students who have learning disabilities
(Cheshire & Cambell, 1997; Greaves, 1998; Shulman, Carlton-Ford, & Levian, 1994).
The purpose of the current study was to more fully investigate the coping styles and strategies of adolescents who
have learning disabilities and to compare them with those
used by students in the general population. The study was
part of a larger project to develop and trial a coping program
targeting the specific coping needs of adolescent students
who have learning disabilities (see Firth, Frydenberg, &
Greaves, 2008).
The hypothesis tested in the study was that there would
be no difference in means for the coping styles and strategies between the preintervention scores of the study group
of students who had learning disabilities and the published
means of students from the general population as measured
using the Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis,
1993).

Method
Participants
Four coeducational secondary schools were approached
for participation in the study. To ensure a representative
mixture of educational and socioeconomic sectors, the schools
chosen were a high-socioeconomic independent city school

Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(1)

(School A), a medium-socioeconomic government city
school (School B), a medium-socioeconomic Catholic rural
school (School C), and a low-socioeconomic government
city school (School D). The schools also varied in their provision of specialist support to these students. A weekly specialist
educational support class was available for these students at
School A, there was no specialist support at School B,
weekly individual specialist support was available for some
students at School C, and School D provided some specialist in-class support. All four schools agreed to be involved
in the study.
Consent to participation was obtained from 129 students
and their parents. Of these students, 98 students from four
school groups (n = 24, 26, 27, and 21) were chosen to take
part. There were several reasons for the exclusion of some
students. Although teachers believed that all the students
had learning disabilities, when the researcher assessed
them, some were found not to fit the definition of learning
disabilities used in the study. Some students were excluded
on the basis of a cutoff age of 16 years.
Fifty-six students were male, 42 were female, and the
students ranged in age from 12 to 16 years (M = 13.8 years).
Most students and parents who took part in the study were
Australian born and of Anglo or European background. One
student had a Chinese background, 1 student and parent were
Middle Eastern migrants, and 2 parents were Italian migrants.
The teachers were born in Australia and of Anglo or European
background. See Table 1 for school and gender composition.

Instruments
Learning disabilities screening. Priors (1996) discrepancy
definition of specific learning difficulties provided the precision needed for the selection, comparison, and replication
of this research study. Prior defined specific learning difficulties as occurring when a student has an IQ score greater
than 80; deficits in at least one area of academic achievement, such as reading, spelling, or mathematics; and
specific cognitive impairments, such as short-term memory
problems or poor auditory discrimination ability.
Selection into the study was on the basis of an IQ score
greater than 80 and scores of 2 or more years below chronological age in at least one area of academic achievement, such
as reading, spelling, or mathematics. Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1991), a test that yields IQ
scores and remains stable over time (Prifitera & Saklofske, 1998;
Smart, Prior, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2001), were available
through school records for many students. In schools in
Victoria, descriptions in terms of relations to the average
rather than exact scores are recorded in students reports. Any
students reported as below low average (a score equivalent of
80) were therefore excluded from the study.
The researcher tested any students who had not been so
assessed but for whom learning disabilities were suspected.
The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Kaufman & Kaufman,

79

Firth et al.
Table 1. Gender and School Composition

Group

Gender Total
Male
Female
Total

School A

56
15
42 7
98
24

School B
15
11
26

School C School D
16
11
27

10
13
21

1996) was used to assess these students IQ scores. According to the manual of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test
(Kaufman & Kaufman, 1996), the full-scale score results
from that test are closely correlated (.80) with those from
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler,
1991). Both tests use separate verbal and nonverbal
segments.
Normed reading or mathematics tests undertaken by
teachers within the past 2 years were used to establish levels
in reading, spelling, or mathematics (e.g., the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability [Neale, 1999], the South Australian
Spelling Test [Westwood, 1999]). Results from tests of
these various subsets of learning disability were accepted
because the study was not concerned with literacy or
numeracy acquisition but with students attitudes toward
experiences of their learning disabilities. The researcher
used the South Australian Spelling Test (Westwood, 1999)
to assess any students for whom such results were
unavailable.
Adolescent Coping Scale. The Adolescent Coping Scale
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) was the coping measure used
in the study. This test has been used extensively with adolescents within Australia. The scale includes the language
and vocabulary of over 600 adolescents and was developed
using both a theoretical and an empirical base (Frydenberg,
1997).
This scale, made up of 89 items, yields results for three
coping styles. These are productive and nonproductive
coping and reference to others. Productive coping strategies
included in the scale are working hard, working at solving
the problem, relaxing, keeping fit and healthy, and thinking
positively. Nonproductive coping strategies included are
ignoring the problem, self-blame, not having a way of
coping, tension reduction activities such as screaming or
drinking alcohol, worrying, keeping problems to oneself,
and wishful thinking. Reference to others includes investing in close friends, seeking social support, seeking to
belong, seeking spiritual support, seeking professional help,
and taking part in social action. Examples of items from the
scale include Work at solving the problem to the best of
my ability, Work hard, Look on the bright side of things
and think of all that is good, Keep fit and healthy, Worry
about what will happen to me, See myself as being at
fault, Shut myself off from the problem so I can avoid it,
Dont let others know how I am feeling, and Talk to
other people about my concern to help me sort it out.

To ensure accurate comparison with the published means

used in this study, some strategies from the reference to
others coping style were included in the productive and
nonproductive coping style means. Productive coping style
included seeking social support, investing in close friends,
and seeking to belong, and nonproductive coping style also
included seeking to belong. The reference to others style
was not otherwise included in the study. Students who have
learning disabilities may use high dependence on others,
such as teachers (Greaves, 1998). There is therefore less
clarity as to the relationship of this coping style to perceived
control and adaptive coping for students who have learning
disabilities (Greaves, 1998).
There are also general and specific versions of the scale,
with the general version relating to how a participant deals
with concerns in general and the specific version requiring participants to focus on particular concerns. There is similarity in
outcomes regardless of the use of general or specific version of
the scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1999). The general rather than
the specific version of the scale was used in this study because
the successful adults who had learning disabilities applied their
proactive coping strategies broadly rather than only in relation
to their learning disabilities (Raskind et al., 1999).
The scale contains three to five questions on the long
form for each strategy and one question for each strategy on
the short form. Responses on these scales are on a 5-point,
Likert-type scale that ranges from never (1) to often (5) and
relates to how students deals with their concerns.
Over the first 3 years of its use with adolescents in Australia, the long version of the Adolescent Coping Scale
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) showed a median Cronbachs a
value of .70, and reliability for the scale has ranged between
.67 and .79 (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1996). However the productive and nonproductive coping styles have shown reliabilities
above .80 (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1996), while reliability for
the reference to others coping style has ranged between .67
and .79 (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1996). The stability of responses
as measured by test-retest reliability coefficients has been
moderate, ranging from .44 to .81 (Frydenberg & Lewis,
1996). This lower stability of responses may be a reflection of
the dynamic nature of coping (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993). In
this study, Cronbachs a for productive coping for the long
form completed by the students was .84. For nonproductive
coping, it was .89.

Procedures
Four schools were approached to determine their interest in
participating in this study. At each school, the researcher
knew personnel who indicated that there might be interest
by the school in the study. All four schools agreed to participate, and permission was obtained from the ethics bodies
responsible for these schools and from the school principals. Initial briefing meetings were held with the coordinator
of the project and other interested teachers at each school.

80
Special education teachers initially identified students
whom they believed had learning disabilities. The schools
sent information about the project to parents of these students. Consent for participation in the study was obtained
from parents and students. If learning disabilities were suspected but not diagnosed, these students were assessed at
the school by the researcher. The researcher undertook full
or partial assessment for all the students at two schools and
approximately a third of the students at the other two
schools. The test administrator read survey questions aloud
to the group who had learning disabilities.

Data Analysis
Prior to analysis, the quantitative data were screened for
out-of-range and missing values and outliers. Outliers were
checked for accuracy of entry but not removed. Missing
values were replaced using the full information maximum
likelihood method (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). If more than
25% of items were missing from a scale response, it was not
included (Byrne, 2001).
Following screening for the assumptions of normality,
two-sample t tests were conducted to ascertain the difference on the measures between published mean scores of a
contrast group of Australian students of the same age
and those of this sample of students who had learning disabilities. Comparisons on the Adolescent Coping Scale
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) were made with published
Australian means from a 5-year longitudinal study of Australian regional state school students aged 12 to 16 years
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 2000). These are reported for groups
of students aged 12 to 13 years and those aged 14 to 15
years (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2000) and were calculated for
metropolitan government and private school students who
were tracked over several years. The number of participants
in the study ranged from 265 in 1991 (12- and 13-year-olds)
to 253 in 1993 (14- and 15-year-olds). Because the means
were reported according to year level, the comparison
between these published norms and the students in this
study who had learning disabilities is also reported in these
terms.

Results
Comparisons of the Adolescent Coping Scale Means
for Students Aged 12 to 13 Years
With regard to students aged 12 to 13 years, differences
between the published Australian means and those of the
students in this study who had learning disabilities included
higher use of nonproductive coping styles by the students
who had learning disabilities as well as differences with
regard to several of the coping strategies.
The published mean (M = 20.24, SD = 3.68) for nonproductive coping style by 265 students from the general

Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(1)

Australian population aged 12 to 13 years (Frydenberg and
Lewis, 2000) was lower than that of the group of 53 students aged 12 to 13 in the study who had learning disabilities
(M = 21.63, SD = 4.02), t(316) = 2.47, p = .01 (two tailed).
The productive coping style mean for the general Australian population group of students (M = 26.58, SD = 3.82)
was not different from that of the group with learning disabilities (M = 26.93, SD = 4.37), t(316) = 0.59, p = .55 (two
tailed). The null hypothesis of no difference with regard to
coping styles was therefore rejected for this age group with
regard to nonproductive coping only.
Examination of means for individual coping strategies
showed the study group mean to be higher for some nonproductive coping strategies and lower for some productive
coping strategies (see Table 2). The published mean of the
general Australian population group of students was lower
for the strategy of ignoring the problem than for the students who had learning disabilities, t(316) = 5.16, p = .001
(two tailed). The published mean was also lower for the
strategy of not coping than that of the group with learning
disabilities, t(316) = 4.11, p = .001 (two tailed).
With regard to productive coping strategies, the general
population group of students scored higher for the strategy of
working hard than the students who had learning disabilities,
t(316) = 2.34, p = .02 (two tailed), and the mean for focusing
on the positive was higher for the study group than for the published mean, t(316) = 1.96, p = .05 (two tailed). There were no
differences, however, between the study group and published
means for the strategies of worry, wishful thinking, tension
reduction, self-blame, keeping to oneself, work at solving the
problem, relaxation, and physical recreation. See Table 2 for
the complete results for each of the coping strategies.

Comparisons of the Adolescent Coping Scale Means

for Students Aged 14 to 15 Years
The means for the 40 study group students aged 14 to 15
years who had learning disabilities were compared with the
published means for 253 students in this age group from the
general population (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2000).
Again, there was little difference for the style of productive coping. The published group mean (M = 26.12, SD = 3.99)
was similar to the study group mean (M = 26.18, SD =
4.47), t(296) = 0.09, p = .93 (two tailed). Although the mean
for nonproductive coping was higher for the study group
with learning disabilities (M = 21.32, SD = 4.76) than
the published mean (M = 20.36, SD = 3.57), t(296) =1.57,
p = .12 (two tailed), this difference was not significant. The
null hypothesis of no difference with regard to coping styles
therefore could not be rejected for this age group.
As with the 12- to 13-year-olds, there were, however,
differences for several of the coping strategies that constituted the coping styles. The study group mean was lower
than the published mean for the coping strategy of working
hard, t(296) = 2.03, p = .04 (two tailed). Additionally, the

81

Firth et al.

Table 2. Results of Two-Sample t-Test Comparison of Means on the Adolescent Coping Scale (coping strategies) for Students Aged 12 to
13 Years With and Without Learning Disabilities


Coping Strategy

Students Without
Learning Disabilitiesa
M

SD

Students With
Learning Disabilitiesb
M

SD

Comparison
df

Productive coping strategies

Solve the problem
3.21
0.67
3.04
0.83
316
1.62
Physical recreation
3.44
0.77
3.38
0.82
316
0.01
Work hard
3.83
0.61
3.61
0.69
316
2.34
3.13
0.76
3.36
0.87
316
1.96
Focus on the positive
Relax
3.92
0.76
4.07
0.72
316
1.32
Nonproductive coping strategies
Tension reduction
1.91
0.58
1.95
0.67
316
0.45
Ignore
2.31
0.75
2.89
0.73
316
5.16
2.57
0.88
2.47
0.90
316
0.75
Self-blame
Keep to self
2.64
0.84
2.77
0.80
316
1.04
Not cope
2.00
0.61
2.39
0.73
316
4.11
Worry
2.71
0.81
2.77
0.88
316
0.49
Wishful thinking
3.13
0.77
3.29
0.74
316
1.39

p
.11
.99
.02
.05
.19
.66
.001
.45
.30
.001
.63
.17

Frydenberg and Lewis (2000), n = 265.

n = 53.

study group mean was higher than the published mean in

this age group for the coping strategy of focusing on the
positive, t(296) = 1.97, p = .05 (two tailed). Scores for the
study group for the strategy of ignoring the problem
remained higher than for the students from the general Australian population, t(296) = 4.10, p < .001 (two tailed), as
did the mean for the strategy of not coping, which was also
higher than the published mean, t(296) = 4.17, p < .001 (two
tailed). There were no significant differences between
the means for the strategies of worry, wishful thinking, tension reduction, self-blame, keeping to oneself, work at
solving the problem, physical recreation, and relaxation
(see Table 3).

Discussion
The comparisons of means undertaken in the study suggested higher use by students aged 12 to 13 years who had
learning disabilities of an overall nonproductive coping
style and in particular of the nonproductive strategies of
ignoring the problem and not coping. Those aged 14 to 15
years who had learning disabilities also reported higher use
of the strategies of not coping and ignoring the problem.
However, although there was a trend for this age group
toward a higher overall nonproductive coping style, this
was not significant.
With regard to productive coping, there were no differences found in overall productive coping style between the
published means and that of the students in this study. However, both the 12- to 13-year-olds and the 14- to 15-year-olds
in the study reported lower use of the productive coping

strategy of working hard and higher use of focusing on the

positive.
The findings of higher use of nonproductive coping
strategies, including ignoring the problem, giving up, and
working less hard on the problem, are consistent with the
literature with regard to students who have learning disabilities being at risk for learned helplessness (Meltzer,
Katzir, Miller, Reddy, & Roditi, 2004; Peterson et al.,
1993). However the results also indicate that students who
have learning disabilities appear to have at least equal use
of the productive coping strategies of physical recreation
and relaxation and higher use of the strategy of positive
thinking.
With regard to the use of physical recreation, it is likely
that some of these students use their abilities in sport and
other physical recreation to compensate for their experiences
of difficulty with their academic work and that they invest
energy where it yields more positive outcomes (Goldberg
et al., 2003). Smith (1990), for example, in her stories of
successful adults who had learning disabilities, reported on
many people with learning disabilities who had used strengths
in areas other than academic work to achieve success (e.g.,
Greg Louganis, who became an Olympic diver).
These productive coping strategies, however, are ones
that are also compatible with the nonproductive strategies
of ignoring the problem and avoidance of focusing on and
working hard on the problem that are also likely to be used
by many adolescent students who have learning disabilities.
Both physical recreation and relaxation include focusing
away from the sources of the stress involved in having academic difficulties arising from learning disabilities.

82

Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(1)

Table 3. Results of Two-Sample t-Test Comparison of Means on the Adolescent Coping Scale (coping strategies) for Students Aged 14 to
15 Years With and Without Learning Disabilities


Coping Strategy

Students Without
Learning Disabilitiesa
M

SD

Students With
Learning Disabilitiesb
M

SD

Comparison
df

Productive coping strategies

Solve the problem
3.28
0.73
3.12
0.73
296
-1.35
Physical recreation
3.25
0.91
3.50
0.75
296
1.74
Work hard
3.73
0.63
3.52
0.69
296
-2.03
3.01
0.73
3.25
0.88
296
1.97
Focus on the positive
Relax
3.96
0.76
3.88
0.96
296
-0.62
Nonproductive coping strategies
Tension reduction
2.04
0.69
2.05
0.90
296
0.09
Ignore
2.27
0.72
2.77
0.92
296
4.10
2.59
0.88
2.83
0.98
296
1.66
Self-blame
Keep to self
2.65
0.76
2.80
0.89
296
1.19
Not cope
1.99
0.59
2.41
0.78
296
4.17
Worry
2.74
0.78
2.84
0.88
296
0.78
Wishful thinking
3.09
0.81
3.06
0.85
296
-0.23

p
.18
.08
.04
.05
.53
.93
.001
.10
.24
.001
.44
.82

Frydenberg and Lewis (2000), n = 253.

n = 40.

Positive thinking as defined by the Adolescent Coping

Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) could also be used to
focus away from the source of the stress. An example of an
item for positive thinking on the scale is Look on the bright
side of life and think of all that is good. This description of
positive thinking is different from that of the positive cognitive restructuring of the source, stability, and generality of
the stress (Ellis, 1995). The latter kind of positive thinking,
in contrast to that of thinking of happy things in general,
necessitates focus on the source of the stress.
Thus, despite the presence of some productive coping
responses, the passivity that is presented in this coping profile
of those who have learning disabilities is of concern. By contrast, successful children who had learning disabilities had
higher motivation for learning than those who did not have
learning disabilities, and they attributed success to effort
(Nez et al., 2005). The successful adults with learning
disabilities also used direct, active responses, such as perseverance, hard work, accessing appropriate help, and finding
ways around difficulty (Raskind et al., 1999; Reiff
et al., 1995). One of the participants in the study by Raskind
et al. (1999) said, I looked at that lesson and said, OK, you
blew it that time. What are you going to do? How are you
going to overcome that situation? So I systematically started
working on getting over my shyness (p. 230). These successful adults worked hard on their problems and did not ignore
them. Furthermore, there is a significant body of literature that
strongly suggests that a disengaged response to difficulty
for adolescents is maladaptive (Compas, Connor-Smith,
Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001; Frydenberg &
Lewis, 1999, 2004).

There were also some other unexpected findings. The

nonproductive coping strategies of self-blame and worrying
were not used more by the students who had learning disabilities. Indeed, although this was not the case for the
14- to 15-year-olds, there was a trend for the 12- to 13-yearolds to use self-blame less than students in the general
population. Given the literature with regard to the use of negative rumination by low-achievers (Dweck, 2000), this was an
unexpected outcome. The finding may mean that students
who have learning disabilities have developed different coping
responses from those of the low achievers in the studies by
Dweck (2000) who had not been diagnosed as having learning disabilities. Additionally, the studies by Dweck were
undertaken in the United States and may not be directly
comparable with studies undertaken in Australia.
However, in view of the extensive literature with regard to
learning disabilities and depression and other mental health
problems (Lackaye, Margalit, Ziv, & Ziman, 2006; Maag &
Reid, 2006; Prior et al., 1999; Rodis, Garrod, & Boscardin,
2001; Sideridis, 2007), the more likely explanation is that
these students used the coping strategy of ignoring the problem or giving up rather than worrying or blaming themselves.
Further strengthening of skills such as positive cognitive
reframing as recommended by researchers in the field of
positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000)
may positively affect the extent of the use of the coping
responses of ignoring the problem or giving up.
This complexity within the findings of the study indicates that the broad categories of productive and
nonproductive coping are only relatively useful in explaining the coping of students who have learning disabilities.

83

Firth et al.
Such complexity has also been recorded with regard to
coping research involving the general adolescent population (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1999). Compas et al. (2001)
suggested that the broad categories of coping lack sufficient specificity (p. 121).
Frydenberg and Lewis (2004) also noted complexity of
outcomes in their studies of coping. For example, Frydenberg and Lewis found that there is not a simple relationship
between productive coping and nonproductive coping such
that when one increases, the other decreases.
Finally, coping is a developmental process, and the differences noted appeared to be more pronounced for younger
students. A positive change occurred for the students with
learning disabilities who used nonproductive coping styles in
comparison with the general population. This suggests that
students with learning disabilities may learn to use less of
some of the nonproductive coping strategies as they grow
older, while students at this age level in the general population
may experience little or no change in this respect. This is an
unexpected result given the known risk of passivity (Sideridis
et al., 2006) and lack of independence from families for many
adults who have learning disabilities (Goldberg et al., 2003).
Frydenberg and Lewis (2000) found an increase in nonproductive coping between the ages of 14 and 16 years by
adolescents in the general Australian population (Frydenberg,
2000). It may be therefore that this is a transitory stage for the
general adolescent population but not for those who have
learning disabilities. Greater differences in this regard for
those who have learning disabilities may emerge again as they
grow older.
In summary, the findings suggest that in comparison
with the general Australian adolescent student population,
the adolescent students who had learning disabilities used
some productive coping strategies and avoided some nonproductive strategies but that they also used several passive
nonproductive strategies and failed to use some active productive coping strategies that are likely to be of particular
benefit to them. The comparison of the means of students
with learning disabilities in this study and the means for the
general Australian population therefore indicate that the
null hypothesis of no difference can be rejected. However,
the differences, although yielding a pattern that was mostly
in the expected direction and in support of previous findings, also raised some issues with regard to the need for
further understanding of the complexity involved and of the
influence of age on the coping needs of students who have
learning disabilities.
The findings do, however, suggest a need for interventions such as the coping program that was also trialed in this
study (see Firth et al., 2008) to assist students who have learning disabilities to respond proactively to their situations. Our
research team is currently involved in further development
and trial of the coping program and ways to embed it within
the school environment so that its use is sustained.
An important limitation of this study was the use of a
contrast group rather than a control group that was drawn

from the same schools as the intervention group and also

included testing of the control students for learning disabilities. Furthermore, the use of the published means
dictated the categories that could be used in the analysis
and precluded, for example, analysis of aggregate scores
for both groups. In our current research, we are collecting
further such data that address these limitations in that the
groups with and without learning disabilities are drawn
from the same schools at the same time.
Coping questionnaires such as the Adolescent Coping
Scale also have limitations. For example, such questionnaires rely solely on self-report and do not measure the
efficacy of use or the contexts within which the strategies
are being used. There is also room for some individual variation with regard to the meaning of each of the coping
strategy items on the scale.
Finally, intelligence and achievement measures used to
identify the sample were not uniform, and thus means and
standard deviations for the groups were not available. It
was not possible therefore to assess whether levels of
intelligence scores or of particular subsets of learning disabilities such as difficulty with reading, spelling, or
mathematics may have been associated with the outcomes
of the study.
The current study was limited to adolescent students who
had learning disabilities, but similar research needs to be carried out for younger and older students. Particular subgroups
of students (e.g., personality variation) are also likely to be an
important variable that will need investigation.
In summary, the results of this study suggest that adolescent students who have learning disabilities may be at risk
for using passive coping styles. Adaptive coping is a characteristic of successful people who have learning disabilities,
and a focus is needed on assisting students who have learning disabilities to develop these skills. In addition to
focusing on literacy and numeracy skill development, it is
likely therefore to be equally important to devote resources
to developing such interventions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

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

References
Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational
Psychology Review, 10(2), 129154.
Bender, W. N. (1987). Secondary personality and behavioral problems in adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 20(5), 280285.
Borkowski, J., Weyhing, R., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension

84
in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 4653.
Bryan, T. (2005). The applicability of the risk and resilience
model to social problems of students with learning disabilities:
Response to Bernice Wong. Learning Disabilities: Research &
Practice, 18(2), 9498.
Bryan, T., Burstein, K., & Ergul, C. (2004). The social-emotional
side of learning disabilities: a science-based presentation of the
state of the art. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27(1), 4551.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chan, L., & Dally, K. (2000). Review of literature. In W. Louden,
L. K. Chan, J. Elkins, D. Greaves, H. House, M. Milton, et al.
(Eds.), Mapping the territory: Primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy (Vol. 2, pp. 161331). Canberra,
Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Cheshire, G., & Cambell, M. (1997). Adolescent coping: Differences in the styles and strategies used by learning disabled
compared to nonlearning disabled adolescents. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 5(1), 6573.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, K. J., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A.
H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during
childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential
in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87127.
Deshler, D. (2005). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Unique
challenges and reasons for hope. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 122125.
Dweck, C. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in
distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 3354.
Ellis, A. (1995). Better, deeper, and more enduring brief therapy:
The rational emotive behavior therapy approach. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance
of full information maximum estimation for missing data in
structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling,
8(3), 430457.
Firth, N., Frydenberg, E., & Greaves, D. (2008). Perceived control
and adaptive coping: Programs for adolescent students who
have learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,
31(3), 151165.
Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (1996). Treating social skill deficits in children with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of
the research. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 19(1), 213.
Frydenberg, E. (1997). Adolescent coping: Theoretical and
research perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Adolescent Coping Scale.
Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1996). A replication study of the
structure of the Adolescent Coping Scale: Multiple forms and
applications of a self-report inventory in a counselling and
research context. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 224235.

Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(1)

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1999). Academic and general wellbeing: The relationship with coping. Australian Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 9(1), 1935.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (2004). Thriving, surviving, or going
under: Which coping strategies relate to which outcomes? In
E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Thriving, surviving, or going under (pp. 323).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Galaburda, A. M., LoTurca, J., Ramus, F., Fitch, R. H., & Rosen,
G. D. (2006). From genes to behavior in developmental dyslexia. Nature Neuroscience, 9(10), 12131217.
Geisthard, C., & Munsch, J. (1996). Coping with school stress: A
comparison of adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 287296.
Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., Raskind, M. H., & Herman, K. L.
(2003). Predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: A qualitative analysis of a 20-year longitudinal study.
Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 222236.
Greaves, D. (1998). Learning disabled children coping with challenging academic tasks. In D. Greaves & P. Jeffery (Eds.), Strategies for intervention with special needs students (pp. 6374).
Melbourne: Australian Resource Educators Association.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1996). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Australian Adaptation). Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Kotzer, E., & Margalit, M. (2007). Perception of competence:
Risk and protective factors following an e-self-advocacy intervention for adolescents with learning disabilities. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 443457.
Lackaye, T., Margalit, M., Ziv, O., & Ziman, T. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy, mood, effort, and hope between students
with learning disabilities and their non-LD matched peers.
Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 21(2), 111121.
Maag, J. W., & Reid, R. (2006). Depression among students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1),
310.
Margalit, M. (2003). Resilience model among individuals with
learning disabilities: Proximal and distal influences. Learning
Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18(2), 8286.
Meltzer, L., Katzir, T., Miller, L. Reddy, R., & Roditi, B. (2004).
Academic self-perceptions, effort, and strategy use in students
with learning disabilities: Changes over time. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 19(2), 99108.
Neale, M. D. (1999). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Revised.
Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Nez, C. J., Gonzalez-Pienda, J. A., Gonzalez-Pumariega,
S., Roces, C., Alvarez, L., & Gonzalez, P. (2005). Subgroups
of attributional profiles in students with learning difficulties
and their relation to self-concept and academic goals. Learning
Disabilities: Research & Practice, 20(2), 8697.
Pearl, R. (2002). Students with learning disabilities and their classroom companions. In B. L. Wong & M. Donahue (Eds.), The
social dimensions of learning disabilities (pp. 7791). London:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New York:
Oxford University Press.

85

Firth et al.
Prifitera, A., & Saklofske, D. (Eds.). (1998). WISC 111 clinical
use and interpretation: Scientist practitioner perspectives. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Prior, M. (1996). Understanding specific learning difficulties.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Prior, M., Sanson, A., Smart, D., & Oberklaid, F. (2001). Pathways
from infancy to adolescence: Australian Temperament Project
19832000. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Prior, M., Smart, D., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (1999). Relationships between learning difficulties and psychological
problems in preadolescent children from a longitudinal sample. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
38(4), 429436.
Ramus, F. (2006). Genes, brain, and cognition: A roadmap for the
cognitive scientist. Cognition, 101, 247269.
Raskind, M. H., Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K.
L. (1999). Patterns of change and predictors of success in
individuals with learning disabilities: Results from a twenty
year study. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 14(1),
3549.
Raskind, M. H., Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K. L.
(2002). Teaching life success to students with LD: Lessons
learned from a 20 year study. Intervention in School and Clinic,
37(4), 201208.
Reiff, H. B., Ginsberg, R., & Gerber, P. J. (1995). New perspectives on teaching from successful adults with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16(1), 2937.
Rodis, P., Garrod, A., & Boscardin, M. (2000). Learning disabilities and life stories. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. (2002). Academic and participation
profiles of school age dropouts with and without disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 68(2), 239258.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist,
55(1), 514.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2000). Causal links between stressful events,
coping style, and adolescent symptomatology. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 657691.
Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451475.
Shessel, I., & Reiff, H. B. (1999). Experience of adults with learning disabilities: Positive and negative impacts and outcomes.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 305315.
Shulman, S., Carlton-Ford, S., & Levian, R. (1994). Coping styles
of learning disabled adolescents and their parents. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 24(3), 281294.
Sideridis, G. D. (2007). Why are LD students depressed? A goal
orientation model of depression vulnerability. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 526539.
Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., Simos, P., Protopapas, A. (2006).
Classification of students with reading comprehension difficulties: The roles of motivation, affect, and psychopathology.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 29, 159180.

Skinner, M. E. (1998). Promoting self-advocacy among college

students with learning difficulties. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 33(5), 278283.
Smart, D., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (2001). Children
with reading difficulties: A six-year follow-up from early primary
to secondary school. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 39.
Smith, B. (1990). Success stories in spite of early learning problems. East Brisbane, Australia: Author.
Svetaz, M. V., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Adolescents with
learning disabilities: Risk and protective factors associated with
emotional well-being: Findings from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27,
340348.
Waring, S., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Smart, D. (1996). Predictors
of recovery from reading disability. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 48(3), 160166.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Westwood, P. (1999). South Australian Spelling Test. In P. Westwood (Ed.), Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment.
Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research.
Wong, B.Y.L., & Donahue, M. (2002). The social dimensions of
learning disabilities: Essays in honor of Tanis Bryan. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

About the Authors

Nola Firth, PhD, is a research fellow at The Centre for Adolescent
Health, Royal Childrens Hospital and The Murdoch Childrens
Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and an honorary
research fellow at the University of Melbourne. Her current work
involves implementation of an Australian Research Councilfunded project to further develop and trial school-based resilience
programs for students with learning disabilities. She was this year
awarded a Churchill Fellowship to investigate the dyslexia
friendly schools in the UK and learning disabilities resilience
programs in the USA and Canada.
Erica Frydenberg, PhD, is an associate professor in psychology in
the Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, and a
fellow of the Australian Psychological Society. Her publications
include The Best of Coping, co-authored with Cathy Brandon (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2007), a CD-ROM, Coping
for Success, and Adolescent Coping: Advances in Theory, Research
and Practice (Routledge, 2008). Her most recent work, Thinking
Positively: A Course for Developing Coping Skills in Adolescents, is
scheduled to be published by Continuum in February 2010.
Daryl Greaves, PhD, is recently retired from the Education Faculty,
University of Melbourne, where he lectured in the special education
and educational psychology courses. He has been involved in Commonwealth-funded projects concerned with literacy programs and
teacher education in literacy teaching. Currently, he assesses students from early primary school through to adults in middle age at
the Specific Learning Disabilities Association, Victoria.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.