DYSLEXIA

Published online 21 March 2013 in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/dys.1453

■ Coping Successfully with Dyslexia: An

Initial Study of an Inclusive School-Based
Resilience Programme
Nola Firth1*, Erica Frydenberg2, Charlotte Steeg3 and Lyndal Bond4
1
Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital,
Victoria, Australia
2
Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3
Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, Thomas van Aquinostraat 8, 6525 GD Nijmegen PO
Box 9104 6500 HE, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
4
Medical Research Council, Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glascow, UK

A dyslexia coping programme entitled Success and Dyslexia was implemented in two primary
schools within a whole-class coping programme and whole-school dyslexia professional
development context. One hundred and two year 6 students, 23 of whom had dyslexia,
undertook surveys pretest, post-test and at 1-year follow-up. Effectiveness of the coping
programme and maintenance of effects for the students after transition to secondary school
were investigated. Inclusion of contrast group data in the follow-up year suggested significant
positive changes at first and second follow-ups in locus of control and nonproductive coping
may also be associated with increase in age. Most trends were in the expected direction,
especially for students with dyslexia. At follow-up, students with dyslexia reported similar
perceived control and adaptive coping to students without dyslexia rather than a decrease
in these areas as is usually the case. A larger sample and an ongoing control group are needed
to confirm these results. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: adolescence; dyslexia; emotional; specific learning disabilities; curriculum

There is increasing evidence that specific learning disabilities (SLD) including

dyslexia are associated with lifelong difficulty in some academic areas (Ingesson,
2011; Nalvany, Carawan, & Rennick, 2011; Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008;
Stampoltzis & Polychronopoulou, 2009; Undheim, 2009) and carry risks of
negative life outcomes including the following: school dropout (Deshler, 2005;
Scanlon & Mellard, 2002), juvenile delinquency (Ahrens, Dubois, Lozano, &
Richardson, 2010; Prior, 1996; Svetaz, Ireland, & Blum, 2000), unemployment
(Waring, Prior, Sanson, & Smart, 1996), social isolation (Bryan, Burstein, & Ergul,
2004; Svetaz et al., 2000; Wong & Donahue, 2002), lower self-esteem (Humphrey,
2002), depression (Ahrens et al., 2010; Wilson, Armstrong, Furrie, & Walcot,
2009) and mental health problems (Bryan, 2005; Nelson and Harwood, 2011).

*Correspondence to: Nola Firth, PhD, Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute,
Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 3052. E-mail: nola.fi[email protected]

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
114 N. Firth et al.

Recent papers have described the significant emotional difficulties experienced

by those who have dyslexia (Nalvany et al., 2011; Stampoltzis & Polychronopoulou,
2009). There is evidence of the intense emotional distress, often exacerbated by
bullying (Singer, 2005) experienced by many school-aged students who have dyslexia
(Hellendooorn & Ruijssenaars, 2000; Nalvany et al., 2011; Singer, 2005, 2007;
Stampoltzis & Polychronopoulou, 2009). McNulty (2003) contends that an
early experience of unexplained and unsupported failure in the crucial academic
areas of reading and writing experienced by people who have dyslexia negatively
affects the rest of their lives.
Students who have dyslexia are also at risk of responding to these difficulties with
maladaptive coping strategies that may further exacerbate the problem. Many studies
of SLD that use definitions that include dyslexia (see Method section for the dyslexia
definition used for this study) have shown the risk of responses of passivity or
learned helplessness (Lackaye, Margalit, Ziv, & Ziman, 2006; Núñez et al., 2005;
Sideridis, Morgan, Botsas, Padeliadu, & Fuchs, 2006), avoidance (Singer, 2007),
disruptive behaviour (Bender, 1987; Chan & Dally, 2000; Prior, 1996) and social
withdrawal (Bryan, 2005; Forness & Kavale, 1996; Kotzer & Margalit, 2007;
Pearl, 2002; Wong & Donahue, 2002).
Importantly, however, adaptive coping has been found to be a better predictor
of life success than the extent of SLD/dyslexia (Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind, &
Herman, 2003; Margalit, 2003). Studies of these successful adults indicate that they
used adaptive coping skills to deal with their difficulties. In particular, they were
aware of their dyslexia but not defined by it, they were proactive, set goals, learned
how to cope with frustration and to persevere in the face of difficulty, and how to
access appropriate help and to be flexible in finding ways around obstacles
(Goldberg et al., 2003; Hellendooorn & Ruijssenaars, 2000; Madaus, Zhao, &
Ruban, 2008; Nalvany et al., 2011).
Adults who have dyslexia have expressed anger that they were not assisted at
school in coping with their situation (Rodis, Garrod, & Boscardin, 2001; Nalvany
et al., 2011). Young people have also asked for this kind of support (Raskind,
Margalit, & Higgins, 2006). There is a growing recognition therefore of an urgent
need to develop ways to give emotional support to these young people and to
assist them to develop adaptive coping resources (Humphrey, 2002; Margalit,
2003; McGrady, Lerner, & Boscardin, 2001; McNamara & Willoughby, 2010;
Nalvany et al., 2011; Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 2002; Reiff, Ginsberg,
& Gerber, 1995; Rodis et al., 2001; Singer, 2007; Westwood, 2008) and to do so
before lifelong, maladaptive coping patterns are established (McNulty, 2003;
Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 1999).
Three studies in this area have yielded encouraging initial results. Kotzer and
Margalit (2007) implemented a programme for adolescents who had SLD/dyslexia
that comprised online awareness and communication skills supported by self-
advocacy activities at the students’ schools. Year 8 students who undertook the
programme reported increased competence compared with the control group.
Haydicky (2009) found that a programme of mindfulness and martial arts for
adolescents who had SLD/dyslexia was associated with decreased externalizing
behaviours and decreased anxiety. Firth, Frydenberg, and Greaves (2008) trialled
a programme for lower secondary level adolescents who had SLD/dyslexia that
taught strategies of challenging negative self-talk, assertiveness training, problem
solving and goal setting, all specifically in relation to coping adaptively with dyslexia.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 115

Findings included increased perceived control and productive coping strategies for
students who had undertaken the coping programme compared with a control group.
A number of studies including a systematic review of school mental health pro-
motion initiatives suggest however that for maximum impact and sustainability,
mental health interventions need to be broader than the curriculum and to focus
also on the whole-school environment (Bond, Glover, Godfrey, Butler, & Patton,
2001; Devaney et al, 2006; Firth et al., 2008; Greenberg et al., 2003; Wells, Barlow,
& Stewart-Brown, 2003). Dyslexia-friendly school environments are examples of
this approach and are therefore recommended by some researchers in addition
to targeted mental health programmes (Firth et al., 2008; Humphrey, 2002).
Humphrey found that children attending units for students with SLD, where staff
were dyslexia aware and supportive, had higher self-esteem than students who had
dyslexia and were in mainstream schools. The students at the units also reported
feeling isolated and excluded when they were in the mainstream setting. Dyslexia-
friendly mainstream schools as promoted by the British Dyslexia Association
(BDA) involve a policy outlining appropriate practice at four levels: school leader-
ship, teaching and learning, classroom environment and partnership with parents
and students. The policy includes initiatives such as teacher training in dyslexia
awareness and support, systematic dyslexia screening and classroom practice such
as nonprint-based access to curriculum and means of expression. For a complete
description, see Riddick, 2006 or the BDA site: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/
quality-mark-and-accreditation.html. Dyslexia-friendly schools are widespread in
the UK (Rose, 2009). Initial evaluation of these schools has been encouraging.
Measures have included numbers of expulsions, tribunal hearings and phone calls
from concerned parents, and interviews with students, but there is a need for
more detailed data over an extended period (Riddick, 2006).
The current study builds on the findings of the study of Firth et al. (2008).
To introduce the programme at an optimum time and counter the increase in
school disengagement that can accelerate in the early secondary school years
(Russell, 2003), the coping programme was introduced in the last year of
primary school rather than in the early secondary school years. Additionally, to
increase the priority given to the programme within the school and its
sustainability (Bond et al., 2001; Firth et al., 2008; Greenberg et al., 2003), it
was embedded within a universal coping programme and within a model of
dyslexia-friendly whole-school change.
The study involved both qualitative and quantitative methods and associated
research questions. This paper reports on the quantitative findings from the
project. Qualitative outcomes regarding sustainability of the intervention have
been reported (Firth, Frydenberg, & Bond, 2012). The research questions
reported in this paper are as follows:

(1) Is there confirmation of a difference at baseline in well-being, perceived con-

trol and coping styles and strategies between young adolescent students
who have dyslexia and those who do not have dyslexia?
(2) Do students (both those with and without dyslexia) in the intervention schools
report increased well-being, perceived control and adaptive coping gains?
(3) Is any increase in well-being, sense of control and adaptive coping strategies
maintained to transition to secondary schools for students (both those with
and without dyslexia)?

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
116 N. Firth et al.

(4) Do students (both those with and without dyslexia) in the intervention group
at follow-up report increased well-being, perceived control and adaptive cop-
ing gains compared with students (both those with and without dyslexia) in the
follow-up contrast group?

METHOD

Participants
Two government-funded co-educational primary schools (with approximately 650
students in each school) agreed to participate in the study. The schools were
regional schools about 40 km on the western side of Melbourne in the state of
Victoria, Australia. Approximately a third of the students in both schools received
a government-funded education maintenance allowance that is assessed on family
income level, and both schools had weekly individual specialist support for
some students in literacy or maths. One hundred and two of a total of 157 year
6 students and their parents consented to participate. Student ages ranged from
10 to 11 years (mean age was 10.6). Forty-six students were male, and 56 were
female. Following screening/testing, 23 students were classified as having dyslexia
(8 female, 15 male). Teachers reported that the students were primarily
Australian-born and of Anglo/European background. Year 6 class teachers taught
the universal component of the coping programme to all students, and teachers
who were interested and available taught the dyslexia component.
Because of funding constraints, it was not possible to include a control group
throughout the study, but after the intervention and during the follow-up year, a
grant enabled the recruitment of a contrast group of 39 students (see Wilkinson,
Task Force on Statistical Inference, & APA Board of Scientific Affairs, 1999
regarding contrast group terminology and use). These students were from four
secondary schools that were close to the primary schools and were attended also
by many of the students who had completed the intervention the previous year.
Students in this contrast group had not attended either of the primary schools
where the programme had been implemented. Twenty-three students were girls,
and 16 were boys. Of this group, 10 students were assessed as having dyslexia.
Students and their parents in this group were primarily Australian-born and of
Anglo/European background. Of the 10 students who had dyslexia in the contrast
group, four were male, and six were female.

Dyslexia screening
The definition of dyslexia used in the study was based on Australian definitions
recorded by the recent National Dyslexia Working Party (2010), the National
Health and Medical Research Council (1990) definition of learning disabilities and
the definition of SLD used by the Australian Temperament Project (Prior, 1996).
According to these definitions, students who have SLD/dyslexia have neurological
processing problems that are likely to be genetically based and lifelong, and are highly
resistant to change despite excellent teaching. Because these problems are indepen-
dent of intelligence, they may be experienced by students at all levels including those
who are gifted. These students have significant difficulty (e.g. are 2 years or more
below expected level for age) with reading, spelling or mathematics and have

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 117

associated processing problems such as difficulty with phonic analysis or auditory

short-term memory. Their difficulties are not caused by intellectual disability, visual
or hearing problems, Aspergers syndrome, lack of opportunity or emotional difficul-
ties unrelated to dyslexia.
Selection into the dyslexia group in this study was therefore on the basis of
scores 2 or more years below chronological age in reading or spelling. Students
were excluded from the dyslexia group if their literacy difficulty was related to
intellectual disability (an IQ score lower than 80), learning English as a new
language, lack of educational opportunity, hearing or vision difficulties or diagnoses
such as Aspergers syndrome.
The researcher consulted student files to ascertain previously documented
dyslexia diagnosis and to check the presence of the aforementioned listed
exclusions. Results of the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children (Wechsler, 1991)
were available through school records for some students, and these were used
to exclude students who may have intellectual disability.
Each school also conducted annual normed literacy tests that were used to
ascertain literacy levels of the students (e.g. the Single Word Spelling Test, Socre &
Masterson, 2001; the Progressive Achievement Test in Reading, ACER, 2003). The
study was not concerned with investigating literacy acquisition or dyslexia
diagnosis per se but with an intervention that may change students’ attitudes to
their experience of dyslexia. Results from different normed literacy tests were
therefore accepted.
Where dyslexia was suspected because of the aforementioned tests but the
student had not already been assessed by a psychologist, the researcher assessed
these students using normed spelling and reading tests (e.g. the South Australian
Spelling Test, Westwood, 1999; the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, Neale, 1999),
The Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children (Wechsler, 1991) and the Kaufman Brief
Intelligence Test (Kaufman and Kaufman, 1996). Systematic dyslexia diagnosis is not
part of state school procedure in Australia. The researcher therefore undertook full
or partial assessment of about two-thirds of the students. Of the 102 students,
23 were assessed as having dyslexia, 10 in one school and 13 in the other.

The Intervention
A withdrawal coping programme for year 6 students who had dyslexia was nested
within a classroom coping programme involving all year 6 students, which in turn
nested within whole-school dyslexia professional development and change. This
inclusive model of whole-school change rather than that of a stand-alone
programme for a particular target group has been shown to promote the priority
and resources needed to ensure implementation fidelity and sustainability of
mental health in schools programmes (Bond et al., 2001).

Whole-school dyslexia professional development and change

The whole-school component comprised a minimum of 2-h professional develop-
ment about dyslexia for all school staff. Topics for professional development
included defining, diagnosis and support strategies for students who have dyslexia.
A team of leading teachers and the school principal then developed a dyslexia
support action plan for the school. The model of dyslexia-friendly whole-school
support is little known in Australia, and schools who took part in the research

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
118 N. Firth et al.

were unfamiliar with this model. A researcher visited the schools at least fortnightly
to provide ongoing professional development, facilitate an environment for teacher
reflection on effective support of students with dyslexia in school policy and
programmes, maintain project momentum (Butler, Bond, Glover, & Patton, 2002;
Glover & Butler, 2004) and monitor programme implementation. These visits
continued over a period of a year during the implementation of the universal and
intensive dyslexia component of the coping programme. The researcher had a
background of extensive experience in working with teachers and with students
who had dyslexia.

Universal classroom coping programme

A 10-session universal coping programme was provided to all year 6 students,
including those who had dyslexia, at both schools during regular class time. The
programme was run over 12 weeks beginning at the end of term one (April). This
programme was based on cognitive behavioural therapy principles and involved
awareness of current coping strategies, use of positive thinking, assertion, goal
setting and problem solving. In the programme, students initially developed aware-
ness of their current coping style by completing the Adolescent Coping Scale
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993). This scale yields an individual coping profile for each
student and thus provides a basis on which to make future decisions about coping
choices. Students were then encouraged to use active, productive coping strate-
gies such as thinking positively, persevering and working directly on the problem
in preference to strategies such as self-blame, giving up and ignoring the problem.
Personal goals, one of which related to academic work, were chosen by the
students, and they were encouraged to use coping strategies that were likely to
lead to achievement of these goals. Next, students were taught positive cognitive
restructuring strategies. These included recognition of the link between thought
and feeling, avoiding overgeneralizing difficulty into the future or across domains
and replacing negative self-talk with more realistic and empowering self-talk. The
inclusion of positive cognitive restructuring was expected to counter negative
global attributions associated with learning disabilities and learned helplessness.
Similar positive thinking programmes have been shown to be effective in changing
negative attributional thinking (Cunningham & Walker, 1999; Roberts, Brown,
Johnson, & Reinke, 2003). The final assertion component of the programme
involved activities to develop awareness of the differences between assertion,
aggression, and passivity, and role playing assertive verbal responses and assertive
body language. Taking control was found to be a key strategy used by successful
people who had SLD/dyslexia (Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 1999).
Assertiveness programmes have been found to be effective in increasing internal
locus of control orientation (Waksman, 1984) and assertion skills of adolescent
students (Wise, Bundy, Bundy, & Wise, 1991). An assertiveness programme
designed specifically for access by students who have SLD/dyslexia has also been
successfully trialled with students who had SLD/dyslexia (Firth, 2001).
Class teachers were encouraged to reinforce skills and strategies in the regular
year 6 classroom environment with all students, including those who had dyslexia.
To increase student motivation and opportunity for generalization, the programme
was centred on goals individually set by students and included behavioural activities
such as role plays. Print content was kept to a minimum and replaced by drawing,
discussion, acting or handouts that contained only a few keywords.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 119

Withdrawal dyslexia coping programme

The 10 (minimum) concurrent, additional withdrawal sessions held for students
with dyslexia focused all these coping strategies onto dyslexia-related situations
and included role modelling by successful adults who have dyslexia. It also included
direct teaching of the efficacy of taking control in the face of dyslexia, development
of individual awareness of current coping approaches to having dyslexia,
opportunities for individual investigation of dyslexia, discussion of dyslexia-related
issues in a supportive group and individualized support for a dyslexia-related goal.
These students received both the universal and withdrawal sessions of the
programme.

Programme structure
The structure of the universal and dyslexia support components of the
programme involved the aforementioned core mandatory segment of content
and process for each session with reinforcement activities that could be chosen
and adapted to meet individual school and student needs. Examples of reinforce-
ment activities included the following: blowing up a balloon, writing on it a negative
thought and jumping on the balloon; inviting a speaker who has dyslexia to speak
to the students/teachers/parents; being a mentor for a younger student who has
dyslexia; making a Snakes and Ladders game using positive and negative coping
strategies; making an advertisement for clever coping; videoing role plays; and
sharing and discussing related stories, art, poems and films.
Both the universal and dyslexia support components of the programme
incorporated best practice instruction for students who have SLD including
dyslexia. These are explicit instruction (Purdie & Ellis, 2005; Westwood,
2001), teaching of strategies (Deshler, 2005; Gresham, 1998; Meltzer et al.,
2004; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000), clear structure, opportunity for intensive
revision, opportunity for generalization of skills (Borkowski & Muthukrishna,
1992; Gresham, 1998; Westwood, 2001), emphasis on student motivation
(Gresham, 1998) and print-free mediums (Firth, 2001). Content and sequencing is
summarized in Figure 1. See also the published programme (Firth & Frydenberg,
2011) for further details regarding content and process.

Procedure
The universal coping programme component and the concurrent, additional
dyslexia support component each involved ten 50-min lessons over a period of
11 weeks. Year 6 class teachers delivered the universal component of the coping
programme to all year 6 students, including those with dyslexia, in each of the
schools. This programme was implemented during normal class time. The dyslexia
support component was taught in a withdrawal situation during school time by an
assistant principal in one school and by a leading teacher in the other school. Both
teachers were highly experienced but neither had special education qualifications
or training. The teachers for both the universal and dyslexia components partici-
pated in professional development sessions of approximately 2-h duration, and
teachers were provided with a manual. Teachers were also given on-site
fortnightly support during the 10-week intervention period by a researcher who
had a background of extensive experience in working with teachers and with
students who had dyslexia.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
120 N. Firth et al.

Content of the coping program

SESSION TITLE CONTENT SUMMARY

1 What is Coping Meaning of stress and coping.

2 How Do You Cope? The Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg, E. &

Lewis, 1993).

3 Your Coping Profile Coping strategies and styles - individual profile graphs.

4 What’s Your Goal? Setting personal goals.

5 Choose Clever Coping Coping strategies that may be non- productive (self-

blame, worry, not coping) and alternative productive

strategies (physical exercise, relaxation).

6 Choose Powerful Thoughts Positive cognitive reframing. Disputing negative

thoughts.

7 Problem Solving Problem solving steps.

8 Why Be Assertive? The meaning of assertion.

9 Assertive Language Assertive verbal responses.

10 Assertive Body Messages Assertive body language.

Figure 1. Content of the coping programme.

Evaluation
Procedure
Students completed surveys regarding perceived control, coping, well-being and
school engagement before the intervention (t0) and twice after programme
completion. First follow-up was after programme completion (t1) and second
follow-up was 12 months later after transition to secondary school (t2). All test
and questionnaire items were read aloud to the students.

Instruments

The perceived control measures. The perceived control measures used in this study
were The Locus of Control Scale for Children (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) and the
Arc Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer, 1996). The Locus of Control Scale for
Children measures the extent to which a child feels they have control over their
lives (internal locus of control) as distinct from being controlled by external
circumstances (external locus of control). Each item involves a statement (e.g.
‘Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough he or she can pass any
subject?’). The scale has been widely used (Mamlin, Harris, & Case, 2001;
Richardson, Bergen, Martin, Roeger, & Allison, 2005) and is amenable to change
in response to programmes for students who have learning disabilities (e.g. Firth
et al., 2008; Gomez, 1997). Responses take the form of a choice between yes
and no. Higher scores indicate more external locus of control. The Cronbach’s

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 121

alpha in the current study increased over the three data collection times from 0.57
at pretest to 0.67 at post-test and to 0.70 at follow-up.
The perceived control section of the Arc Determination Scale (Wehmeyer, 1996)
involves 14 items that measure self-determination or the feeling of being in
control. Items elicit choices between two alternative statements that respondent
feels best describes them (e.g. ‘I usually do what my friends want me to’ or ‘I tell
my friends if they are doing something I don’t want to do’). The scale was
developed for and has been used extensively by students who have learning
disabilities (Wehmeyer, 1996). The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale in this study
was 0.69 at baseline, 0.80 at post-test and 0.78 at follow-up.

The coping measure. Coping in this study refers to the behavioural and cognitive
efforts used by individuals to manage the demands of a person–environment
relationship (Frydenberg, 2008)
Coping responses were measured using the 50 productive and nonproductive
coping items (general version) from the Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg &
Lewis, 1993) that were modified for use with younger children and have been
successfully used in this form with young adolescents in Australian schools (Jones
& Frydenberg, 2004). The general version relates to how a participant deals with
concerns in general, and the specific version requires participants to focus on a
particular concern. There is usually similarity in outcome regardless of the use
of general and specific versions of the scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1999).
Productive coping strategies included in the scale are working hard, working at
solving the problem, relaxing, keeping fit and healthy, and thinking positively.
Nonproductive coping strategies are ignoring the problem, self-blame, not having
a way of coping and tension-reduction activities such as crying, worrying,
keeping problems to oneself and wishful thinking. Each item consisted of a
statement (e.g. ‘Try to work out what the problem is’). Responses involve choosing
between three options of never, sometimes and often. In this study, the Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.80 at baseline, 0.85 at post-test and 0.79 at follow-up.

Measures of well-being and school engagement. Well-being was measured using

12 items of the Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory (Reynolds,
2001). Each item involved a statement and a choice of how true the
statement was for the respondent (e.g. ‘I had fun with friends’). These items
are scored on a scale of 1–3. Higher scores indicate lower well-being. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.82 at baseline, 0.80 at post-test and
0.83 at follow-up.
School engagement was measured using 10 items from the Social Questionnaire
for Secondary Students (DEET, Victoria, 2000), a survey that measures how
students feel about their time at school. Each item consists of a statement (e.g. ‘I like
school’), and responses are on a 1–3 scale with 3 representing the highest level of
school engagement. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.88 at baseline, 0.86 at
post-test and 0.86 at follow-up.

Data analysis
For any scale for which a participant had missed an item, the value of their
response to that item was imputed using their mean score on other items in the
scale. If more than 10% of items were missing from a scale response, it was not

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
122 N. Firth et al.

included. Missing responses could occur if a participant chose not to respond or

responded in a way that was not able to be understood. Comparisons between
the groups with and without dyslexia were conducted using two-way ANOVA
looking at the main effect for group (dyslexia or not) and time effect, across the
three periods (pretest (t0), post-test (t1) and 12-month follow-up (t2)). Interac-
tion effects between the main effects of group and time were examined (i.e. to
determine if the rate of change in one group was different from another group
over time). At the second follow-up, comparisons between groups with and
without dyslexia were made between the students who had received the interven-
tion and a contrast group of students who had not received the intervention, using
two-way ANOVA. Again, likely interactions between the main effects of group and
time were examined.

RESULTS

Primary School Intervention Group: Comparison Between Students with and without
Dyslexia at Baseline (t0) and Post-Intervention (t1) and at 1-Year Follow-up (t2)
Contrary to our expectations, there were no significant differences between
students with and without dyslexia on any measures at baseline. Table 1 shows
the mean scores for each period for the perceived control, coping, well-being
and school engagement for students with and without dyslexia who received the
intervention. There was a significant and sustained improvement in locus of
control for all students. Students who had and those who did not have dyslexia
improved on average by about three points. There were significant reductions in
nonproductive coping for both groups following the intervention at post-test
(t1) and follow-up (t2) data collections (i.e. both groups improved over time).
There was however no significant difference between the two groups and no
statistically significant interaction effects (data not shown). That is, the rate of
improvement or decline in any of the measures did not differ between the groups
over the periods.
School connectedness decreased over time for both students with and without
dyslexia. This is not unexpected: school connectedness usually decreases over
time at this age level (Bond et al., 2007). There were no interaction effects (data
not shown) indicating that for both intervention groups (students who had and
did not have dyslexia), decrease in connectedness was similar.

Transition to Secondary School: Comparison of Intervention and Contrast Group

Participants at Follow-up Data Collection (t2)
Table 2 shows the mean scores between the intervention students and the
contrast group on follow-up after transition to year 7 (t2). The mean scores for
the students with dyslexia in the contrast group were worse for all outcomes,
although none of the differences were statistically significant. There was a
marginally significant effect (p = 0.07) for well-being (the contrast group scoring
higher, i.e. less well-being, than the intervention groups). Again, there were no
significant interaction effects (p > 0.1, details not shown).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 123

Table 1. Comparison of intervention students with and without dyslexia at pretest (t0), post-test (t1)
and follow-up (t2)
Non-dyslexia Dyslexia
n = 79* n = 23* Dyslexia/
Time non-dyslexia
Mean (SD) mean (SD) p p
Locus of control
t0 18.30 (4.88) 17.71 (4.23)
t1 16.49 (4.78) 17.00 (5.08)
t2 15.25 (5.36) 14.32 (4.11) <0.001 0.735
Arc perceived control
t0 11.20 (2.41) 10.78 (3.00)
t1 11.29 (2.82) 11.65 (2.66)
t2 11.55 (3.20) 12.16 (2.22) 0.157 0.872
Productive coping
t0 2.42 (0.30) 2.46 (0.30)
t1 2.46 (0.23) 2.45 (0.29)
t2 2.44 (0.21) 2.44 (0.19) 0.754 0.984
Nonproductive coping
t0 1.89 (0.22) 1.95 (0.30)
t1 1.82 (0.26) 1.88 (0.32)
t2 1.80 (0.26) 1.83 (0.23) 0.015 0.150
Well-being
t0 18.30 (4.39) 18.00 (4.35)
t1 17.92 (4.03) 18.33 (4.29)
t2 17.90 (4.53) 17.53 (3.36) 0.498 0.889
School connectedness
t0 25.61 (4.38) 24.26 (4.36)
t1 24.96 (3.99) 24.72 (4.29)
t2 22.80 (4.56) 23.47 (4.14) <0.001 0.480

SD, standard deviation.

*Note at t2 numbers were 69 and 19, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Baseline comparisons between students who had dyslexia and those who did not
indicated no significant difference on perceived control, coping, well-being and
school connection. This result is of interest as studies have shown differences
between these populations at secondary school level with students with dyslexia
having more external locus of control and less adaptive coping (Firth,
Frydenberg, & Greaves, 2008; Lackaye et al., 2006; Wehmeyer & Kelchener,
1996). There have been few, if any, studies involving these variables for younger
students who have dyslexia. It is possible therefore that students who have
dyslexia do not develop less adaptive coping strategies and a more external sense
of control until they reach the more challenging environment of secondary
school. Interventions at this earlier age may therefore be particularly timely in
assisting these students to avoid developing such responses. Indeed it appears
that this may have occurred in the study. At follow-up in year 7, the students
who had dyslexia and had received the intervention had similar profiles with
regard to school connectedness and happiness to those who did not have
dyslexia, and they had higher well-being than the students in the contrast group
who had dyslexia but who had not received the intervention.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
 124

Table 2. Comparison of intervention and contrast group students in secondary school (t2)

Intervention group Contrast group

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Non-dyslexia Dyslexia Non-dyslexia Dyslexia
n = 69 n = 19 n = 30 n=9 Group Dyslexia
p-value p-value
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Locus of control 15.25 (5.36) 14.32 (4.11) 16.00 (4.68) 17.22 (4.52) 0.198 0.817
Arc perceived control 11.55 (3.20) 12.16 (2.22) 12.17 (2.45) 10.78 (3.03) 0.769 0.967
Productive coping 2.44 (0.21) 2.44 (0.19) 2.40 (0.26) 2.33 (0.22) 0.161 0.722
Nonproductive coping 1.80 (0.26) 1.83 (0.23) 1.84 (0.23) 1.99 (0.18) 0.153 0.218
Well-being 17.90 (4.53) 17.53 (3.36) 19.07 (4.23) 20.11 (4.04) 0.070 0.930
School connectedness 22.80 (4.56) 23.47 (4.14) 23.87 (3.51) 21.44 (3.00) 0.650 0.730

SD, standard deviation.

N. Firth et al.

DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)

Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 125

Post-programme results also indicated that there was a reduction in nonproduc-

tive coping strategies for both students with and without dyslexia who received the
intervention, with the students who had dyslexia achieving greater reductions and
more internal locus of control. We found similar results for the contrast group
which suggests that these positive changes at both post-test and follow-up in locus
of control and nonproductive coping may also be due in part to an increase in age.
However, the greater reduction in nonproductive coping and more internal locus
of control by the students in the intervention group who had dyslexia is of interest
as it is contrary to previous studies of students at this age who have SLD/dyslexia
and who have not had assistance with coping with their situation (Firth et al., 2008;
Lackaye et al., 2006; Wehmeyer & Kelchener, 1996). It suggests that the coping
programme may have particularly assisted these students to feel they had more
control over their situation and feel less likely to use maladaptive responses such
as giving up or worrying in response to their difficulties.
After the transition to secondary school, the students in the intervention group
who had dyslexia reported similar perceived control and adaptive coping to
students without dyslexia in the intervention group rather than a decrease in these
areas as has previously been reported (Firth et al., 2008, 2010; Lackaye et al., 2006;
Mamlin et al., 2001; Wehmeyer & Kelchener, 1996). Although not statistically
significant, trends for perceived control and productive coping for students in
the intervention group were also all in the expected direction and were
maintained across the three collection periods, especially for the students with
dyslexia. This increase in perceived control and adaptive coping is similar to those
of the Firth et al. (2008) study. That study of lower secondary school students who
had SLD/dyslexia who undertook a coping programme showed a statistically
significant increase for perceived control and productive coping compared with
the control group who had SLD/dyslexia.

Limitations
Although it is encouraging to see that the students who had dyslexia in the interven-
tion group made and maintained similar gains to the students who did not have
dyslexia, and appeared to be doing better than the students in the contrast group
who had dyslexia, this was a small trial and was not sufficiently powered to assess
differences in outcomes. Attrition for the students who received the intervention
was very low at the post-test, and reasonably low for follow-up on transition to
secondary school (10 children without dyslexia and 4 children with dyslexia), but this
loss further reduced the power to detect statistically significant differences. A larger
sample and a control group identified at baseline rather than a contrast group in the
follow-up year would have allowed ongoing comparison throughout the study rather
than only at the follow-up stage. It would also have allowed the awareness of when
and if students in the control group who had dyslexia began to develop difficulty with
their coping and would have thus strengthened the outcome of the study. Other
covariates such as family support may also need to be included. Family support is
likely to also influence outcomes for perceived control and coping responses used
by students, including those who have dyslexia.
These results rely only on student report. The qualitative data however
included teacher reports and interviews, school documents and surveys. This
qualitative data provides support for the quantitative results in that it presents

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
126 N. Firth et al.

mostly positive feedback about the effect of the intervention, particularly for the
students who had dyslexia (Firth et al., 2012).
The intervention was also a complex one, and it is neither possible with our
study design to ascertain whether particular aspects were powerful nor whether
the combination of all its elements was necessary. However, we would argue that
the intensive, longer version of the programme for the SLD students was a crucial
aspect of the programme.
The influence of the dyslexia-friendly whole-school change environment may
also have been a crucial element. The qualitative data reported on aspects of the
intervention model that appeared to improve implementation with particular
investigation of the nested, inclusive model used and the sustainability of the
intervention. Both schools successfully implemented the programme and continue
to use components of the programme. One school has continued to develop its
dyslexia-friendly practice (Firth et al., 2012) and is becoming a satellite school
for others in Australia.

Implications for practice

Given the limitations of this study, we need to be cautious about drawing firm
conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. Ideally, a large-scale
randomized controlled trial would be required to extend and confirm these
findings. The aforementioned trialled coping programme has been published
(Firth & Frydenberg, 2011) and is available for use by teachers. Included in the
manual is a recommendation regarding inclusion of an evaluation component in
each implementation as well as some evaluation guidelines for teachers.
We believe this study makes a contribution to the investigation of how to best
assist young people who have dyslexia to develop critically important adaptive
coping responses. That there is such a need is no longer in doubt (Nalvany
et al., 2011; Singer, 2007). In addition to assistance with literacy and numeracy,
programmes that focus on young people’s resilience and well-being need to be
an integral part of support for students who have dyslexia and need to occur
within a dyslexia-friendly environment.
Such targeted adaptive coping programmes and environmental supports can
give students with dyslexia more access to opportunities to use their
frequently high abilities, to feel included and in control, and to lead productive
and happy lives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to acknowledge the support for this study by the following institutions: the
Australian Research Council, the Invergowrie Foundation, the Cass Foundation and the
Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program.

DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INTEREST

Nola Firth and Erica Frydenberg have published the manual through the Australian
Council of Educational Research and jointly receive 10% of each copy sold.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 127

REFERENCES
Ahrens, K., Dubois, D. L., Lozano, P., & Richardson, L. P. (2010). Naturally acquired mentoring
relationships and young adult outcomes among adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 25(4), 207–216.
Australian Council of Educational Research. (2003). The progressive achievement test in reading.
Camberwell: Australian Council of Educational Research.
Bender, W. N. (1987). Secondary personality and behavioural problems in adolescents with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(5), 280–285.
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J. B., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social and
school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental
health and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 357.e9–357.e18.
Bond, L., Glover, S., Godfrey, C., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (2001). Building capacity for system-level
change in schools: lessons from the Gatehouse project. Health Education & Behavior, 28(3), 368–83.
Borkowski, J., & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom: ‘working
models’ and effective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting
academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 477–500). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bryan, T. (2005). The applicability of the risk and resilience model to social problems of students with
learning disabilities: response to Bernice Wong. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(2), 94–98.
Bryan, T., Burstein, K., & Ergul, C. (2004). The social-emotional side of learning disabilities: a science-
based presentation of the state of the art. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27(1), 45–51.
Butler, H., Bond, L., Glover, S., & Patton, G. (2002). The Gatehouse Project: mental health
promotion incorporating school organisational change and health education. In L. Rowling, G. Martin,
& L. Walker (Eds.), Mental health promotion and young people. Roseville: McGraw Hill.
Chan, L., & Dally, K. (2000). Review of literature. In W. Louden et al. (Eds.), Mapping the territory:
primary students with learning difficulties: literacy and numeracy (Vol. 2, pp. 161–331). Canberra:
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Cunningham, E. G., & Walker, G. A. (1999). Screening for at-risk youth: predicting adolescent
depression from coping styles. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 9(1), 37–47.
Department of Education, Employment and Training. (2000). Victoria: social questionnaire for secondary
students. Melbourne: Department of Education, Employment and Training.
Deshler, D. (2005). Adolescents with learning disabilities: unique challenges and reasons for hope.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 122–125.
Devaney, E., O’Brien, M. U., et al. (2006). Sustainable schoolwide social and emotional learning (SEL):
implementation guide and toolkit. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional
Learning, University of Illinois.
Dyslexia working party. (2010). Helping people with dyslexia: a national agenda. Report to Hon Bill
Shorten, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services. (Available from: http://
www.ldaustralia.org/dyslexia_action_agenda_1.doc), Accessed March 23, 2010.
Firth, N. (2001). Taking charge: a pilot study of the effect of an assertiveness program on assertive-
ness and locus of control orientation of young adolescents with specific learning difficulties.
Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Melbourne. Melbourne, Australia.
Firth, N., & Frydenberg, E. (2011). Success and dyslexia: sessions for coping in the upper primary years.
Camberwell: Australian Council of Educational Research.
Firth, N., Butler, H., Drew, S., Krelle, A., Sheffield, J., Patton, G., Tollit, M., Bond, L., & The beyondblue
project management team. (2008). Implementing multi-level programs and approaches that address
student well-being and connectedness: factoring in the needs of the schools. Advances in School Mental
Health Promotion, 1(4), 14–24.
Firth, N., Frydenberg, E., & Bond, L. (2012). An evaluation of Success and Dyslexia a multi component
school-based coping program for primary school students with learning disabilities: is it feasible?
Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17(2), 147–162.
Firth, N., Frydenberg, E., & Greaves, D. (2008). Perceived control and adaptive coping: programs for
adolescent students who have learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31(3), 151–165.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
128 N. Firth et al.

Firth, N., Frydenberg, E., & Greaves, D. (2010). Coping styles and strategies: a comparison of
adolescent students with and without learning disabilities Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(1),
77–85.
Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (1996). Treating social skill deficits in children with learning disabilities:
a meta-analysis of the research. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 19(1), 2–13.
Frydenberg, E. (2008). Adolescent coping: advances in theory, research and practice. London: Routledge.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Adolescent coping scale. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1999). Things don’t get better just because you’re older: a case for
facilitating reflection. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 81–94.
Glover, S., & Butler, H. (2004). Facilitating health promotion within school communities. Hands-on
health promotion. Melbourne: IP Communications.
Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., Raskind, M. H., & Herman, K. L. (2003). Predictors of success in
individuals with learning disabilities: a qualitative analysis of a 20-year longitudinal study. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(4), 222–236.
Gomez, R. (1997). Locus of control and type a behaviour pattern as predictors of coping style among
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(3), 391–398.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention
and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American
Psychologist, 58(6/7), 466–74.
Gresham, F. (1998). Social skills training: should we raze, remodel or rebuild? Behavioural Disorders,
24(1), 19–25.
Haydicky, J. (2009). Mindfulness training for adolescents with learning disability. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Toronto. Toronto, Canada
Hellendooorn, J., & Ruijssenaars, W. (2000). Personal experiences and adjustment of Dutch adults
with dyslexia. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 227–239.
Humphrey, N. (2002). Teacher and pupil ratings of self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. British
Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 29–36.
Ingesson, S. G. (2011). Growing up with dyslexia. School Psychology International, 28(5), 574–591.
Jones, B., & Frydenberg, E. (2004). Anxiety in childhood: how do children cope? In E. Frydenberg
(Ed.), Thriving, surviving or going under: coping with everyday lives (pp. 109–134). In series, Research
on stress and coping in education. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1996). Kaufman brief intelligence test (Australian adaptation).
Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Kotzer, E., & Margalit, M. (2007). Perception of competence: risk and protective factors following an
e-self-advocacy intervention for adolescents with learning disabilities. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 22(4), 443–457.
Lackaye, T., Margalit, M., Ziv, O., & Ziman, T. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy, mood, effort, and
hope between students with learning disabilities and their non-LD matched peers. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 21(2), 111–121.
Madaus, J. W., Zhao, J., & Ruban, L. (2008). Employment satisfaction of university graduates with
learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 323–332.
Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., & Case, L. P. (2001). A methodological analysis of research on locus of
control and learning disabilities: Rethinking a common assumption. Journal of Special Education,
34(4), 214–225.
Margalit, M. (2003). Resilience model among individuals with learning disabilities: proximal and distal
influences. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(2), 82–86.
McGrady, H., Lerner, J., & Boscardin, M. L. (2001). The educational lives of students with learning
disabilities. In P. Rodis, A. Garrod, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Learning disabilities and life stories
(pp. 177–193). Needham Heights MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McNamara, J. K., & Willoughby, T. (2010). A longitudinal study of risk-taking behavior in adolescents
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25(1), 11–24.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
Coping Successfully with Dyslexia 129

McNulty, M. A. (2003). Dyslexia and the life course. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(4), 363–383.
Meltzer, L., Reddy, R., Pollica, L. S., Roditi, B., Sayer, J., & Thepkas, C. (2004). Positive and negative
self-perceptions: is there a cyclical relationship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of effort,
strategy use, and academic performance? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(1), 33–44.
Nalvany, B. A., Carawan, L. W., & Rennick, R. A. (2011). Psychosocial experiences associated with
confirmed and self identified dyslexia: a participant-driven concept map of adult perspectives. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 44, 63–79.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (1990). Learning difficulties in children and adolescents.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Neale, M. D. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability revised. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council
of Educational Research.
Nelson, J. M., & Harwood, H. (2011). Learning Disabilities and Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 3–17.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 40, 148–154.
Núñez, C. J., Gonzalez-Pienda, J. A., Gonzalez-Pumariega, S., Roces, C., Alvarez, L., & Gonzalez, P.
(2005). Subgroups of attributional profiles in students with learning difficulties and their relation to
self-concept and academic goals. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(2), 86–97.
Pearl, R. (2002). Students with learning disabilities and their classroom companions. In B. L.
Wong, & M. Donahue (Eds.), The social dimensions of learning disabilities (77–91). London: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Prior, M. (1996). Understanding specific learning difficulties. U.K.: Psychology Press.
Purdie, N., & Ellis, L. (2005). Literature review: a review of the empirical evidence identifying effective
interventions and teaching practices for students with learning difficulties in years 4,5, and 6.
Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Raskind, M. H., Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K. L. (1999). Patterns of change and
predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: results from a twenty year study.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(1), 35–49.
Raskind, M. H., Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K. L (2002). Teaching ‘life success’ to
students with LD: lessons learned from a 20 year study. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4):
201–208.
Raskind, M. H., Margalit, M., & Higgins, E. L. (2006). “My LD”: Children’s voices on the internet.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 29(Fall), 253.
Reiff, H. B., Ginsberg, R., & Gerber, P. J. (1995). New perspectives on teaching from successful adults
with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16(1), 29–37.
Reynolds, W. M. (2001). Reynolds adolescent adjustment screening inventory. Lutz FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources
Richardson, A. S., Bergen, H. A., Martin, G., Roeger, L., & Allison, S. (2005). Perceived academic
performance as an indicator of risk in attempted suicide in young adolescents. Archives of Attempted
Suicide, 9, 163–176.
Riddick, B. (2006). Dyslexia friendly schools in the UK. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(2), 144–156.
Roberts, M., Brown, K. J., Johnson, R. J., & Reinke, J. (2003). Positive psychology for children. In
C. Snyder, & J. S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 663–675). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rodis, P., Garrod, A., & Boscardin, M. L. (2001). Learning disabilities and life stories. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties.
London: Department of Children, Schools and Families.
Russell, J. (2003). Enabling learning: the crucial work of school leaders. Camberwell: Australian Council
of Educational Research.
Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of school age dropouts with
and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 239–258.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)
130 N. Firth et al.

Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from
childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451–475.
Sideridis, G. D., Morgan, P. L., Botsas, G., Padeliadu, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Predicting LD on the basis
of motivation, metacognition, and psychopathology: an ROC analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39(3), 215–229.
Singer, E. (2005). The strategies adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain their self
esteem when teased at school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 411–423.
Singer, E. (2007). Coping with academic failure, a study of Dutch children with dyslexia.
Dyslexia, 14, 314–333.
Socre, L., & Masterson, J. (2001) Single word spelling test. Camberwell: NFER-Nelson. Available
through Australian Council of Educational Research.
Stampoltzis, A., & Polychronopoulou, S. (2009). Greek university students with dyslexia: an interview
study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(3), 307–321.
Svetaz, M. V., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Adolescents with learning disabilities: risk and protective
factors associated with emotional well-being: findings from the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 340–348.
Undheim, A. M. (2009). A thirteen year follow-up study of young Norwegian adults with dyslexia in
childhood: reading and educational levels. Dyslexia, 15, 291–303.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research:
findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
Waksman, S. A. (1984). Assertion training with adolescents. Adolescence, 19(73), 277–282.
Waring, S., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Smart, D. (1996). Predictors of ‘recovery’ from reading disability.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 160–166.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1996). Student self-report measure of self-determination for students with
cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31
(4), 282–293.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchener, K. (1996). Perceptions of classroom environment, locus of control
and academic attributions of adolescents with and without cognitive disabilities. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 19(1), 15–28.
Wells J., Barlow, J., & Stewart-Brown S. (2003). A systematic review of universal approaches to
mental health promotion in schools. Health Education, 103, 197–220.
Westwood, P. (1999). South Australian spelling test. In P. Westwood (Ed.), Spelling: approaches to
teaching and assessment (pp. 65–69). Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research.
Westwood, P. (2001). Differentiation as a strategy for inclusive classroom practice: some difficulties
identified. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 5–11.
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about learning difficulties. Australia: Australian
Council of Educational Research, Camberwell.
Wilkinson, L., Task Force on Statistical Inference, & APA Board of Scientific Affairs. (1999). Statistical
methods in psychology journals. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.
Wilson, A. M., Armstrong, C. D. Furrie, A., & Walcot, E. (2009). The mental health of Canadians with
self reported learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 24–40.
Wise, K. L., Bundy, K., Bundy, E. A., & Wise, L. (1991). Social skills training for young adolescents.
Adolescence, 26, 233–241.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Donahue, M. (2002). The social dimensions of learning disabilities: essays in honour of
Tanis Bryan. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 19: 113–130 (2013)