Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / l ind i f
Reading motivational differences among groups: Reading disability (RD), attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), RD+ADHD, and typical comparison☆
Jiyeon Lee ⁎,1, Sydney S. ZentallDepartment of Educational Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
☆ Special thanks to students, teachers, and staff in theFaith Christian School, and New Committee School for t⁎ Corresponding author at: Language, Literacy, and S
Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, United States. TE-mail address: [email protected] (J. Lee).
1 Now at Language, Literacy, and Special Education DUnited States.
1041-6080/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Idoi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.010
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 15 September 2011Received in revised form 6 April 2012Accepted 5 May 2012
Keywords:Reading disabilitiesADHDReading motivation
This study assessed the reading motivation of 133 students at individual grade levels (2nd–5th), who weredivided in subgroups with and without reading disabilities/difficulties (RD) and with and without attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Major findings were that students in the RD subgroup had lower read-ing motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-efficacy) and read less for enjoyment than the nondisability (ND)group; students in the combined group (ADHD+RD) showed these motivational deficits in earlier gradelevels. However, students with ADHD did not differ from the ND group in reading motivation, and childrenwith RD (with and without ADHD) were equivalent to ND in social motivation up to the 5th grade. Implica-tions of these findings were (a) social reading is an instructional pathway for both groups of students withRD, (b) assessments of reading motivation, in addition to reading skill, may be important in assessing re-sponses to intervention, and (c) motivational interventions should be implemented early before motivationalresponses become a motivational style.
Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction
It has been well-documented that motivation is critical to theacademic success of all children (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck,2010; Marinak & Gambrell, 2010; Quirk, Schwanenflugel, & Webb,2009; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004). Most researchon motivation had examined typically developing children, ratherthan children with or at-risk for disabilities (Cox & Guthrie, 2001;Sideridis, Mouzaki, Simos, & Protopapas, 2006). However, there isrecent evidence to suggest that motivation may be even more impor-tant for children with poor reading skills (Logan, Medford, & Hughes,2011). For example, intrinsic motivation explained a significantamount of variance in reading comprehension improvements forthe low ability but not for the high ability reading group (for furtherreview see Sideridis, 2005).
The main purpose of this cross-sectional study was to examinereading motivation as a probable outcome of reading skill. To thispurpose, the authors compared the reading motivation of studentsassumed to have reading difficulties [i.e., with and at-risk for readingdisabilities (RD and RD+ADHD)] to students without RD risk factors
Lafayette School Corporation,heir support of this research.pecial Education Department,el.: +1 856 256 4500x3684.
epartment, Rowan University,
nc.
[i.e., students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),and typical comparison (ND)]. The questions addressed were relatedto group differences: (1) Do students with and at-risk for readingdifficulties (RD and RD+ADHD) differ in reading motivation fromchildren without these risk factors (ADHD and ND)? (2) Is there amagnification of motivational deficits for the students with RD+ADHD compared to students with only RD? More definitive questionsin this study were related to the interaction of age and group differ-ences: (1) Do motivational differences increase with advanced gradelevel exposure to reading? (2) Is there a time course associated withreading difficulties, as predicted by the self-determination theory withintrinsic motivation replaced by extrinsic motivation?
1.1. Motivational research
Motivation has been defined as competence related to beliefs andneeds that influences achievement and activities (Guthrie, Wigfield,Metsala, & Cox, 1999), which can be subdivided into the componentsof self-efficacy, intrinsic, extrinsic, and social motivation. Self-efficacyhas been defined by “students' perceptions of competence” and“beliefs about individual capabilities to learn” (Guthrie, Coddington,& Wigfield, 2009, p. 322), which is associated with the use of cogni-tive strategies in difficult reading tasks, self-regulation, and readingcomprehension (Guthrie et al., 1999). Intrinsic motivation can bedefined as an internal drive to engage and persist on an activity(Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008) and enjoyment of the process,which leads to increases in self-competence (Carlson, Booth, Shin, &Canu, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Walker, Greene, & Mansell, 2006).
779J. Lee, S.S. Zentall / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
Differently, extrinsically motivated individuals engage and persist ontasks in response to potential outcomes (e.g., grades, rewards) ratherthan for the activity (Schunk et al., 2008; Wigfield et al., 2004). Morethan extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation is associated with higherreading achievement (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Cox & Guthrie, 2001;Logan et al., 2011) and with reading more and with greater breadth ofreading activities (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Wigfield &Guthrie, 1997). Social motivation has been defined as the processesof constructing meanings from reading and sharing these meaningswithin a variety of social contexts (Guthrie, Bennett, & McGough,1994).
These types of motivation have been further examined in relationto specific internalized goals (mastery and performance goals, forreview see Elliot, 2005). Mastery goals are judged in relation to self-referent standards, associated with intrinsic motivation, which predictadaptive academic outcomes (Barron, Evans, Baranik, Serpell, &Buvinger, 2006). Performance goals are associated with external moti-vation (e.g., obtaining grades) (Schunk et al., 2008) and are judgedthrough ‘other-referent’ or normative comparisons. For example, per-formance goal-oriented individuals may be motivated to presentthemselves in a positive light and as having superior skills and abili-ties (Nicholls, 1984). Such performance goals can be self-defeatingwhen children are placed in difficult academic situations (e.g., stu-dents with learning disabilities), wherein they focus on avoidingincompetence rather than gaining competence (Schunk et al., 2008).The relevance of type of motivation is further elaborated in self-determination theory, which proposes that human beings begin lifewith a generally high level of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan,1985). When failures occur, there is external pressure to do well,which can change a child's motivation to an extrinsic orientation(Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006).
1.2. Motivational research of students with and at-risk for disabilities
Most prior research has made comparisons of one disability groupwith typical students or between subtypes of one disability withoutincluding other mild disability groupings (for review see Tabassam& Grainger, 2002). For example, most research on students withADHD has been conducted on the combined subtype (hyperactive/impulsive+inattentive), representing over half the population ofstudents with ADHD, with the remaining represented by each ofthese subtypes separately (Wilens, Biederman, & Spencer, 2002).Assessments of students in this combined subtype of ADHD havedocumented that they endorsed more performance goals and moreperformance avoidance goals than typical students (and more thanthe inattentive subtype) (Barron et al., 2006; Carlson et al., 2002;Dunn & Shapiro, 1999).
Studies with the learning disability (LD) population have typicallyinvolved comparisons with students without disabilities or with co-occurring disabilities. For example, an LD group was compared with acombined group of students with LD+ADHD (Tabassam & Grainger,2002), documenting lower academic self-concept and self-efficacy forboth LD groups than for typical students. However, as stated by theseauthors: “the results are limited, as the investigation did not include agroup of children who have ADHD without LD” (p. 150). More generalconclusions have been derived from a review by Sideridis (2009) indi-cating that students with LD differ from typical peers in higher levelsof externalmotivationwithout evidence of a clear pattern of differencesin goal orientation (see Sideridis, 2009 for review and conclusions).
In addition, studies have not been specific to one academic area,assessing, for example, the general classroom goals of students withADHD (Barron et al., 2006) or the overall academic self-concept andself-efficacy motivation of students with LD across reading, math,and schoolwork (Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). Even in work thatdefined distinct mild disability groups (RD and ADHD) and that
reported group differences, which increased with age, the differencesobtained were not specific to one subject area (Zentall & Beike, 2012).
In summary, past research has not assessed motivation in specificacademic content areas (e.g., reading, math) and/or has not madedistinctions between groups of students with mild disabilities todifferentiate them from typical students and from each other. Readingmay be more important to study initially than math, because readingmore broadly contributes to performance in areas that require reading,such as math, science, and social studies.
To address these problems, this study recruited distinct groups ofstudents (1) with or at-risk for RD, (2) with or at-risk for ADHD, (3) acombined RD+ADHD group, and (4) a typical comparison (ND)group. Students at-risk were selected along a continuum from diag-nosed to undiagnosed students, based on evidence that clinically-defined children (ADHD, RD) and community or school-based samplesof children (reading problems/difficulties, at-risk for ADHD) were com-parable in underlying skill deficits, characteristics, and in response to in-tervention (Epstein, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Woolston, 1991; Fletcher,Blair, Scott, & Bolger, 2004; Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008). Thecombined RD+ADHD group, however, cannot be considered represen-tative of either the RD or the ADHD group, because a combined grouphas more problems in attention and more difficulties with reading(Lyon, 1996;Mayes, Calhoun, & Crowell, 2000).With this additional sam-ple, the authors addressed the question ofwhether the RD+ADHDgroupwould similarly show a magnification of effects in reading motivation.
This study also provides an advance in the literature by includinggrade level. That is, group by grade level interactions would supportthe hypothesis that reading difficulties would accumulate over timefor the RD groups. Following from the self-determination theory,we specifically predicted higher than normal extrinsic motivationfor students with RD at advanced grade levels. In contrast, childrenwith ADHD were not expected to show an age-related magnificationof reading motivation effects (intrinsic, extrinsic, or social), sincethey had not experienced reading difficulties. Although prior researchwith this group had documented decreased social motivation atadvanced grade levels, this was documented across subject areas(Zentall & Beike, 2012) and was consistent with evidence of consider-able social failure later in development (for review see Zentall, 2005).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
One hundred thirty-three students (68 boys and 65 girls) betweenthe ages of 7–12 years participated in this study and were selectedfrom 5 suburban elementary schools, with enrollments of 400–450 stu-dents and located in a midwestern state. Recruitment was based onnominations by 22 classroom teachers of three types of students—those who were (1) previously labeled ADHD or with characteristics ofinattention/high activity, (2) previously labeled reading disabled (RD)or with below-grade reading, and (3) an equivalent number of childrenwithout disabilities (ND). All nominated students were requested to bewithout identified intellectual or emotional disabilities, hearing impair-ment, or English as a second language.
All participants had verbal and nonverbal cognitive ability scoresgreater than 73 assessed by the School Ability Index (SAI) of OtisLennon School Ability Test, 8th Ed. (OLSAT-8) (Otis & Lennon,2002), recorded in school files (see Table 1). Each child with parentalpermission was then rated by his or her teacher using the Connersteacher rating scale (CTRS-R: S, Conners, 1997), which consists of 28items constructed to reflect characteristics used in the diagnosis ofADHD, as stated in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders (DSM-IV-TR) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).The CTRS-R: S demonstrates good internal and test–retest reliabilities(.88 to .95 and .72 to .92, respectively, Conners, 1997).
Table 1Demographic and descriptive characteristic of participants.
Variables ND(n=48)
RD(n=22)
ADHD(n=24)
RD+ADHD(n=39)
M SD M SD M SD M SD F p
Age (Months) 120.39 12.01 120.33 17.04 121.89 10.83 123.63 12.85 .53 .664Full cognitive ability 101.89 14.62 91.58 11.94 101.40 9.90 86.03 9.98 11.25 .000Verbal cognitive ability 102.00 14.94 91.47 12.51 101.60 9.99 86.26 12.11 9.13 .000ISTEP percentiles (Reading) 63.56 18.21 23.75 15.10 57.88 17.95 12.19 12.03 84.77 .000Conners (ADHD Index) 44.85 3.39 48.36 5.59 67.42 8.62 70.64 10.26 115.7 .000
N % n % n % n %
Gender .91 .427Boys 23 47.9 11 50 10 41.7 24 61.5Girls 25 52.1 11 50 14 58.3 15 38.5
Grade .81 .4912nd 6 12.5 6 27.3 2 8.4 6 15.43rd 18 37.5 5 22.7 5 20.8 9 23.14th 16 33.3 6 27.3 12 50 14 35.15th 8 16.7 5 22.7 5 20.8 10 25.6
Ethnicity 1.06 .369Caucasian 38 79.2 18 81.8 17 70.8 30 76.9Hispanic 5 10.4 3 13.6 3 4.2 5 12.8Multi-cultural 3 6.3 5 16.7 1 2.6African American 2 4.2 1 4.5 2 8.3 3 7.7
Note. Cognitive ability = School Ability Index (SAI) of Otis Lennon School Ability Test, 8th Ed. (OLSAT-8); ISTEP = Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+,2008); Conners (ADHD Index) = Conners Teacher Rating Scale: The CTRS-R: S-28 items constructed to reflect characteristics used in the diagnosis of ADHD.
780 J. Lee, S.S. Zentall / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
For our disability groups, we selected students with mild to severeproblems in reading and in social/behavioral characteristics (hyper-activity and inattention). This procedure of identifying students with-in public school settings that included students with mild disabilitiesreduced probable co-diagnoses that are typically found in clinic-referred samples (Epstein et al., 1991). From an initial pool of 149nominated students with parental permission, 133 qualified by thecriteria listed for the following four groups.
2.1.1. RD groupAll of the students were operationally defined by scores at the
30th percentile or lower on normative group achievement tests,using the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus(ISTEP+, 2008) Language Art scores or the Northwest EvaluationAssociation (NWEA, 2008) Reading scores. Using these cutoffs, 22students (11 boys and 11 girls) were identified in the RD group;59% of these students achieved below IQ expectancy by school identi-fication procedures and 41% achieved below age or grade level (at-risk for impairment and receiving extra support in a response-to-intervention system).
2.1.2. ADHD groupStudents were initially screened into two groups: ADHD through
school identification procedures (4.2%) and as nominated by teachersand potentially at-risk for ADHD (95.8%). Final group status for this re-search was operationally defined by a t-score of 60 or higher (1 SDabove the mean, M=50, SD=10) on the ADHD index. Sample ADHDIndex items include: “Inattentive easily distracted” “Cannot remainstill” “Interrupts or intrudes on others” “Fails to finish things he/shestarts”. General validity has been documented by ADHD rating scalesthat have specificity greater than 94% in studies differentiating childrenwith ADHD from normal, age-matched, community controls (AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics, 2001). Teacher ratings (e.g., on an earlier versionof the Conners)weremoderately to strongly related to student behaviorrecorded by an observer over 3 to 4 days (off-task behavior: r>.41; on-task behavior: r>−.70, Lauth, Heubeck, & Mackowiak, 2006).
Among the 24 students in the ADHD group, 21% had scores in theclinical range of 70 to 79 (2 SD above the M) and 13% scored 80 orhigher (3 SD above the M) on the ADHD index. We labeled this
combined group at-risk for ADHD (n=24, 10 boys and 14 girls),because we did not assess age of onset of symptoms, get parentalratings, assess degree of impairment, nor conduct diagnostic inter-views. All of these students performed at or above grade level ongroup achievement tests (see Table 1).
2.1.3. Combined groupThe RD+ADHD sample of 39 students (24 boys, 15 girls) was
identified using the above procedures. Of these, 56% had been clini-cally diagnosed as RD and/or ADHD by school identification proce-dures and 44% were identified at-risk. Among the 39 students, 18%were in the range of 70 to 79 (2 SD above the M) on the ConnersADHD index and 26% scored 80 or higher (3 SD above the M).
2.1.4. Comparison groupNondisabled (ND) students (n=48, 23 boys, 25 girls)were selected,
who scored in the 35th percentile or higher on the language arts orreading tests, with t-scores of 50 or lower on the ADHD index of theCTRS-R: S (Conners, 1997).
2.2. Motivational instruments
The Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) and ReadingActivity Inventory (RAI) assessed reading motivation. The MRQ(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) is a self-report questionnaire, which is“one of the most common measures of motivation within the domainof reading” (Logan et al., 2011, p.125). The MRQ contains 53 items,assessing the following subscales of reading motivation: (1) intrinsicmotivation including challenge (e.g., “I like hard, challenging books”),curiosity (e.g., “I like to read about new things”), involvement (e.g., “Imake pictures in my mind when I read”), and importance (e.g., “It isvery important to me to be a good reader”), (2) extrinsic motivationwas related to recognition needed (e.g., “I like having the teachersay I read well”), grades (e.g., “I look forward to finding out my read-ing grade”), and competition (e.g., “I like being the best at reading”),(3) social reading motivation including social reasons for reading(e.g., “I talk to my friends about what I am reading”) and compliance(e.g., “I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it”),(4) self-efficacy (e.g., “I am a good reader”), and (5) work avoidance
Table 2Demographic post hoc comparisons between disability groups.
Variables Group comparisons LSMean differences p
Full cognitive abilities RD ND 10.31 .019RD+ADHD ND 15.85 b.001
ADHD 15.37 .001Verbal cognitive abilities RD ND 10.53 .028
RD+ADHD ND 15.74 b.001ADHD 15.34 .002
ISTEP percentiles(Reading)
RD ND 40.22 b.001ADHD 34.40 b.001
RD+ADHD ND 51.57 b.001ADHD 45.74 b.001
Conners(ADHD Index)
ADHD ND 22.56 b.001RD 19.05 b.001
RD+ADHD ND 25.79 b.001RD 22.28 b.001
781J. Lee, S.S. Zentall / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
(e.g., “I don't like reading somethingwhen thewords are too difficult”).The questionnaire Likert-scale ratings range from 1 (very different fromme) to 4 (a lot like me). In the present study, internal consistency(Cronbach's α) of the MRQ was .90. Prior work assessing the validityof MRQ yielded 81% to 95% correct classifications of students (grades2nd–4th,n=587) as at-risk for readingdisabilities and further indicatedthat “all discriminant functions explained variance of 19–28%, whichwas significant and is in the range of medium to large effect sizes"(see Sideridis et al., 2006, p.167). In addition, agreement between edu-cators and students with RD and ADHD in ratings of academic motiva-tion has been documented, indicating the validity of motivational self-report measures with these populations (Zentall & Beike, 2012).
The original 11 MRQ dimensions of reading motivation were col-lapsed into 5 dimensions (self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsicmotivation, social reading motivation, work avoidance), due to highinternal consistencies [i.e., challenge, curiosity, involvement, and im-portance were related to intrinsic motivation (α=.85); grade, recog-nition needed, and competition were related to extrinsic motivation(α=.82); and social reasoning was related to social reading motiva-tion (α=.73)]. Compliance (MRQ #4, 6, 25, 32, 47) was excludedfrom the construct of social reading motivation due to the low inter-nal consistency (α=.34) that was yielded in the present study. Be-cause self-efficacy and work avoidance were combinations of only3–4 variables, the alphas were lower (α=.56 and .52, respectively).
The RAI (Guthrie, McGough, & Wigfield, 1994) is an assessment ofthe breadth or variety of reading materials (e.g., comics, magazines,newspapers, mystery books) and frequency of students' reading, ratedon a 1–4 scale from almost never to almost every day. It contains 26questions on (1) non-reading activities (e.g., “how often do you listento music?”), (2) school reading activities (e.g., “did you read a bookof literature or fiction book last week for school? If yes, write in title,author, or specific topic you read about”), and (3) personal readingactivities or the frequency and amount of reading for self-enjoyment(e.g., “how often do you read fiction books?”). The correlation betweenfall and spring administrations has been reported as .54 (pb .001) (seeWigfield & Guthrie, 1997). In this study, the internal consistency(Cronbach's α) of the RAI was .72—school reading activities (α=.585)and personal reading activities (α=.627). Non-reading activities (RAI#1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)was excluded in the present study due to the low inter-nal consistency (α=.223).
2.3. Reading assessments
Reading achievement test scores (ISTEP+, 2008; NWEA, 2008)were obtained from 96% of students' school files. The Gray Oral Read-ing Tests, 4th ed. (GORT-4) (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001) was used toassess 6 students (4%), who did not have reading test results in theirschool files. Internal consistency of the GORT-4 was .90 or above. Allof the scores were converted to z-scores using normative Ms andSDs to place them on a comparable scale with the ISTEP+LanguageArt or NWEA Reading scores.
2.4. Experimental setting and procedure
Data collection took place during one 25–40 min session in aseparate room where questionnaires were administrated to groupsof 5–8 children. The researcher provided initial instructions that stu-dents (a) were going to answer questions about what and how oftenthey read, (b) the questions had no right or wrong answers, (c) wouldfollow directions from a tape recorder, and (d) should not talk orshare their answers with others. All the questions were taped witha 5-s pause between questions. Additional time was provided whenoccasionally needed by a student. Additional recorded prompts for 5questions were for difficult vocabulary (e.g., MRQ #10. “Fantasystory is a make believe story. Fairy tale is a good example of a fanta-sy,” MRQ #27. “Vocabulary is the meaning of words,” MRQ #36.
“Compliments are praise, good job on your reading,” MRQ #41. “Fic-tion book is a make believe story,” and RAI #20. “Biography is abook about someone's life”).
3. Results
3.1. Demographic analyses
Analysis of these variables is presented in Table 2. Students in thecombined RD+ADHD group had lower verbal and full cognitive abil-ity scores than the ADHD and ND groups, whereas students with RDhad lower scores than the ND group. In addition (1) the RD and RD+ADHD groups had lower reading scores than students in the ADHDand ND groups, and (2) the ADHD and RD+ADHD groups had higherADHD Index scores on the Conners than ND group and than studentsin the RD group (i.e., supporting the validity of our selection criteria).
3.2. Main analyses
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) controlled for thenumber of tests run, using the Wilk's criterion, and met the assump-tions of more subjects than dependent variables per cell with fewcases discarded due to missing data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). TheMANOVA assessed the between group factor of sample group (RD,ADHD, RD+ADHD, ND) and grade level (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) for thedependent MRQ variables of self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrin-sic motivation, social reading motivation, and work avoidance andseparately for the RAI variables of school reading activities and per-sonal reading activities. The homogeneity of variance test (Box'sM=271.11, p=.131) indicated that the observed covariance matri-ces of the dependent variables were equal across groups.
Due to initial group differences in cognitive abilities, the authorsentered these variables as covariates, which were subsequentlydropped due to lack of main effects and interactions and lack of anassociation with the motivational variables (p=.596 for full cognitiveability; p=.580 for verbal cognitive ability). Significant MANOVAswere followed by univariates and post hoc Tukey's studentizedrange (HSD) tests to assess specific differences between groups. Effectsizes (Partial eta squared: partial η2) are reported in Table 3 and areinterpreted as follows: 0.01 small, 0.06 medium, and 0.14 is a largeeffect (Cohen, 1988, p. 283; Stevens, 2002).
3.2.1. MRQIn the MANOVA there were main effects of group, F(15, 312)=
2.35, p=.003, grade, F(15, 312)=2.55, p=.001, and an interaction,F(45, 508)=1.47, p=.028. The univariates yielded main effects ofgroup for the variables of self-efficacy, intrinsicmotivation, social readingmotivation, and work avoidance (see Table 3). Post hoc tests (seeTable 4) indicated that studentswith RDhad lower self-efficacy, intrinsic,
Table 3ANOVA table of significant between-subjects effects on the MRQ.
MRQ variable Df MS F p partial η2
Group effectsSelf-efficacy 3 2.17 6.93 b.001 .151Intrinsic motivation 3 .96 3.30 .023 .078Social reading motivation 3 .78 2.73 .047 .065Work avoidance 3 2.18 3.89 .011 .091
Grade effectsSelf-efficacy 3 1.93 6.15 .001 .136Extrinsic motivation 3 1.42 5.39 .002 .121
Group∗Grade effectsSelf-efficacy 9 .73 2.33 .019 .152Extrinsic motivation 9 .66 2.48 .013 .160
Table 4Post hoc multiple group comparisons using Tukey's studentized range (HSD) tests onthe MRQ.
MRQ variable Group comparisons LSMean differences p
Self-efficacy ND RD .54 .002RD+ADHD .56 b.001
Intrinsic ND RD 3.71 .041RD+ADHD 3.50 .016
Extrinsic ND RD 4.01 .016Work avoid ND RD −.58 .016
782 J. Lee, S.S. Zentall / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
and extrinsic motivation than students without disabilities, as well as,higher work avoidance. The combined group was similar to the RDgroup with lower self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation than the NDgroup. However, students at-risk for ADHDwere not different inmotiva-tion from any other group. There were also significant main effects ofgrade for self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation (see Table 3). Follow uptests yielded higher self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation scores for stu-dents in the 3rd and 4th grades than in the 5th grade.
Finally the interaction reported in Table 5 indicated that studentswith RD and RD+ADHD had lower self-efficacy than students with-out disabilities by the 3rd grade, and the RD+ADHD group hadlower extrinsic motivation by the 3rd grade and the RD group bythe 4th grade. However, both the RD+ADHD and RD groups didnot show social reading motivational deficits until the 5th grade.Fig. 1 depicts a number of interactions at the 5th grade level,
Table 5Simple effect analyses of group differences at specific grade levels for MRQ interactions.
MRQ variable Grade Group M (SD)
Self-efficacy 3rd ND 3.61 (.37)3rd ND 3.61 (.37)4th ND 3.58 (.43)4th vs 5th RD 3.39 (.14)4th vs 5th ADHD+RD 3.17 (.50)5th ND 3.33 (.44)5th ND 3.33 (.44)
Intrinsic 2nd vs 4th ADHD 2.47 (.30)3rd ND 3.30 (.47)5th ND 3.28 (.36)5th ADHD 3.26 (.49)
Extrinsic 2nd vs 4th ND 2.91 (.53)3rd ND 3.31 (.59)4th ND 3.42 (.40)4th RD 2.76 (.62)4th RD 2.76 (.62)5th RD 2.28 (.61)5th ND 3.25 (.38)5th ND 3.25 (.38)
Social 2nd vs 5th RD 2.71 (.46)4th vs 5th ADHD+RD 2.76 (.52)5th ND 2.64 (.74)5th ND 2.64 (.74)
Work avoid 2nd ND 1.92 (.52)
indicating statistical equivalence between RD and combined groupsup to the 5th grade with both groups differing from the ND groupby the 5th grade.
In addition to the main analyses of the 5 dimensions (self efficacy,intrinsic, extrinsic, social motivation, and work avoidance), the au-thors provided descriptive statistics for the predicted group bygrade interaction for the 11 dimensions (see Table 6). These analysesare reported due to the exploratory nature of this research (Huberty& Morris, 1989) and for future research with disability populations.
3.2.2. RAIThe MANOVA analysis of the 2 RAI variables yielded main effects of
group, F(6, 232)=2.91, p=.009, and of grade, F(6, 232)=3.78,p=.001. However, we did not find a group by grade interaction, F(18,232)=.809, p=.689. Following from the significant main effects ofthe MANOVA, univariates yielded group differences for personal read-ing activities, F(3, 117)=6.01, p=.001, and of grade for school readingactivities, F(3, 117)=6.59, pb .001. Post hoc tests indicated that stu-dents in the ND group engaged in more personal reading activitiesthan the RD group (LSMean Differences=4.63, pb .001) and the com-bined group (LSMeanDifferences=3.55, p=.001) (see Fig. 2).Main ef-fects of grade for school reading activities indicated that school readingactivities were rated higher by 5th grade than by 2nd grade (LSMeanDifferences=2.84, p=.001) and by 3rd grade (LSMean Differ-ences=2.04, p=.005) students.
4. Discussion
Lower self-efficacy and lowermotivationwere found for all studentsat advanced grade levels (i.e., lower for 5th grade than for 3rd and 4thgrades). There are several explanations for this lower motivation.Lower reading motivation for 5th graders could be an outcome of a‘slump’ in reading, which typically occurs in the 4th grade when thecurriculum changes from lower level skill development (learning toread) to higher types of skill development (reading to learn) (Chall,1983). Rather than emphasizing a slump, an alternative explanationproposes a spurt in motivation in the 4th grade relative to the 5thgrade. That is, the highest self-efficacy has been reported for 4th gradetypical readers (Becker et al., 2010;Wigfield &Guthrie, 1997). Similarly,in the current study, the highest self-efficacy and extrinsic motivationwere reported for the 4th grade students.
Group M (SD) t p
RD 2.93 (1.01) 2.40 .018ADHD+RD 3.07 (.88) 2.35 .020ADHD+RD 3.17 (.50) 2.03 .044RD 2.67 (.53) 2.13 .035ADHD+RD 2.50 (.42) 2.88 .005RD 2.67 (.527) 2.09 .039ADHD+RD 2.50 (.42) 3.14 .002ADHD 3.34 (.54) 2.10 .038ADHD+RD 2.83 (.88) 2.15 .037ADHD+RD 2.66 (.69) 2.43 .017ADHD+RD 2.66 (.69) 2.03 .044ND 3.42 (.40) 2.07 .041ADHD+RD 2.84 (.65) 2.27 .025RD 2.76 (.62) 2.70 .008ADHD 3.44 (.41) 2.68 .009ADHD+RD 3.42 (.33) 2.66 .009ADHD 2.99 (.73) 2.17 .032RD 2.28 (.61) 3.30 .001ADHD+RD 2.56 (.75) 2.82 .006RD 1.69 (.58) 2.38 .019ADHD+RD 1.91 (.56) 2.84 .005RD 1.69 (.58) 2.35 .020ADHD+RD1.91 (.56) 2.15 .003ADHD+RD 2.88 (.96) 2.22 .029
Fig. 2. Mean level of RAI variable of personal reading activities for the at-risk groups ofreading disabled (RD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), combined RD+ADHD, and nondisability (ND) groups. RD & RD+ADHD b ND & ADHD.
Fig. 1. Mean level comparisons among the at-risk for RD (RD), combined RD+ADHD,and nondisability (ND) groups at the 5th grade level on the MRQ variables of self-efficacy, intrinsic, extrinsic, and social motivation. RD & RD+ADHD b ND.
783J. Lee, S.S. Zentall / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
The opposing nature of these age-related explanations can be con-textualized and better understood in the group by grade interactionsthat follow. For students with RD, group effects of lower intrinsic andextrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and greater work avoidance thanstudents without disabilities was documented across grade levels,similar to past research reporting a general academic motivationaldeficit for the RD group (Zentall & Beike, 2012). Qualifying these ef-fects with age as a moderating variable (higher order interaction),both RD groups (with and without ADHD) had lower self-efficacy
Table 6Descriptive statistics of group by grade interactions for the MRQ 11 Dimensions.
MRQ variable Grade Group M (SD) Group M (SD) t p
Self-efficacy 3rd ND 3.61 (.37) RD 2.93 (1.01) 2.40 .0183rd ND 3.61 (.37) ADHD+RD 3.07 (.88) 2.35 .0204th ND 3.58 (.43) ADHD+RD 3.17 (.50) 2.03 .0444th vs 5th RD 3.39 (.14) RD 2.67 (.53) 2.13 .0354th vs 5th ADHD+RD 3.17 (.50) ADHD+RD 2.50 (.42) 2.88 .0055th ND 3.33 (.44) RD 2.67 (.527) 2.09 .0395th ND 3.33 (.44) ADHD+RD 2.50 (.42) 3.14 .002
Challenge 2nd ND 3.40 (.74) RD 2.53 (.94) 2.16 .0333rd ND 3.27 (.61) RD 2.56 (.62) 2.01 .0473rd ND 3.27 (.61) RD+ADHD 2.53 (1.17) 2.58 .0115th ND 3.33 (.51) RD 2.48 (.81) 2.13 .0355th ND 3.33 (.51) RD+ADHD 2.56 (.85) 2.32 .022
Curiosity 2nd vs 3rd ADHD 2.33 (.24) ADHD 3.47 (.32) 2.11 .0373rd ND 3.31 (.62) RD 2.60 (.35) 2.18 .032
Involvement 3rd ND 3.25 (.54) RD+ADHD 2.65 (1.00) 2.15 .034Important 4th vs 5th ADHD 3.63 (.88) ADHD 4.00 (0.00) 2.75 .007
5th ND 3.81 (.37) RD+ADHD 2.55 (1.19) 2.97 .004Grade 4th vs 5th RD+ADHD 3.64 (.34) RD+ADHD 3.13 (.50) 2.28 .024
5th ND 3.63 (.35) RD+ADHD 3.13 (.50) 2.48 .015Recognition 3rd ND 3.47 (.64) RD+ADHD 2.84 (.72) 2.41 .018
3rd vs 5th RD 3.32 (.44) RD 2.24 (.97) 2.70 .0084th ADHD 3.48 (.59) RD 2.97 (.73) 2.14 .0344th vs 5th RD+ADHD 3.43 (.53) RD+ADHD 2.32 (1.00) 4.23 .0015th ND 3.65 (.33) RD 2.24 (.97) 3.91 .0015th ND 3.65 (.33) RD+ADHD 2.32 (1.00) 4.43 .0015th ND 3.65 (.33) ADHD 2.88 (.74) 2.14 .035
Competition 3rd vs 5th RD 3.20 (.64) RD 1.93 (.72) 2.30 .0234th ND 3.21 (.50) RD 2.22 (.70) 2.94 .0044th ADHD 3.35 (.47) RD 2.22 (.70) 3.21 .0014th RD 2.22 (.70) RD+ADHD 3.27 (.48) 3.07 .0034th vs 5th RD+ADHD 3.27 (.48) RD+ADHD 2.38 (.84) 3.07 .0035th ADHD 3.03 (.85) RD 1.93 (.72) 2.48 .015
Compliance 3rd ND 3.27 (.56) RD 2.68 (.67) 2.19 .0303rd ND 3.27 (.56) RD+ADHD 2.64 (.55) 2.88 .0054th ND 3.25 (.48) RD+ADHD 2.80 (.46) 2.33 .0225th ND 3.68 (.18) RD+ADHD 2.88 (.55) 3.17 .002
Social 2nd vs 5th RD 2.71 (.46) RD 1.69 (.58) 2.38 .0194th vs 5th ADHD+RD 2.76 (.52) ADHD+RD 1.91 (.56) 2.84 .0055th ND 2.64 (.74) RD+ADHD 1.91 (.56) 2.15 .0035th ND 2.64 (.74) RD 1.69 (.58) 2.35 .020
Work avoid 2nd ND 1.92 (.52) ADHD+RD 2.88 (.96) 2.22 .029
784 J. Lee, S.S. Zentall / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
and intrinsic motivation and higher work avoidance as early as the2nd grade. In addition to finding lower intrinsic motivation at earlyages, both RD groups also engaged in fewer personal reading activi-ties for enjoyment. Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) similarly reportedthat children with lower intrinsic motivation read three times lessthan children with higher intrinsic motivation.
In a specific examination of the ADHD group (without RD), whohad initially higher reading scores than students in the RD groups,were findings of equivalent intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivationto ND peers. This is different from prior work documenting motiva-tional deficits across academic areas (Zentall & Beike, 2012; see alsoBarron et al., 2006; Carlson et al., 2002). For example, both RD andADHD groups were teacher rated as failing to complete academictasks and investing minimal effort (i.e., work avoidant) than a non-disabled (ND) sample (Zentall & Beike, 2012). Thus, we concludethat students with ADHD demonstrate work avoidance, poor socialmotivation, and greater preferences for independent work and com-petitiveness only in general achievement motivation (possibly mathor science) but not in reading motivation.
Beyond these group difference findings, the main purpose of thisstudy was related to predictions of group differences in reading moti-vation especially at advanced grade levels. This would provide initialinformation about the course of motivation and suggest when moti-vational responses might become crystallized into a motivationalstyle. Interactions between group and grade supported these predic-tions, indicating that students with RD (without ADHD) had lowerextrinsic motivation by the 4th grade, without finding these motiva-tion group differences in earlier grades (2nd and 3rd). Thus, the RDgroup was equivalent to students in the ND group in extrinsic motiva-tion through the 3rd grade. In contrast, students with RD+ADHD hadlower extrinsic motivation in the 3rd grade (one year earlier than theRD group). This combined group, who had the lowest cognitive abil-ities and reading achievement (differing from both ADHD and NDgroups), also had lower intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in the3rd grade and higher work avoidance as early as the 2nd grade.
Thus, these findings support observations (Lyon, 1996; Mayeset al., 2000) that the combined group would show a magnificationof effects. In this study we extended these prior findings (i.e., ofpoorer reading for the combined than the RD group) to lower readingmotivation that occurred earlier in time for the combined than for theRD group. Another age-related finding, but for both the RD and RD+ADHD groups, was equivalent social motivation (e.g., “I talk to myfriends about what I am reading”; “I often read to my brother orsister”) through the 4th grade. These findings suggest that lowerintrinsic motivation is followed by lower extrinsic motivation andfinally by lower social reading motivation, which indicates a spreadingof negative motivational effects at advanced ages. In addition, thesefindings are opposite to the self-determination theory, predicting in-creased extrinsic motivation over time.
4.1. Limitations and future research
The generality of these findings is restricted to a community sampleof elementary level students with and without mild disabilities (i.e.,ADHD scoring within the clinical range: 34% of ADHD and 44% of thecombined group; RD with a clinical diagnosis: 59% of the RD sampleand 56% of the combined group). (Additional students in the combinedgroupmay have qualified for a clinical diagnosis of ADHD, but a diagno-sis of RD could have precluded a second diagnosis of ADHD.) Thus, ex-tensions of this study could be to assess samples with only clinicaldiagnoses, which typically represent the extremes of a continuum(Epstein et al., 1991). The generality of these motivational findingswith reading could also be assessed in alternative academic areas,such as mathematics. Limitations of this study are also related to thecross-sectional comparisons between younger and older students.Thus, it will be important to examine the motivational changes in
children's development at younger and older age levels in a longitudinalanalysis. Because motivational research has rarely examined studentswith mild disabilities, the validity of the MRQ and RAI could bequestioned. However, we did report congruence in prior researchbetween self-reported and teacher reported academic motivation(Zentall & Beike, 2012), as well as, group differences in motivation inthis prior work and in the current research, which provide support forthe validity of these measures with these populations.
4.2. Implications for practice and research
Outcomes of this research can provide an understanding of moti-vation that depends on type of disability and grade level of thechild. To this end, this study documented that poor reading skill spe-cifically predicted poor reading motivation. Thus, students withADHD (without RD) were equivalent to typical students in readingmotivation. For example, this group did not report an increase in so-cial avoidance in reading, as has previously been documented aspoor social motivation in general academics. Students with ADHDwithout reading difficulties are as motivated in social reading and inengaging in reading activities as students without disabilities. Thisfinding suggests that reading can be viewed as disability-free for stu-dents with ADHD without RD and that social reading could be a com-pensatory area of functioning that could offset their avoidance ofchallenging work documented across subject areas at the advanced4th–6th grades (Zentall & Beike, 2012) and their general social isola-tion documented in adolescence (for review see Zentall, 2005).
In contrast, children with reading difficulties (RD and RD+ADHD)had significantly lower motivation in all areas of reading motivationby the 5th grade. Thus, students with RD remain discouraged in thereading context, even though all these students with, and most at-risk for RD were receiving remedial services. The RD+ADHD groupshowed these motivational deficits earlier (e.g., self-efficacy, intrinsicand extrinsic motivation starting in 3rd grade and social motivationby 5th grade).
The implication of these findings for both groups with RD is relatedto the importance of early interventions that target their poor skills butalso reading motivation. Assessment of reading skill in a response-to-intervention model needs to be paired with assessments of readingmotivation. Since there were no extrinsic motivational differences inearly grades (2nd–3rd) for students with RD (without ADHD), perhapseducators could offset their motivational failure in advanced grades byproviding more extrinsic motivational interventions (e.g., rewards,praise, feedback, incentives). Finally, social motivation remains an in-structional pathway up through the 5th grade for students with RD(with and without ADHD). If educators would provide social readingexperiences (reading with friends, trading things to read, sharingbooks), it could offset the poor reading motivation (extrinsic, intrinsic,self-efficacy) documented by the 5th grade for both RD groups relativeto typical peers. In addition, social reading is an important area of moti-vation, because high social goals are found in association with positiveself- and other-perceptions (‘I'm OK and you're OK’) and in associationwith instrumental behavior that is high in initiation and pro-socialfeatures (Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpää, & Peets, 2005).
References
American Academy of Pediatrics (2001). Clinical practice guideline: Treatment of theschool-aged child with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics, 108,1033–1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.4.1033
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children's motivation for reading andtheir relations to reading activity and readingachievement.Reading ResearchQuarterly,34, 452–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
Barron, K., Evans, S.W., Baranik, L. E., Serpell, Z. N., & Buvinger, E. (2006). Achievement goalsof students with ADHD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 137–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30035504
785J. Lee, S.S. Zentall / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 778–785
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading mo-tivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 102, 773–785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020084
Carlson, C., Booth, J., Shin, M., & Canu, W. (2002). Parent-, teacher-, and self-rated mo-tivational styles in ADHD subtypes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 104–113.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500202
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners' rating scales—Revised technical manual. New York: Mul-
ti-Health Systems.Cox, K., & Guthrie, J. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contributions to students' amount
and reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 116–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1044
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrin-sic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55,68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Dunn, P. B., & Shapiro, S. K. (1999). Gender differences in the achievement goalorientations of ADHD children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 327–344.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018747716137
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon(Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.,Vol. III, pp. 1017-1095). New York: Wiley.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot,& C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). NewYork: The Guilford Press.
Epstein, M. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., &Woolston, J. L. (1991). The boundaries of At-tention Deficit Disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 78–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400204
Fletcher, K. L., Blair, C., Scott, M. S., & Bolger, K. E. (2004). Specific patterns of cognitiveabilities in young children with mild mental retardation. Education and Training inDevelopmental Disabilities, 39, 270–278.
Guthrie, J. T., Bennett, L., & McGough, K. (1994). Concept oriented reading instruction: Anintegrated curriculum to develop motivations and strategies for reading. (ReadingResearch Report No 10). National Reading Research Centers. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED366927.pdf
Guthrie, J. T., Coddington, C. S., & Wigfield, A. (2009). Profiles of reading motivationamong African American and Caucasian students. Journal of Literacy Research, 41,317–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862960903129196
Guthrie, J. T., McGough, K., & Wigfield, A. (1994).Measuring reading activity: An inventory.(Instructional Resource No. 4). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitivepredictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Science Studies of Reading, 3,231–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3
Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariateanalyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.302
ISTEP+. (2008). Indiana statewide testing for educational progress-plus. NewYork, NY:GrowNetwork/McGraw-Hill.
Lauth, G. W., Heubeck, B. G., & Mackowiak, K. (2006). Observation of children withattention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) problems in three natural classroom con-texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 385–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X43797
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation forhigh and low ability reader' reading comprehension performance. Learning andIndividual Differences, 21, 124–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011
Lyon, G. R. (1996). Learning disabilities: The future of children: Special education forstudents with disabilities. Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6, 54–76.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1602494
Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementarygender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 129–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070902803795
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Crowell, E. W. (2000). Learning disabilities and ADHD:Overlapping spectrum disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 417–424.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300502
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjectiveexperience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
NWEA (2008). NWEA Student progress report. Portland, OR: Northwest EvaluationAssociation.
Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. (2002). Otis Lennon School ability test (OLSAT-8). (8th ed.).Pearson Education, Inc.
Quirk, M., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Webb, M. (2009). A short term longitudinal studyof the relationship between motivation to read and reading fluency skill insecond grade. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 196–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862960902908467
Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). “I'm ok but you're not” andother peer-relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children'ssocial goals. Developmental Psychology, 41, 363–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.363
Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). The education of dyslexic childrenfrom childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451–475.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093633
Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Performance approach–avoidance motivation and plannedbehavior theory: Model stability with Greek students with and without learning dis-abilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 331–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560591002268
Sideridis, G. D. (2009). Motivation and learning disabilities. In K. R.Wentzel, & A.Wigfield(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 605–625). New York: Routledge.
Sideridis, G., Mouzaki, A., Simos, P., & Protopapas, A. (2006). Classification of studentswithreading comprehension difficulties: The roles ofmotivation, affect, and psychopathol-ogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 159–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30035505
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahway, NJ:Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd edition). NewYork: HarperCollins.
Tabassam, W., & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, attributional style and self-efficacybeliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit hy-peractivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 141–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1511280
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents inself-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.Educational Psychologist, 41, 19–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academic,intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engage-ment. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.004
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). GORT-4: Gray oral reading tests (4th ed.). Aus-tin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to theamount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,420–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. (2004). Children's motivation forreading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of EducationalResearch, 97, 299–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.6.299-310
Wilens, T. E., Biederman, J., & Spencer, T. J. (2002). Attention deficit/hyperactivity dis-order across the lifespan. Annual Review of Medicine, 53, 113–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.53.082901.103945
Zentall, S. S. (2005). Contributors to the social goals and outcomes of students withADHD with and without LD. International Journal of Educational Research, 43,290–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.007
Zentall, S. S., & Beike, S. M. (2012). Achievement and social goals of younger and olderelementary students: Response to academic and social failure. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 35, 39–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0731948711429009
Recommended
