ABSTRACT
Students with language-based learning disabilities (LBLD) can face elevated socio-emotional well-being challenges in addition to literacy challenges. We examined the prevalence of risk and resilience factors among adolescents with LBLD (N = 93), ages 16-18, and the association with reading performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected at the start and end of the first fully remote academic year of COVID-19 (2020-2021). Participants completed standardized word and text reading measures, as well as self-report surveys of executive functions (EF), and socio-emotional skills associated with resilience (grit, growth mindset, self-management, self-efficacy, and social awareness) or risk (anxiety, depression, COVID-19 related PTSD, and perceived COVID-19 impact). Survey data at the start of the school year (Time 1) captured three underlying factors associated with socioemotional risk, socioemotional resilience, and regulation (i.e., EF). Path analyses revealed that students' Time 2 oral reading scores were significantly and uniquely predicted by socioemotional resilience, even when controlling for word-level reading at Time 1. Socioemotional risk, EF, and perceived COVID-19 impact were not directly related to Time 2 oral reading scores; however, students' resilience mediated the associations between risk and reading outcomes. These results demonstrate that adolescents' mental health concerns, self-regulatory ability, and socioemotional resilience were all associated with their experiences of the COVID-19-related stress. However, despite the high-risk context of the pandemic, and socio-emotional challenges faced by students with LBLD, our findings indicate that resilience directly predicts end-of-year reading outcomes and mediates the impact of socioemotional risk on achievement. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11145-022-10361-8.
ABSTRACT
Testing for COVID-19 is important for identifying, tracing, and treating COVID-19 cases as well as informing policy decisions. Evidence from other disease epidemics suggests that anticipated stigma and stereotypes are barriers to testing for disease. Anticipated stigma may undermine testing due to labeling avoidance (i.e., efforts to avoid receiving the label of a stigmatized status) and stereotypes may undermine testing by reducing perceived vulnerability to disease. Given the importance of scaling up COVID-19 testing, the current study explored the potential roles of anticipated stigma and stereotypes in COVID-19 testing. A cross-sectional, online survey was conducted with 845 United States adults in April 2020. Measures were adapted from previous studies of stigma associated with infectious diseases, and participants were asked about the likelihood that they would seek a COVID-19 test if one were to be ordered by their doctor. Analyses demonstrated that participants who anticipated greater COVID-19 stigma and endorsed COVID-19 stereotypes to a greater degree reported that they would be less likely to seek a COVID-19 test. Notably, endorsement of anticipated stigma and stereotypes was low, and knowledge and fear were stronger predictors of testing than stigma. Nonetheless, results provide preliminary evidence that anticipated stigma and stereotypes may represent barriers to testing in the context of COVID-19, similar to other diseases. As COVID-19 tests become more widely available, efforts may be needed to address COVID-19 stigma alongside other barriers such as access and knowledge to maximize testing efforts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
Conspiracy theories have been proliferating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that belief in conspiracy theories undermines engagement in pro-health behaviors and support for public health policies. Moreover, previous work suggests that inoculating messages from opinion leaders that expose conspiracy theories as false before people are exposed to them can help to prevent belief in new conspiracies. Goals of this study were to: (a) explore associations between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions, cooperation with public health recommendations, and support for public health policies among U.S. adults and (b) investigate trusted sources of COVID-19 information to inform strategies to address conspiracy beliefs. A cross-sectional, online survey was conducted with 845 U.S. adults in April 2020. Data were analyzed using analyses of variance and multivariable regressions. One-third (33%) of participants believed one or more conspiracies about COVID-19. Participants who believed conspiracies reported that their intentions to vaccinate were 3.9 times lower and indicated less support for COVID-19 public health policies than participants who disbelieved conspiracies. There were no differences in cooperation with public health recommendations by conspiracy belief endorsement in the multivariable regression analysis. Although there were some key differences in trusted sources of COVID-19 information, doctor(s) were the most trusted source of information about COVID-19 overall with 90% of participants trusting doctor(s). Doctor(s) may play a role in addressing COVID-19 conspiracy theories before people are exposed to them to promote COVID-19 prevention efforts.