DYSLEXIA

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/dys.1563

■ Socially Desirable Responding and

College Students with Dyslexia:
Implications for the Assessment of
Anxiety and Depression
Jason M. Nelson1* and Spencer W. Liebel2
1
Regents’ Center for Learning Disorders, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

We investigated self-reported depressive and anxiety-related symptoms among college stu-

dents with dyslexia, with emphasis on the role of socially desirable responding (SDR) in un-
derstanding these reports. Analyses included examination of differences in self-reported
depressive symptoms, anxiety-related symptoms, and SDR. We also examined the relation-
ships among SDR, depressive symptoms, anxiety-related symptoms, and reading skills. Partic-
ipants with dyslexia demonstrated significantly higher SDR than did participants without
dyslexia, and higher SDR was significantly associated with lower self-reported depressive
and anxiety-related symptoms. Moreover, higher SDR was significantly associated with lower
reading skills. There was no group difference on anxiety-related symptoms, but participants
with dyslexia had higher depressive symptoms than did participants without dyslexia when
SDR was controlled. Implications for the assessment of anxiety and depression among col-
lege students with dyslexia are discussed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: college; dyslexia; reading disabilities; social desirability; anxiety; depression

Individuals with learning disabilities (also referred to as specific learning disorders)

are participating in postsecondary education at an increasing rate. The vast
majority of these individuals are students with dyslexia, as dyslexia is the most
common of the learning disabilities (British Dyslexia Association, 2011; Cortiella
& Horowitz, 2014). In less than a decade, postsecondary institutions have seen
the enrolment of students with learning disabilities nearly double (United States
Government Accountability Office, 2009). Likewise, directors of college counsel-
ling centres have reported a significant increase in students with learning
disabilities seeking these services (Gallagher, 2014). Students with learning disabil-
ities are now the most common group determined eligible for postsecondary dis-
ability, accounting for nearly a third of all disabilities (Raue & Lewis, 2011).
Approximately half of the accommodations on postsecondary admissions and pro-
fessional licensing exams are granted to students with learning disabilities (United
States Government Accountability Office, 2011). In total, these data suggest that
the number of college students with learning disabilities, including those with

*Correspondence to: Jason M. Nelson, Regents’ Center for Learning Disorders, University of Georgia, 337
Milledge Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA. E-mail jmnelson@uga.edu

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

2 J. M. Nelson and S. W. Liebel

dyslexia, will likely continue to grow and that these individuals may access disability
and other services at an increasing rate.
Along with a rising rate of learning disabilities on college campuses, anxiety and
depression have also increased drastically. College counselling directors have re-
ported a significant increase in anxiety and depressive disorders over the past
5 years (Gallagher, 2014). In a recent national survey of college students, nearly
60% reported experiencing overwhelming anxiety and approximately 35% re-
ported feeling so depressed that it was difficult to function at some point within
the year prior to being surveyed (American College Health Association, 2015).
Anxiety and depression are now the two most common referral concerns by col-
lege students seeking counselling services (Reetz, Barr, & Krylowicz, 2014).
College students with dyslexia may be at particular risk for elevated depressive
and anxiety-related symptoms. From the lens of a demoralization hypothesis
(e.g. see Biederman, Mick, & Faraone, 1998), it seems logical that students with
dyslexia may experience significant discouragement as a result of their learning
difficulties, which may result in heightened depressive and anxiety-related symp-
tomatology secondary to these difficulties. These students, relative to their class-
mates without disabilities, have been shown to experience an abundance of
academic-related issues beyond their reading problems, including poorer test-
taking skills (Holzer, Madaus, Bray, & Kehle, 2009), study skills (Kirby, Silvestri,
Allingham, Parrila, & La Fave, 2008), and note-taking skills (Hughes & Suritsky,
1994). Academic-related problems are the most commonly cited attribution for
heightened internalizing symptomatology among college students (Furr, Westefeld,
McConnell, & Jenkins, 2001).
Although the demoralization hypothesis seems intuitive when applied to college
students with dyslexia, some findings suggest that adulthood may be a time of im-
proved emotional functioning for individuals with dyslexia. Bruck (1987) found
that children with learning disabilities longitudinally followed to adulthood demon-
strated improved socioemotional adjustment. Increased opportunity for niche
picking in young adulthood is one mechanism by which the socioemotional func-
tioning of individuals with dyslexia may improve (McNulty, 2003). Relative to com-
pulsory education, the college environment offers students more opportunities to
select courses of interest along with a much broader range of instructors teaching
these courses. Furthermore, the postsecondary environment offers more oppor-
tunities for niche picking in nonacademic domains such as extracurricular activities
and peer groups. Some research indicates that college students with dyslexia per-
ceive the postsecondary environment to be a more sympathetic one than the en-
vironment experienced during their compulsory education (Riddick, Sterling,
Farmer, & Morgan, 1999).
Given these opposing viewpoints on the potential risk for increased depressive
and anxiety-related symptomatology of college students with dyslexia, there is not
an obvious answer to the question of whether this group is at particular risk, de-
spite anecdotal reports suggesting that it is essentially inevitable that individuals
with dyslexia experience significant emotional problems (e.g. Edwards, 1993). Sur-
prisingly little research has been conducted on depression and anxiety among col-
lege students with learning disabilities in general and college students with dyslexia
in particular. After conducting a meta-analysis of the empirical literature on inter-
nalizing problems among adults with learning disabilities, Klassen, Tze, and Hannok
(2011) declared a ‘clarion call for further research in this area’ (p. 324). They

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

Socially Desirable Responding and Dyslexia 3

located only eight published studies that used adult learning disabled samples.
Results indicated small overall effect sizes for increased depressive and anxiety-
related symptoms among adults with learning disabilities, but the findings among
the included studies were highly heterogeneous, with effect sizes ranging from
0.08 to 1.71. Generalizing these results to college students with dyslexia is prob-
lematic because of the significant heterogeneity within the broad learning disability
category (Burden, 2008; Carroll & Iles, 2006; Riddick et al., 1999).
Minimal research has examined depressive and/or anxiety-related symptoms
specifically within adult dyslexic samples. Results have been mixed with some
studies showing elevated symptoms relative to control groups without dyslexia
(Carroll & Iles, 2006; Wilson, Armstrong, Furrie, & Walcot, 2009), some showing
equivalent symptoms between these groups (Boetsch, Green, & Pennington, 1996;
Nelson & Gregg, 2010; Riddick et al., 1999; Tops, Verguts, Callens, & Brysbaert,
2013), and still others showing varied results depending on the instruments used
to measure these symptoms (Ghisi, Bottesi, Re, Cerea, & Mammarella, 2016;
Jordan, McGladdery, & Dyer, 2014). Additionally, most of these studies have signif-
icant limitations, including small sample sizes, participants with self-identified dys-
lexia, and participants who were identified as dyslexic only by way of being
formally recognized as such through a postsecondary disability services office.
Mixed results from a small number of empirical studies with significant methodo-
logical limitations indicate the need for further research on this topic.
A topic that has been minimally investigated in conjunction with the investiga-
tion of depressive and anxiety-related symptomatology is the possibility that col-
lege students with dyslexia may engage in elevated socially desirable responding
(SDR). Although there are many complex descriptions of SDR (see Paulhus,
2002 for a review), it generally involves providing overly positive self-descriptions
(e.g. ‘I am always kind to everyone’) and denying imperfections characteristic of
everyone (e.g. ‘I never get angry’). When assessing the possibility of heightened de-
pressive and anxiety-related symptomatology, the individual’s self-report is heavily
relied upon because many of these symptoms are internal in nature and therefore
are not readily observable by others. Individuals who endorse high desirability
items on self-report measures and disavow low desirability items may be providing
responses contingent upon item desirability rather than each item’s accuracy in
describing their emotions and behaviours (Paulhus, 2002). Therefore, determining
the presence of depressive and anxiety-related symptoms among those who en-
gage in high SDR is difficult because the accuracy of their responses is in question.
Some indirect empirical evidence suggests that individuals with dyslexia may
engage in elevated SDR. Most of this evidence is derived from the broad learning
disability research literature, suggesting that individuals with learning disabilities
demonstrate a tendency to assess their skills, abilities, and other characteristics
more favourably than others assess them or than is justified based on objective
indicators. Individuals with learning disabilities have been found to rate their cog-
nitive, language, and academic skills more highly than teachers and parents rate
them (Meltzer, Roditi, Houser, & Perlman, 1998; Stone, 1997), to overestimate
their social acceptance by peers (Nowicki, 2003) and to favourably miscalibrate
their perceptions of academic and nonacademic skills relative to their actual
demonstration of these skills (Job & Klassen, 2012). Collectively, these findings
indicate that individuals with learning disabilities may demonstrate overly positive
self-perceptions, which may result in possible susceptibility to overly endorsing

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

4 J. M. Nelson and S. W. Liebel

highly desirable characteristics and denying less desirable characteristics. Minimal

research has been conducted on the possibility that individuals with learning dis-
abilities, including those with dyslexia, may be prone to elevated SDR. We lo-
cated only two studies examining SDR with adults with dyslexia, with one
study finding higher SDR for adults with dyslexia compared with adults without
dyslexia (Riddick et al., 1999) and the other finding equivalent SDR between
these groups (Richardson & Stein, 1993). Neither of these studies investigated
the relationships between SDR and the endorsement of depressive and
anxiety-related symptoms.
A clearer understanding of depressive and anxiety-related symptoms among
college students with dyslexia, taking into account SDR, is important for several
reasons. First and most important, anxiety and depression have been found to be
associated with increased risk for suicide (Garlow et al., 2008), and therefore, the
identification of subgroups of college students who may be at particular risk for
depressive and anxiety-related symptomatology is important for suicide preven-
tion efforts. Second, surveys of college students have indicated that they perceive
emotional difficulties to negatively impact their academic performance; these per-
ceptions have been supported by objective data, as individuals with mental health
problems have been found to have lower grade point averages and to be at
greater risk for dropping out of college than those without such problems
(Eisenberg, Golberstein, & Hunt, 2009). Relative to college students without dis-
abilities, individuals with learning disabilities have been shown to be at increased
risk for dropping out of college (Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000).
Thus, potential problems associated with anxiety and depression may exacerbate
these difficulties with degree completion. Third, longitudinal research on individ-
uals with learning disabilities followed to adulthood has indicated that emotional
stability is one of the main protective factors for fostering long-term life success
(Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind, & Herman, 2003). These longitudinal findings suggest
that minimizing emotional disturbances such as anxiety and depression aids in
long-term resilience beyond the college years for individuals with learning
disabilities.
The purpose of the current study was to examine SDR, depressive symptoms,
and anxiety-related symptoms of college students with and without dyslexia. We
also sought to examine relationships between SDR and depressive and anxiety-
related symptomatology. Within the college dyslexia group, we investigated
potential relationships between their reading skills and SDR and depressive and
anxiety-related symptomatology. Because gender differences in anxiety/
depression (Eisenberg, Gollust, Golberstein, & Hefner, 2007) and SDR (Pina,
Silverman, Saavedra, & Weems, 2001) have been found, we also considered the
role of gender when examining these variables.

METHOD

Participants
Participants with dyslexia
The dyslexia group consisted of 110 participants. In order to be included in the
dyslexia group, participants were required to meet the following criteria. First,

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

Socially Desirable Responding and Dyslexia 5

participants were required to meet the University System of Georgia criteria for
learning disabilities (see http://www.usg.edu/academic_affairs_handbook/ for fur-
ther information) and were determined to be eligible as individuals with disabilities
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Briefly, these criteria were based on a
psychological processing model of defining learning disabilities, which required
academic impairment and identification of a psychological processing deficit that
was meaningfully associated with the area of academic impairment. Consistent
with the International Dyslexia Association definition of dyslexia (Lyon, Shaywitz,
& Shaywitz, 2003), all participants experienced impairment in accurate or fluent
word-level reading or spelling. Impairment was operationalized as at least two
scores ≤85 on norm-referenced measures of reading and spelling. This cut-off is
1 SD below the mean and has been recommended as an adequate severity level
for identifying impairment (Dombrowski, Kamphaus, & Reynolds, 2004). Docu-
mentation of impairment on at least two measures has been proposed as a method
for ensuring the validity of learning disabilities diagnoses (Brueggermann,
Kamphaus, & Dombrowski, 2008). To ensure that the participants met the Inter-
national Dyslexia Association definition of dyslexia, all participants were required
to have at least one score ≤85 on a norm-referenced measure of word-level
reading accuracy, word-level reading fluency, or spelling. The second score ≤85
was permitted to be on a measure of connected text reading fluency or timed
reading comprehension. Second, the participants were required to have been
attending a 4-year university. This criterion was imposed because participants
without dyslexia were all undergraduates attending a 4-year university, and we
attempted to match the groups as closely as possible. Third, participants with dys-
lexia were required to be between the ages of 18 and 25 years. This age range is
consistent with the normative age range of the self-report instrument used to
measure the dependent variables.
Diagnoses were made by licensed psychologists after completing a comprehen-
sive evaluation at a university-based clinic. The evaluations included a clinical inter-
view; review of the participant’s history (including developmental, medical,
academic, and social background); and assessment of general cognitive functioning,
specific cognitive/linguistic processing abilities (e.g. phonological processing), and
academic skills. Evaluations included approximately 8 to 10 h of assessment over
the course of 2 days and were tailored to the referral question of each participant.
While the general approach in which the evaluations were conducted was similar
across the licensed psychologists, the specific measures used to assess for dyslexia
varied, and therefore, not all participants were identified by using exactly the same
measures. Descriptive information regarding IQ and reading skills of the dyslexic
group can be found in Table 1. Furthermore, of the 110 participants with dyslexia,
80 (72.7%) reported being diagnosed prior to the evaluations used in the current
study.

Participants without dyslexia

The group without dyslexia consisted of 110 participants who were attending a
4-year university and who were between the ages of 18 and 25 years. They were
recruited through the university research pool and obtained course credit for
their participation. These participants were required to never have been diag-
nosed with dyslexia or other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

6 J. M. Nelson and S. W. Liebel

Table 1. Descriptive statistics regarding IQ and reading skills of participants with dyslexia

M SD
a
IQ 101.14 11.56
Basic reading skillsb 82.69 11.00
Word reading 86.33 9.90
Pseudoword decoding 82.25 11.43
Word reading efficiencyc 75.67 9.37
Sight word reading efficiency 80.53 8.87
Pseudoword decoding efficiency 77.03 9.83
a
IQ includes 79 participants who were administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition General Ability Index
and 31 participants who were administered the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales Composite Intelligence Index.
b
Basic reading skills include 2 participants who were administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery, 95 par-
ticipants who were administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement, and 13 participants who were administered
the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement.
c
Word reading efficiency includes 40 participants who were administered the Test of Word Reading Efficiency and 52 participants
who were administered the Test of Word Reading Efficiency Second Edition.

Comparison of groups on age, gender, and ethnicity

Average age was 19.75 years (SD = 1.71) for the dyslexia group and 19.63 years
(SD = 1.26) for the group without dyslexia; the groups did not differ on age, t
(218) = 0.58, p = 0.56. The groups were matched on gender (68 women and 42
men in each group) and were closely matched for ethnicity. In the dyslexia group,
98 participants were White, 8 African American, 2 Hispanic, and 1 multiracial; in
the group without dyslexia, 97 participants were White, 8 African American, 2
Hispanic, 2 multiracial, and 1 Asian. Chi-square analysis showed that there was
no difference in the distribution of ethnicities between groups, χ 2 (4,
N = 220) = 1.40, p = 0.85.

Instruments
Depression and anxiety
The depression and anxiety scales of the Behavior Assessment System for
Children, Second Edition—Self-Report of Personality—College version
(BASC-2-SRP-COL; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004a) were used to measure de-
pressive and anxiety-related symptomatology. Scores on the scales are re-
ported as T-scores with M of 50 and SD of 10. The depression and anxiety
scales consist of 13 and 14 items, respectively. Items required a mixture of
true/false and four-point rating scale (never to almost always) responses to
statements about the individual’s experience of a variety of depressive and
anxiety-related symptoms (e.g. sadness, anhedonia, nervousness and inability
to relax). Reynolds and Kamphaus (2004b) reported internal consistency reli-
ability coefficients of 0.89 for the anxiety scale and 0.88 for the depression
scale. The SRP-COL also demonstrated adequate convergent validity with con-
ceptually similar scales of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assess-
ment Child Behavior Checklist (anxiety = 0.56; depression = 0.38), Brief
Symptom Inventory (anxiety = 0.50; depression = 0.50), Beck Depression In-
ventory (depression = 0.60), and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
—Second Edition (depression = 0.56).

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

Socially Desirable Responding and Dyslexia 7

Social desirability
Embedded within the BASC-2-SRP-COL is the L-index, which is designed to detect
a response set that suggests that the examinees may be ‘faking good’ or portraying
themselves in a socially desirable manner. Thus, elevation of the L-index indicates
that the respondent may desire to present an idealized view of the self by denying
slightly undesirable acts or behaviours in which most people engage. The index
consists of 13 items that include statements like, the respondent is friends with ev-
eryone he/she meets, they never tell even a small lie, or that they do not feel emo-
tions such as jealousy or anger. Raw scores ≥7 indicate that the respondent is in
the caution range (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004b).

Reading
To examine the relationships of depressive symptoms, anxiety-related symptoms,
and SDR with the reading skills of participants with dyslexia, we used the Nelson-
Denny Reading Test (NDRT; Brown, Fishco, & Hannah, 1993a) comprehension
test. On this test, the participants were asked to read passages and answer multi-
ple choice questions about the passages within a 20-min time limit. The NDRT
comprehension test was chosen partially out of convenience; all participants with
dyslexia were administered this test, and therefore, these scores were stored in
the archival database used to conduct the study. More importantly, however,
the NDRT comprehension test is purported to measure fluent comprehension,
which has been referred to as the ‘sine qua non of reading’ (Norton & Wolf,
2012, p. 446). It is not a test of pure reading comprehension, per se, but a test
of how efficiently examinees can read connected text and demonstrate compre-
hension. Because the postsecondary environment frequently requires extensive
reading, fluent comprehension is needed in order to keep up with reading
demands. We therefore included a measure of fluent comprehension because it
is more likely associated with real-world reading demands than are more basic
reading measures. The NDRT comprehension test has demonstrated adequate
reliability, with Kuder–Richardson 20 coefficients ranging from 0.85 to 0.94
(Brown, Fishco, & Hannah, 1993b).

Procedures

Internal Review Board approval was obtained prior to conducting the current
study, and all participants provided written informed consent. Data gathered from
the dyslexia sample were archival and obtained from the previously mentioned
comprehensive evaluations. All individuals with records in the archival database
were included if they met the previously mentioned criteria. Evaluations of the
participants without dyslexia were conducted by a psychology doctoral student
and completed in group settings.

RESULTS

Group Comparisons on Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety-Related Symptoms, and SDR

Group membership and gender were included as independent variables in the fol-
lowing analyses of variance (ANOVAs). No gender-group interactions were

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

8 J. M. Nelson and S. W. Liebel

found. Gender had a significant main effect when anxiety was the dependent vari-
able. Further analysis of gender is presented in a separate section in the succeeding
texts.
As shown in Table 2, differences between groups on depressive and anxiety-
related symptoms were not statistically significant. Participants with dyslexia had
significantly higher SDR scores than did those without dyslexia, and the effect size
for this difference was medium. Chi-square analysis showed that participants with
dyslexia were significantly more likely to be in the caution range on the L-index than
were controls, χ 2(1, N = 220) = 22.45, p < 0.001. Indeed, of the 110 participants
in the dyslexia group, 31 were in the caution range compared with 5 of the partic-
ipants without dyslexia.
We also compared the groups with and without dyslexia on depressive and
anxiety-related symptoms while controlling for SDR. Results from these analyses
of covariance are shown in Table 2 and indicate that even with SDR controlled,
there was no significant difference in anxiety-related symptoms between the
groups. In contrast, with SDR controlled, depressive symptoms of the dyslexia
group were significantly higher than those of participants without dyslexia. The ef-
fect size for this difference was small.

Correlations of Social Desirability With Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety-Related

Symptoms, and Reading Skills
Table 3 displays the correlations of SDR with depressive symptoms and anxiety-
related symptoms for both groups and with reading skills for the dyslexia group.
Results indicated nonsignificant correlations of SDR with depressive and anxiety-
related symptoms for the participants without dyslexia. All correlations examined
were significant for the dyslexia group and indicated that the higher the SDR, the
lower the self-reported depressive and anxiety-related symptomatology and the
lower the fluent reading comprehension skills. Correlations between reading skills
and anxiety-related symptoms, r = 0.12, p = 0.21, and reading skills and depressive
symptoms, r = 0.03, p = 0.72, were nonsignificant.

Table 2. Group comparisons on measures of anxiety, depression, and social desirability

No dyslexia Dyslexia
M (SD) M (SD) F p d
Analysis of variance results
Anxiety 50.37 (12.15) 50.16 (11.52) 0.02 0.90 0.02
Depression 46.48 (5.56) 48.37 (10.45) 2.81 0.10 0.23
Social desirability 2.68 (2.09) 4.50 (3.08) 26.26 <0.001 0.69
Analysis of covariance
results with Behaviour
Assessment System
for Children (BASC)
L-index as a covariate
Anxiety 49.62 (12.02) 50.91 (12.02) 0.60 0.44 0.11
Depression 45.87 (8.44) 48.98 (8.44) 7.07 <0.01 0.37
*
Note. Estimated SD for ANCOVAs = (SE √n) for each group.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

Socially Desirable Responding and Dyslexia 9

Table 3. Correlates of social desirability

Depression Anxiety Reading

Nondyslexic group
Social desirability 0.15 0.08 n/a
Dyslexic group
Social desirability 0.23* 0.26** 0.20*

*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.

Gender Analyses

As previously mentioned gender showed a significant main effect in the ANOVA

with anxiety as a dependent variable, F(1,219) = 7.56, p = 0.006. Gender was
not significant in the ANOVAs with depression and SDR as dependent variables.
Table 4 shows that the only significant gender difference for anxiety-related symp-
toms was within the group without dyslexia. Women without dyslexia reported
higher anxiety-related symptoms than did men without dyslexia.

DISCUSSION

In our view, the group difference on the SDR variable is the most significant finding
of the current study. College students with dyslexia were clearly more likely than
those without dyslexia to engage in SDR. When we considered the participants’
BASC-2 L-index scores in relation to the established cut-off for determining a
concerning level of SDR, the magnitude of these group differences was particularly
elucidated. Nearly 30% of college students with dyslexia had L-index scores in the
caution range compared with less than 5% of college students without dyslexia.
The L-index is a validity measure designed to detect a self-report response style
that is driven by the social desirability of item content rather than an accurate por-
trayal of actual symptomatology. This type of response style is thought to contam-
inate the assessment process, leaving the clinician with questionable self-report
data upon which to determine the possible presence of psychopathology. Our re-
sults indicate that, relative to college students without dyslexia, approximately six
times as many college students with dyslexia produced self-reports of questionable
validity due to elevated SDR. The standard interpretation of elevated SDR is that it

Table 4. Gender comparisons by group

No dyslexia Dyslexia

Female Male Female Male

M (SD) M (SD) t p M (SD) M (SD) t p
Anxiety 52.41 (12.52) 47.07 (10.89) 2.28 0.02 51.53 (11.91) 47.95 (10.63) 1.59 0.11
Depression 46.59 (5.56) 46.31 (5.63) 0.25 0.80 48.25 (10.99) 48.57 (9.63) 0.16 0.88
Soc. Desir. 2.74 (1.92) 2.60 (2.36) 0.34 0.73 4.81 (2.98) 4.00 (3.21) 1.34 0.18

Note. Soc. Desir. = social desirability.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

10 J. M. Nelson and S. W. Liebel

results in an underreporting of less socially desirable characteristics such as those

associated with potential psychopathology (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004b). Ele-
vated SDR is particularly problematic when determining internalizing psychopa-
thology due to the private nature of many of its symptoms. The identification of
internalizing psychopathology is highly dependent on self-report, whereas exter-
nalizing psychopathology is generally more observable and therefore can be more
readily identified by collateral report. Our results indicate a potentially significant
dilemma in that college students with dyslexia experience risk factors for internal-
izing psychopathology, but a significant proportion of these individuals may be un-
willing to self-report such imperfections, and relying on others to report these
symptoms for them is problematic.
Although only speculative due to limitations of the current study’s design, sev-
eral reasons stand out as potential explanations for the heightened SDR of college
students with dyslexia. First, they may engage in SDR as a form a self-protection to
compensate for feelings of inadequacy, a hypothesis that has been mentioned pre-
viously in the literature to explain students with learning disabilities’ tendencies to
provide inflated estimates of their academic skills (e.g. Stone, 1997). College stu-
dents with dyslexia may portray themselves in an idealized way, as reflected in el-
evated SDR scores, in an attempt to minimize flaws in characteristics outside the
area of impairment associated with their disorder. In other words, they may be
quite aware of their reading differences relative to their classmates without dys-
lexia and thus may be unwilling to admit flaws in other characteristics, even those
that all individuals experience. Our correlational results indicated an association in
the direction of those with the lowest reading skills having the highest SDR scores,
which could suggest that those with most severe reading problems might feel the
need for the greatest self-protection. Second, and contrastive with this first hy-
pothesis, is the possibility that college students with dyslexia, relative to those
without the disorder, may be less aware of their flaws, and therefore, their ele-
vated SDR may reflect a heightened level of naiveté regarding their psychological
functioning. Possessing self-knowledge that includes the acknowledgement of
one’s flaws requires a level of psychological sophistication and maturation. For ex-
ample, younger children engage in higher SDR than do older children (Pina et al.,
2001). Metacognitive development is thought to contribute to increased self-
knowledge, and individuals with learning disabilities, relative to those without
learning disabilities, have been shown to demonstrate significantly weaker
metacognitive skills (Hagen, Barclay, & Newman, 1982; Wong, 1991). It is possible
that those with the most severe reading difficulties are also those with the most
severe metacognitive difficulties, leading to higher SDR. Third, the possibility that
reading problems may have led to some difficulty with accurately reading and un-
derstanding the SDR items should be kept in mind, although we are sceptical that
this is the main reason for the elevated SDR of our participants with dyslexia given
that the BASC-2 was designed to have a very low reading-difficulty level (Reynolds
& Kamphaus, 2004b). Future research is needed to evaluate these contrasting hy-
potheses and, until then, they should be viewed as only speculative.
Our comparisons of college students with and without dyslexia suggested that
SDR was one factor in understanding potential group differences in internalizing
symptomatology, at least for depressive symptoms. Without SDR controlled,
the groups did not differ on self-reported depressive and anxiety-related symp-
tomatology. When we controlled for SDR, depressive symptoms were significantly

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

Socially Desirable Responding and Dyslexia 11

higher within the dyslexic group compared with the group without dyslexia, al-
though the magnitude of this difference was small and the resulting adjusted mean
score on the scale used to measure depression was well within the average range
for the dyslexic group. Even with SDR controlled, group differences in anxiety-
related symptoms were not found. Further evidence for the role of SDR in under-
standing depressive and anxiety-related symptoms among the dyslexic group was
derived from the correlational analyses, which indicated negative associations be-
tween SDR and these symptoms for the dyslexic group but not for the group with-
out dyslexia. Of course, these results are only correlational and therefore prevent
the causal inference that SDR caused an under-reporting of depressive and
anxiety-related symptoms, but there does appear to be meaningful relationship
of these symptoms with SDR.
Although group differences in SDR were sizeable, the current results indicating
no group differences in anxiety-related symptoms even with SDR controlled,
modest differences in depressive symptoms with SDR controlled and only modest
correlations of SDR with depressive and anxiety-related symptoms suggest that
this topic is more complicated than can be explained by only suppressor effects
associated with SDR. In fact, although test developers who create SDR scales do
so to measure the validity of self-report responses and characterize SDR as a
source of contamination in the assessment process, this perspective is only par-
tially consistent with empirical research on SDR. After reviewing the SDR litera-
ture, Holden and Passey (2009) stated, ‘Presently, discerning whether social
desirability is part of the construct being measured or an interfering response style
is not an easy task and is not well established either theoretically or empirically’
(p. 443) and concluded that ‘researchers are far from reaching a consensus on
the contamination-versus-legitimate content issue’ (p. 444). As is alluded to in
these statements, some empirical research suggests that it is simplistic to concep-
tualize SDR as only a contaminant variable and that, in fact, there appears to be
some degree of truth to this type of responding. These findings have led some re-
searchers to argue for the need to demonstrate ‘departure-from-reality’ (Paulhus,
2002, p. 49) as a criterion when characterizing SDR as a contaminant variable.
Departure-from-reality was not established in the current study, and therefore,
our results may at least partially suggest that college students with dyslexia are
more likely to truly possess some of the characteristics indexed on SDR measures.
Furthermore, higher rates of these characteristics may play a role in warding off
depressive and anxiety-related symptomatology.
Finally, nonsignificant or modest differences in depressive and anxiety-related
symptoms between the groups with and without dyslexia may at least partially
be a reflection of the former group’s resilience. The dyslexic group’s achievement
of entrance into 4-year colleges suggests that they may possess a higher level of
resilience than is demonstrated by the average individual with learning disabilities,
as most high school students with learning disabilities do not pursue 4-year post-
secondary education (Newman et al., 2011). Some extant research suggests that
college students with learning disabilities possess at least equivalent levels of resil-
ience relative to their peers without learning disabilities (Ghisi et al., 2016),
whereas other research indicates that they may possess higher levels of resilience
(Hall, Spruill, & Webster, 2002). Therefore, the dyslexic group’s resilience may
have aided in preventing the development of significant depressive and anxiety-
related symptoms despite possessing risk factors associated with these symptoms.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

12 J. M. Nelson and S. W. Liebel

Future research is needed to determine the possibly protective role of resilience

on the psychological functioning of college students with dyslexia.

Limitations

The findings of the present study are limited to the sample and methods described.
First, the specificity of the sample (e.g. individuals with dyslexia who were attend-
ing a 4-year university) is not typical of the broader adult dyslexic population. As
previously mentioned, most individuals with learning disabilities do not attend
4-year postsecondary institutions and, when they do, most do not seek academic
accommodations (Newman et al., 2011), as was the case with the current sample.
Therefore, these results should not be generalized to the broader adult population
with dyslexia. Furthermore, the ethnically and geographically homogenous nature
of the sample prevents broad generalizability. Second, the measures used in the
current study are most accurately characterized as screeners. Thus, the
constructs were not measured as thoroughly as is possible when using tools spe-
cifically designed to measure these constructs; a more thorough investigation of
these constructs may have produced different results. The SDR measure was uni-
dimensional and therefore narrow in its conceptualization. SDR is likely more ac-
curately conceptualized as a multidimensional construct (Perinelli & Gremigni,
2016), and measuring its different components may have led to a more thorough
understanding of its influence on college students with dyslexia. Third, we cannot
guarantee that all participants in the group without dyslexia did not have dyslexia.
Participants in this group only self-reported never being diagnosed with any type of
learning disorder; formal evaluation would have better ensured that there were no
participants with dyslexia in this group. Additionally, because these participants
were not administered the NDRT, it is unknown whether the negative correlation
between NDRT and BASC L-index scores is unique to the group with dyslexia.
Fourth, although participants with dyslexia were diagnosed by licensed psycholo-
gists after a comprehensive evaluation, evaluation procedures varied based on
the referral concern and specific assessment measures varied based on the prefer-
ences of individual psychologists. Using a more consistent approach to evaluation
likely would reduce concerns regarding diagnostic veracity and would have per-
mitted the investigation of relationships between SDR and other aspects of reading
in addition to fluent comprehension.

Implications

Our results clearly indicate that college students with dyslexia engaged in signif-
icantly higher SDR than did those without dyslexia, raising some questions about
the validity of their self-reports and indicating the need to evaluate these reports
beyond their face value. Therefore, we recommend including a measure of SDR
when evaluating internalizing symptomatology among college students with dys-
lexia. We also recommend inclusion of not only self-report ratings but also ob-
server ratings when determining the possibility of anxiety and depression among
college students with dyslexia. Although internalizing symptomatology is gener-
ally less observable than is externalizing symptomatology, the former consists
of some features that may be observed by others (e.g. lethargy and flat affect).
Because cross-informant agreement will likely be modest, at best, for most cases

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

Socially Desirable Responding and Dyslexia 13

(Achenbach, Krukowski, Dumenci, & Ivanova, 2005), evaluators will often be

faced with cross-informant discrepancies, necessitating frequent reliance on clin-
ical judgement in weighing the validity of each informant’s report. Further evalu-
ation of symptoms through more in-depth interviewing is essential in making
these complicated clinical decisions. It is important to consider the evaluation
data on a case-by-case basis when determining the possible presence of elevated
depressive and anxiety-related symptoms. Our results do not indicate that all
self-reports of college students with dyslexia have questionable validity and
therefore that observer reports are always more valid. Rather, a sizeable minor-
ity of these students engage in a significantly heightened level of SDR that should
be strongly considered when interpreting their self-reports in relation to the re-
ports of knowledgeable others.

REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., Krukowski, R. A., Dumenci, L., & Ivanova, M. Y. (2005). Assessment of adult psy-
chopathology: Meta-analyses and implications of cross-informant correlations. Psychological Bulletin,
131(3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.361.
American College Health Association (2015). American College Health Association-National College
Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2005. Hanover, MD: American Col-
lege Health Association.
Biederman, J., Mick, E., & Faraone, S. V. (1998). Depression in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) children: “True” depression or demoralization? Journal of Affective Disorders, 47, 113–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(97)00127-4.
Boetsch, E. A., Green, P. A., & Pennington, B. F. (1996). Psychosocial correlates of dyslexia across the
life span. Development and Psychopathology, 8(3), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579400007264.
British Dyslexia Association. (2011). Dyslexia and specific learning difficulties in adults. Retrieved
from http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyslexic/dyslexia-and-specific-learning-difficulties-in-adults
Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hannah, G. (1993a). Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hannah, G. (1993b). Nelson-Denny Reading Test technical report forms G &
H. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
Bruck, M. (1987). The adult outcomes of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 37,
252–263.
Brueggermann, A. E., Kamphaus, R. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2008). An impairment model of learn-
ing disability diagnosis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 424–430. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.424.
Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review
and implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14(3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.371.
Carroll, J. M., & Iles, J. E. (2006). An assessment of anxiety levels in dyslexic students in higher edu-
cation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000709905X66233.
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends, and emerging issues
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Dombrowski, S. C., Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy:
Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4),
364–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.4.364.
Edwards, J. (1993). The emotional effects of dyslexia. In S. F. Wright, & R. Groner (Eds.), Facets of
dyslexia and its remediation (pp. 425–433). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in college.
The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2191.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

14 J. M. Nelson and S. W. Liebel

Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., Golberstein, E., & Hefner, J. L. (2007). Prevalence and correlates of de-
pression, anxiety, and suicidality among university students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4),
534–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.534.
Furr, S. R., Westefeld, J. S., McConnell, G. N., & Jenkins, J. M. (2001). Suicide and depression among
college students: A decade later. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(1), 97–100. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.1.97.
Gallagher, R. P. (2014). National survey of college counseling centers 2014. Retrieved from http://
www.collegecounseling.org/wp-content/uploads/NCCCS2014_v2.pdf
Garlow, S. J., Rosenberg, J., Moore, J. D., Haas, A. P., Koestner, B., Hendin, H., & Nemeroff, C. B.
(2008). Depression, desperation, and suicidal ideation in college students: Results from the American
foundation for suicide prevention college screening project at Emory University. Depression and Anx-
iety, 25(6), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20321.
Ghisi, M., Bottesi, G., Re, A. M., Cerea, S., & Mammarella, I. C. (2016). Socioemotional features and
resilience in Italian university students with and without dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00478.
Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., Raskind, M. H., & Herman, K. L. (2003). Predictors of success in indi-
viduals with learning disabilities: A qualitative analysis of a 20-year longitudinal study. Learning Disabil-
ities Research & Practice, 18(4), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00077.
Hagen, J. W., Barclay, C. R., & Newman, R. S. (1982). Metacognition, self-knowledge, and learning dis-
abilities: Some thoughts on knowing and doing. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 19–26.
Hall, C. W., Spruill, K. L., & Webster, R. E. (2002). Motivational and attitudinal factors in college stu-
dents with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1511275.
Holden, R. R., & Passey, J. (2009). Social desirability. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of
individual differences in social behavior (pp. 441–454). New York, NY: Guilford.
Holzer, M. L., Madaus, J. W., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2009). The test-taking strategy intervention
for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(1), 44–56.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.01276.x.
Hughes, C. A., & Suritsky, S. K. (1994). Note-taking skills of university students with and without
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002221949402700105.
Job, J. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2012). Predicting performance on academic and non-academic tasks: A
comparison of adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
37(2), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.001.
Jordan, J. A., McGladdery, G., & Dyer, K. (2014). Dyslexia in higher education: Implications for maths
anxiety, statistics anxiety, and psychological well-being. Dyslexia, 20(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/
10.1002/dys.1478.
Kirby, J. R., Silvestri, R., Allingham, B. H., Parrila, R., & La Fave, C. B. (2008). Learning strategies and
study approaches of postsecondary students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1),
85–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407311040.
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., & Hannok, W. (2011). Internalizing problems of adults with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022219411422260.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9.
McNulty, M. A. (2003). Dyslexia and the life course. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(4), 363–381.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194030360040701.
Meltzer, L., Roditi, B., Houser, R. F. Jr., & Perlman, M. (1998). Perceptions of academic strategies and
competence in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(5), 437–451.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100503.
Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance
and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 15(3), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1503_1.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)

Socially Desirable Responding and Dyslexia 15

Nelson, J. M., & Gregg, N. (2010). Depression and anxiety among transitioning adolescents and col-
lege students with ADHD, dyslexia, or comorbid ADHD/dyslexia. Journal of Attention Disorders,
16(3), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054710385783.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., … Schwarting, M. (2011).
The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. A
report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.
gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming and reading fluency: Implications for un-
derstanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427–452. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-1000431.
Nowicki, E. A. (2003). A meta-analysis of the social competence of children with learning disabilities
compared to classmates of low and average to high achievement. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3),
171–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593650.
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun,
D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement
(pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perinelli, E., & Gremigni, P. (2016). Use of social desirability scales in clinical psychology: A systematic
review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.2284.
Pina, A. A., Silverman, W. K., Saavedra, L. M., & Weems, C. F. (2001). An analysis of the RCMAS lie
scale in a clinic sample of anxious children. Anxiety Disorders, 15(5), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0887-6185(01)00075-5.
Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions (NCES
2011-018). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Reetz, D. R., Barr, V., & Krylowicz, B. (2014). The association for university and college counseling
center directors annual survey. Retrieved from http://files.cmcglobal.com/AUCCCD_Monograph_
Public_2013.pdf
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004a). Behavior assessment system for children (2nd ed.).
San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004b). Behavior assessment system for children manual (2nd ed.).
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Richardson, A. J., & Stein, J. F. (1993). Personality characteristics of adult dyslexics. In S. F. Wright, & R.
Groner (Eds.), Facets of dyslexia and its remediation (pp. 411–423). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Riddick, B., Sterling, C., Farmer, M., & Morgan, S. (1999). Self-esteem and anxiety in the educational
histories of adult dyslexic students. Dyslexia, 5(4), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0909(199912)5:4<227::AID-DYS146>3.0.CO;2-6.
Stone, C. A. (1997). Correspondence among parent, teacher, and student perceptions of adoles-
cents’ learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002221949703000610.
Tops, W., Verguts, E., Callens, M., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Do students with dyslexia have a different
personality profile as measured with the big five? PloS One, 8(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0064484.
United State Government Accountability Office. (2011). Higher education and disability: Improved
federal enforcement needed to better protect students’ rights to testing accommodations. Retrieved
from http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587367.pdf
United States Government Accountability Office. (2009). Higher education and disability: Education
needs a coordinated approach to improve its assistance to schools in supporting students. Retrieved
from http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/297433.pdf
Wilson, A. M., Armstrong, C. D., Furrie, A., & Walcot, E. (2009). The mental health of Canadians
with self-reported learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022219408326216.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1991). The relevance of metacognition to learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.),
Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 231–258). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA (2017)