Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Katja Natale
Kaisa Aunola
Jari-Erik Nurmi
Anna-Maija Poikkeus
Paula Lyytinen
Heikki Lyytinen
University of Jyvskyl, Finland
The present study analyzed data from the Jyvskyl Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia to investigate the factors to which
mothers of children with and without familial risk for dyslexia attribute the causes of their first-grade childrens reading
achievement. Mothers causal attributions were assessed three times during their childrens first school year. Childrens verbal intelligence was assessed at 5 years and their word and nonword reading skills at 6.5 years. The results showed that the
higher the word reading skills the children had, the more their mothers attributed their success to ability than to effort.
However, if children had familial risk for dyslexia, their mothers attribution of success to ability decreased during the first
grade as compared with the ability attributions of mothers whose children were in the control group.
Keywords:
mothers causal attributions; reading performance; dyslexia; first grade of primary school
espite the considerable literature on childrens reading skills and problems in reading, surprisingly little
is known about what parents think about their childrens
early reading development and how such parental conceptions change after childrens school entry. One framework within which to examine parents conceptions and
the ways in which parents explain and evaluate their
childrens academic performance is the causal attribution
theory (Weiner, 1985, 1986, 1992). According to this
view, parents spontaneously form causal attributions to
explain their childrens behavior. Such causal attributions have been shown to be closely linked to childrens
level of performance (Cashmore & Goodnow, 1986;
Dunton, McDevitt, & Hess, 1988; Holloway & Hess,
1985; Natale, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2005; Yee & Eccles,
1988), and they may also play an important role in what
parents think about their children in general (Johnston,
Reynolds, Freeman, & Geller, 1998). Although some
research has been carried out on parents causal attributions concerning their children, few studies have examined to what factors mothers of children with learning
disabilities attribute their childrens successes and failures
274
275
Aims
The present study examined the following research
questions:
Research Question 1: To what factors do mothers of
children with and without familial risk for dyslexia
attribute their childrens successes and failures in
early reading performance?
Research Question 2: Do mothers causal attributions
concerning their childrens successes and failures
in reading change during the childrens first year of
primary school, and are these changes similar among
mothers of children with and without familial risk
for dyslexia?
Research Question 3: Do childrens word and nonword
reading, verbal intelligence, gender, and mothers
educational level contribute to mothers causal attributions and changes in them during the childrens
276
Method
Participants and Procedure
The present study is a part of the Jyvskyl Longitudinal
Study of Dyslexia (JLD) in which 204 Finnish children
and their families have been followed from birth to the
third grade. The analyses of the present study involved a
total of 189 children (85 girls and 104 boys) whose
mothers answered the questions concerning their causal
attributions. Approximately half of the participating
children (n = 100, 48 girls and 52 boys) had familial risk
for dyslexia, and the rest (n = 89, 37 girls and 52 boys)
belonged to the control group.
The total sample of the JLD study consists of 204
children born in the Central Finland region from 1993
through 1996, of whom 107 had a dyslexic parent who
also had a close dyslexic relative and 97 belonged to the
matched control group. The participants (including both
the at-risk and control group families) were selected in a
three-stage process from families visiting maternity clinics between 1993 and 1996 in the province of Central
Finland. First, a short questionnaire that contained three
questions concerning difficulties in learning to read and
spell during the early school years among themselves and
close relatives was administered to more than 9,000
parents. Second, a detailed questionnaire concerning the
occurrence of reading and writing difficulties during
childhood was sent to approximately 5,400 parents who
had given their consent to further investigations. Third,
parents who fulfilled the inclusion criteria in the first two
stages were invited for an interview and for assessment of
their reading and writing skills to confirm their present
status of dyslexia. To be selected for the dyslexic sample,
the participants had to obtain z scores (in relation to the
normative sample) of 1.0 or less in several readingrelated tasks and diagnostic measures (phonological
decoding, orthographic processes, oral text reading, and
spelling) that were used to identify participants with
dyslexia. In the present study, half of the mothers of the atrisk children (n = 55) were identified as having reading
and spelling problems, whereas among the other half of
the children (n = 47) it was the father who had reading difficulties. In 2 families, both mother and father had reading
difficulties. A control group of children whose parents did
not show signs of dyslexia was also selected. More details
about the characteristics of the sample were described by
Lyytinen et al. (2001, 2004) and Leinonen et al. (2001).
Measurements
Mothers Measures
Causal attributions. Mothers filled in a questionnaire
measuring their causal attributions concerning their
childrens success and failure at school on three occasions
during the childrens first year of primary school (August,
November, and May). Mothers causal attributions were
measured by a questionnaire consisting of four statements that were based on items used in previous studies
(e.g., Ames & Archer, 1987; Parsons, 1980). Two of the
four statements assessed mothers causal attributions concerning their childrens success in reading (e.g., If my
child does well in assignments related to reading, it is
probably because . . . and If my child is progressing
well in acquiring fluent reading skills, it is probably
because . . . ), and two assessed mothers causal attributions concerning their childrens failure in reading
(e.g., If my child does not do well in some assignments
related to reading, it is probably because . . . and If
my child is progressing slowly in acquiring fluent reading
skills, it is probably because . . . ). After each statement the mothers were asked to rank order four alternatives according to their importance. The alternatives for
success at school were: 1 = the child has abilities, 2 = the
child tries hard, 3 = the teaching has been good, and 4 =
the tasks have been too easy for the child. The alternatives
for failure at school were: 1 = the child lacks the required
abilities, 2 = the child has not invested enough effort, 3 =
the teaching has not been good enough, and 4 = the tasks
have been too difficult for the child. On the basis of the
parents rank-ordered answers, one mean score was
calculated for each type of attribution, namely, ability,
effort, teaching, and task difficulty, separately for the
success and failure situations.
Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbachs alpha)
for mothers causal attributions for success across the
three measurement points were .90, .89, and .85 for ability
attribution; .78, .80, and .85 for effort attribution; .80, .81,
and .83 for teaching attribution; and .64, .82, and .76 for
task difficulty attribution. For mothers causal attributions
for failure, the internal consistency coefficients were .97,
.87, and .88 for ability attribution; .93, .89, and .87 for
effort attribution; .91, .82, and .88 for teaching attribution; and .89, .89, and .84 for task difficulty attribution.
277
compiled as part of the pan-European collaborative project (COST A8 Action Learning Disorders as a Barrier
to Human Development). The score in each task was
the number of items the child read accurately. A sum
score (ranging from 0 to 18) was formed from the word
and nonword reading tasks and used as one variable in
the present study. The mean level for word and nonword
reading was 3.22 (SD = 5.96) for the at-risk group and
5.45 (SD = 7.47) for the control group. Word and nonword reading performance was statistically significantly
lower in the at-risk group compared to control group,
F(196) = 21, p < .05. Cronbachs alpha for the sum score
was .95 (see also Lyytinen et al., 2006).
Verbal intelligence. A short form of the Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceR (WPPSI-R;
Wechsler, 1989) was administered at 5.0 years of age and
consisted of three verbal quotient subtests (vocabulary,
arithmetic, and comprehension) and three performance
quotient subtests (block design, object assembly, and picture completion). The childrens verbal and performance
IQs were estimated on the basis of these subtests according to the standard guidelines outlined in the manual.
The mean level for verbal intelligence was lower in the
at-risk group (M = 104.28, SD = 16.91) than in the control
group (M = 110.96, SD = 12.59), F(195) = 6.77, p < .01.
However, the difference between the two groups was not
statistically significant, F(194) = 0.34, p = ns (see also
Lyytinen et al., 2006).
Analysis Strategy
The research questions were analyzed using latent
growth curve modeling (LGM; Duncan et al., 1997). The
analyses were carried out in three steps. First, to investigate the extent to which mothers causal attributions
would change across time, LGMs were carried out separately for each type of causal attribution (ability, effort,
teaching, and task difficulty) in success and failure situations. In these analyses, the mean level of the causal attributions, their average growth, and individual variation
across these means were estimated. The residual variances of the observed variables were allowed to be freely
estimated. Second, to investigate the extent to which
childs dyslexia status, word and nonword reading, verbal
intelligence, and mothers level of education (Time 0)
would predict the level and changes in mothers causal
attributions, these predictors were included in the models
as covariates. Third, to investigate whether the mothers
educational level, childrens prereading skills, and gender
would predict mothers causal attributions differently
among the group with familial risk for dyslexia and among
278
Table 1
Sample Correlation Matrix Between Mothers Causal Attributions and Their Level of Education
and Childrens Status of Dyslexia, Word-Nonword Reading, and Verbal Intelligence
Success
Cause
Abilitya
Abilityb
Abilityc
Efforta
Effortb
Effortc
Teachinga
Teachingb
Teachingc
Taska
Taskb
Taskc
Failure
Educational
Level
Status of
Dyslexia
Word
Reading
Verbal
Intelligence
Gender
Educational
Level
Status of
Dyslexia
Word
Reading
Verbal
Intelligence
Gender
.19*
.21*
.19*
.01
.14
.06
.08
.15
.09
.18*
.07
.10
.06
.18*
.16*
.05
.09
.06
.04
.16
.00
.18*
.01
.19*
.33**
.50*
.50**
.14
.30**
.32**
.42**
.51**
.32**
.21*
.26**
.22**
.13
.15
.25**
.09
.07
.15
.31**
.33
.18*
.17*
.12
.05
.03
.06
.02
.01
.11
.08
.13
.13
.06
.10
.06
.01
.07
.03
.01
.06
.04
.10
.07
.15
.05
.13
.15
.01
.25**
.25**
.10
.11
.25**
.14
.00
.07
.09
.11
.02
.02
.18*
.10
.07
.11
.06
.03
.09
.03
.20*
.18*
.05
.29**
.23*
.14
.12
.04
.06
.06
.04
.03
.00
.14
.01
.09
.06
.04
.11
.13
.03
.26**
.05
.02
.10
.08
.06
.28**
a. Time 1.
b. Time 2.
c. Time 3.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Mothers Causal Attributions at Different Measurement Points
Whole Sample
Time 1
Cause
Success
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task
Failure
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task
Time 2
At-Risk Group
Time 3
Time 1
Time 2
Control Group
Time 3
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
2.94
2.87
2.89
1.37
0.93
0.86
0.83
0.67
2.92
2.86
2.87
1.42
0.95
0.83
0.91
0.72
2.98
2.74
2.94
1.42
0.91
0.88
0.85
0.73
2.91
2.86
2.89
1.48
1.01
0.92
0.84
0.73
2.76
2.88
3.02
1.45
0.94
0.86
0.89
0.79
2.83
2.85
2.95
1.54
0.96
0.89
0.90
0.86
2.99
2.88
2.91
1.25
0.83
0.79
0.81
0.58
3.09
2.83
2.72
1.37
0.93
0.82
0.91
0.64
3.17
2.65
2.93
1.28
0.86
0.85
0.79
0.58
1.88
3.01
2.85
2.36
1.11
1.01
0.95
0.93
2.07
3.14
2.63
2.25
1.08
0.94
0.86
1.04
1.86
3.17
2.64
2.41
1.01
0.88
0.91
0.99
2.09
2.91
2.87
2.30
1.20
1.04
0.95
0.98
2.24
2.98
2.66
2.25
1.12
0.97
0.82
1.11
1.99
3.08
2.71
2.37
1.02
0.96
0.91
1.00
1.63
3.13
2.85
2.41
0.94
0.95
0.94
0.87
1.86
3.34
2.60
2.27
0.99
0.87
0.91
0.94
1.71
3.28
2.57
2.46
0.98
0.80
0.90
0.98
Table 2 for the whole sample and separately for the at-risk
and control groups.
Results
Changes in Mothers Causal Attributions
First, latent growth curve models were constructed for
each causal attribution variable separately to investigate
the mean level, average change, and interindividual variation across these mean components in mothers causal
279
Table 3
Parameter Estimates (Unstandardized Forms) of Latent Growth Curve Models
for Mothers Causal Attributions (Each From Separate Analyses)
Growth Parameters
Means
Level
Cause
Success
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task
Failure
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task
Variances
Linear Trend
Level
Linear Trend
Estimate
t-Value
Estimate
t-Value
Estimate
t-Value
Estimate
t-Value
2.93
2.86
2.89
1.36
39.06
40.71
43.97
23.19
0.03
0.02
0.86
0.72
0.72
0.38
0.60
0.20
5.92
6.31
6.73
3.75
0.13
0.08
2.55
2.05
1.91
3.02
2.81
2.34
21.09
37.93
37.07
29.94
0.08
0.10
1.96
2.34
0.69
0.41
0.36
0.46
6.98
5.83
6.77
6.34
0.00a
0.00a
0.00a
0.00a
Note: t-values greater than 1.96 in magnitude indicate a parameter estimate that is significantly different from zero.
a. Fixed to 0.
in the overall level of the attributions. However, the variance in the linear trend was not significant. The result for
the effort attribution for failure showed that at the mean
level, there was an increasing trend. Furthermore, there
was also statistically significant variance in the level of
mothers effort attributions, indicating individual differences in effort attributions for failure. However, there
was no statistically significant variance in the linear
trend. The results for the ability attribution for failure
showed no changes at the mean level. Moreover, there
was statistically significant variance only in the level of
the ability attribution for failure, indicating individual
differences in the level but not in the linear trend. The
results for the task difficulty attribution for failure showed
no changes at the mean level. Moreover, there was statistically significant variance only in the level of the attribution, indicating individual differences in the level but
not in the linear trend.
280
Table 4
Statistically Significant Parameter Estimates for the Predictors of Mothers Causal
Attributions (Each From Separate Analyses)
Mothers Causal Attributions
Success
Variable
Dyslexia risk
Word reading
Educational level
Childs gender
R2
Ability
Level
Change
Failure
Effort
Level
Teaching
Level
.39***
.50***
Change
.20*
.45***
.14*
.24
.04
.15
.25
.00
Task
Level
Ability
Level
Effort
Level
.27**
.42***
.23**
.20*
.21
.05
.04
Teaching
Level
Task
Level
.22*
.19*
.30**
.19*
.07
.11
Note: The results for mothers ability attribution for success are presented in Figure 1.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
statistically significant variance. The final models contained only statistically significant paths and are presented
in Table 4.
The LGM (Figure 2 and Table 4) for ability attributions for success, 2 = 6.98, df = 7, p = .43, Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) = 1.00, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.00, showed that the linear trend of
mothers ability attributions was predicted by childrens
dyslexia risk status at Time 0: Among the control group,
mothers ability attributions for success increased during
the first year of primary school compared with the group
with familial risk for dyslexia (Figure 1). Furthermore,
the level of mothers ability attributions was predicted by
mothers educational level and childrens word and nonword reading skills: The higher the mothers educational
level and the higher the childrens word and nonword
reading skills, the more the mothers attributed their
childrens success in reading to ability.
The LGM for effort attributions for success, 2 = 6.83,
df = 4, p = .14, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06, showed that
childrens word and nonword reading skills at Time 0
predicted negatively the level of mothers effort attributions (Table 4): The higher the word and nonword reading skills the children showed, the less their mothers
attributed their success to effort.
The LGM for teaching attributions for success, 2 = 8.22,
df = 3, p = .04, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.10, showed that
childrens word and nonword reading skills at Time 0
predicted negatively the level of mothers teaching attributions (Table 4): The higher the word and nonword
reading skills the children showed, the less their mothers
attributed their success to teaching.
The LGM for task difficulty attributions for success,
2 = 2.97, df = 6, p = .81, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00,
showed that childrens dyslexia risk status predicted the
level of mothers task difficulty attributions (Table 4):
Figure 1
Change in Mothers Ability of Attributions for
Success During Their Childrens First School Year
Among the children who had the risk for dyslexia, the
mothers attributed their success more to the easiness of
the tasks than among the control group. Furthermore, the
results showed that childrens word and nonword reading
skills at Time 0 predicted the level of mothers task easiness attributions: The higher the word and nonword reading skills the children showed, the more their mothers
attributed their success to the easiness of the tasks.
Causal Attributions for Failure
Next, analogous LGMs were carried out for mothers
causal attributions for failure.
The LGM for ability attributions for failure, 2 = 5.73,
df = 4, p = .22, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05, showed first
that childrens dyslexia risk status predicted the level of
their mothers ability attribution for failure (Table 4):
The mothers of the children who had the risk for dyslexia
attributed failure in reading more to lack of ability than
did the mothers of the children in the control group.
Figure 2
Latent Growth Curve Modeling With Statistically
Significant Predictors (Standardized Estimates)
for Mothers Ability of Attribution for Success
281
Group Differences
Ability 1
Ability 2
Ability 3
Level of
Ability
Attribution
R 2 = 0.24
1
0.45
0.20*
Linear Trend
of Ability
Attribution
R 2 = 0.04
0.45***
Dyslexia
Risk Status
0.14*
Word
Reading
Mothers
Education
282
Discussion
Alongside childrens academic skills, their learning
difficulties, or even risk for them, may have an impact on
how parents interpret the causes of their childrens successes and failures at school (Bryan et al., 1982; Pearl &
Bryan, 1982; Tollison et al., 1987). The results of the
present study showed that the mothers of children with
familial risk for dyslexia attributed their childrens failure more to lack of ability and less to effort compared to
the mothers of the control group children. Furthermore,
among the mothers of children in the at-risk group, their
ability attributions for success decreased during the first
primary school year, whereas among the control group
mothers, such attributions increased. The results showed
also that the higher the word and nonword reading skills
the children showed, the more the mothers attributed
their success in reading to ability and the less they attributed it to effort.
results revealed first that the higher the word and nonword reading skills the children showed, the more the
mothers attributed their childrens success to their ability
in reading and the less to effort. These results are in line
with previous studies showing that the higher the performance children show at primary school, the more their
mothers attribute their success to internal and stable
causes, such as ability, and the less they attribute it to
internal and unstable causes, such as effort (Dunton et al.,
1988; Holloway & Hess, 1985; Natale et al., in press; Yee
& Eccles, 1988). The results of the present study also
showed that the higher the childrens word and nonword
reading skills, the less their mothers attributed their success to teaching. Similar results were found previously by
Natale et al. (2005). Overall, the results of the present
study are interesting because they show that similar attributional patterns among parents are not only predicted by
childrens math achievement (Dunton et al., 1988;
Holloway & Hess, 1985; Yee & Eccles, 1988) and general
school performance (Natale et al., 2005, in press) but also
by childrens reading performance.
The results for failure showed that the higher the word
and nonword reading skills the children showed, the less
their mothers attributed their failure in reading to poor
teaching and the more they attributed their failure to lack
of effort. This was especially true among the at-risk
group for dyslexia. These results support the findings of
previous studies showing that when children perform
well at school, their parents tend to attribute their failure
to effort (Dunton et al., 1988; Natale et al., 2005). By
doing so, mothers may encourage children to perform
better and to motivate them to try harder in the future
(Natale et al., 2005; Weiner, 1994; Yee & Eccles, 1988).
This result also suggests that these mothers are strongly
confident of their childrens abilities. Similarly, the
higher the word and nonword reading skills the children
showed, the more their mothers attributed their failure to
task difficulty. Again, if mothers perceive their children
as talented readers and the child fails in reading-related
tasks, they may conclude that the tasks are too difficult
for the child.
Interestingly, the associations found between childrens
skills and parents causal attributions were particularly
profound in the case of children with familial risk for
dyslexia. The higher the word and nonword reading skills
the children showed, the more their mothers attributed
their failure to effort and task difficulty but the less they
attributed it to poor teaching. These results suggest that
mothers of children with a familial risk for dyslexia are
particularly sensitive to the feedback concerning their
childrens reading development. The results of the present
study suggest that if at-risk children show a relatively high
283
Limitations
There are several limitations that should be considered
in any attempt to generalize the findings of the present
study. First, the present study investigated how childrens
familial risk for dyslexia is reflected in their mothers
causal attributions. None of the children in the sample
had been diagnosed as having dyslexia yet. In other words,
the familial risk for dyslexia originated in the parents
reports and was their characteristics rather than their
childrens. Thus, the results of the present study showed
only how familial risk for dyslexia is reflected in mothers
causal attributions and cannot be generalized as such to
children with learning disabilities. Second, although the
previous literature has shown that mothers spontaneously
form many different attributions to explain their childrens
cognitive abilities (Jaworski & Hubert, 1994), the present
study contained only four types of causal attributions
(i.e., ability, effort, teaching, and task difficulty). Thus, it
284
Conclusion
The present study showed that familial risk for specific
learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, has consequences
for mothers interpretation of the causes of their childrens
reading achievement during the first school year: The
mothers of the at-risk group children attributed their
childrens failure more to lack of ability and less to effort
than the mothers of the control group children. Moreover,
they showed a decreasing tendency to attribute their
childrens success in reading to ability, whereas the
mothers of the control children showed an increasing tendency toward such attributions. However, reading skill can
be learned only through practice. It is possible that
although the mothers of the at-risk group children showed
less confidence in their childrens abilities in reading, they
simultaneously try to support their childrens developing
reading skills by emphasizing the role of effort and practice in learning to read. One way to create such a positive
learning environment at home might be a parent-guided
computer-assisted training program for learning to read.
Such a program has been recently shown to have positive
results among beginning readers who are struggling with
learning to read (Hintikka, Aro, & Lyytinen, 2005).
Note
1. Because the word and nonword reading variable showed a floor
effect, this variable was also recoded as a dichotomous variable
indicating whether the child could read (score > 0) or not (score < 0),
and all the subsequent analyses were carried out using this variable.
However, all the results remained the same.
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers beliefs about the role of ability
and effort in school learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
79, 409-414.
Bryan, T., Pearl, R., Zimmerman, D., & Matthews, F. (1982).
Mothers evaluations of their learning-disabled children. Journal
of Special Education, 16, 149-159.
Bugental, D. B., & Happaney, K. (2002). Parental attributions. In
M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 3: Being
and becoming a parent (pp. 509535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cashmore, J. A., & Goodnow, J. J. (1986). Parent-child agreement
on attributional beliefs. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 9, 191-204.
Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Alpert, A., Hops, H., Stoolmiller, M., &
Muthn, B. (1997). Latent variable modelling of longitudinal and
multilevel substance use data. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
32, 275-318.
Dunton, K., McDevitt, T., & Hess, R. (1988). Origins of mothers
attributions about their daughters and sons performance in mathematics in sixth grade. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 47-70.
Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents socialization of gender
differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183-201.
Georgiou, S. N. (1999). Parental attributions as predictors of involvement and influences on child achievement. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 409-429.
Himelstein, S., Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1991). An attributional
analysis of maternal beliefs about the importance of child-rearing
practices. Child Development, 62, 301-310.
Hintikka, S., Aro, M., & Lyytinen, H. (2005). Computerized training
of the correspondences between phonological and orthographic
units. Written Language & Literacy, 8, 155-178.
Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and
the United States. Review of Educational Research, 58, 327-345.
Holloway, S. D., & Hess, R. D. (1985). Mothers and teachers attributions about childrens mathematical performance. In I. E. Siegel
(Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences
for children (pp. 177199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jaworski, T., & Hubert, N. (1994). Mothers attributions for their
childrens cognitive abilities. Infant Behavior and Development,
17, 265-275.
Johnston, C., & Freeman, W. (1997). Attributions for child behaviour
in parents of children without behaviour disorders and children
with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 65, 636-645.
Johnston, C., Reynolds, S., Freeman, W. S., & Geller, J. (1998).
Assessing parent attributions for child behaviour using open-ended
questions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 87-97.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL8: Structural equation
modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1993). How to promote social approval:
Effects of audience and outcome on publicly communicated attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 365-376.
Kinlaw, C. R., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Goldman-Fraser, J. (2001). Mothers
achievement beliefs and behaviors and their childrens school
readiness: A cultural comparison. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 22, 493-506.
Leinonen, S., Mller, K., Leppnen, P. H. T., Aro, M., Ahonen, T., &
Lyytinen, H. (2001). Heterogeneity in adult dyslexic readers:
285
Tollison, P., Palmer, D. J., & Stowe, M. L. (1987). Mothers expectations, interactions, and achievement attributions for their learning
disabled or normally achieving sons. Journal of Special Education,
21, 83-93.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
IntelligenceRevised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation
and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion.
New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation. Metaphors, theories, and
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educational Research, 64, 557-573.
Yee, D. K., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions
for childrens math achievement. Sex Roles, 19, 317-333.