. in...
.‘1 a

7...

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Date

J “”hiiMHWIAI'i‘ flit-ml] WHIIIEi‘Slm IIJBRARIES I ‘-

3 1293 00885 2695

_ This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Assessing Strengths in Families'who'
Have Children with Developmental
Disabilities ’”
presented by
Julie Kimball-Kubiak

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

MA degree in. Child DeveloPment

 

Major professor

10/17/91

 

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to rem overtMCheckout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return

on or before date due.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
FEB 2 3 2009
n n 0 O n Q
W9 \ \
(“1% ‘37 I} 5 hr :
U“ of \ \
W701-
WW3 \ \
\ \ \
\ x \
\ \ \

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

madam». pmJ—p. 1

ASSESSING STRENGTHS IN FAMILIES WHO HAVE CHILDREN WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

BY

Julie Kimball-Kubiak

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1991

were?

ABSTRACT

ASSESSING STRENGTHS IN FAMILIES WHO HAVE CHILDREN WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

BY
Julie Kimball-Kubiak

Family strengths of respondents that have children with
developmental disabilities between the ages of six and twelve
were assessed to determine if they differed according to the
severity of the disability or family demographic variables.
The primary caregivers (N= 21) completed the Family Inventory
of Resource Management (McCubbin, Comeau, and Harkins, 1981),
the Family Strengths Inventory (Stinnett and DeFrain, 1985),
and a family information sheet. The following dimensions
appear't0>be attributes.of strength as reported.by respondents
in order: esteem and communication, extended family social
support, financial well-being, and mastery and health. The
global areas of family strength are reported from highest to
lowest: commitment, relationship with chiLd, dealing with
crisis, spiritual ‘wellness, expressing' appreciation, good
communication, spending time together, and spousal
relationship. There was no significant relationship between
severity of disability and family strengths. Family income,
mother's education, and number of years married all appear to
be significantly correlated with family strength. The primary
caregivers' overall perception of family strength is

consistent with family'strength.asidetermined the instruments.

List of
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter

Chapter

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables.... ..................................... ii
1 - Introduction .. ............................ l
2 - Review of Literature........ ....... . ....... 9
3 - Methods.................. ........... .......16
4 - Results .................................... 22
5 - Discussion. ........... .... ...... .... ....... 34

Appendix A - Frequencies of each question on the FSI...44

Appendix B - Frequencies of each question on the FSI...48

References ......... . ................................... 50

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Respondent demographic variables... ............. 25
Means and standard deviations for FIRM ........ ..26
Means and standard deviations for FSI..... ...... 27
ANOVA for FIRM and level of functioning.........28

Correlation of FIRM and demographic variables...29
Correlation of FIRM and perception of strength..30
Correlation of F81 and perception of strength...31

Comparison of normative and research samples....40

ii

Chapter 1 - Introduction

PURPOSE AND JUSTIFICATION

The purpose of this research project is to assess
families' perceived strengths among those families who have
children with developmental disabilities. It.jjs believed
that, if families' perceive themselves as strong; they act on
this presumption. Thus, it is not relevant if families are
in "reality" what professionals would determine as strong.
Professionals are not as experienced. or optimistic in
identifying strengths as they are pathologies (Stinnett,
Sanders, & DeFrain, 1981).

Most research focusing on families of children with
disabilities assumes that the family system is dysfunctional
because of the child (Byrne & Cunningham, 1985; Kazak, 1986;
Longo & Bond, 1984). Therefore, a pathological model of
family functioning is emphasized by researching needs,
problems, and stresses (Kazak & Marvin, 1984). Also, most
research in this area. assumes that families who have children
with disabilities are a homogeneous group (Byrne &
Cunningham, 1985; Kazak, 1986; Stoneman & Brody, 1982). It
is not generally acknowledged in the literature that these
families all have different characteristics and that their
children have different levels of ability. Additionally,

I

 

2
some research is questionable in its findings as the
researcher(s) used inconsistent or inaccurate :methodologies,
i.e., parental, as opposed to sibling, reports on siblings'
attitudes and feelings (Kazak, 1986; Stoneman.& Brody, 1982).
Researchers must acknowledge that most of these family
systems have different but not deviant methods of family
functioning (Kazak:& Marvin, 1984). Researchers need to focus
on assessing strong families (Crnie, Friedrich, & Greenburg,
1983; Kazak & Marvin, 1984; Longo & Bond, 1984; Turnbull,
1988; Wikler, Wasow, & Hatfield, 1983) and what they are
doing well that helps them to be successful. In addition,
researchers must consider that ALL families and ALL children
are unique. To this end, an exploratory study has been
developed with the following questions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1. What are the areas of family strength for families who
have children with developmental disabilities as measured by
the Family Inventory of Resource Management (FIRM)?
2. What are global areas of family strength for families who
have a child with a developmental disability as determined by
the Family Strengths Inventory (FSI) instrument?
3. Do areas of family strength as measured by the FIRM differ
according to the severity of the child's disability?
If so, how?
4. Do family strengths as measured by the FIRM instrument
differ according to the family demographic variables?

5. Do the primary caregivers' perceptions of overall family

3
strength relate to areas of family strength.as measured.by the
FIRM for the family that has a child with a developmental
disability?
6. Do the primary caregivers' perceptions of overall family
strength relate to»global areas of family strength as measured
by the PSI instrument for the family that has a child with a
developmental disability?
VARIABLE NAMES AND DEFINITIONS:
Esteem and Communication:
theoretical definition - family esteem, communication,mutual
assistance, optimism, problem solving ability, and
encouragement of autonomy among family members
operational definition - as measured by items 3, 6, 7, 15,
19, 26, 28, 29, 33, 38, 43, 45, 50, 52, and 54 on the FIRM
instrument (Appendix A)
Mastery and Health:
theoretical definition - sense of mastery over family events
and outcomes, emotional support, togetherness, cooperation,
and physical and emotional health
Operational definition - as measured by items 1, 5, 9, 10, 11,
17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 3o, 31, 34, 35, 4o, 41, 42, 47, 48, and 53
on the FIRM instrument (Appendix A)
Extended Family Social Support:
theoretical definition - mutual help given to and received
from relatives
operational definition - as measured by items 13, 24, 36 and

51 on the FIRM instrument (Appendix A)

Financial Well-Being:

theoretical definition - the ability to meet financial
commitments, adequacy of financial reserves, ability to help
others, and optimism about the family's financial future
operational definition - as measured by items 2, 4, 8, 12, 14,
16, 21, 25, 27, 32, 37, 39, 44, 46, 49, and 55 on the FIRM
instrument (Appendix A)

Relationship with Children:

theoretical definition - the quality of the relationship
between the respondent and the children including closeness,
happiness, and making each other feel good

operational definition - as measured by items 63, 65, 67, and
69 on the PSI instrument (Appendix B)

Relationship with Spouse:

theoretical definition - the quality of the relationship
between the respondent and the spouse including closeness,
happiness, and making each other feel good

operational definition - as measured by items 62, 64, 66, and
68 on the PSI instrument (Appendix B)

Communication:

theoretical definition — the quality of the family members
talking among themselves, listening to one another, and
sharing feelings with each other

operational definition - respondent indicates on a scale of
one to five the degree to which his/her family possesses

good communication, item 58 on FSI instrument (Appendix B)

Commitment:

theoretical definition - the family members' trust and
confidence in one another

operational definition - respondent indicates on a scale of
one to five the degree to which his/her family possesses
commitment to each other, item 57 on the FSI instrument
(Appendix B)

Spiritual Well-Being:

theoretical definition - the family's quality of sensitivity
or attachment to religious values

operational definition - respondent indicates on a scale of
one to five the degree to which his/her family possesses
spiritual wellness, iteml61 on the FSI instrument (Appendix B)
Spending Time Together:

theoretical definition - family members time together and
doing things with one another

operational definition - respondent indicates on a scale of
one to five the degree to which his/her family spends time
together and does things together, item 56 on the FSI
instrument (Appendix B)

Dealing with Crisis:

theoretical definition — the family's ability to respond
positively to situations that have reached a critical phase

operational definition — respondent indicates on a scale of
one to five the degree to which his/her family possesses the
ability to deal with crisis in a positive manner, item 59

the FSI instrument (Appendix B)

Appreciation:

theoretical definition - the family's expression of
admiration, approval, or gratitude to one another
operational definition - respondent indicates on a scale of
one to five the degree to which his/her family possesses the
ability to express appreciation for one another, item 60 on
the FSI instrument (Appendix B)

Primary Caregiver's Perception of Family Strength:
theoretical definition - the family's overall quality of
functioning together positively

operational definition - respondent indicates on a scale of
one to five the degree to which his/her family is strong, item
70 on the FSI instrument (Appendix B)

Child's Overall Level of Functioning:

theoretical definition - the child with a developmental
disability's overall IQ score

operational definition - as indicated by the five categories
borderline (IQ ranging from 80 to 68), mild (IQ ranging from
67 to 52), moderate (IQ ranging from 51 o 36), severe (IQ
ranging from 35 to 20), and profound (IQ ranging of 19 or
below) and clustered into high functioning (borderline, mild,
and moderate) and low functioning (severe and profound)
Family Income for 1990:

theoretical definition — the total amount of money the
family brought in for 1990

operational definition - the actual dollar amount of income

reported

Father's Education:

theoretical definition. - 'the Ihighest level of education
completed by the father

operational definition - the reported number of years of
education completed and clustered into three groups; high
school or less, one to four years of college, and five or more
years of college

Mother's Education:

theoretical definiticwx — the highest level of education
completed by the mother

operational definition - the reported number of years of
education completed and clustered into three groups; high
school or less, one to four years of college, and five or more
years of college

Father's Occupation:

theoretical definition - the vocation of the father
operational definition. - ‘the ‘reported occupation of the
father, clustered into five groups; skilled position,
managerial position, professional position, homemaker, and
unemployed

Mother's Occupation:

theoretical definition - the vocation of the mother
operational definition. - 'the 'reported occupation of ‘the
mother, clustered into five groups; skilled position,
managerial position, professional position, homemaker, and

student

8

Number of Years Married to Current Partner:
theoretical definition - the total number of years that the
two adults in the home have been married
operational definition - the reported number of years married
Child's Sex:
theoretical definition — male or female
operational definition - male or female
SUMMARY

As most research in the area of families that have
children with developmental disabilities focuses on the
pathologies of the family system, this research has
concentrated on assessing areas.of strength for such families.
In addition to assessing areas of strength in the family, this
research assessed the family's perception of strength. Family
strength was also assessed as a function of the severity of

the child's disability and family demographic variables.

Chapter 2 - Review of Literature

Most research within the context of family functioning
and developmental disabilities focuses on dyads within the
family, mother-child, father-child, and sibling-child. As a
whole, research supports the belief that having a child with
a developmental disability has a negative impact on these
dyadic relationships. For example, mothers of children with
mental retardation (n=60) have a higher correlation with
depression (t= 5.26, p<.01), a lower sense of ‘maternal
competence (t= -2.36, p<.01), and less enjoyment from the
maternal role (t= -5.85, p<.01) than mothers with children not
having mental retardation (n=60) (Cumming, Bayley, & Rie,
1966). Research findings have also lead to many inconsistent
results. Palfrey, Walker, Butler, and.Singer (1989) point out
that several studies have reported an increase in depressive
symptoms in mothers who have children with a chronic illness.
Other studies report no significant differences in personality
variables and parental attitudes between mothers who have
children with disabilities and mothers who have children
without disabilities.

Fathers also displayed negative effects from parenting a
child that is developmentally disabled. Fathers with a

9

10

child who has mental retardation (n=60) were compared to a
control group of fathers (n=60). Most demographic variables
between the two groups were comparable. Findings revealed
higher correlations of depression (t= 5.20, p<.01), lower
self-acceptance.(t= -1.33, jp<.10) and.paternal competence (t=
-2.78, p<.01), lower levels of satisfaction with all family
members (t= -8.64, p<.01 for child with MR, t= -1.77, p<.05
for other children, t= -1.68, p<.05 for wife), and increased
ignoring and rejecting of the child (t= 1.30, p<.10)
(Cummings, 1976).

The sibling relationships are strained as well. Older
siblings of children with mental retardation display more
sibling conflict and less positive sibling interaction
associated with greater childcare demands compared to siblings
of’ children. without. mental retardation (Stoneman, Brody,
Davis, & Crapps, 1988). In addition, sibling pairs, with the
younger child having mental retardation, are characterized
more by asymmetrical roles with the older sibling assuming
more manager and teacher/helper roles (Stoneman, Brody, Davis,
& Crapps, 1987). Again, Palfrey et al. (1989) report
inconsistencies in research findings. They indicate that
children who have a sibling with a chronic illness are more
poorly adjusted than a control group of children. Other
studies report no difference in adjustment between the two
groups.

The research reports inconsistencies regarding marital

relationships when a child with a disability is present.

ll

Marriages of couples with a child having Down Syndrome were
significantly more likely to be unhappy one year after the
birth of the child (Gath & (hmfley, 1987). Yura (1987)
reports that the initial quality of narriage affects the
parental reactions to the child with mental retardation. For
families as a whole (n=34), Friedrich and Friedrich (1981)
indicate that having a child with motor difficulties and/or
mental retardation correlates with decreased amounts of
marital satisfaction (t= -1.70, p<.05), lower levels of
psychological well-being (t= -3.38, p<.005), social support
(t= -1.79, p<.05), and religiosity (t= -1.69, p<.05), along
with high levels of stress.

There have been steady changes in societal policies and
attitudes over the past four decades concerning people with
developmental disabilities. In the 1950's, parents began to
rebel against the policies of forced institutionalization for
their children with disabilities. As a result, the 1960's
brought about parent groups developing alternatives to
institutionalization. In the early 1970's, a large
deinstitutionalization movement began throughout the United
States (MacMinnon & Marlett, 1984). People with disabilities
were moved into smaller homes integrated into the community
and were provided with opportunities to grow as human beings.
Additionally, the 1970's brought about P.L. 94—142, Education
for All Handicapped Children Act. This law required service
systems to consider families when providing for children and

legally guaranteed families a role in making decisions about

 

12

their child (Palfrey et al., 1989). Because of these changes,
mental health professionals and human service systems were
beginning to encourage families, in the best interest of the
developing child, to raise their child at home within the
network of the family system. Thus, a new research emphasis
came about concentrating on not only what was best for the
child with a developmental disability, but what was best for
the entire family system. This research also focused on how
this child was going to affect all the family members.

There has been some research.on the strengths of families
having children with disabilities, although less than on the
pathologies of families with children having disabilities.
Abbott and Meredith (1986) compared parents with children
having mental retardation (n=60) to a control group of
parents (n=60). They found that parents of children with
mental retardation correlated with being less critical of
family members (t= 2.03, p<.04) and having fewer persistent
family problems (t= 1.88, p<.05). They also found that
spousal support (76%), participation in parent groups (58%),
and religious beliefs (42%) were positive coping resources.
Stoneman and Brody (1982) revealed several positive aspects
of sibling interactions with a child who has mental
retardation. The interactions allow the child with mental
retardation to imitate and.practice roles carried.out.by their
sibling. The interactions allow the sibling without mental
retardatithto expand roles to include caregiver, teacher, and

manager. The skill acquisition of the child with mental

 

 

 

l3

retardation may be stronger when the teacher is a sibling
closer to the child's age. In another study, when parents
(n=27) were asked directly, seventy-five percent of them felt
that having a child who is developmentally disabled made them
stronger. Forty three percent said that the child made them
much stronger (Wikler et al., 1983). A combined
questionnaire and family interview assessing competence in
families who have a child with mental retardation discovered
that most of these families are doing well in family
competence. The healthy families were characterized by open
and direct communication and the ability to express negative
feelings, strong internal support systems, autonomy and
responsibility in all members, and few signs of unresolved
conflict. Predictors of healthy family adjustment were older
female children with mental retardation, two-parent families,
and fathers' higher occupational status (Hampson, Hulgus,
Beavers, & Beavers, 1988).

Several researchers have assessed strong families to
develop predictors for family strength. An assessment of
coping in families who have a child with mental retardation
(n=40) during four critical periods during life was carried
out, preschool (3-5 yrs.), entering school (6-8 yrs.),
beginning adolescence (12-14 yrs.), and reaching chronological
adulthood (19—21 yrs.). The following characteristics
described healthy adaptive families: equal power in two parent
coalition, acknowledgement of child's needs and differentness,

conscious effort to meet child's needs and family needs,

l4

sibling display of nmmjyation in nurturing and leadership,
large amounts of give and take in the family; maintain social
contacts, clear diagnosis and information about the
disability, experience stress but aware of positive
possibilities, accept responsibility, overcome hardships, rise
to challenge, focus on small gains, collective pride, more
present oriented ‘than future oriented, and
negative/frustrating feeling recognized and permitted
(Beavers, Hampson, & Hulgus, 1986). In a study of two parent
families having a child with mental retardation (n=131),
mothers identified the following predictors of positive
family relations: marital satisfaction, less maternal
depression, more locus of control, having a male child who is
disabled, the child living at home, and the disability present
at birth (Friedrich, Cohen, & Wilturner, 1987).

McCubbin and Patterson (1981) indicate that family
strengths are contingent upon the families' perception of
stress, the "pile up" of stressors, and the availability and
utilization of social supports. Stinnett and Defrain (1985,
1989) designed a questionnaire to determine qualities of
families that perceive themselves as strong. They found that
the six major qualities of strong families are commitment,
appreciation, communication, time together, spiritual
wellness, and ability to cope with stress and crisis.
SUMMARY

In reviewing the literature within the context of family

functioning and developmental disabilities, there is a

15
consistent theme indicating that having a child with a
developmental disability has a negative impact on dyadic
relationships. This includes mother-child, father-child,
sibling-child, and even marital relationships. However, with
continued changes over the past four decades in societal
attitudes and policies towards people with developmental
disabilities, the emphasis on pathological family functioning
is beginning to change. Research is now beginning to focus on
what is best for the child and the family. Researchers are
finding that there are strengths in families that have a child
with a developmental disability. Additionally, research has
also been carried out assessing qualities of strong families
in general. It was the intent of this research to better
define the strengths of the family system that has a child

with a developmental disability.

Chapter 3 - Methods

SAMPLE

The sample of this study included two populations. The
first population included all forty-eight families who
currently have children between the ages of six and twelve
years old attending Beekman Center. The Marvin A. Beekman
Center is a segregated public school in Lansing, Michigan for
children with developmental diSabilities. This population was
chosen with the thought that the responding families would
have children with lower levels of ability.

The second population included 220 Board of Directors,
Local Association Presidents, and Executive Directors of the
Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) in Michigan. These
members were asked to read the cover letter and distribute to
families meeting the criteria who they thought would be
interested.in participating in this research project. 'Fhe.ARC
population was chosen with the thought that the responding
families would.have children with. varying degrees of ability.

The initial mailing forjboth.populations included.aicover
letter briefly describing the research project and
requesting participation for families meeting the criteria of
having a child with a developmental disability between
the ages of six and twelve years old. A copy of the Family

16

 

17

Information Sheet asking family demographic information, a
copy of the two part questionnaire, and a postpaid envelope
addressed to the primary investigator were also included in
the initial mailing. The initial mailing resulted in sixteen
respondents after two and a half weeks. A second postcard
mailing was sent out to both populations three and a half
weeks after the initial mailing. The postcard thanked those
families who already responded and reminded those who did not
that their participation would be helpful. The second mailing
resulted in six more respondents, one of which was not usable
as the child with a developmental disability was thirty-seven
years old. The total usable respondents were twenty-one.
This was a 14.58% return rate from respondents in the Beekman
population. The return rate from the undifferentiated ARC
population was 6.36%.
DESCRI PTION OF INSTRUMENT

The two instruments used in this study to assess family
strengths included the Family Inventory of Resources for
Management (FIRM) instrument developed by McCubbin, Comeau,
and Harkins (1981) and the Family Strengths Inventory (FSI)
developed by Stinnett and DeFrain (1985). ThePTRMimxsused
to assess a family's social, psychological, and community
resources. The instrument is composed of four subscales:
Esteem and Communication (FS), Mastery and Health (RS),
Extended Family Social Support (SS), and Financial Well-Being
(FWB). The FIRM is composed of fifty—five statements

regarding family life, fifteen from subscale FS, twenty from

18

subscale RS, four from subscale SS, and sixteen from subscale
FWB. When completing the FIRM, the primary caregiver in each
family was asked to indicate how well the statement described
the family situation on a four point Likert scale (1= not at
all, 2= minimally, 3= moderately, 4= very well). The overall
internal reliability of the FIRM is 0.89 (Cronbach's alpha).
The internal reliabilities for the individual subscales are as
follows: Esteem and Communication = 0.85 (Cronbach's alpha),
Mastery and Health = 0.85 (Cronbach's Alpha), Extended Family
Social Support = 0.62 (Cronbach's alpha), and Financial Well-
Being 0.85 (Cronbach's alpha) (McCubbin and Comeau, 1987).

The FSI instrument was used to assess more global areas
of family strength, The FSI instrument is made up of fourteen
quality descriptions of families. The primary caregivers
were asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale the degree
to which they felt their family possessed each quality, (1)
representing the least degree and (5) representing the
greatest degree. The split-half reliability of the FSI is
0.94 (N. Stinnett, personal communication, February 5, 1991).
For this study, an additional question (Question 70) was added
to the FSI. The respondents were asked to indicate on the
same five point Likert scale the degree to which they felt
their family was strong.

In addition to the two part questionnaire on family
strengths, respondents were also asked to complete the Family
Information Sheet for family demographics. The following

information was obtained on each family: names, ages, and

19

relationships of all people living in the household, names and
ages of all children not living in the household, parental
occupations, parental education, family income for 1990,
numbers of years married if currently married, child's date of
birth, child's diagnosis, age of child at diagnosis, sex of
child, and child's overall level of functioning based on IQ.
DESCRIPTION OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

1. The means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum
values were calculated for each question on the FIRM, each
subscale of the FIRM, the total FIRM, each question on the
FSI, question 70, the total FSI, and all demographic
variables. Additionally, the means, standard deviations, and
minimum and maximum totals were calculated for the total
scores on each subscale of the FIRM, the total FIRM, and the
total FSI.

The means for each FIRM subscale were calculated to
determine which subscales were high in family strength. The
means and standard deviations of the total FIRM subscale
scores were calculated to compare to the means and standard
deviations of a rmummtive sample, previously calculated by
McCubbin and Comeau (1987).

2. Cronbach's alpha reliability' was calculated for each
subscale on the FIRM and the total FIRM. These values were
calculated to compare to the Cronbach's alpha values
determined by the authors of the FIRM instrument. The split-
half reliability of the FSI was calculated to compare with the

split-half reliability determined by the author of the FSI

20
instrument.
3. Pearson R correlations were calculated between the
following items: question 70 and each subscale on the FIRM,
question 70 and total FIRM, question 70 and each question on
the FSI, and question 70 and total FSI. The correlations were
calculated to determine the relationship between the primary
caregiver's perception of family strength and the family
strength as determined by each instrument.
4. One-way ANOVA was calculated with the child's level of
functioning and each subscale on the FIRM and the total FSI.
ANOVA was calculated to determine if there was variability
between families with high functioning children (borderline,
mild, and moderate) and low functioning children (severe and
profound) in areas of family strength as determined by the
FIRM subscales and the FSI.
5. The frequencies of family’ demographic 'variables ‘were
calculated. The frequencies are used to describe the overall
sample. Additionally, the frequencies allowed each
demographic variable to be divided into groups.
6. The frequencies of each subscale on the FIRM and the total
FSI were calculated. The mean test was used to divide each
subscale on the FIRM and the total FSI into two groups each.
7. The frequencies of each question on the FIRM and each
question on the FSI including question 70 were calculated.
The frequencies of each question are used to describe the
percentage of respondents to each question.

8. Pearson R correlations were used on the following

21

information to determine if there was a statistically
significant relationship between each subscaLe of the FIRM
(esteem and communication, mastery and health, extended family
social support, and financial well-being) and family income,
mother's education, father's education, and number of years
married to current partner.
SUMMARY

This study included two populations of families with
children who have developmental disabilities between the ages
of six and twelve years old in an attempt to get varying
levels of children's ability. Of the 268 questionnaires sent
out to families, twenty—one were returned in usable form. 'Ehe
primary caregiver in the family completed a two part, seventy
item.self-report instrument focusing on four specific areas of
family strength and global areas of family strength. In
addition, they completed a form on family demographics. In
analyzing the information gathered statistically, the
following statistical tests were used: means, standard
deviations, reliabilities, Pearson R correlations, ANOVA, and

frequencies.

Chapter 4 - Results

Reliability of Instrument

Cronbach's alpha was calculated for internal reliability
of FIRM instrument. The overall reliability of the fifty-five
item FIRM was 0.9517. The reliability of Esteem and
Communication. subscale, fifteen items, was 0.8601” The
reliability of Mastery and Health subscale, twenty items, was
0.9134. The reliability of Extended Family Social Support
subscale, four items, was 0.5518. The reliability for the
Financial Well-Being subscale, sixteen items, was 0.9296. A
split-half reliability of 0.8848 was calculated for' the
fourteen item FSI instrument. All reliabilities for the FIRM
instrument were higher than the reliabilities reported by the
authors of the instrument, except the four item Extended
Family Social Support subscale. The reliability for the FSI
instrument was slightly lower that.the reliability reported by
the author of the instrument.
Demographics of Sample

The overall family’ demographics of the sample are
described in Table 1. The range of incomes for twenty
families was $7000 to $150,000. The mean of the sample was
$38,855 and the median was $31,500. Over half of all the
families' incomes were between $24,000 and $40,000. The

22

23

majority of the families had only siblings older than the
child with a developmental disability. Nearly forty percent
of all fathers held professional positions, with another
quarter having skilled positions. Of mother's occupations,
nearly half were homemakers and about twenty percent held
professional positions“ Just over half of all fathers
attended one to four years of college, with the mean being
14.65 years of school and the median 14 years of school. Just
under half of all mothers attended one to four years of
college, with the mean being 13.7 years of school and the
median being 13.5 years of school. One third of all
respondents were not married and another third of all
respondents were married between 11 and 20 years. The mean
number of years married was 12.75 years and the median was 12
years. Two thirds of all children with developmental
disabilities were male and the other one third were female.
About half of the children were in the high range of overall
functioning and. half were in the low range of overall
functioning.

Of the sample of twenty-one, the respondents indicated
that their children had the following diagnoses: nine with
Down's syndrome, seven with severe multiple impairments (SXI),
two with mental retardation, one with a chromosome
abnormality, one with mucopolysaccaridosis-sanfilippo, and one
with cerebral palsy. The distribution of ages at which the
child received a diagnosis are the following: twelve at

birth, six between six weeks and one year, and two between

24
fourteen and twenty-four months. The sample did include one
family with two children, ages six and nine, who both had
developmental disabilities. For purposes of the
questionnaire, information was given only on the older child.
There was also one family whose child with a developmental
disability did not live in the home. The child was currently
in foster care. Although the initial cover letter requested
families who had a child with a developmental disability
between the ages of six and twelve, one respondent had a son
fifteen years old who was developmentally disabled. This

respondent was included in the sample.

Table 1 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Demographic Variable:
FAMILY INCOME

$7,000 to $15,000 19.0%
$24,000 to $40,000 52.4%
$43,715 to $150,000 23.8%
no response 0.48%
FAMILY TYPE

no siblings 9.5%
younger siblings only 14.3%
mixed siblings 23.8%
older siblings only 52.4%
FATHER'S OCCUPATION

skilled position 23.8%
managerial position 14.3%
professional position 38.1%
homemaker 4.8%
unemployed 9.5%
no response 9.5%
MOTHER'S OCCUPATION

skilled position 23.8%
managerial position 4.8%
professional position 19.0%
homemaker 47.6%
student 9.5%
no response 9.5%
FATHER'S EDUCATION

high school or less 28.6%
1 to 4 years of college 52.4%
5 or more years of college 14.4%
no response 4.8%
MOTHER'S EDUCATION

high school or less 38.1%
1 to 4 years of college 47.5%
45 or more years of college 9.6%
no response 4.8%
NUMBER OF YEARS MARRIED

not married 33.3%
1 to 10 years 14.4%
11 to 20 years 33.3%
21 to 34 years 19.2%
CHILD'S SEX

male 67.7%
female 33.3%
CHILD'S OVERALL LEVEL OF FUNCTIONING
high 52.4%
low 46.6%

25

Percentage of Respondents: N:

I—‘UIWN t-‘Ul

H

NNHWUUT

ubflwd

26

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND RESULTS
1. What are the areas of family strength for families who
have children with developmental disabilities as measured by
the FIRM?

The following dimensions appear to be attributes of
strength as reported by respondents in order: esteem and
communication, extended.family social support, financial well-

being, and mastery and health (Table 2).

Table 2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FIRM

 

variable number mean std dev N
of items

esteem & comm. 15 3.22 .44 21
extended family 4 3.00 .59 21
social support

financial well being 16 2.78 .75 21
mastery & health 20 2.58 .60 21
total FIRM 55 2.84 .50 21

2. What are global areas of family strength for families who
have a child with a developmental disability as determined by
the Family Strengths Inventory (FSI) instrument?

The global areas of strength for families with children
who have developmental disabilities are reported to be the
following from highest to lowest according to respondents:
commitment, closeness with child(ren), happiness with
child(ren), making child(ren) feel good, dealing with crisis,
spiritual wellness, expressing appreciation, child(ren) making
you feel good, good communication,

spending time together, closeness with spouse, making spouse

feel good, spouse making you feel good,

spouse (Table 3).

Table 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FSI

27

and happiness with

 

variable mean std dev N

Commitment 4.38 1.02 21

Closeness with child(ren) 4.24 1.00 21

Happiness with child 4.10 .89 21

You make child(ren) 4.05 1.02 21
feel good

Dealing with crisis 3.71 .90 21

Spiritual wellness 3.57 1.25 21

Expressing appreciation 3.52 .81 21

Child(ren) make you 3.52 1.12 21
feel good

Good communication 3.48 1.08 21

Spending time together 3.43 1.03 21

Closeness with spouse 3.26 1.41 19

You make spouse feel 3.21 1.27 19
good

Spouse makes you feel 3.16 1.38 19
good

Happiness with spouse 3.11 1.41 19

Total FSI 3.66 .82 21

3. Do areas of family strength as measured by the FIRM differ

according to the severity of the child's disability?

how?

If so,

HYPOTHESIS: Family strengths as measured by the subscales on
the FIRM instrument (esteem and communication, mastery and
health, extended family social support, and financial well-
being) do not differ according to the severity of the child's
disability (high or low functioning).

Oneway ANOVA was calculated with the child's overall
level of functioning, either high functioning or low

functioning, and each subscale on the FIRM instrument” There

28
is no statistical significance between severity of disability
and family strengths according to the FIRMH The null

hypothesis for the question is accepted (Table 4).

Table 4 ANOVA FOR FIRM AND LEVEL OF FUNCTIONING

 

variable:
by variable Child's Overall Level of Functioning
D.F. F Probability

Extended Family Social Support (1, 18) .3102
Financial Well Being (1, 18) .3324

Esteem & Communication (1, 18) .7501

Mastery & Health (1, 18) .7567

Total FSI (1, 18) .4549

 

4. Do family strengths as measured by the FIRM instrument
differ according to the family demographic variables?
HYPOTHESIS: Family strengths as measured by the FIRM
instrument do not differ according to family demographic
variables.

Pearson R correlations were calculated with each subscale
on the FIRM instrument and the following demographic
variables: family income, father's education, mother's
education, and number of years married to current partner.
There was a significant correlation between esteem and
communication and financial well-being as well as between
financial well-being and family income. Additionally, there
was a significant correlation between financial well-being and
mother's education. Mastery and health had a significant
correlation with the number of years married , and financial

well-being had a significant correlation with the number of

29
years married (Table 5).

The null hypothesis is rejected for the following items
at the .05 level of significance: mother's education and
financial well-being, number of years married and mastery and
health , number of years married and financial well-being, and
family income and esteem and communication. The null
hypothesis is rejected at the .001 level of significance for

family income and financial well—being.

Table 5 CORRELATION OF FIRM AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

 

subscale/variable Pearson r p<.05 p<.001
esteem & communication/
family income .0477
financial well-being/
mother's education .0346
financial well-being/
number of years married .0177
mastery & health/
number of years married .0151
financial well-being/
family income .0006

5. Do the primary caregivers' perceptions of overall family
strength relate to areas of family strength as measured by the
FIRM for the family that has a child with a developmental
disability?
HYPOTHESIS: The primary caregivers' perceptions of overall
family strength positively relate to the subscales of family
strength on the FIRM instrument.

All four subscales on the FIRM, esteem and communication,
mastery and. health, extended family social support, and

financial well-being are significantly related to the primary

30
caregiver's perception of overall family strength (Table 6).
The null hypothesis is rejected at the .001 level of
significance for caregiver's perception of strength and esteem
and communication as well as caregiver's perception of
strength and.the total FIRM; ‘The null hypothesis was rejected
at the .01 level of significance for the following:
caregiver's perception of strength and mastery and health,
caregiver's perception of strength and extended family social
support, and caregiver's perception of strength and financial

well-being.

Table 6 CORRELATION OF FIRM AND PERCEPTION OF STRENGTH

 

subscale Pearson R p<.01 p<.001
extended family social support .5503

financial well-being .5836

mastery & health .5945

esteem & communication .6987

total FIRM .7315

6. Do the primary caregivers' perceptions of overall family
strength relate toiglobal areas of family strength as measured
by the FSI instrument for the family that has a child with a
developmental disability ?
HYPOTHESIS: The primary caregivers' perceptions of owerall
family strength positively do not relate to the global areas
of family strength as determined by the FSI instrument.

All global areas of family strength as determined by the
FSI instrument, except dealing with.crisis, are significant in

relationship to the primary caregivers' perceptions of overall

31
family strength (Table 7). The null hypothesis is accepted
for caregivers' perceptions of strength and dealing with
crisis. The hypothesis is rejected at the .01 level of
significance for caregivers' perceptions of family strength
and the following: commitment, good communication, closeness
with spouse, and making spouse feel good. The hypothesis is
rejected at the .001 level of significance for caregivers'
perceptions of family strength and the following: spending
time together, expressing appreciation, spiritual wellness,
closeness with child(ren), happiness with spouse, happiness
with child, spouse makes you feel good, child(ren) make you

feel good, and making child(ren) feel good.

Table 7 CORRELATION OF FSI AND PERCEPTION OF STRENGTH

 

subscale Pearspn R p<.01 p<.001
Dealing with crisis .4865
You make spouse feel .5706
good
Closeness with spouse .6081
Commitment .6290
Good communication .6326
Happiness with child .6649
Expressing appreciation .6727
Spending time together .6746
Spiritual wellness .6754
Closeness with child(ren) .6822
Child(ren) make you .7060
feel good
You make child(ren) .7091
feel good
Happiness with spouse .7687
Spouse makes you feel .7774
good

Total FSI .7315

32
SUMMARY

The reliability scores of the instruments used in this
study were, for the most part, higher than the reliability
scores reported by the authors of the instrument.
Demographically, the families that participated in this study
can be described in the following manner: most family incomes
ranged from $24,000 to $40,000 annually, most families had
only' older siblings, fathers primarily’ held. professional
positions while most of the mothers were homemakers.
Educationally, about half of all the parents had one to four
years of college. About a third of the respondents were
married and the same portion was not married. More
participating families had boys than girls with developmental
disabilities. The majority of the children with developmental
disabilities had Down syndrome, and most were diagnosed with
their disability at birth.

The respondents indicate that attributes of family
strength include the following in order: esteem and
communication, extended family social support, financial well-
being, and mastery and health. Global attributes of family
strength are reported respectively: commitment, relationship
with child(ren), dealing with crisis, spiritual wellness,
expressing appreciation, communication, spending time
together, and relationship with spouse. Family strengths do
not appear to differ according to the severity of a child's
disability. Family income, mother's education, and number of

years married to current partner appear to be significantly

33
correlated with family strength. Additionally, the primary
caregivers' perceptions of family strength are consistent with

family strength as determined by the two part instrument.

Chapter 5 — Discussion

SUMMARY

As most research in the area of families that have
children with developmental disabilities focuses on the
pathologies of the family system, this research has
concentrated on assessing areas of strength for such families.
In addition to assessing areas of strength in the family, this
research assessed the family's perception.of strength, IFamily
strength was also assessed in relationship to the severity of
the child's disability and family demographic variables.

In reviewing the literature within the context of family
functioning and developmental disabilities, there is a
consistent theme indicating that having a child with a
developmental disability run; a negative impact on dyadic
relationships. This. includes.:mother-child, father-child,
sibling-child, and even marital relationships. However, with
continued changes over the past four decades in societal
attitudes and. policies ‘towards jpeople *with. developmental
disabilities, the emphasis on pathological family functioning
is beginning to change. Research is now beginning to focus on
what is best for the child apd the family. Researchers are
finding that there are strengths in families that have a child
Mdjjla.developmental disability. Additionally, research.has

34

35
also been carried out assessing qualities of strong families
in general. It was the intent of this research to better
define the strengths of the family system that has a child
with a developmental disability.

This study included two populations of families with
children who have developmental disabilities between the ages
of six and twelve years old in an attempt to get varying
levels of children's ability. Of the 268 questionnaires sent
out to families, twenty-one were returned in usable form. 'Fhe
primary caregiver in the family completed a two part, seventy
item.self—report instrument focusing on four specific areas of
family strength and global areas of family strength. In
addition, they completed a form on family demographics. In
analyzing the information gathered statistically, the
following statistics were used: means, standard deviations,
reliabilities, Pearson R correlations, ANOVA, and frequencies.

The reliability scores of the instruments used in this
study were, for the most part, higher than the reliability
scores reported by the authors of the instrument.

Demographically, the families that participated in this
study can be described in the following manner: most family
incomes ranged from.$24,000 to $40,000 annually, most families
had only older siblings, fathers primarily held professional
positions while most of the mothers were homemakers.
Educationally, about half of all the parents had one to four
years of college. About a third of the respondents were not

married and another third were married eleven to twenty years.

36
About two thirds of the children with disabilities were boys,
and the other third were girls. The majority of the children
with developmental disabilities had Down syndrome, and most
were diagnosed with their disability at birth.

The. respondents indicated. that. attributes of family
strength include the following in order: esteem and
communication, extended.family social support, financial well-
being, and mastery and health. Global attributes of family
strength are reported respectively: commitment, relationship
with child(ren), dealing with crisis, spiritual wellness,
expressing appreciation, communication, spending time
together, and relationship with spouse. Family strengths do
not appear to differ according to the severity of a child's
disability. Family income, mother's education, and number of
years married to current partner all appear to be
significantly correlated.with family strength. .Additionally,
the primary caregivers' perceptions of family strength are
consistent with family strength as determined by the two part
instrument.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that families with
children who have developmental disabilities are able to
identify their own strengths. Furthermore, their perception
of family strength is consistent with the family strengths
identified by self-report instruments. Families identified
the subscale Esteem and Communication to be their area of

greatest strength on the FIRM. Esteem and Communication

37

includes such areas as family esteem, communication, mutual

assistance, optimism, problem solving ability, and
encouragement of autonomy among family members. They have
identified Extended Family Social Support as their second
greatest area of strength, indicating there is much giving to
and receiving from relatives. The third area of strength for
these families was Financial Well-Being; .And, finally Mastery
and Health was identified as the fourth greatest area of
strength. Mastery and Health includes areas of sense of
mastery over family events and outcomes, emotional support,
togetherness, cooperation, and physical and emotional health.
It is understandable that families who have a child with a
developmental disability would.not consider mastery and health
as their area of greatest strength. These families have a
child that probably has a number of ongoing physical and/or
emotional problems.

The FSI instrument included seven global areas of family
strength. The families in this sample indicated that their
strengths were in the following order: commitment,
relationship with child(ren), dealing with crisis, spiritual
wellness, expressing appreciation, communication, spending
time together and relationship with spouse. Thirty-three
percent of all respondents were not married. However,
nineteen of the twenty-one respondents answered the questions
on the FSI related to spousal relationship. Therefore, it is
believed that the respondents' answers reflected their current

relationship with their ex-spouse (the parent of the child

38

with.aidisability). Only two respondents indicated.otherwise.
One female respondent indicated that her children were
adopted, and she was not.married, Therefore, she responded to
spousal questions by marking a one on the scale of one to
five. .Another female respondent indicated.that she was living
with the father of her children. Although they were not
married, it is assumed that she was referring to her partner
in answering the spousal questions.

As expected, the severity of the child's disability does
not affect family strength. Three family demographic
variables do positively correlate to areas of family strength
as indicated by the FIRM instrument. There is a significant
difference in esteem and communication based on family income,
suggesting that families with higher income have a higher
esteem. As one would suspect, there is a significant
difference in financial well-being based on family income.
There is also a significant difference in financial well-being
based mother's education. Eight mothers had a high school
education or less, ten mothers had one to four years of
college, one mother had five or more years of college, and one
was not reported. The relationship between financial well-
being and mother's education suggests that those mothers with
a higher education are earning more money than those mothers
with a lower education. Of twenty-one respondents, ten
reported that the mother is currently a homemaker, seven
mothers are employed, two mothers are students, and two were

not reported. There is a significant difference in mastery

39

and health based number of years married to current partner.
There is a greater sense of mastery over family outcomes and
events, morezemotional support, togetherness, cooperation, and
better physical and emotional health in families where the
parents have been married longer. A significant difference in
financial well-being based on number of years married was also
found.

The total means scores of the sample in this study are
slightly lower' in .all four .areas of family strength. as
determined by the FIRM instrument compared to a normative
sample of families (Tablee8). IHowever, the standard deviation
for all four areas of strength are slightly larger with the
families who have children with developmental disabilities.
The total mean scores of the sample in this study are lower
than the normative group. This may mean that in families who
have children with developmental disabilities, some strengths
are suppressed. However, slight differences in scores does

not equate to a pathological family.

Table 8 COMPARISON OF NORMATIVE AND RESEARCH SAMPLES

 

variable number mean std dev N
of items

esteem & comm.
families 15 33.33 6.57 21
normative 15 35 6

mastery & health
families 20 31.48 11.85 21
normative 20 39 9

extended family

social support
families 4 8.00 2.35 21
normative 4 9 2

financial well being
families 16 28.43 12.04 21
normative 16 29 9

total FIRM
families 55 101.24 27.31 21
normative 55 110 18

40

41

Contrary to most other research done in this area,
respondents in this study indicate that families who have
children with developmental disabilities do have strengths.
There is one similar theme in predictors of family strength.
Hampson et al. (1988) indicated that two-parent families were
predictors of healthy family adjustment. Friedrich et al.
(1987) found in their study that marital satisfaction was a
predictor of positive family relations. Respondents in this
study indicate that the number of years married is a predictor
of family strength, specifically in the area of mastery and
health. All three studies suggest that marital relations do
have an impact on family functioning. In regards to the sex
of the child with a developmental disability having an impact
on family strengths, the results are inconclusive and
inconsistent. In their 1988 study, Hampson et al. indicate
that an older female child with mental retardation is a
predictor of healthy family adjustment. On the other hand,
Friedrich et al. (1987) suggest that a male child who is
disabled is a predictor of positive family relations. The
respondents in this research suggest that there is no
difference between male and female children in regards to
predicting family strength.
ABOUT LIMITATIONS

It should be noted here that the very small sample size
in this study has a number of ramifications. First, the small
sample size limits the generalizability of the findings.

Additionally, the small sample size could mean that a

42
selection factor has occurred in this study. Specifically,
families that perceived themselves as not strong may have
chosen not to respond to the questionnaire. Therefore the
diversity of the sample that was desired may not have been
achieved.

Also in regards to the small sample size, the ARC sample
was an undifferentiated.group of families, ‘Unlike the Beekman
sample where all families that were contacted had children
between the ages of six and twelve with developmental
disabilities, the ARC population included only individuals
that were members of the Association for Retarded Citizens.
Their membership in this organization did not necessarily mean
that they met qualifications for participation in this study.
All individuals contacted not meeting the study's
qualifications may have been the reason why the response rate
for the ARC population was only 6.38%.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRACTITIONER

The most significant finding in this research is the
indication that families who have children with developmental
disabilities are able to accurately identify their own
strengths as well as their areas of need. Practically, this
suggests that some families with children who have
developmental disabilities are functioning well by utilizing
their strengths. Furthermore, not all families who have
children with developmental disabilities are dysfunctional.
In providing services to those families in need, this research

would suggest that service begins by assisting the family to

43

identify their strengths, define their strengths, and build
upon their strengths. Then, family strengths can be seen as
a beginning step of an intervention.plan instead of being seen
only as a consequence of intervention. It is important that
families have full input into their individualized service
plans as the best know their strengths and needs.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Research implications suggest that, first and foremost,
additional research should begin to focus on family strengths.
What are families doing right? How? Why? In concentrating
on family strength, much consideration should be given to
perceived family strengths. It would be beneficial to look at
perceived family strengths from the part of all family members
individually. Then perceptions among individual members could
be compared and contrasted. This particular study focused on
families of children between the ages of six and twelve. A
comparative study might be carried out to determine
differences and similarities in family strength with varying
aged children. Additionally, when choosing a sample for a
future study, the sample should be age specific to the group

that is being studied.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

FREQUENCIES OF EACH QUESTION ON THE FIRM

Responses:

1= not at all
2= minimally

3= moderately
4= very well

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTION 1 2 3 4 mean
1. Being physically

tired 9.5% 38.1% 47.6% 4.8% 2.476
2. Financially able to

help relatives 38.1% 33.3% 19.0% 9.5% 2.000
3. Friends enjoy

Visiting 9.5% 14.3% 33.3% 42.9% 3.095
4. Good retirement

income program 33.3% 14.3% 33.3% 19.0% 2.381
5. Nag each other to get

things done 4.8% 28.6% 52.4% 9.5% 2.571
6. Understand help expected

from each other 4.8% 9.5% 47.6% 38.1% 3.190
7. Ability to make plans

work 0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 3.143
8. No problem paying

bills 19.0% 23.8% 28.6% 28.6% 2.667
9. Events as a matter of

good or bad luck 4.8% 33.3% 23.8% 38.1% 2.952
10. One person earning money

a problem 23.8% 14.3% 38.1% 19.0% 2.429
11. Take each other for

granted 4.8% 33.3% 38.1% 23.8% 2.810
12. No problem getting

a loan 23.8% 14.3% 19.0% 42.9% 2.810
13. Relatives take but

give little 0% 23.8% 28.6% 47.6% 3.238

 

44

 

14. Money for unexpected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

expenses 23.8% 4.8% 19.0% 52.4% 3.000
15. Look at good and bad
of solutions 0% 4.8% 66.7% 28.6% 3.238
16. Good income benefits

19.0% 4.8% 38.1% 38.1% 2.952
17. Don't have enough
control over life 23.8% 38.1% 23.8% 14.3% 2.286
18. Some do the giving
others do the taking 4.8% 47.6% 19.0% 28.6% 2.714
19. Look on the bright
side 0% 28.6% 38.1% 33.3% 3.048
20. Put off decision
making 4.8% 23.8% 42.9% 28.6% 2.952
21. Can afford dinner
out 4.8% 19.0% 47.6% 28.6% 3.000
22. Under much emotional
stress 38.1% 38.1% 14.3% 9.5% 1.952
23. Interferences in
sharing time 19.0% 23.8% 42.9% 14.3% 2.524
24. Keep in touch with
relatives 4.8% 14.3% 42.9% 38.1% 3.143
25. Need more life
insurance 14.3% 38.1% 23.8% 23.8% 2.571
26. "Okay" to show
positive feelings 0% 4.8% 33.3% 61.9% 3.571
27. Able to make
contributions 19.0% 14.3% 42.9% 23.8% 2.714
28. Happier than most

0% 28.6% 47.6% 23.8% 2.952
29. "Okay" to cry

0% 19.0% 14.3% 66.7% 3.476
30. Money decisions made
by one person 38.1% 19.0% 14.3% 28.6% 2.333
31. More illness than
most 9.5% 23.8% 23.8% 42.9% 3.000

46

 

32. Money in savings for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

needs 28.6% 19.0% 23.8% 28.6% 2.524
33. Discuss decisions with
family first 14.3% 19.0% 23.8% 42.9% 2.952
34. Some members have all
responsibility 19.0% 42.9% 19.0% 19.0% 2.381
35. Upsetting when plans
don't work 9.5% 61.9% 23.8% 4.8% 2.238
36. Relatives willing to
listen 9.5% 38.1% 23.8% 28.6% 2.714
37. Worry about paying
unexpected bills 23.8% 33.3% 9.5% 33.3% 2.524
38. Satisfaction from
helping one another 0% 9.5% 52.4% 38.1% 3.286
39. Saving for the future
important 4.8% 14.3% 19.0% 61.9% 3.381
40. Being sad is a problem

19.0% 19.0% 42.9% 19.0% 2.619
41. Hard to get family to
cooperate 14.3% 23.8% 38.1% 23.8% 2.714
42. Little influence over
events 19.0% 42.9% 23.8% 14.3% 2.333
43. Working members respected
by coworkers 0% 9.5% 33.3% 51.7% 3.476
44. Made checks knowing there
isn't enough 0% 9.5% 19.0% 71.4% 3.619
45. Members respect one
another 0% 19.0% 42.9% 38.1% 3.190
46. Have spending money for
special things 23.8% 28.6% 28.6% 19.0% 2.429
47. Same problem over
and over 4.8% 19.0% 28.6% 47.6% 3.190
48. Things need to get done
that don't 23.8% 38.1% 38.1% 0% 2.143
49. If lost job, could
find another 9.5% 19.0% 23.8% 47.6% 3.095

47

 

50. Family encouraged to

 

 

 

 

 

have own interests 0% 9.5% 57.1% 33.3% 3.238
51. Relatives make us feel

appreciated 4.8% 28.6% 38.1% 28.6% 2.905
52. Members good neighbors

and citizens 0% 4.8% 33.3% 61.9% 3.571
53. Don't spend enough time

together 4.8% 28.6% 52.5% 14.3% 2.762
54. Make an effort to help

relatives 0% 28.6% 52.4% 19.0% 2.905
55. Financially better off

than 5 years ago 19.0% 19.0% 28.6% 33.3% 2.762

 

Appendix B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREQUENCIES OF EACH QUESTION ON THE FSI
scale: 1 to 5
1: least
5: most
QUESTION 1 2 3 4 mean
56. Spending time
together 9.5 0% 38.1% 42.9% 9.5% 3.429
57. Commitment

0% 9.5% 9.5% 14.3% 66.7% 4.381
58. Good
communication 4. % 14.3% 23.8% 42.9% 14.3% 3.476
59. Dealing with crisis
positively 0% 9.5% 28.6% 42.9% 19.0% 3.714
60. Expressing
appreciation 0% 4.8% 52.4% 28.6% 14.3% 3.524
61. Spiritual
wellness 0% 28.6% 19.0% 19.0% 33.3% 3.571
62. Closeness with
spouse 14.3% 9.5% 28.5% 14.3% 23.8% 3.263
63. Closeness with
child(ren) 0% 9.5% 9.5% 28.6% 52.4% 4.238
64. Happiness with
spouse 14.3% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 3.105
65. Happiness with
child(ren) 0% 4.8% 19.0% 38.1% 38.1% 4.095
66. Spouse makes you
feel good about
self 9.5% 23.8% 23.8% 9.5% 23.8% 3.158
67. Children make you
feel good about
self 4.8% 14.3% 23.8% 38.1% 19.0% 3.524
68. Make spouse feel
good about him/
herself 9.5% 19.0% 19.0% 28.6% 14.3% 3.211

 

48

49

 

69. Make children

 

feel good 4.8% 0% 19.0% 38.1% 38.1% 4.048
70. Degree to your
family is strong 0% 0% 23.8% 33.3% 42.9% 4.190

 

-‘

 

References

Abbott, D.A., & Meredith, W.H. (1986). Strengths of parents with
retarded children. Family Relations, 35, 371-375.

Beavers, J., Hampson, R.B., & Hulgus, Y.F. (1986). Coping in
families with a retarded child. Family Process, 25, 365-378.

Byrne, E.A. & Cunningham, C.C. (1985). The effects of mentally
handicapped children on families - a conceptual review.
Journal of Child Psycholoqy and Psychiatry, 26, 847-864.

Crnic, K.A., Friedrich, W.N., & Greenburg, M.T. (1983). Adaption
of families with mentally retarded children: A model of
stress, coping, and family ecology. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 88, 125-138.

Cummings, S.T. (1976). The impact of the child's deficiency on
the father: A study of fathers of mentally retarded and of
chronically ill children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatrv,
46, 246-255.

Cummings, S.T., Bayley, H.C., & Rie, H.E. (1966). Effects of the
child's deficiency on the mother: A study of mothers of
mentally retarded, chronically ill, and neurotic children.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 36, 595-608.

Friedrich, W.N., Cohen, D.S., & Wilturner, L.S. (1987). Family
relations and marital quality when a mentally handicapped
child is present. Psychological Reports, 61, 911-919.

Friedrich, W.N. & Friedrich, W.L. (1981). Psychological assets of
parents of handicapped and non-handicapped children. American

Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 551-553.

50

51

Gath, A., & Gumley, D. (1987). Retarded children and their
siblings. Journal of Psychology 8 Psychiatry4§:Allied
Disciplines, 28, 715-730.

Hampson, R.S., Hulgus, Y.F., Beavers, W.R., & Beavers, J.S.
(1988). The assessment of competence in families with a
retarded child. Journal of Family Psychology. 2, 32-53.

Kazak, A.E. (1986). Families with physically handicapped
children: Social ecology and family systems. Family Process,
25, 265-281.

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

Longo, D.C. & Bond, L. (1984). Families of the handicapped child:
Research and practice. Family Relations, 33, 57-65.

MacKinnon, L., & Marlett, N. (1984). A social action perspective:
The disabled and their families in context. Family Therapy
Collections, 11, 111-126.

McCubbin, H., & Comeau, J. (1987). FIRM: Family inventory of
resouces for management. In H. McCubbin & A. Thompson (Eds.)
Family assessment inventories for research and practice(pp.
145-160). Madison: University of Wisconsin.

McCubbin, H., Comeau, J., & Harkins, J. (1981). FIRM- Family
Inventory of Resources for Management. Madison: University of
Wisconsin.

McCubbin, H.I., & Patterson, J.M. (1981). Broadening the scope of
family coping and social support. In N. Stinnett, J. DeFrain,

K. King, P. Knaub, & G. Rowe (Eds.) Family strengths: Volume

52
III root of well-being (pp. 177-194). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.

Palfrey, J.S. Walker, D.K., Butler, J.A., & Singer, J.D. (1989).
Patterns of response in families of chronically disabled
children: An assessment in five metropolitan school districts.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 94—104.

Stinnett, N. & DeFrain, J. (1989). The healthy family: Is it
possible? In M. Fine (Ed.) (1990). The second handbook on
parent education (pp. 53-74). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

Stinnett, N. & DeFrain, J. (1985). Secrets of strong families.
Boston: Little, Brown.

Stinnett, N., Sanders, G., & DeFrain, J. (1981). Strong families:
A national study. In N. Stinnett, J. DeFrain, K. King, P.
Kaub, & G. Rowe (Eds.) Family strengths: Volume III roots of
well-being (pp. 33-41). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Stoneman, Z. & Brody, G.H. (1982). Strengths in sibling
interactions involving a retarded child: A functional role
theory approach. In N. Stinnett et. al. (Eds.), Family
strengths 4: Positive support systems (pp. 113-129).

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Stoneman, Z., Brody, G.H., Davis, C.H., & Crapps, J.M. (1988).
Childcare responsibilities, peer relations, and sibling
conflict: Older siblings of mentally retarded children.
American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 174-183.

Stoneman, Z., Brody, G.H., Davis, C.H., & Crapps, J.M. (1987).
Mentally retarded children and their older same-sex

siblings: Naturalistic in-home observations. American Journal

53
on Mental Retardation, 92, 290-298.

Turnbull, A.P. (1988). The challenge of providing comprehensive
support to families. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation, 23, 261-272.

Wikler, L., Wasow, M., & Hatfield, E. (1983). Seeking strengths
in families of developmentally disabled children. Social Work,
28, 313-315.

Yura, M.T. (1987). Family subsystem functions and disabled
children: Some conceptual issues. Marriage and Family Review,

11, 135-151.

 

 

 

 

 

in“...

...‘”'""

w- w
4 ... ...,......_ v. . .
1,.

N. \'5
a 1* - ..
u. ... ' ‘~ ~ .“" -“ .NE' . .

Mu... -"'-,.. . ~ ‘_
‘ tr.“ N.,,“ 4 t‘
t.
1-

~: ”Evy-U ~

”431..
r

, .‘,.",.‘.,.'....-:».-,-
-~ ~ 3'"-',~.nwn-nvn-w:\19 -
.'._.__...L.

 

HICHIGQN STQTE

ll 2l llllllllllllllllil