learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement...

Learning Disabilities, Gender, Sources of Efficacy,

Self-Efficacy Beliefs, and Academic Achievement

in High School Students

Nan Zhang Hamptona,*, Emanuel Masonb

aDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Boston,

100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125, USAbDepartment of Counseling Psychology, Rehabilitation and Special Education, Northeastern University,

Boston, MA, USA

Received 23 April 1998; received in revised form 22 October 2002; accepted 22 October 2002

Abstract

This study examined the impact of gender, learning disability (LD) status, and sources of efficacy

on self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement in the concept of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory.

Two hundred and seventy-eight high school students participated in the study. Structural equation

modeling was used. The results revealed that LD status had indirect influence on self-efficacy via the

source variable; gender did not have direct or indirect influences on self-efficacy; sources of efficacy

had direct impact on self-efficacy, which in turn affected academic performance. The structural model

fit the data well and explained 55% of the variance in academic achievement.

D 2003 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights

reserved.

Keywords: Learning disabilities; Gender; Self-efficacy; Achievement; Structural equation modeling

Introduction

School psychologists have long been interested in treatment of learning disorders in

school settings (Berninger, 1997; Deno & Fuchs, 2001; Fletcher, 2002; Sandoval, 1993).

Previous studies indicated that students with learning disabilities (LDs) may develop

secondary self-perception problems such as low self-efficacy beliefs (Clever, Bear, &

0022-4405/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier

Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00028-1

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-617-287-7651; fax: +1-617-287-7664.

E-mail address: [email protected]. (N.Z. Hampton).

Journal of School Psychology

41 (2003) 101–112

Juvomen, 1992; Kurtz & Hicks-Coolick, 1997; Schunk, 1989) and academic interventions

may be more effective when they incorporate counseling and social behavioral interventions

(e.g., the enhancement of self-efficacy beliefs; Butler, 1998; Zimmerman, 1996). Although

researchers have pointed out the importance of enhancing students’ self-perception, little

attention has been given to how an LDmay be affected by social resources (e.g., role models,

positive reinforcement from others or from success, etc.) of students and whether this

possible reduction of resources may influence the development of self-perception of

students with LD.

Bandura’s (1977, 1986, 1995) explanation of self-efficacy, which emphasizes the impact

of socialization experiences on self-perception, may be applied to the understanding of the

development of concepts of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy expectations refer to one’s beliefs

about his or her ability to successfully perform specific tasks in specific situations. These

beliefs have been hypothesized to influence such human actions as choice of activity, effort

expenditure, and persistence in the face of obstacles, which in turn influence learning

(Bandura, 1986).

Efficacy expectations are hypothesized to be acquired and modified via four major

routes: (1) past performance accomplishment, (2) exposure to and identification with

efficacious models (vicarious learning), (3) access to verbal persuasion and support from

others, and (4) experience of emotional or physiological arousal in the context of task

performance (Bandura, 1986, 1995). These four sources of efficacy information continually

and reciprocally interact to affect performance judgments that in turn influence human

performance.

Research has indicated that high school students with LD tended to have lower

scholastic self-efficacy than students without LD (Clever et al., 1992), and those with

both high ability (IQ>119) and an LD had the lowest academic self-efficacy and

perceived themselves as failures more frequently than did students with high ability

and students with both average ability and an LD (Baum & Owen, 1988). However,

these studies did not enlighten on the mechanisms that might contribute to these

differences.

In a seminal theory-development paper, Hackett and Betz (1981) proposed that personal

self-efficacy expectations may develop differently in females and males due to differential

gender role socialization and resultant differential access to the four sources of efficacy

information. Results of studies that tested the hypothesis of Hackett and Betz have

suggested that gender differences might be attributable to women having relatively less

access to the sources of self-efficacy (Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992;

Matsui, Matsui, & Ohnishi, 1990). Lent and Hackett (1987) also suggested that people with

disabilities may have less access to sources of self-efficacy and that this reduced access may

also affect the self-efficacy beliefs of these individuals.

Although Lent and Hackett’s (1987) study focused on career self-efficacy, their

approach may be applied to the academic self-efficacy beliefs of students with LD.

Students with LD may be expected, as a group, to have lower self-efficacy than students

without disabilities, at least partially because of less access to sources of efficacy

information. For example, compared to students without disabilities, students with LD

have fewer successful experiences in a variety of areas (social competence, academic

achievement, etc.). They commonly face internal (e.g., maladjustment to their disability)

N.Z. Hampton, E. Mason / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 101–112102

and social barriers (e.g., rejection by peers or others) in the education realm. In addition,

students with LD often receive poor grades for academic and test performance (Wilczenski

& Gillespie-Silver, 1991). When this repeated failure becomes internalized, weakened

beliefs about one’s ability to achieve in the academic field results. This weakened sense of

efficacy in turn may limit the level of future performance these students are willing to try

and their persistence under stressful conditions. Low perceptions of ability, thereby, become

reinforced by experience.

Much research indicates that modeling is an effective means of enhancing students’

efficacy beliefs and academic achievement (Bandura, 1995; Rosenthal & Zimmerman,

1978; Shunk & Zimmerman, 1997). However, modeling tends to occur when the observer

and the target person possess similar characteristics (Bandura, 1995). Success, particularly

in academic settings, tends to be more prominent among students without LD. There have

been fewer reports about outstanding students with LD who have surmounted external

barriers and become role models for others. This limited availability of role models for

academic success may further limit students with LD in developing efficacious expect-

ations.

Furthermore, many students with LD are participating in ‘‘pull-out’’ or alternative

programs in general education classrooms. Researchers reported that both the pull-out and

inclusion programs had problems meeting the needs of students with LD (Schulte, Osborne,

& Erchul, 1998). For example, special education teachers in the pull-out program often

have large case loads. They experience difficulties scheduling students with similar needs

into the resource room at the same time to allow small group instruction. Many general

education teachers lack sufficient resources (e.g., remedial technique training, reducing

teaching loads, available planning time, etc.) to cope with the diversity of students and to

meet the unique needs of these students, though they were concerned about these needs

(Wills, 1994; Vaugh & Schumm, 1996; Zigmond & Baker, 1995). It is possible that students

with LD may not get enough specialized attention in a crowded classroom. This may be

reflected in the findings of prior studies that students with LD generally scored higher on

anxiety measures than students without disabilities and thus may experience more internal

physiological stress with decreasing perceptions of self-efficacy (Cohen, 1986; Huntington

& Bender, 1993).

School teachers, whose positions lend them considerable influence and power over

students’ experiences, may unwittingly contribute to disabled students’ lesser exposure to

verbal persuasion pertinent to the development of strong expectations of self-efficacy

(Minner & Prater, 1984). This kind of unintentional communication with students with

disabilities may cause the students to receive less encouragement for success from

others.

Although previous studies indicated that students with LD may have lower self-efficacy

than students without disabilities, the investigations to date have primarily focused on the

differences in self-efficacy beliefs between students with and without LD, and not on

mechanisms that might contribute to the differences. The present study was designed to

explore relationships among LD status, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs,

and academic achievement. We hypothesized that gender and LD status would be indirectly

related to self-efficacy beliefs through the sources of efficacy, and self-efficacy in turn

would affect academic performance.

N.Z. Hampton, E. Mason / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 101–112 103

Methods

Sample

Participants were 278 high school students (82 in the 9th grade, 80 in the 10th grade, 59

in the 11th grade, and 57 in the 12th grade) in two urban-county public school districts in a

southeastern state of the United States. Of the participants (138 males and 140 females), 128

were designated as students with LD, 150 were not so designated. The average age of the

participants was 16.09 with a standard deviation of 1.38. Three of the participants were

Asian Americans, 2 Hispanics, 2 Native Americans, 57 African Americans, and the

remainder (214) were Caucasian Americans. The parental education levels of the partic-

ipants ranged from 11th grade to doctoral degree.

The two urban-county districts serve a total of approximately 165,000 students at K-12

levels. The overall enrollment was approximately 83% Caucasian, between 13% and 17%

African American, with all other groups accounting for between 2% and 3%. The student

per teacher rate was 16 and 17 in the two districts. The dropout rate for high school students

was approximately 5% and 6% for 1994–1995 in the two districts. Pull-out services were

offered to LD students identified by the school system.

In this state, students are identified as LD according to state-established criteria based on

federal laws. Two methods are acceptable for determining eligibility for LD classification.

The first, called the Regression Estimated True Score Method, requires that students’ scores

on a standardized ability test and a standardized achievement test significantly differ from

each other. Nomographic tables are provided to the school psychologist and the team

members (e.g., teachers, parents, principals, special educators, speech pathologists) for

making this determination. The second method depends more on clinical judgment of the

school psychologist and other professional staff in a team decision. It is used only when the

first method is deemed inappropriate for reasons that may or may not be associated with the

child’s disability (e.g., first language is not English).

Procedure

Participants were selected in two phases. First, the two largest districts were chosen from

the state’s public school directory. The larger district had 2802 LD students in Grades 9–12.

The smaller one had 286. Four high schools from a total of 29 in the two public school

districts were randomly selected (three schools from the larger district and one school from

the smaller district). Letters requesting participation and providing an introduction to the

study were mailed to the school principals. Among the four schools, one principal from the

larger district indicated that he did not want his school to participate, and a replacement

school from the same district was selected.

Once the participant schools were identified, we obtained lists of school-identified

students with LD from special education teachers of the participating schools. We then

obtained lists of students in social studies classes from the schools. The social studies

course was required of all students. Students with and without LD were assigned to attend

classes together and the lists of students in social studies classes contained both. The social

studies teachers were entrusted to request students in their classes to participate in the study.


Two hundred and ninety-four students’ parents agreed to let their children participate.

However, 16 students were absent on the day(s) when the questionnaires were distributed.

A total of 278 students actually participated in the study.

A master sheet to enable identification of participants with and without LD by code for

each class was prepared. Coded envelopes were prepared for each participant containing

copies of the Sources of Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (SASES), the Self-Efficacy for

Learning Scale (SELS), and the demographic form. The coded envelopes and the master

sheet were distributed to social studies teachers. Teachers distributed the coded envelopes,

according to the master sheet, to each participant and read the instructions to all

participants. Each participant completed the questionnaires (in class) by circling the best

answer. Participants without LD completed the questionnaires on their own. However,

teachers assisted participants with LD in completing the questionnaires by reading the

materials to them. Teachers collected the completed materials from the participants and

returned them to the investigators. Each participant received $5.00 for participating in the

study. Students who chose not to participate were assigned other tasks by the teachers.

Measures

The SASES (Hampton, 1998) consists of four subscales corresponding to the four

primary sources of self-efficacy described by Bandura (1986), that is, personal performance

accomplishment, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and emotional arousal. A previous

study with 196 high school students with and without LD indicated that the Cronbach alpha

coefficient was .91 for the overall SASES, .87 for the past performance accomplishment

subscale, .79 for the social persuasion subscale, .85 for the vicarious learning subscale, and

.83 for the emotional arousal subscale (Hampton, 1998). Criterion and construct validity

were explored in the same study by studying correlations between scores on the SASES and

other measures designed to measure similar constructs. The SASES correlated with the

Source of Mathematics Efficacy Scale (Lent et al., 1991; r =.57, p >.01), the General Self-

Esteem Scale (Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; r=.45, p >.01), and the Academic Locus of

Control Scale (Trice, 1985; r=� .51, p>.01).

The SELS was used to measure the academic self-efficacy beliefs of the participants.

The SELS contains 11 items that measure students’ perceived capability to perform well in

the classroom and to organize school-related tasks. For each item, students rated their

perceived self-efficacy according to a 4-point scale, with higher scores reflecting greater

efficacy. Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992) reported Cronbach alpha for the

SELS to be .87. In addition, math and English scores of the participants were obtained from

the schools at the end of the semester.

Results

An exploratory descriptive analysis was initially conducted. Means, standard devia-

tions, and Pearson product–moment correlations for each variable are presented by

gender and disability subgroups in Table 1. Analysis of variance was conducted to

compare means across the gender and disability subgroups. Because age was correlated


with self-efficacy in school-identified students with LD, it was used as a control

variable. Compared to students without LD, school-identified LD students had signifi-

cantly less accomplishment in the past, F(4,273) = 67.97, p < .0001; fewer role models,

F(4,273) = 53.45, p < .0001; less positive reinforcement from others, F(4,273) = 6.71,

Table 1

Variable Means and Correlations by Gender-Disability Status Subgroup

Variable Mean SD Past Vica Pers Emot SELS1 SELS2 Math

Males with LD

Past 40.26 7.70

Vica 44.23 7.29 .64**

Pers 35.64 6.65 .24* .27*

Emot 33.03 7.65 .28* .36** .21

SELS1 12.36 5.92 .50** .58** .30** .41**

SELS2 13.14 6.28 .29* .39** .32** .25* .61**

Math 2.22 1.45 .35** .39** .17 .45** .49** .18

English 2.53 1.11 .15 .13 .07 .31** .28* .06 .54**

Males without LD

Past 47.82 8.57

Vica 49.52 7.82 .55**

Pers 38.95 6.64 .53** .54**

Emot 34.98 6.71 .19 .20 .43**

SELS1 15.69 3.79 .67** .47** .44** .18

SELS2 16.72 5.19 .62** .43** .41** .12 .75**

Math 2.95 1.04 .58** .53** .56** .12 .49** .52**

English 2.74 1.26 .41** .31** .29** .12 .35** .58** .50**

Females with LD

Past 36.31 7.02

Vica 40.88 6.57 .31*

Pers 36.33 5.61 .34* .32*

Emot 33.00 7.21 .24 .35* .05

SELS1 12.90 4.68 .55** .40** .21 .20

SELS2 13.35 4.89 .46** .31* .10 � .08 .59**

Math 1.76 1.39 .53** .27 .05 � .16 .33* .35*

English 2.41 1.17 .43** .39** � .01 � .18 .47** .30** .77**

Females without LD

Past 47.69 8.65

Vica 52.28 8.32 .70**

Pers 39.26 6.62 .18 .30**

Emot 36.89 7.16 .40** .41** .12

SELS1 15.43 3.54 .66** .58** .29** .25*

SELS2 16.33 5.81 .64** .53** .25* .08 .64**

Math 2.72 1.04 .56** .42** .27** .09 .60** .63**

English 2.98 1.06 .49** .44** .20 .08 .57** .60** .57**

Past = past performance; Vica = vicarious learning; Pers = social persuasion; Emot = emotional arousal; SELS1=

self-efficacy for tasks in classroom; SELS2 = self-efficacy for organizing school-related activities.

*p< .05.

**p< .01.


p < .01; and higher anxiety level, F(4,273) = 8.89, p < .01. They had significantly lower

self-efficacy for performing tasks in the classroom, F(4,273) = 8.24, p < .01, and

significantly lower self-efficacy for organizing school-related activities, F(4,273) =

5.20, p < .05. School-identified LD students also had significantly lower scores of math,

F(4,273) = 22.24, p< .0001, and English, F(4,273) = 4.2, p < .05. In addition, female

students had significantly less past performance accomplishment, F(4,273) = 4.41,

p < .05, and significantly lower math scores, F(4,273) = 5.10, p < .05.

To further explore the theoretical significance of these findings, the data were subjected

to structural equation modeling (Bentler, 1992; Bollen & Long, 1993; Maruyama, 1998).

This required establishing a hypothesized structural relationship among the variables based

on Bandura’s theory. This structural analysis is depicted in Fig. 1. According to the model,

performance as measured by the English and math scores would show direct effects from

sense of self-efficacy, which in turn is directly effected by sources of efficacy. Gender and

LD status will be indirectly related to self-efficacy beliefs through sources of efficacy. The

establishment of the measurement model is necessary before testing the fit of the structural

model. The measurement model establishes the connection between the constructs in the

model and the underlying data that defines them.

Assessment of Measurement Model

The SASES was designed with four factors (past performance accomplishment,

vicarious learning, social persuasion, and emotional arousal). Confirmatory factor analysis

was done as a first step to determine the adequacy of factor loadings and model fit of the

SASES using the AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). All factor loadings for the latent

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model relating gender, LD status, past performance, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and

emotional arousal to sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement. SELS1= self-efficacy for

tasks in classroom, SELS2= self-efficacy for organizing school-related activities.


source variable were statistically significant (the z statistics for factor loadings were all

greater than 1.96) and in the expected direction.

Conventional fit statistics provided by the AMOS 4.0 program include chi-square with

corresponding degrees of freedom and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). Because the chi-

square test is affected by model and sample size (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the suggestion

of Byrne (2001) and McDonald and Ho (2002) was followed to use four measures of fit to

evaluate how well the data fit the proposed model: the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio,

the GFI and the normed-fit index (NFI), the comparative-fit-index (CFI), and the expected

cross-validation index (ECVI). The ECVI measures the discrepancy between the fitted

covariance matrix in the analyzed sample and the expected covariance matrix that would

be obtained in another sample of equivalent size. By default, the AMOS 4.0 computes

three models: (a) the hypothesized model, (b) a saturated model which is the least

restricted model, and (c) an independent model which is the most restricted model. The

model that has the smallest ECVI value exhibits the greatest potential for replication

(Byrne, 2001).

As indicated by the following GFIs, the four-factor (sources) solution fit the data well,

specifically, chi-square/df = 0.23, GFI=.99, and NFI=.99. In addition, our model had the

smallest ECVI value (ECVI=.059) compared with the saturated model (ECVI=.072) and

the independent model (ECVI = 1.064). As a check on the reliability of the SASES,

Cronbach alphas for the SASES were computed and were found to range from .77 to .89 for

the subscales.

Assessment of Structural Model

The hypothesis that the associations among gender, LD status, and self-efficacy beliefs

would be mediated by sources of self-efficacy belief was tested by the structural equation

model (Fig. 1). In this model, source is a latent variable specified by four factors: past

performance accomplishment, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and emotional arousal.

Self-efficacy was specified by efficacy for class learning and efficacy for organizing school-

related activities. Academic performance was specified by math and English achievement

scores. AMOS full information maximum likelihood estimates were computed and the path

to the last indicator for each dependent latent variable and the variances of all errors and

residual errors were fixed at 1.00.

Table 2

Estimates, Standard Errors, and Critical Ration of Structural Parameters

Parameter Unstandardized est. Standardized est. SE CR

Gender– sources .33 .05 .35 .93

LD status– sources 3.60 .57** .60 6.04

Gender–efficacy � .26 � .03 .43 � .61

LD status–efficacy � 1.41 � .15 .57 � 2.48

Sources–efficacy 1.33 .95** .21 6.20

Efficacy–performance .13 .74** .02 7.98

v2 = 63.08 ( p=.001). Est. = estimate; SE = standard error; CR= critical ration.

**p< .01.


The results indicated that the overall model fit the data reasonably well. The following

indexes were utilized as evidence of fit: chi-square/df = 2.03, GFI=.96, NFI=.94, CFI=.97,

RMSEA=.06). The model explained 55% of the variance in academic performance. The

structural parameter estimates are presented in Table 2. The findings showed that (a) LD

status was associated with sources of efficacy but not self-efficacy belief, (b) gender was

not related to sources of efficacy nor self-efficacy belief, (c) sources of efficacy were

associated with efficacy, and (d) self-efficacy was related to academic achievement.

Direct, indirect, and total effects of the indicators on sources, self-efficacy, and academic

achievement are presented in Table 3. Examinations of the structural relations revealed that

(a) LD status had indirect impact on self-efficacy via the influence on the source variable,

(b) gender did not have direct or indirect impact on self-efficacy, (c) the source variable had

direct impact on self-efficacy, and (d) self-efficacy had direct impact on academic

achievement.

The effects of parents’ educational level and age were also studied in relation to the

model depicted in Fig. 1. Specifically, the effects of parent educational level were applied as

exogenous effects on sources and self-efficacy, and age on self-efficacy. With the addition

of these variables, the model did not fit as well according to the fit indices (chi-square/

df = 4.31, GFI=.89, NFI=.82, CFI=.84, RMSEA=.11). The model explained less of the

variance in performance than the first model (R2=.497). Results of the augmented analysis

suggested that the more parsimonious model first tested was more useful in explaining the

relationships between the LD status, efficacy, and performance.

Discussions

The acceptability of the fit of the proposed model suggested that students with LDs may

be disadvantaged in the availability of appropriate sources to form self-efficacy in learning.

The results supported the hypothesis that the influence of LD status was mediated by sources

of efficacy. In other words, LD status did not have a direct effect on self-efficacy beliefs but it

had an indirect effect on self-efficacy through its influence on the sources of self-efficacy.

Table 3

Standardized Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of Exogenous Variables on Sources, Efficacy, and Achievement

Variables Direct Indirect Total

Effects on sources

Gender .05 .00 .05

LD status .57 .00 .57

Effects on self-efficacy

Gender � .03 .05 .02

LD status � .15 .54 .38

Sources .95 .00 .95

Effects on achievement

Efficacy .74 .00 .74

LD= learning disability.


This finding was in line with the work of Lent andHackett (1987) who postulated that people

with disabilities had less access to all sources of self-efficacy and the reduced sources of

efficacy information in turn affected the self-efficacy beliefs of these individuals.

The present research, in concert with previous studies (Lent et al., 1991; Matsui et al.,

1990), found that four sources of efficacy for learning were significantly related to self-

efficacy beliefs, which in turn influenced academic performance. Students who have more

sources of efficacy appeared to have higher self-efficacy beliefs and higher academic

achievement. On the other hand, the present study failed to find a relationship between

gender and self-efficacy belief. Hackett and Betz (1995) pointed out that self-efficacy beliefs

might be associated with perceptions of gender-related tasks and activities. They asserted

that the more gender-stereotypical a task is perceived to be, the more likely a gender

difference in self-efficacy will appear (Hackett & Betz, 1995). However, when we examined

the SELS closely, the 11 tasks on the scale appeared to bemore like general academic-related

activities (e.g., finish homework assignments by deadlines) than gender-stereotypical

activities (e.g., get the answer before others do in math classes). This may be responsible

for the lack of differences in self-efficacy between males and females in this study.

Overall, findings of the current study supported Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy and

shed light on the identification of potential mechanisms that contribute to differences in

self-efficacy beliefs between students with and without LD. Given the fit and the large

amount of variance explained by the hypothesized model in this study, we suggest that

future research on interventions to enhance academic performance of students with LD may

focus on the increase of the sources of efficacy beliefs.

Several limitations to the present study should be acknowledged. First, LD was defined

in a very specific manner in this study. All the students with LD in the study were identified

by their schools. Although all the participating schools used the same diagnostic criteria for

LDs, the members of the diagnostic team in each school were different. This might affect

the determination of LDs and was certainly a limitation to this study. Second, the present

study used two self-reported instruments to measure sources of self-efficacy and self-

efficacy beliefs. It is possible that participants overestimated or underestimated the sources

of academic self-efficacy and their abilities to perform academic related activities. This may

affect how much variance is accounted for by sources of self-efficacy. In addition, LD is a

diverse syndrome that manifests differently in different individuals, groups, and settings.

The present study was unable to examine influences of different types of LDs on sources of

efficacy. Future research may explore how different kinds of LDs impact processing of

information from the environment that might affect sources of efficacy and the development

of self-efficacy belief.

References

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.

Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: a longitudinal analysis of the impact of

educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 365–380.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unified theory of behavior change.Psychological Review, 94, 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.


Bandura, A. (1995). Experience of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.),

Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baum, S., & Owen, S. V. (1988). High ability/learning disabled students: how are they different? Gifted Child

Quarterly, 32, 321–326.

Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariance and methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin,

112, 400–404.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance

structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Berninger, V. (1997). Introduction to interventions for students with learning problems. School Psychology

Review, 26, 326–332.

Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: a report of

three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682–697.

Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Clever, A., Bear, G., & Juvomen, J. (1992). Discrepancies between competence and importance in self-percep-

tions of children in integrated classes. Journal of Special Education, 26, 125–138.

Cohen, J. (1986). Learning disabilities and psychological development in childhood and adolescence. Annals of

Dyslexia, 36, 287–300.

Deno, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students

with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.

Fletcher, J. M. (2002). Assessment of reading and learning disabilities: a research-based intervention-oriented

approach. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 27–63.

Kurtz, P., & Hicks-Coolick, A. (1997). Preparing students with learning disabilities for success in postsecondary

education: needs and services. Social Work in Education, 19, 31–42.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 18, 326–339.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1995). Self-efficacy and career choice and development. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),

Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: theory, research and application (pp. 249–280). New York:

Plenum.

Hampton, N. Z. (1998). Sources of Academic Self-Efficacy Scale: an assessment tool for rehabilitation counse-

lors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41, 260–277.

Huntington, D., & Bender, W. N. (1993). Adolescents with learning disabilities at risk: emotional well-being,

depression, suicide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 159–166.

Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: empirical status and future directions. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 30, 347–382.

Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: sources and relation to science-

based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424–430.

Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high school students. The Career

Development Quarterly, 41, 3–12.

Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basic of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-efficacy learning of college

students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 225–238.

McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psycho-

logical Methods, 7, 64–82.

Minner, S., & Prater, G. (1984). College teachers expectations of LD students. Academic Therapy, 20, 225–229.

Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York: Academic Press.

Sandoval, J. (1993). The history of interventions in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 31,

195–217.

Schulte, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & Erchul, W. P. (1998). Effective special education: a United States dilemma.

School Psychology Review, 2, 66–76.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: implications for students with learning problems.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14–22.


Shunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychol-

ogist, 32, 195–208.

Trice, A. D. (1985). An academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61,

1043–1046.

Vaugh, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). Classroom ecologies: classroom interactions and implications for inclusion of

students with learning disabilities. In D. L. Speece, & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies:

implications for inclusion of students with learning disabilities (pp. 107–124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wilczenski, F. L., & Gillespie-Silver, P. (1991, February). Academic performance of enrolled learning disabled

and nonlearning disabled university students classified by two objective admission criteria. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Wills, S. (1994, October). Making schools more inclusive: teaching children with disabilities in regular class-

rooms. ASCD Curriculum Update, 1–8.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. M. (1995). An exploration of the meaning and practice of special education in the

context of full inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29, 109.

Zimmerman, B. (1996). Enhancing student academic and health functioning: a self-regulatory perspective. School

Psychology Quarterly, 11, 47–66.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: the role

of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.


learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement...

Documents