View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Using Personal Construct Theory to Explore Self-Image with Adolescents with Learning Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Using Personal Construct Theory to Explore Self-Image with Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Thomas, Samantha, Butler, Richard, Hare, Dougal Julian, Green, David
Source: British Journal of Learning Disabilities. Sep 2011 39(3):225-232.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2011
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Learning Disabilities, Well Being, Adolescents, Foreign Countries, Self Concept, Theories
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3156.2010.00659.x
ISSN: 1354-4187
Abstract: A young person's construct of self can be fundamental to their psychological well being (Glick 1999; Emler 2001). However limited research has been conducted in the United Kingdom to explore self-image with adolescents with learning disabilities. Previous studies have demonstrated the effective use of personal construct theory with children (Maxwell 2006) and adults with learning disabilities (Hare 1997) and this paper proposes that personal construct elicitation methods can be used to help adolescents with learning disabilities communicate and share their self-constructs. Four personal construct elicitation methods were used successfully to support students to discuss constructs of self, suggesting that personal construct theory can be used to guide an exploration of self-image with adolescents with learning disabilities. The students in this study construed their self-image hierarchically using psychological constructs over nine different dimensions of self.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2011
Accession Number: EJ934879
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEkDsms_mcZ6ebIlJnquxDkAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDM1vLLHdS0lR6dUIlQIBEICBmjJBvjZms09WfxgfVoNYU-9iPpX2XqTwi0HnLyRG9Z0Kv-4igsfTVw8_DYHSmgTFOpKqcxXdOiYV-OtzVNrW5JjRBf38XOgs3xHeNb90dCPwRCvSwrTZQZD5lZXjBjLDxd1pO1Uh0xa1Jw3Ubc6Dlu25-H32ZLWpFLjShUcQ-cQtJOjk_Z2uuuBxoCDW1oKGmpRfsHcoYnbY7Js=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0064072956;f0401sep.11;2019Jun04.10:58;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0064072956-1">Using personal construct theory to explore self-image with adolescents with learning disabilities. </title> <p>Accessible summary: • Sometimes it can be hard for young people to explain to their teachers and supporters how they see themselves and what is important to them.• This research different questions and drawings to ask young people with learning disabilities how they described themselves.• The young people in this study found the questions and drawings helped them to share ideas about themselves with other people. Summary: A young person's construct of self can be fundamental to their psychological well being (Glick 1999; Emler 2001). However limited research has been conducted in the United Kingdom to explore self‐image with adolescents with learning disabilities. Previous studies have demonstrated the effective use of personal construct theory with children (Maxwell 2006) and adults with learning disabilities (Hare 1997) and this paper proposes that personal construct elicitation methods can be used to help adolescents with learning disabilities communicate and share their self‐constructs. Four personal construct elicitation methods were used successfully to support students to discuss constructs of self, suggesting that personal construct theory can be used to guide an exploration of self‐image with adolescents with learning disabilities. The students in this study construed their self‐image hierarchically using psychological constructs over nine different dimensions of self.</p> <p>Keywords: personal construct theory; self‐image; Adolescents</p> <p>Positive self‐image in young people is associated with improved health and behaviour ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]), whereas poor self‐image is seen to increase risk‐taking, self‐harm, eating disorders and suicide attempts ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref3">45</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>] theorises that young people with negative self‐image may be more inclined to treat themselves badly and in turn invite others to treat them negatively. These factors are equally relevant to adolescents with learning disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref5">53</reflink>]). However, there has been limited research in the United Kingdom to explore self‐image from the perspective of young people themselves.</p> <p>Generally, the process of self‐construing appears to follow a developmental pathway, becoming increasingly detailed and complex ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]). Between 4 to 7 years, construing is primarily in concrete and physical terms ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]), with emerging social and psychological self‐descriptions ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]). By 8 years old self‐constructs are more abstract and demonstrate a greater degree of social awareness but may still be very polarised ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). In adolescence, self‐image encompasses occupational ideas, beliefs, morals, quality of social relationships and abilities, as the individual establishes who they are and who they want to be ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref14">37</reflink>]). Young people experience 'multiple selves' as they recognise that they can show different and often contradictory sides of themselves in different situations and struggle to reconcile these apparently conflicting images ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]). However, individuals are of course more complex than their cognitive ability may imply, and [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref16">52</reflink>] suggests that developmental models do not necessarily allow for individual variation in the development of the self. In particular, the social world is significant in the establishment of core self‐constructs, so as an individual construes other people they develop the construct system that influences their own behaviour ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-2">Self‐image and learning disabilities</hd> <p>With a few exceptions (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]), much less is known about the development of self‐concept in young people with different psychological and social experiences, such as adolescents with learning disabilities. To date, few studies have been based on first‐person data. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref19">54</reflink>] used items from the [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]'real and ideal' self‐image scale to examine the self‐image of adolescents with learning disabilities, comparing institutionalised and noninstitutionalised students, with the former reporting lower self‐image regardless of cognitive ability. However, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref21">33</reflink>] subsequently reported negative self‐image in younger noninstitutionalised children with learning disabilities (6–11 years) again using the Katz–Zigler scale, which was taken to reflect being in special educational provision. This interpretation is challenged by [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref22">51</reflink>], who noted differences in the way that these students viewed themselves over different dimensions of self, suggesting that whilst they may hold negative views of their academic self in comparison with nonlearning disabled peers, their social and general self‐image was more positive. Moreover, self‐image research in this population is compromised through a focus on specific conditions (e.g. Downs syndrome) and inconsistencies in age of participants, measures of self used, definition of learning disability and the dimensions of self assessed, as well as using standardised assessment measures rather than directly interviewing young people with learning disabilities.</p> <p>Work by [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>] with 12‐ to 17‐year‐olds attending special educational classes used the Katz–Zigler items and the 'Self‐Perception Scale for Children' ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref24">26</reflink>]). They also asked for spontaneous self‐descriptions using a sentence completion task (e.g. '<emph>I am a person who</emph>...'; '<emph>I don't want to be a person who...</emph>'), which elicited a wide range of psychological, physical and behavioural constructs. Using both formal measures and spontaneous descriptions elicited self‐constructs that remained stable and consistent over a period of weeks and found that adolescents with learning disabilities described a wide range of positive and negative self‐descriptions. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>] similarly used open questions with 9‐ to 11‐year olds with learning disabilities to elicit their experiences of special education. In so doing, they provided examples of self‐constructs and comparisons of themselves with their peers.</p> <p>Research therefore indicates that adolescents with learning disabilities can describe a variety of self‐constructs across different dimensions of self when supported with appropriate assessment methods. Thus, part of the difficulty in researching self‐image in adolescents with learning disabilities may lie not with the young person, but with the tools and methods used to try and understand the young persons view. To investigate the utility of different approaches to self‐exploration, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>] examined the self‐concepts of 17‐ to 24‐year‐olds with Down's syndrome using the 'Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Children and Young People' ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]) and the 'Self‐Perception Scale for Learning Disabled Students' ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]) and found that participants often searched for the most positive answers. Moreover, the 'Self‐Perception Scale for Learning Disabled Students' only assessed four domains of self (athletic competence, behavioural conduct, scholastic competence and global self worth), which were not necessarily the domains of relevance to the participants, a criticism that extends to earlier measures such as the [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>] scale.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>] investigated the suitability of pictorial scales of self‐image for children with Down's syndrome, examining the 'Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Children and Young People' and the 'I feel‐Me feel Inventory' ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref31">50</reflink>]). Although pictures are an effective way of overcoming communication difficulties, the forced choice format means that researcher cannot determine whether a picture is selected because it is preferred or because it is the closest or only option. A further disadvantage of these methods is they are standardised using nonlearning disabled students and often younger children. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>] address these and the aforementioned limitations by proposing [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>] personal construct theory (PCT). Specifically, the use of repertory grid methodology as a means to access idiosyncratic self‐concepts to help young people speak for themselves and because the techniques used to create a grid can be adapted to allow for diversity in ability and personal preference.</p> <p>Personal construct theory proposes that individuals develop a unique understanding of reality and do not merely react to their environment but also act on it and in doing so seek to understand the world and their experiences of it ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]). Thus, reality is subjective, being represented uniquely and influenced by the personal interpretations (constructs) brought to and taken from events. Constructs can be fluid and variable, and a range of alternative constructs can develop to make sense of a single event ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]) [see [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>] for further description of PCT]. Thus, there is no attempt to fit an individuals' behaviour to a prescribed or expected pattern, instead they describe what is important to them. Similarly, PCT‐informed practice does not categorise, diagnose or prescribe, nor interpret an individual's behaviour, but supports the individual to understand themselves ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The basis of individual self‐understanding is constructs ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]), with core constructs being essential to our understanding of our sense of self ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]). These exist at a low level of awareness, and we often access them without consciously realising we are doing so ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>]) and form interlocking psychological structures unique to the individual, which permit the anticipation and interpretation of future events.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-3">PCT with adolescents with learning disabilities</hd> <p>The use of PCT‐derived approaches with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities has been reported ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref42">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]), and [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>] suggest that such methods are suitable for working with adolescents with learning disabilities, as they seek the view of young people directly and can be adapted to allow for variation in ability and preference, as well as encouraging the exploration of self across different dimensions of self. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>] suggested that PCT methods appeal because they can be visual, practical, 'nonjudgemental and enjoyable' ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]). The credulous approach inherent in PCT also appears to be particularly relevant for adolescents with learning disabilities, because their views and needs may potentially have been misinterpreted, misunderstood or simply not listened to ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref50">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref51">48</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>] used PCT elicitation methods with 12 adults (20–30 years) who had previously attended a specialist school. They elicited self‐constructs using photographs of the other participants and asking how the person in the photograph was the same or different to the participant. Once a range of constructs were generated, participants ranked the photographs depending on who was 'the best' or 'the worst' for each construct. This proved to be easily accepted by the adults taking part, and overall, the self‐concepts elicited were positive (e.g. <emph>Happy</emph>) and covered five themes (physical appearance, social, emotional, physical strength and popularity. The majority of self‐constructs for this group were stable over a 4‐week period. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>] used PCT techniques with junior school pupils with moderate learning disabilities and used drawings and discussions, guided by [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref54">43</reflink>] to discover constructs about school. Finally, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>] presented a case study showing the effective use of PCT with a 14‐year‐old girl with Down's syndrome. Pictures and photographs were utilised to create a simple repertory grid, enabling her to share her views with her teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-4">Research rational</hd> <p>Limited research has been conducted in the United Kingdom to explore self‐image with adolescents with learning disabilities and to clarify a suitable way in which self‐image can be explored with this client group from the perspective of young people themselves. Previous research has demonstrated the effective use of PCT with children and adults with learning disabilities, and therefore, this research proposes that PCT elicitation methods can also be used to help adolescents with learning disabilities communicate their self‐constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-5">Methodology</hd> <p>Inclusion criteria were; attendance at a Specialist Inclusive Learning Centre (SILC), aged 11–19 years and verbally communicating in English with The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS) ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref56">14</reflink>]) age‐equivalent score of 4 years or above. Exclusion criteria were; inability to demonstrate informed consent, using an electronic talking aid, sign language, picture cards or a translator and a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.</p> <p>A pilot study was completed with six students from a SILC. Students met with the researcher to view drafts of the information sheets and consent forms. They listened to a description of the project and discussed the documents before sharing their ideas about what was confusing, what could be changed and what words or images they thought should be used instead. Significantly, they felt that the information sheets needed less text and could be more evenly spaced out. They also felt that the consent forms should simply offer a yes/no option rather than consenting to individual aspects of the research. This led to the documents being resubmitted and approved by the relevant ethics panel. Following this, a second pilot study was carried out with 10 students to address recruitment, the amended documents and for the researcher to practise the interview procedure.</p> <p>Capacity to participate in this research was addressed with each participant individually by carefully discussing information sheets and the consent forms. Behavioural consent was also used, i.e. participants could withdraw their consent by leaving the study area without giving any explanation ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref57">15</reflink>]). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref58">14</reflink>]) was completed with each participant as an indicator of their verbal comprehension ability.</p> <p>Information sheets and parental permission slips were sent to parents and guardians, because the majority of the potential participants were under 18 years of age, 59% gave their permission for their children to be invited to take part. From the young people invited to participate 56% consented, 14% declined and 29% did not fit the inclusion criteria. A total of 59 participants comprised the final sample (35 men/24 women, 76% White, 18% Asian, 3% Afro‐Caribbean, 3% Dual Heritage). The mean age of participants was 15 years 4 months, with a mean BPVS age‐equivalent score of 6 years 6 months (range 3 years 6 months to 11 years 6 months).</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-6">Research procedure</hd> <p>Participants were interviewed individually using a set procedure. This began with time to establish rapport and discuss information sheets and consent forms. The BPVS was completed followed by four PCT methods of elicitating constructs. The participants asked which method they preferred. All sessions were digitally recorded. The four construct elicitation methods were</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Verbal – Describe yourself ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref59">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref60">42</reflink>]) comprising:</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'If I were to ask you to describe yourself in three ways, what would you say?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'Thank you, now I wonder what would be the opposite of ....?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Or –'if you were not ...... what would you be?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Verbal – Describing Self from Someone Else's Perspective ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref62">42</reflink>]) comprising:</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'Who knows you really well?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'I wonder how (person who knows you well) would describe you'?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'What might (person who knows you well) say about you?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'Thank you, now I wonder; if you were not ...... what would you be?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Visual – Ambiguous Drawings ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref64">42</reflink>]) – participants were shown an ambiguous scene by Ravenette and asked to comment on the images and people:</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'What do you think is happening?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'What do you imagine they are thinking?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'How do you think they are feeling?'</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 4</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Visual – Self‐Portrait ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref65">7</reflink>]) – participants drew a self‐portrait and were then asked 'what sort of person is this?' or 'what is the person in the picture like?'</item> </ulist> <p>The order of presentation of the verbal and visual method pairs was alternated between participants. If participants were physically unable to draw a self‐portrait, a picture was provided using published portraits by young people ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref66">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref67">20</reflink>]). Each interview was conducted with some of the basic principles of PCT in mind, which include acknowledging and respecting everything the participant says and creating a friendly and relaxed experience rather than a formal interview. The words and phrases used are considered an important element of the PCT approach, for example 'I wonder' can be seen as an example of the relaxed and enquiring stance that is central to PCT ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref68">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-7">Method of analysis</hd> <p>Self‐constructs were identified, and thematic analysis was used to sort the constructs into themes by considering the context in which the words appeared and the meaning the word held for the participant ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref69">30</reflink>]). Seven themes were created from the individual constructs and rated by two independent raters using kappa coefficient. The independent raters suggested renaming two themes and adding two themes. A total of nine themes were identified: Social, Emotional, Moral Judgement, Normality and Difference, Physical Appearance, Maturity, Activities, Interests and Possessions, Trying at School and Miscellaneous.</p> <p>Individual self‐constructs were counted, and the most frequent constructs were compared to those elicited in the development of the Self‐Image Profile for Children (SIP‐C) ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>]), Adolescents (SIP‐A, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]) and the pilot of the SIP for Young Children (SIP‐YC, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref72">46</reflink>]), because the same PCT elicitation methods were used.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-8">Results</hd> <p>In total, 201 different self‐constructs were generated across nine different dimensions of self, the mode of different constructs elicited per participant was 14. Figure 1 shows the nine themes, examples of the self‐constructs given by young people and the mode of constructs elicited for each theme. The most common constructs were social and emotional.</p> <p>Graph: 1 Themes and the percentage of constructs elicited.</p> <p>The constructs elicited suggest that the participants were organising their self‐constructs in a hierarchical way. Eighty‐five per cent of the participants gave at least three contrasting poles, and 86% gave at least three examples of subordinate or superordinate constructs, with 75% giving examples of a combination of subordinate and superordinate constructs and contrasting poles. The participants who did not demonstrate hierarchical structures reported the lowest BPVS scores. The structure of the constructs provided is illustrated by the two examples in Fig. 2.</p> <p>Graph: 2 Example construct maps for two participants.</p> <p>The associations between age, age‐equivalent BPVS score and number of constructs elicited were analysed using Person's correlation. Significant correlations were observed between the BPVS score and number of constructs elicited (<emph>r</emph> = 0.272, <emph>P </emph>≤ 0.005) and age (<emph>r</emph> = 0.290, <emph>P</emph> ≤ 0.005). There was no significant correlation between chronological age and number of constructs.</p> <p>There was no significant difference between the number of constructs generated by verbal (8.46) and visual (9.66) elicitation methods (<emph>P </emph>= 0.298). The verbal method of 'Self‐Description' produced the highest number of different constructs for six of the nine themes. Ninety‐two per cent of participants responded to three or more of the elicitation methods, suggesting that the majority of them were able to respond to all the elicitation methods. A two‐way repeated‐measure ANOVA was used to examine differences between the number of themes elicited by the four elicitation methods, but showed no significant differences. Twenty‐four per cent of the participants preferred the verbal elicitation methods, 21% visual methods, while 2% were unsure or did not know and 33% reported enjoying completing the BPVS. Participants responded to the laddering and pyramiding prompts used in the study, with 85% using at least two contrasting poles (mean = 5) and 61% using at least two hierarchical structures (mean = 4).</p> <p>A comparison was made between the self‐constructs elicited in this study and those elicited from adolescents without learning disabilities using the (A‐LD) with the most frequently elicited constructs from the pilot SIP‐YC (4–6 years), the SIP‐C (7–11 years) and the SIP‐A (12–16 years), which indicated comparable numbers for the SIP‐YC and SIP‐A (Fig. 3).</p> <p>Graph: 3 Comparable results from the SIP‐YC, SIP‐C and SIP‐AD. SIP, Self‐Image Profile.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-9">Participants with low verbal comprehension levels</hd> <p>BPVS scores were significantly correlated with numbers of constructs elicited, and analysis revealed differences in the complexity and themes of their constructs for participants with lower BPVS scores. Therefore, the data set was divided, and the results from the eight participants with BPVS scores below 5‐year age‐equivalent were analysed separately. Further research with a larger sample is clearly needed, and not all students with low verbal ability could demonstrate understanding of the project.</p> <p>The students who did participate shared fewer constructs (mean = 11) compared to the other participants (mean = 14) and a reduction in the variety of responses and themes. For example, participants often repeated the constructs they gave and gave more single construct answers (mean = 8) compared to other participants (mean = 14), 92% responded to three or more elicitation methods, but only 35% of the group used at least two contrasting poles with 40% using at least two examples of hierarchical structures.</p> <p>This group did not use constructs relating to 'Normality and Difference' and 'Maturity'. They were more likely to involve 'Physical Appearance', 'Interests, Activities and Possessions', 'Miscellaneous' (a reflection on what they could see). This could indicate that students cognitive abilities remains close to the pre‐operational stage ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref73">40</reflink>]), in which a child's focus is 'captivated by appearances' and often struggle to consider the thoughts and emotions of other people as being distinct from their own. The move to concrete operational thinking, around the age of 5 or 6 years, enables children to seek the motivation and meaning behind an action and to apply more abstract ideas ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]), as seen in the majority of students in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-10">Discussion and implications</hd> <p>Participants provided 201 unique constructs over nine dimensions of self, described their self‐constructs and offered insight into what was important to their sense of self. Moreover, the present study sample has demonstrated the diversity and complexity of self‐concept in this population by exploring the way self‐constructs were organised and highlighting nine dimensions of self, in contrast to previous studies reporting fewer dimensions ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref75">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref76">51</reflink>]). The students in the current study also used superordinate constructs. Both positive and negative self‐constructs were elicited, and even participants with reduced verbal abilities were able to engage in exploring and sharing their view.</p> <p>In support of cognitive developmental theories of self ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref77">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref78">28</reflink>]), participants with the highest BPVS scores showed more contrasting poles and hierarchical organisation of constructs across a range of dimensions of self, compared those with lower BPVS scores. However, all participants had low abilities compared to their same age peers but were not hindered in engaging in this study and sharing unique and often complex self‐constructs, suggesting that cognitive developmental factors influence but do not determine self‐image in people with intellectual disabilities as indicated by a purely cognitive developmental view ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]). Similarly, low BPVS scores were associated with self‐construal primarily in physical terms (cf [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref80">28</reflink>]), but the majority of participants, with BPVS scores above a 5‐year age‐equivalent construed used primarily 'social' and 'emotional' constructs. With regard to the use of construct elicitation methods, 94% of the participants in the study provided self‐constructs using three or more of the elicitation methods. Both verbal and visual PCT elicitation methods were effective, and students reported enjoying using both methods equally.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-11">Self from another's perspective</hd> <p>Forty‐seven per cent of participants acknowledged that other people may see them in a different way to the way they see themselves, for example appearing 'untidy' or 'naughty' from the perspective of a parent or teacher. Seeking a self‐description from an external perspective often encouraged participants to share an alternative viewpoint, for example one participant described himself as 'polite' and 'happy', but acknowledged that his parents might describe him as 'sad' because he 'might get arrested'. In a therapeutic context, this could be explored further. PCT suggests that whichever viewpoint is used, the answers generated by the young person are representative of their constructs of the world ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref82">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-12">A comparison with the self‐constructs of students without learning disabilities</hd> <p>Researchers often seek to divide groups into pre‐determined categories of conditions or disorders; however, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>] suggested that such practice is flawed because of the 'commonality corollary', suggesting that while every individual is likely to employ a unique system of constructs, they will always have some constructs 'in common' with other people ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref84">19</reflink>]). In this study, the researcher has created a group of students on the basis of their having a learning disability and attending a SILC, but the students themselves have demonstrated that they construe their world and sense of self in much the same way as the students who participated in the SIPs ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref85">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref86">46</reflink>]). The existing SIP's shared six self‐constructs with the present study sample, 'friendly', 'hardworking', 'happy', 'kind', 'helpful' and 'bored'. The verbal and cognitive skills of the students in this sample may vary, but the content of their self‐constructs is remarkably similar.</p> <p>When reviewing the most frequently elicited constructs in the present study compared to those in SIPs, the researcher was stuck by the similarity to the language seen in the pilot SIP for young children (4–6 years) ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref87">46</reflink>]), for example nasty, bad and smiley. From a PCT perspective, the self‐constructs of the participants in the present study will have developed over time through their desire to seek meaning from their world ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>]), and if people use 'childish' language, then young people with learning disabilities may well adopt this language to describe their own self‐constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-13">Clinical and educational implications</hd> <p>The current study highlights the benefits of using PCT techniques when supporting clients with learning disabilities to share their views of themselves and their world. Clinicians should not settle for concrete and singular constructs or assume that these will reflect the totality of a person's self‐concept, because the use of PCT laddering and pyramiding techniques may elicit a more complex picture. In a clinical context, seeking to explore the construction corollary with young people could assist in understanding poor self‐image and to address self‐esteem issues. For example, repertory grids and the SIPS ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]) use contrasting poles to explore self‐esteem by asking young people to rate themselves between a given construct and a contrasting pole that has been provided by the young person.</p> <p>PCT methods could be used in the 'Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning' programs that some of the participating SILCs are incorporating into their curriculum (SEAL, DfES, 2005). PCT could also provide additional tools for transitions workers (who supports young people as they leave school) and for young people completing their Person Centred Planning ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref90">13</reflink>]). Finally, a conscious effort to take a credulous approach could also have benefits, as the voices of people with learning disabilities are often undervalued or 'not heard'. For example, the researcher noted that students with the lowest BPVS scores were more likely, compared to the majority of the sample, to be introduced to the researcher with a whispered message, suggesting that the young person would not understand or be able to help with the research. This served as a powerful reminder of the ease with which the 'whole person' ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref91">52</reflink>]) can be forgotten when someone has significant cognitive or verbal difficulties.</p> <hd id="AN0064072956-14">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors thank the students and teachers who collaborated on this paper. This research was completed with the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and The University of Leeds.</p> <ref id="AN0064072956-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref81" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams‐Webber J.R. & Mancuso J.C. (1983) Applications of personal construct theory. Toronto, Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref88" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bannister D. & Agnew J. (1976) The child's construing of self. Neb Symp Motiv, 99 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Begley A. (1999) The self‐perceptions of pupils with downs syndrome in relation to their academic competence, physical competence and social acceptance. Int J Disabil Dev Educ, 46 : 515 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Begley A. & Lewis A. (1998) Methodological issues in the assessment of the self‐concept of children with downs syndrome. Child Psychol Psychiat Rev, 3 : 33 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref70" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Butler R.J. (2001) The self‐image profile for children (SIP‐C) and adolescents (SIP‐A). Manual. London, The Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Butler R.J. (2006) Investigating the content of core constructs. Personal Construct Theory and Practise, 3 : 27 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref65" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Butler R.J. & Green D. (2007) The child within; taking the young persons perspective by applying personal construct psychology, 2nd edn. Oxford, Butterworth‐Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bybee J., Glick M. & Zigler E. (1990) Differences across gender, grade level, and academic track in the content of the real self‐image. Sex Roles, 22 : 349 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dalgas‐Pelish P. (2006) Effects of a self‐esteem intervention program on school age children. Paediatr Nurs, 32 : 341 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalton P. & Dunnett G. (1999) A psychology for living: personal construct theory for professionals and clients. Farnborough, EPCA Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damon W. & Hart D. (1982) The development of self‐understanding from infancy through adolescence. Child Dev, 53 : 841 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damon W. & Hart D. (1988) Self‐understanding in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Health (2001) Valuing people: a new start for learning disabilities for the 21st century. A White‐Paper, UK. Stationary Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn L.M., Dunn L.M., Whetton C. & Burley J. (2006) The British picture vocabulary scale. London, NFER Nelson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dye L., Hare D.J. & Hendy S. (2007) Capacity of people with intellectual disabilities to consent to take part in a research study. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil, 20 : 168 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emler N. (2001) Self‐esteem. The costs and causes of low self‐worth. York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erikson E.H. (1959) Identity and the life cycle. Psychol Issues, 1 : 18 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox P. & Norwich B. (1992) Assessing the self perception of young adults with severe learning disabilities. Eur J Spec Needs Educ, 7 : 193 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fransella F. & Dalton P. (1990) Personal construct psychology in action. London, Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gil E. & Malchiodi E. (1998) Understanding children's drawings. Guildford, Guildford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glenn S. & Cunningham C. (2001) Evaluation of self by young people with Downs syndrome. Int J Disabil Dev Educ, 48 : 163 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glick M., Bybee J. & Zigler E. (1997) Self‐Image a cognitive‐developmental approach. In: Leahy R., editor. The development of self. New York, Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hare D.J. (1997) Use of repertory grid techniques in working with people with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil, 1 : 115 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hare D.J., Jones J.P.R. & Paine C. (1999) Approaching reality: the use of personal construct assessment in working with people with Asperger syndrome. Autism, 3 : 165 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hare D.J., Searson R. & Knowles R. (2010) Real listening ‐ using personal construct assessment with people with intellectual disabilities: two case studies. Br J Learn Disabil, doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐3156.2010.00650.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter S. (1985) Manual for the self‐perception profile for children. Unpublished, University of Denver. Cited in M. Glick. (1999). Developmental and experiential variables in the self‐image of people with mild mental retardation. In: Zigler E., Bennett‐Gates D., editors. Personality development in individuals with mental retardation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press : 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter S. (1990) Processes underlying adolescent self concept formation. In: Montemayor R., Adams G.R., Gullota T.P., editors. From childhood to adolescence. A transitional period? California, Sage : 205 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter S. (1999) The construction of the self: a developmental perspective. London, Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter S. & Pike R. (1984) The pictorial scale of perceived competence and acceptance for children and young people. Denver, University of Denver Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill R.A. (1995) Content analysis for creating and depicting aggregated personal construct derived cognitive maps. In: Niermeyer R.A., Neimeyer G.J., editors. Advances in personal construct psychology, 3. USA, JAI Press Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz P. & Zigler E. (1967) Self‐image disparity: a developmental approach. J Pers Soc Psychol, 5 : 186 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly G. (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. New York, Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leahy R.L., Balla D. & Zigler E. (1982) Role‐taking, self‐image and imitation in retarded and non retarded individuals. Am J Ment Defic, 86 : 372 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis A. (1995) Children's understandings of disability. London, Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsey W.R. (1991) Psychological therapies in mental handicap. In: Fraser W.I., MacGillivray R.C., Green A.M., editors. Caring for people with mental handicaps. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell T. (2006) Researching into some primary school children's views about school: using personal construct psychology in practise with children on the special needs register. Pastoral Care Educ, 24 : 20 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montemayor R. & Eisen M. (1977) The development of self‐conceptions from childhood to adolescence. Dev Psychol, 13 : 314 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver C. (1986) Self‐concept assessment: a case study. Ment Handicap, 14 : 24 – 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paradise A.W. & Kerr M.H. (2002) Self‐esteem and psychological well being. Implications of Fragile self‐esteem. J Soc Clin Psychol, 21 : 345 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget J. (1973) The child's conception of the world. London, Paladin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravenette T. (1977) Personal construct theory: an approach to the psychological investigation of children and young people. In: Bannister D., editor. New perspectives in personal construct theory. London, Academic Press : 251 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravenette T. (1997) Personal construct psychology and the practise of an educational psychologist. Great Britain, EPCA Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravenette T. (1980) A drawing and its opposites. An application of the notion of the 'construct' in the elicitation of children drawings. In: Ravenette T., editor. Personal construct theory in educational psychology: a practitioner's view. UK, Wiley : 128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renick M.J. & Harter S. (1989) Impact of social comparisons on the developing self‐perceptions of learning disabled students. J Educ Psychol, 81 : 631 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhodes N. & Wood W. (1992) Self‐esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: the medicating role of message reception. Psychol Bull, 111 : 156 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson J.C. (2007) An exploration of self construing and the development of a new self image profile for young children (aged 4–6 years). Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Leeds.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson D. & Miller L. (2004) Unexpected gains. Psychotherapy with people with learning disabilities. The Tavistock Clinic Series. Karnac, London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinason V. (1992) Mental handicap and the human condition: new approaches from the Tavistock. London, Free Association Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spindler‐Barton E., Walton T. & Rowe D. (1976) Using grid techniques with the mentally handicapped. In: Slater P., editor. The measurement of interpersonal space by grid techniques, Volume 1. Explorations of Interpersonal Space. London, Wiley : 47 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeattes P. & Bentley E.L. (1968) Cited in A. Begley, & A, Lewis. (1998). Methodological issues in the assessment of the self‐concept of children with downs syndrome. Child Psychol Psychiat Rev, 3 : 33 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeleke S. (2004) Self‐Constructs of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Eur J Spec Needs Educ, 19 : 145 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zigler E. (1999) The individual with mental retardation as a whole person. In: Zigler E., Bennett‐Gates D., editors. Personality development in individuals with mental retardation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press : 59 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zigler E. & Bennett‐Gates D. (1999) Personality development in individuals with mental retardation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zigler E., Balla D. & Watson N. (1972) Experimental determinants of self‐image disparity in institutionalised and non institutionalised retarded and normal children. J Pers Soc Psychol, 23 : 81 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Samantha Thomas; Richard Butler; Dougal Julian Hare and David Green</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref90"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ934879
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Using Personal Construct Theory to Explore Self-Image with Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas%2C+Samantha%22">Thomas, Samantha</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Richard%22">Butler, Richard</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hare%2C+Dougal+Julian%22">Hare, Dougal Julian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Green%2C+David%22">Green, David</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Learning+Disabilities%22"><i>British Journal of Learning Disabilities</i></searchLink>. Sep 2011 39(3):225-232.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theories%22">Theories</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1468-3156.2010.00659.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1354-4187
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A young person's construct of self can be fundamental to their psychological well being (Glick 1999; Emler 2001). However limited research has been conducted in the United Kingdom to explore self-image with adolescents with learning disabilities. Previous studies have demonstrated the effective use of personal construct theory with children (Maxwell 2006) and adults with learning disabilities (Hare 1997) and this paper proposes that personal construct elicitation methods can be used to help adolescents with learning disabilities communicate and share their self-constructs. Four personal construct elicitation methods were used successfully to support students to discuss constructs of self, suggesting that personal construct theory can be used to guide an exploration of self-image with adolescents with learning disabilities. The students in this study construed their self-image hierarchically using psychological constructs over nine different dimensions of self.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ934879
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ934879
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1468-3156.2010.00659.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 225
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Theories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Using Personal Construct Theory to Explore Self-Image with Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas, Samantha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Richard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hare, Dougal Julian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Green, David
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2011
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1354-4187
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Learning Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1