Working with Children with ADHD—A Latent Profile Analysis of Teachers’ and Psychotherapists’ Attitudes

Abstract

A positive attitude of teachers and psychotherapists towards children with ADHD can both support their mutual relationship and support reducing ADHD-related symptoms. According to Fishbein and Ajzen’s rational-choice approach, attitude formation is based on a person’s expectations and the appraisal of these, thus attitude, therefore, differs individually. The present study aimed to identify different attitude profiles based on our participants’ answer patterns on the ADHD-school-expectation questionnaire’s (ASE) subscales, and to examine which attitude profile would be desirable for professionals working with children with ADHD. We conducted a latent profile analysis and investigated differences between the latent profiles. Our analysis revealed three attitude profiles characterized by negative, moderate and extreme ratings of expectations. The attitude profiles differed in further variables such as the use and effectiveness of rating classroom management strategies, knowledge of ADHD, perceived control, stress and strain, as well as some personality traits. The extreme rating profile seems to be beneficial for children with ADHD, whereas the moderate rating profile might appeal to certain professionals.

Influences on Teachers’ Intention to Apply Classroom Management Strategies for Students with ADHD: A Model Analysis

“…Furthermore, it supports the assumption that a more positive attitude towards students with ADHD strengthens the intention to apply effective CMS indirectly mediated through the behavioral attitude, which is in line with the TPB [21]. Dort et al [47] identified three different latent classes of teachers regarding their attitude towards students with ADHD. The attitude-profile class assumed to be the most helpful for students with ADHD is, surprisingly, not associated with the best attitude score.…”

A Revised Framework for the Investigation of Expectation Update Versus Maintenance in the Context of Expectation Violations: The ViolEx 2.0 Model

“…On the one hand, such expectation maintenance can be advantageous, for example, when disregarding probable noise ( Hohwy, 2017 ), avoiding or attenuating negative affect after worse-than-expected experiences ( Proulx et al, 2012 ), or protecting expectations that are relevant for values, goals, and positive beliefs that individuals hold about themselves or about the world ( Greve and Wentura, 2010 ; Pinquart and Block, 2020 ). On the other hand, the maintenance or even stabilization of expectations despite disconfirming evidence – in other words, not adjusting one’s internal model of the world to reality – can have negative consequences for oneself (e.g., psychopathology; Craske et al, 2014 ; Kube et al, 2019 , 2020 ) or others (e.g., stereotypes; Dort et al, 2020a , b ; Kotzur and Wagner, 2021 ). Given the relevance of expectations and expectation violations for understanding human perception, affect, cognition, and behavior across basic and applied psychological fields, interdisciplinary accounts of predictors and mechanisms of expectation update versus maintenance are needed.…”

Expectation violations, expectation change, and expectation persistence: The scientific landscape as revealed by bibliometric network analyses

“…As expectations are among the strongest predictors of treatment outcomes in the treatment of various medical conditions, promising interventions focus on modifying patients' dysfunctional expectations about their disorders and potential treatment effects (Craske et al, 2014;Doering et al, 2018;Rief & Glombiewski, 2016). Knowledge of the mechanisms that influence expectations' persistence versus change has also led to the development of novel intervention methods in other fields, such as correcting stereoty pes about social groups (Dort, Strelow, Schwinger, et al, 2020;Zingora et al, 2020), a topic much less represented in expectation violation research, as the present bibliometric review reveals.…”

“…For instance, individuals can harbor expectations about their own behavior and experience in a potentially demanding situation, but they also can have expectations regarding characteristics of the situation itself, or about others' reaction to one's own behavior. As such, expectations are related to a wide spectrum of anticipatory mechanisms ranging from basic perceptual and motor functions (de Lange et al, 2018;Yon et al, 2019) to highly elaborated, and sometimes stereotypical, beliefs about others (Dort, Strelow, Schwinger, et al, 2020;Kotzur & Wagner, 2021). Due to their probabilistic nature, expectations often prove inaccurate, or even entirely erroneous, in the face of disconfirming information.…”