4.4 Article

Self-concept of children with cerebral palsy measured using the population-specific myTREEHOUSE Self-Concept Assessment

Journal

RESEARCH IN DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Volume 73, Issue -, Pages 96-105

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.12.001

Keywords

Cerebral palsy; Children; Self-concept; Assessment; Cognitive function; Social skills; Learning

Funding

  1. Australian Catholic University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Self-concept is an individual's perception of him/herself. Research into the self-concept of children with cerebral palsy (CP) has been sparse due to the lack of a population-specific self-concept instrument. Using the new myTREEHOUSE Self-Concept Assessment, this study investigated the self-concept of children with CP in relation to age, gender, motor, communication and cognitive function. Children with CP aged 8-12 years (n = 50; 29 males; mean 10 years 2 months; GMFCS-E&R I = 36, II = 8, III = 5, IV = 1) completed myTREEHOUSE and a standardised intelligence measure. Most children reported positive self-concept from all three myTREEHOUSE Performance Perspectives and over half (60%) fell within the Low range for the Personal Concern Score. Self-concept was not associated with age, gender, motor function, or communication function. However, for cognitive function, associations were observed for Social Skills (Below Average > Average cognitive function; Cohen's d = 1.07) and Learning Skills (Above Average > Average cognitive function; Cohen's d = 0.95) domains when rated from a Personal Performance Perspective. As the first study of the self-concept of children with CP using a CP-specific assessment, this study offers important insights into what children with CP think about themselves. Generally, the self-concept of children with CP was sound. Future research on environmental facilitators and barriers to robust self-concept development is recommended.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available