Similarities and Differences in Domain-Specific and Global Self-Evaluations of Learning-Disabled, Behaviorally Disordered, and Normally Achieving Adolescents

Abstract

Similarities and differences in the domain-specific and global self-evaluations of 235 normally achieving, 118 learning-disabled, and 70 behaviorally disordered adolescents were documented. Factor analysis revealed eight discrete self-concept domains for each group. The importance of success in each domain was similar for each group, as were processes predicting level of self-worth. Consistent with W. James’ (1892) formulation, students with high self-worth evaluated themselves positively in domains of importance, whereas students with low self-worth reported much less favorable self-evaluations. Moreover, those with high self worth were better able to discount areas of weakness than were those with low self-worth. Correlations between specific domains deemed important and self-worth were also very similar across groups. Differences among groups involved the level of scores in that learning-disabled and behaviorally disordered students reported lower cognitive competence and peer likability than did normally achieving students. Behaviorally disordered students also reported more negative perceptions of their conduct. Both special education groups evidenced more negative self-worth with greater discrepancies between importance and negative self-evaluations, particularly in domains salient to the difficulties related to their educational status. Discussion focuses on the examination of group similarities and differences as well as within-group processes.