There is much research and practical knowledge on the non-academic characteristics of children with learning disabilities (LDs) (Job & Klassen, 2012; Yazdi-Ugav et al., 2022) and on trauma-informed work (Knight, 2015; Levenson, 2017; 2020). LDs are related to risk and aversive life events (McNamara et al., 2018). Since they affect about ten percent of the population, which is the largest segment that uses special education services, understanding the co-effects of LDs and trauma is crucial for effective work with them.

The purpose of this article is threefold. First, to portray the main characteristics of children and youth with LDs that may intertwine with post-trauma. Second, to describe the effects of trauma and risk on students with LDs by considering the unique features of LDs. Finally, applying the lens of disabilities studies to present working principles and practices for trauma-informed and intersectionality-conscious work with schoolchildren and adolescents with LDs.

 

Learning Disabilities

1. Definition of learning disabilities

Learning disabilities (LDs) are “Difficulties learning and using academic skills, as indicated by the presence of at least one of the following symptoms that have persisted for at least 6 months, despite the provision of interventions that target those difficulties” (APA, 2022, p. 76). In 2022, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-Tr) redefined LDs under the term Specific Learning Disorder (SLD). SLD encompasses impairments in reading (dyslexia), written expression (dysgraphia), and mathematics (dyscalculia), and is classified into mild, moderate, and severe levels. It is recognized as a neurodevelopmental disorder with a biological basis, involving genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors that affect the brain’s ability to process information (APA, 2022). It is characterized by difficulties in learning and using academic skills, which must persist for at least six months despite targeted interventions (Criterion A). These difficulties must result in achievements substantially below the expected level for the individual’s age and significantly interfere with academic or occupational performance (Criterion B). The onset of these difficulties must be during school years, though they may not fully manifest until academic demands increase (Criterion C). Finally, LDs must not be better explained by other conditions or external factors (Criterion D; APA, 2022; McDonohue et al., 2017).

Dyslexia is the most common subtype of LDs. It is a distinct neurodevelopmental disorder but affects both language and communication skills. It primarily impacts written language focusing on word reading and decoding (Snowling et al., 2020). Dyslexia is considered to affect biologically secondary knowledge, requiring explicit learning, whereas oral language is biologically primary (Tricot et al., 2020). Heredity plays a significant role in the etiology of LDs with evidence suggesting that they run in families. Prenatal and perinatal factors are also considered contributory (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). Since all the disabilities mentioned above are drawn from a family of language processing, in this article, I will refer to them collectively as LDs. The relation between dyscalculia and trauma was never studied, thus, this specific LD will not be included in the scope of this article.

 

2. Information processing and its social and cognitive effects on children with LDs

Reading and writing LDs are characterized by slow and partial information processing. Research indicates differences between children with LDs and typically developing children regarding the rapidity of processing but has not found qualitative differences in information processing (Peters & Ansari, 2019). The authors indicate that differences found in previous research were due to inconsistent classification criteria, single time-point measures instead of longitudinal, and small sample sizes. Another consequence of information processing problems of persons with LDs is the poor development of social skills and difficulties in solving social problems (McNamara et al., 2005; Sahoo et al., 2015). Social competence and perceived support are particularly important because they are related to academic success and engagement (Estell & Perdue, 2013). Moreover, acceptance by peers is an essential part of adolescent self-identity and has a strong influence on psychological well-being (La Greca & Harrison, 2005). Kavale and Forness (1995) found social skill deficits to be a prominent feature of LDs with about 75% of students with LDs manifesting deficits in that area that differentiated them from typically developing students.

Children with LDs have poorer receptive and expressive vocabulary when compared with their typically developing peers. Both expressive and receptive vocabulary are associated with and can predict children’s social information processing abilities (Bauminger-Zviely et al., 2019). It also predicts the number of friends and the duration of best friendships (Kouvava et al., 2022). Childhood friendships serve as a crucial developmental need as they promote cognitive and socioemotional development (Furman & Rose, 2015). Through friendships, children learn to control their emotions, cooperate, communicate and exchange ideas, practice social roles and affective expressions, and resolve disagreements and conflicts (Sebanc et al., 2007; Wiener & Schneider, 2002). Moreover, from early childhood to adolescence, friends play an important role in the development of language, vocabulary, and the socially acceptable use of speech (Durkin & Conti-Ramsden, 2007). Specifically, friendships provide the context in which children develop their language and communication skills, express their needs, intentions, desires, and thoughts (Carpendale & Lewis, 2006; Davis, et al., 2016). Friendship is also a resilience factor that enhances a sense of well-being and increases the chance for socioemotional adaptation, especially among children. However, the social skills of persons with LDs are significantly poorer than of those without (Kouvava et al, 2022). Persons with LDs experience high degrees of loneliness, they have fewer friends, and their friendships are frivolous, less reciprocal, and less supportive (Kouvava et al, 2022).

Comprehension-related language deficits have been highly related to antisocial behavior and problems with peers (Benner et al, 2002), while deficits in expressive vocabulary have been related to self-regulation difficulties (Bohlmann et al, 2015; McClelland et al., 2007). Yet, even when their language difficulties are surmounted, children with LDs continue to encounter problems in their interpersonal relationships (Glogowska et al., 2006), which remain of poor quality (Wiener & Tardif, 2004), and they are likely to be avoided by their typically developing peers. This implies that friendship is not merely related to vocabulary abilities but rather to wider social information processing abilities.

Children diagnosed with LDs demonstrate worse performance on tasks evaluating theory of mind or the ability to attribute mental states such as beliefs, desires, and intents to others as well as lower empathy abilities (Eyuboglu et al., 2018). These may result in a decrease in the number of reciprocal friendships, an increase in the number of reciprocal rejections, and high levels of loneliness and poor sense of coherence (Al-Yagon & Margalit, 2006; Cohen & Mendez, 2009). Consequently, children with language difficulties have fewer opportunities to participate in common activities with their classmates and to further develop their language and social skills at school, thus, they might gradually be rejected by their peers (Monopoli & Kingston, 2012). Hence, they are prone to build unsatisfactory social networks, and their probability of being involved in bullying, as both perpetrators and victims to bullying, is higher both in face-to-face encounters and in social media (Heyman et al., 2014).

Although there is insufficient research regarding LDs and trauma, it is known that lacking proper information processing abilities might harm one’s ability to understand the complexities of reality as well as to rely upon one’s social network. Cosden et al. (2009) found that adults with LDs with auditory processing problems who went regularly to traditional oral psychotherapy were less likely than others to meet treatment goals due to their inefficient information processing. Information processing might be related to several important abilities conducive to coping with traumas and aversive childhood events, such as the ability to grasp reality and the ability to create sufficient and supportive social relationships.

 

3. Executive functioning and regulation abilities

Self-regulation refers to processes in which persons set in motion or seize thoughts, emotions, or behaviors, and adapt to them or change them to fulfill plans (Heatherton, 2011). It includes the ability to select, monitor, and use strategies in daily assignments in the behavioral, motivational, emotional, and cognitive realms. Self-regulation encompasses actions of information processing (such as identifying threats), self-awareness, an understanding of how other people might react to oneself, as well as the production of a sensible response (Malekpour & Aghababaei, 2013; Moura et al., 2015). These components of self-regulation are vital to understanding the social world and to social adaptation, especially in aversive contexts. Pintrich and colleagues (Pintrich, 2000, 2004; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005) identified four areas of academic functioning that can be regulated: cognition, motivation, behavior, and context. I will discuss these self-regulation abilities in terms of both cognitive and emotional self-regulation and later in relation to the trauma context.

Cognitive self-regulation. Recent research has paid much attention to the cognitive regulation of children with LDs focusing specifically on executive functioning and self-regulation of emotions and behaviors. Cognitive regulation is based mainly on metacognition, defined as both the awareness and the management of thoughts (Dean, 2004), involving intentional and conscious control of cognitive actions (Rouet & Eme, 2002). Metacognition also refers to the awareness of the need to use certain cognitive strategies (Efklides, 2008; Flavell, 1979), such as planning, information management, monitoring, and evaluation (Pintrich, 1999).

Metacognitive knowledge is distinct from the ability to regulate it. More specifically, studies in various disciplines have confirmed the differentiation of metacognitive knowledge, experience, skill, and self-regulation (Efklides & Misailidi, 2010). The cognitive aspect of self-regulation is called executive function and includes working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility. Executive functioning includes conscious and controlled neurocognitive processes. It helps one execute organized and target-aimed cognitive and behavioral activity (Bridgett et al., 2013). These maintain the bases of complicated functioning, such as planning, solving problems, and logical thinking, which are essential in predicting not only academic success but also, and mainly, well-being later in life (Diamond, 2013). Research confirms that self-regulation and executive functioning rely on the same individual resources. There are also interactions between them.

Regulation of motivation is defined as “efforts to influence, control, or manage an individual’s motivation” (Wolters et al., 2011, p. 267). Motivation regulation is a critical component in a person’s ability to engage, learn, and perform. Motivation is also used to explain why persons with similar abilities will perform differently in various areas of expertise. The relationship between motivation and greater engagement, persistence, performance, and achievement is well-established (see e.g., Sutter et al., 2022). Self-regulated learners are provided with cognitive strategies and metacognitive abilities to be self-aware of their cognitive processes, they can monitor the execution of their strategies, and they have an inner ability to persist in their assignments (Wolters et al., 2011). Better self-regulated students demonstrated higher readiness to cope with challenges that included ambiguous knowledge and were more flexible when facing difficulties (Ertmer, Newby, & MacDougall, 1996).

Emotional self-regulation. Children with LDs are characterized not only by academic dysfunction due to childhood learning difficulties but also by a higher incidence of cooccurring socioemotional and behavioral problems compared with typically developing peers (e.g., Swanson et al., 2013). Research reveals higher levels of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems among youngsters with LDs, such as aggression, delinquency, risk-taking, and social withdrawal (e.g., McNamara et al., 2008).

Emotional self-regulation, as defined in the literature, is a complex and ongoing process that encompasses the understanding, acceptance, and modulation of emotional responses. This critical skill enables children and adolescents to adapt to their psychosocial environment, work towards their developmental goals, and promote their mental health (Van Lissa et al., 2019). The development of emotional self-regulation is integral to achieving greater autonomy, fostering healthy self-esteem, and cultivating feelings of self-efficacy, all of which contribute to improved social and academic adjustment.

 

The importance of emotional self-regulation is not limited to early developmental stages. Rather, it is recognized as a continuous and permanent process throughout the lifecycle (Alarcón-Espinoza et al., 2022). As individuals progress in their emotional competence, they become better equipped to regulate their emotions effectively, leading to enhanced overall well-being and improved functioning across various life domains. Emotional self-regulation influences both the timing and the intensity of emotion one displays (Eisenberg et al., 2010). It embraces many intra- and interpersonal skills, including the ability to recognize one’s own emotional state, identify others’ emotions, and rely on various strategies to manage social interactions (Houck et al., 2016). Emotional self-regulation is essential to the capacity to manage and modify emotional reactions and expressions (Compas et al., 2017). Finally, it is associated with a variety of aspects related to mental health and quality of life, such as emotional well-being (Eisenberg et al., 2010), cognitive development (Blair & Razza, 2007), peer likability (Denham et al., 1990), social competence (McDowell & Parke, 2000), and academic achievement (Trentacosta & Izard, 2007). Children with LDs experience challenges in regulating their negative emotions (Terras et al., 2009), which aggravates the negative impact on their cognitive and social skills (Milligan et al., 2016).

Emotional regulation problems can have vital consequences for students with LDs. After analyzing 100 journal articles on dyslexia, Livingston et al. (2018) found it to have emotional consequences affecting both well-being and mental health. Compared to their typically developed peers, youth with LDs have a strong tendency to develop emotional-behavioral difficulties such as depression, loneliness, severe frustration, a low sense of self-efficacy, and anxiety as well as a higher tendency to commit suicide (Buonomo, et al., 2017; Mammarella, et al., 2018). A meta-analysis of surveys published from 2000-2019 found that 56% of students with LDs scored higher on validated measures of anxiety and depression than did their typical peers without LDs (Brunelle et al., 2020). Finally, people with disabilities, among them also people with LDs, live shorter: the life expectancy for women and men with disabilities is 18 and 14 years less than the general population (O’Leary et al., 2018). They also experience significantly more physical and mental ill-health and have as many health conditions at the age of 20 years and over as the rest of the population has by the age of 50 years (O’Leary et al., 2018).

 

Trauma

1. Definition and background

Trauma is defined as the personal experience of an event or events that are perceived as threatening and cause psychological pain or emotional distress (Bowen & Murshid, 2016). It often results in negative changes in well-being and functioning (American Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2014; Doucet & Rovers, 2010) and it can disrupt neurological and social development, contribute to emotional dysregulation, and alter one’s sense of self, manifesting in maladaptive coping and interaction styles (Cicchetti & Banny, 2014; Van Der Kolk, 2014).

Traumatic events at younger ages are known to have particularly severe effects, as they cooccur with brain and social skill development (Schore, 2001). Childhood trauma can impede the integration of emotions, cognitions, and coping (Van Der Kolk, 2014). A major retrospective study of predominantly white middle-class Americans found that childhood trauma was linked to an increase in the probability of experiencing numerous problems in adulthood – including victimization, substance abuse, mental health issues, and encounters with the criminal justice system – and influenced physical, mental, and emotional health, potentially shortening life expectancy (Felitti et al., 1998). In the modern-postmodern reality, many are exposed to traumatic events and experiences, among them violence, war, physical attacks, extreme weather, as well as traumas caused by intersections of such factors as poverty, ethnicity, and sociocultural locations.

The ability to cope with trauma is strongly related to a person’s personal and social resources (Fullerton et al., 2021; Tedeschi et al., 1998). Coping with traumatic stress requires a child’s ability to assess, process, and encode traumatic information, and manage or resolve traumatic memories and emotions. Traumatic events impair self-control and emotional regulation, leading to disorganized thinking, mixed cognition, emotions, sensations, and a diminished sense of future perspective (Solomon & Bryant, 2002). The more one is positioned in multiple marginal social locations, the weaker one’s ability to cope with trauma.

Trauma and learning disabilities. After reviewing the effects of LDs, we can conclude that they might create additional challenges in coping with stress and processing trauma. Children with LDs may perceive stressful situations as more threatening and unmanageable, potentially increasing their vulnerability to traumatic and post-traumatic symptoms (Finzi-Dottan et al., 2006). This unique burden could hinder their ability to cope effectively with traumatic experiences. Trauma and trauma treatment are understudied subjects for children with disabilities in general (Thomas-Skaf & Jenney, 2021). It is known that individuals with physical and intellectual disabilities experience trauma at a disproportionate rate (Emerson & Hatton, 2007; Pestka & Wendt, 2014; Reiter et al., 2007). School and social experiences due to disabilities might be traumatic (see Liasidou, 2023), and being with disabilities is a risk factor for negligence and abuse (see Thomas-Skaf & Jenney, 2021). Yet there is no specific data on LDs, although as mentioned, they constitute the largest group in the special education system (Artiles et al., 2016). Although disabilities and trauma are two different elements, they nevertheless coexist or even intertwine and by grasping the unique characteristics of LDs one can conclude that persons with LDs may be prone to traumatogenic events more frequently and intensely than typically developing students.

Difficulties in self-regulation and information processing that persons with LDs encounter are often interpreted as resistance and unwillingness to cooperate or as disinterest in rehabilitation (Mallett, 2014). Finzi-Dottan et al. (2006) examined posttraumatic stress reactions in Israeli adolescents with LDs exposed to ongoing terror threats. Their study found that adolescents with LD showed significantly higher PTSD scores compared to controls, even when controlling for exposure levels. They concluded that LDs may hinder coping with traumatic events by interfering with information processing and reducing self-efficacy, potentially increasing vulnerability to PTSD. Few studies have examined youth with LDs placed in out-of-home care settings after experiencing severe life events. Apparently, the diagnosis of the disabilities occurs against the background of socioeconomic characteristics that mask them and their effects. For example, among children and youth who are placed in institutions for adjudicated youth, there is a significant lack of diagnosis. Among girls in out-of-home placement, LDs predicted lower scores in self-efficacy as well as in social information processing (Amitay & Gumpel, 2015).

The link between LDs and aversive life events or trauma leads to a low starting point and lower personal coping resources. The impact of LDs on information processing and executive functioning can explain this lowering of personal resources for coping with adverse life events, as it inhibits the ability to regulate emotions and reactions as well as decreases the social support for persons who experience traumatic events. The characteristics of information processing, together with the characteristics of emotional regulation, may amplify the traumatic experience as well as the reactions to it. The possible link between the characteristics of LDs and the manner in which they can complicate one’s coping with trauma also means that LDs may affect the effectiveness of treatment for post-traumatic schoolchildren and youth with LDs.

 

2. Trauma-informed care for people with LDs

Trauma-informed care (TIC) is a unique approach to working with people who have encountered traumatic events or life circumstances. Based on community and critical approaches in psychology and social work, it combines approaches to inclusive treatment that encompass human behavior, the social environment, and individual life experiences (Hardy et al., 2023). TIC is strengths-based and client-centered, aiming to understand current functioning in light of past events (Sweeney et al., 2018). It shifts away from viewing trauma responses as disorders or individual dysfunctions, instead seeing them as normal human responses to overwhelming stress. Through this lens, client problems are viewed as coping strategies stemming from surviving a traumatogenic childhood (Levenson, 2020). TIC joints consistent approaches to inclusive treatment that encompass human behavior, the social environment, and individual life experiences (Hardy, 2023).

SAMHSA (2014) proposed six tenets for implementing TIC in clinical settings: (1) ensuring safety for all, (2) trustworthiness and transparency, (3) peer support, (4) collaboration, and leveling power differentials, (5) empowerment, voice and choice, and (6) addressing cultural, historical, and gender issues. Trauma-informed approaches have shown promise in reducing mental health symptoms and the frequency of restraints in residential treatment settings (Hodgdon et al., 2013; Van Der Kolk, 2014). These approaches view trauma not as a single event but as a defining and organizing experience central to an individual’s identity (Harris & Fallott, 2001). While much of the literature assumes that past trauma would be the primary focus of professional intervention, many practitioners encounter trauma survivors (in contexts such as addictions and corrections), where the focus is often on present-day difficulties rather than underlying past trauma (Knight, 2015).

TIC provides social support that can buffer the negative impact of trauma by recognizing its importance and taking proactive measures within social service systems to address the origination, exacerbation, or recurrence of trauma, focusing on both healing and reducing re-traumatization (Bowen & Murshid, 2016; Knight, 2015). In applying TIC to working with persons with LDs, we can refer to McIntosh (2019), who presents a model based on a social justice framework that includes the foundational concepts of cultural responsiveness, diversity and inclusion, educational justice, and TIC for working with students who experience multiple arenas of trauma and social exclusion. This social emphasis is also highlighted by Heberle et al. (2020):

 

The absence of a focus on social structures and, specifically, on interlocking systems of oppression, may obscure the extent to which trauma impacts marginalized communities, and erroneously focus intervention exclusively at the individual, rather than structural, level. (p. 817)

 

Another basis for TIC with persons with LDs is disability studies. Disability studies view learning disorders as traits that, due to societal interactions, prevent individuals from realizing their full potential. Emerging in the 1970s, this multidisciplinary field emphasizes the lived experiences of people with disabilities as experts on their conditions (Davis et al., 2016). It shifts the perception of disability from that of a personal tragedy to a broader social issue. The first-wave social model posits that all individuals can contribute to society and holds society responsible for inclusion and participation. This perspective argues that societal factors, including prejudices, inaccessible structures, and policies, collectively create disabilities. Disability studies also examine cultural representations and histories of disabilities, asserting that the social repression and exclusion of people with disabilities have historically benefited the able-bodied by reinforcing constructions of normality and maintaining the hegemony of the “normal ones” (Oliver, 1990).

Disabilities studies focus on several key principles that emphasize the right for full participation and inclusion together with the unique as well as all-human aspects of the experiences of people with disabilities. These include recognizing disability as a key aspect of human diversity and experience, not just as a medical condition or personal tragedy; an integrative approach that considers disability at the intersection of multiple identities and expressions; assuming that people with disabilities are the experts on their own lived experiences; and involve people with disabilities directly in research, policy-making, and decisions that affect them, following the principle of “nothing about us without us”.

There is a research body that refers to disability as trauma. In a theoretical article, Liasidou (2021) explores how disabilities intersect with trauma since, although disability is not a trauma, they both share “tangled histories as they can be constitutive elements of disability experiences” (p. 683). Some studies have combined TIC approaches with disability studies, particularly focusing on intellectual and developmental (as opposed to language) disabilities but not LDs (see Keesler et al., 2023; McNally et al., 2022). While these studies demonstrate efforts to combine TIC approaches with disability studies, note that a systematic review by Maynard et al. (2019) found lack of rigorous evidence on the effects of trauma-informed approaches in schools. This suggests that more research is needed to fully integrate TIC principles into various disability service settings and to evaluate their effectiveness.

 

3. Trauma-informed working principles with students with LDs

Trauma is a universal human experience that can affect anyone (Sweeney et al., 2018), but research indicates that persons with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to various forms of traumatization (Thomas-Skaf & Jenney, 2021). This increased susceptibility probably stems from the traits of persons with LDs that make them more vulnerable to trauma and its consequences. These factors contribute to a higher risk of traumatic experiences for individuals with disabilities. Liasidou (2022) claims that there is a pressing need for disability-related policies and practices to place a more pronounced emphasis on addressing and reclaiming the eroded and traumatized rights-bearing subjectivities of persons with disabilities. This approach is crucial for promoting equity, dignity, and well-being within this population. By recognizing and actively working to mitigate the heightened trauma risk faced by individuals with disabilities, policymakers and practitioners can contribute to more inclusive and supportive environments that respect the rights and experiences of all individuals, regardless of ability status (e.g., Carello et al., 2019). Liasidou (2022) criticizes the way many services implement “‘reductionist’ trauma-specific services” (p. 690) instead of more holistic approaches such as TIC.

As mentioned before SAMHSA’s (2014) guidelines for implementing TIC in clinical settings outline six essential principles. These tenets emphasize creating a safe environment for all individuals involved, fostering trustworthiness and transparency in organizational operations, promoting peer support among those with shared experiences, encouraging collaboration and minimizing power imbalances between staff and clients, empowering individuals by prioritizing their choices and autonomy, and addressing cultural, historical, and gender-related issues that may impact trauma experiences and recovery. These principles form a comprehensive trauma-sensitive approach that recognizes the widespread impact of trauma, acknowledges its signs and symptoms, and responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices. By adhering to these guidelines, organizations can create a more supportive and effective environment for trauma survivors, promoting healing and resilience. Based on these guidelines, and combined with the notions of disability studies, I propose some principles for working with persons with LDs who have experienced traumas.

Recognition. Both disability studies and trauma research stress the need to recognize the traumatic event or experience. People who have been traumatized need to be seen and heard and to validate their harsh experiences. Van Der Kolk (2014) asserts that traumatic events are coded only partially in our consciousness and mostly cannot be narrated, thus, creating the feeling that things may not have happened or have been experienced differently from what has actually happened. Accordingly, a main practice with abuse survivors is the clear and loud message of “we believe you”. A clear message of “we believe you” can be a support framework in which the person can reconstruct the details of the event as much as possible and create a coherent narrative from which a healing process can begin.

Lived experience as essential for a professional policy. Studying the decision-making process in people who have been pushed to marginal social locations will yield insights into the complexities that arise within a socially situated choice and into the logics that lead to it. According to this view, social positions shape personal interpretations of reality and choices of reaction (Crenshaw, 1991). Lived experience is based on people’s personal experiences. It is acquired in real life, on the “street”, in natural and everyday ways, informed by the struggles of people with diverse adversities. Lived experience is rarely considered as reliable knowledge, since it is subjective (Krumer-Nevo, 2000). Moreover, there are those who think that if people who experience social exclusion are still in distress, their knowledge does not seem to provide ways out of it. However, the critical approach teaches us that theirs is essential knowledge, which allows us to refine our understanding and our work with people living in hardship and opens a window to new and surprising insights (Krumer-Nevo & Barak, 2006). In the context of a specific learning disorder, Einat pioneered the study of lived experience among students with LDs reframing their decision-making process – which to an outside observer may seem irrational and inefficient – as reasoned, logical, and reliable (Einat, 2000, 2003; Einat & Albelek, 2018).

Partnership and participation. Being strengths-based and client-centered, TIC advocates for partnership and participation. Professionals who are aware of the intersection of marginal social positions and cherish the knowledge inherent in the lived experiences of people who experience social marginalization recognize the importance of working in partnership with service users (Shaibe & Shemer, 2024). In the context of people with LDs, Einat writes about moments of “miraculous change” (Einat & Albelek, 2018, p. 167). Every professional has experienced these moments, and they are indeed magical, but the path leading up to them is long and arduous, and requires knowledge, self-awareness, and endless determination.

An essential component that may facilitate the climb is the service user who has become a travel companion. Partnership and dialogue, which Einat & Albelek (2018) discuss, are essential practices when working through lenses of disability awareness and TIC. When the ethical position is that the people we work with contribute to an essential knowledge process, mutual relations and partnership at work become a basic practice (Amitay, 2017). In a sense, the significance of the partnership lies in the elimination of hierarchies of knowledge ownership, with a deep belief that each party benefits from them and makes a significant contribution both to the relationship and to society as a whole (Rosenfeld, 2017). A partnership is forged when the service user is given a voice that not only acknowledges the knowledge one possesses but provides it with validity and integrates it into the construction of the policy, such as writing a social report from the perspective of the applicant (Krumer-Nevo et al., 2012) or writing joint policy documents and recommendations (Krumer-Nevo, 2000) leading up to a policy change. An example is action of the Fourth World movement in France (Wodon, 2001) to repeal the law allowing electricity company debtors to be disconnected in the winter.

Partnership is essential, although not always possible (Payne, 2005). It is essential because it allows us not only to give voice but also to merge a variety of sources of knowledge and interpretations about reality. In this way, it contributes to the understanding of reality in its complexities and enables service users to be active partners in changing their situation or changing the policy (Krumer-Nevo et al., 2012). Usually, service users learn to be passive consumers of services, and an approach that sees them as active persons and partners in the rehabilitation process will promote the acquisition of skills to actively deal with their life circumstances, which will increase their independence and the feeling that they are in control of their lives and destiny.

Agency is a fundamental concept that encapsulates an individual’s belief in their ability to steer their life towards desired goals and aspirations, even in the face of challenging circumstances. It encompasses the sense of control over one’s choices and decisions, as well as the acceptance of responsibility for their outcomes. As a key organizing principle, agency is integral to comprehending the constraints and opportunities surrounding a person’s capacity to achieve, aspire, perform, and experience well-being across various aspects of life. This concept, as articulated by Giddens (1984), underscores the importance of personal empowerment and self-determination in navigating life’s complexities and pursuing one’s objectives. Active participation of individuals with disabilities is crucial in developing effective TIC. Empowering them to exercise agency in decision-making processes ensures that support systems are responsive to their unique needs, respect their autonomy, and enhance the relevance of trauma-related interventions (Sweeny et al., 2018).

Perceiving behavior as a response to consequences rather than a personality trait. This principle stems from the principles of partnership and lived experience, but it is important in its own right. The environment is important for maximizing a person’s abilities and functioning (Bronfenbrenner, 2000). With the understanding that people with LDs experience reality differently, partially process social information, and reach partial and sometimes even wrong insights, it can be concluded that even though we are apparently in the same environment and experience the same events, we experience them differently (Staunæs, 2003). In this sense, LDs are the “ground zero” that affects all: they appear in reaction to lived experiences, yet masquerade as personality characteristics. For example, Einat (2000) described at length how anger serves as a mechanism of preventive aggression aimed at hiding failure and learning difficulties. Such are behaviors of concealment and denial that the environment interprets as untrustworthiness. For the most part, behaviors of forgetfulness, dependency, and hysteria that Einat describes do not reflect personality characteristics, but strategies for dealing with constant failures. To preserve self-worth, people who experience continuous failure tend to distance themselves from the act that has led to the failure and delegate the responsibility for it to an external party, i.e. to “circumstances” (Snyder, 2002). This practice of perceiving behavior as a consequence and not as a trait leads to the principle of creating a safe space.

Creating a safe space. Hearing the persons’ voice and providing them with recognition and validation enhance the creation of a safe space. In such a safe space people can inquire about their experiences and reactions without fearing judgments and “reboot” their attitude and coping mechanisms with the trauma. Creating a safe and non-judgmental environment for open dialogue about coping methods will help understand how effective coping methods are and how much judgement might sabotage the processes of growth, restoration, and change.

In order to promote change we must get to the bottom of things, listen without judgment to the person we work with, and understand what cognitive, emotional and behavioral information they have about themselves, how they perceive themselves based on their life experience, and how they have coped until now (for reviews about this practice, see Larruina & Ghorashi, 2016; Tuval-Mashiach et al., 2019). Negative patterns of thought and behavior force one to deal with repeated failures and with a continuous misunderstanding of social situations, and these failures can defeat any person. Therefore, we need to replace the question “What is wrong with the child?” by other questions: What did the child experience and how do they interpret the events? What are their needs as they articulate them? Have they been given a diverse language to express their desires and needs? What are their needs? Where do our perspectives intersect? What optimal functioning environment should we build for their benefit?

A safe space also involves the initiation of group work and peer support. Peer support among those with shared experiences is one powerful practice when working with trauma. Thus, it is an essential resource that persons with LDs usually lack.

 

Discussion

The complex interplay between learning disabilities (LDs) and trauma presents significant challenges for individuals, particularly in academic and social contexts. Children with LDs often struggle with information processing, social skills, and emotional regulation, which can exacerbate the impact of traumatic experiences. The cognitive characteristics associated with LDs, including difficulties in information processing and self-regulation, can hinder a child’s ability to process and cope with traumatic events effectively. Furthermore, the social challenges faced by individuals with LDs, such as difficulties in forming and maintaining friendships, may limit their access to crucial support systems during times of stress or trauma. Emotional regulation, another critical skill for managing traumatic experiences, is also often underdeveloped in children with LDs. This can lead to increased vulnerability to mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and even suicidal tendencies. To address these challenges, it is essential to adopt a trauma-informed and intersectionality-conscious approaches when working with children and adolescents with LDs. These approaches should consider the unique characteristics of LDs and their potential interactions with traumatic experiences. By implementing the principles discussed, professionals and caregivers can better support children and adolescents with LDs who may have experienced trauma, potentially improving their overall well-being.

 

For further research: Trauma, learning disabilities and intersectionality

Research indicates a clear intersectionality between ethnicity, poverty, and LDs. Even before discussing disabilities, research has long demonstrated that racial achievement gaps are evident as early as kindergarten, and remain constant across grade levels (Cheadle, 2009), suggesting that even though schools do not create racial gaps they still fail to close them (Haertel, 2013). There is profound evidence that the disproportional diagnosis of LDs among ethnic minorities is due to their socioeconomic status and ethnic origin, two intersecting factors in their own right (see Annamma, 2013, 2018; Artiles, 2011; Shifrer, 2023). Artiles (2011) also recommends studying intersectionality in disability studies, as subjective impressionist disabilities such as LDs are diagnosed disproportionately due to these factors, unlike diagnoses of blindness or deafness, for example. Poverty- and race-aware work are highly developed and well-studied (e.g., Krumer-Nevo, 2020), and given the high portions of schoolchildren with LDs who experience intersectionality there is a fundamental and urgent need for more research on trauma-informed work in the intersection of trauma, LDs, and other social positions.

 

Endnote

1. Departement of Criminology, Yezreel Valley Academic College

 

References

Al‐Yagon, M. & Margalit, M. (2006). Loneliness, sense of coherence and perception of teachers as a secure base among children with reading difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1), 21-37.

Alarcón-Espinoza, M., Sanduvete-Chaves, S., Anguera, M. T., Samper Garcia, P., & Chacón-Moscoso, S. (2022). Emotional self-regulation in everyday life: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 884756.

Amitay, G. (2017). Applying practices of agency when working with youth in distress. Minituk Leshiluv, 20, 251-274 [Hebrew].

Amitay, G. & Gumpel, T. (2015). Academic self-efficacy as a resilience factor among adjudicated girls. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 20(2), 202-227.

Annamma, S. A. (2013). Resistance and Resilience: The education trajectories of young women of color with disabilities through the School to Prison Pipeline. School of Education Graduate Theses & Dissertations. Paper 33.

Annamma, S. A. (2018). The Pedagogy of pathologization: Dis/abled girls of color in the school-prison nexus. New York: Routledge.

APA (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Text Revised (DSM-5-Tr). American Psychiatric Association.

Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431-445.

Artiles, A. J., Dorn, S., & Bal, A. (2016). Objects of protection, enduring nodes of difference: Disability intersections with “other” differences, 1916 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 777-820.

Bauminger-Zviely, N., Alon, M., Brill, A., Schorr-Edelsztein, H., David, T., Tubul, G., & Al-Yagon, M. (2019). Social information processing among children with ASD, SLD, and typical development: the mediational role of language capacities. The Journal of Special Education, 53(3), 153-165.

Benner, G. J., Nelson, J. R., & Epstein, M. H. (2002). Language skills of children with EBD: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(1), 43-56.

Blair, C. & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child development, 78(2), 647-663.

Bohlmann, N. L., Maier, M. F., & Palacios, N. (2015). Bidirectionality in self‐regulation and expressive vocabulary: Comparisons between monolingual and dual language learners in preschool. Child development, 86(4), 1094-1111.

Bowen, E. A. & Murshid, N. S. (2016). Trauma-informed social policy: A conceptual framework for policy analysis and advocacy. American journal of public health, 106(2), 223-229.

Bridgett, D. J., Oddi, K. B., Laake, L. M., Murdock, K. W., & Bachmann, M. N. (2013). Integrating and differentiating aspects of self-regulation: effortful control, executive functioning, and links to negative affectivity. Emotion, 13(1), 47.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2000). Ecological systems theory. American Psychological Association.

Brunelle, K., Abdulle, S., & Gorey, K. M. (2020). Anxiety and depression among socioeconomically vulnerable students with learning disabilities: Exploratory meta-analysis. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 37(4), 359-367.

Buonomo, I., Fiorilli, C., Geraci, M. A., & Pepe, A. (2017). Temperament and social-emotional difficulties: the dark side of learning disabilities. The Journal of genetic psychology, 178(3), 193-206.

Carello, J., Butler, L. D., & Critelli, F. M. (2019). Introduction to Trauma and human rights: Context and content. Trauma and Human Rights: Integrating Approaches to Address Human Suffering, 1-10.

Carpendale, J. I. M. & Lewis, C. (2006). How Children Develop Social Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cheadle, J. E. (2009). Parent educational investment and children’s general knowledge development. Social Science Research, 38(2), 477-491.

Cicchetti, D. & Banny, A. (2014). A developmental psychopathology perspective on child maltreatment. In M. Lewis & K. D. Rudolph (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp. 723-741). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Cohen, J. S. & Mendez, J. L. (2009). Emotion regulation, language ability, and the stability of preschool children's peer play behavior. Early Education and Development, 20(6), 1016-1037.

Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Bettis, A. H., Watson, K. H., Gruhn, M. A., Dunbar, J. P., ... & Thigpen, J. C. (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological bulletin, 143(9), 939.

Cortiella, C. & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National center for learning disabilities, 25(3), 2-45.

Cosden, M., Patz, S., & Smith, S. (2009). Do problems with information processing affect the process of psychotherapy for adults with learning disabilities or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 165-173.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Davis, T. N., Lancaster, H. S., & Camarata, S. (2016). Expressive and receptive vocabulary learning in children with diverse disability typologies. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 62(2), 77-88.

Dean, A. C. (2004). Splitting in normal and pathological populations from the perspective of predictive control theory: A reconceptualization. Theory & Psychology, 14(1), 29-55.

Denham, S. A., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E. A., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and behavioral predictors of preschool peer ratings. Child development, 61(4), 1145-1152.

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual review of psychology, 64(1), 135-168.

Doucet, M. & Rovers, M. (2010). Generational trauma, attachment, and spiritual/religious interventions. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 15(2), 93-105.

Durkin, K. & Conti‐Ramsden, G. (2007). Language, social behavior, and the quality of friendships in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment. Child development, 78(5), 1441-1457.

Efklides, A. & Misailidi, P. (2010). Introduction: The present and the future in metacognition. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 1–18). Springer Science + Business Media. 

Einat, A. (2000). The Key to the Locked Door: Breaking the Barrier of Dyslexia. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad [Hebrew].

Einat, A. (2003). The Key to the Locked Door: Parents Cope with the Barrier of Dyslexia. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad [Hebrew].

Einat, A. & Albelek, S. (2018). Encounter and turning point in work with student with learning disabilities. In A. Shemer, R. Rozenfeld, A. Dahan, & A. Daniel-Helving (Eds.), What Exactly Have We Done (pp. 166-190). Tel Aviv: Moffet [Hebrew].

Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European psychologist, 13(4), 277-287.

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children's maladjustment. Annual review of clinical psychology, 6(1), 495-525.

Emerson, E. & Hatton, C. (2007). The mental health of children and adolescents with learning disabilities in Britain. Advances in Mental Health and Learning Disabilities, 1(3), 62-63.

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ responses and approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719-752.

Estell, D. B. & Perdue, N. H. (2013). Social support and behavioral and affective school engagement: The effects of peers, parents, and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 50(4), 325-339.

Eyuboglu, D., Bolat, N., & Eyuboglu, M. (2018). Empathy and theory of mind abilities of children with specific learning disorder (SLD). Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 28(2), 136-141.

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American journal of preventive medicine, 14(4), 245-258.

Finzi-Dottan, R., Dekel, R., Lavi, T., & Su'ali, T. (2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder reactions among children with learning disabilities exposed to terror attacks. Comprehensive psychiatry, 47(2), 144-151.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.

Fullerton, D. J., Zhang, L. M., & Kleitman, S. (2021). An integrative process model of resilience in an academic context: Resilience resources, coping strategies, and positive adaptation. Plos one, 16(2), e0246000.

Furman, W., & Rose, A. J. (2015). Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, 1-43.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glogowska, M., Roulstone, S., Peters, T. J., & Enderby, P. (2006). Early speech-and language-impaired children: Linguistic, literacy, and social outcomes. Developmental medicine and child neurology, 48(6), 489-494.

Haertel, E. (2013). How is testing supposed to improve schooling? Measurement: interdisciplinary research and perspectives, 11(1-2), 1-18.

Hardy, K. S. S. (2023). Working With the Principles of Trauma-Informed Care. Working With Serious Mental Illness: A Manual for Clinical Practice, 37.

Harris, M. & Fallot, R.D. (Eds.) (2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems (New Directions for Mental Health Services Series). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Annual review of psychology, 62(1), 363-390.

Heberle, A. E., Obus, E. A., & Gray, S. A. (2020). An intersectional perspective on the intergenerational transmission of trauma and state‐perpetrated violence. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 814-834.

Heyman, T., Olnik-Shemesh, D., & Eden, S. (2014). Involvement and victimization online among students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and without this disorder and the relationship to social self-efficacy, loneliness and social support. Mifgash LeAvoda Hinuhit-Sotzialit, 39, 93-112 [Hebrew].

Hodgdon, H. B., Kinniburgh, K., Gabowitz, D., Blaustein, M. E., & Spinazzola, J. (2013). Development and implementation of trauma-informed programming in youth residential treatment centers using the ARC framework. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 679-692.

Houck, C. D., Barker, D. H., Hadley, W., Brown, L. K., Lansing, A., Almy, B., & Hancock, E. (2016). The 1-year impact of an emotion regulation intervention on early adolescent health risk behaviors. Health Psychology, 35(9), 1036.

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.

Kavale, K. A., Forness, S. R., & Lorsbach, T. C. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: Implications for research in learning disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 7(2), 119-127.

Keesler, J. M., Purcell, A., & Thomas‐Giyer, J. (2023). Advancing trauma‐informed care in intellectual and developmental disability services: A pilot study of a digital training with direct service providers. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(3), 615-628.

Knight, C. (2015). Trauma-informed social work practice: Practice considerations and challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43, 25-37.

Kouvava, S., Antonopoulou, K., Kokkinos, C. M., Ralli, A. M., & Maridaki-Kassotaki, K. (2022). Friendship quality, emotion understanding, and emotion regulation of children with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or specific learning disorder. Emotional and behavioural difficulties, 27(1), 3-19.

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2000). "Knowledge from life" versus "academic knowledge": the case of income security benefit recipients. Social Security, 58, 132-150 [Hebrew].

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2020). Radical hope: Poverty-aware practice for social work. Policy Press.‏

Krumer-Nevo, M. & Barak, A. (2006). Participatory action research: The social welfare system from the viewpoint of its customers. Society and Welfare, 72, 11–38 [Hebrew].

Krumer-Nevo, M., Wiess-Gal, I., Levin, L. (2012). Official Reports in Social Work: A Critical Social Work Alternative, Social Security, 89-119[Hebrew].

La Greca, A. M. & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology, 34(1), 49-61.

Larruina, R. & Ghorashi, H. (2016). The normality and materiality of the dominant discourse: Voluntary work inside a Dutch asylum seeker center. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 14(2), 220-237.

Levenson, J. (2017). Trauma-informed social work practice. Social work, 62(2), 105-113.

Levenson, J. (2020). Translating trauma-informed principles into social work practice. Social Work, 65(3), 288-298

Liasidou, A. & Ioannidou, E. (2021). Disability-related bullying and its discursive formations and enactments in the social ecology of schooling. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(4), 499-512.

Liasidou, A. (2022). Decolonizing inclusive education through trauma-informed theories. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 24(1), 277-288.

Liasidou, A. (2023). Trauma-informed disability politics: interdisciplinary navigations and implications. Disability & Society, 38(4), 683-699.

Livingston, E. M., Siegel, L. S., & Ribary, U. (2018). Developmental dyslexia: Emotional impact and consequences. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 23(2), 107-135.

Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., Giofrè, D., & Szűcs, D. (2018). The underlying structure of visuospatial working memory in children with mathematical learning disability. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 220-235.

Mallett, C. A. (2014). The “learning disabilities to juvenile detention” pipeline: A case study. Children & Schools, 36(3), 147-154.

Malekpour, M. & Aghababaei, S. (2013). The effect of executive functions training on the rate of executive functions and academic performance of students with learning disability. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 59(3), 145-155.

Maynard, B. R., Farina, A., Dell, N. A., & Kelly, M. S. (2019). Effects of trauma‐informed approaches in schools: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1-2).

McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Wanless, S. B., Murray, A., Saracho, O., & Spodek, B. (2007). Executive function, behavioral self-regulation, and social-emotional competence. Contemporary perspectives on social learning in early childhood education, 1, 113-137.

McDonough, E. M., Flanagan, D. P., Sy, M., & Alfonso, V. C. (2017). Specific learning disorder. Handbook of DSM-5 disorders in children and adolescents, 77-104.

McDowell, D. J., O'Neil, R., & Parke, R. D. (2000). Display rule application in a disappointing situation and children's emotional reactivity: Relations with social competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 306-324.

McIntosh, M. L. (2019). Compound Fractures: Healing the Intersectionality of Racism, Classism and Trauma in Schools with a Trauma-Informed Approach as Part of a Social Justice Framework. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 3(1), n1.

McNally, P., Irvine, M., Taggart, L., Shevlin, M., & Keesler, J. (2022). Exploring the knowledge base of trauma and trauma informed care of staff working in community residential accommodation for adults with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 35(5), 1162-1173.

McNamara, J., Vervaeke, S. L., & Willoughby, T. (2008). Learning disabilities and risk-taking behavior in adolescents: A comparison of those with and without comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of learning disabilities, 41(6), 561-574.

McNamara, J. K., Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & YLC‐CURA. (2005). Psychosocial status of adolescents with learning disabilities with and without comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 234-244.

McNamara, J., Vervaeke, S. L., & Willoughby, T. (2018). Learning disabilities and risk-taking behavior in adolescents: A comparison of those with and without comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of learning disabilities, 41(6), 561-574.

Milligan, K., Phillips, M., & Morgan, A. S. (2016). Tailoring social competence interventions for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 856-869.

Monopoli, W. J. & Kingston, S. (2012). The relationships among language ability, emotion regulation and social competence in second-grade students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36(5), 398-405.

Moura, O., Simões, M. R., & Pereira, M. (2015). Working memory in Portuguese children with developmental dyslexia. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 4(4), 237-248.

O'Leary, L., Cooper, S. A., & Hughes‐McCormack, L. (2018). Early death and causes of death of people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(3), 325-342.

Oliver, M.  (1990). The social construction of the disability problem. The Politics of Disablement. London: Mcmillan, 78-94.‏

Payne, M. (2005). Current issues in social work theory.‏ Campus, (2), 27-38.

Pestka, K. & Wendt, S. (2014). Belonging: women living with intellectual disabilities and experiences of domestic violence. Disability & Society, 29(7), 1031-1045.

Peters, L. & Ansari, D. (2019). Are specific learning disorders truly specific, and are they disorders? Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 17, 100115.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International journal of educational research, 31(6), 459-470.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 544.

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational psychology review, 16, 385-407.

Pintrich, P. R. & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 249-284). Academic Press.

Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2005). Assessing academic self-regulated learning. What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development, 251-270.

Reiter, S., Bryen, D. N., & Shachar, I. (2007). Adolescents with intellectual disabilities as victims of abuse. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 11(4): 371–387.

Rosenfeld, Y. (2017). Learning from Success: From Exclusion to Reciprocity. Resling [Hebrew].

Rouet, J. F. & Eme, E. (2002). The role of metatextual knowledge in text comprehension: Issues in development and individual differences. In P. Chambres, M. Izaute, & P.-J. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, Function and Use (pp. 121-133). New York: Springer.

Sahoo, M. K., Biswas, H., & Padhy, S. K. (2015). Psychological co-morbidity in children with specific learning disorders. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 4(1), 21-25.

SAMHSA, (2014). SAMHSA’s Trauma-Informed Approach: Key Assumptions and Principles. Retrieved August 13, 2024: https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/TIA_Training_PPT-8-17.pdf.

Schore, A. N. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 22(1‐2), 201-269.

Sebanc, A. M., Kearns, K. T., Hernandez, M. D., & Galvin, K. B. (2007). Predicting having a best friend in young children: Individual characteristics and friendship features. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(1), 81-96.

Shaibe, J. & Shemer, O. (2024). The outsider within: The agentic practices of Family Group Conference coordinators in the context of families with children at risk. Child & Family Social Work, 29(2), 560-570.

Shifrer, D. (2023). US ninth graders’ math course placement at the intersection of learning disability status, race, and socioeconomic status. AERA open, 9, 23328584231186612.

Snowling, M. J., Hayiou‐Thomas, M. E., Nash, H. M., & Hulme, C. (2020). Dyslexia and developmental language disorder: Comorbid disorders with distinct effects on reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(6), 672-680.

Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological inquiry, 13(4), 249-275.

Solomon, K. & Bryant, R. A. (2002). Posttraumatic stress disorder in children, the influence of developmental factors. Clin Psychol Rev, 22, 163 - 88.

Staunæs, D. (2003). Where have all the subjects gone? Bringing together the concepts of intersectionality and subjectification. NORA: Nordic journal of women's studies, 11(2), 101-110.

Sutter, C. C. & Campbell, L. O. (2022). The role of academic self-determined reading motivation, reading self-concept, home reading environment, and student reading behavior in reading achievement among American Indian and Hispanic students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 70, 102093.

‏Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of learning disabilities. Guilford press.

Sweeney, A., Filson, B., Kennedy, A., Collinson, L., & Gillard, S. (2018). A paradigm shift: relationships in trauma-informed mental health services. BJPsych advances, 24(5), 319-333.

Tedeschi, R. G., Park, C. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (1998). The context for posttraumatic growth: Life crises, individual and social resources, and coping. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth. Positive Changes in the Aftermath of Crisis (pp. 107-132). Routledge.

Terras, M. M., Thompson, L. C., & Minnis, H. (2009). Dyslexia and psychosocial functioning: An exploratory study of the role of selfesteem and understanding. Dyslexia, 15(4), 304-327.

Thomas-Skaf, B. A. & Jenney, A. (2021). Bringing social justice into focus: “Trauma-informed” work with children with disabilities. Child Care in Practice, 27(4), 316-332.

Trentacosta, C. J. & Izard, C. E. (2007). Kindergarten children’s emotion competence as a predictor of their academic competence in first grade. Emotion, 7(1), 77.

Tricot, A., Vandenbroucke, G., & Sweller, J. (2020). Using cognitive load theory to improve text comprehension for students with dyslexia. In A. J. Martin, R. A. Sperling, & K. J. Newton (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology and students with special needs (pp. 339-362). New York: Routledge.

Tuval-Mashiach, R., Levy, D., Refaeli, T., Polak-Verdiger, N., Zeira, A., & Benbenishty, R. (2019). Between being unique and being like everyone else: The development of sense of agency in young women at risk. Children and Youth Services Review, 107, 104524.

Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Penguin.

Van Lissa, C. J., Keizer, R., Van Lier, P. A., Meeus, W. H., & Branje, S. (2019). The role of fathers’ versus mothers’ parenting in emotion-regulation development from mid–late adolescence: Disentangling between-family differences from within-family effects. Developmental psychology, 55(2), 377.

Wiener, J. & Schneider, B. H. (2002). A multisource exploration of the friendship patterns of children with and without learning disabilities. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 30, 127-141.

Wiener, J. & Tardif, C. Y. (2004). Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities: does special education placement make a difference? Learning disabilities research & practice, 19(1), 20-32.

Wodon, Q. (Ed.). (2001). Attacking extreme poverty: learning from the experience of the International Movement ATD Fourth World (Vol. 23). World Bank Publications.

Wolters, C. A., Benzon, M. B., & Arroyo-Giner, C. (2011). Assessing Strategies for the Self-Regulation of Motivation: Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston. In D. H. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 312-326). New York: Routledge.

Yazdi-Ugav, O., Zach, S., & Zeev, A. (2022). Socioemotional characteristics of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(3), 172-184.

 

Author

Gila Amitay

gilaa@bitte-keinen-spam-yvc.ac.il

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4896-7101

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gila Amitay, Department of Criminology, Yezreel Valley College, Po. Box 1930000, Yezreel Valey, Israel.