2018
DOI: 10.1177/0011000018794919
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development and Evaluation of the Individuals With Learning Disabilities and/or Difficulties Perceived Discrimination Scale

Abstract: The present two studies describe the development and psychometric evaluation of the Learning Disability/Difficulty Perceived Discrimination Scale used to assess the self-reported discrimination experiences of people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. In Study 1 (N = 202) an exploratory factor analysis yielded two factors, Inferior and Cheating the System. In Study 2 (N = 216) a confirmatory factor analysis supported the stability of this two-factor correlated model and a bifactor model. Across stu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
(116 reference statements)
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…LPA revealed four distinct profiles based on participants' experiences of oppression across axes of gender and neurodiversity. While the results parallel and reconfirm prior research exploring minority stress among individuals who are TGD (Testa et al, 2015) or ND (Geiger & Brewster, 2018), they also offer a more dynamic understanding of how multiple forms of oppression (i.e., cisgenderism and ableism) converge to shape experience within the larger population of TGD college students who are neurodiverse. For example, the profile patterns suggest that differences occur within the sample in overall levels of stress (i.e., low stress [Profile 1]; high stress [Profile 3]), as well as in the types of stress that some individuals have greater exposure to, such as individuals whose experiences were marked by greater levels of genderrelated rejection compared to other forms of stress (high genderrelated rejection [Profile 2]), and those who reported particularly higher levels of stigma consciousness compared to other forms of stress (high stigma consciousness [Profile 4]).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…LPA revealed four distinct profiles based on participants' experiences of oppression across axes of gender and neurodiversity. While the results parallel and reconfirm prior research exploring minority stress among individuals who are TGD (Testa et al, 2015) or ND (Geiger & Brewster, 2018), they also offer a more dynamic understanding of how multiple forms of oppression (i.e., cisgenderism and ableism) converge to shape experience within the larger population of TGD college students who are neurodiverse. For example, the profile patterns suggest that differences occur within the sample in overall levels of stress (i.e., low stress [Profile 1]; high stress [Profile 3]), as well as in the types of stress that some individuals have greater exposure to, such as individuals whose experiences were marked by greater levels of genderrelated rejection compared to other forms of stress (high genderrelated rejection [Profile 2]), and those who reported particularly higher levels of stigma consciousness compared to other forms of stress (high stigma consciousness [Profile 4]).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…A sample item on the modified version is “People have talked down to me because I have a learning disability and/or neurodevelopmental disorder.” Items are rated on a 6-point scale, from 1 = this has never happened to me to 6 = this has happened to me almost all of the time (more than 70% of the time) . The scale demonstrated convergent and concurrent validity via observed associations with awareness of stigmatization and collective self-esteem in a sample of adults with learning disabilities or ADHD (Geiger & Brewster, 2018). The original LDDPDS scale showed good internal reliability, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of.92 in a sample of adults with learning disabilities (Geiger & Brewster, 2018).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations