Parent Versus Child Stress in Diverse Family Types: An Ecological Approach

Sandra S. Duis, Marcia Summers, and Carl R. Summers, Ball State University

Differences in level o f overall stress and the propor t ion o f child- versus

parent-related stress among several different family types were investi-

gated. An ecological f ramework was used to delineate the predictors o f

stress for the different family types. Part icipants were 2 9 single-parent

families, 3 5 two-parent families, 1 7 families o f children with D o w n syn-

drome, 1 6 families o f children with hearing impairment , and 2 9 families

o f children with developmental delay. T h e results indicate that family

stress and ecological variables predictive o f family stress varied among

these families. Intervention and therapy efforts may be improved by

understanding the locus o f stressors among these family types.

All families experience stress from time to time, but the types o f

stress and the resources available to aid in coping vary among fami-

lies. According to Holroyd and Lazarus ( 1 9 8 2 ) , psychological stress

occurs when "environmental and/or internal demands tax or exceed

the individual's resources for managing them" (p. 2 2 ) . The negative

effects o f such stress can be buffered by social support, including

"informational, instructional, psychological, material, and physical

resources provided by members of a person's personal social net-

works" (Dunst, Trivette, Hamby, &C Pollock, 1 9 9 0 , p. 2 0 5 ) . Because

social support increases parent well-being, promotes better family

functioning, and improves interactions between family members, it

can have a positive effect on child behavior and development (Dunst

et al., 1 9 9 0 ) .

Address: Marcia Summers, Department University, Muncie, IN 47306.

TECSE 17(1), 5 3 - 7 3 (1997)

of Educational Psychology, Ball State

© PRO-ED, Inc.

Researchers such as Dyson and Fewell ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; Mahoney, O'Sullivan, and Robinson ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; and Seligman ( 1 9 9 1 ) have inves-tigated how stressors and available resources vary among different family types. Their findings have shown that families who have chil-dren with disabilities face unique stressors compared to families o f children without disabilities (Hanson & Hanline, 1 9 9 0 ) . Significant levels of stress have also been found in single-parent families with nondisabled children (Williams, 1 9 8 8 ) . Single parents have fewer financial resources, experience more role overload, and face more challenges in managing parenting functions compared to parents in two-parent families (Sanik & Mauldin, 1 9 8 6 ) . Thus, it follows that sources of stress and its amelioration might be different for parents of children with disabilities, single parents of children without dis-abilities, and two-parent families of children without disabilities.

The first purpose o f this study is to compare the overall lev-els and types o f stress among different types o f families, including those with a child with Down syndrome, those with a child with hearing impairment, and those with a child with developmental delay. Also included were two types o f families with children who did not have a disability—those with divorced, single parents and those with two parents. Kazak ( 1 9 8 9 ) has warned that one risks suggesting that deficits exist in some family groups if differences are found or that all groups are similar to "no rma l " families if no differences are found when one uses a design that includes a com-parison group, like the group o f two-parent families with children without disabilities in the current study. The intent o f the current study is not to suggest that any one group is deficient by showing that certain groups experience more stress than others, but to scrutinize family stress through an examinat ion o f its compo-nents. More specifically, it is predicted that stress related to char-acteristics o f the child versus stress related to the parenting role itself will vary according to family type (Dyson & Fewell, 1 9 8 6 ; Hanson & Hanline, 1 9 9 0 ; Wil l iams, 1 9 8 8 ) . Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, a second purpose o f this study is to examine the predictors o f child- and parent-related stress that emanate from within and from outside the family in each o f the family groups. Understanding the needs o f various family types who are likely to experience extraordinary levels o f parental and child-related stress is valuable because it may help community ser-vice agencies to more effectively target their work toward meeting specific needs.

Both family systems theory and social ecological theory were used as a basis o f determining locus o f family stress and how it dif-fers among family types. Family systems theorists view the family as a complex system in which each person's behavior is bidirectional, affecting and being affected by other family members. Social ecolog-ical theorists use the framework provided by Bronfenbrenner ( 1 9 7 9 ) to study the relations between the developing human being and the settings and contexts in which he or she develops (Kazak, 1 9 8 9 ) . Bronfenbrenner's ( 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 8 9 ) model places the child at the center o f a complex system of concentric circles that represent different levels of environmental influences. The more immediate environment, such as family and school, is represented by the circle closest to the child and is referred to as the "microsystem." A more distant layer, the "exosystem," represents indirect influences such as parental employ-ment, the extended family, and community support services.

Bidirectional influences exist between the child and his or her context, as in family systems theory, but also between and among the concentric layers. For example, characteristics o f the child affect his or her family and vice versa; moreover, community support ser-vices (exosystem) influence the family (microsystem), which influ-ences the school (also microsystem). Both family systems theory and social ecological theory provide a framework for considering the effects o f extrafamily and intrafamily influences on families. Examples of variables emanating from outside the family, or the exosystem, are income, childcare availability and other resources, and social support. Some examples o f variability within the family include characteristics o f the child and the interrelationships among family members.

In a practical sense, ecological models have proven useful in understanding family functioning associated with having children with physical disabilities, chronic illness (Kazak, 1 9 8 9 ) , and other disabilities (Dunst et al., 1 9 9 0 ) . Intervention based on these models involves assessing needs and stressors emanating from both outside and within the family, with the goal o f enabling parents to make use o f both intrafamily and extrafamily resources in order to promote the functioning of the family and each of its members (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1 9 8 8 ) . It logically follows that an ecological model may provide valuable insight into the stresses faced by single-parent families as well. This kind of information may eventually lead to practical applications in the same way that the ecological approach has been useful in developing effective early intervention programs.

Method

The data were collected as part of several studies involving the videotaping of sibling interactions (Ascione, Summers, & Summers, 1 9 8 8 ; Summers, Summers, & Ascione, 1 9 9 3 ) . Measures of family functioning were completed by mothers at time of taping and included the Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1 9 8 3 ) ; the Family Support Scale (Dunst, Jenkins, &c Trivette, 1 9 8 4 ) ; the Family Resource Scale (Leet &c Dunst, 1 9 8 5 ) ; the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales-Ill (Olson, Portner, &c Lavee, 1 9 8 5 ) ; the Sibling Behavior Rating Scale (adapted from Schaeffer & Edgerton, 1 9 7 9 ) ; and demographic characteristics. In addition, children's severity of disability was measured using the Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI; Newborg, Stock, Wnek, Guidubaldi, &c Svinicki, 1 9 8 4 ) . The BDI was administered at a separate time from the collection of the other measures in order not to fatigue the children. Battelle testing was done by trained personnel (master's or doctoral students) who were required to undergo training and reach a high level of profi-ciency on the measure. A 1 0 % reliability check was conducted using a shadow scoring method, and acceptable (above 8 0 % ) reliability was found for all testers on all subscales.

I n s t r u m e n t s

Stress. The Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1 9 8 3 ) was chosen as a measure of overall and child-related and parent-related stress. It is a self-report inventory designed to assess experienced stress and coping behavior in the parent-child system. Examples of child-related stress factors measured by Abidin's ( 1 9 8 3 ) scale include demandingness, mood, and distractibility/hyperactivity. Examples of parent-related factors include depression, sense of com-petence, restriction of role, and social isolation. Evidence for the validity of using these separate subdomains is offered by Loyd and Abidin ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A review of the literature indicated that the PSI has been used by a number of researchers interested in families with chil-dren with disabilities (Boyce, Behl, Mortensen, &c Akers, 1 9 9 1 ; Fuller &c Rankin, 1 9 9 4 ; Hadadian, 1 9 9 4 ; Innocenti, Huh, & Boyce, 1 9 9 2 ; Kazak &c Marvin, 1 9 8 4 ; Krauss, 1 9 9 3 ) .

In the current study, it was hypothesized that significant differ-ences in levels of overall stress would exist among two-parent fami-

lies with children with disabilities, single-parent families with chil-dren without disabilities, and two-parent families with children without disabilities. Due to the unique stressors thought to be expe-rienced in families with children with disabilities and in single-par-ent families, it was further hypothesized that child-related stress would be greatest in families with children with disabilities and par-ent-related stress greatest in the single-parent families. Two-parent families with children without disabilities were hypothesized to have lower child-related and parent-related stress compared to the other family groups.

Extrafamily Influences on Stress. Mother's perception o f available resources was measured by the Family Resource Scale (FRS; Leet &c Dunst, 1 9 8 5 ) , and her perception of external support was measured by the Family Support Scale (FSS; Dunst et al., 1 9 8 4 ) . The FRS is a 30-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the adequacy of different types of resources. Factors include general resources, time availability, physical resources, and external support. The FSS is an 18-item self-report measure that assesses the availability and the degree of helpfulness o f various sources of support. Good reliability has been reported for both the FSS and the FRS, and factor-analytic studies have supported the construct validity of both scales. It is hypothesized that family resources and support will predict levels o f parent-related stress in each family type, and that higher resources and support will be associated with lower stress.

Intrafamily Influences on Stress. Family functioning was assessed using the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales-Ill (FACES-3; Olson et al., 1 9 8 5 ) , which measures cohesion, adaptabil-ity, and how one perceives his or her family in comparison to how one would like his or her family to be ideally (discrepancy). Cohesion is defined as the degree to which family members are con-nected or separated, and adaptability is defined as the degree to which a family is able to modify role relationships and family rules in response to stress (Olson et al., 1 9 8 5 ) . In the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems I, Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell ( 1 9 7 9 ) proposed that cohesion and adaptability are curvilinear (i.e., extremely high or low scores on either variable indicated family dys-function, whereas balanced scores indicated few family problems). However, evaluations of the FACES-III have not supported the curvilinear relationship (Green, Harris, Forte, &c Robinson, 1 9 9 1 ;

Pratt &c Hansen, 1 9 8 7 ) , although support has been presented for using the scale as a linear measure, with high scores being balanced and low scores representing extreme types (Olson, 1 9 9 1 ; Perosa & Perosa, 1 9 9 0 ) . Thus we used the linear method.

McCubbin and McCubbin ( 1 9 8 7 ) noted that cohesion and adaptability are resources that can be effective in managing family stress. Thus, it was hypothesized here that these factors would sig-nificantly predict stress. In other words, higher adaptability and cohesion should be linked to lower stress levels. Discrepancy between ideal and actual family functioning was also postulated to be positively related to stress.

A second intrafamily influence on stress is the interactions between the child and his or her sibling(s). The Sibling Behavior Rating Scale (adapted from Schaeffer & Edgerton, 1 9 7 9 ) is a parental self-report scale that measures perceptions of sibling rela-tionships. Four scale scores are computed, providing information on the degree of acceptance, support, hostility, and embarrassment per-ceived to exist between siblings. MacKinnon ( 1 9 8 9 ) showed that in both intact and single-parent families, levels of stress were positive-ly related to negative relationships within families, including those between siblings. Lower sibling conflict levels have also been shown to be associated with family cohesion (Brody, Stoneman, McCoy, & Forehand, 1 9 9 2 ) . In the current study, it was hypothesized that mea-sures of sibling relationship would significantly explain variability of child-related stress in each family type.

Factors Related to the Child. Child age was considered an important factor to consider in that younger children require more physical care (Sanik, 1 9 8 1 ) and may thus increase maternal stress. In addition, developmental level of the children with disabilities was assessed with the Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI; Newborg et al., 1 9 8 4 ) . The BDI was used to measure functioning in five domains: personal-social, adaptive, motor, communication, and cognitive. The test manual reported that test-retest reliability was between .71 to .99 for each domain and .99 for the total battery. Internal consistency, using Cronbach's alpha, ranged from .87 to .95 for the five scales and the total score (Harrington, 1 9 8 5 ) .

A few researchers have investigated how parents' need for inter-vention services is related to the severity of their children's disabili-ty (Mahoney et al., 1 9 9 2 ) . Mos t have found that severity of a child's disability offers less of an explanation of family adaptation than

does information about strength of social support and resources available to families (Mahoney et al., 1 9 9 2 ) . What seems to be lack-ing from the family systems intervention research is knowledge about how the type of disability a child has, rather than its severity, affects family functioning.

Some limited evidence has been gathered by Beckman (1991) and Holroyd and McArthur (1976) that suggests that the type of disability a child has does differentially affect parent stress and family function-ing. Bailey and Simeonsson (1988) outlined steps for family assessment that include assessing child characteristics that may influence family functioning. These authors pointed out that because children with dis-abilities have heterogeneous characteristics, it is unlikely that as a group they have homogeneous impacts on family functioning. Rather, "it is likely that the unique demand characteristics of specific handicaps will differentially affect family functioning" (Bailey & Simeonsson, 1 9 8 8 , p. 4 9 ) . For example, lack of self-help skills and the inability to communicate have been shown to be related to higher levels of child-related stress (Dyson &c Fewell, 1 9 8 6 ) .

Bailey and Simeonsson ( 1 9 8 8 ) presented characteristics unique to several different handicapping conditions that are thought to increase parental stress, but no one has investigated these effects empirically. In order to increase the understanding of the relation-ship between stress and severity of a disability versus the type of dis-ability, this study investigated the ability of each of these factors to predict levels of stress.

Par t ic ipants

Participants in this study were mothers with two children: one aged 3-6 and one aged 6 -12 . Children in the groups with disabilities were always the younger of the two children in the family, and their older siblings were nondisabled. A cross-national sample was used, with data collected from subjects in Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, and Utah. Data from Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, and Utah were collected as part of a series o f studies on the effectiveness o f early intervention from cooperating preschools specializing in children with disabilities. The Indiana sample was selected from local school records as part of a series of studies on single parenting.

The locus and correlates o f family stress were examined for five types of families: two-parent with nondisabled children (N = 3 5 ) , two-

parent with a child with hearing impairment (N = 16 ) , two-parent with a child with Down syndrome (N = 17) , two-parent with a child with developmental delay (N = 19) , and divorced, single-parent with nondisabled children (N = 2 9 ) . Single parents had been divorced, on average, 35 months (SD - 20 .3 months).

As Table 1 indicates, income levels for the two-parent families of children without disabilities and the families with a child with Down syndrome were highest and both similar. On the other hand, the single-parent families had the lowest income with the highest number of hours worked by the mother and the greatest number o f day-care hours (almost seven times more than the next highest group). Families differed significantly on perceived level o f general resources, with the two-parent families o f nondisabled children reporting the highest level and the single parents the lowest. Family support also differed significantly among families. Families o f chil-dren with Down syndrome reported the highest level of support, and this level was twice that of the single parents, who reported the lowest level.

Children were classified as developmentally delayed if they had neither Down syndrome nor hearing impairment and scores at least 2 standard deviations below the mean on one subscale and/or 1 stan-dard deviation below the mean on two subscales of the BDI. Eight o f these subjects were classified by the referring agencies as cognitively impaired, 5 as language impaired, 4 as cerebral palsy, and 2 as "other." All of these children had in common significant (i.e., at least 1 standard deviation below the mean) communication and adaptive behavior delays.

The majority o f children with Down syndrome and develop-mental delay were male, although gender composi t ion did not differ significantly among groups. Surprisingly, the mothers o f children with Down syndrome were not significantly older than the mothers in the other groups. M o r e than 8 0 % of the mothers in the total sample were Whi te ; the remainder were self-classified as Hispanic (n = 6 ) , African American (n = 3 ) , Native American (n = 1 ) , and "o ther" (n = 3 ) .

O f the three groups of children with disabilities, the most seri-ously disabled, according to the overall score on the BDI , were the children with developmental delay (mean development quotient [DQ] = 5 3 . 4 ) , and the least seriously disabled were the children with hearing impairment. When the three groups of children were com-pared on the five subscales of the BDI , the children with hearing

E .CO

c g o c 3 CO CO o

o CO CO JZ

o o CD

zr 3 CO CO 3 O I o c o '"S Q co T3 C CO •*-> CO "O c CO c CO 0 0 .5

Q Q

CD

a

£

</) o

.2

a 2 CO

CO

S CD O ) CO

O

CVJ CO o CVJ CD in CD CD in CO CM CO CO CD d d CO CO

T - '

cm CM

1̂ o

O CM

CO CM CO CO CO 1— in CM CD CD CO CO

in y— CM, CM co d d in T—-

d in CM CD CM, CO C\J CD CO in CM CO C\J

CD

m CO T— O CD m c o CD CD CO CO m CO CO CM, d d CM CO CM CO in CD CO CO CO CO CO T— CO CO CM CO CO

' ^ CM

O CO o in

CD

in CM CD 00 o CO o in CO

CO CO CO d d m d oS CO CD CO* CO CO CM T— O CO CD CO CM

T—

T- CD CO CM m CM CD m

CM CO

CO d d m co in d co o d CM

c o 2 E

CO

CD O ) CO

CO

o E CO

§. CD O ) CO

_CD

CO E c g r o a. 2

CL

o

CD • D

D ) C 15 CO

o o CO

"O

CD E o

i

0 JC o

CD

CO o

Q

CO o o 1 CO c o CO

a Q

g 's CD

- Q

a. co CO

o Q

CM CM O CM O O CM

CM O 00 O

CO CM T - O CO CO

O CM CO ^ CM ^ CO N

i~ oS CM w

CO

Q Q CO CO

h - CO CM CO LO CM

CO CO CO CO CO

I s - CD CD CD LO CM

CM l O N

LO LO O -<fr <tf CO CM ^

CO O CO T -

00 o c

CO Q 10 t-cd d in cm 00 CD Tt r co co T-' CD t— 1̂. 1-

T-" CO CO ^ CM ^ CM O

CM CO

CO CD CD t- cm in 00 1-" «fr CM

CD CO 00 CD 00 T - m co cm co -r- CO ^

i- CO ^ CO CM ^ CM O CD CM CM y-

h » CD CO

C\i N t~ CM CO — ' CO ^

CO CD T - CO CD CM CD T ~

CM ^ CM r

CD

o 2

(0 O

o o E O Q

c o

E E 8 o Q

c CO o o O Q

co 5

2 CD C CD CD

CO CD O O CO 0) To o co CD

V. LU

O Q. Q. CO E

LL

C _o o CL 2 i? 'o 'c CD

impairment had the highest personal-social, self-help, and motor skills (p < . 0 1 ) ; the groups did not differ significantly on communi-cation or cognitive skills (see Table 1 ) .

Results

B e t w e e n - G r o u p C o m p a r i s o n s

Separate univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were run for child-related, parent-related, and total stress. The alpha level for these comparisons was set at . 017 using the Bonferroni formula in order to control for experimental error rate. Child-related, parent-related, and overall stress levels were all found to differ between groups. The results of this analysis are found in Table 2 .

The groups were found to differ significantly on total stress lev-els, F (4 , 111) = 3 . 2 9 , p < . 0 1 . Least significant difference post hoc comparisons revealed that the groups with children with hearing impairment and developmental delay and the single-parent groups had significantly higher total stress levels compared to the two-par-ent nondisabled group. The mothers of the children with hearing impairment also reported significantly more stress than mothers o f children with Down syndrome.

The groups were found to differ significantly in terms of both child-related stress, F (4 , 111 ) = 3 . 6 3 , p < . 0 0 8 , and parent-related stress, F (4 , 1 1 1 ) = 3 . 6 6 , p < . 0 0 8 . Least significant difference post hoc comparisons revealed that the groups with hearing impairment, developmental delay, and single-parent status reported significantly higher levels of child-related stress than the two-parent, nondisabled group. These same groups also had significantly higher parent-related stress levels than the group with children with Down syndrome. The groups with hearing impairment and single-parent status had signif-icantly higher parent-related stress than the intact family, non-disabled group.

In sum, stress levels for the two-parent, nondisabled group and the group with children with Down syndrome more closely resem-bled each other and were significantly lower (p < . 05 ) than those o f the groups with hearing impairment, developmental delay, and single-parent, nondisabled status. O f greater theoretical interest, however, was the question of whether the proportion o f stress var-

T a b l e 2 . Means (and Standard Deviations) for Raw Stress Scores and Child-and Parent-Related Stress as a Proportion of Total Stress by Family Type

Family type

N HI DS DD S

Raw stress scores

Total stress 217.97 3 254.25 b ' c 225.35 d 247.79 b 240.38 b

(42.86) (28.77) (32.55) (42.16) (45.62)

Child 96 .97 a 115.25 b 109.29 115.25 b 116.68 b

(20.44) (18.04) (15.32) (21.73) (25.73)

Parent 119.02 a 138 .63 b , d 116.18° 131 .11 d 131.93 b '

(23.27) (21.07) (19.14) (23.33) (23.31)

s a propor t ion of tota l stress

Child 44 .6 b ' d 45 .3 b 48.6 a 47.1° 4 4 . 7 b > d

(3.8) (4.6) (2.9) (3.0) (3.6)

Parent 54 .7 b 54 .5 b 51.4 a 52.9 5 5 . 1 b

(4.2) (4.7) (2.9) (3-0) (3.6)

Note. N = intact marriage, children without disabilities; HI = intact marriage, children with hearing impair-ment; DS = intact marriage, children with Down syndrome; DD = intact marriage, children with develop-mental delay; S = divorced, children without disabilities; DQ = developmental quotient. Groups labeled "a" are significantly different from groups labeled "b," and groups labeled "c" are significantly different from groups labeled "d."

ied among the groups: That is, could a greater proportion of stress

be attributed to child-related factors for the groups with children

with disabilities while parent-related influences would contribute

more to overall stress totals for the single-parent group?

This question was addressed using separate univariate ANOVAs

for parent-related and child-related stress each as a proportion of

total stress. Experiment-wise error rate was controlled using an alpha

level of . 0 2 5 , again determined by the Bonferroni formula. The

results are shown in the lower portion of Table 2 . The groups were

found to be significantly different in terms of both proportion of

child-related, F (4 , 115) = 4 . 7 0 , p < . 0 0 2 , and parent-related, F (4 , 115) = 3 .37 , p < . 0 1 2 , stress. Least significant difference post hoc

comparisons revealed that the groups with children with Down

syndrome and developmental delay attributed a significantly higher

proportion o f their stress to child-related reasons than the two-

parent and single-parent nondisabled groups. T h e single-parent

group attributed the most stress to parent-related issues, and this pro-portion was significantly higher than that o f parents with children with Down syndrome. Interestingly, the group of parents o f the chil-dren with hearing impairment tended to be more like the two-parent and single-parent nondisabled groups in this respect than the groups with children with Down syndrome and developmental delay. Since the children with hearing impairment may be less disabled compared to children in the other groups, this finding again raises the issue of whether it is classification or severity of disability that makes the greater difference in affecting stress levels in the family.

Predictors o f Stress

Having ascertained that the groups varied in terms o f overall stress levels and the proportion of variance attributed to child ver-sus parent effects, we addressed the question of what factors might best predict the levels o f parent- and child-related stress for the var-ious groups. Stepwise regression analyses were run separately for the two-parent nondisabled and single-parent nondisabled groups and the groups with disabilities, using as criterion variables parent- and child-related stress. For this analysis, the three groups o f children with disabilities were combined in order to allow for greater statis-tical power. This also allowed for separate analyses that compared the effect o f type o f disability versus severity o f disability. (Classification turned out to be the better predictor, an issue dis-cussed more fully below.)

The following predictor variables were utilized: the extrafamily influences o f family income, family resources and family support; the intrafamily influences of family adaptability, cohesion, discrep-ancy between perceived and ideal family interactions, and mother rating o f sibling relations; and the child variable of child age, as well as disability classification and severity for the groups with disabili-ties. The results of these analyses may be found in Table 3 .

Family cohesion was the best predictor o f both parent and child stress for both the two-parent nondisabled child families and the single-parent nondisabled child families. In these cases, higher family cohesion was found to be associated with lower stress levels. In addi-tion, family income contributed significantly to the variance in pre-dicting parent-related stress in two-parent nondisabled families, with higher income associated with lower stress levels. This is not surpris-

c

£ CO

CL

i- CM O O O O CD CM i-O O

CO i - N N O CM

o o o -i- CO CO CD O CM O O O O O O

c

in

0 J D CO CO " O

c o z

CO cm ^ to

co y- CM

CD O) rf N O ) CD l O CO LO T - CM CO ^

C

CO

a. "̂ LO

CD h - CO CD if) CD -rf

m n n i- ^ O ^ LO CO CD

CO CO

£ CO T3 0 S

• ••—> c £ CO CL " D C CO

CO CD CM I

<tf CD CD LO

K CO CD CO CM LO I I

T - CM LO

s co CD CM CM I I

N W

in rt in

CD

l

CD CO CO LO CO CM CO T—

r • r r

CM CM LO i-

I T I

o C

o T5 £ CO Q . O . CO O

co (5

CO 0 c .52 O Q

8? sra

c i BO 3 co

CO -0 T> QC ̂ . n

c o cO " co ttt ^ 5 c

I "•5 CD

c o "co 0 .c o O

CD ,

CO

_Q)

CO CO C o

cd 1 9- -c

o O 0 £ o

c g CO 0 .c o O

c g CO

0 o O

c

£

0 -Q CO CO T3 C o c

£ CO ~ 9- 2 0 ® Z co O) Q Q_

H - CO

O 0

.Q

CO (0 0 M 0) t w 0 CO 0 i- (/) u

1 I s I E £ CD LU CL

CO

CO

Q .

2 O) TJ 0 JD CO CO T) "O 0 ̂ , C 2 £ IE E O o

o

c

8.1 e CO O C —

— w CO C LU

o

o • o

CO 3

CO LU

ing; what is puzzling is that a similar relationship was not found for the single-parent families, who had the lowest average income of any group in the sample. Inspection of the variables not in the equation revealed that income narrowly missed being included for the single-parent families in predicting parent-related stress (p = . 0 5 9 ) . Thus, the two groups appear fairly comparable in terms of what factors con-tribute most to their respective stress levels.

The combined groups of children with disabilities presented a very different profile: Family cohesion was not a significant predictor o f parent- or child-related stress for this group, and a different set o f variables predicted each type of stress. Child-related stress was best predicted by general family resources, mother ranking of the sibling's embarrassment of the child with a disability, and physical resources of the family. Higher general and physical resources were linked with lower stress levels, and higher embarrassment ratings were linked with higher stress. Parent-related stress was best predicted by level o f external support, maternal rating of the sibling's hostility toward the child with a disibility, disability classification, and discrepancy between ideal and perceived family type. External support was nega-tively related to stress levels; that is, higher support correlated with lower parent-related stress. When the mother perceived more hostil-ity by the sibling toward the child with a disability, her stress levels were higher. None of the Battelle subscales used as a measure o f severity o f disability entered into the equation, but Down syndrome status was a significant predictor in that this classification was asso-ciated with lower stress levels than the other disability types. Mos t puzzling, perhaps, is the relationship between the FACES-HI discrep-ancy scores and parent-related stress; the higher the discrepancy between ideal and actual family types, the lower the stress level. Possible reasons for this finding are discussed in the next section.

Discussion and Conclusions

Family stress differed significantly among two-parent families of children with disabilities, single parents with nondisabled chil-dren, and two-parent families with nondisabled children in ways that generally might be predicted by the ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1 9 7 9 ) . As hypothesized, the parents o f children with Down syndrome or with developmental delays experienced a significantly greater proportion of child-related stress in comparison

to the single- and two-parent families who did not have children with disabilities. Furthermore, the single-parent families had the greatest proportion of parent-related stress. This proportion, how-ever, was not significantly greater than that o f the two-parent fami-lies or that of the families with children with hearing impairment.

The abil i ty o f ext ra- and intrafamily variables to predict parent- and child-related stress was investigated. Fo r the single-and two-parent families with children wi thout disabil i t ies, both parent- and child-related stress were predicted by the same vari-able: family cohes ion. For these families, higher levels o f cohe-sion related to lower levels o f parent- and child-related stress. Spending t ime together as a family appears to be a buffer against stress, perhaps providing a sense that "Together , we can handle i t . " N o t surprisingly, income was also a predictor o f parent-related stress for two-parent families.

A very different set o f variables predicted child- and parent-related stress for the families o f children with disabilities. This may be due in part to the increased number of unique needs these fami-lies have (Dyson & Fewell, 1 9 8 6 ; Hanson & Hanline, 1 9 9 0 ) . Child-related stress was predicted by extrafamily variables such as general and physical resources and the intrafamily variable o f mothers ' per-ception of the sibling's embarrassment of the child with a disability. On the other hand, parent-related stress was best predicted by level of external support and a group of intrafamily variables including maternal rating of the sibling's hostility toward the child with a dis-ability, disability classification, and discrepancy between ideal and perceived family type.

It is clear that for families with children with disabilities, external resources play a major role in reducing stress. A unique finding was that for families with children with disabilities, exter-nal supports seem to play a more important role in mediating stress than intrafamily variables, such as cohesion. The impact o f external support on mediating the effects o f stress is congruent with existing literature (Dunst & Trivette, 1 9 9 0 ; Dunst, Trivette, & Cross, 1 9 8 6 ; Dunst et al. , 1 9 8 8 ; Singer & Irvin, 1 9 8 9 ) . As mentioned earlier, external support may include physical, infor-mational , instrumental, or material aid. Furthermore, these sup-ports may be informal, in that they are from individuals or social groups, or formal, in that they are from professionals or profes-sional agencies (Dunst et al . , 1 9 8 8 ; Singer & Irvin, 1 9 8 9 ) . Similar to the research done by Kazak and Marvin ( 1 9 8 4 ) , future research

may wish to delineate types o f support and to further consider what types are most important for specific family types.

A few intrafamily variables were also predictive of overall stress for families o f children with disabilities. Negative relationships between the siblings may play a bigger role in creating stress than had previously been thought. This finding lends support to investi-gations of the relationships between children with disabilities and their siblings, such as those discussed by Seligman ( 1 9 9 1 ) .

An intriguing finding was that a greater discrepancy between ideal and perceived family type was related to lower stress. This finding may suggest that families who report their situation to be similar to their ideal may be denying differences that exist or may be demonstrating a social desirability bias by not wanting to indicate that they consider their family anything but ideal. The inability to accept one's family would thus lead to increased levels of stress. This finding may have implications for therapy and intervention and deserves further investigation.

In addition to suggesting that the type (parent vs. child) and the predictors o f stress differ for families with and without children with disabilities, several findings of this study point to the impor-tance o f assessing the specific characteristics o f children with dif-ferent types o f disabilities. First, the type of disability a child had was more predictive o f stress than the severity o f the disability as measured on the BDI . O f the group of parents with children with disabilities, those with children with Down syndrome reported sig-nificantly less overall stress. Second, in comparison to other fami-lies with children with other disabilities, the parents of the children with hearing impairment had lower proportions o f child-related stress. However, these families experienced a greater proportion o f parent-related stress, at a level which was actually comparable to that of the single parents.

One possible reason why these parents may have less child-related stress than families with a child with another type of dis-ability may involve the nature o f their child's disability or other characteristics o f the child. For example, in the present study, those with hearing impairment were the least impaired according to the Battelle scores. The greater proportion o f parent-related stress may be related to the possibility that these parents receive less adequate social support in comparison to the other families with children with disabilities, which may be due to the fact that their child's disability may not be as readily apparent.

The results suggest a third reason to consider families of children with different disabilities as somewhat unique. Unlike the other family types, the parents of children with Down syndrome appear similar to the two-parent families of children without disabilities on level of over-all stress. Also, they had the lowest proportion of parent-related stress. We found that parents of children with Down syndrome had the high-est level of support of all the family types (see Table 1) , and these resources adequately buffered parent-related stress.

In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that family stress varies systematically across families with children with different dis-abilities, single-parent families, and two-parent families. The results also offer evidence for family stress being predicted by the type, rather than the severity, of the child's disability. Furthermore, the family sys-tems variables that were predictive of family stress varied across fam-ily type. Future researchers may wish to continue to investigate how support networks, resources, and child characteristics are related within families of children with specific disabilities and how they dif-fer across family types. Realizing that the major type of stress (parent vs. child) experienced differs for different types of families has impli-cations for intervention and therapy. For example, families who expe-rience primarily parent-related stress, like the single parents in this study, may be best helped by learning methods to manage stress and to utilize resources effectively. On the other hand, interventions that are more child focused, like child behavior management, may be more helpful for families who experience primarily child-related stress. More ecological research on how specific strengths and weaknesses typically associated with different disabilities affect family functioning is needed. The results of this study do support the usefulness of eco-logical measures to assess family needs and the effectiveness of inter-vention (DeHaas-Warner & Neisworth, 1 9 9 1 ) . Such measures may help us to better understand family stress and to improve services by allowing tailored recommendations to be made.

A u t h o r s ' N o t e

This study was supported in part by an Innovation Research Grant No. GOO8720221 from the National Institute of Handicapped Research (currently, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202, and by a Ball State University New Faculty Research Grant. We would like to thank Frank Ascione for his assistance with this study.

References

Abidin, R . R . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Parenting stress index manual. Charlot tesvil le , VA: Pediatric

Psychology Press.

Ascione, F. R . , Summers , C , 8c Summers , M . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . An investigation of four

dimensions of siblings* relationships of handicapped!nonhandicapped sibling

dyads: Phase 1. (Eric D o c u m e n t Reproduct ion Services N o . E D 3 0 8 6 4 0 )

Bailey, D . B . , 6c S imeonsson, R . J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Family assessment in early intervention.

Columbus , O H : Merr i l l .

Beckman , P. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Compar i son o f mothers ' and fathers ' perceptions o f the effect

o f young children with and wi thout disabilities. American journal on Mental

Retardation, 5, 5 8 5 - 5 9 5 .

Boyce , G. C , Behl , D . , Mor tensen , L . , 8c Akers , J . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Chi ld character is t ics ,

family demographics and family processes: The i r effects on the stress experi-

enced by families o f children with disabilities. Counseling Psychology

Quarterly, 4, 2 7 3 - 2 8 8 .

Brody , G . H . , S t o n e m a n , Z . , M c C o y , J . K . , 8c F o r e h a n d , R . ( 1 9 9 2 ) .

Con temporaneous and longitudinal associat ions o f sibling confl ict with fam-

ily relat ionship assessments and family discussions abou t sibling problems.

Child Development, 63, 3 9 1 - 4 0 0 .

Bronfenbrenner, U . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The ecology of human development: Experiments by

nature and design. Cambr idge , M A : Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Ecologica l systems theory. In R . Vasta (Ed. ) , Annals of

child development (Vol. 6 , pp. 1 8 7 - 2 5 1 ) . Greenwich, C T : J A I Press.

DeHaas-Warner , S. J . , 8c Ne iswor th , J . T. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . W h a t are the basics for family

co l labora t ion? In S. J . Bagna to 8c J . T. Neiswor th (Eds.) , Assessment for early

intervention: Best practices for professionals. N e w York : Guilford Press.

Dunst , C. J . , J enk ins , V., 8c Trivet te , C. M . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e Family Suppor t Scale :

Reliabil i ty and validity. Journal of Individual, Family, and Community

Wellness, 1 ( 4 ) , 4 5 - 5 2 .

Dunst , C. J . , 8c Trivette, C. M . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Assessment o f social support in early inter-

vention programs. In S. J . Meise ls 8c J . P. Shonkof f (Eds.) , Handbook of early

childhood intervention (pp. 3 2 6 - 3 4 9 ) . N e w York : Cambr idge University

Press.

Dunst , C. J . , Trivette, C. M . , 8c Cross , A. H . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Media t ing influences o f social

support: Personal , family, and child ou tcomes . American Journal of Mental

Deficiency, 4 , 4 0 3 - 4 1 7 .

Dunst , C , Trivet te , C , 8c Dea l , A . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Enabling and empowering families:

Principles and guidelines for practice. Cambr idge , M A : Brookl ine B o o k s .

Dunst , C. J . , Trivet te , C. M . , Hamby , D . , 8c Po l lock , B . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Family systems co r -

relates o f behavior o f young children with handicaps. Journal of Early

Intervention, 14, 2 0 4 - 2 1 8 .

Dyson, L . , 8c Fewell , R . R . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Stress and adaptat ion in parents o f young hand-

icapped and nonhandicapped children: A comparat ive study. Journal of the

Division for Early Childhood, 1 0 ( 1 ) , 2 5 - 3 4 .

Fuller, G. B . , 8c Rank in , R . E . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Differences in levels o f parental stress among

mothers o f learning disabled, emot ional ly impaired, and regular school chi l -

• dren. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 5 8 3 - 5 9 2 .

Green, R. G., Harris, R. N., Forte, J. A., & Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating FACES III and the circumplex model: 2,440 families. Family Process, 30, 55-73.

Hadadian, A. (1994). Stress and social support in fathers and mothers of young children with and without disabilities. Early Education and Development, 5, 226-235.

Hanson, M. J. , & Hanline, M. F. (1990). Parenting a child with a disability: A lon-gitudinal study of parental stress and adaptation. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 234-348.

Harrington, R. G. (1985). Battelle developmental inventory. In D. J . Keyser &C R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. 2, pp. 72 -82) . Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Holroyd, K. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Stress, coping, and somatic adaptation. In L. Goldberger 8c S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. New York: Free Press.

Holroyd, J . , & McArthur, D. (1976). Mental retardation and stress on the parents: A contrast between Down's syndrome and childhood autism. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 431-436.

Innocenti, M. S., Huh, K., & Boyce, G. C. (1992). Families of children with dis-abilities: Normative data and other considerations on parenting stress. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 403-427.

Kazak, A. E. (1989). Families of chronically ill children: A systems and social-eco-logical model of adaptation and challenge. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 25-30.

Kazak, A. E., & Marvin, R. S. (1984). Stress and social networks in families with a handicapped child. Family Relations, 33, 67-77.

Krauss, M. W. (1993). Child-related and parenting stress: Similarities and differ-ences between mothers and fathers of children with disabilities. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 97, 393-404.

Leet, H. E., &c Dunst, C. J. (1985). Family resource scale. Morgantown, NC: Family Infant and Preschool Program.

Loyd, B. H., & Abidin, R. R. (1985). Revision of the Parenting Stress Index. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 10, 169-177.

MacKinnon, C. E. (1989). An observational investigation of sibling interactions in married and divorced families. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 36-44.

Mahoney, G., O'Sullivan, P., &c Robinson, C. (1992). The family environment of children with disabilities: Diverse but not so different. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 387-402.

McCubbin, M. A., &C McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Family stress theory and assessment: The T-double ABCX model of family adjustment and adaptation. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 3-32). Madison: The University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Newborg, J . , Stock, J . , Wnek, L., Guidubaldi, J. , & Svinicki, J . (1984). Battelle developmental inventory. Allen, TX: DLM/Teaching Resources.

Olson, D. H. (1991). Commentary: Three-dimensional (3-D) circumplex model and revised scoring of FACES III. Family Process, 30, 74-79.

Olson, D. H., Portner, J . , & Lavee, Y. (1985). Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales-Ill. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science.

Olson , D . H. , Sprenkle , D . H. , & Russell , C. S. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C i rcumplex M o d e l o f

Mar i t a l and Family Systems I: Cohes ion and adaptabil i ty dimensions, family

types, and clinical appl icat ions. Family Process, 18, 3 - 2 8 .

Perosa, L . , & Perosa, S. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e use o f a bipolar item format for F A C E S III: A

reconsiderat ion. Journal of Marital Family Therapy, 16, 1 8 7 - 1 9 9 . Pratt , D . M . , & Hansen , J . C. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A test o f the curvil inear hypothesis with

F A C E S II and III. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 3 8 7 - 3 9 2 . Sanik, M . M . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Division o f household work : A decade compar i son—

1 9 6 7 - 1 9 7 7 . Home Economics Research Journal, 10, 1 7 5 - 1 8 0 . Sanik , M . M . , & Mauld in , T. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Single versus two-parent families: A compar -

ison o f mothers ' t ime. Family Relations, 35, 53-56. Schaeffer, E . , & Edgerton, M . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Sibling behavior to handicapped child inven-

tory. Unpublished manuscript , University o f Nor th Caro l ina , Chapel Hil l .

Sel igman, M . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . The family with a handicapped child. Bos ton : Allyn & B a c o n .

Singer, G . H . S., & Irvin, L . K. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Support for caregiving families: Enabling positive adaptation to disability. Bal t imore : Brookes .

Summers , M . , Summers , C. R . , & Ascione , F. R . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . A compar i son o f sibling

interaction in intact and single-parent families. Journal of Divorce and

Remarriage, 2 0 ( 1 / 2 ) , 2 1 5 - 2 2 7 .

Wil l iams, R . A. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Stress and psychological symptoms in single and dual par-ent families. Paper presented at the annual meeting o f the Amer ican

Psychological Associat ion, At lanta .

Copyright of Topics in Early Childhood Special Education is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.