5 research outputs found
Longitudinal inquiry into the early association between antisocial behaviour and reading difficulty
The aetiology, contexts and processes involved in
becoming an antisocial backward reader were examined by
means of a longitudinal study. One hundred and ninety eight
urban lower class boys from eight schools were
tested at school entry. A group at risk of antisocial
conduct disorders and reading disabilities was formed
from unregulated and impulsive children who were poor
perceptually and linguistically. In two years nearly
half these children gave evidence of difficulties connected with reading, conduct or both together.
Among the major findings were:-
Unregulated, impulsive classroom behaviour was shown
to be related to performance on tests of cognitive
impulsivity only in boys with poor conceptual abilities.
Developmental, environmental, temperamental and
intellectual factors did not separately explain all cases
of antisocial behaviour and reading backwardness. A
multifactorial explanation fitted the results most satisfactorily with domestic adversity making the greatest
contribution. Antisocial emotional disturbances were apparent at
school entry together with poor perceptual and linguistic
abilities. Antisocial behaviour did not increase as
difficulties in reading emerged.
Low self-esteem was also apparent before the high
risk boys encountered reading difficulties.
Boys with reading problems were not unpopular unless
they were also already antisocial. These results challenge the model as applied to
Infant Schoolboys of antisocial behaviour as a response
to loss of self-esteem and social status following reading
difficulties. There was moderate agreement between parents and
teachers on the unregulated and antisocial aspects of the
high risk boys' behaviour. Parental behaviours associated
with high risk in the children were poor disciplinary
practices, lack of harmony and confidence and lesser
paternal attacliment.
Following a six month intervention programme in Primary
One an experimental group of high risk boys showed less
maladjustment than on first testing and less maladjustment
than a control group. Their reading test scores were
better, but not significantly better, than those of the
control group