UPPER AND LOWER LIMBS DISABILITY AND PERSONALITY TRAITS

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

slide 1:

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2016282 http://www.jamc.ayubmed.edu.pk 348 ORIGINAL ARTICLE UPPER AND LOWER LIMBS DISABILITY AND PERSONALITY TRAITS Tahira Jabeen Syeda Farhana Kazmi Atiq ur Rehman Sajjad Ahmed Department of Applied Psychology Lahore College for Women University Lahore Department of Psychology Hazara University Mansehra Department of Psychology Govt. Post Graduate College Jaranwala District Faisalabad Department of Orthopedics Ayub Medical College Abbottabad-Pakistan Background: It is believed that the study of personality has the potentials to enhance our prognostic abilities and can better to expose the etiology of mental illness through the relationship of revealed mechanisms. The focus of this study was to investigate and compare the habitual patterns of behavior thought and emotions of upper and lower limb physically disabled students in terms of personality traits. Methods: This cross sectional study consisted of 100 upper limbs and lower limbs disabled students taken from Kingston school Inclusive Education System Abottabad Mashal special education system Haripur Syed Ahmed Shaheed special education center Abottabad Al-Munir Foundation Mansehra and Hera Special Education System Haripur and 100 normal students taken from Islamic International School Abottabad Falcon Public School Haripur Iqra Academy Mansehra and Alhamd International School Haripur of Hazara Division by purposive sampling technique. This study was conducted during the month of June 2013 to May 2014. Goldberg five big personality scale was used for measuring personality traits of physically disabled and normal students. Results: The significant difference of personality traits scores between physically disabled students M 139.2 SD12.0 and normal students M184.5 SD13.2 t 198 25.3 p.05 was observed. Conclusion: Normal students have high scores as compared to physically disabled students on big five traits i.e. Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience. Keyword: Upper limb disability Lower limb disability Personality traits J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2016282:348–52 INTRODUCTION Disability is a global problem and about 500 million people in the world are suffering from disability. 1 Like normal individual they have feelings sensation thinking ability planning management. 2 In each and every society there is one in ten suffering from disability including physical disability. It is stated a helpless condition in which person deprived from the physical fitness goes behind the standard and norms of society. 3 Physically disabled people are deprived of their basic rights so they cannot meet their needs of standard survival. These people are ignored by their families by educational institutions as well as they are considered valueless as a work place. For the sake of their rights United Nation worked on rights of physically disabled people that enhanced disabled people in various settings of life. This brings a change in civil society and develops a positive sense toward physically disabled people. 4 There are various types of disabilities such as physical disability sensory disability vision impairment hearing impairment olfactory and gustatory impairment. Physical disabilities include limb disabilities such as upper and lower limb disability paraplegia quadriplegia hemiplegic cerebral palsy muscular dystrophy polio multiple sclerosis osteogensis imperfect and spinal bifida amongst others. Present research deals with upper and lower limb disability. It implies there is a problem with physical activities such as walking reaching lifting or carrying things but does not cover vision impairments or hearing impairments on their own. In this definition physical disability is taken to exclude a sensory disability that is blindness and vision impairment deafness and hearing problems unless these are present along side another disability. Larsen and Buss 5 defined personality as the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are organized and relatively enduring that influence his or her interactions adaptations to the intra-psychic physical and social environments. Personality is expressed in different situation with stability of emotional interpersonal experiential attitudinal and motivational styles. Funder 6 described personality as prototype of thought emotion and behavior. According to Larsen and Buss 5 personality traits are tools that help in describing individual and individual differences and also impede in predicting individuals behavior. Secondly they also explain an individual behavior. The personality is agent for describing predicting individual’s behavior in different situations. 7 Literally Psychological traits are structured and stable. Personality is structured and quite stable because it includes decision rules with respect of different situation 8 however the some

slide 2:

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2016282 http://www.jamc.ayubmed.edu.pk 349 situations may be critical and can overwhelming these Psychological traits. The interaction of an individual with various situations is a complex phenomenon and difficult to describe it and it includes organizing and selecting the stimulus from the situation. Personality traits are psychological in nature and state the stable characteristics of individuals which provide reasons why individuals behave in a certain way. These traits assess and determined an individual’s cognitive emotional and behavioral tendencies. The nature of the environment and personalities of people varies forms of interaction also vary hence people need to interpret a situation and go through about it and direct the ways to impact on other individuals. Sometime an individual has direct threat to their lives. Individuals are threat oriented goal directed coping and they can adjust themselves with critical situations and challenges of life by adjusting themselves with various condition of their environment this is called adaptive functioning and is the main feature of personality. They have the ability of adjusting with intra psychic social and physical environment. They can face social challenges and they do struggle for belongingness esteem and love. Larsen and Buss 5 personality can be defined by various features. These domains are dispositional cognitive experiential biological social cultural context and adjustment domains. Cognitive experiential domain concerns with conscious behavior such as emotion feelings desires and beliefs. Adjustment domain states to the competing acquiring and adjusting in daily changeable life events. Intra-psychic domain referred with mental phenomena of personality which works at an unconscious level. Domain deals with the individual differences are called dispositional domain. Some personality characteristics describe human is collections of biological coordination are called biological domain and deal with Psychophysiology of an individual personality. 9 The Five Factor Model FFM evaluates the necessary traits of personality. It has been widely used by many researchers. It provides an appropriate structure of personality with clear identification of organization to interpret personality of an individual. Like other psychological tool it’s also has importance for assessing individual. It measures individual differences on bases of five factors these factors are described as extraversion agreeableness openness conscientiousness and imagination. These five dimensions have validity and reliability with accurate assessment of personality traits and has widely used in factor analysis with standardization of various populations in various situations. 10 FFM has been applied on students and adults of many populations with diversity of culture and behaviors. Five factor model is reliable and applicable at different age level. 11 The empirical structure of FFM is also claimed to be theoretical dimensions of personality. FFM model was highly supported by many personality psychologists and used it as a valuable and authentic model of describing personality. 12 In cross cultural studies Five Factor Model attained remarkable maintenance and more chances of applicability by personality psychologists. 13 However the analysis of the study by Aziz and Jackson 14 suggested that the Five Factor Model is more forceful as compared to three factor model in the Pakistani data. Catherine and Fichten conducted a study on college students for measuring their personality characteristics. Physically disabled students showed both socially approved and undesirable personality characteristics. 15 Margaret concluded that difference existed among the personality traits of physically disabled students and normal students such as physically disabled students were less effective confused and dependent. 16 Researchers showed that number of disabled people is increasing day by day because of progressively aging individuals and by the influence of conflict that created by aggressiveness. Naturally that disabled people exist in every society in the world but most of them are found in low income countries. 17 Disabled people have reduced capability of activity due to many difficulties they encounter in life. In every society of the world persons with disabilities continue to face obstacles in both social and economic barriers. They are prevented from exercising their rights and freedom and this makes it difficult for them to participate fully in society. 18 Researchers concluded from their investigation that disabled children have interpersonal incompetency poor self-identity and low confidence and poor decision making abilities. They often suffer from anxiety and shifting identity. 19 MATERIAL AND METHODS A cross sectional survey research design has been used to collect the information from physically disabled students and normal students half male and half female having the age range of 13–25 years. The education level of the participants was middle to intermediate. The sample of study consisted of 100 upper limbs and lower limbs disable students and 100 normal students taken from the different special education centers and public schools of Hazara

slide 3:

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2016282 http://www.jamc.ayubmed.edu.pk 350 Division by purposive sampling technique. The sample on the basis of gender age institutions and education was equally distributed as normal students compared to physically disabled students. In disabled categories half of the sample consisted of upper limb disability and half of the disabled sample consisted of lower limb disability. The names of the institutions where from the physically disabled students were the part of the sample was Kingston school Inclusive Education System Abottabad Mashal special education system Haripur Syed Ahmed Shaheed special education center Abottabad Al-Munir Foundation Mansehra Hera Special Education System Haripur. The name of the public school where from the normal students were the part of the sample were Islamic International School Abottabad Falcon Public School Haripur Iqra Academy Mansehra Alhamd International School Haripur. This study was conducted during the month of June 2013 to May 2014. For measuring personality of physically disabled students and normal students’ personality scale of Goldberg 20 consisting of 50 items and having Cronbach’s alpha reliability .89 have been used. Scale base on five factor model. The five-factor model has emerged as being an important development in the study of individual differences. The scale measures the five personality characteristics such as Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience. Extraversion persons are assertive active and talkative like excitement and stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition. They are upbeat energetic and optimistic. Agreeableness is fundamentally altruistic sympathetic. Conscientious individuals are purposeful strong-willed determined scrupulous punctual reliable consistent and is associated with academic and occupational achievement. Emotional Stability includes traits like a less tense no moody and no anxious. Openness to Experience includes traits like having wide interests and being imaginative and insightful. 21 Item no 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 and 46 measures extraversion. Item no 2 7 12 17 22 27 32 37 42 and 47 measures Agreeableness. Item no 3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 and 48 measures Conscientious. Item no 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 and 49 measures Emotional Stability. Item no 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 and 50 measures Openness. For the present study Urdu translation of personality test has been used and Cronbach’s alpha obtained is .88 that shows good internal consistency of the scale. The items were rated on a 5 point scale ranging from 1strongly disagree 2disagree 3neutral 4 agree and 5strongly agree. Item no 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 24 26 28 29 30 32 34 36 38 39 44 46 49 are negatively scored items. RESULTS Before the analysis of data the reliability of the scale regarding the collected data was estimated that was presented in table-1 which shows the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of personality scale and five domains Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience of personality scale. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for personality traits scale is .88. The alpha reliability of domains range from .54 conscientiousness to .87 extraversion. Conscientiousness shows moderate alpha reliability coefficients whereas the overall result demonstrate high internal consistency of the instrument as reflect by alpha coefficients. Table-2 shows the mean standard deviation and t-value of scores of personality of physically disabled students and normal students on the personality scale. There is a significant difference between the scores of personality of physically disabled students M139.2 SD12.0 and normal students on the personality scale M184.5 SD13.2 t 198 25.3 p.05. Table-3 illustrates the result of t- test for measuring difference on five domains of personality between physically disabled students. It indicates that normal students score high on Extraversion M 37.6 SD7.9 as compared to physically disabled students on extraversion M27.1 SD3.80 t 19810.4 p.05. On Agreeableness scores of physically disabled students is M28.2 SD5.75 and of normal students is M40.4 SD 3.86 t 19817.5 p.05. On Conscientiousness scores of physically disabled students and normal students are M 9.8 SD4.50 M33.5 SD3.8 t 1986.12 p .05. Similarly the scores of normal students are also high on Emotional Stability M34.7 SD7.06 and scores of physically disabled students are low M27.7 SD3.85 t 1988.74 p.05. On Openness to Experience show the scores of physically disabled students M24.9 SD4.27 and normal students M34.1 SD3.96 t 19815.6 p.05. Table-1: Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Personality Traits Scale and Five Domains of Personality Scale n200 Scale No. of items Cronbach’s alpha coefficients Personality Traits Scale 50 .88 Extraversion 10 .87 Agreeableness 10 .69 Conscientiousness 10 .54 Emotional Stability 10 .72 Openness to Experience 10 .67

slide 4:

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2016282 http://www.jamc.ayubmed.edu.pk 351 Table-2: Difference between personality of physically disabled students and normal students on personality traits scale n200 Disabled students n100 Normal students n100 M SD M SD t P 139.2 12.0 184.5 13.2 25.3 .000 df198 p.05 Table-3: Differences between five personality domains of physically disabled students and normal students n200 Disabled Students Normal Students n100 n100 M SD M SD t P E 27.1 3.80 37.6 7.9 10.4 .000 A 28.2 5.75 40.4 3.86 17.5 .000 C 29.8 4.50 33.5 3.8 6.12 .000 ES 27.7 3.85 34.7 7.06 8.74 .000 O 24.9 4.27 34.1 3.96 15.6 .000 Note: EExtraversion AAgreeableness CConscientiousness ESEmotional Stability OOpenness df198 p.05 DISCUSSION The first objective of this study was to know the difference between personality traits of physically disabled students and normal students. According to the results of this study it was observed that normal students scored high on the personality trait scale M184.5 SD13.2 as compared to physically disabled students on a personality trait scale M139. 2 SD12. 0 t 198 25.3 p.05. Previous study of Margaret 16 yielded the same result that there was a significant difference between the personality of physically disabled children and normal children. A difference existed among the personality traits of both groups such as physically disabled students were less affective confused and dependent. Comer Pivlivian 22 suggested the difference in personality of physically disabled and normal as physically disabled people’s experiences discomfort in interaction to the society. They terminated an interaction sooner while normal people have strong societal interaction. Physical disability had a profound effect on ones quality of life social intercourse and emotional well- being. Physically disabled people differ from normal individuals in various aspects of life. 23 Loneliness have been found to be a frequent companion of those afflicted with physical disabilities. 24 The traditional view of disability often focuses on the individual highlighting incapacities or failings a defect or impairment. This focus creates obstacles to participate on equal terms since an individual who seems to lack certain capacities may not be able to attain autonomy. 25 The second objective of this study was to know the difference between physically disabled students and normal students with reference to Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability and Openness to experience respectively. It was observed in this study that normal students scored high on Extraversion M37.6 SD7.9 as compared to physically disabled students on ExtraversionM27.1 SD3.80. On Agreeableness mean score of physically disabled students was M28.2 SD5.75 and of normal students was M40.4 SD3.86. On Conscientiousness mean scores of physically disabled students and normal students were M29.8 SD4.50 M33.5 SD3.8. Similarly the mean scores of normal students were also high on Emotional Stability M34.7 SD7.06 and mean scores of physically disabled students were low M27.7 SD3.85. On Openness to Experience showed the mean scores of physically disabled students M24.9 SD4.27 and normal students M34.1 SD3.96. A study was conducted for measuring five factors of personality such as cultural context Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness and Emotional Stability of college students. This study consisted of two groups. One group consisted of physically disabled students and the second group was consisted of normal students. These students were rated on five factor test by themselves as well as about each others. Self-rated scores showed that there was a difference in personality traits of normal and physically disabled students. Counter rating results showed that normal children were high in traits of Extrovert and Emotional stability and physically disabled students were more cultural and Conscientious. 26 In literature this difference is revealed by a study of Booth 27 physically disabled students and normal students were rated on five factor tests by themselves as well as about each others. Self-rated scores show that there were differences in personality traits of normal and physically disabled students. Counter rating results showed that normal children were high on five domains of personality traits as compared to physically disabled children. The finding of Steinhausen et al. 28 yields similar results that the difference existed between the personality traits of normal and physically disabled people. Physically disabled children were less sociable and less emotional integration in the different factorial test. Richardson et al. 29 found that physically disabled people made more negative statements about themselves. They seemed to be more anxious and emotionally unstable. These findings of Byrne 30 showed relatively low participation rates in life activities by young people with disabilities due to less self-assurance and poor interaction. Research on identity self and disability Shakespeare 31 indicates that persons with

slide 5:

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2016282 http://www.jamc.ayubmed.edu.pk 352 impairments often suffer loss of self they go through a process during which they negotiate their lives in such a way as to be as ordinary as possible and so retain some contacts with desired life-worlds. CONCLUSION Normal students have high scores as compared to physically disabled students on Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience. Consequently on the bases of the outcome of this study and previous studies finding we have concluded that disabled students are at greater risk for anxiety disorders substance abuse disorders and major depression. AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION TJ SFK AR and SA contributed equally in designing literature review data collection data interpretation manuscript writing and proof reading. REFERENCES 1. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization Geneva 2001. 2. World Health Organization. Disability including prevention management and rehabilitation Geneva Switz Author. 2005. 3. Heward WC. Exceptional children. An introduction to special education. 6 th ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall 2000. 4. Harpur P. Embracing the new disability rights paradigm: the importance of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Disabil Soc 2012271:1–14. 5. Larsen RJ Buss DM. Personality psychology: domains of knowledge about human nature. 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw- Hill 2005. 6. Funder DC Fast LA. Personality in social psychology. Handbook of social psychology. 5th ed.. New York: Wiley 2010. p.668–97. 7. Revelle W. Personality processes. Ann Rev Psychol 199546:295–328. 8. Ewen RB. Personality a topical approach. Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1998. 9. Harris JA Vernon PA Johnson AM Jang KL. Phenotypic and genetic relationships between vocational interests and personality. Personal Individ Differ 2006408:1531–41. 10. McCrae RR Costa PT Del Pilar GH Rolland JP Parker WD. Cross-cultural assessment of the five factor model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. J Cross Cult Psychol 1998291:171–88. 11. Costa Jr PT Widiger TA. Personality Disorders and the Five Factor Model of Personality. Washington American Psychological Association 1994. 12. Gill CM Hodgkinson GP. Development and validation of the five factor model questionnaire: An adjectival-based personality inventory for use in occupational settings. Pers Psychol 2007603:731–66. 13. Somer O Goldberg LR. The structure of Turkish trait-descriptive adjectives. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999763:431–50. 14. Aziz S Jackson CJ. A Comparison between three and five factor models of Pakistani personality data. Personal Individ Differ 2001318:1311–9. 15. Fichten CS Amsel R. Trait Attributions About College Students With a Physical Disability: Circumplex Analyses and Methodological Issues1. J Appl Soc Psychol 1986165:410–27. 16. Paull ME. Personality Attitudes and Self-concept in Physically Disabled Children. University of London Institute of Education 1986. 17. Miles S. Strengthening Disability and Development Work. London Bond-Networking for International Development. 1999. 18. Ahmed T. Disabled population in Pakistan: Disabled statistics of neglected people. Sustainable Development Policy Institute 1993. 19. Holland JL Holland JE. Vocational indecision: More evidence and speculation. J Couns Psychol 1977245:404. 20. Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol Assess 199241:26. 21. McCrae R Costa Jr P. Toward a New Generation of Personality Theories: Theoretical Contexts for the Five-factor Model w: JS Wiggins ed. The Five-factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives. N Y Guilford. 199651–87. 22. Comer RJ Piliavin JA. The effects of physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction: the other side. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972231:33–9. 23. Hosken KC. Impact of disability on a handicapped individuals personality Vocation and country. Retrieved www.agape-biblia.org/plugins/pract-ministries/Lect401.htm 24. Rokach A Lechcier-Kimel R Safarov A. Loneliness of people with physical disabilities. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal. 2006 Jan 1346:681-700. 25. Michailakis D. The Systems Theory Concept of Disability: one is not born a disabled person one is observed to be one. Disabil Soc 2003182:209–29. 26. Maxis S. The relationship between school counselor self- efficacy and the rate of graduation for males at urban Predominantly African American Underperforming High Schools. 2011. 27. Booth T. "Progress in Inclusive Education." Paper presented at "Meeting Diverse Educational Needs: Making Inclusion a Reality 2000. 28. Steinhausen HC Wefers D. Intelligence structure and personality in various types of physical handicap in childhood and adolescence. Neuropadiatrie 197673:313–21. 29. Richardson SA. Handicap appearance and stigma. Soc Sci Med 1967. 197156:621–8. 30. Byrne C. Improving the retention of students with disabilities in third level University of Dublin Trinity College and the Institute of Technology Tallaght 2006. 31. Shakespeare T. Disability identity and difference. In: Barnes G Mercer G. Eds. Exploring the divide: Illness and disability Leeds United Kingdom: The Disability Press 1996. p.94–113. Address for Correspondence: Tahira Jabeen Department of Applied Psychology Lahore College for Women University Lahore-Pakistan Cell: +92 312 531 3454 Email: tahirajabeenlcwugmail.com

authorStream Live Help