Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.4
,
No
.3
, Sep
t
em
b
e
r
20
15, pp
. 112
~117
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
1
12
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
Identification with School
and Head Traum
a
: Paren
tal
Perceptions on Student’s Experiences
BreAnn
a Jone
s
1
, Linds
ay Robinson
1
, Kare
n H. Larwin
2
1
Department of School
Ps
y
c
ho
lo
g
y
,
Youngstown State Univ
ersity, USA
2
Department of Education
F
oun
dations
& Research, Youngstow
n
State Univ
ersity
, USA
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received
J
u
l 14, 2015
Rev
i
sed
Au
g
21
, 20
15
Accepted Aug 27, 2015
In the Uni
t
ed S
t
ates
40% of
al
l t
r
aum
a
tic
brain
i
n
juries
(TBI
) ar
e
in ch
ildre
n
under th
e
age
14. Th
is means
a por
tion of
the school ag
e
population
is
exposed to h
ead
injur
y
ever
y
y
e
ar.
The
effect th
is
injur
y
and
ex
perien
ce can
have on a child
varies, but
it is important for
e
ducators, coun
selors, and
family
to under
s
tand the ps
y
c
h
o
social exp
e
rien
ces that follow
after TB
I
.
Research has shown that head in
jur
y
in ch
ildhood can have severe
ps
y
c
hosocial ef
f
ects if th
e injur
y
is not
treated, r
ecognized
, and
planned for
.
This research is
intended to she
d
li
ght on what educators, cou
n
selors, and
fam
ilies can do
to help childre
n who have experien
ced a TB
I. Previous
res
earch
s
hows
that a
los
s
of s
e
ns
e of s
e
lf af
ter
T
B
I in thre
e c
a
t
e
g
o
ries
; los
s
of self-knowled
g
e, loss of self b
y
comparison
, and loss of self in the ey
es of
others.
This in
vestigat
ion sug
g
ests th
at iden
t
i
fic
a
tion as
“
d
is
abled” can
impact how
students id
entif
y
with their schoo
l.
Keyword:
Disab
ility
Id
en
tificatio
n with
Scho
o
l
Sch
ool
A
g
e
Trau
m
a
tic Brain
Inju
ry
Copyright ©
201
5 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Kare
n H.
Lar
w
in,
Depa
rt
m
e
nt
of
Ed
uc.
Fo
u
ndat
i
ons
&
R
e
searc
h
,
Youn
g
s
t
o
wn
State
Un
iv
ersity,USA.
Em
a
il: k
h
l
arwi
n
@
ysu
.
ed
u
1.
INTRODUCTION
There
has
bee
n
a c
onsi
d
era
b
l
e
am
ount
of
res
earch
i
n
t
h
e
fi
e
l
d re
ga
rdi
n
g
he
ad t
r
a
u
m
a
and
t
h
e i
m
pact
i
t
has o
n
ho
w
p
e
opl
e
pe
rcei
ve
t
h
em
sel
v
es,
as wel
l
as how ot
hers
percei
ve t
h
em
. There i
s
a pauci
t
y
of re
search
exam
i
n
i
ng t
h
es
e phe
n
o
m
e
na wi
t
h
chi
l
d
re
n e
xpe
ri
enci
ng T
B
I. Acc
o
r
d
i
ng
t
o
t
h
eo
ri
st
s suc
h
as Eri
k
Eri
k
s
o
n
,
t
h
e
ego i
s
st
eady
,
but
ca
n be di
s
r
upt
e
d
by
pat
h
o
l
ogi
cal
co
ndi
t
i
ons
, suc
h
as i
n
t
h
i
s
case head
t
r
aum
a
. Gel
ech an
d
Desj
ard
i
n
s
[1
] argu
e th
at
stabilit
y,
m
o
ral growth
, and
tr
an
scen
d
e
n
ce are all in
vo
lv
ed
i
n
reco
v
e
ring
the loss
of
self th
at h
ead
trau
m
a
v
i
cti
m
s
m
a
y
ex
p
e
rience an
d
th
at the self is n
o
t
a fix
e
d, bo
und
en
tity. Th
e lo
ss an
d
recov
e
ry
of sel
f
is m
u
lti-d
i
m
e
n
s
ion
a
l.
Research
h
a
s
main
tain
ed
th
at TBI p
l
ays a ro
le in
lo
ss
o
f
self in
add
itio
n
to
th
e treatm
e
n
t
an
d
lab
e
ls
ot
he
r p
u
t
o
n
p
e
opl
e
wh
o
ha
v
e
expe
ri
ence
d
head t
r
aum
a
[2]
.
He
dem
ons
t
r
at
es t
h
at
pe
o
p
l
e
wi
t
h
hea
d
t
r
aum
a
rel
a
t
e
d i
n
j
u
ri
es
oft
e
n
have
di
ffe
rent
vi
ews
of t
h
em
sel
v
es t
h
an t
h
e l
a
bel
s
soci
et
y
gi
ves
t
h
em
;
whet
her t
h
e
lab
e
ls are p
o
s
i
tiv
e o
r
no
t. Th
is can
resu
lt in
th
e h
ead traum
a
victims
experie
n
cing
co
nfu
s
ion
,
and th
ey
g
e
n
e
rally b
a
ttle to
create an
id
en
tity o
u
t
sid
e
o
f
th
eir inju
ry
[2
]. Ch
ildren
with
TBI are
m
o
re lik
ely
to
requ
ire
sp
ecial serv
ices th
at th
ey were p
r
ior to
th
e
TBI. Th
is can resu
lt with
b
e
in
g
lab
e
led
or b
u
llied
b
y
th
eir p
eers
[3].
This sti
g
ma creates turmoil for t
h
e TB
I victim
s as
th
ese exp
e
rien
ces
d
o
no
t align
with
th
eir
d
e
sired
self-
conce
p
t [4]. The curre
n
t rese
arch exam
in
es
wh
et
h
e
r th
is intern
al issu
es ex
ist fo
r m
i
n
o
r
s who
h
a
v
e
d
e
alt with
a
h
e
ad
tr
au
ma
.
1.
1.
Special E
ducation S
t
ud
ents
There
is als
o
a
plethora
of res
earch detailing self
-perception a
n
d self-este
e
m
in students
who
receive
special educati
on se
rvices
. Reiter
&La
p
idot-Lefler
[3]
found that stude
n
ts who
receive special education
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Id
en
tifica
tio
n
with
S
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
Head
Trauma
:
Paren
t
a
l
Percep
tion
s
o
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
'
s
.... (BreAnn
a
Jon
e
s)
11
3
services
ha
d a
lower
overall
self-e
steem
than their
p
eers in
re
gula
r
e
ducation. T
h
e
students
in s
p
ecial
education de
sc
ribe
d them
selv
es as being le
ss com
p
eten
t i
n
academ
ics, l
eadership
skills, and social skills.
Ho
we
ver
,
t
h
e s
t
udy
re
po
rt
ed
n
o
di
f
f
ere
n
ces
b
e
t
w
een re
g
u
l
a
r
educat
i
o
n a
nd
gene
ral
ed
ucat
i
on st
ude
nt
s w
h
en i
t
ca
m
e
to
so
cial
d
e
sirab
ility co
n
cern
s
. Sh
an
y,
W
i
en
er, &A
ssid
o
[5
] fo
und
t
h
at how st
u
d
e
nt’s see t
h
em
sel
v
es is
im
pact
ed by
thei
r pee
r
s, an
d i
s
im
pact
ed by
how
ot
he
rs, suc
h
as t
h
ei
r pare
nt
s an
d fam
i
ly
m
e
m
b
er see
t
h
em
sel
v
es. Pa
rent
s c
a
n
ha
ve
a l
a
r
g
e am
ou
nt
o
f
c
o
nt
act
with
their ch
ild
ren
and
can
in
flu
e
n
ce
ho
w th
eir
ch
ild
ren
see th
i
n
g
s
arou
nd
t
h
em
as well as th
e
m
selv
es [6
].
Sh
an
y et al. [5] co
n
c
lud
e
d
that stu
d
e
n
t
s wit
h
lear
n
i
ng
d
i
sab
ilities h
a
v
e
a
lo
wer self-p
ercep
tio
n and
a
l
o
we
r gl
o
b
al
sel
f-est
eem
based o
n
ho
w
t
h
ei
r pa
re
nts
perceive t
h
em
. Thei
r
pare
nts
comm
unicate their
ex
p
ectation
s
an
d p
e
rcep
tion
s
wh
ich
th
e stud
en
ts i
n
turn
interp
ret and
use to
h
e
l
p
create
id
eas abou
t th
eir own
sen
s
e
o
f
self.
Gen
e
rally, p
a
ren
t
s of st
u
d
e
nts with
d
i
sab
i
l
ities feel th
at th
eir ch
ild
wil
l
d
o
poo
rer on
th
eir
academ
ics than their re
gula
r
peers
[7]. Howeve
r, t
h
e
parent’s
perce
p
tions
of t
h
eir student
ofte
n re
s
u
lt in
st
ude
nt
’s
pe
rce
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
em
sel
v
es [
6
]
.
1.
2. Curre
nt
I
n
ves
t
i
g
ati
o
n
Wh
ile a g
r
eat
d
eal o
f
research
ex
ists on
v
i
cti
m
s
o
f
TBI, the ex
istin
g
research
still lack
s ex
am
in
atio
n
of the im
pact of TBI
on self-perceptio
n
sp
ecifically with
m
i
n
o
rs.
Wh
ile c
onte
x
t, social-econom
i
c status
, a
nd
sev
e
rity of t
h
e in
jury all p
l
ay a ro
le in d
e
t
e
rm
in
i
ng h
o
w
a pe
rso
n
ha
n
d
l
e
s t
h
ei
r
TB
I,
t
h
e i
n
di
vi
d
u
al
s sel
f
-
perce
p
t
i
o
n can
im
pact
how t
h
e i
ndi
vi
d
u
al approaches the
i
r world.
A series
of internal
and exte
rnal force
s
p
l
ay a ro
le in
th
is. Th
e cu
rren
t stu
d
y
specifically ex
a
m
in
es th
e p
e
rcep
tion
in
ch
ildren
by th
eir p
a
ren
t
s an
d
ot
he
rs. T
h
e c
u
rre
nt
i
nve
st
i
g
at
i
on
pr
o
pose
d
t
o
exam
i
n
e spe
c
i
f
i
cal
l
y
t
h
e percept
i
o
ns
of m
i
no
rs.
Unl
i
k
e
ot
he
r
research
, t
h
is i
n
v
e
stig
atio
n will ex
a
m
in
e p
e
rcep
tio
ns of
ch
i
l
d
r
en
who
h
a
ve TBI
b
o
t
h
wit
h
an
d
witho
u
t
sp
ecial
ed
u
cation
serv
i
ces. Th
e curren
t
inv
e
stig
ation
ai
m
s
to
an
swer th
e fo
llo
wi
ng
research
qu
estio
n
s
:
1.
Do p
a
ren
t
s of stu
d
e
n
t
s in th
e t
h
ree group
s
d
i
ffer i
n
wh
et
h
e
r th
ey see t
h
em
se
lv
es as
h
a
v
i
ng
a d
i
sab
ility
?
2.
Do
pa
re
nt
s o
f
s
t
ude
nt
s i
n
t
h
e t
h
ree
g
r
o
u
p
s
di
f
f
er i
n
whet
her
t
h
ey
t
h
i
n
k
ot
h
e
r
s
see t
h
em
as h
a
vi
n
g
a
d
i
sab
ility
?
3.
Do
the
stu
d
ent
s
in t
h
e th
ree
g
r
o
u
p
s
diffe
r i
n
their re
p
o
rt
ed
l
e
v
e
l of
feeling
clo
s
e to p
e
op
le at th
eir schoo
l?
4.
Do the
student
s
in t
h
e three
gr
o
u
p
s
diffe
r i
n
their re
p
o
rte
d
l
e
ve
l of i
d
en
tifi
catio
n
with
scho
o
l
?
5.
Is th
ere an
i
n
teractio
n b
e
t
w
een
lev
e
l
of repo
rted
id
en
t
i
f
i
cat
i
o
n
at
sc
ho
ol
on
pa
rent
s
’
re
sp
o
n
ses t
o
whet
he
r
th
ey con
s
id
er t
h
eir ch
ild
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
d
i
sab
ility
an
d wh
eth
e
r t
h
ey b
e
liev
e
o
t
h
e
rs co
n
s
i
d
er th
ei
r ch
ild
to h
a
v
e
a
d
i
sab
ility
?
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
2.
1. Par
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
ts
The c
u
rre
nt
i
n
vest
i
g
at
i
o
n
us
es su
r
v
ey
res
p
ons
es
fr
om
t
h
e A
DHeal
t
h
[
8
]
.
T
h
e st
udy
’
s
p
o
pul
at
i
o
n
co
nsisted
of all in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
ls
fro
m
th
e Natio
nal Ado
l
escen
t
Health
pub
lic d
a
ta set [8
].
A fu
ll d
e
scrip
tion
of th
e
d
a
ta co
llection
is p
r
ov
id
ed
at
h
ttp
://www.cpc.un
c
.ed
u
/
p
r
ojects/ad
dh
ealth
.
A rando
m
sa
mp
le o
f
stud
en
t respon
ses was
d
r
awn
fro
m
th
e p
u
b
lically av
ailab
l
e d
a
ta set
,
for a to
tal
o
f
1
173
p
a
rticip
an
ts in
th
is st
u
d
y
. Th
e stud
en
ts were
gr
o
u
p
e
d i
n
t
o
t
h
ree g
r
o
u
p
s:
st
ude
nt
s
wh
o ex
peri
e
n
ced a
head t
r
aum
a
wi
t
h
no s
p
eci
al
e
ducat
i
o
n se
rvi
c
es, st
u
d
ent
s
wh
o ha
ve e
xpe
ri
e
n
ced
hea
d
t
r
a
u
m
a
and ha
ve s
p
eci
al
educations se
rvices, and st
ude
nt
s who received
only special educat
ion services,
but who ha
ve not
expe
ri
ence
d
he
ad t
r
a
u
m
a
.
2.
2. I
n
str
u
me
nta
t
i
o
n
Pare
nt
s and st
u
d
ent
s
dat
a
i
n
cl
ude
d res
p
onse
s
t
o
t
h
e
In Ho
m
e
Questio
nn
air
e
sect
i
on of t
h
e fi
rst
wave
o
f
th
e ADHEALTH [8
] first wav
e
o
f
d
a
ta co
llectio
n
.
The pa
rent
s re
spo
n
ses i
n
cl
ud
ed aske
d pa
re
nt
s t
o
respon
d
to
th
e fo
llowing
item
s
: (1
) Do
you
con
s
id
er you
r ch
ild
to
h
a
v
e
a d
i
sab
ility; an
d
(2
) wou
l
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
e
op
le co
nsid
er [h
im
/h
er] to
h
a
v
e
a
d
i
sab
ility. For
b
o
t
h
p
a
ren
t
qu
estio
ns, p
a
ren
t
s
resp
on
d
e
d
either “y
es” or
“no”
.
Pa
rent
s wh
o di
d n
o
t
r
e
sp
on
d or ref
u
sed
t
o
res
p
o
nd on
-r
espon
d to eith
er
q
u
e
sti
o
n
wer
e
no
t in
clu
d
e
d
.
The st
ude
nt
re
spo
n
ses
i
n
cl
ud
ed r
e
s
pon
ses t
o
th
e qu
estion “do
you
f
eel
close to pe
ople at school
?
”
The
st
ude
nt
s ans
w
e
r
ed t
h
i
s
quest
i
on
base
d o
n
a Li
kert
Scal
e (
1
-6
) an
d t
h
e o
p
t
i
ons co
nsi
s
t
e
d
of:
st
ro
n
g
l
y
agree
,
ag
ree, n
e
ith
er ag
ree
n
o
r d
i
sag
r
ee, d
i
sag
r
ee, refused, leg
itimate sk
ip
, do
n’t k
now. If th
e stu
d
e
n
t
s refu
sed
t
o
an
swer, leg
itimatel
y sk
ip
p
e
d th
e qu
estion
or d
i
dn’t kn
ow
t
h
e an
swer th
e
q
u
e
stio
n, th
eir
d
a
ta was
n
o
t
i
n
clu
d
e
d
in
th
is i
n
vestigatio
n
.
Seco
nd
l
y
, a co
n
tinuo
us v
a
riab
le i
n
d
i
catin
g
t
h
e st
u
d
en
ts repo
rted
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
t
h
e st
ud
en
ts
“i
dent
i
f
i
cat
i
o
n
wi
t
h
sc
ho
ol
”
was i
n
cl
ude
d i
n
t
h
e a
n
al
y
s
i
s
.
Thi
s
st
udy
i
s
a m
i
xed-g
r
o
u
p
,
b
e
t
w
ee
n s
u
b
j
ect
s
desi
g
n
c
o
m
p
ari
ng t
h
e e
ffect
s
of st
ude
nt
s w
ho
wer
e
ex
peri
enci
n
g
hea
d
t
r
aum
a
and re
gu
l
a
r ed
ucat
i
on c
l
asse
s
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 3
,
Sep
t
emb
e
r
201
5
:
1
12
–
11
7
11
4
only,
head tra
u
m
a
with special e
ducation services, a
nd no
head tra
u
ma
with special education s
e
rvices
.
St
ude
nt
s
were
gi
ve
n t
h
e
sam
e
q
u
est
i
o
nnai
r
e
t
o
p
r
ovi
de f
o
r
con
s
i
s
t
e
ncy
.
3.
RESULTS
A
N
D
DI
SC
US
S
I
ON
3.
1. Resul
t
s
The Pears
o
n’s
Chi-Square
was
use
d
to e
x
am
ine
diffe
re
nces i
n
the
p
a
rent
res
p
o
n
se
s acr
oss t
h
e
groups
. T
h
is revealed t
h
at there ar
e si
gnificant differe
n
ces
betwee
n the t
h
ree groups in the way t
h
ey pe
rceive
th
eir id
en
tity i
n
schoo
l, th
eir sad
n
ess, an
d
th
e way th
eir
p
a
ren
t
s v
i
ew th
em
an
d
th
ink o
t
h
e
rs v
i
ew th
em
.
Add
itio
n
a
lly, a Pearson
C
h
i-Sq
u
a
re
was
u
s
ed
to ex
am
in
e whet
her
differences e
x
ist ac
ross t
h
e
groups
whe
n
th
eir p
a
ren
t
s are ask
e
d
if th
ey feel o
t
h
e
r p
e
op
le
p
e
rceive th
eir stu
d
e
n
t
s as h
a
v
i
ng
a d
i
sab
ility, X
2
2
=8.95,
p=
.01.
A Pears
o
n’s C
h
i
-
S
q
uare t
e
st
was co
nd
uct
e
d
i
n
orde
r to
d
e
termin
e th
e d
i
fferen
ces ex
ist b
e
tween
th
e
head
t
r
a
u
m
a
stude
nt
s a
n
d t
h
e
speci
al
e
ducat
i
on st
ud
ent
s
w
h
en
i
t
com
e
s t
o
fe
el
i
n
g
cl
ose
t
o
peo
p
l
e
at
s
c
ho
ol
,
the findings s
h
owe
d
that there ar
e signifi
cant differe
n
ce
s betwee
n th
e
gr
ou
ps. T
h
e
Pears
o
n
’
s C
h
i
-
Sq
uare
i
ndi
cat
ed
t
h
at
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
fferences
e
x
isted ac
ros
s
the
groups
on
ho
w
close they
feel
to
pe
ople at
s
c
hool,
χ
2
8=
p
=.0
1
. T
h
e t
h
ree
gr
ou
p
s
has sim
i
l
a
r r
e
sp
onses a
nd t
h
e
m
a
jority agreed
or strong
l
y
agreed that they felt
part of their s
c
hool 70% (s
pecial
educati
o
n),
66%
(he
a
d
traum
a
), an
d 7
2
% (s
peci
a
l
educat
i
o
n an
d hea
d
traum
a
).
W
h
il
e these results
are sta
tistical
ly sig
n
i
fican
t, th
ey are n
o
t
p
r
actically sig
n
i
fican
t.
Descrip
tiv
e
statistics fo
r t
h
e Id
en
tification with
Schoo
l variab
le are
p
r
esen
ted
i
n
Tab
l
e
1
.
Tab
l
e 1
.
Descrip
tiv
e
Statistics for Id
en
tificatio
n
with
Sch
o
o
l
Variables
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
I
d
entify
with school
2.
18
0.
86
0.
89
0.
86
As can be see
n
i
n
Tabl
e 1
,
t
h
e ske
w
n
e
ss and
ku
rt
osi
s
i
s
no
rm
al
,
│
2.0
│
and
│
-2
.0
│
│
5.
0
│
and
│
-
5.
0
│
r
e
sp
ectiv
ely.
A
on
e-
w
a
y
AN
OVA
r
e
v
eals th
at
no sign
ifican
t
differen
ces ex
i
s
t in
th
e level o
f
id
en
tificatio
n
with
schoo
l acro
ss th
e three
g
r
o
u
p
s
,
F
(
2
, 11
7
0
)= 2.
32
,
p =
.
10
. Fi
g
u
re
1 d
e
pi
ct
s t
h
e di
f
f
e
r
ence
s
th
at ex
ist
b
e
tween
th
e gro
u
p
s
an
d how th
ey i
d
en
tify
with
t
h
eir schoo
l.
Fig
u
re
1
.
Lev
e
l
of Id
en
tificatio
n
W
ith Sch
ool
Specifically, special education students
(
M
= 2
.
17,
SD
= .8
6) id
en
tified
with
schoo
l at a lo
wer lev
e
l
than st
ude
nts
with
head t
r
aumas (
M
= 2.35
,
SD
= .96). St
ude
nts
with T
B
I who
also re
ported receivi
ng
s
p
ecial
education
servi
ces re
vealed the highest le
v
e
l
o
f
id
en
tificatio
n
with
th
ei
r sch
o
o
l
(
M
=
2
.
43,
SD
= .8
5)
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Id
en
tifica
tio
n
with
S
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
Head
Trauma
:
Paren
t
a
l
Percep
tion
s
o
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
'
s
.... (BreAnn
a
Jon
e
s)
11
5
A factorial
ANOVA e
x
am
ined whet
h
e
r an
in
teractio
n ex
ists fo
r p
a
re
nt responses a
n
d the
stude
n
ts
lev
e
l o
f
repo
rt
ed
id
en
tification
wit
h
sch
o
o
l
.
Resu
lts
ind
i
cate th
at th
ere is
n
o
sign
ifican
t i
n
teraction
,
p
= .507
,
howe
ver significant m
a
in effects fo
r pa
re
nts re
sponses
to whethe
r t
h
ey
co
nsid
er their ch
ild to
hav
e
a
d
i
sab
ility,
F
(
1
, 11
8)
= 6.25
,
p
= .0
09
. Li
k
e
wise, a sign
ifican
t m
a
in
effect
is p
r
esen
t fo
r
wh
et
h
e
r t
h
ey believ
e
ot
he
rs co
nsi
d
e
r
t
h
ei
r chi
l
d
t
o
have a di
sabi
l
i
t
y
,
F
(1, 11
8)
= 7.60
1,
p
= .00
4
. Fi
g
u
re
2
prese
n
t
s
a gra
phi
cal
depi
ct
i
o
n
of
t
h
i
s
rel
a
t
i
o
n
s
hi
p.
Figure 2
.
I
d
ent
i
fi
cat
i
on wi
t
h
Sch
ool
wi
t
h
Pa
rent
R
e
s
p
onse
As can
b
e
seen
in
Figu
re
2
,
if p
a
ren
t
s resp
ond
ed
to
“yes” th
at th
ey b
e
liev
e
th
eir child
to
h
a
v
e
a
d
i
sab
ility was
asso
ciated
with
a lower lev
e
l
o
f
id
en
tificatio
n of sch
o
o
l
.
Howev
e
r, if
the p
a
ren
t
ind
i
cated
th
at
th
ey b
e
liev
e
d
t
h
at o
t
h
e
rs b
e
li
ev
ed th
eir studen
t
h
a
d
a
d
i
sab
ility, th
is resp
on
se was asso
ciated
with
a h
i
gh
er
lev
e
l of id
en
tificatio
n
wit
h
sch
o
o
l
.
3.2. Discussi
on
Stude
nts
who receive special education
servi
ces are
viewe
d
as
havi
ng a
disability by 50% of
pare
nts
su
rv
eyed.
Th
e o
t
h
e
r h
a
lf o
f
paren
t
s d
i
d
no
t in
d
i
cate
th
at
t
h
eir
ch
ild
as h
a
v
i
ng
a d
i
sab
ilit
y. Wh
ereas 7
2
% of
p
a
ren
t
s
who
hav
e
a st
u
d
en
t
with
h
ead trauma su
rv
eyed
i
n
d
i
cate th
ey
see th
eir ch
ild
as h
a
v
i
ng
a
d
i
sab
ility.
Al
so,
94
% of
pare
nt
s w
ho
h
a
ve st
u
d
ent
s
w
ho re
cei
ve spe
c
i
a
l
educat
i
on
and
have
had
a head t
r
a
u
m
a
vi
ew
th
eir ch
ild
as
hav
i
ng
a d
i
sab
ility.Th
e
Pearson Ch
i-Sq
u
a
re
rev
ealed
th
at si
gn
ifican
t
d
i
fferen
ces ex
ist across th
e
g
r
ou
p
s
wh
en
t
h
eir
p
a
ren
t
s are ask
e
d
if th
ey
feel o
t
h
e
r p
e
op
le p
e
rceiv
e
their stu
d
e
n
t
s as h
a
v
i
n
g
a
d
i
sab
ility.
The s
p
eci
al
ed
ucat
i
o
n
g
r
ou
p
and
hea
d
t
r
au
m
a
gr
ou
p
ha
d
sim
ilar respons
e
s, wit
h
54
%
(special education)
a
nd
4
4
% (h
ead
trau
m
a
) resp
ond
i
n
g
“no
”
, th
ey
d
o
no
t th
ink
o
t
h
e
rs see t
h
eir ch
ild
as h
a
v
i
ng
a d
i
sab
ility. Ho
wev
e
r,
t
h
e speci
al
e
d
u
cat
i
on a
nd
hea
d
t
r
a
u
m
a
gro
u
p
ha
d
7
8
% o
f
resp
o
nde
nt
s sa
y
i
ng “y
es” t
h
e
y
do t
h
i
n
k ot
h
e
rs see
their c
h
ild as
disabled. The
s
e
finding
do
no
t d
e
v
i
ate fro
m
ex
istin
g
research
[9
].
Wh
y
wou
l
d
p
a
ren
t
s so
m
a
n
y
p
a
ren
t
s acro
ss
th
e th
ree
g
r
ou
ps respon
d
t
h
at th
eir ch
ild
h
a
s a d
i
sab
ilit
y
?
First, the
term
special education is use
d
l
o
os
ely [10]
. Children
receivi
ng s
p
ecial ed
ucation se
rvices m
a
y ha
ve
a sp
ecific learnin
g
d
i
sab
ility, wh
ich
m
a
y in
clu
d
e
t
h
e im
p
e
rf
ect ab
ility to
write, read
, sp
eak
,
t
h
ink
,
or
d
o
math
.
Howev
e
r, th
is d
i
sab
ility is n
o
t
al
ways
v
i
sib
l
e ou
ts
id
e of a classroo
m
settin
g
wh
ich
can
accou
n
t
fo
r th
e
d
i
fferen
ce in
an
swers am
o
n
g
st p
a
ren
t
s ask
e
d
if th
ey s
ee their ch
ild
with
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
d
i
sabilit
y o
r
wh
eth
e
r o
t
h
e
r
p
e
op
le
v
i
ew t
h
eir k
i
d
s
as h
a
v
i
n
g
a
d
i
sab
ility.
The Pea
r
s
o
n Chi-Square
reve
aled that the
r
e
is si
g
n
i
f
i
can
ce acr
oss stud
en
t gr
oup
s’ r
e
sp
on
se
fo
r
t
h
e
do
y
o
u
feel
cl
ose t
o
pe
o
p
l
e
at
y
our
sch
o
o
l
vari
a
b
l
e
.
T
h
is
might reflect
the differe
n
ces
betwee
n the
groups
rega
rdi
ng t
h
ei
r
scho
ol
;
ho
we
v
e
r t
h
e di
f
f
ere
n
ce i
n
sam
p
l
e
size across the t
h
ree
groups
may h
a
v
e
im
p
act
ed
th
is
fin
d
in
g. Like
wise, the o
n
e
-
way
AN
O
VA
indicates that there are
no differe
n
ces in
stud
en
ts repo
rted
lev
e
l o
f
id
en
tificatio
n
with
schoo
l.
Wh
ile d
i
fferen
c
es were
n
o
t
st
atistically s
i
g
n
i
fican
t
, resu
lts reveal th
at stu
d
e
n
t
s who
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 3
,
Sep
t
emb
e
r
201
5
:
1
12
–
11
7
11
6
have TB
I and receive special
education servi
ces reporte
d
the highe
st le
vel of ide
n
tification
with school. This
is con
s
isten
t
with
ex
isting
research [5
].
Finally, analysis examining i
f
differe
n
ces i
n
level
of id
entificatio
n
with
sch
ool are ass
o
ciated with
pare
nt
res
p
ons
es i
ndi
cat
e t
h
e
r
e i
s
n
o
i
n
t
e
ra
ct
i
on bet
w
ee
n
pare
nt
res
p
ons
es. The l
e
vel
of i
d
ent
i
f
i
cat
i
o
n wi
t
h
scho
o
l
was
fou
n
d
to
be sig
n
ifican
tly asso
ciated
to
wh
et
her o
r
n
o
t
th
e
paren
t
id
en
tified
th
e ch
ild
to
h
a
v
e
a
d
i
sab
ility an
d
to
wh
eth
e
r
o
r
no
t th
e
p
a
rent b
e
liev
e
s that o
t
h
e
r co
nsid
ers th
eir ch
ild
to
h
a
v
e
a
d
i
sab
ility.
No
teworth
y
, these find
ing
sug
g
e
st th
at
p
a
ren
t
’s
b
e
liefs abo
u
t
th
ei
r ch
ildre
n
ex
isten
ce of a d
i
sab
ility
may b
e
associated wit
h
the student’s level of
rep
o
rted
id
en
tification with
th
eir scho
o
l
env
i
ron
m
e
n
t. Th
is is co
nsisten
t
with
prev
iou
s
research
th
at su
gg
est th
at st
ud
en
ts
w
ith
d
i
sab
ilities o
f
ten
h
a
v
e
p
a
ren
t
s
who
can
im
p
act th
at
st
ude
nt
s sel
f
a
n
d
l
i
f
e
(o
r sc
h
ool
) sat
i
s
fact
i
o
n
[5]
.
T
h
i
s
fi
n
d
i
n
g s
u
ggest
s
t
h
at
pa
re
nt
s m
a
y
need
t
o
be
e
ducat
e
d
o
n
wh
at is consid
ered
to
b
e
a
learn
i
ng
d
i
sab
i
lity, as well
as
wh
at
p
o
t
en
tials await th
eir ch
i
l
d
r
en
in
lig
h
t
of th
e
TBI.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
A po
ten
tial limita
tio
n
of th
e cu
rren
t i
n
v
e
sti
g
atio
n
is t
h
e sam
p
le size o
f
stu
d
e
n
t
s
who
receiv
e sp
ecial
education se
rvices and who ha
ve expe
rienced a hea
d
t
r
aum
a
and st
udents
who do not
receive
s
p
ecial
educat
i
o
n se
rv
i
ces, but
wh
o
have e
x
peri
e
n
c
e
d a hea
d
t
r
auma were sm
al
l
relativ
e to
th
e n
u
m
b
e
r of stud
en
ts
who we
re identified as receiving spe
c
ia
l education services
. Potential reco
mmendations for future resea
r
ch is
to
co
m
p
are leng
th
o
f
tim
e
wit
h
th
e TBI to
t
h
e v
a
riab
les cu
rren
tly an
alyzed in
th
is stu
d
y
an
d
t
h
e len
g
t
h
of ti
m
e
of students
rec
e
iving s
p
ecial
educati
on servi
ces to t
h
ose sa
me variables
.
Fu
rt
h
e
r research
can
h
e
lp to
bu
ild
a
bet
t
e
r
un
de
rst
a
ndi
ng
o
f
h
o
w
st
ude
nt
s
percei
ve t
h
em
sel
v
es
rel
a
t
i
v
e t
o
t
h
ei
r sam
e
aged
sc
ho
ol
peers
,
a
n
d
ho
w
p
a
ren
t
s
p
e
rcei
v
e
th
eir stud
ent’s d
i
sab
ilities
o
r
t
h
e ch
ild
ren in
lig
h
t
o
f
TB
I with
or witho
u
t
t
h
e pro
v
i
si
o
n
of
special education services.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Galech
, JM., Desjardins, M., “I am many
: Th
e r
econstruction of
self-followi
ng acquired brain injur
y
”,
Qualita
tiv
e
Health Research
, vol. 21
, pp
. 62-
74, 2011
.
[2]
Nochi, M., “
L
os
s of Self” in the
narrativ
es of peopl
e with traum
a
ti
c brain inju
rie
s
: A qualitat
i
ve
anal
ysis”
,
Socia
l
Scien
c
e Med
., v
o
l. 46
, pp
. 869-8
78, 1998
.
[3]
Reiter, S., Lap
i
dot-Lefler
,
N., “Bully
ing Among Speci
al Ed
ucation Students with
Intellectual Disabilities:
Differenc
es
in S
o
cia
l
Adjus
t
m
e
nt and S
o
cial S
k
il
ls
”,
Inte
lle
ctual
and Developmen
tal Disabilit
ies
, vol/issue:
45(3),
pp. 174-181
, 20
07.
[4]
Rivara
, F.
, Koep
sell,
T
.
,
W
a
ng, J
.
,
Tem
k
in,
N.
, D
o
rsch, A.
, Vav
i
l
a
la
, M,
Jaffe
, K
.
,
“
D
isabilit
y
3,
1
2
, and
24
m
onths
after
tr
aumatic b
r
ain
injur
y
am
ong children
and
adolescen
ts”,
Ped
i
atrics
, vol. 128
, pp. 1129-1138,
2011.
[5]
Shan
y
,
M., Wiener, J
.
, Assido,
M., “Friendship
predictors
of g
l
o
b
al self-worth
and
dom
ain-s
p
eci
f s
e
lf-con
cep
ts
i
n
university
stud
ents with
and
w
ithout learn
i
ng di
sabilities”,
Journal of L
e
arning Disabil
ities
,
2013.
doi:
10.1177/002221
9412436977.
[6]
Stone, C
.
, “Correspondences
among Pa
rent,
Teacher, and
Student Percep
tions o
f
Adolescen
ts’ Learning
”,
Journ
a
l
of Learning Dis
abilit
ies
, vol/issue: 30(6)
, 1997
.
[7]
Aron, L.,
Lopres
t, P., “Disab
ili
t
y
and th
e edu
c
a
t
i
on s
y
s
t
em
”
,
Th
e F
u
t
u
re
of
C
h
il
dre
n
, vol/issue: 2
2
(1), pp. 97-122
,
2012.
[8]
ADHealth, “National Survey
of
Adolescent Health”,
2015. R
e
trieved from www.cpc.
un
c.edu/projects/addhealth
.
[9]
Brocque, R
., H
e
ndrikz, J
.
, Is
el
in,
G
., K
e
nard
, J
.
,
“
I
m
p
act
of Post-Tra
uma
t
ic
Stre
ss Diso
rder and In
jur
y
Sev
e
rity
on
Children with
Tr
aum
a
tic Br
ain In
jur
y
”,
Journal of Clinica
l
Ch
ild Adolescen
t
Psych
ology,
vo
l/issue:
41(1), pp. 5-14
,
2012.
[10]
Sedrel, C
.
, “Loose coupling
within special edu
cation”,
Published Master’s Thesis
, Lo
yol
a
Un
ivers
i
t
y
Ch
icago
,
2014.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Id
en
tifica
tio
n
with
S
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
Head
Trauma
:
Paren
t
a
l
Percep
tion
s
o
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
'
s
.... (BreAnn
a
Jon
e
s)
11
7
BIOGRAP
HI
ES OF
AUTH
ORS
BreAnna Jones earned h
e
r Masters of Educatio
n in interventio
n
services from
Youngstown
State Univ
ersity in 2015. BreA
nna curren
t
ly
w
o
rks as a gradu
a
te
assistant for
Youngstown
State University'
s
Department o
f
Counseli
ng, Special Educatio
n,
and School Psy
c
holo
g
y
,
where she is cu
r
r
ently
working
o
n
her Edu
cati
on
Specialist Degr
ee in School Ps
y
c
holog
y
.
Sh
e
is also on
the bo
ard of
the sch
o
o
l
ps
y
c
holog
y
stu
d
ent org
a
nizatio
n. In 2014
, Br
eAnna earn
e
d
her
B
.
A.
in Social Studies f
r
o
m
Youngstown
State University
. During h
e
r u
ndergraduate
care
e
r s
h
e
worke
d
as
a
pe
er
tutor
as
well
as
a m
e
n
t
or for
loc
a
l
yo
ut
h.
Lindsay
Robins
on, M.
Ed,
acquired h
e
r Mas
t
ers from Youngstown State U
n
iversity
in
Interven
tion S
e
r
v
ices
from
Youngs
town S
t
ate Univ
ersity
in 201
5. She is currently
con
tinuing
her edu
cation
to
obtain
an
Ed
.
S. degree
in
School Ps
y
c
ho
log
y
with
an emph
asis on Low
Inciden
ce Disab
i
liti
es. L
i
ndsa
y
is
also working as
a Gradua
te Assi
stant in
the R
eco
rds office
at
Youngstown Sta
t
e University
. H
e
r primar
y
focu
s as
a graduate assistant is to help digitize
records
to
th
e B
a
nner S
y
s
t
em
.
Karen Larwin, PhD. acquired her Ph.D. f
r
om
Kent
S
t
at
e Univers
i
t
y
i
n
Evaluat
i
on,
Measurement, and
Statisti
cs in 2
007. She cu
rrently
serves as
a pr
ofessor at Youn
gstown State
Universit
y
. Dr.
Larwin has par
t
i
c
ipa
t
ed as th
e
ev
alua
tor on m
u
lti
ple fed
e
ral
and s
t
at
ewide gran
t
supported projec
ts over the past
decad
e. Her pri
m
a
r
y
te
ach
ing focus is in the ar
ea of resear
ch
methods, quantitativ
e methods, eval
uation, and measurement.
S
h
e
is curr
ently
a Chair for
the
American
Evalu
a
tion
Associatio
n’s Quan
titativ
e
Methods: Th
eor
y
and D
e
sign TI
G.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.