J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
DOI 10.1007/s10964-012-9767-6
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: Socioemotional
and Behavioral Functioning and Attachment Relationships
with Fathers, Mothers, and Teachers
Michal Al-Yagon
Received: 7 February 2012 / Accepted: 8 April 2012 / Published online: 21 April 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Investigation of the role of adolescents’ pat-
terns of close relationships with significant adults may be
of particular interest in populations with learning disabili-
ties (‘‘LD’’) during adolescence, because attachment rela-
tionship variables may act as risk or protective factors
during this developmental period when trajectories are set
that can lead to difficulties in adulthood. Specifically, this
study examined a model of protective factors comprising
patterns of close relationships between adolescents (n=369;
53 % female; aged 15–17) and significant adults (mother,
father, homeroom teacher) for explaining adolescents’
socioemotional and behavioral adjustment, comparing
adolescents with and without LD. The current assessment
of adolescents’ socioemotional adjustment included both
internalizing aspects (loneliness, affect, and internalizing
behavior syndrome) and externalizing aspects (externaliz-
ing behavior syndrome). On most measures, significant
group differences emerged between adolescents with LD
(n=181) and adolescents with typical development
(n=188). SEM analysis found high fit between the theo-
retical model and empirical findings. Both groups showed
similar paths between adolescent-mother attachment and
adolescent adjustment, whereas significant group differ-
ences emerged for the contribution of adolescents’ close
relationships with fathers and teachers to adolescents’
adjustment. The discussion focuses on the possible unique
value of close relationships with each attachment figure at
The author would like to express her appreciation to Dee B. Ankonina
for her editorial contribution.
M. Al-Yagon (&)
Special Education Program, Constantiner School of Education,
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel
e-mail: alyagon@post.tau.ac.il
123
home and at school for adolescents with LD versus typical
development.
Keywords Learning disabilities  Attachment  Fathers 
Mothers  Teachers  Affect  Behavior problems
Attachment theory, considered a highly relevant and well-
validated framework for explaining individual variations in
adjustment across the lifespan (Grossmann et al. 2006;
Mikulincer and Shaver 2007), served as the focus of the
current study exploring variations in socioemotional and
behavioral adjustment among adolescents with learning
disabilities (LD) or with typical development. Exploration
of the role of adolescents’ patterns of close relationships
with significant others may be of particular interest in LD
populations during adolescence, because attachment rela-
tionship variables may act as risk or protective factors
during this developmental period when trajectories are set
that can lead to difficulties in adulthood. Adolescents
diagnosed with LD in the current study (in line with DSM-
IV-TR criteria, American Psychiatric Association 2000)
manifested an average IQ level and substantially lower
achievements on standardized tests (in reading, writing,
and/or mathematics) than expected for age, schooling, and
level of intelligence.
Based on the recent upsurge of interest in fathers’
important role for their children’s development and later
adjustment (Bretherton 2010; Christie-Mizell et al. 2011;
Marsiglio et al. 2000; Parke 2004), adolescent-father and
adolescent-mother attachments comprised equal foci in the
current study. This study’s simultaneous investigation of
both parents, aiming to narrow the gap in the literature for
older children (adolescents) and for the LD population,
stemmed from prior research highlighting possible
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
differences in younger children’s attachments to mother and
father (see Grossmann et al.’s 2002 review) and suggesting
that fathering tends to be more sensitive than mothering to
contextual factors such as children’s characteristics (e.g.,
NICHD 2000). Additionally, inasmuch as close relation-
ships with significant others extend beyond the family in
adolescence (e.g., Murray and Greenberg 2006; Murray and
Pianta 2007), the current study design reflected this com-
plexity. Thus, uniquely, the present study of adolescents
focused concurrently on three attachment-based factors,
namely, measures designed to capture processes identified
as important in attachment theory (Kerns et al. 2001): with
mothers, with fathers, and with homeroom teachers. As
suggested by prior research on younger children, teacher-
child relationships play an important role in understanding
children’s adjustment (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;
Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006; Pianta 1999). Together,
this study on adolescents’ attachment-based factors exam-
ined global attachment relationships (i.e., with the primary
caregivers—mother and father) and specific attachment
relationships (i.e., with the teacher), and explored the extent
to which each of these three different attachment-based
relationships could explain variation in adjustment among
adolescents with and without LD.
An Attachment Perspective on Caregiver-Adolescent
Relationships
Bowlby’s attachment theory (1973, 1982/1969) highlights
the role that interactions with significant others play in
personality and socioemotional development, extending
beyond early and middle childhood. Briefly, infants’ innate
attachment behavioral system targets restoration or main-
tenance of proximity to supportive others in times of need.
Thus, infants develop a differentiated and enduring rela-
tionship with their primary caretakers (Ainsworth and
Wittig 1969; Bowlby 1973, 1982/1969). Over time, these
interactions with significant others are internalized into
‘‘internal working models’’ that comprise mental repre-
sentations of significant others and of the self. During
development, such mental representations set in motion the
‘‘interpretive filters’’ that shape children’s beliefs and
expectations from their interpersonal milieu. These pro-
cesses may lead to unique and stable attachment styles—
patterns of cognitions and behaviors—that are expressed
both in later close interpersonal relationships (e.g., trust,
caregiving capacity) and in intrapersonal organization (e.g.,
emotional well-being, mental health).
Over recent decades, data from numerous empirical
studies have pinpointed the association between parent–
child attachment style and typically developing children’s
socioemotional functioning and developmental outcomes
1295
(e.g., for a review, see Grossmann et al. 2006), but these
associations were rarely studied in children with LD. The
many studies on typical development emphasized that
attachment relationships continue to influence interper-
sonal and psychosocial functioning beyond early and
middle childhood (Allen 2008; Al-Yagon 2011; Brenning
et al. 2011; Cassidy and Shaver 2008; Engels et al. 2001;
Gresham and Gullone 2012; Maysless and Scharf 2007).
The few existing studies on children with LD reported a
lower prevalence of secure attachment with parents, com-
pared to their non-LD peers (Al-Yagon 2007, 2010;
Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004a, b). Therefore, for ele-
mentary-school-age children with LD, research has
emphasized insecure parental attachment as a risk factor in
increasing socioemotional maladjustment (Al-Yagon and
Mikulincer 2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2006). The
internal neurological factors previously shown to corre-
spond with the academic aspects of LD (e.g., information-
processing disorders, impulsivity, performance and
production deficits) also have been associated these chil-
dren’s and adolescents’ social and emotional perceptions
and interpretations (see Al-Yagon and Margalit in press for
a research review). In turn, deficits in socio-cognitive pro-
cessing may be assumed not only to impair these youngsters’
social, emotional, and behavioral skills but may also to
impair their specific and enduring relationships with signif-
icant others (Al-Yagon 2010; Bauminger and Kimhi-Kind
2008). Moreover, in line with attachment theory’s emphasis
of caregivers’ quality of care as explaining individual dif-
ferences in attachment patterns, LD studies assumed that the
deficits experienced by youngsters with LD (e.g., in atten-
tion, language, and perception) may affect their parents’
quality of care and ability to interpret accurately their
offspring needs for comfort and exploration (e.g., Al-Yagon
2010; Murray and Greenberg 2001).
To date, attachment patterns and their associations
among older children with LD, in adolescence, have not yet
been examined. Studies on typically developing adoles-
cents have shown profound changes in the attachment
processes that coincide with adolescent psychological
development, such as more explorative behaviors, less
dependency on parents and more productive problem-
solving during conflicts with parents (for a review, see
Allen 2008). Nevertheless, substantial associations con-
tinue to emerge between typical adolescents’ attachment
organization and various maladjustment measures such as
depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and low self-
esteem (Allen 2008; Irons and Gilbert 2005; Lee and
Hankin 2009; Muris et al. 2003). Moreover, research
studies suggested that adolescents’ developmental tasks,
such as autonomy and exploration, may unfold more easily
in the context of close, enduring, secure relationships with
parents (Allen and Land 1999; Steinberg and Morris 2001).
123
1296
Even in typically developing adolescents, attachment
relationships with fathers have been investigated less than
those with mothers. However, research on father-child
attachment relationships among younger children showed
inconsistent findings. For example, several prior studies on
middle childhood linked secure attachment with fathers to
children’s positive interactions with peers, whereas other
studies failed to support such associations (for a review, see
Parke 2004). As argued by Grossmann et al. (2002), chil-
dren’s attachment with their fathers and mothers may
derive from different sets of early social experiences. Thus,
mothers often act as a secure base in times of distress,
whereas fathers often act as a challenging but reassuring
play partner (Lamb 2002; Lieberman et al. 1999). Fur-
thermore, studies on younger children also have reported
that secure attachment with fathers correlated with chil-
dren’s peer acceptance in the larger social network,
whereas secure attachment with mothers correlated with
children’s relationships in intimate small groups or dyadic
interactions (Verschueren and Marcoen 2005).
An Attachment Perspective on Student–Teacher
Relationships
According to Bowlby’s (1973, 1982/1969) assumptions,
once a child’s security needs are met and the parental figure
becomes a secure base, the child can then direct attention
and energy toward exploring the environment and engag-
ing in social interactions with others. These social inter-
actions may result in the formation of new, specific,
attachment-like relationships with different partners com-
prising siblings, other relatives, peers, as well as nonfa-
milial caregivers such as teachers. These partners also may
act as attachment figures, providing care and support in
times of need and becoming a source of secure base for
further exploration and learning skills (e.g., Bowlby’s
1973, 1982/1969; Pianta 1999; Weiss 1998). Thus, in line
with Bowlby (1973), a child’s ‘‘working models of
attachment,’’ originally developed based on early rela-
tionships with the primary caregivers, gradually become
generalized into new, specific attachment relationships
with others. Hence, these global working models are
assumed to affect children’s cognitions and behaviors in
these new specific attachment relationships.
Thus, the relationships that children form with teachers
at school may provide a crucially important sense of secure
base in the specific school context. Research has explored
child-teacher relationship quality’s impact on typically
developing children’s socioemotional functioning and
adjustment (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2006; Pianta 1999).
Al-Yagon and Mikulincer (2006) identified two aspects of
children’s appraisal of their teachers as a secure base—
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
teachers’ availability/acceptance and teachers’ rejection—
that were linked differentially to children’s socioemotional
measures.
Studies on child-teacher relationships for children with
disabilities are scarce (e.g., Al-Yagon and Mikulincer
2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006). For instance,
Al-Yagon and Mikulincer (2004b) found that elementary-
school-age children with LD appraised their homeroom
teachers as more rejecting and as less available and
accepting than did typical peers. The teachers themselves
also reported lower levels of emotional closeness to the
children with LD, and the study demonstrated these rela-
tionships’ role in children’s socioemotional adjustment.
For adolescents with LD, even less is known about
patterns of student–teacher relationships. Research on
typically developing early adolescents showed that the
quality of student–teacher relationships often deteriorates
following the transition from elementary to middle school
(e.g., Murray and Pianta 2007), with direct influences on
adolescents’ emotional and social health. For example,
Reddy et al. (2003) reported that the steepest declines in
student–teacher relationships from grades six through eight
correlated with early adolescents’ highest increases in
depression. Taken together, these findings call for addi-
tional investigations of student–teacher relationships
among adolescents with LD in high school and the possible
role of these relationships in explaining differences in
adolescents’ adjustment. To be noted, although homeroom
teachers in middle schools and high schools in Israel spend
less time with their students than in elementary schools, the
homeroom teachers continue to play a central role for
students in adolescence. Homeroom teachers usually spend
at least 1–2 weekly hours with the high school class as a
whole, discussing students’ specific social and educational
needs, including socioemotionally oriented curricula. In the
high school years, homeroom teachers also serve a variety
of roles such as mediating between students and their
teachers and coordinating communication between parents
and teachers.
Adolescents’ Socioemotional and Behavioral
Adjustment
A sharp increase has been well documented during ado-
lescence in the vulnerability, morbidity, and mortality
associated with various emotional, social, and behavioral
problems (e.g., Dahl 2004; Forbes and Dahl 2012; Jackson
and Goossens 2006; Lee and Hankin 2009; Muris et al.
2003; Steinberg and Morris 2001). In contrast, less research
has investigated the pervasiveness of such difficulties
among adolescents with LD, despite growing evidence that
younger children with LD demonstrate not only academic
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
dysfunction but also prevalent co-occurring socioemotional
difficulties such as social information-processing difficul-
ties, peer rejection and loneliness, low self-concept, high
levels of depression and anxiety, more behavioral prob-
lems, and more withdrawn behaviors (Al-Yagon and
Margalit in press; Dyson 2003; Estell et al. 2008; Margalit
2006). The few studies existing on adolescents with LD
demonstrated the vulnerability of these adolescents to
higher levels of internalizing difficulties like loneliness,
stress, and anxiety (Feurer and Andrews 2009; Lackaye
and Margalit 2006; Wilson et al. 2009) as well as higher
levels of externalizing behaviors such as aggression,
delinquency, and risk-taking behaviors (McNamara et al.
2008). Thus, the current assessment of adolescents’
socioemotional adjustment included both internalizing
aspects (loneliness, affect, and internalizing behavior syn-
drome) and externalizing aspects (externalizing behavior
syndrome), as described next.
Peer-Network and Peer-Dyadic Loneliness
The loneliness experience refers to a global indicator of
dissatisfaction from the quality and/or the quantity of
individuals’ social interrelations (Asher et al. 1990; Peplau
and Perlman 1982). Prior studies revealed that younger
children with LD often reported higher loneliness levels
compared to non-LD children (Al-Yagon 2010; Al-Yagon
and Mikulincer 2004b; Margalit 2006). Although there is
wide agreement that the loneliness experience is particu-
larly prevalent in the adolescent developmental period
(e.g., Brennan 1982; for a review, see Goossens 2006), the
rare studies on loneliness in adolescents with LD revealed
inconsistent findings (Lackaye and Margalit 2006; Tur-
Kaspa 2002), calling for additional exploration. Recently,
borrowing from Weiss’s (1973) theoretical distinction
between emotional and social loneliness dimensions,
studies on loneliness (Hoza et al. 2000; Qualter and Munn
2002) have underscored the need for separate assessments
of ‘‘peer-dyadic loneliness’’ (the emotional dimension),
which emerges from a deficiency in intimate close rela-
tionships and interpersonal bonding, as well as ‘‘peer-net-
work loneliness’’ (the social dimension), which emerges
from a deficiency in the social competencies necessary to
establish and maintain a social network.
Affect
Positive affect and negative affect hold unique importance
for understanding individuals’ mental health and well-
being (Clark and Watson 1988; Folkman and Moskowitz
2004), and their differential impact has been documented
widely (Watson et al. 1999). Negative emotions often may
restrict yet focus individuals’ thought-action repertoires
1297
(e.g., fight or flight), whereas positive emotions may
increase global attention and information processing,
thereby enabling more flexible and creative thinking. Such
expansion may predict a positive spiral toward improved
well-being and resilience, thereby building psychological
resources and a coping arsenal for handling future adver-
sities (Fredrickson and Joiner 2002).
Over the transition from childhood to adolescence,
individuals experience an increase in negative emotions, a
reduction in positive emotions, and greater emotional
lability (Irons and Gilbert 2005; Larson 2000; Lee and
Hankin 2009). Research also suggested the association
between adolescents’ frequency of negative emotions and
their level of externalizing and internalizing behavior
problems (Goossens 2006; Silk et al. 2003). The rare
research examining affect among adolescents with LD
reported lower positive affect and higher negative affect
than their non-LD peers (e.g., Lackaye and Margalit 2006;
Maag and Reid 2006).
Externalizing and Internalizing Behavior Problems
A large body of evidence suggests that children’s mal-
adaptive functioning falls into two categories (Achenbach
1991; Achenbach and Dumenci 2001): internalizing (e.g.,
loneliness, anxiety, social withdrawal) and externalizing
(hyperactivity, aggression). Recent reviews for adolescence
(Lee and Hankin 2009; Steinberg and Morris 2001).
showed an inverted U-shaped curve depicting externalizing
problems (e.g., aggression, delinquency), with prevalence
peaking during the middle adolescent years and then
declining, whereas the prevalence rate for internalizing
problems (e.g., depression, anxiety) showed an increase
during adolescence that continued into adulthood.
Although widely examined among younger children with
LD, behavioral difficulties’ persistence into adolescence
has not been well investigated. A rare study on adolescents
with LD reported higher levels of externalizing behaviors
such as aggression, delinquency, and risk-taking than in
typically developing adolescents (McNamara et al. 2008).
The Current Study
Taken together, the literature reviewed here reveals some
important gaps calling for additional exploration. Few
studies on attachment and adjustment have extended their
investigation of LD from childhood to adolescence despite
growing awareness about the importance of close relation-
ships for adjustment throughout adolescence, about the
heightened vulnerability of the adolescent period, and about
the heightened vulnerability of the LD population. Greater
understanding of adolescents’ global and specific attachment
123
1298
relationships, as well as the possible unique value of close
relationships with each attachment figure in adolescents’
socioemotional functioning, may be of particular interest in
adolescents with LD, because these variables may act as risk
or protective factors during this period.
Thus, the present study aimed to examine two major
objectives among adolescents with LD in comparison to
adolescents with typical development: to investigate the
features of adolescents’ socioemotional adjustment, and to
explore the role of adolescents’ global and specific attach-
ment relationships (i.e., with parents and the homeroom
teacher), in explaining differences in adjustment measures
(positive/negative affect, peer-network/peer-dyadic loneli-
ness, and externalizing/internalizing problems). Corre-
sponding with these objectives, the present study sampled a
group of Israeli high-school students with formally diag-
nosed LD who attended regular classes, and a comparison
group of typically developing high-school students, to test
four general hypotheses. First, in line with prior research on
younger children, adolescents with LD will report a higher
level of socioemotional difficulties (e.g. Estell et al. 2008;
Margalit 2006; McNamara et al. 2008), as well as a lower
incidence of secure relationships with parents and teachers
maladjustment (e.g. Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;
Murray and Greenberg 2006) compared to typically
developing peers. Second, in accordance with previous
studies on typically developing adolescents (e.g. Engels
et al. 2001; Gresham and Gullone 2012; Maysless and
Scharf 2007), a higher level of well-adjusted functioning
will be explained by adolescents’ higher scores on attach-
ment-based factors in both groups. Third, adolescents with
LD will be more vulnerable to insecurity in close relation-
ships (as shown by previous studies on younger children
with LD (e.g. Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b; Murray and
Greenberg 2006); therefore, they will demonstrate a greater
number of significant paths between attachment-based
factors and socioemotional/behavioral adjustment than the
non-LD group. Fourth, in line with prior research on
fathers’ possibly greater sensitivity than mothers’ to con-
textual factors like offspring’s characteristics (e.g., NICHD
2000), differences will emerge regarding the contribution of
adolescents’ relationships with fathers versus with mothers;
thus, a greater number of significant paths will emerge
between adolescent-mother attachment and adjustment
measures, than for adolescent-father attachment.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 369 Jewish adolescents in the 10th
and 11th grades from three regular public high schools
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
serving similar demographic neighborhoods in urban areas
of Israel: 181 adolescents with formally diagnosed LD (100
girls, 81 boys) and 188 typically developing adolescents
(98 girls, 90 boys). Adolescents’ ages ranged from 15 to 17
years (M = 15.90, SD = .71), with 184 adolescents in the
10th grade and 185 in the 11th grade. Demographic char-
acteristics of the families of the adolescents in both groups
are presented in Table 1. A set of t test analyses as well as
Chi-square tests revealed no significant differences
between the LD and non-LD groups regarding adolescents’
age or sex, or regarding parents’ education, marital status,
or work status.
LD Group
In accordance with the educational policy of the Israeli
Ministry of Education, all 181 adolescents in this group had
undergone previous psycho-educational evaluations that
yielded an LD diagnosis based on the DSM-IV-TR
(American Psychiatric Association 2000). The DSM-IV-TR
criteria comprised: (a) substantially lower achievements
(2? standard deviations below average) on standardized
tests in reading, writing, and/or mathematics than those
expected for age, schooling, and level of intelligence; and
(b) an average IQ level ranging from 85 to 115. As con-
firmed by school counselors, these 181 adolescents’ prior
DSM-based diagnosis of LD in reading, writing, and/or
mathematics also underwent a validation process by the
school psycho-educational team and by the national Min-
istry of Education committee, in order to: verify the diag-
nosis based on full access to the diagnostic evaluation
details; recommend appropriate remedial treatments; and
authorize the appropriate level and type of accommoda-
tions for everyday study and for the national matriculation
examinations. Along with these data obtained from the
school psychological staff, the adolescents themselves
reported: (a) age of diagnostic evaluation; (b) diagnostic
evaluations they had undergone (e.g., neuropsychological,
psychodidactic); (c) specific interventions received from
school psycho-educational staff and from out-of-school
resources; and (d) testing accommodations received from
the school psycho-educational team and the national Min-
istry of Education committee.
Comparison Group
To match the size of the LD group (who comprised about
10 % of the students in each classroom), 188 of their
classmates were randomly selected to serve as the non-LD
comparison group. These students without LD were mat-
ched to the students with LD for sex and class and also met
the following inclusion criteria for non-LD status. First,
according to self-reports on a demographic lifespan
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311 1299

Table 1 Demographic
Adolescents with learning
characteristics
disabilities (n = 181)
n %
Adolescents with typical
development (n = 188)
n %

Parents’ marital status

Married 138 76 142 75.5
Divorced 43 24 46 24.5
Mothers’ education
University education 106 59 111 59
Professional coursesa 37 20 42 22
High school education 38 21 35 19
Mothers’ work status
Full time work 127 70 135 72
Part time work 34 19 31 16
Unemployed 20 11 22 12
Fathers’ education
University education 99 55 105 56
Professional coursesa 33 18 33 17.5
High school education 49 27 50 26.5
Fathers’ work status
Full time 156 86.2 160 85
Part time 13 7.2 16 8.5
a Unemployed 12 6.6 12 6.5
e.g., computer technician

information checklist, they: (a) had no difficulties in aca-
demic skills, specifically in reading, writing, or mathe-
matics; (b) had received no diagnostic evaluation or special
assistance from school staff or other professionals
(including medical treatments for severe or chronic ill-
ness); and (c) had received no testing accommodations
from the school psycho-educational team. Second, the
school counselors confirmed that these students showed
regular academic functioning without any remarkable
social, behavioral, emotional, or physical problems.
Instruments
Attachment Security to Parents
The 15-item Hebrew adaptation (Granot and Maysless
2001) of the Attachment Security Style scale (Kerns et al.
1996) assessed adolescents’ perceptions of security in
parent–child relationships using Harter’s (1982) 4-point
‘‘Some kids …other kids’’ format. The scale was admin-
istered twice, once about mothers and once about fathers.
Participants were asked to respond these scales with regard
to their biological parents. Scores for each parent ranged
from 15 to 60, with a categorical cut-off point of 45 dis-
tinguishing secure from insecure adolescent-parent attach-
ment (Kerns et al. 1996). Previous findings demonstrated
the validity and reliability of the Attachment Security Style
scale (Kerns et al. 1996) in early adolescents (Lieberman
et al. 1999). In the current study, the Cronbach alphas were
.82 for the adolescent-mother scale and .85 for the ado-
lescent-father scale.
The Homeroom Teacher as an Attachment Figure
The 25-item Children’s Appraisal of Teacher as a Secure
Base (CATSB) scale (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2006)
assessed adolescents’ perceptions of their homeroom tea-
cher as an attachment figure along a 7-point scale. Previous
findings demonstrated the validity and reliability of this
scale (e.g., Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004a, b, 2006). The
availability and acceptance subscale comprised 17 items
assessing the teacher as caring and as available in times of
need (e.g., ‘‘My teacher is always there to help me when I
need her;’’ Cronbach a = .94). The rejection subscale
comprised 8 items tapping the extent to which the ado-
lescent perceived the teacher as rejecting (e.g., ‘‘My tea-
cher makes me feel unwanted;’’ Cronbach a = .88).
Loneliness
The 16-item Hebrew adaptation (Al-Yagon 2011) of the
Peer-Network Loneliness and Peer-Dyadic Loneliness
Scale (PNDLS; Hoza et al. 2000) assessed two subscales of
loneliness using Harter’s (1982) 4-point ‘‘Some kids
…other kids’’ format. The peer-network loneliness sub-
scale comprised 8 items such as ‘‘Some kids hardly ever

123
1300
feel accepted by others their age—But—other kids feel
accepted by others their age most of the time’’ (Cronbach a
= .85). The peer-dyadic loneliness subscale comprised 8
items such as ‘‘Some kids don’t have a friend that they can
talk to about important things—But—others kids do have a
friend that they can talk to about important things’’
(Cronbach a = .87). Prior findings demonstrated the
validity and reliability of this scale (e.g., for a review, see
Hoza et al. 2000).
Affect
The 28-item Hebrew adaptation (Margalit and Ankonina
1991) of the two-factor Affect Scale (Moos et al. 1987)
reflected adolescents’ view of their own affect. Participants
rated the extent to which each item described their affect in
the last month, on a 5-point scale from Not at all appro-
priate (1) to Very appropriate (5). The positive affect
factor (including a positive affect subscale and a self-
confidence subscale) comprised 14 items such as ‘‘ener-
getic’’ and ‘‘happy,’’ and the negative affect factor
(including a negative affect subscale and a global depres-
sion subscale) comprised 14 items such as ‘‘feel guilty’’ or
‘‘worried.’’ Higher scores reflected higher perceived type
of affect. Previous findings demonstrated the validity and
reliability of this scale (for a review, see Moos et al. 1987).
In the current study, the Cronbach alphas were .86 for the
positive affect factor and .88 for the negative affect factor.
Externalizing/Internalizing Behavior
The externalizing and internalizing syndrome scales from
the well-known standardized Youth Self-Report Version
for Age 11–18 (YSR; Achenbach 1991) comprised 112
items addressing emotional and behavioral problems
among youth (Hebrew adaptation: Zilber et al. 1994) on a
3-point scale ranging from Not true (0) to Very/Often true
(2). Achenbach’s (1991) principal components analyses
yielded eight narrow-band syndrome scales and two broad-
band syndrome scales. The present study used these two
broad-band syndromes scales, internalizing and external-
izing scales. Prior studies demonstrated the validity and
reliability of this scale (e.g., Achenbach 1991; Zilber et al.
1994). Internalizing syndrome scale consists of behaviors
such as withdrawal, somatic complaints, and anxiety/
depression (Cronbach a = .88) and externalizing syndrome
scale consists of behaviors such as delinquency and
aggressiveness (Cronbach a = .90).
Procedure
After obtaining approval from the Israeli Ministry of
Education and parental consent, one member of the
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
research team (comprising graduate students in educational
counseling) entered each classroom. A high percentage of
students agreed to participate in the study (more than 95 %
in both groups) and also had prior parental approval. All
data were collected from the three schools within one
month. At the start of the session, the team member dis-
tributed a set of five questionnaires (attachment, CATSB,
loneliness, affect, and YSR’s behavioral subscales) to each
adolescent present in class. Before asking adolescents to
complete the questionnaire packet, the team member read
sample items aloud from each scale to ensure adolescents’
understanding. During the session, as adolescents individ-
ually completed the scales, the team member provided
additional help if necessary (i.e., reading items aloud,
administrative guidance). Requests for such help were rare
and handled easily. As described above, information
regarding adolescents’ affiliation to LD/non-LD groups
were collected by both adolescents’ self-report and con-
firmation by the school counselors. All students who
qualified as LD were included in the current sample, and
then students without LD, matched for sex and class, were
randomly selected to form the non-LD comparison group.
Data Analysis
The first set of analyses, focusing on descriptive statistics,
investigated group differences: adolescents with LD versus
without LD. Second, analyses were conducted via the
structural equation modeling (SEM) method (AMOS pro-
gram). These analyses comprised the estimation of the
model examined in the current study, simultaneously for
the two groups. This multigroup SEM approach (MSEM)
measures the contribution of the interaction between the
group and the model’s components. Variable fitness to the
base model simultaneously considers the relationships
between the correlation and the existence of two groups
(Byrne 2001; Kline 1998).
Results
Descriptive Statistics for Adolescents with LD Versus
with Typical Development
To examine group differences in adolescents’ adjustment
and attachment-based measures and to decrease the chance
of Type 1 errors, a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted on group differences (adoles-
cents with/without LD), with the following 10 adolescent-
rated variables: attachment relationship with mothers,
attachment relationship with fathers, teachers’ availability/
rejection, peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness, positive/
negative affect, and externalizing/internalizing behavior.
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311 1301

As hypothesized, the MANOVA yielded a significant main
effect for study group, F (10, 358) = 2.03, p = .03, g2 = .06.
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and
F scores for the univariate ANOVAs of all adolescents’
measures for the two study groups: adolescents with/
without LD. Significant intergroup differences emerged on
most of the adolescents’ measures except for their positive
affect subscale. Thus, adolescents with LD reported sig-
nificantly higher negative affect, peer-network/peer-dyadic
loneliness, and externalizing/internalizing syndromes than
adolescents with typical development.
Regarding adolescents’ attachment-based factors, the
present findings showed that, as a group, adolescents with
LD reported lower scores on attachment relationships with
mothers and higher scores on the rejection subscale of the
CATSB (i.e., appraisal of the teacher as a secure base),
compared to non-LD adolescents. However, no significant
group differences emerged for adolescents’ attachment
with fathers or for the availability subscale of the CATSB
scale.
Estimations of the Model
This section describes the estimations of the model tested
in the current study via the SEM approach, which tests
simultaneously for its applicability to the two groups of
children. The correlation matrices of all the measured
variables are presented in Table 3. Testing of the current
model was conducted in three steps of estimation: (1) the
base model, (2) modified models consisting of the signifi-
cant pathways that emerged in the first step, and (3) group
comparisons.
Step 1: Estimation of the Base Model
The first step of analysis attempted to estimate the base
model simultaneously for the two groups (adolescents with
and without LD) by examining variable fitness to the base
model. Inasmuch as this approach simultaneously considers
the relationships between the correlation and the existence of
two groups, fitness is therefore reported once (Kline 1998).
This base model assumed that the exogenous variables of
adolescents’ close relationships with mothers, fathers, and
teachers (i.e., the independent variables; see left columns of
figures) would contribute to the endogenous socioemotional
variables (i.e., the dependent, variables; see figures’ right
columns) as follows. First, adolescents’ attachment with
fathers/mothers was assumed to contribute to each of their
socioemotional measures, whereas adolescents’ appraisal of
the teacher as a secure base (i.e., availability/rejection of the
CATSB subscales) was assumed to contribute only to ado-
lescents’ positive/negative affect subscales and externaliz-
ing/internalizing syndromes. Second, the model assumed a
relationship between the three exogenous variables them-
selves (i.e., among adolescents’ attachment with fathers/
mothers and appraisal of teachers as a secure base). Third, the
model assumed a relationship between the six endogenous
variables (i.e., feelings of peer-network/dyadic loneliness,
negative/positive affect, and externalizing/internalizing
problems). This examination of the base model demon-
strated a good fit, shown by the nonsignificant Chi-square
test, v2 (4, 369) = 3.60, p[.05, and by the high indices-of-fit
values: NFI = 0.997, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.998, and RMSEA =
0.00. Thus, the first step of analysis revealed a high fit
between the theoretical model and the empirical data.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and F scores of adolescents’ measures according to study group
Adolescents with learning Adolescents with typical F (1,367) g2
disabilities (n = 181) development (n = 188)
M SD M SD

Socioemotional and behavioral measures

Negative affect 36.10 11.24 32.90 11.13 7.22** .02
Positive affect 51.08 9.90 52.20 8.80 1.34 .00
Peer-network loneliness 14.43 4.83 13.20 3.80 7.13** .02
Peer-dyadic loneliness 13.25 5.03 12.00 4.02 6.71** .02
Externalizing behaviors 16.60 9.70 13.72 8.17 9.22** .03
Internalizing behaviors 13.80 11.00 11.10 9.08 6.34* .02
Attachment-based measures
Adolescent-mother attachment 46.80 7.07 48.30 6.70 4.00* .01
Adolescent-father attachment 44.50 8.00 45.60 8.10 1.48 .00
Teacher’s availability 75.83 22.66 78.80 22.00 1.60 .00
Teachers’ rejection 16.20 9.60 14.00 7.85 5.80* .02
* p \ .05. ** p \ .01

123
1302 J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311

Table 3 Correlation matrices of the study variables for the two groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Adolescents with typical development (n = 188)

1. Adolescent-mother attachment – .46  .18* -.18* -.43  .32  -.33  -.26  -.28  -.43 
           
2. Adolescent-father attachment .34 – .20** -.27 -.45 .39 -.38 -.31 -.21** -.34 
3. Teacher’s availability .24  0.12 – -.60  -.16* .26  -0.06 -0.13 -.25  -.18*
     
4. Teacher’s rejection -.16* -0.06 -.60 – -.23 -.28 0.09 .17* .41  .31 
         
5. Negative affect -.41 -.30 -.22** .17* – -.69 .29 .18* .38 .60 
           
6. Positive affect .40 .34 .33 -.23** -.67 – -.41 -.25 .20** -.46 
       
7. Peer-network loneliness -.34 -.24** -.18* .18* .38 -.45 – .59 0.12 .43 
8. Peer-dyadic loneliness -.22** -0.13 -0.12 0.09 .15* -.33  .58  – 0.11 .35 
     
9. Externalizing behaviors -.28 -0.07 -.23** .40 .29 -0.13 .21** .15* – .54 
           
10. Internalizing behaviors -.27 -.21** -.15* .17* .62 -.49 .53 .28 .45 –
Adolescents with learning disabilities (n = 181)
 
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; p \ .001

Step 2: Estimation of the Modified Model Modified Model for Adolescents with LD

To design more parsimonious models for the empirical data,
only paths (relationhips) with significance higher than t [
|2.00| were considered (Byrne 2001; Kline 1998). Thus, in
estimating the modified model, the following six non-signif-
icant paths were omitted: the path between adolescents’
attachment with fathers and the externalizing syndrome, the
paths between adolescents’ appraisal of the teacher as caring
and available and adolescents’ negative affect and externa-
lizing/internalizing problems, the paths between adolescents’
appraisal of the teacher as rejecting and the negative/positive
affect subscales. Therefore, the modified model comprised
only the significant remaining paths. Thus, the current out-
come of the Chi-square test was nonsignificant, v2 (10, 369) =
11.56, p [ .05, and the indices-of-fit values demonstrated a
high fit: NFI = 0.991, CFI = 0.999, GFI = .994, and RMSEA =
0.02. This step indicated a high fit between the modified model
in both groups and the empirical findings (see Fig. 1).
Step 3: Group Comparison
In this step, a group comparison was conducted in order to
estimate the contribution of the interaction between the two
groups and the model’s components. This analysis showed
significant group differences between the modified model
for the adolescents with LD versus the modified model for
the adolescents with typical development: CMIN (i.e.,
minimum value of the Chi-square discrepancy) = 112.22,
p \ .001. The outcome of the Chi-square test was non-
significant, v2 (20, 369) = 15.13, p [ .05, and the indices-
of-fit values demonstrated a high fit: NFI = 0.989, CFI =
1.00, GFI = 0.992, and RMSEA = 0.00. Figures 2 and 3
present the modified models for the adolescents with and
without LD, respectively.
Contribution of Exogenous Variables to the Endogenous
Variables
As seen in Fig. 2, in the model modified for the adolescents
with LD, the exogenous variable attachment with mothers
significantly contributed to the explanation of all of the
endogenous variables: negative and positive affect (B =
-.49 and B = .40, respectively), peer-network/peer-dyadic
loneliness (B = -.42 and B = -.27, respectively), and
externalizing/internalizing behavior syndromes (B = -.25
and B = -.32, respectively). Adolescents with LD who felt
more securely attached with the mother thus reported lower
negative affect, higher positive affect, lower feelings of
peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness, as well as lower
levels of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems,
compared to adolescents with LD who felt less securely
attached. In contrast, the exogenous variable attachment
with fathers significantly contributed only to one endoge-
nous variable: positive affect (B = .12). Adolescents with
LD who felt more securely attached with the father
reported higher positive affect than adolescents with LD
who felt less securely attached with the father.
Regarding the exogenous variables of adolescents’
appraisal of the teacher as a secure base, the current results
indicated that the exogenous variable teacher availability
significantly contributed to the explanation of adolescents’
positive affect (B = .15), and the exogenous variable tea-
cher rejection significantly contributed to the explanation
of adolescents’ externalizing behavior syndrome (B = .37).
Thus, adolescents with LD who appraised their teachers as
more caring and as available in times of need reported a
higher level of positive affect compared to adolescents with
LD who appraised their teachers as less caring and

123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311 1303

Fig. 1 Modified model for both

groups. NFI = 0.991, CFI = -.38 Negative
0.999, GFI = .994, and RMSEA Adolescent-mother affect
= 0.02. All presented paths are attachment -.27
significant. Exogenous factors
(i.e., independent variables) are -.31 Positive
presented within rectangles in .27
affect
the left column. Endogenous/ Adolescent-father .16
latent factors (i.e., dependent attachment -.31
variables, in the right column) Peer-network
are presented within ovals -.21 loneliness
Teacher’s availability -.23
and acceptance -.16 Peer-dyadic
-.15
loneliness
-.31
Teacher’s rejection .09 Internalizing
problems
-.26
.39 Externalizing
problems

Independent/ Dependent/
exogenous endogenous
factors factors

Fig. 2 Modified model for

adolescents with learning -.49 Negative
disabilities. All presented paths Adolescent-mother affect
are significant attachment
.40 Positive
.12 affect
Adolescent-father
attachment -.42
Peer-network
.15 loneliness
-.27
Teacher’s availability
and acceptance Peer-dyadic
loneliness
-.32
Teacher’s rejection Internalizing
problems
.37 -.25
Externalizing
problems

Independent/ Dependent/
exogenous endogenous
factors factors

123
1304 J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311

Fig. 3 Modified model for

adolescents with typical -.35 Negative
development. All presented Adolescent-mother affect
paths are significant attachment -.31

.21 Positive
.28 affect
Adolescent-father
attachment -.25
Peer-network
-.29 loneliness
Teacher’s availability .18 -.19
and acceptance -.12 Peer-dyadic
loneliness
-.48
Teacher’s rejection
.21
Internalizing
problems
.40
-.25
Externalizing
problems

Independent/ Dependent/
exogenous endogenous
factors factors

available. In addition, adolescents with LD who appraised
their teachers as more rejecting reported a higher level of
externalizing behavior problems compared to adolescents
with LD who appraised their teacher as less rejecting.
Modified Model for Adolescents without LD
Contribution of Exogenous Variables to Endogenous
Variables
Similarly to the model modified for the adolescents with
LD, in the model modified for the adolescents with typical
development (seen in Fig. 3), the exogenous variable
attachment with mothers significantly contributed to the
explanation of all of the endogenous variables: negative
and positive affect (B = -.35 and B = .21, respectively),
peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness (B = -.25 and B =
-.19, respectively), and externalizing/internalizing behav-
ior syndromes (B = -.25 and B = -.48, respectively).
Typically developing adolescents who felt more securely
attached with the mother thus reported lower negative
affect, higher positive affect, lower feelings of peer-net-
work/peer-dyadic loneliness, as well as lower levels of
externalizing and internalizing behavior problems com-
pared to typically developing adolescents who felt less
securely attached with the mother.
In contrast to the model modified for adolescents with
LD, in the model modified for the non-LD group, the
exogenous variable attachment with fathers significantly
contributed to a greater number of significant paths of the
endogenous variables: negative and positive affect (B =
-.31 and B = .28, respectively) and peer-network/peer-
dyadic loneliness (B = -.29 and B = -.19, respectively).
Typically developing adolescents who felt more securely
attached with the father reported lower negative affect,
higher positive affect, and lower feelings of peer-net-
work/peer-dyadic loneliness than typically developing
adolescents who felt less securely attached with the
father.
Regarding the exogenous variables of adolescents’
appraisal of the teacher as a secure base, the exogenous
variable teacher availability significantly contributed to the
explanation of adolescents’ positive affect (B = .18), and
the exogenous variable teacher rejection significantly
contributed to the explanation of adolescents’ externalizing
and internalizing behavior syndromes (B = .40 and B = .21,
respectively). Thus, typically developing adolescents who
appraised their teachers as more caring and as available in
times of need reported a higher level of positive affect
compared to typically developing adolescents who
appraised their teachers as less caring and available. In
addition, typically developing adolescents who appraised
their teachers as more rejecting reported a higher level of
both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems
compared to those typically developing adolescents who
appraised their teacher as less rejecting.

123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
Discussion
The current study aimed to investigate two major objec-
tives among adolescents with LD in comparison to ado-
lescents with typical development. First, the present study
aimed to examine the features of adolescents’ socioemo-
tional adjustment comprising positive/negative affect,
peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness, and externalizing/
internalizing problems. And second, to explore the role of
adolescents’ attachment relationships with significant
adults (mother, father, and homeroom teacher) in explain-
ing differences in these adjustment measures. These
objectives are of particular interest due to the scarcity of
research on prevalence rates of socioemotional difficulties
among adolescents with LD, despite growing evidence
of such difficulties among younger children with LD
(Al-Yagon and Margalit in press; Dyson 2003; Estell et al.
2008; Margalit 2006). Furthermore, patterns of close rela-
tionships with significant adults are of particular interest in
LD populations during adolescence, because attachment
relationship variables may act as risk or protective factors
during this developmental period (e.g., Allen 2008; Engels
et al. 2001; Gresham and Gullone 2012; Maysless, and
Scharf 2007). Thus, in accordance with these objectives,
the present study sampled a group of high-school students
with formally diagnosed LD who attended regular classes,
and a comparison group of their typically developing
classmates.
Overall, the findings supported the hypotheses, indicat-
ing significant group differences between adolescents with
and without LD on most of the socioemotional measures as
well as a high fit between the theoretical model and the
empirical findings. Results demonstrated similar paths
between adolescent-mother attachment and adolescent
adjustment for the two populations studied, but significant
group differences emerged for the contribution of adoles-
cents’ close relationships with fathers/teachers to adoles-
cents’ adjustment. Before addressing the results of the
SEM analyses, the following section first briefly discusses
the findings yielded by the descriptive statistics.
LD Versus Typical Development Groups
In line with the hypotheses, the current findings clearly
demonstrated that adolescents with LD manifested more
socioemotional difficulties than did their typically devel-
oping peers. As a group, these adolescents with LD
reported higher levels of negative affect, peer-network and
peer-dyadic loneliness, and externalizing and internalizing
behavior problems. As noted above, few prior studies on
LD have examined the prevalence rates of such socio-
emotional difficulties in adolescence (e.g., Lackaye and
Margalit 2006; McNamara et al. 2008), despite LD
1305
research pinpointing younger children’s vulnerability to a
variety of difficulties in the social and emotional domains
(e.g., Pavri and Monda-Amaya 2000; Weiner and Schnei-
der 2002).
Group differences also emerged on several of the
attachment-based factors, which rarely have been examines
among adolescents. Thus, the adolescents with LD reported
less secure attachment relationships with mothers and
higher appraisals of teachers as rejecting, compared to their
typically developing peers. These new outcomes regarding
adolescents’ attachment relationships with mothers
resembled those reported for younger children with LD
(Al-Yagon 2010; Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b; Murray
and Greenberg 2001, 2006). However, with regard to
adolescents’ attachment relationships with fathers, the
current findings were at odds with the study’s hypotheses,
indicating no significant group differences. It should be
noted that adolescents from both groups reported lower
scores on the adolescent-father attachment scale than the
adolescent-mother attachment scale, revealing a similar
pattern to elementary-school-age children in previous
research (e.g., Verschueren and Marcoen 2005). This
finding also resembled prior outcomes indicating that, from
early to late adolescence, both female and male adolescents
rated the quality of their affect toward fathers as lower than
toward mothers and tended to use their fathers less often
than their mothers for support and proximity (e.g., see
Lieberman et al. 1999 for review). Thus, one may speculate
that this decrease in turning to fathers as a source of
emotional support as children grow into adolescence may
contribute to the patterns found here (the paths between
adolescent-father relationships and socioemotional mea-
sures) for the two groups. However, inasmuch as adoles-
cents’ attachment relationships with fathers rarely have
been investigated, more explanations for this finding
should await further investigation.
Data from the current study also suggested that adoles-
cents with LD appraised their teachers as more rejecting
figures, compared to their typically developing peers’
appraisals. Although close relationships with teachers were
not often examined among adolescents with LD, these
results did resemble prior findings where elementary-
school-age children with LD appraised their teachers as
more rejecting than did typical peers (Al-Yagon and Mi-
kulincer 2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006). With
regard to adolescents’ appraisal of teachers as available in
times of need, the current results were at odds with the
study’s hypothesis, revealing no significant differences
between the two groups. These findings raise some
important questions regarding the possible factors that may
affect adolescent-teacher relationships. For example, is it
possible that the additional assistance provided to adoles-
cents with LD from teachers (e.g., test accommodations,
123
1306
special instructions) comprises an important but insuffi-
cient factor in determining these adolescents’ appraisal of
teachers as a secure base? Do schools’ organizational
structures like school climate and values contribute to
adolescents’ appraisal of teachers as a secure base? Such
questions emerge from the database produced in the current
study, calling for additional qualitative exploration.
Overall, although the current findings based on com-
parisons of these two groups are preliminary, these initial
evidences suggest that maladjustment and less secure
attachments in individuals with LD may extend into ado-
lescence. Presumably, as described above, these adoles-
cents’ internal neurological functioning that corresponds
with their academic difficulties –such as information-pro-
cessing disorders or impulsivity—may similarly influence
their social and emotional perceptions and interpretations.
These socioemotional processing deficits may, in turn,
impair children’s social, emotional, and behavioral skills
(for a review, see Al-Yagon and Margalit in press), with
deleterious impact on the development of specific and
enduring relationships with significant others in adoles-
cence. Furthermore, in keeping with attachment theory’s
focus on caregivers’ quality of care as explaining individ-
ual differences in attachment relationships, disorders like
attention, language, and perception deficits may interfere
with parents’ quality of care and their capacity to accu-
rately interpret their offspring’s needs for comfort and
exploration (e.g., Al-Yagon 2010; Murray and Greenberg
2001).
Estimation of the Model
Caregiver-Adolescent Relationships
As hypothesized, the current study highlighted the signifi-
cant role of attachment relationships with mothers and
fathers in explaining differences in adolescents’ well-
adjusted functioning, among both populations studied.
Indeed, the modified models for the two groups showed a
similar contribution of adolescent-mother attachment to
adolescents’ adjustment measures. However, group differ-
ences emerged regarding the contribution of adolescents’
close relationships with fathers and teachers. Findings also
revealed differences in the role of adolescent-mother
attachment versus adolescent-father attachment, in
explaining adolescents’ measures.
Several of the present findings may expand knowledge
regarding the role of attachment relationships among ado-
lescents with and without LD. Studies rarely have exam-
ined the possible contribution of these relationships to
well-adjusted functioning among adolescents with LD,
despite prior studies pinpointing a lower prevalence of
secure attachment with parents among younger children
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
with LD compared to their typically developing counter-
parts (Al-Yagon 2007; Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004a,
b), and despite research reporting the role of insecure
attachment as a risk factor in increasing maladjustment in
these younger children with LD (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer
2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2006). Thus, the current
findings highlighted the relevance and validity of attach-
ment theory for explaining differences in the socioemo-
tional difficulties of individuals with LD at later ages, in
high school.
Moreover, the current findings suggested a possible
unique role played by adolescents’ attachment to each
parent. Specifically, a greater number of significant paths
emerged between adolescent-mother attachment relation-
ships and adolescents’ socioemotional measures than for
adolescent-father attachment. In fact, adolescent-mother
attachment contributed to all of the adolescents’ socio-
emotional measures in both groups. Namely, adolescents
who viewed themselves as more securely attached with the
mother reported having lower negative affect, higher
positive affect, lower peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness,
and lower levels of internalizing/externalizing behavior
problems, compared to adolescents with less secure rela-
tionships with the mother. On the other hand, typically
developing adolescents who viewed themselves as more
securely attached with the father showed fewer significant
paths in their modified model (having lower negative
affect, higher positive affect, and lower peer-network/peer-
dyadic loneliness compared to adolescents with less secure
relationships). As for the adolescents with LD, their model
revealed only one significant path, indicating that those
with a more secure attachment to the father reported higher
positive affect.
Taken together, although adolescents’ attachment rela-
tionships with fathers have been less studied, the current
findings resemble prior studies that examined the possible
unique role of younger children’s attachment to each parent
(Lamb 2002; Lieberman et al. 1999; Verschueren and
Marcoen 2005). The present results also support previous
data that linked secure attachment with fathers to children’s
positive interactions with peers in middle childhood (for a
review, see Parke 2004). However, the scant contribution
found here for adolescent-father relationships in the group
of adolescents with LD raises some important questions
calling for additional investigation. For example, prior
research has suggested that fathering tends to be more
sensitive to contextual factors such as children’s charac-
teristics (e.g., NICHD 2000). Also, early studies on fami-
lies of children with severe disabilities have described a
maternal tendency toward over involvement with children
and a paternal tendency toward withdrawal behaviors,
either emotional or physical (Levy 1970). In light of these
earlier studies, one may speculate that fathers of
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
adolescents with LD may reduce their involvement and
availability in adolescents’ daily lives, which in turn may
contribute to more insecure patterns of adolescent-father
relationships. Such questions call for further empirical
exploration to deepen the understanding of these important
close relationships.
Adolescent-Teacher Relationships
The current findings highlighted the potential role of ado-
lescent-teacher relationships for several of the adolescents’
adjustment measures. For both populations studied, ado-
lescents’ appraisal of the teacher as available in times of
need explained individual differences in their positive
affect. In addition, adolescents’ appraisal of the teacher as
rejecting explained individual differences in their exter-
nalizing behavior problems. In contrast, only for the non-
LD group, teachers’ rejection showed a significant contri-
bution to adolescents’ externalizing problems.
These preliminary findings may extend the literature in
this field, which scarcely examined the associations between
adolescents’ close relationships with teachers and their so-
cioemotional functioning. Based on the present findings as
well as prior studies indicating that younger children with
LD appraised teachers as more rejecting than their typically
developing peers did (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;
Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006). The present outcomes
showed fewer significant paths between adolescents’
appraisal of teachers as a secure base and their adjustment
measures in the LD group than in the non-LD group. These
somewhat surprising findings for adolescents differed from
previous studies showing that younger children with dis-
abilities were more vulnerable to negative close relation-
ships with teachers (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;
Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006), thus raising some
important questions calling for further exploration. For
example, one may speculate that these adolescents’ inter-
actions with other attachment-like figures (e.g., educational
counselors, special education teachers) may play a more
important contribution than their interactions with home-
room teachers. In addition, future research should examine
the possible impact of the number of class hours spent with
the homeroom teacher versus other attachment-like figures
in school who are involved more intensely in these students’
remedial education.
Implications
Overall, the implications of the current findings emphasizing
the possible protective role of adolescents’ close relation-
ships with mothers, fathers, and teachers, especially when
validated by further research, concern the development of
effective interventions among adolescents with LD in family
1307
and school settings. Although interventions may be useful
for adolescents from both groups, the present findings clearly
revealed the LD group’s heightened vulnerability to insecure
attachment relationships with significant others (more inse-
cure attachment to their mothers and greater sense of rejec-
tion to their teachers compared to the non-LD group). To this
end, family interventions targeting the LD group may focus
on enhancing the quality of parent-adolescent attachment
relationships. Empowering parents to establish a secure base
for their adolescent offspring may include encouraging
collaborative rather than coercive parenting strategies,
understanding the role of conflict in adolescence, and dealing
with youngsters’ emerging need for autonomy (Diamond
et al. 2003; Moretti and Obsuth 2009). Specifically for
fathers, such interventions may work toward increasing
paternal levels of involvement, availability, and support, to
provide more optimal care and secure base for both adoles-
cents with and without LD (Lamb and Billings 1997;
Saloviita et al. 2003). Schools’ interventions may focus on
fostering the quality of adolescents’ close relationships with
teachers through provision of an authoritative teaching style
that comprises warm but demanding behaviors along with
positive praise and feedback (for a review, see Murray and
Pianta 2007). Professionals who develop such family or
school-based programs (e.g., Van Ryzin 2011), should
examine their effectiveness in reducing adolescents’ socio-
emotional and behavioral problems.
Limitations and Directions for Future Study
Several limitations of this study call for further research.
First, the present findings were gathered at one point in
time and did not indicate causality. To facilitate validation
and generalization of these preliminary evidences, as well
as to promote greater understanding of the possibly unique
role of close relationships with each of these attachment
figures, for the socioemotional adjustment of adolescents
with LD, future studies should examine the longevity of
such perceptions over time and utilize qualitative interview
methods to elaborate on these adolescents’ structured self-
reports. Furthermore, it should be noted that although the
current preliminary outcomes as well as prior research
(e.g., Allen 2008; Irons and Gilbert 2005; Lee and Hankin
2009; Muris et al. 2003) suggested the contribution of
adolescents’ attachment relationships to various malad-
justment measures such as depression, anxiety, and
behavior problems, such findings may also may raise an
important question regarding the possible bidirectionality
of these interrelationships. In particular, adolescents’ mal-
adjustment, such as aggressive or oppositional behaviors,
may elicit more criticism or rejection from their teachers
and parents, thereby impairing the quality of their close
relationships.
123
1308
Second, conceptual matters merit a word of caution
despite the current interesting findings regarding the role of
attachment-based factors. Inasmuch as attachment is only
one component of parent-adolescent relationships, addi-
tional aspects of these relationships should be considered,
such as parent-adolescent level of conflicts, parental
availability, parental monitoring levels, and parental sup-
port (White and Renk 2012). In this context, it also should
be noted that the present sample size did not permit
examination of parental and familial characteristics such as
parents’ marital status and various family life stressors and
changes. For example, the current sample showed a high
incidence of intact families. Thus, the present findings
should be interpreted with caution to avoid generalizing the
findings to divorced or separated families that may be
characterized by fathers’ low levels of availability.
Third, the current data focused exclusively on adolescents’
perceptions, in line with prior studies emphasizing the higher
reliability found for children’s and adolescents’ self-reports
compared to others’ reports, when measuring perceptions of
close relationships and emotional features (e.g., Lynch and
Cicchetti 1997; Ronen 1997). However, one may speculate
that inclusion of additional information sources such as
parental, teacher, and peer evaluations, direct observations,
and interviews may provide a more complete picture.
Fourth, the present study, which addressed individual
differences in actual attachment relationships with each
parent, attempted to offer a complementary perspective for
investigating adolescents’ attachment using the well-known
and well-validated attachment scale that classifies attach-
ment by differentiating secure from insecure styles (Kerns
et al. 1996). To further elucidate adolescents’ patterns of
attachment, future research may do well to examine, too, the
possible unique contribution of two insecure attachment
subclassifications—insecure avoidant style and insecure
anxious style—and also may explore the possible unique role
of other attachment instruments that evaluate attachment
(e.g., ‘‘state of mind with respect to attachment,’’ Main et al.
2003). Other such instruments may include the Adult
Attachment Interview (AAI; George et al. 1985), Experi-
ences in Close Relationships Scale (Brennan et al. 1998),
Attachment Interview for Childhood and Adolescence
(Ammaniti et al. 2000), or Attachment AQ (Hazan and
Shaver 1987). Additionally, because adolescents tend to
transfer dependencies from parental to peer relationships,
further study also may explore the possible role of adoles-
cents’ close relationships with friends for their well-adjusted
functioning.
Lastly, the current study focused on adolescents’
appraisal of their relationships with homeroom teachers
and did not examine teachers’ perspectives. Further study
should investigate not only the associations between these
two perspectives but also the longevity of adolescents’
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
perceptions of teachers as a secure base over time, as well
as adolescents’ appraisals of other school figures (e.g.,
educational counselors, special education teachers). To be
noted, because attachment is only one component of tea-
cher-adolescent relationships, additional aspects of these
relationships also should be investigated. In this context,
future studies also may focus on teachers’ individual
characteristics such as years of experience, teaching style,
and their own attachment patterns.
Conclusions
In general, the current findings indicating significant group
differences between adolescents with and without LD on
most of the socioemotional measures suggested that, sim-
ilarly to younger children with LD, adolescents with LD
demonstrate not only academic dysfunction but also pre-
valent co-occurring socioemotional difficulties such as
high levels of negative affect, peer-network and peer-
dyadic loneliness, and externalizing and internalizing
behavior problems. Importantly, these findings pinpointed
the possible protective role of adolescents’ close relation-
ships with significant adults (i.e., mothers, fathers, and
teachers) in explaining adjustment in adolescents with and
without LD. Thus, the modified SEM models for the two
groups showed a similar contribution of adolescent-mother
attachment to adolescents’ adjustment measures. However,
group differences did emerge regarding the contribution of
adolescents’ close relationships with fathers and with
teachers, where the group of adolescents with LD showed
fewer significant paths between their close relationships
with fathers/teachers and their socioemotional measures.
The results also indicated that, in both groups, a greater
number of significant paths emerged for adolescent-mother
attachment relationships than for adolescent-father and
adolescent-teacher attachment relationships vis-à-vis ado-
lescents’ socioemotional measures. This pattern of findings
highlights the need to further scrutinize the role of close
relationships with fathers and with teachers in the adoles-
cent developmental period, especially among the group of
adolescents with LD. Overall, these findings may have
several implications, especially when validated by further
research, for designing effective prevention and interven-
tion concerning socioemotional and behavioral difficulties
in adolescence with and without LD.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist:
4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
Achenbach, T. M., & Dumenci, L. (2001). Advances in empirically
based assessment: Revised cross-informant syndromes and new
DSM-oriented scale for CBCL, YSR, and TRF: Comment of
Lengua, Sadowski, Friedrich, and Fisher (2001). Journal of
Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 69, 699–702.
Ainsworth, M. D., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and
exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In
B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4,
pp. 113–136). London: Methuen.
Allen, J. P. (2008). The attachment system in adolescence. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 419–435). New York:
Guilford Press.
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 223–319). New York:
Guilford Press.
Al-Yagon, M. (2007). Socioemotional and behavioral adjustment
among school-age children with learning disabilities: The
moderating role of maternal personal resources. Journal of
Special Education, 40, 205–217.
Al-Yagon, M. (2010). Maternal emotional resources and socio-
emotional well-being of children with and without learning
disabilities. Family Relations, 59, 152–169.
Al-Yagon, M. (2011). Adolescents’ subtypes of attachment security
with fathers and mothers and self-perceptions of socioemotional
adjustment. Psychology, 2, 291–299.
Al-Yagon, M., & Margalit, M. (in press). Social cognition of children
and adolescents with LD: Intrapersonal and interpersonal
perspectives. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed). New York: Guilford
Press.
Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004a). Patterns of close relation-
ships and socio-emotional and academic adjustment among
school-age children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabil-
ities Research and Practice, 19, 12–19.
Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004b). Socioemotional and
academic adjustment among children with learning disorders:
The mediational role of attachment-based factors. Journal of
Special Education, 38, 111–123.
Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). Children’s appraisal of
teacher as a secure base and their socio-emotional and academic
adjustment in middle childhood. Research in Education, 75, 1–18.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (text revision). Washington, DC:
Author.
Ammaniti, M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Speranza, A. M., & Tambelli,
R. (2000). Internal working models of attachment during late
childhood and early adolescence: An exploration of stability and
change. Attachment and Human Development, 2, 328–346.
Asher, S. R., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990).
Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J.
D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253–273).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauminger, N., & Kimhi-Kind, I. (2008). Social information
processing, security of attachment, and emotional regulation in
children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabil-
ities, 41, 315–332.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Anxiety, anger, and
separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982/1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New
York: Basic Books.
Brennan, T. (1982). Loneliness at adolescence. In L. A. Peplau & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,
research and therapy (pp. 269–290). New York: Wiley.
1309
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report
measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J.
A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.
Brenning, K., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Bal, S. (2011). The role of
parenting and mother-adolescent attachment in the intergenera-
tional similarity of internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence. Advance online publication.
Bretherton, I. (2010). Fathers in attachment theory and research: A
review. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 9–23.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Christie-Mizell, C. A., Keil, J. M., Laske, M. T., & Stewart, J. (2011).
Bullying behavior, parents’ work hours and early adolescents’
perceptions of time spent with parents. Youth and Society, 43,
1570–1595.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and the mundane: Relations
between daily life events and self-report mood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 296–308.
Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescents’ brain development: A period of
vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals New York Academy of
Sciences, 1021, 1–22.
Diamond, G., Siqueland, L., & Diamond, G. M. (2003). Attachment-
based family therapy for depressed adolescents: Programmatic
treatment development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 6, 107–127.
Dyson, L. L. (2003). Children with learning disabilities within the
family context: A comparison with sibling in global self-concept,
academic self-perception, and social competence. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 1–9.
Engels, R. C., Finkenauer, C., Meeus, W., & Dekovic0 , M. (2001).
Parental attachment and adolescents’ emotional adjustment: The
association with social skills and relational competence. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 48, 428–439.
Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., Farmer, T. W., &
Rodkin, P. C. (2008). Peer group, popularity, and social
preference trajectories of social functioning among students
with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 41, 5–14.
Feurer, D. P., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2009). School-related stress and
depression on adolescents with and without learning disabilities:
An exploratory study. The Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 55, 92–108.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and
promise. Annual Review in Psychology, 55, 745–774.
Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Research review: Altered reward
function in adolescent depression: What, when and how?
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 3–15.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger
upward spiral toward emotional well-being. Psychological
Science, 13, 172–175.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). The adult attachment
interview. Unpublished protocol, Department of Psychology,
University of California, Berkeley.
Goossens, L. (2006). Affect, emotion, and loneliness in adolescence.
In S. Jackson & L. Goossens (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
development (pp. 51–70). New York: Psychology Press.
Granot, D., & Maysless, O. (2001). Attachment security and
adjustment to school in middle childhood. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 25, 530–541.
Gresham, D., & Gullone, E. (2012). Emotion regulation strategy use
in children and adolescents: The explanatory roles of personality
123
1310
and attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 52,
616–621.
Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H.,
Scheurer-Englisch, H., & Zimmerman, P. (2002). The unique-
ness of the child-father attachment relationships: Fathers’
sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year
longitudinal study. Social Development, 11, 207–331.
Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., & Waters, E. (2006). Attachment
from infancy to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child
Development, 53, 87–97.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as
an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hoza, B., Bukowski, W. M., & Beery, S. (2000). Assessing peer
network and dyadic loneliness. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 29, 119–128.
Irons, C., & Gilbert, P. (2005). Evolved mechanisms in adolescent
anxiety and depression symptoms: The role of the attachment
and social rank systems. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 325–341.
Jackson, S., & Goossens, L. (2006). Handbook of adolescent
development. New York: Psychology Press.
Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentzler, A. L., & Grabill, C. M.
(2001). Parent-child attachment and monitoring in middle
childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 69–81.
Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and
preadolescents’ perceptions of security in the child-mother
relationship. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457–466.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Lackaye, T., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achievement,
effort and self-perceptions among students with learning dis-
abilities and their peers from different achievement groups.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 432–446.
Lamb, M. E. (2002). Infant-father attachments and their impact on
child development. In C. Tamis–LeMonda, & N. Cabrera (Eds.),
Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 93–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lamb, M. E., & Billings, A. G. (1997). Fathers of children with
special needs. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in
child development (3rd ed., pp. 179–190). New York: John
Wiley.
Larson, R. (2000). Towards psychology of positive youth develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 55, 170–183.
Lee, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2009). Insecure attachment, dysfunctional
attitudes, and low self-esteem predicting prospective symptoms
of depression and anxiety during adolescence. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 219–231.
Levy, D. (1970). The concept of maternal overprotection. In E.
J. Anthony & T. Benedek (Eds.), Parenthood (pp. 387–409).
Boston: Little, Brown.
Lieberman, M., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental
patterns in security of attachment to mother and father in late
childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer
relations. Child Development, 7, 202–213.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adult
and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school
students. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 81–99.
Maag, J. W., & Reid, R. (2006). Depression among students with
learning disabilities: Assessing the risk. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39, 3–10.
Main, M., Goldwyn, R. & Hesse, E. (2003). Adult attachment scoring
and classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California at Berkeley.
Margalit, M. (2006). Loneliness, the salutogenic paradigm and
learning disabilities: Current research, future directions, and
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
interventional implications. The Cruickshank Memorial Lecture.
Thalamus, 24, 38–48.
Margalit, M., & Ankonina, D. B. (1991). Positive and negative affect
in parenting disabled children. Counseling Psychology Quar-
terly, 4, 289–299.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).
Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173–1191.
Maysless, O., & Scharf, M. (2007). Adolescents’ attachment repre-
sentations and their capacity for intimacy in close relationships.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27, 23–50.
McNamara, J., Vervaeke, S., & Willoughby, T. (2008). Learning
disabilities and risk-taking behavior in adolescents: A compar-
ison of those with and without comorbid attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41,
561–574.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood:
Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. L., Billings, A. G., & Finney, J. W. (1987).
Revised health and daily living form manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Veterans Administration and Stanford University Medical
Centers.
Moretti, M., & Obsuth, I. (2009). Effectiveness of an attachment-
focused manualized intervention for parents of teens at risk for
aggressive behavior: The connect program. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 32, 1347–1357.
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & van den Berg, S. (2003). Internalizing and
externalizing problems and correlates of self-reported attach-
ment style and perceived parental rearing in normal adolescents.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 171–183.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2001). Relationships with teachers
and bonds with school: Social emotional adjustment correlates
for children with and without disabilities. Psychology in the
Schools, 38, 25–41.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. (2006). Examining the importance of
social relationships and social contexts in the lives of children
with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education,
39, 220–233.
Murray, C., & Pianta, R. (2007). The importance of teacher-students
relationships for adolescents with high incidence disabilities.
Theory Into Practice, 46, 105–112.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Factors
associated with fathers’ caregiving activities and sensitivity
with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 14,
200–219.
Parke, D. R. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 365–399.
Pavri, S., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2000). Loneliness and students with
learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Self-perceptions,
coping strategies, and preferred interventions. Learning Disabil-
ities Research & Practice, 15, 22–33.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L.
A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of
current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1–18). New York:
Wiley.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and
teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Qualter, P., & Munn, P. (2002). The separateness of social and
emotional loneliness in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 43, 233–244.
Reddy, R., Rhodes, J. E., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence of
teacher support on students adjustment in the middle school
years: A latent growth curve study. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 15, 119–138.
Ronen, T. (1997). Cognitive-developmental therapy with children.
Chichester: Wiley.
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:1294–1311
Saloviita, T., Itälinna, M., & Leinonen, E. (2003). Explaining the
parental stress of fathers and mothers caring for children with
intellectual disability: A double ABCX model. Journal of
Intellectual Disability, 47, 300–312.
Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’
emotion regulation in daily life: Links to depressive symptoms
and problem behavior. Child Development, 74, 1869–1880.
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.
Tur-Kaspa, H. (2002). The socioemotional adjustment of adolescents
with LD in the kibbutz during high school transition period.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 87–96.
Van Ryzin, M. J. (2011). Protective factors at school: Reciprocal
effects among adolescents’ perceptions of the school environ-
ment, engagement in learning, and hope. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 40, 1568–1580.
Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (2005). Perceived security of
attachment to mother and father: Developmental differences and
relation to self-worth and peer relation at school. In K. A. Kerns
& R. A. Richardson (Eds.), Attachment in middle school
(pp. 212–230). New York: Guilford Press.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). Two
general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolu-
tionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–826.
Weiner, J., & Schneider, B. (2002). A multisource exploration of the
friendship patterns of children with and without learning
disabilities. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 3, 127–141.
1311
Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and
social isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 15, 671–683.
White, R., & Renk, K. (2012). Externalizing behavior problems
during adolescence: An ecological perspective. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 21, 158–171.
Wilson, A., Armstrong, C., Furrie, A., & Walcot, E. (2009). The
mental health of Canadians with self-reported learning disabil-
ities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 24–40.
Zilber, N., Auerbach, J., & Lerner, Y. (1994). Israeli norms for the
Achenbach child behavior checklist: Comparison of clinically-
referred and non-referred children. Israel Journal of Psychiatry
and Related Science, 31, 5–12.
Author Biography
Michal Al-Yagon Ph.D., is the Head of the Speical Education
Program in the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Her current research interests include socioemotional adjustment of
children and adolescents with and without disabilities, especially LD
and ADHD, and the role of individual and familial vulnerability and
protective factors in explaining adjustment among these youngsters.
123