خلاصة:
The study deals with the effect of perceived social support on personal and social adjustment of orthopedically and visually handicapped students. The statistical population was 180 girls and192 boys high -school students، out of which the sample size of 372 were 5andomaly selected (182orthopaedically &190 visually handicapped).
Two standard questionnaires is namely Sarason et.al on social support، and California test of personality Thorp et.al on adjustment (personal & social) were used. A two- by- two factorial design was used. The ANOVA results showed a significant difference between orthopedically and visually handicapped. Regarding handicapped students personal and social adjustment، high and low perceived social support was indicated. The results have also been discussed in light of other investigations.
ملخص الجهاز:
"In the present study the reliability coefficients for measures of California test of personality (CTP) as well as perceived social support, were computed on 372 orthopeadically and visually handicapped student using Kuder-Richardson formula 20.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In accordance with the factorial design employed in the study, the main effects of two independent variables that is types of handicap and perceived social support and their interactional effects (of the second order) on the criterion variable of adjustment have been analyzed by using a two way (2x2) ANOVA.
79 - Table 3 The t-ratio for the difference between means of Type of Handicap and Perceived Social Support in respect of Personal adjustment (PA) Variable Group Mean SD t-ratio Personal Adjustment (PA) OH 51 8.
30 - Total 201 - - Table 5 The t-ratio for the difference between means of Type of Handicap and Perceived Social Support in respect of Personal adjustment (PA) Variable Group Mean SD t-ratio Social Adjustment (SA) OH 49.
01 level of confidence The relevant portion of the main effect due to type Handicap (OH and VH) on the criterion variable of personal adjustment drawn from the table of summary of ANOVA(Table 2) along with the result pertaining to comparisons of means (Table 3) show that F-value equal to 6.
Results supported by findings of Morrow (1981); Schmaling (1984); Rounds (1986); Sarason, Sarason and Shearin (1986); Ishi-Kuntz (1987); Shisana and Calentano (1987); Richter (1987); Varni, Katz, Colegrore and Dolgin (1994); Jou and Fokada (1994); Kashani, Canfield, Burduin, Soltys and Reid (1994); Zandt, Pearl, Sally and Wang (1994); Furukawa et al."