USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Middle school students' willingness to engage in different types of activities with peers :

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Middle school students' willingness to engage in different types of activities with peers : the effect of presence of adhd symptoms and familiarity with adhd
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
McMahan, Melanie M
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adhd Exposure
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder
Randomized Vignettes
Stigma
Young Adolescents
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: In addition to the increased risk they face for social and academic problems, adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) must also contend with stigma attached to the disorder. For instance, youth prefer greater social distance from students described with ADHD symptoms than from peers with asthma (Walker, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008), and adolescents are also reluctant to engage in activities (e.g., go to the movies, study together) with a peer described with ADHD symptoms compared to peers described as obese or autistic (Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007). Familiarity with individuals diagnosed with ADHD may influence adolescents' perceptions of their peers with ADHD, but the extant research on this relationship in adolescents is limited and mixed. The purpose of this study was to investigate middle school students' familiarity with ADHD, their willingness to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting ADHD symptoms, and how familiarity impacts their willingness to engage in a variety of activities with that peer. A sample of middle school students (N = 176) completed self-report measures of contact with ADHD and willingness to engage with a peer described in a vignette. Participants were randomly assigned vignettes describing either a peer displaying ADHD symptoms or a typical peer, employing a true experimental design. Middle school students expressed greater willingness to engage with a typical peer than one with ADHD symptoms overall. However, a significant difference (p < .05) was found only for academic activities, and not for social and recreational activities. This difference was present regardless of the inclusion of positive characteristics in the description of the peer with ADHD, suggesting that it is something about ADHD symptoms leading to middle school students' reluctance, not simply the lack of appealing characteristics. Additionally, approximately 70% of middle school students indicated some contact with ADHD, although familiarity with ADHD was not found to predict participants' willingness to engage in activities with a peer with ADHD symptoms. Implications for school psychologists and directions for future research are discussed.
Thesis:
Thesis (*Ed.S.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Melanie M. McMahan.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 120 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004960
usfldc handle - e14.4960
System ID:
SFS0028197:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Middle School Students’ Willingness to Engage in Different Types of Activitie s with Peers: The Effect of Presence of ADHD Symptoms and Familiarity with AD HD by Melanie M. McMahan A thesis defense submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Education Specialist Department of Psychological and Social Foundations College of Education University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Julia A. Ogg, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Linda Raffaele Mendez, Ph.D. Robert Dedrick, Ph.D. Rance Harbor, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 29, 2011 Keywords: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, stigma, young adolescents, ADHD exposure, randomized vignettes Copyright 2011, Melanie M. McMahan

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my Co-Major Professors, Drs. Julia Ogg and Linda Raffael e Mendez, for their continuous support, guidance, and encouragement throughout this research project. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Robert Dedrick and Rance Harbor, for their insight and guidance throughout this project. I am also grateful to my cohort members, Liza, Ashley, Sarah, Krystal, Mario, and Amy, f or their ongoing encouragement and friendship. Finally, I would like to thank my family for th eir unwavering love and support in all that I do.

PAGE 3

Table of Contents List of Tables i Abstract ii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Purpose of the Current Study 3 Definition of Variables 4 ADHD 4 Adolescent 4 Familiarity with ADHD 4 Middle school student 4 Willingness to engage 4 Research Questions 4 Research question 1 5 Research question 2 5 Research question 3 5 Research question 4 5 Contributions to the Literature 6 Significance of the Study to School Psychology 6 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 8 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 8 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity/Disorder in adolescents 10 Outcomes associated with ADHD 10 Academic functioning 11 Social functioning 12 Conduct problems 13 Perceptions of Mental Illness 15 Defining attitudes 15 Models of attitude development 16 Attribution model 16 The etiology and effects of stigma model 18 Adolescents’ perceptions of mental illness 19 Adolescents’ Perceptions of ADHD 26 Adolescents’ perceptions of peers with ADHD 27 Limitations of previous research 34

PAGE 4

Conclusions 35 Chapter Three: Methods 38 Participants 38 Participant Selection 38 Instruments 41 Demographics 41 Level of Contact Report (LCR) 41 Shared Activity Questionnaire (SAQ-B) 45 Vignettes 47 Procedures 51 Research Questions, Statistical Analysis, and Research Design 53 Research Question 1 53 Research Question 2 54 Research Question 3 55 Research Question 4 55 Chapter Four: Results 57 Data Screening 57 Preliminary Analysis 60 Research Question 1 63 Research Question 2 65 Research Question 3 67 Research Question 4 71 Chapter Five: Discussion 74 Middle School Students’ Familiarity with ADHD 74 Middle School Students’ Willingness to Engage with a Peer with ADHD 75 Relationship between Familiarity and Shared Activities with a Peer Exhibiting Symptoms of ADHD 79 Relationship between Familiarity and Shared Activities with a Typical Peer 81 Implications of the Results for School Psychologists 82 Limitations of Current Study 86 Directions for Future Research 90 Conclusions 91 References 89 Appendices 104 Appendix A: Demographics Measure 105 Appendix B: Level of Contact Report 106 Appendix C: ADHD Vignette and Shared Activity Questionnaire-B 107 Appendix D: Typical Vignette and Shared Activity Questionnaire-B 108 Appendix E: Parent Letter 109

PAGE 5

Appendix F: Student Assent Letter 111

PAGE 6

i List of Tables Table 1: Student Body Demographics of School 1 ( N = 895) and School 2 ( N = 1,088) 40 Table 2: Summary of Previous Studies Using the SAQ 46 Table 3: SAQ-B Original and Revised Items 47 Table 4: Description from ADHD Vignette and Symptom Type 49 Table 5: Sentence by Sentence Comparison of Vignettes 50 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Variables 59 Table 7: Correlation Matrices for Variables 61 Table 8: Demographic Variable Frequencies and Percentages for Each Vignette 62 Table 9: Frequencies of Level of Contact Report Items 65 Table 10: SAQ-B Scores for Each Vignette 66 Table 11: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for LCR Predicting ADHD Vignette SAQ-B, N = 83 70 Table 12: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for LCR Predic ting Typical Vignette SAQ-B, N = 93 73 Table 13: Comparison of Sample and District Demographics 88

PAGE 7

ii Abstract In addition to the increased risk they face for social and academic problems, adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD ) must also contend with stigma attached to the disorder. For instance, youth prefer greater soc ial distance from students described with ADHD symptoms than from peers with asthma (Walke r, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008), and adolescents are also reluctant to engag e in activities (e.g., go to the movies, study together) with a peer described wi th ADHD symptoms compared to peers described as obese or autistic (Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007). Familiarity with individuals diagnosed with ADHD may influence adole scents’ perceptions of their peers with ADHD, but the extant research on this relationship in adolescents is limited and mixed. The purpose of this study was to investigate middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD, their willingness to engage in a ctivities with a peer exhibiting ADHD symptoms, and how familiarity impacts their willing ness to engage in a variety of activities with that peer. A sample of middle school st udents ( N = 176) completed self-report measures of contact with ADHD and willingness to eng age with a peer described in a vignette. Participants were randomly assign ed vignettes describing either a peer displaying ADHD symptoms or a typical peer, em ploying a true experimental design. Middle school students expressed greater willingness to engage with a typical peer than one with ADHD symptoms overall. However, a significa nt difference ( p < .05) was found only for academic activities, and not for social and recreational activities. This difference was present regardless of t he inclusion of positive characteristics in the description of the peer with ADHD, suggesting that it is something

PAGE 8

iii about ADHD symptoms leading to middle school students’ reluctance, not simply the lack of appealing characteristics. Additionally, approximately 70% of m iddle school students indicated some contact with ADHD, although familiarity with ADHD w as not found to predict participants’ willingness to engage in activities with a peer w ith ADHD symptoms. Implications for school psychologists and directions for future resea rch are discussed.

PAGE 9

1 Chapter One: Introduction Statement of the Problem Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is diagnosed in 3 t o 7% of school-age children (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). The core symptoms of ADHD, which are inattention (e.g., failing to sustain attention, being easily distracted and forgetful, and failing to follow through on directions), hyperactivi ty (e.g., fidgeting, difficulty remaining still, talking excessively), and impuls ivity (e.g., blurting out, interrupting others) negatively impact the academic, social, and behavioral functioning of those with the disorder (DuPaul & Stoner, 2003). For example, students with ADHD are more likely than their peers to underachieve in the classroom, be bullied by their peers, and react to situations and problems aggressively (Barkley, F ischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990; Cantwell & Baker, 1991; Stormont, 2001; Unnever & Cornell, 2003). The symptoms of ADHD also lend themselves to inappropriate social behaviors, which likely explains why students with ADHD are more disliked than thei r typical peers (Hinshaw, Zupan, Simmel, Nigg, & Melrick, 1997). Though ADHD is often considered to be a childhood disorder, symptoms typically persist into adolescence and young adulthood. Longitudinal studies involvi ng children with ADHD reveal that the majority continue to meet criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD as adolescents and young adults (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Sma llish, 1990; Biederman, Faraone, Milberger, Curtis, Chen, Marrs et al., 1996). One study found th at 83% of children diagnosed with ADHD continued to meet criteria for the disorder eight years later (Barkley et al., 1990).

PAGE 10

2 In addition to having a greater risk for negative outcomes, adolescents with ADHD must contend with the stigma attached to the disorder. Stigma attached t o mental illness and to people who have a mental illness has been identified as a primary barr ier to people seeking mental health treatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human S ervices, 1999). Adults and children alike perceive mental illness in general negatively, wit h children developing negative attitudes toward mental illness at young ages (W ahl, 2002). Previous research has indicated that youth aged 8 to 18 years express stigma tizing attitudes toward ADHD, with participants preferring greater social di stance from the students described with ADHD than the student with asthma and endorsing more negative qualities (e.g., “gets into trouble more often”, “is more violent”) fo r the student with ADHD symptoms than for the students described with asthma (Walker, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008). These findings suggest that adolescents express more negative attitudes toward adolescents with ADHD than toward adolescents with ot her types of disorders or disabilities. How familiar an individual is with mental illness in general has the potentia l to impact attitudes towards those with mental illness. In adults, negative att itudes toward people with mental illness tend to decrease if the perceiver is familiar w ith other people with mental illness (Corrigan, Edwards, Green, Diwan, & Penn, 2001). However, whether this relationship is similar in adolescents is unclear, as some res earch indicates that more familiarity relates to more positive attitudes (Watson, Miler, & Lyons, 2005) and other research indicates more familiarity relates to more negative a ttitudes (Corrigan, Lurie, Goldman, Slopen, Medasani, & Phelan, 2005). Most research on adolescents’

PAGE 11

3 attitudes toward those with ADHD ignores the familiarity component and focus es on comparing adolescents’ perceptions of different mental illnesses. Though multiple studies have shown adolescents’ negative attitudes toward peers with ADHD (Coleman, Walker, Lee, Friesen, & Squire, 2009; Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007; Walker, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008), there are several limitat ions in the current research base. First, studies that have explored adolescents’ att itudes toward those with ADHD typically involve presenting a vignette to participants and eva luating their attitude toward the vignette. These vignettes usually lack any posit ive characteristics and either only highlight the negative symptoms of ADHD or simply mention that the student has ADHD. Thus, it is unclear whether adolescents perceive these vignett es negatively because of the ADHD symptoms or because the described person appears to lack any positive characteristics. Additionally, in the one study that considered how participants’ familiarity with ADHD specifically may influenc e attitudes (Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007), the measure used to evaluate familiarity with the person with ADH D consisted of only two questions and its reliability and validity had not been examine d. Purpose of the Current Study This study addressed the limitations of previous research specifically b y utilizing a validated measure of adolescents’ familiarity with ADHD and including positive characteristics in the vignettes. The study had three primary purposes: a) to explore middle school students’ familiarity with persons with ADHD, b) to investigate middle school students’ willingness to engage with a peer with ADHD as compared to the ir willingness to engage with a typical peer; and c) to determine whether fam iliarity with

PAGE 12

4 ADHD predicted middle school students’ willingness to engage with a peer wi th ADHD or a typical peer. Definition of Variables ADHD. A disorder characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity (APA, 2000). Criteria for diagnosis of ADHD requires six or more symptoms of inattention (e.g., difficultly maintaining attention to tasks, being easily dis tracted and forgetful), and/or six or more symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity (e.g ., frequent fidgeting, excessive talking). ADHD is divided into three subtypes: Predomina ntly Inattentive Type, Predominately Hyperactive-Impulsive Type, and Combined Ty pe. Adolescent. A person between the ages of 11 and 18 years. Familiarity with ADHD. How much contact adolescents report having with someone with ADHD. Familiarity, or level of contact, can vary from never obse rving anyone with ADHD, to having a class with someone with ADHD, to having a famil y member with ADHD, to having a diagnosis of ADHD. Middle school student. A student in grades sixth, seventh, or eighth. Willingness to engage. How willing participants are to engage in activities with a peer described with ADHD symptoms. Activities can include social activities (e.g., watching television, spending free time together), active recreational activities (e.g., playing soccer, hiking), and academic activities (e.g., studying for a t est, working on a project). Research Questions The following research questions are addressed by analyzing a dataset consisting of student responses to a survey questionnaire.

PAGE 13

5 Research question 1. How much familiarity do middle school students have with ADHD? Research question 2. How does middle school students’ willingness to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting symptoms of ADHD differ from their wil lingness to engage with a peer who does not exhibit symptoms of ADHD? A. When considering all activities? B. When considering social activities? C. When considering academic activities? D. When considering active recreational activities? Research question 3. How does middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD predict their willingness to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting sy mptoms of ADHD? A. When considering all activities? B. When considering social activities? C. When considering academic activities? D. When considering active recreational activities? Research question 4. How does middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD predict their willingness to engage in activities with a typical peer? A. When considering all activities? B. When considering social activities? C. When considering academic activities? D. When considering active recreational activities?

PAGE 14

6 Contributions to the Literature This study advances current knowledge by not only focusing on understudied topics, but also by improving upon previous methodology. Previous research utilizing vignettes depicting an adolescent with ADHD included only negative charact eristics (Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007). In this case, it is unclear whether adolesc ents are responding negatively to a peer with ADHD symptoms or a peer lacking any pos itive qualities. This present study used a vignette that includes positive character istics as well as ADHD symptoms to investigate whether this difference affects middl e school students’ willingness to engage with the peer with ADHD. A control vignette w as also used. This vignette depicted a “typical” adolescent with positive and negative characteristics. Another improvement to previous methodology is the use of random assignment of these two vignettes. Vignettes were randomly assigned t o participants so that each participant received either the ADHD vignette or the typical vign ette. Middle school students’ responses to the vignettes were compared. This study also contributes to the literature by adding knowledge to important topics that are often ignored in the research. These topics include adolescent ADHD adolescent stigma, and ADHD stigma, all of which have important implications for adolescent outcomes, especially given the prevalence of ADHD. Significance of the Study to School Psychology Considering the prevalence of ADHD among adolescents and the obstacles associated with this disorder, school psychologists frequently work with this populat ion. In fact, in a national survey of school psychologists, it was found that school psychologists received an average of approximately 17 referrals for ADHD a year and

PAGE 15

7 that substantial time is devoted to the assessment and treatment of ADHD (Dema ray, Schaefer, & Delong, 2003). The results of this study provide school psychologists w ith important information regarding adolescents’ contact with ADHD, adolescents ’ attitudes toward peers with ADHD, and the relationship between these variables. With this information, school psychologists will gain insight into the attitudes that adoles cents have towards students with ADHD.

PAGE 16

8 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature This chapter reviews literature pertinent to the current study. This literat ure review is divided into three sections: a review of Attention-Deficit/Hy peractivity Disorder (ADHD) and adolescents, perceptions of mental illness, and perceptions of adolescents with ADHD. The first section provides an overview of ADHD, the pres ence of ADHD in adolescents, and outcomes associated with ADHD in adolescents. The second section focuses on the development of attitudes toward mental illness and research findings specifically related to adolescents’ attitudes towar d mental illness. The third and final section explores adolescents’ perceptions of peers with ADHD and fac tors related to the development of those perceptions. These three areas help provide a contex t for the focus of the current study. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder This section provides an overview of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity D isorder (ADHD), the presence of ADHD in adolescents, and outcomes associated with ADH D in adolescents. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is characterized by persistent inattention, and/or impulsivity and hyperactivity (American Psyc hiatric Association [APA], 2000). This disorder is prevalent in the population with 3-7% of school-age children affected (APA, 2000); in other words, in a class of 20 students, it is likely that one student will have ADHD. ADHD is divided into three subtypes: Predominantly Inattentive Type, Predominately Hyperactive-Impulsive T ype, and Combined Type. Individuals with Predominantly Inattentive Type exhibit six or mor e symptoms of inattention but fewer than six symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsi vity. Alternatively, those with Hyperactive-Impulsive Type demonstrate six or more symptoms

PAGE 17

9 of hyperactivity-impulsivity but fewer than six symptoms of inattention. Combi ned Type, the most common subtype among children and adolescents (APA, 2000), includes the presence of six or more symptoms of inattention and six or more symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity. Symptoms of inattention include: lack of attentio n to details or making careless mistakes in activities, difficulty maintaining attenti on to tasks at hand, appearing not to listen when directly spoken to, failing to follow through on instructions and complete tasks, difficulty organizing, avoiding tasks requiring sustained menta l energy, frequently losing things, being easily distracted and being forgetful ( APA, 2000). Symptoms of hyperactivity include: frequent fidgeting, failing to remain se ated, excessive running or climbing (in adolescents or adults, this could be manifested as feeling restless), difficulty engaging in tasks quietly, often on the g o, and excessive talking. Symptoms of impulsivity include: frequent blurting out, trouble awaiting tur n, frequent interruptions into conversations or other activities. ADHD symptoms must appear before the age of seven years to meet criteria for diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR ; however, symptoms can be manifested in a variety of ways, varying person to person and, within that person, varying by age (APA 2000; Travell & Visser, 2006). For example, while an eight year-old may exhibit hyperactivity by running around a classroom, an adolescent may remain in his or her s eat but feel restless and fidgety. Other diagnostic criteria include the pre sence of symptoms in two or more settings (e.g., at school and at home), significant impairment in soci al or academic functioning, and ruling out Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociati ve Disorder, and Personality Disorder as better accounting for the symptoms.

PAGE 18

10 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in adolescents. Despite the prevalence of ADHD, erroneous beliefs regarding the disorder are common in t he public dialogue. For example, poor parenting has been charged with causing ADHD in the pas t, and such notions still persist despite emerging evidence indicating neurobiologica l (Tannock, 1998) and hereditary influences (Biederman, Faraone, Mick, Spencer, Wilens, Kiely, et al., 1995). Another erroneous myth is that children with ADHD “grow out” of the disorder. Though ADHD discussions often center on children, longitudinal studies illustrate the persistent nature of ADHD and provide evidence for its continuation i nto adolescence. In one such study, 85% of participants between the ages of 6 and 17 yea rs meeting criteria for ADHD continued to do so four years later (Biederma n, Faraone, Milberger, Curtis, Chen, Marrs et al., 1996). Another study assessing children dia gnosed with ADHD eight years later found 83% continued to meet criteria for diagnosis of ADHD (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990). While the severity of symptoms, particularly hyperactivity, are expected to diminish over time, ove r a third of participants aged 6 to 12 years diagnosed with ADHD in one longitudinal study still had their hyperactive symptoms 5 to 11 years later (Gittelman, Mannuzza, Shenke r, & Bonagura, 1985). Furthermore, the problems associated with ADHD tend to multiply as a child moves into adolescence and faces increasing performance demands and expectations (Barkley, Fischer, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2006). Difficulties for adolescents with ADHD have been well documented within the research across the academic and social domains. In the following section, these outcomes will be described. Outcomes associated with ADHD. Outcomes for individuals with ADHD vary from person to person (Travell & Visser, 2006). Nonetheless, adolescents with ADHD

PAGE 19

11 are particularly vulnerable. The behavioral manifestations of ADHD symptoms of hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention are considered inappropriate in many contexts (Travell & Visser, 2006), and have strong implications for adolescents’ academ ic and social functioning and well as their increased risk for conduct problems. Academic functioning. Adolescents with ADHD are at-risk for experiencing academic difficulties and academic underachievement, stemming from the ir earliest years in school. Children with ADHD have been found to underachieve compared to their peers (Barkley, 2006), and are more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability (Ca ntwell & Baker, 1991). Additionally, students with ADHD are three times more likely than students without ADHD to fail a grade level (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Sm allish, 1990). With these problems experienced in primary and secondary schools, it follows that adolescents with ADHD have lower grade point averages and class rankings in t heir senior year of high school than students without ADHD, and they are less likely to graduate or enroll in college (Barkley, Fishcher, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2006). In fact, adolescents with ADHD are less likely than their peers to graduate high s chool and more likely to attain a graduate equivalency diploma (GED; Hansen, Weiss, & Last 1999). It is thought that the manifestation of ADHD symptoms in the school setting (i.e ., inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity) contribute to the academic under achievement associated with ADHD (DuPaul & Stoner, 2003). A dual pathway model examining the relationships between ADHD, cognitive processes, and behavior has been proposed to explain the impact of ADHD on scholastic underachievement (Rapport, Scanlan, & Denney, 1999). In this model, ADHD’s influence on academic achievement is media ted by two different pathways, one cognitive and one behavioral. ADHD negatively impacts

PAGE 20

12 cognitive processes (i.e., short-term memory and vigilance) and behavior whic h both, in turn, negatively influences academic achievement. When Rapport and colleagues empirically examined this model, they found that their data supported the dual pathw ay model. The direct relationship between ADHD and scholastic achievement was not significant, but cognitive and behavioral factors emerged as significant media tors between ADHD and scholastic achievement. The cognitive pathway included vigil ance and memory as the mediating factors while the behavioral pathway included class room behavior as the mediating factor. Social functioning. Students with ADHD are also at risk for negative social outcomes related to their inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsiveness (Dumas 1998; Stormont, 2001). These primary features of ADHD lend themselves to socially inappropriate behaviors, such as excessive talking, speaking out of turn, interrupting others, failing to notice social cues, speaking and acting without considering consequences, intruding unwelcomed into groups, and reacting to situations and problems aggressively (Greene, Biederman, Faraone, Ouellette, Penn, & Griffin, 1996; St ormont, 2001). One research group that found that students with ADHD showed more impairment in social functioning than students without ADHD on multiple measures suggested that youth with ADHD are at-risk for “social disabilities” (Greene, Biede rman, Faraone, Ouellette, Penn, & Griffin, 1996). In a review of the literature on social chara cteristics associated with ADHD, it was concluded that those with ADHD may lack knowledge of appropriate social behavior, of their own social skills, and of the impact of their own behavior on others (Stormont, 2001). By exhibiting the behaviors described above and having a lack of knowledge related to social skills, it is apparent that adoles cents with

PAGE 21

13 ADHD could easily annoy or alienate their peers. Indeed, students with ADHD are more disliked than their non-ADHD peers (Hinshaw, Zupan, Simmel, Nigg, & Melrick, 1997) and are more likely to be bullied by their peers (Unnever & Cornell, 2003). In Unnever and Cornell’s study with 1,315 middle school students, 34% of adolescents with ADHD reported being bullied at least two to three times a month compared to 22% of the other students (2003). Similarly, young adults with ADHD have fewer friends than those without ADHD (Barkley, Fishcher, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2006). Overall, adoles cents with ADHD do not fare well socially. Conduct problems. ADHD is frequently co-morbid with conduct disorders and aggression; hyperactivity may signal future conduct disorders (Gittelman, Mannuzza, Shenker, & Bonagura, 1985). In a review of ADHD co-morbidity studies with community-based samples, ADHD was found to most often be co-morbid with Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder with rates ranging between 42 -93% (Jensen, Martin, & Cantwell, 1997). One longitudinal study followed 85 children ages 7 to 11 years old for an average of 9.11 years into adolescence with participants’ mea n age being 18.23 at follow up (Harty, Miller, Newcorn, & Halperin, 2009). At time one, the participants all met diagnostic criteria for ADHD, and were divided into thr ee groups based on the presence of co-morbid diagnoses: ADHD only (ADHD), ADHD co-morbid with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ADHD+ODD), and ADHD co-morbid with Conduct Disorder (ADHD+CD). At time two, a comparison control group was recruited. During the follow-up, all participants were administered a validated self-repor t aggression questionnaire that measured four factors of aggression (i.e., physical aggres sion, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility) and a second self-report questionnaire measuring s tate

PAGE 22

14 and trait experience of anger and expression and control of anger. Participant s and their parents were also asked to independently report the presence and severity of AD HD symptoms via a validated Likert scale and a checklist featuring all DS M-IV ADHD symptoms. Results at follow-up showed that the ADHD groups all showed higher level s of ADHD symptoms than the control group and that ADHD symptom persistence accounted for differences in verbal aggression and anger. The latter finding i n particular led the study authors to suggest that emotional dysregulation may be an important f actor in ADHD (Harty et al., 2009). In another longitudinal study, participants (initially aged four to twelve yea rs old) with ADHD showed poorer outcomes than a matched sample of non-ADHD students eight years later at follow-up (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallis h, 1990). At follow up, the adolescents with ADHD were three times more likely to have been suspende d from school or to have failed a grade, and more than eight times more likely to have be en expelled from school or have dropped out of schools than the controls. Young adults with ADHD also report ADHD symptomatology and higher use of mental health service s than control groups (Hansen, Weiss, & Last, 1999). In sum, the symptoms of ADHD continue to manifest themselves in inappropriate ways into, and past, adolescence. In conclusion, adolescents with ADHD are a vulnerable population. While ADHD is often considered a childhood disorder, research documents the persistence of symptoms into adolescence. Moreover, adolescents with ADHD face increased ri sks for both negative academic (e.g., likely to have lower grade point averages, fail a grade level) and social (e.g., likely to have few friends, be a victim of bullying, and be dislike d by

PAGE 23

15 peers) outcomes. Given the increased academic and social demands experienced duri ng adolescence, this time period is a particularly difficult one for adolescents with ADHD. Perceptions of Mental Illness The social difficulties experienced by adolescents with ADHD also may be impacted by the attitudes associated with the disorder. Based on previous researc h, adults and children alike perceive mental illness in general negatively, with childr en developing negative attitudes toward mental illness at young ages (Wahl, 2002). The Surgeon General has highlighted the danger of stigma by identifying it as a prim ary barrier to people seeking treatment for their mental illness (U.S. Department of Healt h and Human Services, 1999). It is important to understand the development of stigma in adolescents, in order to develop ways to prevent these attitudes and behaviors from developing and persisting The first part of this section will outline models explaining the development of stig ma. Secondly, a review of extant research regarding adolescents’ perceptions of peers with mental illness will be presented to explore what is known and unknown in this area. Defining attitudes. When studying attitudes toward persons with mental illnesses, the research literature typically focuses on stigma, defin ed as “the prejudice and discrimination linked to individuals with mental illness” (Pescosolido, 2007, p. 611). More specifically, stigma researchers focus on the presence or absence of n egative attitudes (prejudice) and the tendency to engage in exclusionary behaviors (discrimination; Martin, Pescosolido, Olafsdottir, & McLeod, 2007). An example of a prejudice would be “Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorde r are annoying” while excluding a peer from an activity because they have Att ention-

PAGE 24

16 Deficit/Hyperactivity would be an example of discrimination. Similarly Gottlieb and Gottlieb (1977) have conceptualized attitudes as embodying two components, a cogniti ve attitude and a behavioral intention. The cognitive attitude embodies statements r eflecting perceptions, beliefs, and stereotypes, such as “Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder are fun” or “Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder are annoying”. Behavioral intentions ar e statements regarding intention to interact with another, such as “I would go to a birthday par ty with a child with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder” or “I would not go to a m ovie with a child with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.” Behavioral intent ions are relevant to discrimination while cognitive attitudes are pertinent to prejudice. Models of attitude development. Research typically focuses on the presence or absence of stigma to explain how attitudes toward mental illness develop. There are two overlapping models based on social cognition theory that researchers have propose d to explain the development of stigma, Weiner’s attribution model (1995) and the Etiology and Effects of Stigma Model (Martin, Pescosolido, Olafsdottir, & McLeod, 2007). The attribution model has been validated with middle school students and the Etiology and Effects of Stigma Model with adults. The validation of these models is discussed i n the next sections. Attribution model. This Attribution model, which has been examined empirically, explains how stigma does or does not develop and how the presence or lack of stigma influences behavior (Corrigan, Watson, Otey, Westbrook, Gardner, Lamb, et al., 2007; Weiner, 1995). Weiner suggests that when developing their attitudes toward a person, individuals first attempt to determine the cause of a person’s disability. Att ributions made

PAGE 25

17 about the cause of a person’s mental illness then lead to inferences about how responsi ble that person is for their illness. Believing that an individual is personally respons ible for his or her illness (for example, attributing the person’s mental illness to ill egal drug use or lack of self-control) leads to anger and discriminatory behavior. Alternat ively, determining that the individual is not responsible for his or her illness (for example the illness is attributed to genetics or an injury) leads to pity and helping behavi ors. Therefore, persons viewed to be responsible for their mental illness are likel y to be discriminated against and viewed negatively while persons viewed as not responsi ble for their mental illness (and thus seen as victims) are likely to receive help and be viewed more positively. Corrigan and colleagues (2007) validated the attribution model with 1,391 middle school students from around the country. Researchers presented students with the following vignette: “There is a new student in your class who just came from anot her school. You have heard that this student has a mental illness,” and then instructed them to complete a revised Attribution Questionnaire (r-AQ). The r-AQ, a shortened vers ion of the original Attribution Questionnaire used with adults, consists of eight items with one item measuring each of the following factors: responsibility (“It is not the student’s fault if he or she has a mental illness”), pity (“I feel sorry for the new student” ), anger (“The new student makes me angry”), help (“I would help the new student”), segregation (“Th e new student should be locked in a mental hospital”), dangerous (“The new student is not dangerous”), fear (“I am scared of the new student”), and avoidance (“I will t ry to stay away from the new student”). Students responded to each item via a 7-point Likert-li ke agreement scale. Results supported two different models, one related to responsibi lity

PAGE 26

18 attributions and another related to danger attributions. In the first model, faulti ng the student for his or her mental illness (responsibility) directly predicted anger which was negatively associated with a willingness to help the new student. Alternativel y, believing the student lacked responsibility for their illness predicted pity, which was p ositively associated with helping behaviors. In the second model, believing the new student to be dangerous predicted fear, which was positively associated with avoidance. Over all, this study supports the application of the attribution model with adolescents by demonstrat ing that adolescents’ responsibility attributions about their peers with mental il lnesses predict their willingness to help that peer. Specifically, adolescents perceiving t heir peers to be responsible for their mental illnesses are likely to express more anger a nd less pity toward that peer, leading to less willingness to help him or her. This study by Corrigan e t al. (2007) is the first validation of the attribution model with adolescents, but other resea rch has validated this model with adult samples (Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, & Uphoff-Wasowski et al., 2002; Corrigan, Markowitz, Watson, Rowan, & Kubiak, 2003). The etiology and effects of stigma model. The Etiology and Effects of Stigma Model (EES) extends the attribution theory by considering the factors that i nfluence the development of attributions (Martin, Pescosolido, Olafsdottir, & McLeod, 2007). In this model, the respondent’s knowledge of mental illnesses as well as previous positive contact with someone with a mental illness positively shapes attributions made about a person with mental illness, and leads to less stigmatizing attitudes toward ot hers with mental illness. Martin and colleagues tested this model with 1,134 adults. Researc hers presented participants with a vignette describing a youth who had a mental dis order, asthma, or typical, “normal troubles.” Participants then completed a social dist ance scale

PAGE 27

19 in which they indicated on a Likert scale how willing or unwilling they would be to: move next door to the family of the described child, have their child make friends with the child, socialize with the child’s family, and to have the child be in their own chil d’s classroom. Participants were also asked whether or not they had previous conta ct with an individual with a mental illness and what the qualitative outcome of that contact was on their relationship (i.e., improvement, no change, or deterioration). Results showed participants were more unwilling to socialize with youth with mental illnes s than with asthma or normal troubles. However, adults who reported having had positive contact with someone with a mental illness expressed less desire for social distanc e, providing evidence for the fact that familiarity (when considered positive) with a me ntal illness positively shapes willingness to engage with that person. However, this relat ionship between contact and less desire for social distance only held true when the c ontact had a positive outcome. Though this model has not been used with children or adolescents, its validation with adults provides a framework for examining the formation of attribut ions. Adolescents’ perceptions of mental illness. In addition to the developmental of models that delineate how stigma is formed, previous research has also looked at the levels of stigma exhibited by adolescents to better understand how and why stig ma occurs in youth. Adolescents’ perceptions of mental illness have been explored in multiple ways: what adolescents think about the label of “mental illness” (Roy al & Roberts, 1987; Watson, Miller, & Lyons, 2005), how they react to the label of specific mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia, depression; Corrigan, Lurie, Goldman, Sl open, Medasani, & Phelan, 2005), and how they perceive a peer exhibiting symptoms of a mental illness (Secker, Armstrong, & Hill, 1999). In most of these studies, vignett es are

PAGE 28

20 employed and then a separate measure assesses how the adolescent responds t o the vignette. The extant literature has shown mixed findings regarding adolescents ’ attitudes toward mental illness, though it appears that, overall, adolescents perceive ment al illness negatively. The following section describes research that has examined the broad mental illness label, as well as specific mental illnesses and symptoms. The results of one study found that adolescents considered mental illness to be one of the most unacceptable and most severe disabilities individuals can have (Royal & Roberts, 1987). Researchers presented students in 3 rd 6 th 9 th 12 th grades and college, with the names and definitions of twenty different disabilities (i.e., allergy amputation, arthritis, asthma, blindness, cancer, cerebral palsy, deafness, diabetes, epil epsy, facial birthmark, learning disability, leg brace, limp, mental illness, mental re tardation, missing finger, paraplegia, speech deficit, and ulcer). For each disability, parti cipants were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert-like-scale ranging from “not at all” to “ve ry” how bad they thought the person with the disability’s problems were (measure of severity ) and how much they would like to have that person as a friend (measure of acceptability). Ba sed on their response to how bad the person’s problems were, participants identified mental illness as the third most severe disability, preceded only by cancer and mental r etardation. Participants indicated the least willingness to have a person with mental illne ss as their friend, followed by mental retardation and cerebral palsy. However, there wer e grade level interactions for the acceptability ratings. Third graders were sig nificantly more accepting of mental illness when compared to 9 th graders and college students. Sixth graders were the most accepting, and were significantly more accepting than 9 th graders, 12 th graders, and college students (Royal & Roberts, 1987).

PAGE 29

21 Other investigations into adolescents’ perceptions of mental illness, rather tha n disabilities in general, suggest that the specific symptoms of mental illne ss may have more impact than the label of mental illness itself. Roberts, Beidleman, and W urtele (1981) presented 34 participants aged 8 to 13 years with four different vignettes depi cting an imaginary peer (with a gender neutral name) with a mild physical illne ss (with symptoms such as coughing and sneezing), severe physical illness (with sympt oms of vomiting and requiring hospital stays), a mild mental illness (with aggressi ve external symptoms such as kicking and shouting), and a severe psychological illness (with symptoms such as believing in monsters and being from another planet). Interesti ngly, participants were just as likely to desire friendship with the peer with a seve re mental illness as with peers with either physical illness, but they expressed les s desire to be friends with the peer with a mild mental illness than with the peer with the sev ere mental illness. Researchers concluded that participants probably viewed the peer with the mi ld mental illness as threatening due to his or her aggressive behaviors, while the peer with the severe mental illness presented no external symptoms. Roberts, Johnson, and Beidleman (1984) replicated procedures used in Roberts et al. (1981) with 105 students aged 10 to 13 years and again found that students were equally likely to desire friends hip with the peer with a severe mental illness as they were with peers with ei ther physical illness, but students expressed less desire to be friends with the peer with a mi ld mental illness than with the peer with the severe mental illness. Researchers have also examined how the causal attributions adolescents make about the mental health label or symptoms impact their perceptions of peers with me ntal

PAGE 30

22 illness, regardless of which one is presented. Researchers gave 13 to 19 year-old participants ( n = 300) vignettes depicting four different fictional male peers with one of the following: a mental illness, a drinking problem, a brain tumor that makes the peer act as if he has a mental illness, and leukemia (Corrigan, Lurie, Goldman, Slopen, Medasa ni, & Phelan, 2005). The mental health vignette read as follows: “Brandon is a new student in your class. Before his first day, your teacher explained that Brandon is ment ally ill and is transferring from a special school.” The other three vignettes read the same, except Joshua “has a drinking problem”, Tyler “has a brain tumor that makes him act like he has a mental illness sometimes” and Ryan “has leukemia, a cancer of the blood.” Pa rticipants completed the revised Attribution Questionnaire to evaluate their attitudes rel ated to responsibility, pity, anger, dangerousness, fear, help, and avoidance for each of the imaginary peers. They also completed the revised version of the Level of Contac t Report to assess participants’ familiarity with mental illness. This measur e asks participants to read a list of eight situations varying in intimacy with the person with menta l illness and check which ones apply to them. Situations varied from the least intimate contact (i.e ., “I have never observed a person with a mental illness”) to highest intimacy (i.e ., “I have a severe mental illness”). Results showed that participants felt that the pee r with the drinking problem was most responsible for his illness, the most dangerous, that they were the angriest towards him, and they were most likely to avoid him than the other imaginary peers. Alternatively, participants attached the least amount of responsibility to the peer with leukemia, the most pity, and were most likely to engage in helping behaviors with him. Mental illness was associated with more stigmatizing a ttitudes than for leukemia, but stigmatizing attitudes decreased when the mental illness was attributed

PAGE 31

23 to a brain tumor. In fact, adolescents responded with more stigmatizing attitude s of dangerousness, and fear to the peer with mental illness without an organic cause than the peer with the mental illness attributed to a brain tumor. How responsible adolesce nts perceived the peer with the mental illness to be for their own condition related to whe ther or not the adolescent felt pity or anger toward that peer with mental illness. R esults also showed that 50% of participants were aware of a classmate with a severe ment al illness, 29% have a relative with a severe mental illness, 28% have a family friend w ith a mental illness, and 4% had a mental illness themselves. Only 11% reported never observing a person with a mental illness. Interestingly, and contradictory to the EES model the more familiar adolescents were with a person with a mental illness, the more they considered the person with a mental illnesses as personally responsible for that illness, a nd the more they considered that person to be dangerous. Thus, contrary to the EES model and research with adults (Corrigan, Edwards, Green, Diwan, & Penn, 2001), the more contact adolescents in this study had with someone with a mental illness, the more stigm atizing attitudes they endorsed. However, the researchers did not assess the outcome of participants’ contact (whether it was positive or negative), which could be a fa ctor in this finding. Other research on the impact of familiarity on adolescents’ attitudes towar d mental illness show that familiarity relates to less stigmatizing a ttitudes but only to a point. When adolescents are the “most familiar” with mental illness as they can be – defined as the respondent having a mental illness him or herself – this relations hip does not hold true. A sample of 415 high school students completed a 24-item measure called the Attitudes Toward Serious Mental Illness Scale-Adolescent Version (Wa tson, Miller,

PAGE 32

24 & Lyons, 2005). Participants responded to each item with a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from Completely Disagree to Completely Agree. Each question related to one of fi ve factors: threat (“If I had a mentally ill relative, I wouldn’t want any one to know”), social construction/concern (“I think that there really isn’t anything called ment al illness; some people are just different”), wishful thinking (“Mentally ill people can get wel l if they are treated with love and kindness”), categorical thinking (“I can’t see myself ha nging out with a mentally ill person”) and out of control (“Mentally ill people tend to be more violent than other people”). Participants were also asked whether or not they had a fa mily member diagnosed with a mental illness, and if they had been diagnosed with one themselves. Participants’ attitudes were not strongly negative on any of the fa ctors, and participants having a family member with a mental illness were more likel y to worry about society labeling of people with mental illnesses and less likely to endor se thinking that people with mental illnesses are different and distinct from others. Howe ver, adolescents indicating that they themselves had a mental illness did not endor se different attitudes toward mental illness than their peers. Gender and grade differenc es also emerged. Boys were significantly more likely to endorse Threat and Cat egorical Thinking factors. Ninth and 10 th graders were significantly more likely than 11 th and 12 th graders to endorse the Social Control/Concern factor. These demographic differences sugge st that males may be more likely than females to believe people with mental illne ss are threatening and different while younger students tend to be more concerned than older students about labeling people with mental illness. Demographic differences rel ating to the relationship between familiarity and attitudes were not explored.

PAGE 33

25 Secker, Armstrong, and Hill (1999) conducted a unique qualitative study in Scotland to explore how adolescents constructed their attitude toward case vigne ttes related to mental illness. Secker et al. conducted group discussions with 102 high school students and interviewed 18 high school students individually. During discussions and interviews, researchers presented participants with a series of five vi gnettes. The fictional person described in the vignettes was given a gender-neutral name, age, and behavi or associated with a particular problem. James, 13, showed signs of a behavioral problem ; his father had left three years earlier. John, 34, had chronic schizophrenia and hears voices. Angela, 17, developed anorexia after starting a diet with her friend. David, 40, ha s depression which led to him losing his job. Peter, 15, has early onset schizophrenia, hears voices, and worries about aliens. Each participant read the vignettes and were aske d what they thought about the way the person described was acting. The researchers found that participants drew on their own personal experiences, or those of a salient other, when developing an opinion about the vignette characters. If participants had previousl y witnessed or experienced a behavior in what they considered an understandable conte xt (i.e., they could plausibly explain the behavior occurring) they were less likely to la bel it as abnormal. The opposite was also true – behaviors not witnessed or experienced were more likely to be labeled abnormal. In addition, when participants labeled a charact er mentally ill, they were more likely to express sympathy than fear if t hey could identify with the age or gender of the peer. Secker et al. concluded that adolescents’ abili ty to identify with someone experiencing mental illness is influential in attit ude development toward that person.

PAGE 34

26 Hennessy, Swords, and Heary (2007) conducted a review of existing literature regarding children and adolescents’ understanding of mental health problems in t heir peers and concluded: that: (1) beliefs about the peers’ personal responsibility f or their problems influences attitudes toward that peer, and (2) more research is needed to determine the role of personal contact on youth’s attitudes toward that peer. The re search reviewed here support these conclusions. In sum, adolescents perceive mental illness as undesirable. How adolescents re act to peers with mental illnesses can be framed within the attribution and EES models ; attributing the cause of the mental illness to the peer, or perceiving the peer a s dangerous, tends to cause stigmatizing attitudes. The EES model maintains that familia rity with mental illness should lead to more positive attitudes toward those with mental il lness. However, findings about this relationship have been mixed in adolescents. Of the two factors thought to relate to attitudes toward those with mental illness, persona l responsibility has been well researched and led to consistent findings, however, how familiarity relates is unclear. Thus, while the majority of adolescents r eport some type of contact with someone with a mental illness, how this contact influences their atti tudes toward their peers with mental illness requires further exploration. Adolescents’ Perceptions of ADHD The focus of the present review is on perceptions of adolescents exhibiting symptoms of ADHD. As discussed earlier in this chapter, adolescents with AD HD often experience social problems. These social struggles are largely attribut ed to the manifestation of the ADHD symptoms, which lend themselves to socially inappropria te behaviors such as excessive talking, speaking out of turn, interrupting others, faili ng to

PAGE 35

27 notice social cues, speaking and acting without considering consequences, intr uding unwelcomed into groups, and reacting to situations and problems aggressively (Gree ne, Biederman, Faraone, Ouellette, Penn, & Griffin, 1996; Stormont, 2001). Students with ADHD are more disliked than their non-ADHD peers (Hinshaw, Zupan, Simmel, Nigg & Melrick, 1997), young adults with ADHD have fewer friends than those without ADHD (Barkley, Fishcher, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2006), and adolescents with ADHD are more likely to be bullied than their friends (Unnever & Cornell, 2003). Adolescents’ perceptions of peers with ADHD. It seems logical that these social difficulties could be related to how adolescents with ADHD are perceived by thei r peers. Previous research has examined the perceptions of individuals with ADHD, including the relationship between familiarity with ADHD and individuals’ perceptions. The findings from this scant literature base will be presented below and then the limitations of the research in this area will be highlighted. One study evaluated adolescents’ attitudes toward their peers with ADHD b y comparing it to their attitudes toward other illnesses. Over 1000 youth aged eight to eighteen years were asked how willing or unwilling they thought a typical cl assmate would be to interact with a factitious student in their class (“Michael”) wh o had depression, asthma, or ADHD (Walker, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008). The vignette used for each of the three conditions stated that Michael sees a doctor and has been to the hospital several times because of depression/Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder/asthma and that he is in special classes or activities for part of the day. There was no mention of any symptoms in the vignette, just the condition label. Participants completed a social distance scale that asked how likely the participant’s classmates would

PAGE 36

28 be to engage in activities such as eating lunch together, inviting him to a party and say mean things to him. Participants also were asked to complete a negative attributions and a positive attributions scale to assess attributions participants made about the de picted youth. These two scales asked, “Compared to most students in your class, how likely is it that Michael…?” followed by either a negative attribution (i.e., “is lazier,” “g ets into trouble more often”, and “is more violent”) or a positive attribution (i.e., “is more creative”, “has a better sense of humor”, “is smarter” and “is more carin g”). All participants completed both scales for their particular vignette. Results revealed that youth showed more rejection toward the children depicted as having ADHD and depression than toward the asthma vignette. Participants were more likely to e ndorse negative attributions for the ADHD vignette than for the depression or asthma vignet tes. Mean negative attribution scale scores (and standard deviations), separat ed by participants’ race and ethnicity by the authors, had the following ranges (w ith larger scores indicating participants endorsed more negative attributions): depressi on M = 6.418.30 ( SD = 2.31-3.21), ADHD M = 6.48-7.93 ( SD = 1.47-1.60), and asthma M = 4.295.31 ( SD = 2.28-1.95). Participants were also more likely to endorse positive attributions for the asthma vignette than either the ADHD or depression. Mean scores (and sta ndard deviations), separated by participants’ race and ethnicity by the authors, ha d the following ranges: depression M = 8.87-10.87 ( SD = 2.38-3.94), ADHD M = 9.02-10.26 ( SD = 3.23-2.66), and asthma M = 9.60-11.36 ( SD = 3.94-3.63). Adolescents also were less likely to interact with youth with ADHD as compared to youth with asthma, t hough ADHD and depression elicited the same distancing responses with one exception: “ invite him to a party or outing” for which participants preferred more distance from t he child

PAGE 37

29 described in the depression vignette. Race/ethnicity differences emerged as well. Asian/Pacific Islander participants endorsed significantly more nega tive attributions for depression than either Caucasian or Hispanic participants, and Hispanic partic ipants were significantly more likely than white participants to give more negative a ttributions for ADHD. Coleman et al. (2009) re-examined this data set to investigate participants’ causal attributions of depression, ADHD, and asthma and how they related to social dista nce. This analysis included participants’ responses to the following causation item s: “Michael’s parents are not raising him right”, “Michael abuses drugs or dr inks alcohol”, “Michael is not trying hard enough to get better”, “Michael’s parent or oth er members of Michael’s family have the same condition”, “Michael’s brain works different ly than a normal brain does”, “It’s God’s will”, and “Michael has experienced more str essful events than most do”. These statements tapped the following factors: parenting, substance abuse, low effort, genetics, brain differences, God’s will, and stress respectively. Participants were directed to select each statement tha t they thought could be partly causing Michael’s condition. Preference for social distance w as measured with the same scale in the previous study. Results showed that parenting, substance abuse, a nd low effort were endorsed more for depression and ADHD than for asthma, though depression was the highest. These factors were the same three that most signi ficantly related to a preference for social distance (correlation coefficient s ranged from .15 to .21), while attributing a disability to genetics, brain differences, or God’ s will was not significantly related to social distance (correlation coefficients ra nged from -.03 to .04). Thus, these results suggest that attributing peers’ disability to factors m ore within their

PAGE 38

30 control relates to more negative attitudes. Demographic differences wer e also found for race/ethnicity, gender and age. Overall, when compared to white participants, A sian and Pacific Island participants were significantly more likely to endorse par enting and stress as causes, and Hispanic participants were significantly more likely to endor se parenting and low effort. As for causes of ADHD, Hispanic participants were more likel y than white participants to endorse parenting and less likely to endorse brain differe nces. In regard to other demographic differences, girls were significantly more likely to endorse stress than boys and older participants were more likely to attribute Michae l’s condition to substance abuse and less likely to genetics, brain differences, and stress tha n younger participants. Taken together, these differences illustrate that ethnicity gender, and age can all impact how adolescents explain and react to mental illness and ADHD. Saecker and colleagues (2010) investigated how the inclusion of descriptions about a peer’s personal experience impacts adolescents’ behavioral intentions tow ard a peer with ADHD, with the notion that providing personal experiences might increase adolescents’ personal connections to the disorder and subsequently their perceptions of a peer with that disorder. Sixty-two high school students were divided into two different groups to watch either an experimental or control video. Both groups were told they w ere going to watch an informational video about ADHD, and both videos involved a young actor describing twelve myths about ADHD and providing information to refute eac h myth. In the video for the experimental group, the actor also introduced himself as a university student with ADHD and described personal experiences related to six of the 12 myths. Following the video, participants in both groups completed a revised version of the Knowledge of Attention Deficit Disorders Scale (KADDS; Sciutto & Fe ldhamer,

PAGE 39

31 1994) and the Behavioral Intention Scale (BIS; Laws & Kelly, 2005; Roberts & Lindse ll, 1997). The revised KADDS was designed to measure students’ knowledge of ADHD symptoms, features, and treatment and consisted of 18 items, six that were not a ddressed in the video, six that were addressed with information in the video, and six that were addressed with information and an anecdote (in the experimental video only). The BI S measures students’ behavioral intentions and consisted of 10 items describing increasingly intimate social situations, ranging from “I would go up to him/ her to say hello” to “I would share a secret with him or her.” To investigate academic-beha vioral intentions, researchers also included five items that increasingly require d mutual responsibility for an academic task, ranging from “I would choose him/her to be in my discussion group” to “I would teach a class session with him/her.” For both behavioral intentions scales, participants would respond on a scale of one to four, with four indicating the strongest intentions (specific responses were: “no”, “probably no” “probably yes”, and “yes”). Results showed no significant differences in the behavioral intentions of the two groups, nor were there significant differences between responses to the social versus the academic situations. The mean scores (and standard deviations) for the control gr oup were 3.07 (0.63) and 2.65 (0.77) for social and academic situations, respectively. The mean scores (and standard deviations) for the experimental group were 3.14 (0.55) and 2.63 (0.67) for social and academic situations, respectively. Therefore, contrar y to the researchers’ hypotheses, the inclusion of personal experiences did not increase high school students’ behavioral intentions toward a peer with ADHD. Participants in both groups correctly answered more questions that were addressed in the video compared t o

PAGE 40

32 unaddressed items on the knowledge test; however, the experimental group correctly answered more than the control group on the items addressed with information and an anecdote, while the control group correctly answered more than the experimenta l group on the items addressed with information only. The researchers suggested that the inclusion of personal experiences may have aided in the learning of facts associ ated with them or hindered the learning of the other facts. Overall, the authors of the study concluded that providing adolescents with information can improve their understanding of disorders but their results indicate that the inclusion of personal experiences does not change peers’ behavioral intentions. A limitation of this study is that parti cipants’ familiarity with ADHD prior to the video was not measured. Law, Sinclair, and Fraser (2007) extended research on adolescents’ perceptions of peers with ADHD by comparing how young adolescents’ responses to vignettes depic ting a gender-neutral peer (“Anon”) exhibiting ADHD symptoms differed depending on the presence or absence of a diagnostic label in the vignette. Each of the three vigne ttes contained the same behavioral description, however, one vignette included only the behavioral description, one included the sentence “Anon has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity,” and one included the sentence “Anon has Attention Deficit Hype ractivity Disorder .” Researchers assessed the attitudes of the 120 eleven and twelve year olds toward the vignettes with an adjective checklist and the Shared Activities Questionnaire (SAQ-B; Morgan, Walker, Biebrich, & Bell, 2000). For the adjective checklist participants selected from a list of half positive adjectives (“happy,” “s mart”) and half negative (“stupid”, “crazy”) the words they thought best described the vignette st udent. The SAQ-B assesses participants’ willingness to engage in different ty pes of activities

PAGE 41

33 with the target student: general social (e.g., “Invite X to my birthday party” ), academic (e.g., “Work on a science project at school with X”), and active recreational/physi cal activities (e.g., “Pick X to be on my soccer team”). Participants respond “yes ”, “no” or “maybe” to the 24 questionnaire items. Participants were also asked what gende r they thought “Anon” was, and (to assess for familiarity) if they knew something about A DHD, and if they have met someone like “Anon” before. Overall, participants responded negatively toward all three vignettes. The mos t frequently chosen adjectives adolescents selected to characterize “Anon” wer e “careless”, “lonely”, “crazy” and “stupid”, independent of the student’s label. The findings from t his study suggest that adolescents may react negatively to the behavior manifes tations of ADHD, rather than the label itself. Furthermore, the label of ADHD also did not aff ect adolescents’ willingness to engage in activities with the peer exhibiting A DHD behaviors. No significant differences emerged between SAQ-B total score s across the three vignettes, nor did they between subscale (general social, academic, a ctive recreational). There are no cut-off score for the SAQ-B, but participan ts’ scores did show a reluctance to engage with the targeted students as scores for all three vig nette conditions were significantly lower than SAQ-B scores of similarly aged sam ples in other studies which used target students depicted as obese (Bell & Morgan, 2000) or with autistic behaviors (Swaim & Morgan, 2001). Lastly, 85% of participants believed “ Anon” was male, and only 8% reported knowing something about ADHD, though interestingly, 63% reported having met someone like “Anon” before. However, familiarity, as measured by the above questions (i.e. "Do you know something about ADHD?” and “Have you met someone like Anon before?”), did not have any significant relationship

PAGE 42

34 with participants’ attitudes or willingness to engage with any of the vignett es target students. In sum, findings from these four reviewed studies suggest the following: (a) adolescents have predominantly negative perceptions of peers described as exhibit ing ADHD behaviors, peers labeled as having ADHD, and peers described both with the behaviors and the label, (b) adolescents are less willing to engage with peers labeled with ADHD than with peers presenting physical disabilities, and (c) there is pr eliminary support that adolescents’ familiarity with ADHD does not appear to influence a ttitude toward or willingness to engage with a peer exhibiting ADHD behaviors. The appar ent lack of relationship between adolescents’ familiarity with ADHD and their a ttitude toward a peer with ADHD notably contradicts past work with adults in which more familiarity with mental illness related to more positive perceptions (Corr igan, Edwards, Green, Diwan, & Penn, 2001). However, this relationship has only been investigated by Law et al. (2007) and done so using only two questions. Limitations of previous research. There are several limitations to the existing research of adolescent’s perceptions of peers with ADHD. These limitat ions include: lack of positive characteristics in the vignettes, homogenous samples, and weak methodology. Law and colleagues (2007), who conducted the only study of adolescents’ perceptions and willingness to engage with peers’ with ADHD as it relates to labels and familiarity, acknowledged that the absence of any positive qualities in their vi gnette descriptions may have led participants to endorse negative responses more freel y. Other research of ADHD perceptions utilizing vignettes have also failed to include any positive characteristics (e.g., Martin, Pescosolido, Olafsdottir, & McLeod, 2007; Walker,

PAGE 43

35 Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008). Describing individuals by their symptoms onl y without any mention of positives makes it difficult to determine whether partici pants are indeed responding negatively to ADHD characteristics or simply to an individual w ho is described only negatively. Additionally, the Law et al.’s participants were all from the United Kingdom and were 98% Caucasian, limiting the generalizability of these findings to more diverse U.S. adolescent populations. This limitation is particularly n oteworthy when considering the findings of Walker et al. (2008) and Coleman et al. (2009) who suggested demographic differences (i.e., gender, ethnicity, and age) coul d influence adolescents’ response to peers with ADHD. Lack of random assignment of part icipants to vignettes is another methodological limitation. The sample included three school s, which were each randomly assigned a vignette condition, with one school split across two conditions to keep participant numbers equal for all conditions. However, since the students themselves were not randomly assigned a vignette condition, issues of independence emerge, as it is unknown how the school attended might influence participants’ responses to the vignettes. Lastly, as mentioned above, the study by Law et al. was the only study to examine the impact of familiarity on attitude, and did s o without a validated scale. Therefore, though these studies provided some insight on adolescent s’ behavioral intentions toward peers with ADHD, how these intentions vary when a more balanced vignette is presented to a more diverse population, and how familiarity fac tors into this relationship warrants further investigation. Conclusions Since ADHD is often viewed as a childhood disorder, adolescents with ADHD receive much less attention in the literature. However, the difficulties chil dren experience

PAGE 44

36 due to their ADHD symptoms often continue in adolescence (e.g., Barkley, Fische r, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2006). Therefore, adolescents with ADHD are a partic ularly vulnerable population, and their rejection by peers has been documented (Hinshaw, Zupan, Simmel, Nigg, & Melrick, 1997). With about one child in every class of twenty students having ADHD (Pastor & Reuben, 2002) and with evidence that symptoms persist into adolescence (Biederman, Farone, Milberger, Curtis, Chen, & Marrs et al., 1996), there are many students in middle school who continue to need support to address the impairments associated with ADHD. Adolescents do not positively view their peers with ADHD, nor do they perceive those with mental illness in general positively. Adolescents consider mental illness undesirable and express a desire for social distance from those who have a menta l illness. However, two factors appear to relate to the formation of adolescents’ attitudes : attributions of responsibility and familiarity. When adolescents believe a p eer is personally responsible for his or her mental illness, he or she is more likely to ex hibit stigmatizing attitudes. However, how adolescents determine this type of res ponsibility attribution appears to relate to previous experiences with people with that specif ic mental illness, though whether previous contact with people with mental illness leads to mor e positive or more negative attributions and attitudes is unclear. In sum, it is important understand adolescents’ perceptions of students with ADHD and what factors relate to those perceptions, as these negative percepti ons have implications for adolescents with ADHD. Given the increased risk for adverse s ocial outcomes adolescents with ADHD face, a better understanding of their peers ’ attitudes can help support this population. This current study aims to address the limitations found

PAGE 45

37 in previous research (i.e., lack of positive characteristics included in vignette s, more diverse sample, validated familiarity measure) and investigate the at titudes that adolescents have about their peers with ADHD and how familiarity with indivi duals with ADHD influences those attitudes.

PAGE 46

38 Chapter Three: Methods This chapter describes the methods and data set. First, participants and measur es are presented. Discussion of the measures includes information regarding the instruments’ psychometric properties and their use in similar populations. Then, the research procedures are summarized, including information regarding the rec ruitment process and ethical considerations. Lastly, the research design, the resear ch questions, and the statistical analysis plan for each question are presented. Participants Data from a larger study were analyzed to answer this study’s re search questions. This larger research project involved a survey questionnaire administered to stude nts from two middle schools in a large school district in Florida. The principal investig ators (PIs) of the larger project received approval from the Social and Behavioral Institutional Review Board of the University of South Florida Division of Research Integrity and Compliance (IRB) on February 5, 2010 (modification request approved on March 16, 2010). The PIs also sought and received approval from the Assessment and Accountability office of the school district in January 2010 to conduct research in t he two schools. Approval to utilize the larger dataset, as well as to analyze additional research questions was obtained on December 16, 2010 from the University of South Florida IRB. Participant selection. The PIs established contact with the principals of two middle schools in a large school district in Florida. School 1 has received a school grade of “B” with previous grades being “Cs”. School 1 has a magnet focus in engineering a nd approximately 15% of students participate in this program. Ten percent of students at this school are there due to School of Choice. School 1 also has a certification from the

PAGE 47

39 College Board to implement study skills school wide. School 1 includes three self-contained classrooms for students with cognitive impairments with 15-20 co-taught classrooms. A full-time school psychologist is on staff. School 2 has a history of receiving school grades of “A”. There is not a magnet component at School 2 but there i s a gifted program. Approximately 25% of students at School 2 are enrolled due to School of Choice. School 2 has no self-contained classrooms and instead serves students through five Varying Exceptionality (VE) units. School 2 has a part-time school psycholo gist. Demographic information for the two schools, as provided from their school wide data system, is presented in Table 1. Students from these schools range in age from 10 to 16 years and grades six to eight. Participation for the larger study was sought from students with English proficiency. Students served exclusively in self-contained special education c lassrooms were excluded because students served in these classes, due to learning and ment al disabilities, may not possess the reading and reasoning skills necessary for survey completion. Additionally, English proficiency is required in order to read the survey measures. While the exact number of students these criteria excluded is unknown, 12.5% and 20.3% of School 1’s student body receive English as a Second Language (ESL) or Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services, respectively. At School 2, 14.6% and 15.3% of the student body receive ESL or ESE services, respectively. Parent al consent was obtained for 198 students, which includes 10% of the total enrollment across both schools (Total = 1,983; School 1 n = 895; School 2 n = 1088), 12% of the total enrollment across both schools with ESL students removed (Total = 1,652; School 1 n = 784; School 2 n = 868), and 12% of the total enrollment across both schools with ESE

PAGE 48

40 students removed (Total = 1,687; School 1 n = 765; School 2 n = 922). While not all ESE students were excluded (only those students served in self-contained classrooms ), these percentages provide a better understanding of who was eligible to participat e in the study. One-hundred eighty-three students were present and gave assent to participate i n the study (9% of students enrolled across both schools). Data were entered into an E xcel spreadsheet. To ensure accurate data entry, integrity checks were complet ed for 11% of complete surveys. When an error was found on one or more items, an additional survey was checked for accuracy. A total of 14% of surveys were checked for errors. Table 1 Student Body Demographics of School 1 (N = 895) and School 2 (N =1,088) School 1 School 2 Total N % N % N % Gender Male 473 52.8 521 47.9 994 50.1 Female 422 47.2 567 52.1 989 49.9 Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaskan Native 5 .6 2 .2 7 .4 Asian or Pacific Islander 24 2.7 37 3.4 61 3.1 Black, Non-Hispanic 472 52.7 69 6.3 541 27.3 Hispanic 179 20.0 463 42.6 642 32.4 Multiracial 46 5.1 69 6.3 115 5.8 White, Non-Hispanic 169 18.9 448 41.2 617 31.1 Free and Reduced Lunch Status Yes 716 80.0 582 53.5 1298 65.5 No 179 20.0 506 46.5 685 34.5 Receiving ESL Services 112 12.5 159 14.6 271 13.7 Enrolled in ESE 182 20.3 166 15.3 348 17.6 Grade 6 278 31.1 386 35.5 664 33.5 7 319 35.6 361 33.2 680 34.3 8 298 33.3 342 31.4 640 32.3 Note. ESL = English as a Second Language; ESE = Exceptional Student Education.

PAGE 49

41 Instruments The larger study utilized a survey consisting of nine different measures. Wit hin the survey packet, three instruments were the focus of this present study. This la rger study was also piloted with 15 middle school students from a 7 th grade English class. Demographics. The demographic questionnaire consisted of 15 questions. Participants were asked questions regarding their gender, ethnicity, age, g rade, estimated grade point average, Free or Reduced Lunch status, and school attendance. Participant s were also asked to indicate the number of office discipline referrals, school s uspensions, and arrests they had received in the past year. The last questions were yes or no questions regarding whether or not participants had been diagnosed with ADHD; whether t hey had been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, or other mental problems; whether they had been prescribed medication for ADHD; and whether they had been prescribed medica tion for anxiety, depression, or other mental problems. The specific questions that w ere used from the demographic questionnaire in this study are numbers 1 (gender), 2 (ethnicit y), and 4 (grade level). Please see Appendix A for the demographic measure. Level of Contact Report (LCR). The Level of Contact Report (LCR) assessed participants’ familiarity with mental illness (Holmes, Corrigan, Will iams, Canar, & Kubiak, 1999). The original version listed 12 situations ranging in degree of intimacy with a person with mental illness. Holmes and colleagues reported that the situati ons were ranked in terms of intimacy of contact by three experts in severe menta l illness and psychiatric rehabilitation, and the mean of the rank order correlations summar izing interrater reliability was .83.

PAGE 50

42 The LCR has been revised in previous research for use with adolescents (Corrigan, Lurie, Goldman, Slopen, Medasani, & Phelan, 2005). Corrigan and colleagues shortened the measure from 12 to eight items, and situations were adjusted to make t hem relevant for adolescents. The LCR is a Guttman-like scale, in which ite ms are ranked in an order so participant agreement with any one item implies agreement with l ower-order items. On the LCR, the items are situations that range from least intimat e (“I have never observed a person with a mental illness”) to most intimate (“I have a sever e mental illness”), and participants check to indicate agreement for each item. Scor es on this instrument range from 1 to 8 with higher numbers indicating greater familiari ty. Being a Guttman scale, scores are based on the highest numbered item to which the participa nt expresses agreement. For example, if a participant checked “Yes” for it ems #3 (“I have observed a person with a severe mental illness”) and #4 (“I have been in a class wi th a person with severe mental illness”), and checked “No” for the rest, the score woul d be a 4 since that item is the most intimate item. For the current study, the words “mental illness” or “severe mental illness” were replaced with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder to assess p articipants’ familiarity with this specific disorder. The format of the questionnaire was changed slightl y. Instead of using checks, participants were asked to circle Yes or No in response to the i tems to be consistent with the rest of the measures within the survey packet. The number of participants who respond “Yes” to the first item on the LCR (“I have never observed a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).”) and a lso respond “Yes” to higher rank-order items (and thus have conflicting responses) were talli ed to note how many responded in this manner. Please see Appendix B for this measure.

PAGE 51

43 Shared Activities Questionnaire (SAQ-B). The Shared Activities Questionnaire (SAQ-B) measured the willingness of a participant to engage in certain acti vities with a target person (Bell & Morgan, 2000). There are two different forms of the SAQ, the SAQ-A and the SAQ-B. The SAQ-A was originally designed to assess the will ingness of students to engage in activities with a peer in a wheelchair, and does not include any sports-related activities (Morgan, Walker, Bieberich, & Bell, 2000). Theref ore, a second form of the SAQ (SAQ-B) was developed to assess the willingness of participant s to engage in activities with a peer with a condition that would not necessarily elim inate sports activities, such as obesity (Bell & Morgan, 2000). Four sports-related i tems replaced four of the recreational items in the SAQ-A to form the SAQ-B. The SAQ -B covers three different activity areas: General Social, Academic, a nd Active Recreational with eight different questions for each area for a total of 24 items. With the S AQ-B, participants are presented with information about a target student through a vignet te and asked to circle one of three faces with a response underneath it: a sad face wi th “No”, a neutral face with “Maybe”, or a happy face with “Yes” to indicate if they w ould want to engage in the particular activity with a target student. Items include: “A sk X to come to my house to watch TV” (General Social), “Sit next to X in class” (Academic) and “Pick X to be on my soccer team” (Active Recreational). To score the SAQ-B, each “y es” item is 3 points, “maybe” two points, and “no” one point. A total, overall score can be computed as well as a score for each activity area. Higher scores indic ate more willingness to share in the activity. Total scores can range from 24 to 72 while activity scores can range from 8 to 24. Though there are not SAQ-B cut-off scores, scores were interpreted by comparing this sample’s scores to similar samples used in pr evious work

PAGE 52

44 with the SAQ-B, which includes Bell and Morgan (2000), Greenleaf et al. (2006), and Law et al. (2007). The authors of the SAQ-A assessed the construct validity of the measure with a confirmatory factor analysis with data collected from a sample of 120 third thr ough sixth graders (Morgan, Bieberich, Walker, & Schwerdtfeger, 1998). Morgan et al.’ s (1998) analysis revealed an adequate fit (using a criterion of .95 for the comparat ive fit index, which has been suggested as an adequate fit by Hu and Bentler, 1999) for the three-factor solution of .95 with the following mean item loadings for the three factors: .69 for General Social (with a range of .56 to .76), .68 for Academic (with a range of .54 to .83), and .73 for Recreational (with a range of .69 to .81). Cronbach’s alphas were computed to assess internal consistency, with coefficient alphas of .95 found for the Total S core, .88 for General Social, .87 for Academic, and .90 for Recreational. Campbell (2008) als o examined the construct validity of the SAQ-A with a confirmatory factor anal ysis, this time with a slightly older sample (sixth through eighth graders). This anal ysis yielded a comparative fit index for the three-factor solution of .96, with all standardized pat h coefficients between factors and items ranging between .72 and .83. Internal consi stency of the SAQ-A with this sample was supported by calculating Cronbach alphas (.97 for Total, .92 for Social, .92 for Academic, and .94 for Recreational). Bell and Morgan (2000) used the SAQ-B with third through sixth grade students to gauge their willingness to share activities with a child presented as obes e. The authors tested the reliability of the SAQ-B with their sample of 184 elementary s chool children by calculating Cronbach’s alphas. The coefficient alphas were .94 for the Tota l Score, .86 for General Social, .83 for Academic, and .86 for Active Recreational.

PAGE 53

45 Law, Sinclair, and Fraser (2007) also used the SAQ-B with 11 and 12 year old students in sixth grade to assess their willingness to engage in activities w ith a student with ADHD. With their sample of 120 students, Cronbach’s alphas were: .81 for General Social, .82 for Academic, and .82 for Active Recreational. Swaim and Morgan (2001) used the SAQ-B to determine the willingness of third and sixth grade students to engag e with a student with autism. Cronbach’s alphas for their sample of 112 third graders a nd 121 sixth graders were .91 for Total Score, .82 for General Social, .78 for Academic, a nd .81 for Active Recreational. The SAQ-B has also been used with an older sample of students in the sixth through eighth grades (Greenleaf, Chambliss, Rhea, Martin, & Morrow, 2006). Greenl eaf and colleagues provided 274 students with two target figures described as new stude nts in the participant’s class, one with a heavy silhouette and one with a thin silhouette, and asked them to complete a SAQ-B for each. Participants’ responses for each we re compared to investigate how behavioral intentions vary according to the weight of the peer. Greenleaf et al. reported strong internal consistency for responses t o both the “thin” and “fat” SAQ-B responses (alphas of .96 and .97, respectively), with all subscale internal consistencies above .90. Furthermore, in a pilot study conducted by Gree nleaf et al., the SAQ-B demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability with r = .84 and r = .58 for “thin” and “fat”, respectfully. See Table 2 for a summary of studies using the S AQ.

PAGE 54

46 Table 2 Summary of Previous Studies Using the SAQ Authors SAQ Version Condition N Participants’ Grade (T/S/A/R) a Bell & Morgan (2000) SAQ-B Obesity 184 3 rd -6 th .96/.86/.83/.86 Campbell (2008) SAQ-A Autism 1,00 7 6 th -8 th .92/.92/.92/.94 Greenleaf et al. (2006) SAQ-B Obesity 274 6 th -8 th .97/All subscales above .90 Law, Sinclair, & Fraser (2007) SAQ-B ADHD 120 M age = 11.9 Not reported/.81/.81/.82 Morgan et al. (1998) SAQ-A Wheelchair 120 3 rd -6 th .95/.88/.87/.90 Swaim & Morgan (2000) SAQ-B Autism 112 3 rd and 6 th .91/.82/.78/.81 a T = Total SAQ Subscale, S = Social SAQ Subscale, A = Academic SAQ Subscale R = Recreational or Active Recreational SAQ Subscale The SAQ-B was slightly revised for this current study to update the format and wording. These changes were communicated to and approved by the author (S. Morgan, personal communication, September 14, 2009). First, the happy, neutral, and sad faces were omitted to leave just the No, Maybe, and Yes text for responses. Greenleaf e t al. (2006) also omitted the happy, neutral, and sad faces in their use of the SAQ-B. Second, the wording for three items was changed to be more consistent with the language and activities of current middle schools students. For example, “Work arithmetic proble ms in

PAGE 55

47 class with X” was changed to “Work math problems in class with X.” With the revisi ons, the theme of the item (General Social, Academic, or Active Recreational) was preserved. See Table 3 for revised items. Table 3 SAQ-B Original and Revised Items Item Original Revised 15 Work arithmetic problems in class with X. Work math problems in class with X. 20 Play with X outside during recess. Hang out with X during free time. 21 Pick X as my partner in a game with other children. Pick X as my partner in a game with other students. Vignettes. Two vignettes were developed for this study to be used in conjunction with the SAQ-B. Specifically, the Shared Activities Questionnaire-B fol lowed each vignette to assess the participants’ willingness to share activities wit h the student depicted. Vignettes with behavioral descriptions of hypothetical peers, are oft en utilized in studies of youth’s perceptions of disabilities (Hennessy, Swords, & Heary, 2007), and have been used specifically to assess attitudes toward mental health disorders i ncluding ADHD (e.g., Corrigan, Demming, Goldman, Slopen, Medasni, & Phelan 2005; Law, Sinclar, & Fraser, 2007; Roberts, Beidleman, & Wurtele, 1981). Vignettes or shor t descriptions of behavior are often preferred in this type of research compared to the use of labels since participants may not understand certain terms, such as ADHD (H ennessy & Heary, 2009). In studies with vignettes, participants are typically present ed with a

PAGE 56

48 vignette describing a person exhibiting target behaviors and then asked a ser ies of questions to tap the participants’ perceptions of that fictional person. For the present study, the two vignettes both described a student with a genderneutral name (“Taylor”) and both included a sentence telling the participant that “Taylor is in your grade”. The first vignette, the “ADHD vignette”, described a stud ent with ADHD symptoms. The second described a typical student. Similarly to Law, Sincla r, and Fraser (2007), who also utilized the SAQ-B with vignettes to explore attitudes t oward a student with ADHD, the ADHD vignette describes Taylor as having ADHD sympt oms. The student in Law et al.’s vignettes, who was given the gender-neutral nam e “Anon”, was described as having six symptoms of inattention, three symptoms of impulsivit y, and three of hyperactivity to have 12 symptoms overall of ADHD as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychi atric Association, 2000). In the ADHD vignette for this study, Taylor is described as having 10 total ADHD symptoms, six inattentive, two hyperactivity, and two impulsivity. M ore inattention symptoms than hyperactivity and impulsive symptoms were describe d since, as students with ADHD mature, symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity te nd to diminish while inattentive ones remain (American Psychiatric Associa tion, 2007). In addition to the ADHD symptoms, this first vignette included positive characterist ics (“Taylor is outgoing,” “Taylor is a good swimmer”) as Law et al. indicat ed their own lack of positives in their vignettes was a limitation of their study. Readabil ity was calculated with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level system through Microsof t Word to ensure that students with at least a sixth grade reading level could read th e vignettes. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 6.5 for the typical vignette and 6.9 for the ADH D

PAGE 57

49 vignette. See Table 4 for a breakdown of the ADHD symptoms described in the ADHD vignette. Table 4 Description from ADHD Vignette and Symptom Type ADHD Symptom Type Description from Vignette Inattention Taylor has a hard time completing school assignments and turning them in on time. Inattention Taylor is easily distracted Inattention “zones out” in class or talks with classmates instead of doing schoolwork Inattention The teachers say that when Taylor does do work, it often looks rushed and contains many careless mistakes. Impulsivity Taylor blurts out in class. Hyperactivity Taylor talks a lot Hyperactivity moves quickly from one activity to another Impulsivity They also say that Taylor is a risk-taker and always looks for new and exciting things to try. Inattention Taylor has a messy room and loses things a lot Inattention Taylor’s parents say that Taylor doesn’t focus on what they say or ask, even when they repeat themselves The second vignette depicted “Taylor” as a typical adolescent. The first vi gnette was broken down sentence by sentence. The number of sentences containing at least one negative description was counted, and seven of the 11 total sentences were identified a s containing negative information. Then, the “typical student” vignette was construct ed by writing a sentence to align with each sentence in the first ADHD vignette. F or this vignette, the ADHD symptoms were changed but the positive characterist ics remained the same from the first vignette. To ensure that the two vignettes described the student in an unbiased way, feedback was sought from a group of eight graduate students. Each student was pre sented

PAGE 58

50 with the two vignettes and asked to rate each on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being “Very Negatively”, 5 being “Neutral” and “10” being “Very Positively.” The maj ority of the group thought that the ADHD vignette ( M = 4.00, SD = 1.07) was described more negatively than the typical vignette ( M = 6.88, SD = 1.13). The two vignettes were revised and presented to another group of six graduate students for review. Again, ea ch student was asked to read both vignettes and asked to rate each on the same 0 to 10 scale. This group rated the ADHD vignette ( M = 5.17, SD = 0.41) and typical vignette ( M = 5.33, SD = 0.52) similarly for how positive versus negative they were. See Table 5 to compare the two vignettes. Please see Appendix C and Appendix D for a copy of the ADHD vignette with the SAQ-B and the typical vignette with the SAQ-B. Table 5 Sentence by Sentence Comparison of Vignettes Sentence Number ADHD Vignette Typical Vignette 1 Taylor is in your grade. Taylor is in your grade. 2 Taylor is outgoing and very social. Taylor is outgoing and very social. 3 Taylor is smart but doesn’t always get good grades because Taylor has a hard time completing school assignments and turning them in on time. Taylor is smart and gets As and Bs though Taylor doesn’t always turn in school assignments on time. 4 Taylor’s teachers say that Taylor is easily distracted and “zones out” in class or talks with classmates instead of doing schoolwork Taylor’s teachers say that Taylor sometimes talks with classmates instead of doing schoolwork but is fine overall. 5 The teachers say that when Taylor does do work, it often looks rushed and contains many careless mistakes. The teachers say that Taylor usually completes work though it contains careless mistakes once in awhile 6 Taylor’s teachers also say that Taylor blurts out in class. Taylor’s teachers also say that usually, but not always, Taylor raises a hand to speak in class.

PAGE 59

51 7 Taylor’s friends say that Taylor talks a lot and moves quickly from one activity to another, but they say that Taylor is fun to hang out with. Though Taylor’s friends sometimes get into small disagreements (like any friends), they say that Taylor is fun to hang out with. 8 They also say that Taylor is a risktaker and always looks for new and exciting things to try They also say that Taylor likes to try new things. 9 At home, Taylor has a messy room and loses things a lot. At home, Taylor has a messy room. 10 Taylor’s parents say that Taylor doesn’t focus on what they say or ask, even when they repeat themselves. Taylor’s parents say that Taylor doesn’t always focus on what they say or ask but usually does. 11 Taylor’s teachers, parents, and friends also say that Taylor is a good swimmer. Taylor’s teachers, parents, and friends also say that Taylor is a good swimmer. Procedures Two middle schools located in southwestern Florida in the local community were identified as sources for participants for the larger study. Once approval from the IRB, school board, and school principals was granted, recruitment of participants began. Parent consent letters explaining the goals of the project and how the goals would be undertaken were distributed at both schools in each homeroom class in both English and Spanish. See Appendix E for a copy of this letter. The PIs of the larger project prov ided their contact information to allow parents the opportunity to discuss any concerns or questions. Incentives were used to encourage student participation. First, any s tudent who returned a signed parental consent form (regardless whether or not the parent c onsent form provided permission for the student to participate in the study) had his or her name entered into a drawing for one of two $25 gift cards to a local store. Two students in e ach grade (6-8) at both schools (a total of 12 students) were randomly selected to rec eive a

PAGE 60

52 $25 gift card. Students were also given a small incentive for participating on t he day of survey administration. Child assent was also sought on the day of survey administration from students who received parental permission to participate. A letter delineating the purpose of the larger project and what participation involved was distributed and read to the students. Students had the opportunity to ask questions and withdraw from the study at any time. Please see Appendix F for a copy of this assent letter. Participants wer e also provided a copy for their records. On the day of survey administration, participants received the pack of questionnaires. The questionnaires were counter-balanced with 6 different orders The demographic questionnaire, the Shared Activity Questionnaire, the vignettes, and the Level of Contact Report were included in each packet. Participants randomly rec eived only one Shared Activity Questionnaire and vignette so that half of the participants completed the Shared Activity Questionnaire for the ADHD vignette and the othe r half for the typical vignette. In total, there were 12 versions of the survey with six diff erent orders and two possibilities for the vignette. The LCR was always separated by at least two measures from the SAQ-B to reduce any influence one might have on the other. O ne PI and trained graduate students were present in the room during administration t o answer any questions and to ensure that participants were spaced far enough ap art from one other and given folders to prop up on the tables to ensure they could not see one another’s responses (which could influence how they answer the questionnaires). Data collection occurred across five days with one primary day at each school as well as several make-up days for any participants who were absent on the d ay of survey

PAGE 61

53 administration. Data collection occurred during students’ elective periods whi ch were indicated by the principals as the most convenient time for the school. Groups of five t o 20 students assembled in the school libraries during their assigned data collec tion time, with the exception of one large group of approximately 50 students at School 2 who were split into two smaller groups and administered the surveys on opposite sides of their school cafeteria. Research Questions, Statistical Analysis and Research Design This current study utilized both true experimental and correlational designs, depending on the research question. The type of vignette (ADHD or typical) was manipulated and randomly assigned to participants, meeting the criteria for a true experiment. Measurements aside from the vignettes and SAQ-B were not random ly assigned to participants, nor were they manipulated, making research questions re lated to these measures correlational in design. Prior to answering any research questions, Cronbach’s alphas were computed for each scale of the SAQ-B. Item correlations within each scale, as we ll as correlations among the three scales and the total score, were also examined. Though randomization was used, to check that the participants who received the ADHD vignette were sim ilar in demographic characteristics to the participants who received the typical vignette, chi square tests were performed for gender, ethnicity, and grade level. Research question 1. How much familiarity do middle school students have with ADHD?

PAGE 62

54 To address the first research question, descriptive statistics, including the m ode, mean, standard deviation, and range on the scores for the revised Level of Conta ct Report were computed. Research question 2. How does middle school students’ willingness to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting symptoms of ADHD differ from their wil lingness to engage with a peer who does not exhibit symptoms of ADHD? A. When considering all activities? B. When considering social activities? C. When considering academic activities? D. When considering active recreational activities? To address the second research question, descriptive statistics, including the mode, mean, standard deviation, and range on the scores for the SAQ-B were computed for the total score and for each of the subscale scores for the participants who re ceived the typical vignette and again for the participants who received the ADHD vig nette. Then, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was computed to compar e total scores and subscale scores (General Social, Academic, and Recreational) fo r the SAQ-B from participants receiving the ADHD vignette to total scores for SAQ fro m participants receiving the typical vignette. This test shows: (a) what the mean differ ences are between participants’ willingness to engage with the student described in the ADHD vigne tte versus the student described in the typical vignette for the total and subscale sc ores, (b) if these mean differences are significant, and (c) whether or not there are an y interaction effects. Assumptions in MANOVA are independent random sampling, normality, and multivariate homogeneity of variance. These were examined prior to data a nalysis.

PAGE 63

55 Research question 3. How does middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD predict their willingness to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting sy mptoms of ADHD? A. When considering all activities? B. When considering social activities? C. When considering academic activities? D. When considering active recreational activities? To address the third research question, correlation matrices were first examined to explore relationships between the variables. Secondly, hierarchical multipl e regression was performed. The regression analyses were run using the LCR scores (as the independent variable) and total score from the SAQ-B (as the dependent variable ) from only the participants who received the ADHD vignette. Hierarchical multiple r egression were also performed with the LCR scores and the subscale scores from the SA Q-B for each group to determine if there was a stronger relationship between fami liarity and the different activity types (General Social, Academic, and Recreational ). Gender, ethnicity, and grade (items #1, #2, #4 from the Demographics measure) were statistically controlled for all regressions. Research question 4 How does middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD predict their willingness to engage in activities with a typical peer? To address the fourth research question, hierarchical multiple regression was first used to determine whether there were interaction effects between LCR sc ores and vignette type in predicting SAQ-B scores. Secondly, hierarchical multi ple regression was performed. The regression analyses were run using the LCR scores (a s the independent

PAGE 64

56 variable) and total score from the SAQ-B (as the dependent variable) from onl y the participants who received the typical vignette. Hierarchical multiple re gression were also performed with the LCR scores and the subscale scores from the SAQ-B for ea ch group to determine if there was a stronger relationship between familiarity a nd the different activity types (General Social, Academic, and Recreational). Gender, ethni city, and grade (items #1, #2, #4 from the Demographics measure) were statistically control led for all regressions.

PAGE 65

57 Chapter Four: Results This chapter presents the results of the statistical analyses conducted t o answer the research questions. First, steps taken to screen the data and conduct preliminar y analyses are described. For the first research question, descriptive statistics a re presented for the participants’ Shared Activity Questionnaire-B (SAQ-B) scores for both the A DHD and typical vignettes. Additionally, results from a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) conducted to determine whether significant differences exist be tween middle school students’ willingness to engage with a peer with ADHD versus a ty pical peer are presented. For the second research question, descriptive statistic s are presented for participants’ Level of Contact (LCR) scores. For the third and fourth resea rch questions, results of hierarchical multiple regressions are presented to deter mine how well participants’ LCR scores predicted their SAQ-B scores for both the A DHD and typical vignettes. Data Screening Parental consent was obtained for a total of 198 students, which yielded a 10% return rate, given that total enrollment across both schools was 1,983 (School 1 n = 895; School 2 n = 1088). One-hundred eighty-three students were present and gave assent to participate in the study (9% of students enrolled across both schools). During the dat a screening processes, it was observed that there was a low frequency of part icipants who identified themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander ( n = 5) on the Demographics measure, and all received the ADHD vignette (despite random assignment of the vignette s). Due to this low frequency, these five participants were excluded from data analyses. A n

PAGE 66

58 additional two participants were excluded for incomplete data as will be desc ribed below. Thus, the final dataset yielded a useable total sample of 176 participants. Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 19.0. Averages for the SA Q-B composite score and three subscales were computed. Given that seven participants did not respond to every item on the SAQ-B, a criterion of 75% was set. Therefore, only participants who completed at least 16 of the 24 items on the SAQ-B composite and at least six of the eight items on each subscale were included in analyses. These c riteria excluded two participants. Scores for the SAQ-B Total and three subscale scor es were computed by averaging responses (rather than summing) to address the missing data. To avoid confusion, the SAQ-B Total score will subsequently be referred to as the SAQ -B Overall score while the three subscales will be referred to by their title s (General Social, Academic, Active Recreational). On the LCR, the index for familiarity scores was the rank score of the m ost intimate situation indicated by the participant. For example, if the partici pant checked both the second (“I have watched a television show that included a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder;” score of 2) and third items (“I ha ve observed a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder”; score of 3), the par ticipant was given a score of three. Steps taken to include the 27 participants that did not endorse “yes” to any of the LCR items are detailed later in this chapter. Descriptive analyses were conducted for the variables to check: (a) that dat a fell into expected ranges, (b) for normality by analyzing skewness and kurtosis, and (c) for outliers. All variables fell within expected ranges (i.e., SAQ-B scores ra nged from 1 to 3 and LCR scores from 0 to 7). See Table 6 for descriptive statistics (e.g., m inimums,

PAGE 67

59 maximums, means) for the variables. The skewness and kurtosis for each variabl e were calculated and examined and fell within acceptable ranges. To screen for univa riate outliers, all variable scores were converted into z-scores and compared to a cri terion of 3.3 (which would indicate a very large standardized scores that are far from the m ean of the distribution; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). No z-scores were larger than the spec ified criterion. To screen for multivariate outliers, Mahalanobis Distance wa s computed for each variable score and compared to a critical chi-square value ( T = 13.28, df = 4). This critical value was obtained from a T-Table using four degrees of freedom for t he four independent variables (LCR, gender, ethnicity, and grade level) and a p -value of .01 to ensure that each case was not significantly separated from the rest of the dat a (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007); none exceeded this criterion. Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for Variables Variable N Minimum Maximum M ( SD ) Skew Kurtosis ADHD SAQ-B Overall 83 1.04 3.00 1.92 (0.50) 0.17 -1.00 General Social 83 1.13 3.00 2.02 (0.53) 0.02 -0.93 Academic 83 1.00 3.00 1.68 (0.58) 0.74 -0.56 General Recreational 83 1.00 3.00 2.05 (0.60) -0.07 -1.12 Typical SAQ-B Overall 93 1.00 3.00 2.11 (0.51) -0.36 -0.66 General Social 93 1.00 3.00 2.13 (0.53) -0.28 -0.81 Academic 93 1.00 3.00 2.07 (0.57) -0.18 -0.90 General Recreational 93 1.00 3.00 2.15 (0.57) -0.24 -0.66 LCR 176 0 7 3.00 (2.40) 0.13 -1.3 Note ADHD SAQ-B and Typical SAQ-B refer to the vignette received by the participants. SAQ-B = Shared Activity Questionnaire-B; LCR = Level o f Contact Report.

PAGE 68

60 Preliminary Analyses Preliminary analyses consisted of: (a) computing Cronbach’s alphas for t he overall and three subscales of the SAQ-B for each vignette, (b) examining ite m correlations within and between the overall and three subscales of the SAQ-B fo r each vignette, (c) examining the correlations between the key variables, (d) c onducting Chi square tests for independence for gender, ethnicity, and grade level for partic ipants who received the ADHD vignette and for participants who received the typical vi gnette. The internal consistency of the SAQ-B was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability for the overall scale and subscales was supported with strong Cr onbach coefficients for those receiving the ADHD vignette (.94 for Overall, .86 for Genera l Social, .90 for Academic, and .90 for Active Recreational) and the non-ADHD vignette (.95 for Overall, .87 for General Social, .89 for Academic, and .88 for Active Recreational). Mean item correlations within each of the SAQ-B scales for the ADHD vignette were obtained for Overall (.41), General Social (.44), Academic (.53), a nd Active Recreational (.52). Mean item correlations within each of the SAQ-B s cales for the typical vignette were also obtained for Overall (.45), General Socia l (.46), Academic (.50), and Active Recreational (.49). Correlations among the SAQ-B scales for the ADHD vignette ranged from .54 (Academic and Active Recreational) to .93 (Gene ral Social and Overall) and for the non-ADHD vignette .71 (Academic and Active Recreational) to .95 (General Social and Overall). See Table 7 for correl ations between SAQ-B and LCR.

PAGE 69

61 Table 7 Correlation Matrices for Variables Vignette Overall General Social Academic Active Recreational LCR ADHD Overall 1 General Social .93 1 Academic .83 .67 1 Active Recreational .90 .82 .54 1 LCR -.16 -.15 -.06 -.21 1 Typical Overall 1 General Social .95 1 Academic .90 .78 1 Active Recreational .92 .85 .71 1 LCR -.03 -.06 .02 -.04 1 Note. LCR = Level of Contact Report To ensure that the participants who received the ADHD vignette did not significantly differ from the participants who received the typical vignette in terms of gender, ethnicity, or grade level, three Chi-square tests for independence wer e employed. A Chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicat ed no significant relationship between vignette and gender, 2 (1, N = 178) = .07, p = .48, phi =

PAGE 70

62 -.07. A second and third Chi-square test for independence indicated no significant relationship between vignette and ethnicity, 2 (3, N = 178) = 0.90, p = 0.82 or between vignette and grade level, 2 (2, N = 178) = 0.07, p = 0.96. Thus, the two vignette groups were not significantly different along these variables. See Table 8 for de mographic frequencies for each vignette. Table 8 Demographic Variable Frequencies and Percentages for Each Vignette Variable ADHD Vignette n (%) Typical Vignette n (%) 2 Gender 0.07 Female 51 (61.4) 63 (67.7) Male 32 (38.6) 30 (32.3) Ethnicity 0.90 African American/Black 23 (27.7) 25 (26.9) White 28 (33.7) 36 (38.7) Hispanic 25 (30.1) 27 (29.0) Other 7 (8.4) 5 (5.4) Grade 0.07 6 39 (47.0) 44 (47.3) 7 20 (24.1) 24 (25.8) 8 24 (28.9) 25 (26.9)

PAGE 71

63 To determine if the participants in the sample who reported having ADHD on the LCR were different from those who did not reporting having ADHD, demographic variables of this group were examined. Ten of the sixteen middle school students reporting that they had ADHD were female. Regarding ethnicity, three were Af rican American/Black, eight were White, four were Hispanic, and one was Other. Twe lve of the 16 were in 6 th grade, one in 7 th and three in 8 th These percentages were similar to those found in the overall sample. It was also determined how many students who indicated they had ADHD on the LCR fell into each of the vignette groups. Of these 16 students, eight fell into each of the vignette groups. Research Question 1 To address this first research question, regarding much familiarity middl e school students have with ADHD,, descriptive statistics were computed for all part icipants’ LCR scores. Participants’ LCR scores were assigned based on the highest item number to which they responded “yes”. One hundred and twenty-nine participants (73.30%) responded “yes” to at least one of the LCR items numbered two (I have watched a television show that included a person with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) through eight (I have Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), signif ying some type of exposure to ADHD. One hundred and sixteen participants (65.90%) responded yes to at least one of the LCR items numbered three (I have observed a person with Attenti onDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) through eight, signifying they have had a personal encounter with a person with ADHD. “I have been in a class with a person with ADH D” was the modal response, and 9.10% of participants endorsed having ADHD themselves. Twenty-seven participants (15.30%) did not endorse “yes” on any of the LCR items,

PAGE 72

64 which led to conflicting responses (i.e., these participants responded no to item number 1 “I have never observed a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD )” and yet also responded no to all of the other items related to contact with persons with ADHD). See Table 9 for a summary of these descriptive sta tistics. To further validate the use of the Guttman score, several correlations were examined. To ensure that participants who responded “yes” to multiple items on the LCR were represented by their LCR score, correlations between the sum sc ore of the LCR (the total number of items to which the participant responded “yes”) with the LCR Guttman score were examined. The sum score of the LCR was highly positively correlated with the LCR Guttman score (r=.84), giving validity to the Guttma n score. To further investigate the validity of the LCR scores, correlations betwe en participants’ response to an item after the vignettes (“Do you know someone like Taylor?”) wi th LCR scores were examined. A small, positive correlation (r=.24) was found for pa rticipants who received the ADHD vignette and responded “yes” to the item (indicating they knew someone like Taylor) and their LCR scores. Contrary to this finding, no correla tion (r=.00) was found for participants who received the typical vignette and responded y es to the item and their LCR scores, providing additional support for the validity of the L CR scores.

PAGE 73

65 Table 9 Frequencies of Level of Contact Report Items Item N ( N = 176 ) % No items endorsed 27 15.30 1. I have never observed a person with AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 20 11.40 2. I have watched a television show that included a person with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 13 7.40 3. I have observed a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 13 7.40 4. I have been in a class with a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 28 15.90 5. A friend of the family has Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 20 11.40 6. I have a relative who has Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 21 11.90 7. I live with a person who has Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 18 10.20 8. I have Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. 16 9.10 Research Question 2 To address this research question, regarding how middle school students’ willingness to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting symptoms of ADHD differs from their willingness to engage with a peer who does not exhibit symptoms of ADHD, descriptive statistics for the SAQ-B scores were first computed for par ticipants who received the ADHD vignette and for participants who received the typical vi gnette.

PAGE 74

66 Higher scores indicate more willingness to engage. As shown in Table 10, mean scor es for participants receiving the ADHD vignette were lower across all scales compared to scores for participants receiving the typical vignette. Table 10 SAQ-B Scores for Each Vignette Vignette N SAQ-B Overall M ( SD ) General Social M ( SD ) Academic M ( SD ) Active Recreational M ( SD ) ADHD 83 1.92 (0.50) 2.02 (0.53) 1.68 (0.58) 2.05 (0.60) Typical 93 2.12 (0.51) 2.13 (0.53) 2.07 (0.57) 2.15 (0.57) Note All scales had a possible range of 1 to 3. Effect sizes, measured by Cohen’s d were computed to determine the average differences between the two vignette groups. SAQ-B Overall ( d = 0.40) and Academic ( d = 0.68) both yielded moderate effect sizes while General Social ( d = 0.20) and Active Recreational ( d = 0.17) yielded small effect sizes. Thus, there was a moderate difference between participants’ responses on the Overall and Academic scales on the SAQB for the ADHD vignette versus the typical vignette but a small difference for General Social and Active Recreational. Next, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to co mpare SAQ-B scores of each vignette group to determine if there were any signi ficant differences between groups. Four dependent variables were used, SAQ-B Overal l, General Social, Academic, and Active Recreation. The independent variable wa s the vignette (ADHD or typical). MANOVA assumptions were tested to check for li nearity of the dependent variable, multivariate normality, and multivariate homogeneity of variance.

PAGE 75

67 No violations of univariate or multivariate normality were found; however, the Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices was used to test the assumption of mult ivariate homogeneity of variance and indicated this assumption had been violated, Box’s M = 187.76, F (20, 140526.15) = 18.31, p = .00. Given that Box’s Test is highly sensitive with large sample sizes (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), the researcher proceeded wi th the MANOVA test, but results should be interpreted with caution. A statistically significance difference between vignette groups was found on t he combined dependent variables, F (4, 171) = 6.53, p = 0.00; Wilks’ Lamda = .87; partial eta squared = .13. When the dependent variables were considered separately with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .013, statistically significant group differenc es were found for SAQ-B Academic scores, F (1, 174) = 19.42, p =.00, partial eta squared=.10. Specifically, participants indicated significantly greater willin gness to engage in academic activities with a typical peer than one with ADHD. For General S ocial ( F (1, 174) = 2.06, p = .15, partial eta squared=.01) and Active Recreational activities ( F (1, 174) = 1.34, p =. 25, partial eta squared=.01), no significant differences were found. Research Question 3 Hierarchical multiple regressions were used to assess how well partic ipants’ LCR scores predicted SAQ-B Overall scores, after controlling for the influence of gender, ethnicity (dummy codes were used for these variables with White being the refe rence group and Black/African-American, Hispanic, and Other being dummy coded ), and grade level. Only data from participants who received the ADHD vignette were inc luded. Participants who did not endorse any of the LCR items were grouped with partic ipants

PAGE 76

68 who endorsed only item one (“I have never observed a person with AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder”; score of 0) for this analysis. For the first hierarchical multiple regression, gender, ethnicity, and grade level were entered at Step 1, explaining 5.1% of the variance in SAQ-B Overall scores After LCR scores were entered at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model wa s 6.9%, F (6, 76)=.94, p =.48). After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores explained an additional 1.7% of the variance in SAQ-B Average scores, R squared change = .02, F change (1, 76)= 1.42, p = .24. This change was not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, LCR scores were not statistically significant. A second hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess how well the LCR scores of participants who received the ADHD vignette predicted SAQ-B G eneral Social scores after controlling for the influence of gender, ethnicity, and grade le vel. Gender, ethnicity, and grade level were entered at Step 1, explaining 6.6% of the variance in SAQ-B General Social scores. After LCR scores were entered at Ste p 2, the total variance explained by the model was 8.1%, F (6, 76)=1.11, p =.38. After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores explained an additional 1.5% of the variance in SAQ-B General Social scores, R squared change = .02, F change (1, 76)= 1.22, p =.27. This change was not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, LCR scores were not statistically significant. A third hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess how well the LCR scores of participants who received the ADHD vignette predicted SAQ-B Academic scores after controlling for the influence of gender, ethnicity, and grade le vel. Gender, ethnicity, and grade level were entered at Step 1 and explained 7.9% of the varianc e in

PAGE 77

69 SAQ-B Academic scores. After LCR scores were entered at Step 2, the tot al variance explained by the model was 8.0%, F ( 6, 76) = 1.10 p =.38. After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores explained an additional .1% of the varianc e in SAQ-B Academic scores, R squared change = .00, F change (1, 76)= .09, p =.77. This change was not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, LCR scores were not statistically significant. A fourth hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess how well LCR s cores of participants who received the ADHD vignette predicted SAQ-B Active Rec reational scores after controlling for the influence of gender, ethnicity, and grade le vel. Gender, ethnicity, and grade level were entered at Step 1 and explained 1.6% of the varianc e in SAQ-B Academic scores. After LCR scores were entered at Step 2, the t otal variance explained by the model was 5.3%, F (6, 76)=.71, p = .64. After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores explained an additional 3.7% of the variance in SAQ-B Active Recreational scores, R squared change = .04, F change (1, 76)= 3.01, p =.08. This change was not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, LCR scores were not statistically significant. Overall, participants’ familiarity with ADHD did not predict their will ingness to engage with a peer with ADHD across different types of activities. Tabl e 11 contains a summary of findings from these hierarchical multiple regressions.

PAGE 78

70 Table 11 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for LCR Predicting ADHD Vignette SAQ -B, N = 83 SAQ-B Overall General Social Academic Active Recreational Variable B SE B Beta B SE B Beta B SE B Beta B SE B Beta Step 1 Male -.06 .12 -.06 .10 .12 -.09 -.03 .13 -.02 -.06 .14 -.05 African American/Black a -.03 .15 -.02 .11 .15 -.09 -.01 .17 -.01 .03 .17 .03 Hispanic a -.01 .14 -.01 .02 .15 -.01 -.05 .16 -.04 .03 .17 .02 Other a -.25 .21 -.14 .35 .22 -.19 -.20 .25 -.10 -.20 .26 -.09 Grade -.09 .07 -.16 .09 .07 -.14 -.17 .08 -.25 -.03 .08 -.04 Step 2 LCR -0.03 0.02 -0.13 0.03 0.02 -0.12 -0.01 0.03 -0.03 -0.05 0.03 -0.20 R 2 .02 .02 .00 .04 F for change in R 2 1.42 1.22 0.09 3.01 Note. LCR = Level of Contact Report; SAQ-B = Shared Activity QuestionnaireB; Grade = Grade Level a As compared to White participants.

PAGE 79

71 Research Question 4 Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess how well participants’ LCR scores predicted SAQ-B Average scores, after controlling for the influence of gender, ethnicity, and grade level. Dummy codes were created for the ethnicity varia bles. Only data from participants who received the typical vignette were included. Part icipants who did not endorse any of the LCR items were grouped with participants who endorsed only item one (“I have never observed a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder”; score of 0) for this analysis. For the first hierarchical multiple regression, where the dependent varia ble was SAQ-B Overall scores, gender, ethnicity, and grade level were entered at Step 1, explaining 10.7% of the variance in SAQ-B Average scores. After LCR scores wer e entered at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 10.8%, F (6, 86) = 1.74, p =.12). After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores e xplained an additional .1% of the variance in SAQ-B Overall scores, R squared change = .00, F change (1, 86) = .14, p = .71. This change was not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, none of the variables were statistically significant. For the second hierarchical multiple regression, gender, ethnicity, and grade leve l were entered at Step 1, explaining 11.2% of the variance in SAQ-B General Socia l scores. After LCR scores were entered at Step 2, the total variance explai ned by the model was 11.7%, F (6, 86) = 1.90, p = .09). After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores explained an additional .5% of the variance in SAQ-B Ge neral Social scores, R squared change = .01, F change (1, 86)= .47, p = .50. This change was

PAGE 80

72 not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, none of the variables were statistically significant. For the third hierarchical multiple regression, gender, ethnicity, and grade le vel were entered at Step 1, explaining 11.2% of the variance in SAQ-B Academic scores After LCR scores were entered at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 11.2%, F (6, 86) = 1.81, p = .11. After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores explained no additional variance in SAQ-B Academic scores, R squared change = .00, F change (1, 86)= .01, p = .91. This change was not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, none of the variables were statistically significant. For the fourth hierarchical multiple regression, gender, ethnicity, and grade le vel were entered at Step 1, explaining 7.9% of the variance in SAQ-B Active Recreati onal scores. After LCR scores were entered at Step 2, the total variance explai ned by the model was 8.0%, F (6, 86) = 1.25, p = .29. After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and grade level, LCR scores explained an additional .1% variance in SAQ-B Acti ve Recreational scores, R squared change = .00, F change (1, 86)= .07, p = .79. This change was not significant ( p > .05). In the final model, none of the variables were statistically significant. Overall, participants’ familiarity with ADHD did not predict their wil lingness to engage with a typical peer. Table 12 contains a summary of findings from these hierarchical multiple regressions

PAGE 81

73 Table 12 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for LCR Predicting Typical Vignette SA Q-B, N = 93 SAQ-B Overall General Social Academic Active Recreational Variable B SE B Beta B SE B Beta B SE B Beta B SE B Beta Step 1 Male -.10 .12 -.09 -.13 .20 -.12 .01 .13 .01 -.16 .13 -.13 African American/Black a -.01 .13 -.01 .00 .14 .00 .03 .15 .03 -.06 .15 -.05 Hispanic a .13 .13 .12 .10 .13 .08 .18 .15 .14 .13 .15 .10 Other a .16 .24 .07 .21 .25 .09 .36 .27 .14 -.09 .27 -.03 Grade .16 .07 .27 .16 .07 .26 .19 .07 .28 .14 .07 .20 Step 2 LCR -0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.02 0.02 -0.07 -0.00 0.03 -0.01 -0.01 0.03 -0.03 R 2 .00 .01 .00 .00 F for change in R 2 0.14 0.47 0.01 0.07 Note. LCR = Level of Contact Report; SAQ-B = Shared Activity QuestionnaireB; Grade = Grade Level a As compared to White participants.

PAGE 82

74 Chapter Five: Discussion The primary purposes of this current study were: a) explore middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD, b) to investigate middle school students ’ willingness to engage with a peer exhibiting ADHD symptoms; and c) determine whether fam iliarity with ADHD predicted middle school students’ willingness to engage with a peer w ith ADHD symptoms or a typical peer. This chapter summarizes the results of this current study and discusses the findings in the context of existing literature. First, a discussion of results a nd significant findings is presented followed by the implications of these results for school psychologists, limitations, and directions for future research. Middle School Students’ Familiarity with ADHD The purpose of the first research question was to document how familiar middle school students are with persons with ADHD. Given the prevalent nature of ADHD (APA, 2000; Biederman, Faraone, Milberger, Curtis, Chen, Marrs et al., 1996), it would appear that a typical middle school student would have some contact with an individual with ADHD. Law and colleagues (2007) found 63% of their sample of young adolescent s in the United Kingdom reported knowing someone with ADHD symptoms but only 8% reported knowing something about ADHD. This current study yielded much more information about adolescents’ familiarity with ADHD. Specifically, over 70% of participants indicated some level of contact with ADHD, varying from watchi ng a television show that included a person with ADHD to actually having ADHD themselve s. Additionally, nearly a third of participants reported having significant famili arity with ADHD by being related to someone with ADHD, living with a person who has ADHD,

PAGE 83

75 or by having ADHD themselves. Notably, approximately 9% of participants re ported having ADHD themselves. Approximately 11% of the sample reported never having observed a person with ADHD and 15% did not endorse any of the items on the measurement scale. Participants in the present study appear to have somewha t less exposure to ADHD than the younger sample (ages eleven and twelve) surveyed by Law and colleagues where 63% indicated knowing someone with ADHD symptoms (2007). These findings are significant for several reasons. The majority of mi ddle school students have contact with persons with ADHD. Furthermore, middle school students themselves report this contact; that is, middle school students are aware tha t they often are in direct contact with persons with ADHD. Middle School Students’ Willingness to Engage with a Peer Displaying ADH D Symptoms One purpose of this research was to determine whether middle school students would be less willing to engage in activities with peers described as ADHD as compared to a typical peer. Overall, middle school students were less willing to enga ge in activities with a peer described with ADHD than with a typical peer. When activities wer e separated by type (i.e., social, academic, and recreational), significant differences emerged for only academic activities. Taken together, these results regarding differences in middle school student s’ willingness to engage with peers displaying ADHD symptoms versus a typica l peer are significant. Previous research using similar methodology has documented adoles cents’ reluctance to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms (Law, Sinclair, & Fra ser, 2007; Walker, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008). However, the vignette used in this

PAGE 84

76 study to describe the student with ADHD included both positive and negative characteristics, whereas in previous studies, only negative symptoms of ADHD w ere used to describe the fictional student. Additionally, the ADHD vignette did not include a n ADHD label, only the behavioral symptoms of ADHD. These findings demonstrate t hat even with the inclusion of positive characteristics and the lack of an ADHD label, middle school students were still less likely to express willingness to engage ac ademically with a student described with ADHD symptoms than with a typical peer, suggesting that i t is something about the ADHD symptoms leading to middle school students’ reluctance. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that adolescents’ perce ptions of a mental illness are more impacted by the specific symptoms displayed ra ther than the label of that mental illness (Roberts, Beidleman, & Wurtele, 1981).Importa ntly, this reluctance to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms did not apply to all types of activities, with no statistically significant differences on social a nd active recreational activities. However, middle school students were statistically signific antly less willingness to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms than a typical pee r on academic activities. When compared to other studies that also used the Shared Activity QuestionnaireB (SAQ-B), the findings from the current study further emphasized that ad olescents appear reluctant to engage academically with a peer with ADHD symptoms (effect sizes, measured by Cohen’s d (with .80 suggesting a large effect, .5 a medium effect, and .2 a small effect), were computed to determine the average differences.). F or example, when comparing mean SAQ-B scores, middle school students in the present study were less willing to engage with a peer displaying ADHD symptoms on academic a ctivities than

PAGE 85

77 similarly aged adolescents were to engage with an obese peer on academic a ctivities (Greenleaf, Chambliss, Rhea, Martin, & Morrow, 2006). Notably, differences bet ween participants’ willingness in the present study to engage with a peer with AD HD symptoms did not differ as greatly from males’ willingness to engage with an obe se peer on academic activities ( d = .16), as they did when compared to females’ willingness to engage with an obese peer on academic activities ( d = .78; Greenleaf et al. reported participant SAQ-B scores by gender). However, participants in the prese nt study were more willing to engage with a peer displaying ADHD symptoms on General Socia l and Active Recreational activities. In these comparisons, participants’ wi llingness to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms in the present study differed more from males ’ willingness to engage with an obese peer (General Social, d = 1.05; Active Recreational, d = .68) than from females (General Social, d = .39; Active Recreational, d = .12). On the contrary, middle school students in the current study were also less willing to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms on academic activities than sixth grade stude nts were to engage with a peer with Autism on all activity types (General Social, d = .67; Academic d = 1.47; Active Recreational d = .24), with the largest different emerging for academic activities (Swaim & Morgan, 2001). Importantly, middle school student s in the present study were more willing to engage with a peer with ADHD sympto ms than participants were in a slightly younger sample, even when academic activi ties were considered (Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007; SAQ-B Total, d = .58; General Social, d = .72; Academic d = .27; Active Recreational d = .55), thought the smallest difference appeared for academic activities. One plausible explanation for this finding is t hat the present study included positive characteristics in the description of the student with

PAGE 86

78 ADHD while Law and colleagues did not, although the age difference between t he samples could have also accounted for this difference. Results of the present stud y also differed from one conducted by Saecker and colleagues (2010), in which there was no difference between high school students’ willingness to engage in social or academic activities with a peer with ADHD. However, Saecker and colleagues (2010) used a different measure than the SAQ-B to assess participants’ behavioral intent ions, which make direct comparisons difficult. A possible reason for this difference in finding s across activity types could relate to the independent variable used (an informational vide o presenting facts to dispel common myths about ADHD, rather than a vignette) or the age of the participants (high school rather than middle school). Collectively, these results and comparisons suggest that, despite the inclusions of both positive and negative characteristics to describe the student’s interactions i n both social and academic domains, young adolescents tend to be less willing to engage in academic activities with a peer with ADHD symptoms. In addition, adoles cents appear to be less willing to engage with a peer displaying ADHD symptoms than with a peer with other disabilities. Findings of the present study related to academic acti vities were consistent with previous work, but less consistent with regard to social and recre ational activities. One hypothesis for adolescents’ reluctance to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms on academic activities may be that adolescents consider a peer’s difficulties with academic activities (e.g., studying together, working together on a school report) as potentially detrimental to their own academic success when they work together. W ith social activities (e.g., inviting the peer to a party, eating lunch together) a nd active

PAGE 87

79 recreational activities (e.g., picking the peer to be on a soccer team, ridin g bikes together), adolescents could perceive the manifestation of ADHD symptoms in the vignette as exciting and interesting rather than as problematic or barri ers to an enjoyable time. In sum, these findings underscore that adolescents are reluctant to engage in academic activities with peers exhibiting ADHD symptoms. The practica l implications of these findings are important as well, as middle school students appear to perceive ADHD symptoms as a bigger issue when working on school projects and academic tasks than when playing sports or going to social events. Relationship between Familiarity and Shared Activities with a Peer E xhibiting Symptoms of ADHD The purpose of the third research question was to explore the extent to which middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD predicted their willingnes s to engage with a peer displaying ADHD symptoms. In this study, familiarity with AD HD was not found to predict willingness to engage with a peer with ADHD. That is, previous contact with persons with ADHD did not make an adolescent more or less willing to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting ADHD symptoms. In fact, the bivariate relationship between the LCR and SAQ-B was in the opposite direction as expected. Specifical ly, as a student reported more familiarity with ADHD, or LCR scores increased, t hey reported lower scores on all subscales of the SAQ-B, meaning that they were less wil ling to engage in various activities with a young adolescent with ADHD symptoms. Given tha t previous research in this area is both limited and mixed, these results have impli cations for future research.

PAGE 88

80 Past conceptualizations of individuals’ perceptions of others with mental illness have included level of familiarity with mental illness as an important fact or. In one of the primary models of attitude development toward mental illness, the Etiology and Eff ects of Stigma Model (Martin, Pescosolido, Olafsdottir, & McLeod, 2007), an individual’s knowledge of mental illness and previous contact with persons with mental illness a re thought to positively shape that individual’s attributions made about a person with mental illness, and lead to less stigmatizing attitudes toward others with mental i llness. Research on adults’ perceptions has supported the idea that familiarity relates to more posi tive perceptions (Corrigan, Edwards, Green, Diwan, & Penn, 2001), but the findings for adolescents have been mixed. In fact, Corrigan and colleagues (2005) found a negative relationship between adolescents’ contact with someone with mental illness a nd their perceptions of people with mental illness, which corresponds with the findings in the present study. In the sole previous examination of adolescent familiarity an d perceptions of ADHD specifically, Law et al. (2007) found no significant relationship betwe en the two. While this current study builds upon the work of Law and colleagues by using a more comprehensive scale of familiarity with ADHD, again, familiarity with ADHD did not emerge as a predictor of willingness to engage. One hypothesis for this lac k of finding is that the outcome of participants’ contact with ADHD was not asses sed. Past research suggests that whether participants’ contact with ADHD was a posi tive or negative experience may be an important part of this relationship (Martin et a l., 2007). Thus, perhaps if an adolescent has previous positive experiences with a person with ADHD, then he or she may be more likely to engage in activities with peer wit h ADHD

PAGE 89

81 while the converse may be true for an adolescent with previous negative experienc es with a person with ADHD. Past research has also suggested that the type of attributions adolescent s make about their peers with disabilities may impact how familiarity relates t o their willingness to engage. In the Attribution Model, another model of attitude development toward mental illness, how responsible individuals perceive a person with a mental i llness to be for their own condition relates to the attitudes that individual has about that person w ith mental illness (Corrigan, Lurie, Goldman, Slopen, Medasani, & Phelan, 2005; Corrig an, Watson, Otey, Westbrook, Gardner, Lamb, et al., 2007; Weiner, 1995). Therefore, whether middle school students in the present study perceived the student in the ADHD vignette to be personally responsible for his or her ADHD symptoms (e.g., “Tay lor” makes careless mistakes because he/she is lazy) or perceived that the pe er was not responsible for his or her ADHD symptoms (e.g., “Taylor” makes careless m istakes because he/she has difficulty self-regulating) could potentially impact how willing or unwilling the adolescents were to engage in activities with that peer. The at tributions participants made about the vignette characters were not assessed in the pre sent study and therefore how this factor related to the relationship between familiarity and willingness to engage was unable to be evaluated. Relationship between Familiarity and Shared Activities with a Typica l Peer The purpose of this fourth research area was to explore how well middle school students’ familiarity with ADHD predicted their willingness to engage with a typical peer. This area was investigated primarily to determine, if familiarit y with ADHD did predict willingness to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms, whether that

PAGE 90

82 relationship was actually meaningful. In other words, if familiarity wit h ADHD also predicted willingness to engage with any peer, then this finding would be less m eaningful than just finding a link between familiarity with ADHD and willingness to enga ge with a peer with ADHD. However, in this study, familiarity with ADHD was not found to predict either willingness to engage with a peer with ADHD or with a typical peer. Therefore, familiarity with ADHD had no significant relationship with mi ddle school students’ willingness to engage in activities with a peer; meaning, that mid dle school students’ exposure to ADHD did not influence their willingness to engage in activiti es with a peer. In sum, results of this study revealed that middle school students report significant contact with ADHD with over 70% reporting having some type of contact with the disorder. Middle school students were overall significantly less willing t o engage with adolescents with ADHD versus a typical adolescent. When activities were s eparated into type, differences emerged only for academic activities. Thus, middle school st udents were just as willing to engage in social and recreational activities wi th a peer with ADHD symptoms as a typical peer, but they were significantly less likely to en gage in academic tasks with a peer with ADHD symptoms. However, a student’s familiarity with ADHD did not predict how willing middle school students were to engage with a peer with ADHD symptoms. Implications of the Results for School Psychologists Given the prevalence of ADHD among adolescents and the obstacles associated with this disorder, school psychologists frequently work with adolescents with ADHD Specifically, school psychologists report receiving approximately 17 referra ls a year

PAGE 91

83 related to ADHD with a significant amount of work time devoted to assessing and providing treatment for students with ADHD (Demaray, Schaefer, & DeLong, 2003). Findings from this study emphasize the vulnerability of adolescents with ADHD a nd contribute to practitioners’ knowledge regarding the social difficulties thi s population experiences. These findings demonstrate that middle school students are relucta nt to engage in academic activities with peers displaying ADHD symptoms. Pr esumably, middle school students perceive ADHD symptoms as a more significant issue whe n working on school projects and academic tasks than when playing sports or going to social events. Therefore, difficulty engaging successfully with peer s on academic tasks is a potential functional deficit adolescents with ADHD may encounter and which may require intervention. Summer treatment programs for ADHD provide some guidance to potential effective interventions for addressing this deficit. While traditional soc ial skills training (school-based or in a clinic) lacks empirical support for the treatment of soci al deficits associated with ADHD (Pelham & Fabiano, 2008), empirically supported summer treatment programs for ADHD suggest a different approach (Pelham, Gnagy, G reiner, Waschbusch, Fabiano, & Burrows-MacLean, 2010). The summer treatment program (STP) is a manualized behavioral intervention for students with ADHD that consi sts of behavior modification, sports skills training, social skills training, and problem-s olving skills training in an integrated program. Sports skills training consists of dail y smallgroup skills training and play in age-appropriate sports and games where team memberships and sportsmanship are emphasized. Reinforcement for skills ta ught is embedded into students’ recreational activities through continuous prompts and

PAGE 92

84 reinforcement. STP has been shown to improve both students’ classroom behavior and behavior in recreational settings with decreases shown in frequency of rule viola tions, conduct problems, and negative verbalizations, increases in activity rule foll owing, and student reports that they get along better with peers during the program (Ch ronis, Fabiano, Gnagy, Onyango, Pelham, Williams, et al., 2004; Fabiano, Pelham, Gnagy, Wymbs, Chacko, Coles, et al., 2007). The success of the STP suggests that teaching specific skills in an applied se tting and then building reinforcement into their daily activities for displaying those ski lls is a viable method for improving the interpersonal behaviors of students with ADHD symptoms. Therefore, applying these types of interventions to the enhancement of students’ academic work skills, such as academic enablers, may also be an e ffective approach. Academic enablers are defined as “attitudes and behaviors that al low a student to participant in and ultimately benefit from academic instruction in the cla ssroom” (DiPerna & Elliott, 2002, p. 294), and include motivation, interpersonal skills, engagement, and study skills. Previous research has found that academic enable rs were a significant predictor of reading achievement, even after ADHD symptoms w ere accounted for (Volpe, DuPaul, DiPerna, Jitendra, Lutz, Tresco, et al., 2006), and has highlighted the need to consider not just reducing core symptoms of ADHD but to also target academic skills and enablers as a part of a treatment plan (DuPaul, 2007). Findings from this current study may also suggest that enhancing academic enablers i n students with ADHD symptoms could have social, as well as academic, benefits. Given that middle school students were less willing to engage in students with ADHD s ymptoms academically, it stands to reason that enhancing academic enablers (mot ivation,

PAGE 93

85 engagement, study skills, interpersonal skills) would also improve a student’s desi rability as an academic work partner. Like social skills and sports skills, students w ith ADHD symptoms could potentially benefit from learning academic work skills, such as how to be better academic work partners. While the summer treatment programs provi de more intensive services than typically feasible at schools, the success of this progr am, coupled with the findings of this study that academic activities may be particular ly problematic for adolescents with ADHD, suggest that teaching students with ADHD how to be bette r work partners may be an avenue for future research. The Challenging Horizons Program (CHP) provides another good model of intervention research relevant to the findings of this study. CHP is an interventi on program that has focused on improving academic outcomes in youth with ADHD that has been implemented in the schools through a manualized after school program that targe ts interpersonal behavior, academic success, family functioning, and disruptive behavior (Evans, 2001). Academic components of CHP consist of teaching students specific academic skills (e.g., note taking skills, skills, written language skills) organization techniques for their school materials, and time management to plan ahead for school assignments and tests. CHP also includes goal setting, behavior management, and recreational time. CHP has resulted in positive outcomes in organization and homework management skills, teacher ratings of student academic impairment and GP A in students with ADHD in grades four through seven after participating in CHP two days a w eek for eight weeks (Langberg, Epstein, Urbanowicz, Simon, & Graham, 2008) and improvements found in parent-rated academic progress, self-esteem, and overall severity of problems for middle school students after participating in CHP for four days a week

PAGE 94

86 (Langberg, Smith, Bogle, Scmidt, Cole, & Pender, 2007). These findings are promis ing in that they indicate that explicitly teaching students with ADHD sympto ms academic enabling types of skills (e.g., organization, time management etc.) is benefi cial to improving their academic success. Future research on this program that include s an examination of whether the academic interventions utilized in this study result in improved academic interactions with peers will be useful in determining how school psychologists can best intervene and support both the academic and social outcomes of students with ADHD. Aside from intervening with the students with ADHD symptoms themselves, their peers could also be the focus of intervention. Saecker and colleagues (2010) presented a potentially useful intervention for adolescents which comprised of showing a video depicting a peer with ADHD who discussed several myths associated with the di sorder and presented information to dispel those myths. Researchers concluded that t he video resulted in increased students’ knowledge of ADHD, though this knowledge increase di d not relate to increased willingness to engage with the student with ADHD in the vide o, suggesting that some modifications to the intervention may be necessary to incr ease students’ willingness to engage with a student with ADHD symptoms. Understanding how to best support middle school students with ADHD symptoms by intervening with their peers is an area for future research. Limitations of Current Study A few limitations potentially threaten the validity of this study’s findin gs. These limitations include generalizability of the sample, use of self-report mea sures, use of the LCR, and lack of outcome or attribution measurement.

PAGE 95

87 The sample was a convenience sample, and for this reason there may be several limitations with the generalizability to other students. First, students w ho returned their consent forms may have been different from other students. The study’s low response rate ( 10% of total population, approximately 12% of eligible population) is another limitation. This response rate is lower than that found in previous studies surve ying middle school students about ADHD (Doherty, Frankenberger, Fuhrer & Snider, 2000, 80%; Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007, 28%). However, it is unclear whether the middl e schools featured in those previous studies were similar to the ones sampled in the prese nt study in terms of demographic variables. Due to these limitations, the sample ma y not be representative of all middle school students, limiting the external validity of the study findings. The sample of the current study was limited to students from two public mi ddle schools in the southeastern United States. It is noted, however, that the current sam ple was fairly representative overall to the district population in terms of ethni city though not as well represented in terms of gender. A comparison of the ethnicity of the sa mple with the district’s is presented in Table 13.

PAGE 96

88 Table 13 Comparison of Sample and District Demographics Variable Sample District Gender Female 64.8% 51.6% Male 35.2% 48.4% Ethnicity White 36.4% 40.4% African-American/Black 27.3% 21.7% Native American/Alaska Native 0.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 3.3% Hispanic 29.6% 29.4% Other 6.8% 5.0% Additionally, participation was limited to English speakers and students not served exclusively in ESE classrooms. Therefore, findings may not be applicabl e to students who do not fall in these groups. Secondly, the use of self-report measures could compromise the validity of participants’ responses. The Shared Activity Questionnaire-B (SAQ-B) a sked participants to indicate their willingness to engage with the students depicted in the vignette, but it is uncertain whether their behavioral intentions match what their actual behavior might be. However, previous studies utilizing the SAQ-B have assessed its concurrent validi ty by evaluating its relationship with a measure of cognitive attitudes, such as t he Adjective Checklist (ACL, Siperstein & Bak, 1977). Correlations between the SAQ-B Overall score and the ACL have ranged from .46 to .59 (Bell & Morgan, 2000; Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007; Swaim & Morgan, 2001), supporting the concurrent validity of the SAQ-B. Furthermore, previous research with adults provides evidence that behavioral intent ions are highly related to actual behavior (Ajzen, 2001). Therefore, the SAQ-B appear s to be a

PAGE 97

89 valid measure of middle school students’ behavioral intentions and behavior. This methodology is also useful given that a significant portion of students in the current stud y reported that they were not familiar with ADHD. By using behavioral descri ptions of students versus the ADHD label, those students who are not familiar with the diagnosis can still provide insight into their willingness to interact with the student descr ibed in the vignette. There were also some limitations to the measure use to examine students’ familiarity with ADHD, the Level of Contact Report-Revised (LCR). The wording of this measure was altered for this study (i.e., “Attention-Deficit/Hyperac tivity Disorder replaced “severe mental illness”). While this measure has been used with th is population previously, this was the first time it has been used in this format. Another limit ation is that the LCR relies on participants knowing whether the individuals they intera ct with have ADHD. For example, a participant may have been in a class with a student wi th ADHD but did not realize that the person has the disorder and thus responded “no” to this item. In such an example, the LCR would not yield the correct level of contact t hat student has with persons with ADHD. Furthermore, 27 participants did not endorse “yes ” to any of the LCR items, which led to contradictory responses. It is unclear what level of contact these participants’ have with ADHD, if any at all. Previous literature has suggested that individuals’ attributions for the cause of the illness and their actual interactions with individuals with this disability pla y a role in behavioral intentions (Corrigan, Lurie, Goldman, Slopen, Medasani, & Phelan, 2005; Martin, Pescosolido, Olafsdottir, & McLeod, 2007). A final limitation with the prese nt study is the lack of outcome measure for participants’ contact with ADHD and

PAGE 98

90 attributions. While this information could have been valuable to the study findings, previous work in this area has mostly been with adults and rarely has focused on adolescents or ADHD specifically, providing limited validated measures with which to use. Directions for Future Research Since this study is the first of its kind to utilize positive characteristi cs in the vignette description of a student with ADHD symptoms and a validated measure of adolescent familiarity with ADHD, additional studies are needed to extend a nd replicate the current findings. Further studies on the impact of adolescents’ contact with ADH D on their perception of peers with ADHD might be enhanced by inquiring about the outcome of any contact with persons with ADHD to explore how this aspect influences willingness to engage in activities. Since previous research has suggested the out come of contact may be an important factor (Martin, Pescosolido, Olafsdottir, & McL eod, 2007), as well as the attributions participants make about the cause of the disorder (C orrigan, Lurie, Goldman, Slopen, Medasani, & Phelan, 2005), these are areas for future exploration. While previous research has shown that contact is important for reducing negative attitudes toward people with mental illness in general, it is unclear w hat factors are necessary for that contact to be effective (Couture & Penn, 2003). However, res earch with adults indicates that individuals tend to recall negative stimuli rather th an positive stimuli, suggesting that negative contact with individuals with ADHD may be mor e salient than positive ones (Dougal & Rotello, 2007). Future research should further investigate the impact of contact on perceptions of youth with ADHD, as well as t he moderators and mediators of this relationship. Additionally, future research should

PAGE 99

91 survey both elementary and high school students to investigate whether findings are consistent for younger children and older adolescents. Previous research have y ielded mixed findings regarding the impact of age on students’ perceptions of peers with ment al illness (Wahl, 2002), but this relationship has not been investigated in terms of students’ perceptions of peers with ADHD. Since this study’s ADHD vignette descri bed a student with ADHD Combined Type, future research should also include vignettes describi ng a student with other ADHD subtypes. Since the symptoms associated with the differe nt subtypes of ADHD, adolescents’ willingness to engage with peers exhibiting A DHD Inattentive Type, for example, may differ from the present study. An important implication of this study is the potential need to enhance the academic “social skills” of students with ADHD symptoms. The results of t his current study and previous research on the Summer Treatment Program and Challenging Horizons Program provide models for intervention that may work for students exhibit ing ADHD symptoms who have difficulty working on academic tasks with others (Chroni s, Fabiano, Gnagy, Onyango, Pelham, Williams, et al., 2004; Langberg, Epstein, Urbanowicz, Simon, & Graham, 2008; Langberg, Smith, Bogle, Scmidt, Cole, & Pender, 2007; Fabiano, Pelham, Gnagy, Wymbs, Chacko, Coles, et al., 2007). Future research could investigate how teaching students with ADHD to be better work partners and implementing interventions designed to enhance their academic enablers impa cts their social functioning on academic tasks. Conclusions Although often considered a childhood disorder, ADHD is not rare in adolescents. Approximately 3-7% of school-age children are affected by ADHD (APA, 2000) and

PAGE 100

92 over 80% continue to meet criteria into adolescence (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbroc k, & Smallish, 1990). Negative academic and social outcomes are associated w ith adolescents with ADHD, including greater likelihood to drop out of school and have fewer friends than peers without ADHD (Barkley, Fischer, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2006; Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990). Furthermore, adolescents with ADHD must als o contend with the stigma attached to the disorder (Walker, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008). Findings from this study suggest that the majority of middle school students are familiar with persons with ADHD. This finding coupled with the prevalence of ADHD in adolescence, makes it concerning that middle school students in this study were reluctant to engage in academic activities with a peer with ADHD symptoms. It appea rs that it is something about the ADHD symptoms themselves that is unattractive to adolescents during academic tasks. It may be beneficial to explore the effectiveness of teaching adolescents with ADHD symptoms how to successfully work with others on academ ic tasks in the way that social skills are taught. While there was a lack of rela tionship between level of contact with ADHD and willingness to engage with a peer wit h ADHD symptoms, future research should ask participants about the outcomes of their contact with ADHD as this may be a relevant factor to this relationship.

PAGE 101

93 References Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 2758. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Revised 4 th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Barkley, R. A. (2006). Attention-Deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford Press. Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Edelbrock, C. S., & Smallish, L. (1990). The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8-ye ar prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(4), 546-557. Barkley, R., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., & Fletcher, K. (2006). Young adult outcome of hyperactive children: Adaptive functioning in major life activities. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(2), 192-202. Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., Mick, E., Spencer, T., Wilens, T., Kiely, K., Guite, J., Ablon, J., & Warburto, R. (1995). High risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children of parents with childhood onset of the disorder: A pilot study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 431-435. Biederman, J., Faraone, S., Milberger, S., Curtis, S., Chen, L., Marrs, A., Ouellette, C ., Moore, P., & Spencer, T. (1996). Predictors of persistence and remission of ADHD into adolescence: Results from a four-year prospective follow-up study. The Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(2) 343-351.

PAGE 102

94 Bell, S. K., & Morgan, S. B. (2000). Children's attitudes and behavioral intentions of elementary school children toward a peer presented as obese. Journal of Pediatri c Psychology, 25 137-145. Cantwell, D. P., & Baker, L. (1991). Association between attention deficit-hyper activity disorder and learning disorders Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(2), 88-95. Campbell, J. M. (2008). Brief report: Reliability and validity of the shared act ivities questionnaire as a measure of middle school students’ attitudes toward autism. Journal of Autism Development Disorders, 38 1598-1604. Chronis, E. K., Fabiano, G. A., Gnagy, E. M., Onyango, A. N., Pelham, W. E., Williams, A., et al. (2004). An evaluation of the summer treatment program for children with ADHD using a treatment withdrawal design. Behavior Therapy, 35, 561-585. Coleman, D., Walker, J., Lee, J., Friesen, B, & Squire, P. (2009). Children’s beliefs about causes of childhood depression and ADHD: A study of stigmatization. Psychiatric Services, 60(7), 950-957. Corrigan, P. W. (2000). Mental health stigma as social attribution: Implicati ons for research methods and attitude change. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7(1), 48-67. Corrigan, P. W., Edwards, A. B., Green, A., Diwan, S. L., & Penn, D. L. (2001). Prejudice, social distance, and familiarity with mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27, 219-225. Corrigan, P. W., Lurie, B., Goldman, H., Slopen, N., Medasni, K., & Phelan, S. (2005). How adolescents perceive the stigma of mental illness and alcohol abuse. Psychiatric Services, 56, 544-550.

PAGE 103

95 Corrigan, P., Markowitz, F., Watson, A., Rowan, D., & Kubiak, M. (2003). An attribution model of public discrimination towards person with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44 162-179. Corrigan, P.W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P., Uphoof-Wasowski, K., White, K., & Kubiak, M. A. (2002). Challenging two mental illness stigmas: Personal responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28, 293-309. Corrigan, P. W., Watson, A.M., Otey, E., Westbrook, A., Gardner, A., Lamb, T., & Fenton, W. (2007). How do children stigmatize people with mental illness? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27, 1405-1417. Couture, S., & Penn, D. (2003). Interpersonal contact and the stigma of mental illness: A review of the literature. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 291-305. Demaray, M. K., Schaefer, K., & Delong, L. (2003). Attention-deficit/hyperac tivity disorder (ADHD): A national survey of training and current assessment prac tices in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 40(6), 583-597. DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student achievement: An introduction to the miniseries. School Psychology Review, 31 293-297. Doherty, S., Frankenberger, W., Fubrer, R., & Snider, V. (2000). Children’s self-reported effects of stimulant medication. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47 39-54. Dougal, S., & Rotello, C. (2007). 'Remembering' emotional words is based on response bias, not recollection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 423-429.

PAGE 104

96 Dumas, M. C. (1998). The risk of social interaction problems among adolescents with ADHD. Education and Treatment of Children, 21(4), 447-460. DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (2003). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention strategies. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Evans, S.W. (2001). The Challenging Horizons Program treatment manual Unpublished manuscript. Fabiano, G., Pelham, W., Gnagy, E., Wymbs, B., Chacko, A., Coles, E., et al. (2007). The single and combined effects of multiple intensities of behavior modification and multiple intensities of methylphenidate in a classroom setting. School Psychology Review, 36 195-216. Gittelman, R., Mannuzza, S., Shenker, R., & Bonagura, N. (1985). Hyperactive boys almost grown up. Archive of General Psychiatry, 2, 937-947. Greene, R. W., Biederman, J., Faraone, S., Ouellette, C., Penn, C., & Griffin, S. (1996). Toward a new psychometric definition of social disability in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(5), 571-578. Greenleaf, C., Chambliss, H., Rhea, D. J., Martin, S. B., & Morrow, J. R. (2006). Weight stereotypes and behavioral intentions toward thin and fat peers among White and Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 546-552. Gottlieb, J., & Gottlieb, B. W. (1977). Stereotypic attitudes and behavioral intentions toward handicapped children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82, 65-71.

PAGE 105

97 Hansen, C., Weiss, D., & Last, C. G. (1999). ADHD boys in young adulthood: Psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(2), 165-171. Harty, S. C., Miller, C. J., Newcorn, J. H., Halperin, J. M. (2009). Adolescents with childhood ADHD and comorbid disruptive behavior disorders: Aggression, anger, and hostility. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 40, 85-97. Hennessy, E., & Heary, C. (2009). The development of children’s understanding of common psychological problems. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 14(1), 4247. Hennessy, E., Swords, L., & Heary, C. (2007). Children’s understanding of psychological problems displayed by their peers: A review of the literature. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 34(1) 4-9. Hinshaw, S. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127-155. Hinshaw, S. P., Zupan, B., Simmel, C., Nigg, J., & Melrick, S. (1997). Peer status in boys with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Predictions from overt and covert antisocial behavior, social isolation, and authoritative parenting beli efs. Child Development, 68(5), 880-896. Holmes, E. P., Corrigan, P. W., Williams, P., Canar, J., & Kubiak, M. A. (1999). Changing attitudes about schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25, 447-456. Hoza, B., Mrug, S., Gerdes, A. C., Hinshaw, S. P., Bukowski, W. M., Gold, J. A., Kraemer, H.C., Pelham, W. E., Wigal, T., & Arnold, L.E. (2005). What aspects of

PAGE 106

98 peer relationships are impaired in children with attention-Deficit hypera ctivity disorder?, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 411-423. Hu, L. & Benter, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance struct ure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Jensen, P., Martin, D., & Cantwell, D. (1997). Comorbidity in ADHD: Implications for research, practice, and DSM-V. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(8), 1065-1079. Langberg, J., Epstein, J., Urbanowicz, C., Simon, J., Graham, A. (2008). Efficacy of an organization skills intervention to improve the academic functioning of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 407-417. Langberg, J., Smith, B., Bogle, K., Schmidt, J., Cole, W., & Pender, C. (2007). A pilot evaluation of small group challenging horizons program (CHP): A randomized trial. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23, 31-58 Law, G. U., Sinclair, S., & Fraser, N. (2007). Children’s attitudes and behavioural intentions towards a peer with symptoms of ADHD: Does the addition of a diagnostic label make a difference? Journal of Child Health Care, 11(2), 98-111. Laws, G., & Kelly, E. (2005). The attitudes and friendship intentions of children in the United Kingdom mainstream schools toward peers with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52 79 – 99.

PAGE 107

99 Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., Olafsdottir, S., & McLeod, J. (2007). The construction of fear: Americans’ preference for social distance from children and adole scents with mental health problems. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 50-67. Morgan, S. B., Bieberich, A. A., Walker, M., & Schwerdtfeger, H. (1998). Children's willingness to share activities with a physically handicapped peer: Am I more willing than my classmates? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 23 367-375. Morgan, S. B., Walker, M., Bieberich, A., & Bell, S. (2000). The Shared Activity Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. Penn, D.L., Judge, A., Jamieson, P., Garczynski, J., Hennessy, M., & Romer, R. (2005). Stigma. In D. L. Evans, E. B. Foa, R. E. Gur, H. Hendin, C. P. O’Brien, M. E. P. Seligman, & B. T. Walsh (Ed), Treating and Preventing Adolescent Mental Health Disorder: What We Know and What We Don’t Know (pp. 532–43). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pastor, P. N., & Reuben, C. A. (2002). Attention Deficit disorder and learning disability : United States, 1997-98. In National Center for Health Statistics: Vital Health Statistics (DHHSPublication No. PHS 2002-1534). Hyattsville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services. Pelham, W. E., & Fabiano, G. A. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatment for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: An update. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37 (1), 185-214. Pelham, W. E., Gnagy, E., Greiner, A., Waschbusch, D., Fabiano, G., & BurrowsMacLean, L. (2008). Summer treatment programs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In J. Weisz & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Evidence-based

PAGE 108

100 psychotherapies for children and adolescents (2 nd ed., pp. 277-292). New York: Guilford Press. Pescosolido, B. A. (2007). Culture, children, and mental health treatment: Special se ction on the National Stigma Study – Children. Psychiatric Services, 58, 611-612. Rapport, M. D., Scanlan, S. W., Denney, C. B. (1999). Attention-Deficit/hyperactivit y disorder and scholastic achievement: A model of dual developmental pathways. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(8), 1169-1183. Roberts, M. C., Beidleman, W. B., & Wurtle, S. K. (1981). Children’s perceptions of medical and psychological disorders in their peers. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 10, 76-78. Roberts, M. C., Johnson, A. Q., & Beidleman, W. B. (1984). The role of socioeconomic status on children’s perceptions of medical and psychological disorders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 13, 243-249. Roberts, C. M., & Lindsell, J. S. (1997). Children’s attitudes and behavioral intentions toward peers with disabilities International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 44 133 – 145. Royal, G. P., & Roberts, M. C. (1987). Students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward disabilities: A comparison of twenty conditions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 122-132. Saecker, L., Skinner, A., Skinner, C., Rowland, E., & Kirk, E. (2010). Descriptions of personal experiences: Effects on students’ learning and behavioral intentions toward a peer with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 47 960-973

PAGE 109

101 Schachter, H., Girdi, A., Ly, M., Laxroix, D., Lumb, A., Berkom, J., & Gill, R. (2008). Effects of school-based interventions on mental health stigmatization: a systematic review. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2, 2-18. Sciutto, M. J., & Feldhamer, E. (1994). The knowledge of attention deficit disorders scale (KADDS). Unpublished test manual. Secker, J., Armstrong, C., & Hill, M. (1999). Young people’s understanding of mental illness. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice, 14(6), 729-739. Siperstein, G., Bak, J. (1977). Instruments to measure children’s attitudes toward t he handicapped: Adjective checklist and activity preference list. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA. Stormont, M. (2001). Social outcomes of children with AD/HD: Contributing factors and implications for practice. Psychology in the Schools, 38(6), 521-531. Swaim, K. F., & Morgan, S. B. (2001). Children’s attitudes and behavioural intentions toward a peer with autistic behaviors: Does a brief educational intervention have an effect? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(2), 195-205. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 th ed). Boston: Pearson Education. Tannock, R. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Advances in cognitive, neurobiological, and genetic research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(1), 65-99. Travell, C., & Visser, J. (2006). ADHD does bad stuff to you: Young peoples’ and parents’ experiences and perceptions of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 11(3), 205-216.

PAGE 110

102 Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2), 129-147. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General—Executive Summary. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of H ealth, National Institute of Mental Health. U.S. Public Health Service (2000). Report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's Mental Health: A National Action Agenda Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. Volpe, R. J., DuPaul, G. J., DiPerna, J. C. Jitendra, A. K., Lutz, J. G., Tresco, K., et al. (2006). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and scholastic achieveme nt: A model of mediation via academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 35 47-61. Wahl, O. F. (2002). Children’s views of mental illness: A review of the literature Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills, 6, 134-158. Walker, J.S., Coleman, D., Lee, J., Squire, P.N., & Friesen, B.J. (2008). Children’s stigmatization of childhood depression and ADHD: Magnitude and demographic variation in a national sample. Journal of the American Academy of Children & Adolescent Psychiatry 47 (8), 912-920. Watson, A. C., Otey, E., Westbrook, A.L., Gardner, A. L., Lamb, T. A., Corrigan, P. W., & Fenton, F. (2004). Changing middle schoolers' attitudes about mental illness through education. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30 (3), 563-572.

PAGE 111

103 Watson, A., Miller, F., & Lyons, J. (2005). Adolescent attitudes toward serious mental illness. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 193, 769-772. Weiss, M. F. (1985). Children’s attitudes toward mental illness as assessed by t he Opinions About Mental Illness scale. Psychological Reports, 57, 251-258. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct New York, NY: Guilford Press.

PAGE 112

104 Appendices

PAGE 113

105 Appendix A: Demographics Measure 1. Gender 1) Female 2) Male 2. Ethnicity 1. African American/Black 2. Asian/ Pacific Islander 3. White 4. Hispanic 5. Native American/ Alaska Native 6. Other (Specify ______________) 3. Age 10 14 18 11 15 19 12 16 20 13 17 21 4. Grade 6 9 11 7 10 12 8 5. Estimated GPA 4.0 or higher (A) 3.0-3.9 (B) 2.0-2.9 (C) 1.0-1.9 (D) Less than 1.0 (F) 6. Are you on Free or Reduced Lunch (e.g. do you not pay full price for lunch in the cafeteria)? 1. Yes 2. No 7. Do you attend school regularly? 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 8. Including last year, and this year, have you received any discipline referrals for behaviors other than being tardy? 1. Often (More than 5) 2. Some (1-5) 3. Never 9. Including last year, and this year, have you been suspended out of school (including ATOSS)? 1. Often (More than 5 days total) 2. Some (1-5 days total) 3. Never 10. Including last year, and this year, have you been arrested? 1. Often (More than 2 times) 2. Some (1-2 times) 3. Never 11. Have you ever been diagnosed with ADHD? 1. Yes 2. No 12. Have you ever been diagnosed with Anxiety, Depression, or other mental health problems? 1. Yes 2. No 13. Have you ever been prescribed medication for ADHD? 1. Yes, and I still take the medication. 2. Yes, but I no longer take medication. 3. No 14. Have you ever been prescribed medication for Anxiety, Depression, or other mental health problems? 1. Yes, and I still take the medication. 2. Yes, but I no longer take medication. 3. No 15. My biological parents are: 1. Married 2. Divorced 3. Separated 4. Never married 5. Never married but living together 6. Widowed

PAGE 114

106 Appendix B: Level of Contact Report LCR Please read each of the following statements carefu lly and respond by circling No or Yes. 1. I have never observed a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyperacti vity Disorder (ADHD). No Yes 2. I have watched a television show that included a pe rson with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). No Yes 3 I have observed a person with Attention-Deficit/Hyp eractivity Disorder (ADHD). No Yes 4. I have been in a class with a person with Attenti onDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). No Yes 5 A friend of the family has Attention-Deficit/Hypera ctivity Disorder (ADHD). No Yes 6. I have a relative who has Attention-Deficit/Hyperac tivity Disorder (ADHD). No Yes 7. I live with a person who has Attention-Deficit/Hype ractivity Disorder (ADHD). No Yes 8. I have Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. No Yes

PAGE 115

107 Appendix C: ADHD Vignette and Shared Activities Questionnaire-B (Modified to fit in Current Document) Please read the paragraph below and answer the foll owing questions by circling your response. Taylor is in your grade. Taylor is outgoing and ver y social. Taylor is smart but doesn’t always get go od grades because Taylor has a hard time completing school as signments and turning them in on time. Taylor’s tea chers say that Taylor is easily distracted and “zones out” in clas s or talks with classmates instead of doing schoolw ork. The teachers say that when Taylor does do work, it often looks rushe d and contains many careless mistakes. Taylor’s tea chers also say that Taylor blurts out in class. Taylor’s friends s ay that Taylor talks a lot and moves quickly from o ne activity to another, but they say that Taylor is fun to hang out with. T hey also say that Taylor is a risk-taker and always looks for new and exciting things to try. At home, Taylor has a messy room and loses things a lot. Taylor’s parents say that Taylor doesn’t focus on what they say or ask, even when they repea t themselves. Taylor’s teachers, parents, and frien ds also say that Taylor is a good swimmer. 1. Do you know someone like Taylor? No Yes 2. Do you have a class with someone like Taylor? No Yes 3. Do you have a friend like Taylor? No Yes If Taylor moves to your school, here is a list of t hings that you might do with Taylor. Circle the an swer that shows how you feel about doing each of these things with Taylor. 1. Ask Taylor to come to my house to watch TV. No Maybe Yes 2. Sit next to Taylor in class No Maybe Yes 3. Work in the school library with Taylor No Maybe Y es 4. Share my games or books with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 5. Work on a science project at school with Taylor No Maybe Yes 6. Be in the same reading group with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 7. Study spelling words with Taylor at school. No Maybe Yes 8. Invite Taylor to my birthday party. No Maybe Yes 9. Ask Taylor to go to a swimming party with me. No Maybe Yes 10. Ask Taylor to hike in the woods with me. No Maybe Yes 11. Eat lunch next to Taylor at school. No Maybe Yes 12 Walk together with Taylor in the hall at school. No Maybe Yes 13. Do art with Taylor in class. No Maybe Yes 14 Pick Taylor to be on my soccer team. No Maybe Yes 15. Work math problems in class with Taylor. No May be Yes 16. Write a story or report for school with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 17. Ask Taylor to join my club. No Maybe Yes 18. Do homework with Taylor at home after school. No Maybe Yes 19. Go to the movies with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 20. Play with Taylor during free time. No Maybe Yes 21. Pick Taylor as my partner in a game with other students. No Maybe Yes 22. Be good friends with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 23. Go to a ball game with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 24. Ride bikes with Taylor. No Maybe Yes

PAGE 116

108 Appendix D: Typical Vignette and Shared Activities Questionnaire-B (Modified to fit in Current Document) Please read the paragraph below and answer the foll owing questions by circling your response. Taylor is in your grade. Taylor is outgoing and ver y social. Taylor is smart and gets As and Bs though Taylor doesn’t always turn school assignments in on time. Taylor’s teachers say that Taylor sometimes talks w ith classmates instead of doing schoolwork but is fine overall. Th e teachers say that Taylor usually completes work t hough it contains careless mistakes once in awhile. Taylor’s teachers also say that usually, but not always, Taylor rais es a hand to speak in class. Though Taylor’s friends sometimes get into s mall disagreements (like any friends), they say tha t Taylor is fun to hang out with. They also say that Taylor likes to t ry new things. At home, Taylor has a messy room. Ta ylor’s parents say that Taylor doesn’t always focus on what they say o r ask but usually does. Taylor’s teachers, parents, and friends also say that Taylor is a good swimmer. 1. Do you know someone like Taylor? No Yes 2. Do you have a class with someone like Taylor? No Yes 3. Do you have a friend like Taylor? No Yes If Taylor moves to your school, here is a list of t hings that you might do with Taylor. Circle the an swer that shows how you feel about doing each of these things with Taylor. 1. Ask Taylor to come to my house to watch TV. No Maybe Yes 2. Sit next to Taylor in class No Maybe Yes 3. Work in the school library with Taylor No Maybe Y es 4. Share my games or books with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 5. Work on a science project at school with Taylor No Maybe Yes 6. Be in the same reading group with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 7. Study spelling words with Taylor at school. No Maybe Yes 8. Invite Taylor to my birthday party. No Maybe Yes 9. Ask Taylor to go to a swimming party with me. No Maybe Yes 10. Ask Taylor to hike in the woods with me. No Maybe Yes 11. Eat lunch next to Taylor at school. No Maybe Ye s 12 Walk together with Taylor in the hall at school. No Maybe Yes 13. Do art with Taylor in class. No Maybe Yes 14 Pick Taylor to be on my soccer team. No Maybe Yes 15. Work math problems in class with Taylor. No May be Yes 16. Write a story or report for school with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 17. Ask Taylor to join my club. No Maybe Yes 18. Do homework with Taylor at home after school. No Maybe Yes 19. Go to the movies with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 20. Play with Taylor during free time. No Maybe Yes 21. Pick Taylor as my partner in a game with other students. No Maybe Yes 22. Be good friends with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 23. Go to a ball game with Taylor. No Maybe Yes 24. Ride bikes with Taylor. No Maybe Yes

PAGE 117

109 Appendix E: Parent Letter (Modified to fit in Current Document) Dear Parent or Caregiver: This letter provides information about a research s tudy that will be conducted at __________ Middle Sc hool by Dr. Julia Ogg and Dr. Rance Harbor. Dr. Ogg is a profes sor from the University of South Florida and Dr. Ha rbor is a school psychologist in __________County, as well as a visiting professor at the University of South Fl orida. Our goal in conducting the study is to investigate the exper iences of adolescents exhibiting symptoms of inatte ntion, hyperactivity, and impulsivity and to better unders tand the perceptions of adolescents toward those ex hibiting these behaviors. Who We Are : Julia Ogg, Ph.D. is a professor in the College of Education at the University of South Florida (USF). Rance Harbor, Ph.D. is a school psychologist in __________County and a visiting professor at US F. We are planning the study in cooperation with the prin cipal and administrators of __________ Middle Schoo l to ensure the study provides information that will be helpful to the schools. Why We Are Requesting Your Participation and Your C hild’s Participation : This study is being conducted as part of a project entitled, “The Experiences of and Perc eptions toward Adolescents Exhibiting Inattention, Hyperactivity, and Impulsivity.” You and your child are being asked to participate b ecause your child is a student at __________ Middle School. All students at ______ ____ Middle School are being asked to participate. Why You and Your Child Should Participate : We need to learn more about how to help students be successful during the pre-teen and teenage years. The informat ion that we collect from students and parents may h elp increase our overall knowledge of difficulties freq uently encountered in school and help support stude nts’ success. Please note neither you nor your child will be paid for your participation in the study. However, all students who return parental consent forms will be entered into a drawing for a gift certificate, regardless of if you allow your child to participate or not. What Participation Requires : If you give permission for your child to particip ate in the study, he or she will be asked to complete paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The surveys will ask about your child’s behaviors, feelings about themselves, medication use, substance use, li fe events, and about how family members get along. They will also be asked to report their gend er, ethnicity, experiences getting in trouble, diagnoses, and the marital status of their parents. Completion is expected to take your child about 40 minutes. We will personally administer the question naires at __________ Middle School along with a tra ined team of researchers from USF during regular school hours. Questionnaires will be administered to stude nts who have parent permission to participate. Participatio n will occur during one class period this Spring se mester. In addition, students’ school records will be reviewed for academic achievement (e.g., grades, FCAT score s) and reduced lunch status. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire about your child’s behavior. Completion of the questionnaire is expected to take about 5 minutes. Please Note : Your decision to participate and to allow your ch ild to participate in this research study is comple tely voluntary. You are free to allow your child to par ticipate in this research study or to withdraw him or her at any time. You are also free to decide if you would like to participate in this study or to withdraw at any time. If you choose not to participate or not to allow your chil d to participate, or if you withdraw your child at any point during the study, this will in no way affect your relation ship with __________ Middle School, USF, or any other party. Confidentiality of Your Responses and Your Child’s Responses : There is minimal risk to you and your child for participating in this research. We will be present during administration of the questionnaires, along with a team of trained researchers, in order to provide assistance to your child if he or she has any questions or co ncerns. Your child’s privacy and research records will be kept c onfidential to the extent of the law. Authorized re search personnel, employees of the Department of Health an d Human Services, and the USF Institutional Review Board may inspect the records from this research project, but you and your child’s individual responses will not be shared with school system personnel or anyone other than us and our research assistants. Your question naire and your child’s completed questionnaire will be assign ed a code number to protect the confidentiality of his or her responses. Only we will have access to the locked f ile cabinet stored at USF that will contain: 1) all records linking code numbers to participants’ names, and 2) all information gathered from school records.

PAGE 118

110 Appendix E: Continued The questionnaires will be kept for 5 years and the n will be destroyed. Please note that although your child’s specific responses on the questionnaires will not b e shared with school staff, if your child indicates that he or she intends to harm him or herself, we will provide you r child’s name to the mental health counselors at _________ Middle School and ask that they follow up with your child to ensure your child’s safety. We will also let school mental health counselors know if your child scores high on a measure of depression. The mental health counselors will determine if additional follow-up is needed. What We’ll Do With Your Responses and Your Child’s Responses : We plan to use the information from this study to inform educators and psychologists about h elping all students be successful in school. The r esults of this study may be published. However, the data obtained from you and your child will be combined with data from other people in the publication. The published resu lts will not include your name or your child’s name or any other information that would in any way personally identi fy you or your child. Questions? If you have any questions about this research stu dy, please contact Dr. Julia Ogg at (813) 974-9698. If you have questions about you or your child’s rig hts as a person who is taking part in a research st udy, you may contact a member of the Division of Research Compli ance of the University of South Florida at (813) 97 4-9343. Do You Want to Participate or Have Your Child Parti cipate? To permit your child to participate in this study complete the attached child consent form (top porti on below) and have your child turn it in to his or her 1 st period teacher. If you would like to participate in this study, please complete the parent consent form (2 nd portion of form below). If you choose to participate, your child wi ll also bring the questionnaire home for you to fil l out. Sincerely, Julia A. Ogg, Ph.D. Rance Harbor, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology Sch ool Psychologist & Visiting Professor USF College of Education __________County & USF College of Education --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Consent for Child to Take Part in this Research Stu dy I do not give permission to let my child take pa rt in this study. I freely give my permission to let my child take pa rt in this study. I understand that this is resear ch. I have received a copy of this letter and consent form for my records. ________________________________ _________________ _______________ __________ Printed name of child Child’s Homeroom Teacher Date ________________________________ _________________ _______________ Signature of parent of child taking part in the stu dy Printed name of parent Consent For You To Take Part in this Research Study I do not give permission to participate in this study. I freely give my permission to take part in this st udy. I understand that this is research. I have r eceived a copy of this letter and consent form for my records ________________________________ __________________ ______________ _____________ Signature of parent taking part in study Printed n ame of parent Date ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Statement of Person Obtaining Informed Consent I certify that participants have been provided with an informed consent form that has been approved by the University of South Florida’s Institutional Review Board and that expla ins the nature, demands, risks, and benefits involv ed in participating in this study. I further certify that a phone number has been provid ed in the event of additional questions. ________________________________ _________________ _______________ _____________ Signature of person obtaining consent Printed name of person obtaining consent Date

PAGE 119

111 Appendix F: Student Assent Letter (Modified to fit in Current Document) Hello! This letter explains a research study that we would like you to take part in. Our goal in conducting t he study is to learn more about your thoughts, feelings, and attitudes related to school, family, friends, and life in general. Who We Are : Julia Ogg, Ph.D. is a professor in the College of Education at the University of South Florida (USF). Rance Harbor, Ph.D. is a school psyc hologist in __________ County and a visiting professor at USF. Several doctoral students in the College of Education at USF are also part of the team. We are working with your principal and admini strators to make sure this study will be helpful to your school. W W h h y y W W e e a a r r e e A A s s k k i i n n g g Y Y o o u u t t o o T T a a k k e e P P a a r r t t i i n n t t h h e e S S t t u u d d y y : : T T h h i i s s s s t t u u d d y y i i s s b b e e i i n n g g c c o o n n d d u u c c t t e e d d a a s s p p a a r r t t o o f f a a p p r r o o j j e e c c t t e e n n t t i i t t l l e e d d , “ “ T T h h e e E E x x p p e e r r i i e e n n c c e e s s o o f f a a n n d d P P e e r r c c e e p p t t i i o o n n s s t t o o w w a a r r d d A A d d o o l l e e s s c c e e n n t t s s E E x x h h i i b b i i t t i i n n g g I I n n a a t t t t e e n n t t i i o o n n , H H y y p p e e r r a a c c t t i i v v i i t t y y , a a n n d d I I m m p p u u l l s s i i v v i i t t y y . ” ” Y Y o o u u a a r r e e b b e e i i n n g g a a s s k k e e d d t t o o p p a a r r t t i i c c i i p p a a t t e e b b e e c c a a u u s s e e y y o o u u a a r r e e a a s s t t u u d d e e n n t t a a t t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M M i i d d d d l l e e S S c c h h o o o o l l . Why You Should Take Part in the Study: We need to learn more about how to help students be successful during the pre-teen and teenage years! T he information that we collect from you may help increase our overall knowledge of difficulties freq uently encountered in school and help support your success. Please note you will not be paid for your participation in the study. However, all students w ho complete and return parental consent forms will be entered into a drawing for a gift certificate. W W h h a a t t W W i i l l l l H H a a p p p p e e n n i i f f Y Y o o u u ’ ’ r r e e i i n n t t h h e e S S t t u u d d y y : : I I f f y y o o u u c c h h o o o o s s e e t t o o t t a a k k e e p p a a r r t t i i n n t t h h e e s s t t u u d d y y y y o o u u w w i i l l l l b b e e a a s s k k e e d d t t o o c c o o m m p p l l e e t t e e a a p p a a p p e e r r a a n n d d p p e e n n c c i i l l q q u u e e s s t t i i o o n n n n a a i i r r e e . T T h h e e s s u u r r v v e e y y w w i i l l l l a a s s k k y y o o u u a a b b o o u u t t y y o o u u r r t t h h o o u u g g h h t t s s a a n n d d b b e e h h a a v v i i o o r r s s . I I t t w w i i l l l l t t a a k k e e y y o o u u a a b b o o u u t t 4 4 0 0 m m i i n n u u t t e e s s t t o o c c o o m m p p l l e e t t e e t t h h e e q q u u e e s s t t i i o o n n n n a a i i r r e e . I I f f y y o o u u c c h h o o o o s s e e t t o o t t a a k k e e p p a a r r t t i i n n t t h h e e s s t t u u d d y y , w w e e w w i i l l l l a a l l s s o o l l o o o o k k a a t t s s o o m m e e o o f f y y o o u u r r s s c c h h o o o o l l r r e e c c o o r r d d s s i i n n c c l l u u d d i i n n g g y y o o u u r r g g r r a a d d e e s s , a a n n d d r r e e d d u u c c e e d d l l u u n n c c h h s s t t a a t t u u s s . Please Note : Your involvement in this study is voluntary (it’ s your choice). By signing this form, you are agreeing to take part in this study. Your deci sion to take part, not to take part, or to stop tak ing part in the study at any time will not affect your stude nt status or your grades; you will not be punished in any way. If you choose not to take part, it will n ot affect your relationship with __________ Middle School, USF, or anyone else. Privacy of your Involvement: Your privacy and research records will be kept co nfidential (private, secret) to the extent of the law. People approved to do research at USF, people who work with the Department of Health and Human Services, the USF In stitutional Review Board, and its staff, and other individuals acting on behalf of USF may look at the records from this research project. However, your responses to the surveys will not be shared with people in the school system or anyone other than us and our research assistants. Your su rveys will be given a code number to protect the confidentiality of your responses. Only we will ha ve the ability to open the locked file cabinet stor ed at USF that will contain: 1) all records linking co de numbers to names, and 2) all information gathere d from school records. All records from the study (completed surveys, info rmation from school records) will be destroyed in four years. Please note that although your specifi c responses and comments will not be shared with school staff, if you say or write that you may harm yourself or someone else, or if your responses on specific surveys indicate extreme emotional distres s, we will contact district mental health counselor s

PAGE 120

112 Appendix F: Continued to make sure everyone is safe. The district mental health counselor may meet with you to make sure yo u are safe. What We’ll Do With Your Responses : We plan to use the information from this study t o learn more about how to help students be successful during the pre-teen and teenage years! The information that we collect from you may help increase our overall k nowledge of difficulties frequently encountered in school and help support your success. The results o f this study may be published. However, your responses will be combined with other students’ res ponses in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any other information that would identify you. Questions? If you have any questions about this research stu dy, please contact Dr. Julia Ogg at (813) 974-9698. If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact a member of the Division of Researc h Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-9343. Thank you for taking the time to take part in this study. Sincerely, Julia A. Ogg, Ph.D. Rance Harbor, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of School Psychology School Ps ychologist & Visiting Professor USF College of Education __________ County & USF College of Education ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assent to Take Part in this Research Study I give my permission to take part in this study. I understand that this is research. I have received a copy of this letter and assent form. ________________________________ _________________ _______________ _________ Signature of student taking part in the study Prin ted name of student Date _______________________________ Your Homeroom Teacher Statement of Person Obtaining Assent I certify that participants have been provided with an assent form that has been approved by the Unive rsity of South Florida’s Institutional Review Board and t hat explains the nature, demands, risks, and benefi ts involved in participating in this study. I further certify that a phone number has been provided in t he event of additional questions. _______________________________ ___________ ______________________ _____________ Signature of person obtaining assent Printed n ame of person obtaining assent Date


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004960
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
McMahan, Melanie M.
0 245
Middle school students' willingness to engage in different types of activities with peers :
h [electronic resource] /
b the effect of presence of adhd symptoms and familiarity with adhd
by Melanie M. McMahan.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2011.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 120 pages.
502
Thesis
(*Ed.S.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: In addition to the increased risk they face for social and academic problems, adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) must also contend with stigma attached to the disorder. For instance, youth prefer greater social distance from students described with ADHD symptoms than from peers with asthma (Walker, Coleman, Lee, Squire, & Friesen, 2008), and adolescents are also reluctant to engage in activities (e.g., go to the movies, study together) with a peer described with ADHD symptoms compared to peers described as obese or autistic (Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007). Familiarity with individuals diagnosed with ADHD may influence adolescents' perceptions of their peers with ADHD, but the extant research on this relationship in adolescents is limited and mixed. The purpose of this study was to investigate middle school students' familiarity with ADHD, their willingness to engage in activities with a peer exhibiting ADHD symptoms, and how familiarity impacts their willingness to engage in a variety of activities with that peer. A sample of middle school students (N = 176) completed self-report measures of contact with ADHD and willingness to engage with a peer described in a vignette. Participants were randomly assigned vignettes describing either a peer displaying ADHD symptoms or a typical peer, employing a true experimental design. Middle school students expressed greater willingness to engage with a typical peer than one with ADHD symptoms overall. However, a significant difference (p < .05) was found only for academic activities, and not for social and recreational activities. This difference was present regardless of the inclusion of positive characteristics in the description of the peer with ADHD, suggesting that it is something about ADHD symptoms leading to middle school students' reluctance, not simply the lack of appealing characteristics. Additionally, approximately 70% of middle school students indicated some contact with ADHD, although familiarity with ADHD was not found to predict participants' willingness to engage in activities with a peer with ADHD symptoms. Implications for school psychologists and directions for future research are discussed.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor:
Ogg Raffaele Mendez, Julia Linda A.
Advisor:
Ogg Raffaele Mendez, Julia Linda A.
653
Adhd Exposure
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder
Randomized Vignettes
Stigma
Young Adolescents
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4960