Potential relations between psychological capital, subjective well-being, and academic adjustment among students with learning disabilities: the value of academic support centres

ABSTRACT

We investigated the correlations between psychological capital (PsyCap) and academic adjustment in students with learning disabilities (LD), with a focus on the mediating role of subjective well-being (SWB). We compared LD students receiving support from academic centres to those not receiving support and analysed the disparities in PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment. We found significant correlations between PsyCap and both academic adjustment and SWB in LD students. There was a notable disparity in PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment between LD students with and without academic centre support. We also discovered a mediating effect of SWB in the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment. The findings underscore the importance of PsyCap to academic adjustment and well-being in LD students. Interventions aimed at increasing PsyCap should simultaneously focus on improving SWB to more effectively support LD students in their academic endeavours. The findings suggest the need for educational institutions to provide integrated support systems addressing both academic and psychological needs. The study contributes to understanding the dynamics between psychological resources, well-being, and academic success in LD students. It advocates for inclusive educational policies that integrate psychological support with academic assistance, fostering a more supportive learning environment for LD students.

KEYWORDS:

• Psychological capital
• subjective well-being
• academic adjustment
• students with learning disability
• academic support centre

Introduction

Students with learning disabilities (LD) may face challenges in their academic adjustment and their subjective well-being (SWB). Research has shown these students are at a greater risk of developing emotional difficulties, such as loneliness, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem, and this can affect their academic performance (Peñalver, Martínez, and Salanova 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the mental health and quality of life of university students, including those with disabilities (Holm et al. 2023). Students with LD may also have difficulty adjusting to higher education. They show lower levels of psychophysiological and communicative components of academic adjustment than students without LD (Carmona-Halty, Schaufeli, and Salanova 2019), and they may have lower indicators of attention switching, pace, accuracy, and productivity (Moore 2019(.

There is promising evidence, however, that self-care activities and psychological capital (PsyCap), comprising hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy, can contribute to well-being and academic engagement (Walter and Hazan-Liran 2022). PsyCap, specifically academic PsyCap, has been identified as a positive core construct that relates to effective coping strategies in academic settings (Kleinkorres, Stang, and McElvany 2020) and has been found to mediate the relationship between self-care and academic adjustment (Kleinkorres, Stang, and McElvany 2020), suggesting its importance in enhancing the effect of personal resources on student well-being (Ramirez-Perez 2022). Another factor affecting the academic adjustment of students with LD is the availability of support from academic support centres. Globally, institutions have established such centres to aid LD students in accessing, navigating, and completing their academic journeys (Reiff, Gerber, and Ginsberg 1994).

We argued that academic adjustment, PsyCap, and SWB are interconnected factors that influence the experiences of LD students in higher education. We further suggested that support received from an academic support centre may have an effect on LD students’ levels of SWB, PsyCap, and academic adjustment, and a better understanding of the correlations could facilitate more targeted interventions to support these students. Finally, we argued SWB may mediate the relations between academic adjustment and PsyCap. We explored three key areas. First, we examined the correlations between PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment in a sample of LD students enrolled in higher education. Second, we considered the effect of receiving assistance from an on-campus academic support centre. Specifically, we asked whether LD students with academic support differ from those without in their PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment. Third, we investigated whether SWB mediates the link between PsyCap and academic adjustment in LD students, regardless of their support status.

Academic adjustment of LD students with and without academic support

Academic adjustment is a complex construct that encompasses students’ ability to learn, their motivation, the way they set and pursue educational objectives, the tactics they employ for success, their level of contentment with the educational setting, among others (Baker and Siryk 1984a, 1984b). It has been proposed that academic adjustment can be divided into four realms based on the student’s performance across various dimensions (Baker and Siryk 1984a, 1984b, 1986, 1989). The initial realm, termed ‘academic achievement’, is rooted in students’ drive to learn, the suitability of their study methods to specific academic demands, and their capability to achieve grades deemed satisfactory. The second realm, ‘social adjustment’, pertains to students’ engagement within their academic environment, highlighting their ability to forge social connections. The third realm, ‘personal-emotional adjustment’, reflects students’ mental and physical well-being. This aspect is a gauge of their self-view and encapsulates their resilience in navigating educational hurdles that precipitate stress and anxiety. The fourth realm, ‘institutional adjustment’, sheds light on students’ broader relationship with the educational institution and their specific academic surroundings.

Students with LD have more risk factors for poor academic adjustment than students without LD. The label LD includes a range of disorders rooted in neurological differences that impede the ability to learn or use specific academic skills but are not reflective of overall intelligence, such as: (1) dyslexia: affects reading, with difficulties in word recognition, decoding, and spelling; (2) dysgraphia: impacts writing abilities, leading to problems with handwriting, spelling, and organising ideas; (3) dyscalculia: involves challenges understanding numbers and mathematical concepts (APA 2013). A significant proportion of individuals with LD (approximately 45%) also present with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (DuPaul, Gormley, and Laracy 2013), which can exacerbate learning challenges by affecting concentration, impulsivity, and executive function (Lagacé-Leblanc, Massé, and Rousseau 2022).

LD generally affects the development and application of fundamental academic abilities, including literacy, numeracy, and writing skills and can hinder a person’s capability to assimilate, retain, and utilise information effectively (Cortiella 2011). Early intervention is key to enhancing outcomes for individuals with LD, allowing them to achieve their academic and personal potential (Moriña and Biagiotti 2022).

Individuals with LD often have trouble adapting to higher education environments (Lipka et al. 2020), and LD students report lower levels of adjustment than their non-LD peers (Lipka, Forkosh Baruch, and Meer 2019). Specific disability categories face unique challenges (Sarid, Meltzer, and Raveh 2020). Implementing strategies to enhance LD students’ educational involvement and academic results is essential. Key factors such as academic self-efficacy, attachment style, social support, and institutional support are critical in their adjustment and success in higher education settings (Krisher and Shechtman 2015).

The emergence of academic support centres specialising in services for students with disabilities has been a notable development in response to a growing demand. Tel Hai Academic College in Israel was at the forefront of this initiative in 1995, with numerous institutions following suit and establishing similar services (Meltzer 2007). Initially, these centres aimed to improve enrolment rates and increase disability awareness among teaching staff for students studying in different faculties. Over time, their role has expanded. The centres offer a wide array of support, tailored to meet each student’s unique needs and emphasising emotional, cognitive, and social rehabilitation (Hozmi 2022; Meltzer and Krishnan 2007). Support includes personalised tutoring, mentoring, group study sessions, workshops to enhance skills, the integration of assistive technologies (Meltzer et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2022), modifications to the learning environment, counselling, instructional adjustments, and accommodations during examinations (Dahan 2016).

Support centres help to create an inclusive and accessible educational environment, thus favourably influencing the academic adjustment and academic outcomes of students with LD (Tinto 1993; Walker and Verklan 2016). Notably, access to academic support services typically results in higher PsyCap, marked by increased hope, resilience, and optimism (Hadley 2007). Students lacking such support may have lower PsyCap, negatively affecting their academic performance and adjustment (Marshak et al. 2010). Finally, academic support centres are vital for SWB; they create a sense of community and mitigate feelings of isolation and stress (Jacobs et al. 2020; Kuh et al. 2007; Padgett, Johnson, and Pascarella 2012). They provide emotional, instrumental, and informational support, crucial for overcoming learning challenges and achieving academic success.

The support centre involved in this research is located in Tel Hai Academic College. It was founded on the principle of equal opportunity and the right of all persons to higher education, regardless of their initial academic readiness. This centre operates with the approval of the Council for Higher Education in Israel and provides a supportive and professional environment aimed at creating a meaningful learning experience. It seeks to enhance students’ sense of competence and independence, allowing them to fully realise their capabilities during their academic studies. One of its main purposes is preparation for academic study in a number of domains. Students are accepted to the centre after staff assess their academic abilities; they must also have an academic diagnosis indicating LD and/or ADHD. Each student must also pass individual and group tests and interviews. The support centre locates candidates who are capable of integrating into academic studies, even though they do not always have the appropriate admission conditions, and helps them to finish their studies.

The role of PsyCap and SWB in the academic adjustment of LD students

PsyCap, a pivotal concept that represents an individual’s positive psychological capacity for growth (Luthans 2002a; Luthans and Youssef 2004; Luthans, Luthans, and Luthans 2004), is anchored in the principles of positive psychology (M. E. P. Seligman 1998, 2002) and often applied to explore positive behaviours within organisational contexts (Luthans 2002a, 2002b). The construct comprises four key elements: (1) self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s ability to successfully execute challenging tasks; (2) optimism, or a positive outlook on current and future success; (3) hope, or the persistence towards goals, including the adaptability to modify strategies to achieve these goals; (4) resilience, or the capacity to recover and surpass previous levels of functioning in the face of difficulties and challenges (Luthans, Vogelgesang, and Lester 2006; Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio 2007).

Considered dynamic and susceptible to enhancement (akin to a state-like quality), PsyCap is characterised by its flexibility and potential for growth through targeted interventions, distinguishing it from more static traits (Luthans et al. 2006, 2007; Luthans, Avey, and Patera 2008). The efficacy of PsyCap has predominantly been examined in the context of job satisfaction, productivity, and overall well-being at the managerial and organisational level among workers. Research in this area consistently demonstrates a beneficial correlation between PsyCap and these three areas of organisational performance and employee welfare (Avey et al. 2010; Luthans, Avey, and Patera 2008).

The roles of PsyCap and SWB in the academic adjustment of students with LD are increasingly recognised as critical. PsyCap’s four components – hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy – significantly contribute to students’ positive adjustment in academic contexts (Hazan-Liran and Miller 2019), fostering both academic success and conducive organisational behaviour in educational settings. Arslan and Coşkun (2020) emphasised the predictive capacity of student SWB in determining various aspects of school and psychological adjustment, including academic satisfaction, engagement in prosocial behaviour, and the management of internalising and externalising problems. These findings underscore the interconnectedness of SWB and academic success. Moreover, PsyCap plays a mediating role in linking social-contextual factors such as academic and peer support to study-related outcomes. Slåtten et al. (2023) showed PsyCap can mediate the relationship between these external support systems and critical academic outcomes, including study engagement, academic performance, and overall student well-being.

In the specific context of students with LD, the influence of PsyCap and well-being is profound. Studies by Siu, Bakker, and Jiang (2014) and Slåtten et al. (2023) found social support significantly impacted well-being, academic performance, and behavioural conduct in LD students, with PsyCap serving as a crucial intermediary. Their results suggest fostering PsyCap could be a strategic approach to enhance the academic adjustment of students with LD. Research by Huawe, Saija, and Dese (2022) indicated the importance of social support in promoting academic well-being among students with LD. They highlighted the need for focused strategies in self-concept formation, self-strategy development, and productivity, especially in online learning scenarios, which are increasingly prevalent.

The present study

Previous studies in the field relevant to the current study have indicated that PsyCap is linked to academic adjustment among students in general (Hazan-Liran and Miller 2019) and particularly among students with LD (Walter and Hazan-Liran 2022). Research has also shown that the levels of PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment of students with LD are lower than the levels of students without LD (Walter and Hazan-Liran 2022). We aimed to expand upon these prior studies by focusing on students with LD, centring the comparison on students who receive academic support versus those who do not. The objective was to examine whether, among students with LD, academic intervention assists in the development of positive psychological resources and, as a result, leads to enhanced SWB and increased academic adjustment.

We asked three main research questions. The first question focused on a possible relationship among PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment. We hypothesised that we would find positive correlations between them. The second question asked how LD students who receive support from an academic centre differ from those who do not in terms of their PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment. We hypothesised that we would find differences between LD students receiving support and those not receiving support, for each research variable. Specifically, students without support would have lower levels of PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment. The third question asked whether SWB is a mediator in the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment for LD students, regardless of whether they receive support or not. We hypothesised that SWB would mediate the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment in both research groups (receiving/not receiving academic support). That is, the higher the PsyCap, the greater the student’s SWB, and consequently, the better student’s academic adjustment.

Method

Participants

The study involved 121 Israeli undergraduate students. Students who did not receive support were affiliated with a variety of higher education institutions. It is important to clarify that all the higher education institutions examined in our study fall under the jurisdiction of the Council for Higher Education and are therefore subject to its regulations. In the formal higher education system in Israel, the Council for Higher Education is the primary authority responsible for the oversight and development of higher education policies. This includes accreditation of institutions, approval of new programmes, and ensuring quality standards across the board. Thus, the institutions included in our study adhere to comparable academic and operational standards. This uniformity helped ensure the variability in institutional characteristics did not unduly influence our findings. Students receiving support were associated with a single educational establishment, Tel Hai Academic College. The college’s support centre operates with the approval of the Council for Higher Education.

To recruit students who were not receiving academic support, we sent a general email through the academic email system to all students across institutions. Students receiving support were contacted through both their academic networks and the Tel Hai support centre. The participants were all diagnosed with LD, including ADHD. Inclusion criteria were having a confirmed diagnosis by a medical specialist or psychiatrist at the start of higher education and an academic assessment tailored for learning in post-secondary environments. About half (61 students) were enrolled in a support programme at the Tel Hai student centre. The age range of participants was between 21 and 31 years (mean = 25, standard deviation = 2.41), with a gender distribution of 60% female and 40% male; 28% were married, and 72% were not. To ensure the broad applicability of the findings, all participants were enrolled in a BA programme. The breakdown by academic year was as follows: 21% were in their first year, 35% in their second year, 38% in their third year, and 6% in their fourth year.

Participants enrolled in the Tel Hai academic support centre received a variety of assistance: (1) learning strategy enhancement comprised individualised sessions focused on bolstering learning efficiency through strategies for organisation, memorisation, and concentration and included specific tools for managing academic tasks; (2) emotional guidance sessions were aimed at assisting students navigate emotional challenges, particularly those associated with LD; (3) personal development training sessions were designed to enhance students’ capacity for balancing educational pursuits, leisure activities, and work commitments and included training in estimating time required for tasks, developing personal time and task management tools, and addressing issues in attention and concentration; (4) peer mentorship involved pairing LD students with senior students offering guidance and support within the academic context; (5) collaborative group support involved small group sessions focusing on specific subjects. Demographic details are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic information for LD students receiving and not receiving support.

Variables	Subscale	Support (n=61)	No Support (n=60)
Gender	Males	24 (39%)	25 (42%)
	Females	37 (61%)	35 (58%)
Academic Year	1	11 (18%)	14 (23%)
	2	17 (28%)	25 (42%)
	3	29 (47%)	17 (28%)
	4	4 (7%)	4 (7%)
Age	Age Range	21–30 (M=25)	21–31 (M=26)
Marital Status	Single	46 (75%)	35 (58%)
	Married	12 (20%)	22 (37%)
	Divorced	2 (3%)	3 (5%)
	Widower	1 (2%)	-
LD Type	ADHD	30 (49%)	12 (20%)
	Dyslexia	19 (31%)	40 (67%)
	Dysgraphia	13 (21%)	15 (25%)
	Dyscalculia	17 (28%)	25 (42%)

Instruments

We used four questionnaires to test the research hypotheses.

Demographic and academic information

Demographic information and academic information were gathered using a questionnaire specifically developed for the study. Data included the participant’s age, gender, marital status, academic institution, and study-year. The questionnaire asked participants to indicate their updated LD diagnosis results, and if they were getting academic support, the type of support they received from the support centre.

PsyCap questionnaire

Participants’ PsyCap was determined using an academic shortened version of the 24-item PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ-24; Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio 2007), in which four positive psychological capacities (self-efficacy, hope, resilience, optimism) are applied to academic outcomes. The 12-item version of the PCQ-24 was validated by Avey, Avolio, and Luthans (2011). The PCQ-12 comprises 12 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5=strongly agree. The score range of the PCQ is 12–60, with higher scores indicating higher levels of PsyCap. Table 2 shows the division of the subscales, including their reliability in this study.

Table 2. Division and reliability of PCQ subscales.

Scales	α	Sample Item
Self-efficacy	.70	I feel confident analysing a study-related long-term problem to find a solution.
Hope	.83	There are lots of ways around any study-related problem.
Optimism	.65	When things are uncertain for me as a student, I usually expect the best.
Resilience	.65	I can deal with study-related difficulties because I’ve experienced difficulty before.
Overall	.90

Academic Adjustment Questionnaire (AAQ)

Students’ adjustment to post-secondary education was assessed with a shortened version of the Students’ Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker and Siryk 1989), hereafter AAQ (Hazan-Liran and Miller 2019). The AAQ has 30 items and comprises four subscales. Items’ appropriateness is rated on a 9-point Likert scale, from 1= suits me very much, to 9 = doesn’t suit me at all. The score range of the AAQ is 30–270, with higher scores indicating better academic adjustment. Table 3 shows the division of the subscales and their reliability in this study.

Table 3. Division and reliability of AAQ Subscales.

Scales	α	Sample Item
Achievement	.94	I find academic studies difficult.
Social	.97	I have difficulty feeling comfortable in connecting with other students.
Emotional	.87	Lately I’ve been feeling downcast and moody.
Institutional	.87	I am happy with my decision to study at my institution.
Overall	.98

Swb

SWB was assessed using the Subjective Well-Being Index (SWB-A; International Wellbeing Group 2006). The SWB-A is composed of one question inquiring about satisfaction with life as a whole and eight items measuring satisfaction in specific life domains: standard of living, personal health, achieving in life, personal relationships, personal safety, community-connectedness, future security, and religion. All items are rated on a scale, ranging from 0 = completely dissatisfied, to 10 = completely satisfied. The internal consistency of the scale for this study was 0.90.

Study procedure

We used a cross-sectional methodology, with data acquisition occurring at a singular temporal juncture. Data were collected via an online questionnaire facilitated by Qualtrics and hosted on the Survey Monkey platform. This software ensured participant anonymity and allowed expedient and efficient responses. Recruitment of post-secondary student participants was conducted through information dissemination via academic organisational email channels. Before starting the online survey, participants were apprised of the study’s aims and potential contributions, and they completed informed consent forms. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and did not include any financial remuneration. Questionnaires were completed approximately one month after the initial announcement.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS. Initial steps included reliability analyses to ensure measurement consistency, followed by a two-way ANOVA to ensure there were no differences between LD students with different diagnoses (ADHD, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia) in the research variables (PsyCap, SWB, academic adjustment). We used correlation analysis to examine relationships between PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment and t-tests to compare LD students receiving academic support with LD students not receiving support, for each of these variables. Finally, we performed path analysis using the PROCESS command to explore the mediating role of SWB in the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment and provide insights into the direct and indirect effects within the model, with participant group (receiving support/not receiving support) as a covariate.

Results

The main purpose of the study was to clarify the impact of support from an academic support centre on the PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment of students with LD. Table 4 shows the three questionnaire averages by participant group (receiving/not receiving support).

Table 4. Questionnaire averages for PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment by participant group (standard deviations in parentheses).

Variables	Subscale	Support	No Support	All
SWB	Total	6.98 (0.71)	3.92 (0.70)	5.46 (1.70)
Academic Adjustment	Achievement	6.89 (0.96)	3.01 (0.51)	4.97 (2.09)
	Social	6.73 (0.71)	3.67 (0.68)	5.21 (1.68)
	Emotional	7.52 (1.15)	2.19 (0.44)	4.87 (2.81)
	Institutional	6.74 (0.84)	3.68 (0.53)	5.22 (1.68)
	Total	6.96 (0.68)	3.15 (0.37)	5.06 (1.98)
PsyCap	Self-efficacy	3.80 (0.58)	2.21 (0.74)	3.01 (1.03)
	Hope	3.90 (0.45)	1.95 (0.39)	3.94 (1.07)
	Optimism	3.60 (0.82)	2.18 (0.68)	2.90 (1.03)
	Resilience	4.38 (0.38)	3.52 (0.67)	3.95 (0.69)
	Total	3.95 (0.26)	2.44 (0.34)	3.21 (0.81)

PsyCap questionnaire, range 1–5; Academic Adjustment questionnaire, range 1–9; SWB questionnaire, range 0–10.

We conducted a two-way ANOVA to ensure there were no differences between students characterised by different diagnoses (ADHD, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia) in the research variables (PsyCap, SWB, academic adjustment), and there was no interaction between the type of LD with which students were diagnosed and the group to which they belonged (receiving support/not receiving support). Table 5 shows the differences between LD types for the main study variables.

Table 5. Two-way ANOVA analysis of LD type x participant group for PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment (standard deviations in parentheses).

Variables	Subscale	Support	No Support
SWB	ADHD	7.09 (0.59)	4.46 (0.47)
	Dyslexia	7.11 (0.80)	3.76 (0.65)
	Dysgraphia	6.77 (0.70)	4.18 (0.90)
	Dyscalculia	6.94 (0.80)	3.86 (0.67)
	Total	7.01 (0.72)	3.92 (0.70)
Academic Adjustment	ADHD	6.94 (0.67)	3.28 (0.33)
	Dyslexia	7.05 (0.62)	3.14 (0.39)
	Dysgraphia	6.93 (0.77)	3.18 (0.51)
	Dyscalculia	7.00 (0.91)	3.08 (0.29)
	Total	6.96 (0.68)	3.15 (0.37)
PsyCap	ADHD	3.85 (0.29)	2.69 (0.55)
	Dyslexia	4.03 (0.20)	2.47 (0.35)
	Dysgraphia	3.93 (0.18)	2.50 (0.36)
	Dyscalculia	4.00 (0.29)	2.36 (0.29)
	Total	3.95 (0.26)	2.44 (0.34)

As can be seen in Table 5, no significant differences were observed between the four types of LD for PsyCap, F_(3,108) =.50, p = .683, nor was there a significant interaction between the LD type and support, F_(3,108) = 2.01, p = .116. We found the same results for the four types of LD and academic adjustment, F_(3,108)=.08, p= .969, and for the interaction between the LD type and support, F_(3,108)=.25, p = .856, as we found for the four types of LD and SWB, F_(3,108) = .77, p = .511, and the interaction between the LD type and support, F_(3,108) = 1.42, p = .239. Given the absence of observed differences among the four categories with respect to the research variables, we decided to treat the group as homogeneous in subsequent analyses.

The first research question was designed to investigate a possible relationship among the three study variables. We hypothesised positive correlations between PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment. The findings fully corroborated the proposed hypothesis, demonstrating significant and pronounced positive correlations between PsyCap and both academic adjustment, r = .91, p < .001, and SWB, r = .88, p < .001, and between academic adjustment and SWB, r = .92, p < .001. Tables 6 and 7 show the intra- and inter-correlations for PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment and correlations by participant group (receiving/not receiving support).

Table 6. Intra and inter pearson correlations of PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment.

	Scales	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Academic Adjustment	1. Achievement	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	2. Social	***.90	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	3. Emotional	***95.	***90.	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	4. Institutional	***.91	***86.	***91.	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
	5. Total	***98.	***94.	***98.	***95.	1	-	-	-	-	-
PsyCap	6. Self-efficacy	***76.	***74.	***76.	***71.	***77.	1	-	-	-	-
	7. Hope	***85.	***86.	***87.	***84.	***89.	***71.	1	-	-	-
	8. Optimism	***65.	***68.	***65.	***60.	***67.	***51.	***62.	1	-	-
	9. Resilience	***62.	***60.	***61.	***58.	***62.	***48.	***62.	***51.	1	-
	10. Total	***88.	***89.	***89.	***85.	***91.	***85.	***93.	***77.	***74.	1
SWB	11. Total	***91.	***87.	***89.	***87.	***92.	***75.	***86.	***64.	***59.	***88.

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 7. Pearson correlations of PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment by participant group.

	Support			No Support
Scales	1	2	3	1	2	3
1. Academic Adjustment	1	-	-	1	-	-
2. PsyCap	04.	1	-	**38.	1	-
3. SWB	**33.	16.	1	***56.	25.	1

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

The second research question targeted possible differences between LD students receiving support and those not receiving support in their PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment. We hypothesised LD students without support would have lower levels of all three. Three t-test analyses fully confirmed this hypothesis (Table 8).

Table 8. Differences between students receiving support and students not receiving support in study variables (N = 121).

	Support (n=61)	No Support (n=60)
Variables	M (SD)		t (119), p	Cohen’s d
PsyCap	3.95 (.26)	2.44 (.34)	27.36, p < .001	4.99
SWB	6.98 (.71)	3.92 (.70)	23.95, p < .001	4.34
Academic Adjustment	6.96 (.68)	3.15 (.37)	37.98, p < .001	6.96

Our third research question asked if SWB is a mediator in the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment for LD students, whether they receive support or not. We hypothesised that SWB would mediate the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment in both research groups. That is, the higher the PsyCap, the greater the student’s SWB, and consequently, the higher the student’s academic adjustment. To test this hypothesis, we used a PROCESS procedure (Figure 1). PsyCap was the independent variable, academic adjustment was the dependent variable, and SWB was a mediator. We added support as a covariate in the model to account for the variance between groups.

Figure 1. Relations between PsyCap and academic adjustment via SWB as a mediator and support as a covariate.

Results showed a direct, positive, and statistically significant relationship between PsyCap and SWB, B = 0.484, S.E. = 0.211, CI; 0.066–0.901, and a direct, positive, and statistically significant relationship between support and SWB, B = 2.341, S.E. = 0.340, CI; 1.667–3.015. Higher PsyCap predicted higher SWB, and participants who received support had higher SWB. SWB, in turn, positively predicted academic adjustment, B = 0.296, S.E. = 0.068, CI; 0.162–0.431. The direct effect of PsyCap on academic adjustment was statistically insignificant, B = 0.163, S.E. = 0.159, CI; −0.151–0.478. The direct effect of receiving support on academic adjustment was statistically significant, B = 2.653, S.E. = 0.297, CI = 2.064–3.242.

To test the significance of the indirect effect in the analysis, we employed a bootstrapping technique, utilising 5,000 resamples, to generate 95% confidence intervals (CI). Indirect effects in which zero is not included in the 95% CI indicate a significant effect at α < .05. Tests of the indirect effect of PsyCap on academic adjustment via SWB with support as a covariate were significant, B = 0.143, S.E. = 0.072, CI; 0.023–0.306.

Given the disparate correlations observed across the two research groups, we explored an interaction-based mediation model for support, PsyCap, and SWB to elucidate potential moderating effects. However, our findings indicated an absence of interaction within the model.

Discussion

We examined the relationship between PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment in two groups of LD students (receiving/not receiving academic support), hypothesising that we would find positive correlations between them. Our hypothesis was confirmed. Higher levels of PsyCap were associated with better SWB and smoother academic adjustment. In an earlier study, Walter and Hazan-Liran (2022) found PsyCap positively influenced university students’ well-being and academic engagement. Our findings suggest PsyCap, encompassing self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience, plays a crucial role not only in academic success but also in the overall well-being of students.

Our results are consistent with previous research emphasising the importance of psychological factors in academic settings. For instance, Luthans et al. (2010) highlighted the positive impact of PsyCap on performance and satisfaction in various organisational settings, and these can be extrapolated to academic environments. In addition, studies on SWB have consistently shown its correlation with academic success (Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener 2005), reinforcing our findings. The strong link we found between PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment underscores the potential benefits of developing PsyCap in educational settings. Educational institutions might consider implementing programmes or interventions aimed at enhancing students’ psychological resources, as this could lead to improved well-being and better academic outcomes. This approach aligns with the growing recognition of the importance of mental health and well-being in education (M. E. Seligman et al. 2009).

We also looked for possible disparities in PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment between LD students receiving academic support and those not receiving such support. The results revealed a significant difference, particularly in SWB and academic adjustment scores, with the unsupported group showing notably lower levels. This difference is not merely numerical; it speaks volumes about the psychological and academic challenges faced by students with LD who lack adequate support. The mean SWB score of 3.92 in the unsupported group, indicating depressive symptoms, is a stark illustration of this challenge. Our findings are in line with the work of Masten et al. (2009). These researchers emphasised resilience and adaptive behaviour in youths as a function of external support systems. In our study, the lower PsyCap in the unsupported group mirrors findings in resilience literature; studies consistently show that support systems are vital for fostering psychological resilience in students facing academic challenges (Rutter 2012). The association between lack of support and decreased SWB was also supported by Diener and Seligman (2004), who argued that environmental factors significantly influence individual well-being. The dramatic differences we observed between our two groups highlight the pivotal role educational institutions can play in the lives of students with LD.

According to Eccles and Roeser (2011), schools are not just centres for academic learning; they are also crucial for the psychological development of students. Therefore, providing adequate support for students with LD goes beyond academic duty; it is an investment in holistic well-being. The implications of our findings extend into educational policy and practice realms. There is a clear indication that more comprehensive support systems for students with LD could have a significant impact on their psychological well-being and academic success. This aligns with the recommendations by Tomlinson et al. (2018), who advocated for integrated support systems in schools to address both academic and psychological needs.

Our third objective was to test the mediating role of SWB in the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment in both research groups. We hypothesised that the higher the PsyCap, the greater the student’s SWB, and consequently, the higher the student’s academic adjustment. Path analysis fully confirmed this hypothesis. This finding, in conjunction with those of previous studies, highlights the interrelation of PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment in university students and offers a compelling area of study. Walter and Hazan-Liran (2022) and Ramirez-Perez (2022) both emphasised the importance of PsyCap in promoting well-being and academic engagement. These studies, together with the current study, collectively suggest that PsyCap, bolstered by self-care activities, significantly impacts students’ SWB and therefore their academic experiences.

Arslan and Coşkun’s (2020) findings also corroborate our findings, identifying SWB as the crucial mediating factor in this relationship. Their findings indicate that the positive effects of PsyCap on academic adjustment are, in fact, mediated by the level of SWB experienced by students. This underscores the role of SWB as not just a consequence but also as a facilitator of the relationship between psychological resources and academic success. In essence, while PsyCap is undoubtedly influential in shaping students’ academic journey, their SWB plays a pivotal role in mediating this process. This suggests that interventions aimed at enhancing academic adjustment should focus not only on developing psychological resources like PsyCap but also on actively fostering students’ SWB. This approach would likely yield a more holistic and effective strategy to support students academically.

Conclusion and implications

The study conclusively demonstrates significant positive correlations between PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment in students, corroborating our hypothesis. Elevated levels of PsyCap were strongly associated with enhanced SWB and better academic adjustment. This finding aligns with the literature, affirming the crucial influence of PsyCap on both academic success and student well-being. We also found a pronounced disparity in PsyCap, SWB, and academic adjustment between LD students receiving and not receiving academic support, highlighting the critical role of external support systems in fostering resilience and well-being in students facing academic challenges. Educational institutions should set up comprehensive support systems to address both the academic and the psychological needs of students with LD. Finally, our study confirms the mediating role of SWB in the relationship between PsyCap and academic adjustment. This indicates the importance of interventions aimed at bolstering not only the psychological resources but also the SWB of students, thereby promoting a more holistic and effective approach to supporting their academic journey.

Limitations and future research

The study’s main limitation was our focus on undergraduate students; the generalisability of our findings are limited to this specific academic group. For future research, diversifying the participant pool to include postgraduate students could offer broader insights. In addition, it is important to acknowledge that the LD type of the participant was not counterbalanced. Moreover, the initial academic and psychological statuses of the participants before engaging in academic support programmes were not established; therefore, we could not make a dynamic assessment of the participants’ progress. In other words, the cross-sectional design precluded the observation of changes over time. Adopting a longitudinal approach would enable the study of temporal changes. Finally, we relied exclusively on questionnaires; integrating qualitative methods could provide a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the data.

Ethical standards and informed consent

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of Tel Hai College. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.