Young adults with SLD and/or ADHD conscripted for military service: risk, resources, and resilience

ABSTRACT

This study explored multisystem protective/risk factors for explaining resilience/adjustment in emerging adults with/without neurodevelopmental disorders facing the transition to a stressful non-academic context, mandatory military service. Participants were 904 conscripts (498 males, 55%) ages 18–25 years (M = 18.70, SD = .77) in four groups, with ADHD or SLD or comorbid ADHD+SLD or typical development (TD). Data collection tapped multiple information sources. Youngsters’ multidimensional protective/risk variables spanned three levels: (a) individual level – formally diagnosed disorders (SLD, ADHD, or ADHD+SLD), ego-resiliency, sense of coherence, attachment patterns; (b) family level – family cohesion/adaptability; and (c) community/system level – youngsters’ appraisal of their commander as a secure extrafamilial attachment figure. Youngsters’ five resilience/adjustment measures comprised: positive/negative affect, vocational-institutional satisfaction, social adaptation, and commander-rated overall functioning. MANOVAs yielded significant group differences on youngsters’ protective/risk factors and resilience measures. Regression analyses revealed significant risk posed by ADHD and/or SLD and significant protection offered by ego-resiliency, sense of coherence, attachment patterns, family cohesion, and commander as a ‘secure base’ – for explaining youngsters’ resilience. Discussion focused on factors’ unique protective/risk value for explaining resilient functioning in ADHD, SLD, comorbid, and TD emerging adults, while facing highly demanding environment.

KEYWORDS:

• Resilience
• ADHD
• SLD
• attachment
• sense of coherence
• family

This study examined under-investigated groups of emerging adults with neurodevelopmental disorders – youngsters with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or specific learning disorder (SLD) or comorbid ADHD+SLD – versus youngsters with typical development (TD) while entering a novel non-academic context of highly demanding military service. Emerging adulthood, a distinct life stage at the transition between adolescence and adulthood (ages 18–29), is a vulnerable period when young people take their first steps towards independence and begin to enter their new role as adults (Arnett, Žukauskienė, and Sugimura 2014). A recent scoping review (Wilcox et al. 2024) emphasised that ADHD and/or SLD symptoms in emerging adults were associated with increased mental illness symptomatology and decreased functioning.

Most research on this developmental period, especially for youngsters with neurodevelopmental disorders, has focused on the transition to academic rather than non-academic settings. Briefly, military service is a meaningful milestone for emerging adults in Israel, where 18-year-old males and females face mandatory draft for a 2- to 3-year service period. Researchers view the military service period as eliciting various stressful situations but also potentially contributing to a lifelong sense of competence (Masten 2013). Overall, the cognitive, socioemotional, and behavioural difficulties characterising these lifelong disorders of ADHD and/or SLD could possibly serve as disadvantages in this stressful occupational and interpersonal environment that emphasises skill acquisition, knowledge recall, discipline, precise action under pressure, self-regulation, effective teamwork, and coping with authority.

Based on resilience approaches (see Masten 2021 for a review), this study offers a positive perspective to complement the pathological perspective utilised widely in the rare research investigating soldiers with neurodevelopmental disorders (Howlett et al. 2018). Accordingly, the current study examined young adult conscripts’ possible multisystem protective and risk factors at three different ecological levels (Masten 2021): (a) individual level – youngsters’ neurodevelopmental disorders, sense of coherence, ego-resiliency, and attachment patterns; (b) family level – youngsters’ family climate; and (c) system level – youngsters’ appraisal of their commander as a secure extrafamilial attachment figure. Thus, the study aimed, first, to uncover variations and similarities between emerging adults with ADHD, SLD, or both, than peers with TD, regarding their protective/risk factors and their resilience/adjustment. Second, the study investigated each protective/risk factor’s role in explaining resilience/adjustment among youngsters with/without neurodevelopmental disorders, while facing this highly demanding environment.

Neurodevelopmental disorders in young adulthood

The essential feature of ADHD is a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development over the lifespan (DSM-5-TR, American Psychiatric Association 2022). The essential feature of SLD is persistent difficulty in learning keystone academic skills, causing significant interference with academic or occupational performance, or activities of daily living (DSM-5-TR, APA 2022). Worldwide adulthood prevalence rates are ~2.5 to 4.9% for ADHD and ~5% for SLD (APA 2022). Notably, their comorbidity is relatively high, where ~ 31–45% of individuals with ADHD also exhibit SLD (duPaul et al. 2017). Across the lifespan, both disorders reveal clear associations with clinically significant academic and/or socioemotional impairments (duPaul et al. 2017; Wilcox et al. 2024). In adults, both disorders often co-occur with mood, anxiety, personality, or other disorders (DSM-5-TR, APA, 2022). Furthermore, prior data suggested that those with comorbid ADHD+SLD show higher vulnerability to maladaptation than those with either disorder alone (duPaul et al. 2017).

The scarce research on emerging adults with neurodevelopmental disorders in military settings has focused on ADHD without examining SLD or comorbid disorders. ADHD symptoms were associated with youngsters’ higher negative mood (e.g. anger, anxiety); more physician appointments, sick days, and professional mental health sessions; and increased vulnerability to PTSD symptoms (Fruchter et al. 2019; Halt et al. 2023). Yet, one study suggested ADHD’s positive effects in an army setting, where physical activity may reduce ADHD symptoms and also hyperactivity and alertness may prove beneficial (Gapin, Labban, and Etnier 2011). Such findings would support resilience approaches to neurodevelopmental disorders (Masten 2021). To examine resilience resources for these populations, the current multidimensional study examined risk/protective factors at the individual, family, and community/system levels.

Individual-level protective resources for emergent adult conscripts

This study’s three individual-level independent variables were young adults’ self-reported sense of coherence, ego-resiliency, and attachment patterns.

Sense of Coherence (SOC)

The SOC concept – individuals’ global life orientation shaped by their life experiences – is central to Antonovsky’s (1987) salutogenic paradigm for explaining adults’ health promotion, successful functioning, and coping with stressors (Mittlemark et al. 2022). Researchers have linked strong SOC with resilience and well-adjusted functioning (Idan, Eriksson, and Al-Yagon 2022). This inner personal coping resource is defined as one’s global, pervasive, enduring (though dynamic) feeling of confidence that: (a) stimuli deriving from one’s internal and external environments are structured, predictable, and explicable (comprehensibility); (b) resources are available to meet demands posed by these stimuli (manageability); and (c) these demands are challenges worthy of investment and engagement (meaningfulness) (Antonovsky 1987; Hochwälder 2024).

Despite well-documented associations between SOC and resilience in TD, studies on SOC remain relatively scarce for emerging adults in non-academic contexts and especially with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, research on younger ages revealed that, as a group, individuals with ADHD and/or SLD reported lower SOC than peers with TD (Idan, Eriksson, and Al-Yagon 2022; Margalit 2006).

Ego-resiliency

Ego-resiliency is considered a psychological resource for recovering from difficult situations and flexibly adapt to environmental changes (Block 2002; Kubo, Sugawara, and Masuyama 2021). Overall, prior research indicated that individuals with higher ego-resiliency likely experience more psychological and physical well-being and less distress than individuals with lower ego-resiliency (Denovan, Dagnall, and Drinkwater 2022). However, research is scarce regarding emerging adults with/without neurodevelopmental disorders in military settings.

Patterns of attachment relationships

Attachment theory (Bowlby 1988) is considered a highly relevant framework for explaining individual variations in adjustment across the lifespan, highlighting the role of early interactions with significant others in explaining human socioemotional and personality development (Mikulincer and Shaver 2013). Research has pinpointed TD adults’ attachment representations as important for explaining psychological resources like coping with distress (Mikulincer and Shaver 2013). Attachment relationships have been identified as vulnerability or protective factors for mental health, self-regulation, and adjustment in youngsters and adults with SLD/ADHD (Al-Yagon 2018; Al-Yagon et al., 2020; Thorell, Rydell, and Bohlin 2012).

Remarkably little research explored secure attachment relationships’ possible protective role in adult populations with ADHD/SLD, despite growing awareness about insecure attachment patterns’ higher incidence in younger children and adolescents with these disorders compared to TD peers (Al-Yagon , 2016, 2018; Thorell, Rydell, and Bohlin 2012). Rare research on adults with ADHD has reported insecure attachment’s association with ADHD symptoms, while underscoring attachment measures’ role in mediating the association of adults’ ADHD with their coping strategies (Al-Yagon et al., 2020).

Family-level protective resource

This study examined an under-investigated family-level independent variable: family climate. Families’ quality of functioning may inform members’ well-being and resilience (Cui, Hong, and Jiao 2022). Theories of family systems view cohesion and adaptability as two major parameters for evaluating family functioning (D. Olson 2011). Cohesion refers to family members’ emotional bonding, while adaptability reflects the family system’s ability to change its leadership, roles, and rules in response to developmental and external pressures (D. Olson 2011).

Research on families of a child/adolescent with SLD/ADHD documented vulnerability – high parenting stress, ongoing challenges, less optimal family climate (Cheung and Theule 2016) – thereby accentuating family functioning’s important role for these youngsters’ adjustment. Based on resilience theory (Masten 2021), family variables merit inquiry for conscripts who may rely on families’ support during furloughs or when facing occupational stressors.

Community-level protective resource

This study examined one system-level independent variable: participants’ appraisal of their commander as a secure extrafamilial attachment figure. Bowlby (1988) assumed that after a child’s security needs are met and the parental figure becomes a global source of ‘secure base’, the child can then direct attention towards investigating the environment and engaging in interactions with other partners. Such attachment-like relationships may be formed with different extrafamilial figures who provide care and support and become sources of secure base, like peers and professionals.

Largely, prior studies on extrafamilial attachments focused on teachers (Ansari, Hofkens, and Pianta 2020). As a group, youngsters with SLD/ADHD appraised teachers as more rejecting and as less available and accepting than peers with TD; also, youngsters’ relationship quality with teachers helped explain their socioemotional and behavioural measures (Author1, 2016). In contrast to studies on educators, attachment research on young adults’ significant extrafamilial figures, especially in military settings, is scarce.

Emerging adults’ resilience

This study examined five dependent variables for measuring participants’ resilience/adjustment.

Positive and negative affect

Positive affect (e.g. happy, excited) and negative affect (e.g. angry, sad) are considered general indicators of psychological well-being and stress reactions (Silk et al., 2012). Prior studies reported high comorbidity of ADHD and SLD with adults’ mood and anxiety disorders (Anastopoulos et al. 2018). However, most ADHD research focused on negative rather than positive emotions (Stickley et al., 2018). The little positive-oriented research reported poorer regulation of positive emotions among youngsters with ADHD and less happy feelings among adults with ADHD (Stickley et al., 2018) compared to TD. Regarding positive and negative affects in military contexts, rare available research (Fruchter et al. 2019) indicated that individuals with ADHD had more prevalent anxiety or minor affective disorder diagnoses, lower positive affect (e.g. vigour, happiness), and higher negative affect (e.g. anger, depression) compared to TD.

Youngsters’ adjustment

Limited data are available on resilience and adjustment of emerging adults with neurodevelopmental disorders in demanding environments. The currently selected variables addressed the social unit and performance measures.

The current study

Together, this study’s multidimensional exploration aimed to increase theoretical and empirical knowledge about the under-investigated transition experienced by emerging adults with neurological disorders to a demanding non-academic context – mandatory military service. Thus, 904 youngsters in four groups were sampled: with ADHD, SLD, comorbid ADHD+SLD, or TD. Based on existing data for younger samples with disorders and the limited previous research on these emerging adults’ transition to non-academic environments, the current study tested two general hypotheses. First, regarding group differences, all three disorder groups were expected to reveal lower levels of protective factors and resilience/adjustment measures than peers with TD. Between the disorder groups, greater vulnerability was expected for those with ADHD symptoms (ADHD-alone or comorbidly) than for those with SLD alone, due to this highly demanding environment. Second, each protective/risk factor at individual, family, and community levels was expected to contribute to youngsters’ resilience measures.

Method

Participants

Participants comprised 904 emerging adults (406 females, 45%) ages 18–25 years (M = 18.70, SD=.77), ending their 3-month mandatory basic-training. Youngsters comprised three groups with formal diagnoses − 157 with SLD, 132 with ADHD, 100 with comorbid SLD+ADHD – and a fourth group (n=515) without SLD or ADHD or other disabilities, matched for sex, age, education, and occupational service type. Each group included youngsters from all three occupational service types: combat (n=319, 35.3%), technical-technological (n=285, 31.5%), and combat-support (n=300; 33.2%). The t-test and chi-square analyses revealed no significant differences between the four groups regarding individuals’ age, sex, or occupational type.

Participants with ADHD-only (n=132)

Inclusion criteria for the ADHD group were: (a) previous ADHD diagnosis per psychiatric and/or neurological evaluations based on DSM-5-TR criteria (APA 2022); (b) official military-approved ADHD diagnosis; (c) no previous SLD diagnosis by a certified professional or military-approved SLD diagnosis; and (d) self-reported ADHD symptoms score above cutoff (>51) on the ASRS-V1.1 screening checklist (ADHD Self-Report Scale, Adler et al. 2006; Zohar and Konfortes 2010). Prior ADHD diagnosis via psychiatric and/or neurological evaluations included clinical interview, computerised testing, and ADHD symptom severity measures (e.g. Conners 2008).

Participants with SLD-only (n=157)

Inclusion criteria for the SLD group were: (a) previous DSM-5-TR-based SLD diagnosis (APA 2022) by certified psychologist or didactic diagnostician; (b) official military-approved SLD diagnosis; (c) no previous ADHD diagnosis by certified professional or military-approved ADHD diagnosis; and (d) below-cutoff ASRS-V1.1 score. Prior SLD diagnostic battery utilised well-accepted psycho-educational instruments like ‘Aleph-Taph’ assessing reading/writing disabilities (Shany et al., 2006) and Brain Resource IntegNeuro™ battery (e.g. Stroop task, visual memory; Clark et al. 2006).

Participants with comorbid ADHD+SLD (n=100)

Inclusion criteria for the comorbid group were: (a) previous officially approved ADHD diagnosis and above-cut-off ASRS-V1.1 score (per ADHD group); and (b) previous officially approved SLD diagnosis (per SLD group).

Participants with TD (n=515)

Inclusion criteria for the TD group were: (a) no prior diagnosis of ADHD or SLD by a certified professional; (b) no officially approved ADHD, SLD, or other diagnosis; and (c) below-cut-off ASRS-V1.1 score.

Instruments

Data were collected from three information sources: the military database, participants’ reports, and direct commanders’ evaluation.

Diagnostic data from occupational database

Data obtained from participants’ personnel files included official military verification (or absence) of recruits’ previous formal diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders.

Instruments

ADHD symptoms

The 18-item ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-V1.1; Adler et al. 2006) comprised a symptom checklist for adults’ ADHD manifestations (Hebrew adaptation: Zohar and Konfortes 2010). Participants rated each symptom’s frequency (e.g. ‘How often do you feel overly active and compelled to do things, like you were driven by a motor?’) on a 5-point scale ranging from Never (0) to Very often (4), with 0–72 score range. Zohar and Konfortes (2010) suggested significant sensitivity of items’ raw sum, identifying the > 51 categorical cut-off point for assessing adults’ ADHD. Current Cronbach alpha for the total scale was .88.

Sense of coherence

The 13-item short version of Antonovsky’s (1987) Sense of Coherence Scale used a 7-point Likert scale customised for various items, for example: ‘Doing the things you do every day is …’ rated from A source of pain and boredom (1) to A source of deep pleasure and satisfaction (7). Higher sum scores indicated participants’ higher SOC levels. Cronbach alpha was .82.

Attachment patterns

The 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (Brennan, Clark, and Shaver 1998; Hebrew adaptation:; Mikulincer and Florian 2000) assessed two 18-item dimensions: attachment anxiety (e.g. ‘I worry a lot about my relationships’) and attachment avoidance (e.g. ‘I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down’). Participants rated their feelings in close relationships on a 7-point scale from Not at all (1) to Very much (7). Lower scores indicated greater attachment security. Cronbach alphas were .91 for attachment anxiety and .87 for attachment avoidance.

Ego-resiliency

The 14-item Ego-Resiliency Scale (Block and Kremen 1996; Hebrew adaptation: Toren 2019) assessed participants’ self-appraised ego-resiliency, defined broadly as the personality’s capacity to adapt to uncertainty. Participants rated items (e.g. ‘I quickly get over and recover from being startled’) on a 4-point scale from Does not apply (1) to Applies very much (4). Higher scores indicated greater ego-resiliency. Cronbach alpha was .78.

Affect scale

This 28-item scale (Moos et al. 1987) comprised two major 14-item factors: positive affect (e.g. ‘friendly’, ‘happy’) and negative affect (e.g. ‘worthless’, ‘worried’). Participants rated their own affect on a 5-point Likert scale from Not at all appropriate (1) to Very appropriate (5). Cronbach alphas were .89 for positive affect and .89 for negative affect.

Perceived family climate

The 20-item Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation (FACES-III; D. H. Olson, Pertner, and Lavee 1985, Hebrew adaptation:; Teichman and Navon 1990) tapped participants’ perceptions on two 10-item subscales. Cohesion referred to their family’s emotional bonding, family boundaries, and sense of connectedness/separateness (e.g. ‘Family members feel closer to other family members than to people outside the family’). Adaptability referred to their family system’s flexibility and capacity for change (e.g. ‘We shift household responsibilities from person to person’). Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale from Almost never (1) to Almost always (5). Higher scores indicated greater cohesion/adaptability. Cronbach alphas were .87 for cohesion and .72 for adaptability.

Appraisal of commander as secure extrafamilial attachment figure

The 25-item Soldiers’ Appraisal of Commander as a Secure Base (SACSB) scale, developed for this study’s participants regarding their commanders, was adapted from the Children’s Appraisal of Teacher as a Secure Base Scale (CATSB; Author1 & Colleague, 2006). Grounded in attachment theory, the two-subscale CATSB is widely used for youngsters, including those with neurodevelopmental disorders and TD, regarding their teachers (e.g. Author1, 2016). Adaptation required terminology changes to fit military rather than educational systems (e.g. teacher➔commander; class➔army-unit). The 17-item availability/acceptance subscale assessed participants’ perception of their commander as available, caring, and accepting (e.g. ‘My commander is always there to help me when I need him/her’). The 8-item rejection subscale assessed participants’ perception of commander as rejecting (e.g. ‘My commander makes me feel unwanted’). Participants rated items on a 7-point scale from Does not apply (1) to Applies very much (7). Pilot research on 50 soldiers external to this study yielded good SACSB internal consistency: α = .94 for availability/acceptance and α = .89 for rejection. Current Cronbach alphas were .95 for availability/acceptance and .90 for rejection.

Adaptation to occupational service

The 27-item Soldier Adaptation to Military Questionnaire (SAMQ) scale, developed for this study, was adapted from the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker and Siryk 1989). Adaptation required terminology changes to fit military rather than higher educational systems. Also, several items were added per military organisational consultation (e.g. ‘To what extent do you derive a sense of contribution from your service?’). Using a 5-point scale from Not at all (1) to Very much (5), participants rated the 17-item vocational-institutional satisfaction subscale (e.g. ‘To what extent are you pleased with your current post/position?’) and the 10-item social adaptation to service subscale (e.g. ‘I am involved in my unit’s social activities’). Pilot research on 50 soldiers external to this study yielded good internal consistency: α = .93 for vocational-institutional satisfaction and .90 for social adaptation. Current Cronbach alphas were .90. for vocational-institutional satisfaction and .88 for social adaptation.

Demographic lifespan information checklist

Information included participants’ age, education, SES, current occupational service type, ADHD/SLD diagnosis/treatment/remediation history, and indices of additional comorbid psychopathology (previous diagnoses/treatments beyond ADHD/SLD).

Commanders’ evaluation of subordinates’ adjustment

The 9-item Commanders’ Evaluation of Soldiers’ Adjustment Questionnaire (CESAQ) was developed for this study with organisational consultants to assess participants’ overall functioning during occupational training. Direct commanders rated items (e.g. ‘Manages tasks effectively under physically and mentally difficult conditions’) on a 5-point Likert scale from Not at all (1) to Very much (5). Pilot research on 50 soldiers external to this study yielded good CESAQ internal consistency: α = .96. The current Cronbach alpha was .93.

Procedure

After obtaining approvals from the Israel Defense Forces and the Tel-Aviv University Ethics Committee, a research team member (special-education Ph.D. student) recruited participants via in-person appeals to commanders overseeing basic-training courses in combat, technical-technological, and combat-support occupations. Data were collected ~4 months post-recruitment following basic-training courses (comprising bootcamp and vocational elements including routine and military discipline, physical and field training, studies on values and fundamentals, and specialised occupational preparation). After explaining the study’s purpose, voluntary and confidential nature, and open exit options without repercussions, youngsters gave written consent for participation and for collecting their prior diagnostic information. While participants completed instruments, the researcher provided additional help if needed (explaining items aloud, administrative guidance); such requests were rare and easily handled. Direct commanders completed the CESAQ for each subordinate.

Data analysis

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to investigate group differences between youngsters in the four groups: SLD, ADHD, ADHD+SLD, and TD. Linear regression analyses were conducted for each of the five resilience measures: positive affect, negative affect, vocational-institutional satisfaction, social adaptation, and commander-rated functioning. Predictors were individual risk factors (the disorders) and protective factors at the individual, family, and system levels.

Results

Differences between four groups: SLD, ADHD, ADHD+SLD, and TD

To examine emerging adults’ group differences on all study measures and to decrease likelihood of Type 1 errors, MANOVA was conducted for 13 variables: (a) eight risk/protective factors including four individual-level (SOC, ego-resiliency, avoidant/anxious attachment), two family-level (family’s adaptability/cohesion), and two system-level (appraisal of commander as available/accepting and rejecting); and (b) five resilience/adjustment measures including four self-reports (positive affect, negative affect, vocational-institutional satisfaction, social adaptation) and commander-reported overall functioning. As hypothesised, this MANOVA yielded a significant main effect for study group, F(39,2612) = 5.43, p < .001, η²⁼.07.

Overall, significant intergroup differences emerged on all 13 measures (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and F scores of univariate ANOVAs). Post hoc analyses (Tukey HSD, Scheffe) revealed overall group differences. Youngsters with ADHD or with comorbid ADHD+SLD manifested significantly lower protective factors at individual, family, and community levels than youngsters in the TD and SLD-only groups. Thus, those with ADHD (either alone or co-occurring with SLD) reported significantly lower SOC, lower ego-resiliency, more avoidant/anxious attachments, lower family cohesion, and appraisal of commanders as less available/accepting and more rejecting than in the SLD-only and TD groups.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and f scores of youngsters’ variables by study group.

	Group A: TD (n = 515)		Group B: SLD (n = 157)		Group C: ADHD (n = 132)		Group D: ADHD+SLD (n = 100)
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F (3, 884)	Post hoc	η^2
Youngsters’ protective factors
Sense of coherence	4.72	.81	4.75	.78	4.06	.77	4.03	.82	39.96^†	A,B > C,D	.12
Ego-resiliency	3.15	.40	3.21	.40	3.00	.40	2.94	.46	13.32^†	A,B > C,D	.04
Avoidant attachment	3.14	.90	3.20	.93	3.50	.95	3.54	1.01	8.43^†	A,B < C,D	.03
Anxious attachment	3.27	1.10	3.15	1.11	3.97	1.16	3.90	1.16	21.98^†	A,B < C,D	.07
Family cohesion	4.02	.64	4.07	.70	3.72	.76	3.84	.74	9.30^†	A,B > C,D	.03
Family adaptability	2.90	.61	3.04	.60	2.84	.60	2.97	.61	3.05^†	A,B > C,D	.01
Available/accepting commander	5.50	1.12	5.36	1.15	5.00	1.31	4.91	1.41	10.50^†	A > C,D B > D	.03
Rejecting commander	1.68	.99	1.82	.97	2.00	1.05	2.00	1.10	5.10**	A < C,D	.01
Youngsters’ resilience factors
Positive affect	3.80	.63	3.93	.62	3.37	.73	3.45	.77	23.72^†	A,B > C,D	.08
Negative affect	2.11	.61	2.00	.60	2.72	.73	2.76	.82	47.74^†	A,B< C,D	.14
Vocational-institutional satisfaction	3.91	.67	3.98	.65	3.50	.80	3.60	.87	17.35^†	A,B > C,D	.05
Social adaptation	4.12	.68	4.13	.70	3.77	.90	3.95	.81	8.50^†	A,B > C	.03
Commander-rated functioning	4.25	.70	4.11	.77	4.05	.80	3.91	.80	7.62^†	A > C,D	.03

*p < .05; **p < .01; ^†p < .001.

Similar patterns of results emerged for youngsters’ resilience measures. Those with ADHD or ADHD+SLD reported significantly lower positive affect, higher negative affect, and lower adjustment to occupational service (vocational-institutional satisfaction, social adaptation) and were also evaluated by commanders as functioning lower overall compared to youngsters with TD or SLD. However, no significant differences in protective factors or resilience measures emerged between youngsters with SLD-only versus TD. Nor did significant differences emerge between youngsters with ADHD versus comorbid ADHD+SLD.

Contribution of protective/risk factors to youngsters’ resilience measures

To address Hypothesis 2 on individual, family, and community protective/risk factors’ possible contributions to youngsters’ resilience measures, five separate linear regressions examined the total sample in four blocks. These blocks comprised the: (1) individual-level risk variable – youngsters’ group affiliation (SLD, ADHD, ADHD+SLD, TD); (2) individual-level emotional and coping resources (SOC, ego-resiliency, avoidant/anxious attachments); (3) family-level adaptability/cohesion; and (4) system-level appraisal of commander as secure base (available/accepting, rejecting). As seen in Table 2, outcomes mostly supported the hypothesis for youngsters’ variance in all five resilience/adjustment measures, showing the significant role of individual, family, and system factors.

Table 2. Regressions testing contribution of risk and protective factors at the individual, family, and system levels to youngsters’ resilience measures.

Predictors	Youngsters’ resilience and adjustment measures
	Self-reports								Commander-evaluated overall functioning
	Positive affect		Negative affect		Vocational-institutional satisfaction		Social adaptation
	Δ R^2	β	Δ R^2	β	Δ R^2	β	Δ R^2	β	Δ R^2	β
Step 1	.08^†		.14^†		.06^†		.03^†		.03^†
SLD		.07*		−.05		.04		.01		−.07*
ADHD		−.21^†		.28^†		−.20^†		−.16^†		−.10**
Comorbid ADHD+SLD		−.16^†		.27^†		−.13^†		−.07*		−.14^†
Step 2	.38^†		.34^†		.21^†		.33^†		.04^†
SLD		.05*		−.03		.03		−.00		−.07*
ADHD		−.06*		.11^†		−.08*		−.02		−.07*
Comorbid ADHD+SLD		−.00		.11^†		−.02		.07*		−.10**
Sense of coherence		.33^†		−.41^†		.43^†		.23^†		.16^†
Ego-resiliency		.34^†		−.07*		.17^†		.24^†		.08*
Avoidant attachment		−.14^†		.02		−.05		−.28^†		−.08*
Anxious attachment		.00		.22^†		.13^†		−.05		.14^†
Step 3	.02^†		.01^†		.01^†		.02^†		.00
SLD		.05		−.03		.03		−.00		−.07*
ADHD		−.05*		.11^†		−.07*		−.01		−.06
Comorbid ADHD+SLD		−.00		.11^†		−.01		.07*		−.10**
Sense of coherence		.30^†		.39^†		.40^†		.19^†		.15**
Ego-resiliency		.34^†		−.07*		.17^†		.22^†		.09*
Avoidant attachment		−.10^†		−.00		−.02		−.25^†		−.07
Anxious attachment		.00		.21^†		.13^†		−.05		.15^†
Family cohesion		.17^†		−.11^†		.12^†		.15^†		.06
Family adaptability		−.01		.02		−.02		.04		−.03
Step 4	.04^†		.02^†		.15^†		.07^†		.05^†
SLD		.06*		−.04		.05		.01		−.05
ADHD		−.04		.10^†		−.05		.01		−.05
Comorbid ADHD+SLD		.00		.10^†		.02		.09^†		−.08*
Sense of coherence		.25^†		.35^†		.30^†		.13^†		.09*
Ego-resiliency		.31^†		−.07*		.14^†		.20^†		.08*
Avoidant attachment		−.18^†		−.02		.02		−.21^†		−.04
Anxious attachment		−.02		.23^†		.08*		.09**		.12**
Family cohesion		.14^†		−.08**		.06		.10**		.02
Family adaptability		−.02		.01		−.02		.04		−.02
Rejecting commander		.05		.08**		−.05		−.01		−.13^†
Available/accepting commander		.25^†		−.09**		.39^†		.30^†		.15^†
Overall R^2	.52^†		.51^†		.43^†		.45^†		.12^†

*p < .05. **p < .01. ^†p < .001.

Predictors of positive affect

At the individual level, lower positive affect was predicted by SLD affiliation (in Steps 1, 2, 4), ADHD affiliation (Steps 1–3), and comorbid ADHD+SLD affiliation (Step 1). Also, as hypothesised, greater individual-level resources significantly predicted higher positive affect, namely, their higher SOC (Steps 2–4), higher ego-resiliency (Steps 2–4), and lower attachment avoidance (Steps 2–4). No significant contribution to positive affect emerged for attachment anxiety. Regarding family-level measures, cohesion significantly contributed to youngsters’ higher positive affect (Steps 3–4), but adaptability did not. At the system-level, appraisals of one’s commander as more available/accepting and less rejecting significantly contributed to higher positive affect (Step 4). This regression model predicting positive affect, F(11,893) = 87.10, p < .001, explained overall R² of 52%.

Predictors of negative affect

At the individual level, youngsters’ higher negative affect was predicted by ADHD and comorbid ADHD+SLD affiliations (Steps 1–4). Also, as hypothesised, greater individual-level resources significantly predicted lower negative affect (Steps 2–4), namely, youngsters’ higher SOC, higher ego-resiliency, and lower attachment anxiety (but not attachment avoidance). Family-level measures showed that cohesion significantly contributed to higher positive affect (Steps 3–4), but adaptability did not. Both system-level measures (appraisal of commander as more available/accepting and less rejecting) significantly contributed to youngsters’ lower negative affect (Step 4). This regression model, F(11,893) = 83.96, p < .001, explained overall R² of 51%.

Predictors of vocational-institutional satisfaction

At the individual level, youngsters’ lower vocational-institutional satisfaction was predicted by SLD affiliation (Step 4), ADHD affiliation (Steps 1–3), and ADHD+SLD affiliation (Step 1). Also, as hypothesised, greater individual-level resources significantly predicted higher vocational-institutional satisfaction (Steps 2–4), namely, higher SOC, higher ego-resiliency, and lower attachment anxiety (but not attachment avoidance). Family-level measures showed that cohesion significantly contributed to higher vocational-institutional satisfaction (Step 3), but adaptability did not. At the system level, only youngsters’ appraisal of their commander as highly available/accepting contributed significantly to vocational-institutional satisfaction (Step 4), whereas the rejecting subscale did not. This regression model, F(11,886) = 19.19, p < .001, explained overall R² of 43%.

Predictors of social adaptation to occupational service

At the individual level, youngsters’ lower social adaptation was predicted by ADHD affiliation (Step 1) and ADHD+SLD affiliation (Steps 1–4). Also, as hypothesised, greater individual-level resources significantly predicted higher social adaptation to occupational service, namely, higher SOC, higher ego-resiliency, and lower avoidant attachment (Steps 2–4) and lower anxious attachment (Step 4). Family-level measures showed that cohesion significantly contributed to youngsters’ higher social adaptation (Steps 3–4), but adaptability did not. At the system level, only appraisal of commander as highly available/accepting contributed significantly to social adaptation (Step 4), whereas the rejecting subscale did not. This regression model, F(11,884) = 64.88, p < .001, explained overall R² of 45%.

Predictors of commanders’ evaluation of youngsters’ occupational adjustment

At the individual level, commanders’ lower evaluation of subordinates’ functioning was predicted by SLD affiliation (Steps 1–3), ADHD affiliation (Steps 1–2), and ADHD+SLD affiliation (Steps 1–4). Also, as hypothesised, youngsters’ greater individual-level resources significantly predicted their commanders’ higher overall evaluation of functioning, namely, higher SOC (Steps 2–4), higher ego-resiliency (Steps 2–3), lower anxious attachment (Steps 2–4), and, partially, lower avoidance attachment (Step 2). Both system-level measures (appraisal of commander as more available/accepting and less rejecting) significantly contributed to commander-rated overall functioning (Step 4). In contrast, neither family-level factor significantly contributed to variance in commanders’ evaluation of functioning. This regression model, F(11,881) = 5.60, p < .001, explained overall R² of 12%.

Intercorrelations among study variables

As seen in Table 3, moderate to high significant correlations emerged between most of the eight protective resources (individual, family, and system) and youngsters’ resilience/adjustment measures. Youngsters’ fifth adjustment variable, commander-evaluated functioning, revealed significant correlations with protective resources but showed slightly lower values. Intercorrelations among the protective resources mostly indicated moderate to high significant correlations.

Table 3. Correlation matrix of study variables (N = 904).

			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Protective resources	Individual- level	1. Sense of coherence	—
		2. Ego-resiliency	. 51^†	—
		3. Avoidant attachment	−. 37^†	−. 32^†	—
		4. Anxious attachment	−. 64^†	−. 33^†	.25^†	—
	Family- level	5. Family cohesion	.34^†	.23^†	−.31^†	−.23^†	—
		6. Family adaptability	.14^†	.24^†	−.12^†	−.07*	.51^†	—
	System- level	7. Available/accepting commander	. 31^†	.25^†	−.25^†	−.13^†	.27^†	.12^†	—
		8. Rejecting commander	−.27^†	−.09	.21**	.18^†	−.24^†	−.05	−.63^†	—
Resilience and adjustment	Affective	9. Positive affect	. 58^†	.57^†	−.37^†	−.38^†	.38^†	.21^†	.43^†	−.25^†	—
		10. Negative affect	−. 65^†	−.39^†	.27^†	.55^†	−.32^†	−.13^†	−.34^†	.31^†	−.66^†	—
	Occupational	11. Vocational- institutional satisfaction	. 47^†	.37^†	−.24^†	−.24^†	.28^†	.14^†	.55^†	−.39^†	.60^†	−.52^†	—
		12. Social adaptation	. 47^†	.45^†	−.44^†	−.34^†	.37^†	.23^†	.46^†	−.32^†	.64^†	−.47^†	.55^†	—
		13. Commander-evaluated functioning	.17^†	.16^†	−.14^†	−.03	.12^†	−.04	.29^†	−.25^†	.25	−.19^†	.25^†	.24^†

*p < .05, ** p < .01, ^† p < .001.

Discussion

Findings elucidated adjustment challenges faced by under-investigated emerging adults with neurodevelopmental disorders in non-academic contexts, and the role of multisystem risk and protective factors for explaining these young adults’ pathways to resilience. First, the group comparisons of emerging adults with ADHD alone, SLD alone, comorbid ADHD+SLD, and TD highlighted significant intergroup differences on all examined protective factors and resilience measures, pinpointing the particular vulnerability of those with ADHD symptoms. Second, findings regarding predictors underscored the risk posed by ADHD and partially by SLD, alongside the protective role played by a series of multi-level resources, as pathways to enhancing youngsters’ resilience in this demanding occupational context.

Group differences: emerging adult groups’ risk, resources, and resilience

As hypothesised, group comparisons highlighted significantly greater vulnerability in both groups having ADHD symptoms (either with or without SLD) than SLD-only or TD groups, regarding youngsters’ protective factors (at all three ecological levels) and their resilience/adjustment measures (self-reported and commander-rated). This pattern of findings pinpointed the centrality of ADHD symptoms and also the inconsistent findings for youth with SLD regarding several of these dimensions (e.g. positive affect; Author1, 2016; Margalit 2006). Inattention-hyperactivity/impulsivity rather than learning problems appeared to differentiate between these groups.

Thus, both groups having ADHD symptoms demonstrated the highest risk for less adequate protective resources, namely: (a) lower SOC and ego-resiliency, considered valuable individual-level coping resources (Kubo, Sugawara, and Masuyama 2021; Mittlemark et al. 2022); (b) lower emotional resources in terms of anxious/avoidant attachment, considered highly relevant for explaining individual variations in lifelong adjustment (Mikulincer and Shaver 2013); (c) lower family-level variables, which may underlie protective resources for well-being (Cui, Hong, and Jiao 2022); and (d) lower community/system-level resources, which provide a novel attachment perspective on the commander as a non-academic extrafamilial significant other (Author1, 2016).

Likewise, this study’s groups with ADHD or ADHD+SLD demonstrated the highest risk for poorer resilience/adjustment, including their affective measures (higher negative affect, lower positive affect) and occupational adjustment (lower vocational-institutional satisfaction, social adaptation, and commander-rated functioning). These intergroup differences extend the empirical literature on positive functioning in young adults with neurodevelopmental disorders in non-academic settings, in several ways. First, these results for young adults complement prior research indicating greater vulnerability in younger children/adolescents with ADHD/SLD than in TD (Margalit 2006). Second, the rare prior research on young adults with disorders in military settings examined those with ADHD, not with SLD, and has mostly utilised pathologically oriented variables like PTSD symptoms, negative mood, and mental health (Fruchter et al. 2019; Howlett et al. 2018).

Contribution of protective/risk factors to emerging adults’ resilience/adjustment

Largely, the current findings highlighted the risk posed by neurodevelopmental disorders and the protective role contributed by resources at the three ecological levels.

Neurodevelopmental disorders

Current results emphasising the risk posed by neurodevelopmental disorders for youngsters’ resilience/adjustment correspond with prior literature indicating both ADHD and SLD symptoms’ clear associations with adults’ clinical, academic, occupational, and socioemotional impairments (Asherson et al. 2019; Wilcox et al. 2024). However, the substantial vulnerability posed specifically by ADHD symptoms during military training, relative to the risk posed by learning difficulties, was evidenced by the higher values and greater number of significant β coefficients in explaining variance in participants’ resilience/adjustment. In demanding occupational settings, scholastic aspects seemed less central than other skills like executive functions, emotional regulation, resistance to pressure, and mental flexibility, thereby providing novel information on functioning of young adults with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Individual protective resources

As hypothesised, each individual-level resource demonstrated a substantial protective role – SOC, ego-resiliency, and low anxiety/avoidance attachment – which were rarely investigated for emerging adults with disorders, especially in military contexts. First, SOC appeared to explain all five indices of resilience/adjustment, thereby extending the literature (Mittlemark et al. 2022) to incorporate SOC as a resource for coping with crisis/distress during youngsters’ transition to demanding non-academic environments. Presumably, youngsters with higher SOC perceive stressful, demanding situations as less threatening and as more comprehensible, manageable, and worthy of investment.

Second, ego-resiliency appeared to serve as a protective factor for recovery from difficult situations and flexible adaptation to changes, predicting all resilience measures except negative affect. This extends the prior empirical literature (Kubo, Sugawara, and Masuyama 2021), which has scarcely explored youngsters with/without neurodevelopment disorders in stressful occupational contexts.

Third, findings highlighting secure attachments as important protective factors for youngsters’ well-adjusted functioning support attachment theory (Mikulincer and Shaver 2013) while extending the limited prior literature on attachment in the military, which focused on veterans’ PTSD (Tamman et al. 2021). Specifically, youngsters’ lower negative affect, higher satisfaction from their occupational role, and better commander-rated functioning were predicted by their own lower attachment anxiety – referring to fewer worries about closeness and fewer hyperactivating behaviours when reacting to interpersonal distress (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2010). Additionally, youngsters’ lower avoidant attachment patterns contributed to their higher positive affect, social adaptation, and commander-rated functioning. This refers to their lower sense of discomfort or preference for emotional distance from significant others and lower tendency towards self-reliance and deactivating behaviours when facing interpersonal distress (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2010).

Family resources

The protective role played by the family cohesion, mostly for youngsters’ affective and social adaptation, coincides with family-system theories as well as resilience approaches emphasising the role of family and parenting for lifelong adjustment (García-Mendoza et al. 2024; Ramos et al. 2022). Youngsters’ family cohesiveness provides a protective resource in coping with military experiences’ demands and stressors by enabling communication, high levels of affection, closeness, and emotional support. However, family adaptability failed to explain variation in youngsters ’ functioning, calling for follow-up studies including qualitative inquiry. Perhaps this subscale, referring to family system flexibility and capacity for change, was less relevant for occupational functioning than found previously in school settings.

System resources: commander as secure base

Even in this highly demanding environment emphasising discipline, authority, and distance, youngsters who appraised their commanders as more available/accepting, when needed, demonstrated better adjustment/resilience. However, the commander rejection subscale showed only limited contribution. These results extend the rare knowledge on extrafamilial attachment figures (Ansari, Hofkens, and Pianta 2020) to a novel sample of young adults in demanding environments. Future empirical exploration of commanders’ specific behaviours related to their higher appraisal as a secure base may provide essential knowledge for youngsters with ADHD symptoms, who appraise their commanders as less available and accepting than youngsters in the other groups.

Implications, limitations, and directions for future study

The current outcomes, especially when validated and generalised by further research, hold significant implications. Findings underscored the need to design effective individual, familial, and community-based interventions to enhance resilience/adjustment in young conscripts as they separate from their family and enter the new highly demanding, stressful environment. Although resource-focused interventions may be useful for all four groups, the present findings for youngsters with SLD-only emphasise their expected relative success in adjusting to this novel non-academic setting. In contrast, findings clearly revealed the greatest impairments in these protective factors among the ADHD-only and comorbid groups, who should be identified as targets of intervention before and during military service.

For example, the salient role found for SOC in this novel context suggests potential benefit from interventions utilising its core components – comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness – to facilitate the transition from educational to mandatory service contexts for adolescents with these disorders. Such interventions may encourage youngsters to search for and identify individual and environmental generalised resistance resources (e.g. social support, close relationships, effective coping strategies; Idan, Eriksson, and Al-Yagon 2022), which may promote their navigation of demanding situations in more comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful ways. Additionally, although attachment-based interventions were seldom examined in adulthood, a recent review (Levy and Johnson 2019) suggested that psychotherapeutic approaches like interpersonal-psychotherapy and emotion-focused therapy may enhance attachment security and utilisation of more ‘constructive ways of coping’ like support-seeking and problem-solving skills.

Finally, considering the important role found here for commanders as a secure base, the military system would do well to shape commanders’ professional development to raise awareness about ADHD’s consequences for youngsters’ adjustment, while providing tools to help commanders increase their availability to and acceptance of youngsters with disorders. Tools might include information on disability characteristics, methods for strengthening motivation, and supportive techniques.

Several limitations of this study call for further research. First, although both self-reports and commanders’ evaluations were obtained, future additional sources like family members and peers may provide more comprehensive data and avoid the possible positive illusory bias that can appear in individuals with ADHD regarding their areas of deficit (Hoza et al. 2013). Second, these data were gathered at one time point and did not indicate causality. To facilitate validation and generalisation of preliminary evidence, and to promote greater understanding of the unique role played by the present risk/protective factors, future studies should examine such measures’ longevity across the service period and should utilise qualitative methods to elaborate on participants’ experiences.

Third, findings should be interpreted with caution due to several sample characteristics. Mainly, this sample did not include youngsters whose severity of neurodevelopmental symptoms or other comorbidities precluded their draft into the military. Also, although a unique strength of this study was its sample selection validity via triangulation of verification processes (i.e. prior formal ADHD and/or SLD diagnosis; the ASRS-V1 scale; and diagnoses’ official verification), youngsters’ original psychiatric/neurological diagnostic reports and pharmacological treatment information were unavailable due to military confidentiality policy. These sample characteristics call for future research targeting the possible role of medication (e.g. psychostimulants/amphetamines, methylphenidate) on youngsters’ measures and the possible bias of false-positive diagnoses due to high-school students’ tendency to seek late diagnostic evaluation to receive accommodations during matriculation tests. Finally, although the present results offer a complementary resilience perspective for investigating pathways underlying youngsters’ adjustment, including the family level, the present study did not examine participants’ SES or familial stressors that may contribute to emerging adults’ well-being in stressful non-academic adult contexts.

Disclosure statement

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