Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role of disability self-concept in adaptation to congenital or acquired disability.

Bogart, Kathleen R.·2014·Rehabilitation Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0035800
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Current theories of adaptation to disability do not address differences in adaptation to congenital or acquired disability. Although people with congenital disabilities are generally assumed to be better adapted than people with acquired disabilities, few studies have tested this, and even fewer have attempted to explain the mechanisms behind these differences. This study tested the proposition that whether a disability is congenital or acquired plays an important role in the development of the disability self-concept (consisting of disability identity and disability self-efficacy), which in turn, affects satisfaction with life. It was predicted that disability self-concept would be better developed among people with congenital, compared with acquired disabilities, predicting greater satisfaction with life in those with acquired conditions. RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: 226 participants with congenital and acquired mobility disabilities completed a cross-sectional online questionnaire measuring satisfaction with life, self-esteem, disability identity, disability self-efficacy, and demographic information. RESULTS: Self-esteem, disability identity, disability self-efficacy, and income were significant predictors of satisfaction with life. Congenital onset predicted higher satisfaction with life; disability identity and disability self-efficacy, but not self-esteem, partially mediated the relationship. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Findings highlight the distinction between adaptation to congenital versus acquired disability and the importance of disability self-concept, which are underresearched constructs. Results suggest that rather than attempting to "normalize" individuals with disabilities, health care professionals should foster their disability self-concept. Possible ways to improve disability self-concept are discussed, such as involvement in the disability community and disability pride.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0035800

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Bogart, K. R.
Venue
Rehabilitation Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2014-02
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
107-115
ISSN
  • 0090-5550 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1544
DOI
10.1037/a0035800
OpenAlex
W1988205351
Cited by
278
References
44
FWCI
36.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.