This vew postulates that learning disability leads to school failure, which leads to a negative self-image, which in turn

results in school dropout and delinquency. This hypothesis is an extrapolation of Cohen's (1955) socioKatherine A. Larson logically based "middle-class measuring rod" explanation of delinquency, proposing that need to achieve in Current hypotheses explaining the link between learning disability and delinquency school is adopted and aspired to by all are reviewed and evaluated. Research from diversefields is integrated and an alterna- social classes. Accordingly, it is hytive hypothesis is proposed to explain the link between learning disability and delin- pothesized that youth with learning quency. The alternative hypothesis postulates that ineffective social cognitive disabilities seek out delinquent-prone problem-solving skills increase riskfor delinquency in learning disabled youth. Future peer groups to satisfy increased needs for recognition and achievement. The research is suggested. school failure hypothesis implies that elinquency is of serious concern to knowledge of why LD youth are at school suspension and dropout into contemporary society (Larson, increased risk for delinquency. Thus, crease an LD youth's opportunity for in press). Frequency and length of there is a compelling and urgent need delinquent behavior. commitment (California Youth Au- for empirical investigations examinthority, 1983) as well as cost for incar- ing potential causal links between Evaluation of the School Failure ceration of delinquents has increased learning disability and delinquency. Hypothesis. Support for the school in recent years. Moreover, adjudicated Prior to such research efforts, there failure hypothesis comes from clinical juveniles continue to be at great risk is an immediate need to synthesize observation, school records, and tests for becoming adult criminals (Cali- historical and current data and eval- of basic academic skills. These studies fornia Youth Authority, 1983). uate empirical support of existing consistently report school failure and It is quite clear, despite disparity in causal hypotheses. This paper will dropout to be a strong and persistent prevalence rates, that incidence of review and evaluate previously pro- correlate of official delinquency, learning disability in the delinquent posed hypotheses as well as interpret school misbehavior, and self-reported population is much higher than in the research that suggests an alternative delinquent behavior (e.g.. West, 1984). general population. The number of hypothesis. Further support for this hypothesis students being served in LD programs comes from research by Levin, Zigis 4.3% ofthe K-12 school population mond, and Birch (1985), who found according to 1982-1983 child count CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS that LD youth have greater rates of data (Gerber, 1984). Estimates of prev- OF THE LINK BETWEEN LD school dropout than NLD peers. alence of learning disability among AND DELINQUENCY Nevertheless, evidence from acadelinquents range from 26% (Compdemic remediation studies does not troller General of the United States, Factors such as anomie, social dis- support a direct causal relationship 1977) to 73% (Swanstrom et al., 1977). organization, poverty, and racism between academic achievement and Learning disabled (LD) youth are ad- undoubtedly increase risk for delin- delinquency in LD youth. Keilitz and judicated at about twice the rate as quency (Shoemaker, 1984). Yet data Dunivant (1986) evaluated an intennon-leaming-disabled (NLD) youth indicate that LD youth and youth with sive academic intervention program (Broder, Dunivant, Smith, & Sutton, attention deficits are at greater risk for for LD delinquents and found that 1981), and LD youth have greater re- delinquency than NLD peers when delinquency was reduced in some subcidivism and parole failure (Califor- factors of age, race, and socioecono- jects; however, changes in delinquent nia Youth Authority, 1982; Larson, mic status are held constant (Broder et behavior were not related to improve1986). al, 1981; Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986; ment in academic achievement. The Consequently, development of ef- Satterfield, Hoppe, & Schell, 1982). authors suggest that interpersonal raphave port between tutor and delinquent fective delinquency prevention and Accordingly, professionals treatment methods for learning dis- looked beyond demographic variables accounted for reduction in delinquenabled youth is critically important. In to explain the link between learning cy. Larson (1986) also found academic turn, development of effective preven- disability and delinquency. Currently, intervention unrelated to delinquent tion and treatment programs is related there are three hypotheses that at- behavior. From a population of youth

A Research Review and Alternative Hypothesis Explaining the Link Between Learning Disability and Delinquency

tempt to explain the link between learning disability and delinquency.

The School Eailure Hypothesis

Volume 21, Number 6. June/July 1988

357

from three correctional institutions, 60 youth categorized as either learning disabled, low achieving, or average achieving, were matched on demographic, neighborhood, and criminal history variables. Larson found that 23% of the learning disabled, 14% of the low achieving, and 19% of the average achieving delinquents earned a high school diploma while incarcerated. The high school diploma did not reflect level of academic achievement but it did represent the amount of academic learning time a youth had been provided while incarcerated. Yet, recidivism rates for the three groups were 52%, 42%, and 27%, respectively. Furthermore, during parole, 91% of new criminal convictions for the LD delinquents were for very serious crimes (i.e., a 2-year confinement time for the first offense) compared to 71% of the low-achieving delinquents' new convictions. Finally, research does not support a causal relationship between dropping out of school and delinquency. Elliott and Voss (1974) examined the correlation between school dropout and delinquency in 2,000 California students and found that students who dropped out of school did indeed have higher rates of delinquency than those who graduated; however, the relationship between dropout and delinquency was reversed. That is, delinquency rates for school dropouts peaked before dropping out and declined after quitting school. Evidence from this study in conjunction with the Levin et al. (1985) data suggest that poor social adjustment, including delinquency, may account for school dropout in LD youth. If this is the case, school failure would be an effect and not a cause of social misbehavior and delinquency for learning disabled youth.

to increase incidence of arrest and/or adjudication. Support for this hypothesis comes primarily from research by Broder and colleagues (Broder et al, 1981; Zimmerman, Rich, Keilitz, & Broder, 1981). Broder et al. found that LD youth were adjudicated at about twice the rate as NLD peers while both groups self-reported similar delinquent behavior. Consequently, the researchers postulated differential treatment to account for the higher incidence of adjudication in LD youth.
Evaluation of the Differential Treat-

The Differential Treatment Hypothesis

According to the differential treatment position, youth with learning disabilities and nonhandicapped peers engage in the same rate and kind of delinquent behaviors; however, police, social workers, and other officials treat LD youth differently so as
358

ment Hypothesis. There are several limitations of Broder et al. data. First, the self-report instrument and scoring in the Broder research failed to measure chronicity and seriousness of delinquent behavior. That is, Broder et al. (1981) asked LD and NLD youth to confirm if they had ever engaged in a specific delinquent act. These data showed the two groups to be similar in terms of self-reported delinquent behavior. A problem with this method is that the two groups could appear equally delinquent even though one group engaged in delinquent behavior at a much greater rate than the other group. Additionally, as is the difficulty with most self-report instruments, the item content of the scale primarily measured less serious criminal behaviors. Such instruments are less capable of differentiating populations on the basis of incarcerable delinquent behavior (e.g., Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1979), and when items are aggregated into a single global score, as was the case in Broder et al., the trivial items further outweigh the more serious items as an assessment of delinquency. Thus, the two groups were not differentiated on seriousness of delinquent behavior. Indeed, the definition of delinquency in this study was confounded because no distinction was made between status offenders and criminal offenders. Recognizing the need for measuring chronicity, Zimmerman et al. (1981) examined the same subjects by asking them to estimate how many times in their entire life they had engaged in a

specific delinquent act. Criticisms of the aforementioned Broder et al. study regarding severity apply to the Zimmerman data. Additionally, Zimmerman et al.'s self-report data are further suspect because thinking and memory problems in subjects with learning disabilities are likely to interfere with ability to make accurate estimates of lifetime-frequency behavior. Zimmerman et al. argued that the self-report instrument had adequate reliability and validity; however, reliability figures appear not to be derived from a learning disabled population. The fact that Zimmerman et al. found that LD youth reported significantly/ewer delinquent acts than NLD peers, tends to increase skepticism in the reliability of this LD self-report data. It seems unreasonable that a population of youth consistently found to be less socially effective, more impulsive, and frequently more aggressive should commit fewer delinquent acts than nonhandicapped peers. Broder et al. (1981) and Zimmerman et al. (1981) proposed the differential treatment hypothesis to explain the apparent confiict between high LD official adjudication rates and low LD self-report rates of delinquent behavior. Such disparate findings may more appropriately be explained as a function of the selfreport instrument and scoring. Other evidence suggests that LD youth behave differently from nonhandicapped peers in terms of delinquent behavior. Keilitz and Dunivant (1986), in a study of 1,900 youths, found that LD youth self-reported significantly greater rates of delinquency and violent acts than matched NLD peers. Official arrest and adjudication rates were also higher for the LD adolescents. An 11-year follow-up study of 2,700 paroled delinquents (California Youth Authority, 1982) found that characteristics associated with a learning disability, such as severe low achievement in reading and math, and reduced mental aptitude and evidence of neurological abnormality, significantly differentiated young parolees on chronicity and degree of violent behavior. Furthermore, the differential treatJournal of Learning Disabilities

ment hypothesis is contradicted by Zimmerman et al.'s (1981) own research, which found that, after adjudication, LD and NLD delinquents had equal probability of incarceration. Similarly, Keilitz and Dunivant (1986) found that youth with learning disability were no more likely than nonhandicapped peers to receive severe disposition from the court. Larson (1985) also found no significant differences between age of first confinement and duration of confinement in LD and low-achieving delinquents. Some have proposed that differential treatment takes place at the arrest phase prior to adjudication or disposition procedures (Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986). This may be the case; however, other research finds that arrest is significantly correlated with frequency and severity of delinquent behavior (e.g., Blumstein & Cohen, 1976). Thus, higher rates of arrest and adjudication for youth with learning disabilities may more directly reflect frequent and serious delinquent behavior. In support of this conclusion, Keilitz and Dunivant (1986) found a positive correlation between LD self-report, adjudication, ana arrest; this corroborates other juvenile criminology research demonstrating that self-report rates and seriousness of delinquent behavior strongly correlate with getting caught and being known by the police (e.g., Friday & Stewart, 1977). Refutation of the differential treatment hypothesis is further presented by Keilitz and Dunivant (1986), who found in a longitudinal study that LD boys were more likely than NLD peers to become delinquent as they grow older.

The Susceptihility Hypothesis

This position contends that learning disabilities are frequently accompanied by "a variety of socially troublesome personality characteristics" (Murray, 1976, p. 26). This hypothesis can be interpreted from two distinct perspectives.
Evaluation of the Susceptibility Hy-

sonality trait. Thus, observable behavior is only a refiection of "amount" of social skillfulness. Youth with learning disabilities are seen as at increased risk for delinquency because they are "low" in social skillfulness. This approach is a tautological use ofthe concept of social skill. That is, if a learning disabled youth does not become delinquent it is inferred that the youth was in possession ofa satisfactory level of social skill; simultaneously it is explained that the youth's nondelinquent behavior occurred because the youth had a satisfactory level of social skill. McFall (1982) has pointed out that an individual's "inferred level of social skill cannot be used in this way to account for the quality of the very behavior from which the skills were inferred" (p. 3). The alternative interpretation ofthe susceptibility hypothesis takes the position that negative social-personality characteristics (e.g., impulsivity, poor reception to social cues) are specific social characteristics that increase the likelihood of delinquent behavior. This perspective avoids the problems of an underlying trait concept of social skill; however, an important criticism of this hypothesis is that it fails to address the issue of what caused the inappropriate social characteristics in the first place. That is, sources other than learning disabilities produce negative social characteristics that might increase susceptibility to delinquency. Additionally, and significantly, this interpretation of the susceptibility hypothesis lacks a unified framework for explaining how a variety of socially ineffective behaviors can be accounted for by an underlying learning disability.

An Alternative Hypothesis
As reviewed, a number of professionals have speculated that learning disability contributes to increased risk for delinquent behavior, and while it seems clear that a correlational association between learning disability and delinquency has been demonstrated, data supporting a causal relationship have not been generated by research.

The school failure and differential treatment hypotheses are not supported by empirical evidence. The susceptibility hypothesis lacks empirical testing, and the concept of susceptibility appears to be too global to be systematically testable. Clearly, an alternative hypothesis is warranted to explain the link between learning disability and delinquency. One approach to developing an alternative causal hypothesis would be to identify a specific skill related to social adjustment for which evidence exists that (a) differences or deficits in the skill are empirically associated with delinquent behavior, (b) socially maladjusted LD youth are highly likely to be ineffective in the skill, and (c) the skill identified must be shown to mediate various behavioral responses across different social situations (to account for a variety of socially ineffective behaviors, any of which might be a delinquent act or related to a delinquent episode). One skill that may fulfill these requirements is social cognitive problem solving. D'Zurilla and Goldfried (1969) conceptualized problem solving as both a self-control procedure and a learning process involving cognitive strategies. Social cognitive problem-solving skills are hypothesized as general skills applicable to a variety of situations and potentially useful for increasing generalization of socially competent responses. The following three sections will review relevant problem-solving research suggesting that difficulties in social cognitive problem-solving skills are associated with social maladjustment, that they mediate social competence, and that learning disabled youth and delinquent youth are more likely to have difficulties with these skills than are nonhandicapped and nondelinquent peers.

SOCIAL COGNITIVE INEFFECTIVENESS AND SOCIAL MALADJUSTMENT

There has been considerable support for the hypothesis that ineffective social cognitive problem-solving skills
359

pothesis. One interpretation takes the position that social skill is a response predisposition or underlying perVolume 21, Number 6. June/July 1988

lead to emotional and behavioral disorders (e.g., D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1969). Individuals whose social problem-solving processes are characteristically ineffective are more likely to be viewed as maladjusted, socially incompetent, or abnormal. Spivack, Platt, and Shure (1976) found drug addict, psychiatric, and "poorly self-regulated" adolescent populations to be less effective than a comparison group of socially competent peers on cognitive social problem solving-skills such as weighing pros and cons, generating options, conceptualizing a step-by-step process to a goal, and perceiving the situation from another's perspective. Furthermore, Spivack et al. found that ineffective cognitive social problem-solving skills were consistently manifested in socially incompetent populations of all ages when IQ and verbal fiuency were held constant.

NONSOCIAL COGNITIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING DIFnCULTIES AND LEARNING DISABILITIES

It has been consistently reported that, when faced with nonsocial tasks, youth with learning disabilities frequently exhibit profound difficulties in many cognitive problem-solving functions. Learning disabled individuals are thought to fail many tasks not only because of basic knowledge deficits but also because they fail to spontaneously employ appropriate problem-solving skills (e.g., Reid & Hresko, 1981; Torgesen, 1982). Indeed, some believe that ineffective problem-solving abilities underlie learning disabilities. Difficulties in such skills include identifying relevant variables, impulse control, evaluation of possible strategies, persistence, and self-monitoring (e.g., Forness & Esveldt, 1975; Hagen, Barclay, & Newman, 1982).

cies in nonsocial tasks, and considering the frequently noted social difficulties of LD youth, it is reasonable to speculate that many LD youth will manifest ineffective cognitive problem-solving skills when facing social tasks. Indeed, investigators have pointed out that youth with learning disabilities have difficulties, compared to nonhandicapped peers, in a variety of cognitive social problem-solving skills such as interpreting the mood or communications of others (e.g., Lerner, 1981), generating and choosing quality social solutions (e.g.. Hazel, Schumaker, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1982), predicting and evaluating social consequences (e.g., Bruno, 1981; Hazel et al, 1982), interpreting situations (e.g.. Pearl & Cosden, 1982), taking the perspective of others (e.g., Bachara, 1976), and controlling impulsive behavior (e.g., Hallahan, Kauffman, & Lloyd, 1985). Schumaker and her colleagues (Hazel et al., 1982; Schumaker, Hazel, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1982) found that NLD adolescents scored significantly better on social cognitive problem solving than LD and delinquent youth, who scored similarly. Schumaker et al. did report that the LD group was heterogeneous in terms of social cognitive problemsolving ability, with some LD youth performing as well as NLD peers. Unfortunately, because the LD youth were not assessed on social adjustment, it is not possible to determine from this study how much of the variance in social adjustment was accounted for by skill in social problem solving.

inability to generate multiple and effective solutions (e.g., Larson, 1985; Freedman, Rosenthal, Donahoe, & Schludt, 1978) are three specific problem-solving difficulties historically demonstrated in delinquent populations. Researchers have documented other social cognitive problem-solving skill difficulties in delinquent youth. For example, after testing 1,173 institutionalized delinquents, using the California I-level topology (interrater reliability was .88), Jesness (1971) reported that 54% of the delinquents had difficulty in (a) understanding that behavior has something to do with getting what one wants (i.e., general orientation to plan); (b) estimating differences among others and between self and others and understanding needs, feelings, and motives of others (i.e., perspective taking); (c) planning for the future before acting (i.e., impulse control and problem formulation); and (d) predicting accurately others' responses to their own actions (i.e., predicting consequences and decision making). Schumaker et al. (1982) found both LD youth and delinquents less skilled than normal peers on the social problem-solving skills of identifying the problem, generating solutions, evaluating consequences, and selecting an adaptive solution. Larson (1985) found that nearly all social solutions generated by a randomly selected group of delinquents were ineffective as judged by independent raters using a criterion-referenced rater's manual. Additionally, self-assessment of problem-solving ability has been postulated by Ravell (1979) as an essential skill for effective problem solving. Larson (1985) found that incarcerated delinquents who were learning disabled or low achieving were unable to accurately assess or predict their competence in generating effective solutions to social problems.

SOCIAL COGNITIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING DIFFICULTIES AND DELINQUENCY

Delinquent youth, a heterogeneous population including many youth who fit clinical descriptions of learning disability (Prout, 1981), are consisSOCIAL COGNITIVE tently found to be less skillful in a PROBLEM-SOLVING variety of social cognitive problemDIFFICULTIES AND solving skills when compared to nonLEARNING DISABILITIES delinquents. Poor perspective taking Given that youth with learning dis- (e.g.. Chandler, 1973; Little, 1979), poor abilities manifest cognitive inefficien- impulse control (e.g.. White, 1965), and

MEDIATIONAL CAPACITY OF SOCIAL COGNITIVE SKILLS

As previously argued, to support a specific skill deficit as a causal factor
Journal of Learning Disabilities

360

for increasing delinquent behavior, it is necessary to demonstrate the mediational capacity of that skill on overt social behavior and ultimately on delinquent behavior. Currently, there is a paucity of research testing the mediational capacity of social problem-solving skills on overt social behavior as directly measured in samples of learning disabled or delinquent youth. Nevertheless, existing studies suggest a mediational function of social cognitive problem-solving skill on overt social behavior as measured directly. For example, Feindler, Marriott, and Iwata (1984) trained 36 acting-out adjudicated youth in selfregulation and cognitive problem solving. Daily disruptive behavior and aggressive incidents in school were significantly reduced compared to no treatment control. Snyder and White (1979) found cognitive self-instruction training, compared to contingency awareness and no treatment control, resulted in significant improvement in daily living social skills of incarcerated delinquents. Larson and Gerber (1987) found that social cognitive training significantly enhanced socially relevant overt social behavior in LD and low-achieving incarcerated youth compared to matched controls. Moreover, in this study, overt behavior changes were positively correlated with changes in cognitive problemsolving skill. Fvaluation of the Alternative Hypothesis. Evidence indicates that social cognitive problem-solving difficulties are associated with social maladjustment and specifically with delinquency. Youth with learning disabilities appear to be at greater risk than nonhandicapped peers for cognitive difficulties when faced with both social and nonsocial problems. Moreover, delinquent youth and youth with learning disabilities are found to exhibit similar difficulties with social problem-solving skills. Both groups are reported to be ineffective in skills such as perspective taking, impulse control, defining the problem, generating multiple and effective solutions, predicting consequences, and underVolume 21. Number 6, June/July 1988

standing and using relevant social cues. Lastly, and importantly, social cognitive problem-solving skills appear to mediate overt social behavior. Given this evidence, an alternative explanation ofthe link between learning disability and delinquency appears reasonable although in need of clear empirical support. Specifically, youth with learning disabilities may be at increased risk for delinquency because they are more likely to be ineffective in social cognitive problemsolving skills. It is not clear from the current research how deficits in social problem solving might increase risk for delinquent responses. One explanation is that deficiencies in social problem solving impair ability to control impulsive responses, assess social problem variables, generate effective social strategies, and regulate, through self-monitoring, on-going social interaction. Many researchers (e.g., Kolligian & Sternberg, 1987) would label deficits in these skills as a deficiency or inefficiency in metacognition. The proposal that ineffective metacognition impairs functioning in LD youth is not new. Researchers have hypothesized that academic learning difficulties of LD youth may be the result of ineffective metacognitive skills (e.g.. Baker, 1982; Loper, 1980; Wong, 1979). Several researchers (e.g.. Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Caranaugh & Perlmutter, 1982) have pointed out the difficulty of and need for clarifying the concept of metacognition. Nevertheless, recent research by Slife, Weiss, and Bell (1985) upholds the potential utility of the concept for describing learning disabled populations in terms of knowledge about and regulation of cognition.

terms of social problem solving, although application of metacognitive awareness and metacognitive control concepts to the social domain seems reasonable and useful. The awareness aspect of metacognition has been defined to include an awareness of person variables (i.e., self-appraisal of personal attributes that affect the task) and awareness of task variables (i.e., knowledge of parameters, expectations, and situation attributes that affect the task). Accordingly, metacognitive social awareness skill can be conceived as the ability to identify and differentiate relevant social cues about oneself and others as well as about the social situation in general. Delinquent youth and youth with learning disabilities appear to have difficulties with this type of social metacognition. As previously reviewed, both groups of youth have been found to be ineffective in comprehending and using relevant social variables, in being aware of another's perspective, and in accurately evaluating their own social problem-solving competence. The control aspect of metacognition has been defined to include skills that regulate efficient selection and ongoing application of effective behaviors. Accordingly, metacognitive social control skill can be defined as the ability to control impulsive responses, define the problem, generate appropriate solutions, evaluate consequences, and monitor performance. As previously reviewed, researchers have consistently found delinquent youth less effective in these kinds of social cognitive skills compared to nondelinquents.

SOCIAL METACOGNITION
Metacognitive skills have been defined as superordinate skills requiring knowledge about how to know and knowledge about one's own cognitive processing (Brown, 1975; Flavell & Wellman, 1977). Researchers such as Flavell, Wellman, and Brown have only alluded to metacognitive skills in

CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH TESTING THE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS

Research is needed to systematically define and specify social metaawareness and social meta-control skills. Thus far, there has been almost no effort to specifically identify and describe social knowledge and skill that fulfills the meta-awareness function. In a social situation this would
361

include knowledge of variables about self, about others, about social norms, or about the social environment. Research examining this hypothesis will have to determine if there are social variables consistently relevant to a variety of social situations and if knowledge of these variables enhances general social performance. Preliminary evidence (Larson, 1983) indicates that there may be some social variables that socially competent adolescents perceive as significant for solving a variety of social problems. Larson asked "socially competent" high school students and matched incarcerated delinquents to name factors (i.e., about themselves, about others, and about the situation in general) they felt were important to find out about or know about when trying to solve a social problem. There were statistically significant qualitative as well as quantitative differences between delinquent and socially competent adolescent responses regarding situational, self, and other variables identified as important to social problem solving. Not only will it be necessary to describe social meta-awareness variables; it will also be essential to understand how social meta-awareness skills interact with social meta-control skills. That is, effective problem solving has been hypothesized (Hagen et al., 1982) as based upon a state of acquired knowledge (i.e., awareness) as well as a process of using that knowledge (i.e., control). Accordingly, it may be that skill in both metaawareness and meta-control functions is necessary for effective social functioning because of the possible reciprocal nature of these knowledge areas. In this regard, while working with LD delinquents, Larson found that meta-awareness of a social variable was insufficient for enhancing the meta-control skill of solution generation. The delinquents simply did not know how to "use" the awareness knowledge. For example, "emotional level" was one variable taught as important to recognize and interpret when facing a social problem situation. In previous research this variable had been identified by socially compe362

tent adolescents as important for solving social problems. Delinquents with learning disabilities learned to spontaneously recall this as an important problem-solving variable. However, during simulation problem-solving experiences, determination of emotional level as "high" or "low" had no differential affect on cognitive control skills in terms of what delinquents suggested the solution or strategy should be. Delinquents also failed to modify their solutions on the basis of meta-awareness of other variables such as confidence level, expertise, number of people involved, relationship to the other, and so forth. Finding that delinquents had difficulty in using meta-awareness knowledge suggests that researchers need to examine whether delinquent youth and learning disabled youth are merely unaware of relevant social meta-variables or whether they are unable to use the knowledge that awareness of the variable brings in regulating solution generation. Other lines of research must provide a more direct test of the hypothesis that social metacognitive ineffectiveness increases risk for delinquency in LD youth. Studies are needed to demonstrate that social metacognitive training enhances overt social behavior in delinquent and LD youth. In these studies it will be important to document that enhancement of social behavior is positively correlated with changes in metacognitive skills. Evidence suggests that cognitive training needs to train both metaawareness and meta-control skills as well as how to use these skills in a reciprocal way. Previous social problem-solving studies have failed to train meta-awareness skills; instead training has focused exclusively upon meta-control skills. Yet training effects have been weak for changing overt social behavior or enhancing social behavior in novel contexts. Larson and Gerber (1987) trained both metaawareness and meta-control skills and found significant positive behavior changes. Demonstrating the mediational capacity of social metacognition in training studies is insufficient, how-

ever, for concluding that social metacognitive ineffectiveness increases risk for delinquency. That is, causal infiuences cannot be inferred solely from successful treatment. In order to fully support the proposed hypothesis, data will be needed that demonstrate that delinquents actually manifest inefficiencies in social metacognition compared to nondelinquents and that socially maladjusted and adjusted youth with learning disabilities differ on social metacognitive problem-solving abilities. Lastly, there is a need to examine the relationship of specific social metacognitive skills to overt behavior. For example, a components analysis study assessing and comparing the potential effectiveness of training impulse control skills, meta-awareness skills, and meta-control skills would help to elucidate the relative importance of these specific cognitive skills to delinquent behavior. This paper has attempted to integrate existing research data for the purpose of developing a plausible causal hypothesis elucidating a functional relationship between learning disability and delinquency. Testing relationships within the hypothesis will require extensive and systematic research. It is hoped that issues and research questions discussed in this paper will encourage future research efforts addressing this important issue in contemporary society.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Melvyn Semmel. Michael Gerber. and Joan Lieber for their comments on a draft of this paper. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Katherine A. Larson is a researcher in the Special Education Research Laboratories, Graduate School of Education at the University of California. Santa Barbara. Current research interests include delinquency prevention, social skill training for behaviorally disordered adolescents, and dropout prevention for inner city youth. Dr. Larson is currently principle investigatorfor PROJECT SELE-START testing the efficacy ofsocial problem-solving training for enhancing parole adjustment in LD delinquents. Dr. Larson is also principal investigator for PROJECT MAIN STREET a 3-year intervention program aimed at reducing inappropriate referral to special education or school dropout in high-risk Journal of Learning Disabilities

young adolescents. Address: Katherine A. Larson. University of California, Graduate School of Education. Special Education Program. Santa Barbara, CA 93106.

monitoring. American Psychologist, 34. 906911. Elavell. J.H.. & Wellman, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail & J.W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. REEERENCES Eorness, S.. & Esveldt. K. (1975). Classroom obserBachara. G.H. (1976). Empathy in learning disvation of children with learning and behavior abled children. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 43, problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 541-542. 382-385. Baker. L. (1982). An evaluation of the role of Ereedman. B.J.. Rosenthal, L. Donahoe. CP., metacognitive deficits in learning disabilities. Schludt. D.G.. & McEall, R.M. (1978). A socioTopics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2 behavioral analysis of skill deficits in delinquent (1), 27-35. and nondelinquent adolescent boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46. 1448Blumstein. A.. & Cohen. A. W. (1976). Estimation of 1462. individual crime ratesfrom arrest records. A Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70, 561Eriday P.C, & Stewart. V.L. (Eds.). (1977). Youth, 585. crime andjuvenile justice: International perspectives. New York: Praeger. Broder, P.K.. Dunivant. N. Smith. EC. & Sutton. P.L. (1981). Eurther observations on the link beGerber. M.M. (1984). The department of education's tween learning disabilities and juvenile delinsixth annual report to congress on P.L 94-142: Is quency. Journat of Educational Psychology. 73. congress getting a full story? Exceptional Chil838-850. dren. 51(3), 209-224. Brown. A.L (1975). The development of memory in Hagen, J W., Barclay. CR. & Newman. R.S. (1982). knowing about knowing, and knowing how to Metacognition, self-knowledge, and learning disknow. In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child abilities: Some thoughts on knowing and doing. development and behavior (Vol. 10. pp. 103-152). Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities. 2, New York: Academic Press. 19-26. Brown, A.L. Bransford, J.D.. Eerrara. ILA.. & Cam- Hallahan, D.P.. Kauffman, J.M., & Lloyd J.W. pione, J.C (1983). Learning, remembering, and (1985). Introduction to learning disabilities (2nd understanding. In J.H. Elavell & E.M. Markman ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.). Hazel. J.S, Schumaker, J.B.. Sherman. JA.. & Cognitive development (Vol. 3. pp. 420-494). New Sheldon, J. (1982). Application ofa group training York: Wiley. program in social skills and problem solving to learning disabled and non-leaming disabled Bruno. R.M. (1981). Interpretation of pictorially preyouth. Learning Disability Quarterly. 5. 398sented social strategies in learning disabled and 408. normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 14. 350-352. Hindelang. MJ.. Hirschi. T, & Weis, J.G. (1979). California Youth Authority. (1982). Early idenCorrelates of delinquency: The illusion of distification ofthe chronic offender (Tech. Rep.). Saccrepancy between self-report and official mearamento: Author. sures. American Sociological Review, 44(6). 995-1014. California Youth Authority. (1983). Annual report: Program description and statistical summary Jesness. CE. (1971). The Preston typology study. An (Tech. Rep.). Sacramento: Author. experiment with differential treatment in an Caranaugh. J.C, & Perlmutter. M. (1982). Metainstitution. Journal of Research in Crime and memory: A critical examination. Child DevelopDelinquency. 8. 38-52. ment, 53. 11-28. Keilitz. I. & Dunivant. N (1986). The relationship Chandler. M. (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial between learning disability and juvenile delinbehavior: Assessment and training of social perquency: Current state of knowledge. Remedial spective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology. and Special Education, 7(3), 18-26. 9. 326-332. KoUigian, J.. & Sternberg. RJ. (1987). Intelligence, Cohen. A.K. (1955). Delinquent boys. New York: information processing, and specific learning disEree Press. abilities: A triarchic synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 20(1). 8-17. Comptroller General of the United States. (1977). Learning disabilities: The link to delinquency Larson, KA. (1983). Proximity matrix analysis of should be determined. Washington. DC: General social metacognition in delinquent and nonAccounting Office. delinquent adolescents. Paper presented at D'Zurilla. TJ.. & Goldfried. M.R. (1969). A beCANHC-ACLD State Conference, Oakland. havioral-analytic model for assessing compeCA. tence. In CD. Spielberger (Ed.). Current topics in Larson. KA. (1985). Effectiveness of metacognitive clinical and community psychology (Vol. I, pp. training for social adjustment in learning dis21-40). New York: Academic Press. abled and non-learning-disabled delinquents. Dissertation Abstracts International. 46(04). Elliott, D.S., & Voss. H.L (1974). Delinquency and 948-A. dropout. Lexington. MA: D.C. Heath. Eeindler, E.. Marriott. SA., & Iwata, M. (1984). Larson. KA. (1986). Success on parole: A comGroup anger control training for junior high parison study ofLD and low-achieving youthful school delinquents. Cognitive Therapy & Reoffenders. Paper presented at American Educasearch. 8(3), 299-311. tional Research Association National Conference. San Erancisco. Elavell. J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive Volume 21, Number 6, June/July 1988

Larson, KA. (in press). Special education: Delinquent and adjudicated youth. International encyclopedia of education research and studies supplement (Vol 1). Oxford. England: Pergamon Books. Larson. KA., & Gerber, M.M. (1987). Effects of social metacognitive training for enhancing overt behavior in learning disabled and low-achieving delinquents. Exceptional Children, 54(3), 201211. Lerner. J.W. (1981). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (3rd ed.). Dallas: Houghton Miffiin. Levin, ., Zigmond N, & Birch. J (1985). A followup study of 52 learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 18(1), 2-7. Little, V.L (1979). The relationship of role-taking ability to self control in institutionalized juvenile offenders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 2292B. Loper. A.B. (1980). Metacognitive development implications for cognitive training. Exceptional Education Quarterly. 1(1), 1-8. McEall. R.M. (1982). A review and reformation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 4. 1-33. Murray. CA. (1976). The link between leamingdisabilities and juvenile delinquency: Current theory and knowledge. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pearl. R.. & Cosden, M. (1982). Sizing up a situation: LD children's understanding of social interactions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5. 371373. Prout. J. (1981). The incidence of suspected exceptional educational needs among youth in juvenile correctional facilities. Journal of Correctional Education, 32. 22-34. Reid D.K. & Hresko. W.P. (1981). A cognitive approach to ieaming disabilities. New York: McGraw-Hill Satterfield. J.H. Hoppe. CM.. & Scheil, A.M. (1982). A prospective study of delinquency in 110 adolescent boys with attention deficit disorders and 88 normal boys. American Journal of Psychiatry. 6. 795-798 Schumaker. J.B.. Hazel, J.S.. Sherman, JA.. & Sheldon. J. (1982). Social skill performance of learning disabled, non-leaming disabled, and delinquent adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly. 5, 388-397. Shoemaker. D.J.. (1984). Theories of delinquency. New York: Oxford University Press. Slife. B.D.. Weiss, J. & Bell, T. (1985). Separability of metacognition and cognition: Problem solving in learning disabled and regular students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 77(4). 437-445. Snyder, J. & White, M. (1979). The use of cognitive self-instruction in the treatment of behaviorally disturbed adolescents. Behavior Therapy. 10,227235. Spivack. G. Platt, J, & Shure. N.B. (1976). The problem-solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Swanstrom, W.. Randle. C, Livingston. V, Macrqfic. K, Canfield M.. AAmold S. (1977). Blue Earth/Nicollet Counties prevalent study. Unpub-

(continued on p. 369)
363

Raskind, M.H. (1983). Non-verbal communication Sandberg, S.T., Rutter. A/., * Taylor. E. (1978). signals in behavior-disordered and non-disorHyperkinetic disorder in psychiatric clinic attendered learning disabled boys and non-learning ders. Developmental Medicine and Child Neuroldisabled boys. Learning Disability Quarterly, ogy, 20. 279-299. 6(1). 12-19. Schachar. R.. Rutter. M.. & Smith, A. (1981). The Rutter. Af., Tizard. J.. & Whitmore. K. (1970). characteristics of situationally and pervasively Education, health and behavior. London. Enghyperactive children: Implications for syndrome land: Longman. definition. Journal of Child Psychology and PsySaloner. M.. & Gettinger. M. (1975). Sociat inference chiatry. 22. 375-392. skills in learning disabled and non-disabled Siperstein, G.N. Bopp. MJ. & Bak, J.J (1977). The children. Psychology in the Schools, 22(2). 201social status of learning disabled children. Cam207. bridge. MA: Research Institute of Educational

Problems. Taylor. W.L (1953). Cloze procedure: A newtoolfor measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly. 30. 415-433. Thompson. M. (1978. October). Stress reaction to dyslexia. Paper presented at International Conference on the Child Under Stress. Monte Carlo. Monaco. Wender. P.H. (1971). Minimal brain dysfunction in children. New York: Wiley.

Continued from p. 363

lished manuscript. Rochester, MN: Correctional Learning Disabilities Research Project Torgesen. J.K. (1982). The leamingdisabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in learning and Learning Disabilities. 2, 41-45. West. W.G.(1984). Young offenders and the state: A Canadian perspective in delinquency. Toronto: Butterworths Press. White. SH. (1965). Evidence for a hierarchical arrangement of learning processes. In L Lisett & C. Spiber (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Wong, B.L. (1979). The role of theory in learningdisabilities research: Part II A selective review of current theories of learning and reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(10). 15-24 Zimmerman, J, Rich. W.D.. Keilitz. /., & Broder. P.K. (1981). Some observations on the link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice. 9, 1-17.

(of

How your students ^ can learn to control their own behavior!

Proven successful in research, classroom and home environmenfs. Reduces disrupfive and sfressful behavior. Improves academic achievement, self-esfeem, physical healfh and concenfration abilify. Endorsed by fhe Pennsylania School Counselors Associafion. Based upon nationally esfablished goals for educafion.

inciuded:
3 0 Minute Video Tape 120 Minutes of Audio instruction Compiete instructor's Manual Access to individuai Training Programs and Consulting Services.

P U Order now and LS

receive FREE wifh your order an Adult Relaxaflon fape with complefe program overview. A $12.95 value.

UmM^^

[80

P Residents A

^ F a d d 6 Tx % a

plus Shipping and Handling.

inner spaces^

NTM

RO. Box 81267, Pittsburgh, P 15217 (800) 835-2246 (ext. 404) A 1988, Nancy Mromor M.Ed., Licensed Psychologist

Volume 21, Number 6, June/July 1988

369