.7. s. I. t . U I? .‘a5..l.7'.rv Y :3... .i.fpfv0 at i: 0' . .1. . lo; 1A: 4.1-3.1’1. Inna: 81...! f .53..- vti a)! 9.3..rrtvfl4ef 5921 'u 51.."- ‘u. ’0‘ . . . .31.. ‘Iilx Lt‘owimutinPQuwfigo 5 u l :5 3. uh... J ,x ‘55.“! . .. . E 33', {Si} fa: #5 :3 an. t. . is: g? . )7. ..‘..o! ‘ 3 'f 11.! .3 5L5: kw. lard. (tn-I. i 3,. In... :1 .5! 1t: 1 . I .‘A! «to. . fr . v.1). .. It” . . . t b . {v.3 iiair'.it . . l?!itai....u§.tt. 1.7:: . J... ‘ “PM . a"v‘..vvnn.!7..!‘1._...’v\..$n; r. t)...” (I: Punt. .I:I..rilllull9 3 b 55 '| I '7! v . OIL r ‘ E 33;:- - $12... {fir}. 5.. :33... .. ... I L .0. In 2. I):ll¢l§t..a.x!ur v1! . i ‘ «5.8.2.1124?! ’39, o for 7) fix... «133.1. ‘lert .11.: . , .st 1 . .: . .. is. 1:13., «1.33132. . ’! "1.!"ID."IVV 'I'QA‘ . .Ip bailiff}! ...l\ ‘Ilzt £3.01}... t. slotix’x.o.ll9vallr. o . ..IV¢ 31153...- .1. . . . ..v I it!!! I 5.... in... . . ... . ..... . II... v.... V i’t...3‘~))!..ll t 1|"... If..uh£lrttl.?.tl»l:.1! 1.311.“), .v.v......n.¢\ fifi?)£u~§cli:0.3 xv, 405 .I. It... 2.. .ukfauz 55 guilaizu. . 1131!: .l. «lv‘vrv. I c a. 3‘11!!! .-vi-£. :. . 4.] 32.33.13... 3;... . 1.... 6o... . . :r . ........»!..c.. 1.5.! (c. 2.2.... 32.2. . a. 21...; -22.??? . inrniliixi .. 1 - :II.I.I ‘h I... .. In. 1 (- in! El... .. lat-trizinfl. . .iuoguz.fl".lix‘:ufll‘13!! . . it. . lo'lllc: 5...}. . I 9‘. Rift”...ulalvl . ,.1¢I13§| 0.3}!!!- Hhu .5...‘ .9... £21.! .1: r: I? . viu’l‘rifif an . .r L (3.1"! 1 y .alll .u. 5: xi .{I‘Ja uéll ‘va it‘ll-int! ciuil Tat-ms MICHIGAN STA AET III/(I’l’II/II SITY LIBRARIES II IIIIIIII IIII'II“ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF RURAL MOTHERS' AND FATHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF REARING THEIR FIRST-BORN, HANDICAPPED THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD presented by Thomas K. Terry has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Family Ecology & bTajor professor Date MajL 18: 1990 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 k‘ I LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETU N BOX to remove this checkout from your record. ~ TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ' I-7 \ \ \ MSU to An A must AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF RURAL MOTHERS' AND FATHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF REARING THEIR FIRST-BORN, HANDICAPPED THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD BY Thomas K. Terry A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1990 f, ’1 \l ."/V’ C L/‘ILO" 2‘ _, ”‘7 ABSTRACT AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF RURAL MOTHERS' AND FATHERS' PERCEPTIONS 0F REARING THEIR FIRST-BORN, HANDICAPPED THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD BY Thomas K. Terry The primary purpose of the study was to assess Childrearing perceptions of first-time parents of a three-year-old handicapped child and to contrast these beliefs with parents of a nonhandicapped child. A Q-sort methodology was used to assess parenting beliefs of 29 mothers and fathers of handicapped children and 25 mothers and fathers of nonhandicapped children. In addition, similarities and differences between mothers' and fathers' beliefs were investigated. Childrearing beliefs of parents according to the type/severity of the child's handicap were also analyzed. Family stress differences between families of handicapped and nonhandicapped children were also investigated. An item-by-item analysis was done to compare group responses. Those items which were shown statistically to be rated differently by the groups of interest were further evaluated. The ranking of parents' beliefs according to which items were "most like" them or "least like" them as parents were also analyzed. The parents of a handicapped child showed 90% to 92% agreement in their Childrearing perceptions regardless of the type/severity of their child's handicapping condition. Measures of family stress showed no significant differences between the families of a handicapped child and. the families of a nonhandicapped child. The independent variable which accounted for the greatest percentage of variance in these parents' Childrearing beliefs was family status, based upon the presence of a handicapped child in the family. All but one of the items analyzed included family status as one of the predictors accounting for the variance in parental responses. "Each of us is a part of all that surrounds us. Celebrate being alive." Flavia ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of a program of learning which ultimately leads to a doctoral degree requires the sustained effort of more than just the person earning the initials Ph.D. after his or her name. I would not have finalized this task were it not for the lives and contributions of a long list of supporters. They include, but are not limited to: - my children, Kris, Jon and Tim, who inspired me to "go the distance," partly because I wanted to be a model for them to emulate. - my former wife, Barb, the mother of our children, who began the journey with me; and Thom, who joined me midstream; and my dog, Lady, who's been my companion to the final destination. - my Mom, Dad and sisters, Audrey, Phyllis and Beth. I couldn't ask for a more loving family who allowed me to "do my thing" and who stuck by me through it all. - my guidance committee, Drs. Robert Giffore, Dennis Keefe and Don Melcer} and especially Dr. Robert Boger, chairperson, for sharing his time and talents with me and for providing an unending supply of positive expectations and patience. - my classmates in graduate school, in particular Mary Veit, who was always one step ahead of me. Thanks for your encouragement and example of achievement, Mary. - the administration and staff of Charlevoix-Emmet Intermediate School District for their cooperation and support in furthering my education. Notably, my colleagues Judy, Marge and Terri, who survived the ordeal of the past year in spite of me. - the expertise and longsuffering of Judy Pfaff, my statistical consultant and sounding board; the technical ingeniousness of Linda Johnson, who put my thoughts on paper with skill, style and accuracy; and, Sandi Spieles, who added creative touches to the paper with graphics, along with the help of her friend, Macintosh. - my other friends and acquaintances, too numerous to list, who were all pulling for me to the end. Thanks for waiting. For all of you--a hearty Thank You!--for all you've done to launch me toward my dreams. I am not alone. TKT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Background of the Study. 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Background of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Conceptualization of Human Development . 4 Objectives of the Study. . . . . . . . 9 Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Overview of the NC-158 Research. . . . . . . . . 13 The Q-sort MethOdo C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 14 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Theoretical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Family System--Context for Childrearing. . . . 15 The Family Ecosystem with a Handicapped Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Child Development--The Three-year-old. . . . . . . 23 Family Stress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 I I I METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 0 Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O Dependent and Independent Variables. . . . . . . . 31 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Handicapping Condition . . . . . . . . 46 Research Questions and Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . 47 Research Question 1 . 47 Research Question 2 . 47 Research Question 3 . 48 Research Question 4 . 49 Research Question 5 . 50 Research Question 6 . 50 iii Chapter IV Research Question 7 . . . . . . . Analyses . RESULTS. Childrearing Perceptions of Mothers and Fathers According to the Type/Severity of the Child's Handicap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Handicapped Sample. . . . . . . . Two Formats Used to Present Data. Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . Mothers of a Handicapped Child. . Physical Domain . . . . . . . Intellectual Domain . . . . . Social Domain . . . . Emotional Domain. . . . . . . O Descriptions of Mothers' Important Beliefs. Mothers' "Most Like Me" Items-- Handicapped . . . . . . . . . Mothers' "Least Like Me" Items-- Handicapped . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fathers of a Handicapped Child. Physical Domain . . . . . . . Intellectual Domain . . . . Social Domain . . . . . . . . Emotional Domain. . . . . . . Descriptions of Fathers' Important Beliefs. Fathers' "Most Like Me" Items-- Handicapped . . . . . . . . . Fathers' "Least Like Me" Items—- Handicapped . Decision Statement Parents' Perceptions According to Family Status: Handicapped Child Versus Nonhandicapped Child in the Family . iv Page 51 52 53 54 54 54 56 56 56 62 62 63 69 70 73 76 76 76 78 81 85 87 87 90 92 93 Chapter Building Constructs: Protectiveness, Dependence, and Independence. . . . . . . Reliability of Constructs . . . . . . . . . Discriminant Factor Analysis. . . . . . . Protectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Protectiveness (Unlike) . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Mothers O O O O O O O O I O 0 O O O O O Fathers 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Dependence. Dependence (Like) Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mothers and Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independence (Like) . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 8 . Mothers and Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . Descriptions of Parents' Important Beliefs According to Family Status. . . . . . Mothers and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped/ Handicapped Child . . . . . . . . . . Mothers' "Most Like Me" Items-- Nonhandicapped. . . . . . . . . . . . Mothers' "Least Like Me" Items-- Nonhandicapped. . . . . . . Fathers' "Most Like Me" Items-- Nonhandicapped. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fathers' "Least Like Me" Items-- Nonhandicapped. . Intra-family Differences (Mother/Father) Based on Family Status. Hypothesis 9 . Hypothesis 10. Hypothesis 11. Descriptions of Parents' Important Beliefs According to Sex of Parent. Mother/Father Rankings--Handicapped--Top Ten. V Page 94 95 97 98 98 109 109 109 113 117 117 117 117 121 121 121 125 125 125 142 142 142 145 147 149 151 152 158 161 169 170 Chapter Mother/Father Rankings--Handicapped--Bottom Ten 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Mother/Father Rankings--Nonhandicapped--Top Ten 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Mother/Father Rankings-—Nonhandicapped-- Bottom Ten 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O The Amount and Type of Family Stress According Family Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Impact of the Demographic Variables on Parents' Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . Regressions for Significant "Construct" Items 0 O O O O O I O O 0 O O O O O O O O Hypothesis 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis l7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis l9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family Stress . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Research Question 1. . . . . . . . Mothers of a Handicapped Child. . . . Mothers' Important Beliefs. . . . . . . . Mothers' "Most Like Me" Items-- Handicapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mothers' "Least Like Me" Items-- Handicapped . . . . . . . . . Fathers of a Handicapped Child. . . . . Fathers' Important Beliefs. Fathers' "Most Like Me" Items-- Handicapped . . . . . . . . . . Fathers' "Least Like Me" Items—- Handicapped . Decision Statement . Research Question 2. vi to 173 175 177 179 180 180 184 184 184 187 188 191 192 192 194 194 194 196 196 197 198 198 200 202 204 204 206 207 207 Chapter Building Constructs: Protectiveness, Dependence, and Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliabilities, Discriminant Analysis, and Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . Protectiveness. . . Dependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . Nonconstruct Items. . . . . . . . . Description of Parents' Important Beliefs According to Family Status . . . . . . . Mothers and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped/ Handicapped Child . . . . . . . . . Mothers' "Most Like Me" Items-- Nonhandicapped. . . . Mother/Mother Contrasts . . . . . . Mothers' "Least Like Me" Items-- Nonhandicapped. . . . . . . . . . . Mother/Mother Contrasts . . . . . . O Fathers' "Most Like Me" Items--Nonhandicapped Father/Father Comparisons . . . . . Fathers' "Least Like Me" Items-- Nonhandicapped. . . . . . . . . Father/Father Comparisons . . . . . Research Question 3. . . . . . . . . . . Descriptions of Parents' Important Beliefs According to Sex of Parent . . . . . . . Mother/Father Rankings--Handicapped--Top Ten. Mother/Father Rankings--Handicapped--Bottom Ten . . . Mother/Father Rankings--Nonhandicapp Ten 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Mother/Father Rankings--Nonhandicapped-- Bottom Ten. . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question 4. Item Analysis . . . . Possible Explanations . Research Question 5. Research Question 6. Mothers . Fathers . vii ed--Top 208 209 211 212 214 214 214 214 216 217 218 219 220 221 221 223 224 224 225 226 227 228 229 231 232 233 234 234 Chapter Page Research Question 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 VI SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Implications and Suggestions for Future Research . 242 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 243 Appendix A: NC-158 Q-Sort Inventory of Parenting Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Appendix B: Background--Demographic--Information. 247 Appendix C: Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 viii Table 3.1 3.2a 3.2b LIST OF TABLES Handicapped Sample of Three—year-olds According to Sex of Child and Handicapping Condition. . . . . . . . . Sample Characteristics of Mothers According to Family Status, Age and Education . . . . . . . . Sample Characteristics of Mothers According to Occupation Sample Characteristics of Fathers According to Family Status, Age and Education. . . . . . . . . . Sample Characteristics of Fathers According to Occupation Sample Characteristics of Families and Children . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P09, "I get involved with my child in physically active play." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P09, "I get involved with my child in physically active play." . . . . Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P09, "1 get involved with my child in physically active play.". Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by type of Handicap for Item P16, "I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P16, "I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch.". . . . . . . . . . Results of the Scheffe's 8 Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P16, "I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch." . ix Page 37 39 4O 42 43 45 57 58 58 59 59 60 Table 4.3a 4.3b 4.3c 4.4a 4.4b 4.5a 4.5b 4.5c 4.6a 4.6b 4.6c 4.7a Results of a One—Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P18, "1 provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P18, "1 provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise.". Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P18, "1 provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 121, "I talk with my child about television programs we watch together." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 121, "I talk with my child about television programs we watch together." . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E57, "I punish my child for misbehaving.". . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E57, "I punish my Child for misbehaVingO '. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E57, "I punish my child for misbehaving." . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E60, "I talk to my child about his or her misbehaviors.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E60, "I talk to my child about his or her misbehaviors." . . . . Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E60, "I talk to my child about his or her misbehaviors.". . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together.". . . . . . . X 60 61 61 62 63 64 65 65 66 66 67 67 Table 4.7b 4.7c 4.8 4.9 4.10a 4.10b 4.11s 4.11b 4.11c 4.12s 4.12b 4.12c Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top Five Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom Five Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P12, "1 take my child to regular medical and dental check—ups." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P12, "1 take my child to regular medical and dental check-ups." . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 122, "1 play number and word games with my child." . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 122, "1 play number and word games with my child.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 122, "I play number and word games with my child.". . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 127, "I teach my child to have a good memory (play peek-a-boo; find toys that have been hidden; remember story he or she has read)." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 127, "I teach my child to have a good memory (play peek-a-boo; find toys that have been hidden; remember story he or she has read).". Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 127, "1 teacher my child to have a good memory (play peek-a-boo; find toys that have been hidden; remember story he or she has read)." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 68 ’68 72 74 77 77 78 79 79 80 80 81 Table 4.13a 4.13b 4.13c 4.14a 4.14b 4.14c 4.15s 4.15b 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item S37, "1 encourage my child to share toys." . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 837, "I encourage my child to share toys." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item S37, "1 encourage my child to share toys.". . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 838, "I encourage my child to get involved in group play.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item S38, "1 encourage my child to get involved in group play." . . . . . . . . . Results of the Scheffe's 8 Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item S38, "1 encourage my child to get involved in group play.". . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E72, "1 comfort my child when he or she cries at night." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E72, "1 comfort my child when he or she cries at night." . . . . . . . . . Top Five Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom Five Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Items Significantly Different Among Mothers and Fathers of a Handicapped Child By Type/Severity of Handicap . Results of Statistical Reliability of Three Constructs: Protectiveness, Dependence, and Independence. Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three—year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." xii £32 £33 £33 84 84 85 86 87 89 91 93 96 99 Table 4.20b 4.21a 4.21b 4.22a 4.22b 4.23s 4.23b 4.24s 4.24b 4.25s 4.25b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors.". . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors.". Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P10, "1 involve my child in group physical or sport activities.". . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P10, "1 involve my child in group physical or sport activities.". Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P17, "1 encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises." Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P17, "1 encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises.". . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 129, "I take my child on trips out of the house whenever possible." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 129, "I take my child out of the house whenever possible.". . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year—old Child by Family Status for Item S38, "1 encourage my child to get involved in group play.". . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S38, "1 encourage my child to get involved in group play.". xiii 100 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 Table 4.26a 4.26b 4.27a 4.27b 4.28s 4.28b 4.29s 4.29b 4.30a 4.30b 4.31a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S39, "1 encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S41, "1 encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary." . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S41, "1 encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 853, "I encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds." . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year—old Child by Family Status for Item 853, "I encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E61, "1 encourage my child to express his or her feelings openly.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E61, "1 encourage my child to express his or her feelings openly." Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S39, "1 encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities.". Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities.". . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year—old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 110 111 113 Table 4.31b 4.32a 4.32b 4.33s 4.33b 4.34s 4.34b 4.35s 4.35b 4.36s 4.36b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year— old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities.". . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching).". . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching). " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 850, "I encourage my child to ask for help.”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 850, "I encourage my child to ask for help.". . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E70, "1 step in when my child has problems with another child." . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E70, "1 step in when my child has problems with another child." . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching). " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item 128, ”I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." XV 114 114 115 118 118 119 119 120 120 122 122 Table 4.37s 4.37b 4.38s 4.38b 4.39s 4.39b 4.40s 4.40b 4.41s 4.41b Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike).". . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike).". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them. Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S47, "1 encourage my child to do things on his or her own." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S47, "1 encourage my child to do things on his or her own." . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S49, "1 encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself.". Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S49, "1 encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself.". xvi 126 127 127 128 128 129 129 130 130 131 -' n'.l-"g'.“" - ssvsot-‘t'r'l‘OCI'! (2'0“.‘I'.u' I. m4h Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E69, "1 provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment out of doing things on his or her own.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 éfllb Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E69, "1 provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment out of doing things on his or her own.". 132 4JBa Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 4.436 Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself.". . . . . . . . . . . . 133 4.44a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13 "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 4.446 Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." . . 134 4.45a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 4.45b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three—year- old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when 1 can prevent them.". . . . . . . 135 4.46s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 4.46b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year— old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself.". . . . . . . . . . . . 137 xvii Table 4.47a 4.47b 4.48a 4.48b 4.49a 4.49b 4.64 4.65 4.66 4.67 4.68 4.69 4.70a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when 1 can prevent them.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them.". . . . . . . Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year- old Child by Family Status for Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort by Family Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort by Family Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort by Family Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort by Family Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Items Significantly Different Among Mothers and Fathers by Family Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repeated Measures Results of "Protectiveness" Items . Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap). xviii 138 138 139 139 140 140 144 146 148 150 151 153 154 Table Page 4.70b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." . . . 154 4.7la Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 4.71b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors.". 155 4.72s Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item S39, "1 encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 4.72b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 4.73 Repeated Measures Results of "Dependence" Items . . . . . 159 4.74s Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4.74b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "1 help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 4.75a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 4.75b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." . . . . . 163 4.76a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap). . . . . . . . . 164 xix Table 4.76b 4.77a 4.77b 4.78s 4.78b 4.79 4.80 4.81 4.82 4.83 4.84 4.85 4.86 4.87 Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike).". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them." Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap). . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item S49, "1 encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repeated Measures Results of "Independence" Items . . Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Handicapped Child O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Handicapped Child O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child. . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Means and Standard Deviations of Families of a Handicapped/Nonhandicapped Child for Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE). . . . . . . . . . Results of MANOVA Test of Families of a Handicapped/ Nonhandicapped Child for Univariate F-tests on FILE Subscales With (1,49) Degrees of Freedom. FILE Profile of Family Life Changes Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P02 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child. . . . XX 164 165 165 166 166 169 172 174 176 178 181 182 183 185 Table 4.88 4.89 4.90 4.91 4.92 4.93 4.94 4.95 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P03 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child. . . Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item 839 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child. . . Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item 128 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child. . . . Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P08 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child. . . Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P13 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child. . . . . Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item 130 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child. . . Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item S49 from Independent Variables for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child . . . . . Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item $49 from Independent Variables for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child . . . . 186 187 186! 189 190 191 194 194 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 Integration of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Model and variables in the StUdYO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 2.1 Family System Functioning at Two Stress Levels. . . . . 22 2.2 Holistic Model of Child Development . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1 Michigan Rural Data Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.2 Rural Michigan Intermediate School Districts of Participants in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.1 Items of the Constructs: Protectiveness, Dependence and Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.2 Mothers of a Handicapped Child and Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Protectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 4.3 Fathers of a Handicapped Child and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Protectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.4 Mothers of a Handicapped Child and Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Dependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 4.5 Fathers of a Handicapped Child and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Dependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4.6 Mothers of a Handicapped Child and Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.7 Fathers of a Handicapped Child and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 4.8 "Protectiveness" Items Which are Significantly Different Among All Parents According to Family Status. 152 xxii Figure Page 4.9 "Protectiveness" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/ Nonhandicap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 4.10 "Dependence" Item Which is Significantly Different Among All Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 4.11 "Dependence" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/Nonhandicap 160 4.12 "Independence" Items Which are Significantly Different Among All Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 4.13a "Independence" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/ Nonhandicap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 4.13b "Independence" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/ Nonhandicap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 xxiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study The rearing of children is an endeavor in which the majority of Americans are engaged (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987). 'Many of these parents are experiencing parenthood for the first time. Of the 3.7 million live births in the United States in 1987, approximately 40% were children of first-time parents, clearly the largest group of parents by birth order (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989). Parenting the first-born child is an activity that most people enter into with eager anticipation and high expectations but with little training. It has been said that first-time parents envision themselves as creating a "perfect" baby for which they are going to be "ideal" parents (Ross, 1972). About one in ten of these infants, however is born with, or later exhibits, a handicapping condition. A recent study by the Michigan Department of Education reports that 10.43% of the K-12 student population in 1986 were identified as exhibiting some form of handicapping condition and were eligible for special education services (Michigan Department of Education, 1987). News that their child is handicapped shatters the parents' dreams and hopes of having that wished for "model" child. The birth of a disabled infant is often experienced by the parents as the death of the expected healthy child (Solnit and Stark, 1961). They are now left to grieve the loss of their anticipated "normal" baby; to adapt to the shocking realization that their child is impaired, not perfect; and to cope with the daily childrearing responsibilities that all new parents must face, but with frustrated expectations, thwarted life goals, and all too often mounting anxiety (Seligman, M. and Darling, R. B., 1989). In addition, the demands of caring for an impaired child are greater than those required in normal parenting and this further exacerbates the potential for a negative parent-child transactional process. Statement of the Problem This study will assess the actual childrearing practices of parents of handicapped children and contrast these perceptions with the childrearing behaviors of parents of nonhandicapped youngsters. The primary purpose of the study is to further explore the parenting beliefs of first-time parents of handicapped children. All of the children in the study live in a rural area. A second focus of the study will involve an investigation of similarities and differences in mothers' and fathers' perceptions as determined by the analytical comparisons of their Q-sort responses. Using a Q-sort method, normative data describing parent-child interactional patterns as they are perceived by the parent to actually occur, are assessed. In addition, measures of family stress (financial, marital, etc.); constructs derived from selected Q-sort items, i.e., protectiveness, independence, and dependence; and demographic variables will be examined as they pertain to families with a handicapped or nonhandicapped three- year-old child. Background of the Study First-time parents lack childrearing experience, and when the child has a handicapping condition, parents are at a further loss to know hOW' to best nurture their offspring. The point at which the parents are given the diagnosis is a point of crisis where constructive professional help has the best chance of succeeding. Parents are typically in a state of anemia when they first realize their child has a problem. Because they are ill prepared for the birth of a child with a disability, they are likely to rely heavily on the advice of the professionals they encounter at that time (Seligman and Darling, 1989). Venter (1980, reported in Drotar, et a1., 1984) suggests that the family's ability to construct meaning (versus anomie) from the child's disability may help the family's ability to cope. The more thoroughly a family accepts the success-oriented values of our culture, the more likely they are to be traumatized by the discovery that they have an impaired child (Ross, 1972). Premature emphasis on the reality of the situation can lead a parent into feelings of hopelessness and chronic depression, pointing out the need for professional help in the form of family counseling, to assist family members in accepting reality a bit at a time. An impaired child is more dependent on parental care and remains dependent for a far longer time. In some cases, prolonged counseling is necessary, particularly as the child faces critical milestones in his/ her development, i.e., learning to walk/talk, entering school, adolescence, graduation, finding employment, and leaving home. The tenure of caretaking for parents of a handicapped child often extends beyond the usual span of 18 to 21 years, in some instances a lifetime. It would be beneficial for these parents to know the typical interactional patterns between parent and child so that a standard of comparison could be available to guide them in their parent-child relationships. It would be better yet to have established norms of reference indicating how parents with a handicapped child actually interact with their impaired offspring. Childrearing manuals are available for suggestions but these guides often reflect the authors' opinions that may lack evidence for support (Clarke-Stewart, 1978). In the past, new parents could rely on members from their family of origin for guidance in dealing with childrearing concerns. With increased geographic mobility, however, family members are less available for advice in the upbringing of children. That first-time parents seek advice is reported by Bartz (1978), who found that new mothers asked friends and neighbors for advice whereas fathers rarely sought help at all, but when they did they were more likely to contact relatives. A study of rural and urban parents by Snow (1981) indicated that parents sought advice at least once a week. What is lacking is empirical data suggesting what parents of handicapped and nonhandicapped children do with their children as they interact together on a daily basis. Conceptualization of Human Development A comprehensive theory of human development and one that is compatible with the family ecological systems theory being used as a basis for this study has been proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1978). His ecological model of human development views the developing person as interacting with its environment(s) in a series of ongoing interrelationships, with each having an effect on the other. His schema community resources involving handicapped children, e.g., preschool program for handicapped youngsters, transportation system, recreational opportunities, medical/health services, and social services. The exosystem is composed of those settings in which the developing person does not directly participate, but where events occur which coulci ultimately affect their life. The participants in this study are all residents in rural Michigan. The values and beliefs of persons living in a rural environment are considered variables of the exosystem because they influence the manner in which local services will be provided to handicapped children. Another aspect of the exosystem which affects handicapped youngsters, but not addressed in the current study, are the decision-making policies of the local school board. In addition, rural economic conditions determine the availability of money to spend on education and rehabilitation. Finally, the political system is responsible for passing and enforcing laws to protect handicapped individuals from discrimination and to support their civil rights. At the macrosystem or cultural/subcultural level, which includes consistencies in lower-order settings throughout society as well as intrasocietal contrasts regarding belief systems and life-styles, the focus in this study is with the relationship between socio-economic levels (education, income, occupation) religious affiliation, and parents' perceptions of their parenting activities. Another strong influence of the macrosystem on families of handicapped children, but not being analyzed in this study, is the negative attitude toward disabled persons that prevails throughout most of our culture. This stigmatizing attitude, which spreads throughout the nation penetrating all ecological settings, is as much a disturbance to families as is coping with the handicapping condition. Bronfenbrenner (1989) has subsequently expanded his theory by introducing new elements in the definition of the micro- and macrosystem. Some of these changes are intended to right the imbalance on the person side of the ecological equation. The new microsystem definition recognizes the importance of personal characteristics of caregivers (i.e., temperament, personality, and systems of belief) which exert an influence on the developing individual. The macrosystem definition is expanded to include those cultural belief systems, resources, hazards, life styles, opportunity structures, life course options, and patterns of social interchange which are developmentally- instigative and therefore create or constrain developmental opportunity. Figure 1.1 represents the integration of the Bronfenbrenner's ecological model with the variables of this study. perceptions of actual parent 1111d transactions ParehtS’ chamCter‘lstlcs 'Age Gender Childrens‘ charestatistics“;I All 3 years old enerd Family status- Handicap/Nonhandicap Farnflytress S Figure 1.1 Integration of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Model and Variables in the Study Objectives of the Study 1. to investigate ways in which rural parents of a handicapped/ nonhandicapped child perceive themselves to actually interact with their three-year-old, using a Q-sort methodology. 2. to explore ways in which mothers' and fathers' parenting beliefs are similar and/or different. 3. to consider the role of family stress as it impacts on families with a handicapped/nonhandicapped child. 4. to determine the extent that families with a handicapped/ nonhandicapped child exhibit protective behaviors, and foster dependent and/or independent behavior in their three-year-old child. 5. to account for the effect that demographic variables have on parents' perceptions of their transactions with their child, mother/ father differences, and on dimensions of family stress. Assumptions 1. The family is usually the most critical influence in the development of the young child. Parents, within the family environment, hold the primary responsibility for shaping their child's social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development, all of which are subject to a belief system that parents hold regarding childrearing. Development occurs in a holistic framework, i.e., each area of development interacts with and is interdependent upon every other area of deVelopment. 2. Methods of childrearing that parents employ, based on their belief system, influence their child's adjustment. The parent's choice of which childrearing method they practice will vary depending on a number of factors including: sex of child, religious beliefs, the way 10 they were raised, and characteristics of the individual child, i.e., energy level, personality traits, presence of a sensory impairment, physical or intellectual deficit, and/or birth defect. 3. Learning about both the mother's 222 the father's childrearing beliefs is important in understanding the family interaction patterns which create the environment for their child's development. Previous research is too often limited only to input from mothers. 4. A family member's perceptions, feelings, and beliefs on an issue are subject to change, and research, education, and professional intervention can favorably affect adverse changes and help enhance a healthy outcome by promoting the family's return to equilibrium. 5. The unexpected birth of a handicapped child, rather than the long hoped for ”ideal" baby, presents a complex set of circumstances for family members to deal with as they learn to adjust and ultimately accept the situation as it actually occurs. 7. The responses given by participating parents reflect the actual parenting behaviors of the parent giving the response. 8. The mothers and fathers included in this study are representative of parents in rural Michigan having a handicapped] nonhandicapped three—year-old child. Definitions Parents' perceptions of actual parenting practices: A self-report description of how a parent regards himself/herself to behave during actual transactions with their child. Operationally, actual parenting practice is based on the mothers' and fathers' performance on the NC-158 Q-sort Inventory of Parenting Behaviors (Lawton, et a1., 1983). Scores range from 1 to 9 on each of 72 items according to whether the parent 11 considers the item to describe a behavior that is "most like me" or "least like me" as a parent. Three constructs (protectiveness, independence, and dependence) were established by combining several Q-sort items which collectively represent a specific parenting characteristic. Protectiveness: the parenting construct denoting those behaviors that parents exhibit as they nurture their child with protection. Q-sort items regarded as reflecting this construct are: P02 I encourage my child to try new physical activities. P03 1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors. P10 I involve my child in group physical or sport activities. P17 1 encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises. 129 I take my child on trips out of the house whenever possible. 838 I encourage my child to get involved in group play. 839 I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities. 841 I encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary. SS3 1 encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds. E61 1 encourage my child to express his or her feelings openly. Dependence: the parenting construct denoting those behaviors that parents exhibit as they foster dependency in their child. Q-sort items regarded as reflecting this construct are: 128 I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching). $50 I encourage my child to ask for help. E70 1 step in when my child has problems with another child. Independence: the parenting construct denoting those behaviors that parents exhibit as they foster independence in this child. Q-sort items regarded as reflecting this construct are: P08 I encourage my child to feed himself or herself. P13 1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike). I30 I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them. S47 1 encourage my child to do things on his or her own. S49 1 encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself. E69 1 provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment out of doing things on his or her own. 12 Parents' education: the total number of years the parent(s) has attended school. Hollingshead groups the years of school an individual has completed into seven levels (Hollingshead, 1975). Rural environment: a town at least 25 miles from a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA is an urban area with a population of 50,000 or more). The rural population accounts for approximately 25% of the persons living in the state of Michigan (Census of Population, 1970). Occupation: the profession or employment for pay which the father and/or mother reported as their current outside-the-home job. The Hollingshead nine-level classification was used to categorize occupations (Hollingshead, 1975). Religious affiliation: parents who answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you consider yourself affiliated with an organized religion?" Socioeconomic status: combination of gender, marital status, years of education, and occupation (Hollingshead, 1975). Family income: estimated net income as reported on IRS income tax return 1983. Family status: the presence of a handicapped or nonhandicapped child in the family. Intra-family difference: a mother/father comparison denoting whether a specific item or construct was more "most like me" or "least like me" as a mother or a father. Impairment: a limitation resulting from physical defect, disease, or injury (Barry, 1975). Disability: the inability to perform some major activities (Barry, 1975); or, a functional limitation (Busch-Rossnagel, 1981); or, the inability to obtain gainful employment (Ross, 1972). 13 Handicap: to have limited roles to perform when the social environment is disadvantageous (Busch-Rossnagel, 1981). Handicapped: the term is used to denote the presence of an impairment. For legal and educational purposes, a child is declared "handicapped" by an individualized educational planning committee (IEPC) after he/she has been evaluated by a multidisciplinary diagnostic team and the results indicate that there is impaired functioning, according to the Michigan Department of Education guidelines. Handicapping condition: a condition including one or more of the following categories of impairment as recognized by the state of Michigan: Autistic Emotionally impaired (E1) Hearing impaired (HI) Learning disabled (LD) Mentally impaired (MI) Preprimary impaired (PPI) Physically and otherwise health impaired (POHI) Speech and Language impaired Severely impaired (SI) Visually impaired (VI) Overview of the NG-158 Research This study is part of a larger research project entitled "A Study of Beliefs about Parenting in Rural and Urban Populations." This larger study was a cooperative regional research project conducted by a team of seven researchers from six land grant universities in the North Central region of the United States (Lawton, Coleman, Boger, Pease, Galejs, 14 Poresky and Looney, 1983). The investigation was a longitudinal research effort to gain increased information about parents' perceptions of their parenting role. Data were collected and analyzed to assess differences in parents' beliefs of ideal and actual parenting practices between urban and rural populations and how these beliefs change over time (Boger, Pease and Haas, 1987). The Q—sort Method A Q-sort method is used to assess variables. An advantage of the Q-sort is the method's inherent feature of combining forced-choice and rating scale formats, whereby participants are required to rank-order statements regarding childrearing practices. Rank-ordering these statements assures discrimination among the items and produces a continuous distribution of responses. This procedure establishes priorities of the items and provides a consistent analysis of parents' beliefs about actual and ideal parenting behavior. The study utilizes a 72 item Q-sort entitled "NC-158 Q-sort Inventory of Parenting Behaviors." The Q-sort is composed of statements of parenting behaviors related to the promotion of children's physical, intellectual, social, and emotional development (Lawton, et al., 1983). Each statement expresses a particular parenting behavior and is written in a theoretically neutral form. The 72 statements are evenly divided between the four developmental areas so that each area has 18 parent- child interactions that apply to it. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Theoretical Perspectives The Family System—-Context for Childrearing A man and woman marry and a new family is begun. Some maintain that marriage is not a prerequisite for family, which can be regarded as an enduring emotional bond between two or more people who share common space, time, and resources (Bubolz, 1981a). Others contend that despite marriage, when a long-term effectual relationship between parents is lacking, that a family too does not exist (Bubolz, 1981b). According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1988), a family is a group of two persons or more related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together. At times, the noun family is liberally interpreted to include even pets as one of the family members. Family has also been used to denote the emotional bond sometimes experienced by persons who develop a close relationship due to working together on a common endeavor. Academic theorists in the field of family studies, after years of research, have postulated different approaches by which to study the phenomena of the family (Nye and Berardo, 1981). Of the 10 or so leading trends of academic thought on the family, one stands out in terms of its universality of application. The family ecological system or family as ecosystem is viewed by many prominent professionals as the most flexible conceptual model for purposes of theory, research, and application (Paolucci, Hall and Axinn, 1977; Andrews, Bubolz and Paolucci, 1980). 15 16 The human ecosystem approach to the study of the family is based on general systems theory. Today's major human problems demand interdisciplinary solutions (Miller and Miller, 1981). General systems theory promotes multidisciplinary integration by establishing broad principles not covered in conVentional science that encompasses the formulations of numerous field (Becht, 1974; Miller and Miller, 1981: Buckley, 1968). A place for the "system" ways of thinking in the study of the family finds support in Bertalanffy's statement "in some respect, corresponding abstractions and conceptual models can be applied to different phenomena," (Buckley, 1968). The power of the systems theory in the study of living (organic) systems rests in the elusiveness and flexibility of the system-environment or system-subsystem concept (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967). In the discussion that follows, broad concepts of the general systems theory are outlined followed by its application to the study of the family. Then, extending the systems concept to the family, the discussion centers on the important role that environment plays in understanding the family as an ecosystem. Becht (1974) describes a system as an arrangement of physical components, or a set or collection of things, connected or related in such a manner as to form and/or act as an entire unit, an entirety or whole. Connected or related means that the set of parts is kept intact by connecting forces. In a dynamic (living) system it means that transport of mass, energy and information can occur between parts (Becht, 1974). Hall and Fagan in Pragmatics of Human Communication (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967) regard a system to be "a set of objects 17 together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes" in which objects are the components or parts of the system, attributes are the properties of the objects, and relationships tie the system together. The objects of a human interactional system are best described as persons communicating with other persons. Miller and Miller (1981) concur that a living system is a set of interacting units with relationships among them. Every part of a system is so related to its fellow parts that a change in one part will cause a change in all of them and in the total system. The family as a system has been described by Melson (1980) who refers to a family system as a set of interacting and interdependent roles. Andrews, Bubolz and Paolucci (1980) note that a family system is a bonded unit of interacting and interdependent persons who for part of their life cycle share living space. The behavior of each individual within the family unit is related to and dependent upon the behavior of all others (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967). Systems are always characterized by some degree of wholeness. A system behaves as an inseparable whole rather than as a simple composite of independent elements (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967). Fundamental to the understanding of the family as a system is knowledge of the nature of the corporate unity of the family as a group, with identity, actions and a character of its own, more than the sum of the individuals who make it up (Andrews, Bubolz and Paolucci, 1980). Further, its unit character (its value system and cyclic development) differs from the characteristics of the individual members (Paolucci, Hall and Axinn, 1977). Parts of the system work together in a oneness to function as a unified whole. 18 A system is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts because its overall qualitative properties and process depend upon the contributions of each of its parts (Miller and Miller, 1981). Known as nonsummativity, the analysis of a family is not the sum of the analyses of its individual members. There are characteristics of the system, that is, interactional patterns, that transcend the qualities of individual members (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967). This is the systems theoretical formulation of the old adage: the whole is more than the sum of its parts (Melson, 1980). Formal analysis of artificially isolated segments would destroy the very object of interest. It is necessary to neglect the parts for the gestalt and attend to the complexity of the system and its organization (Watzlawick, et al., 1967). Families must be examined in their wholeness of interaction and interdependence, rather than by simple or linear cause-effect relationships (Andrews, et al., 1980). Interpersonal interactions in the family are circular, not linear; mutually interdependent, not causal (Watzlawick, et al., 1967). Viewing the family as an ecological system, or ecosystem, adds two further elements to consider: 1) environment (E), anything outside the family and, 2) transaction (-), mutual simultaneous influences between family as an organism (O), and its environment (Melson, 1980). Subsequently, the paradigm, O-E, symbolically represents the family as ecosystem. It is from the environment(s) that a family obtains valuable resources necessary for its survival. Environments vary and are changeable. The O-E paradigm is a model to remember when thinking in terms of the family as an ecosystem, i.e., family-environment 19 transactions. Studying the family ecologically, it then becomes a set of mutually interdependent organisms (0) who are intimate, transacting and interrelated persons who share some common goals and resources and a commitment to one another that extends over time (Paolucci, et al., 1977). The family's ability to interact with its environment is crucial to its existence because these transactions comprise exchanges of matter/energy and information in the form of symbols, signs and messages, all necessary for viable family functioning. The family as such can be referred to as an energy transformation system as it carries out its production and consumption duties and develops its human resources. The human ecosystem model regards the family from a holistic viewpoint. Family members are considered to be interdependent creatures rather than independent organisms. That is, members of a family are interdependent with each other, with other living species, and with the total environment in which they live (Bubolz, Eicher and Sontag, 1979). This means that whatever family member "A" says, does and feels regarding members "B," "C" and/or "D" in turn affects their thoughts, actions and feelings. Likewise, the ideas, behaviors and emotions of "B," "C" and/or "D" have an impact on "A" and "A's" interactions with them and others. We can further apply the O-E concept for a closer look at the family ecosystem so that the family now becomes the environment (E) and the individual members are the organism (O) transacting with each other within the family environment. Any system can be further subdivided into subsystems. Objects belonging to one subsystem may be considered part of the environment of another subsystem (Watzlawick, et a1. 1967). 20 Generally, all living systems are constructed from subsystems and the subsystems, in turn, from subsystems (Becht, 1974). Accordingly, the universe contains a hierarchy of systems, each more advanced level made up of systems at the next less complex level. The systems at any one level are similar sorts of things (Miller and Miller, 1981). Dividing parts into two sets, system/organism and environment, can be done in many ways. Deciding what constitutes "environment" and what constitutes "system/organism" is quite arbitrary and can vary from time to time and from situation to situation. The focus of study determines which are parts of the system/organism and which are considered environment. Family systems usually exhibit some degree of openness so that transactions with the broader environment can occur. Families having few interactions with other systems are said to be closed. The degree of openness and closedness that is desirable is enough openness to be flexible and closed enough to be stable. All living systems, including families, are semi—open systems showing frequent interplay (exchange of energy and information) with external systems, i.e., economic system (business community), political system, social system (kin, neighborhood, community), religious institutions, medical and health agencies, the natural environment, telecommunication networks, the educational system, legal and safety system, welfare agencies, recreational system, and the like. Family-environment transactions take place at the point of interface, where the family system and the larger environment meet. It is here that information is exchanged and relationships are determined. New opportunities and problems emerge at these points calling for 21 adaptation between systems. The conditions that exist at the interface determine the kind of transformations that will occur (Paolucci, et al., 1977). The boundary of the family system is seen as a permeable mesh permitting exchanges of energy/matter and information between family and its environment. Family boundaries are not static, they are flexible. Boundaries are determined by the influx of information to the family from the environment(s) with which it interfaces. Inherent in all systems is the process of feedback, which is information that the system receives about itself. By means of feedback loops, the family receives input, information on its current state, and compares it to its goals. It may make adjustments (adaptations) to make corrective actions. The feedback mechanism contributes to the family system's state of balance or equilibrium. Through the working of feedback and feedforward, predicting the future to meet goals, the family changes and adapts to maintain its steady state of homeostatis (Melson, 1980). In this respect, the family behaves as a cybernetic input-output system. The Family Ecosystem with a Handicapped Member An ecological systems model for conceptualizing families with a handicapped member has been proposed by Bubolz and Whiren (1984) whereby energy, both physical and psychic, is considered to be the lifeblood of the family system. These authors state, "The presence of a handicapped member is a source of stress and may place excessive demands on the energy and other resources of the family." Operating as a cybernetic input-output system, the family uses up some energy in order to maintain its current level of organization. As 22 stress increases, more energy is lost to circulation in the larger system. With inputs remaining relatively similar, outputs begin to diminish with increases in stress and energy consumption. As more and more energy is used within the family to deal with the increasing stress, the output is expected to change in quantity and quality. During intense periods of stress, feedback can decline, thus limiting the input into the family system which subsequently lowers the level of output. When the presence of a handicapped family member calls for continuous high demands on the family's energy supply, both material and psychic, and other resources, these sources of energy can become exhausted. Then, an "energy sink" results which puts the family at high risk. Intense stress may even overwhelm and disrupt a family system to the point of breakdown. Figure 2.1 illustrates a family system functioning at two stress levels. Moms Ouloms "'pr 00190" fl fl .~ d ‘ ‘WW I M 7 pm q Processes Processes Ah I 1 Enemy Uses 1 Energy Slna V I f , fineness noose-cs Psnmy tuncuonmq s1 nor-met Family lunsnenmo s: or 1700:.“ stress IeveIs :mense stress tents Figure 2.1. Family System Functioning at Two Stress Levels (Bubolz and Whiren, 1984) 23 In order to cope under conditions of intense stress, the family system can either 1) increase the inputs to make up for the energy lost in family functioning, 2) promote a more efficient use of existing energy thereby minimizing energy loss, or 3) reduce or remove the source of stress. With families whose source of stress is a handicapped member, it is possible to reduce stress temporarily by removing the handicapped member long enough to give the other family members some needed respite. During this time of respite, the family system can then recharge its energy supply and resume less stressful levels of operation. Child Development--The Three-year-old The main focus of the study is parents' perceptions of their transactions with their young child. To highlight the more specific development of a typical three-year-old, a brief developmental profile will provide some background for the discussion and help fix our thoughts on the nature of the "critter" with which we are dealing. Ideas of child development abound and the major theories have been thoroughly researched (Griffore, 1981). The developmental approach that is chosen here fits the ecosystems way of thinking and will give a composite picture of a three-year-old, describing the salient features as they apply to this study. Using the concepts from the holistic model shown in Figure 2.2, (McCandless and Evans, 1978) the developing child is seen as embedded within the dynamic interplay of his/her social and personal environment. 24 Hsjor Soclsl Influences PH'IICCIWIR cane \\ 4 ‘ Ceynltl - —. Intense e Figure 2.2. Holistic Model of Child Development (McCandless and Evans, 1978) The double—headed arrows indicate interactions between the child and environment, as well as internal interactions between each developmental area within the child. In addition, the two-way interactions reflect a reciprocal growth and adaptation that occurs between the child and his/her environment, and between the developmental areas within the child. As such, the child influences his/her environment just as the surroundings make an impact on the child. The outcome of this ongoing process helps determine the unique characteristics of the developing person, whose "behavior and development may be greater than the sum of its individual parts," (McCandless and Evans, 1978). The three broad categories around which to organize this model are the developmental areas of: physical-motor; personal-social; and, cognitive—intellectual. These areas of development closely resemble those addressed in this study. The four developmental areas used in this study are: physical; social; intellectual; and, emotional. 25 Subdividing development into separate categories does not suggest that a child's development is segregated and unrelated. To the contrary, a holistic viewpoint of child development is applied whereby areas of development overlap, interrelate, and interact with one another. Organizing by developmental category is done to facilitate communication and to assist in accomplishing the objectives of this study. It is within an integrated theoretical framework that child development is viewed. If this model were superimposed upon Bronfenbrenners' ecological schema it would fit particularly within the microsystem. The three-year-old child is midway through his/her preschool years having accomplished amazing developmental feats and reaching crucial milestones during the previous two years. In the physical-motor domain, "the three" has motor abilities which include walking up/down stairs, balancing on one foot momentarily, and riding a tricycle. These increased motor abilities facilitate the accomplishment of daily routines and other necessary activities with minimal difficulty. In the personal-social realm, "the three" is becoming independent in self-care activities such as feeding, dressing, and toileting (although accidents are not uncommon). For most children, things quiet down briefly at this time and tend to be in equilibrium (11g and Ames, 1955). He/she has learned to share and expresses a cooperative, easygoing attitude toward life in general. Erikson (1963, 1982) defines socialization as a series of eight stages, each representing a central psychosocial problem or task. For an individual to proceed satisfactorily through successive stages, the crisis associated with each stage must be adequately resolved. Yet these conflicts in development are seldom completely resolved. 26 Erikson maintains that the first two years of life are a critical period for the development of trust among human beings. During the second year, the developing child is challenged by the autonomy/shame, doubt conflict. Beginning around the third year of 1ife--the play age-- the antithesis of initiative and guilt comes to its crisis. Inhibition is the counterpart of initiative, a necessary counterpart in so playful and imaginative as a three year old. These children can alternate between willful impulsivity and slavish compulsiveness; the child will try at times to act totally independent by identifying with his rebellious impulses or to become dependent by making the wishes of others his own compulsion. In balancing these two tendencies, willpower supports a maturation both of free choice and of self-restraint. In the cognitive-intellectual area, "the three" has developed language skills to be able to talk in sentences that can be understood and he/she finds new words entertaining. They listen to and repeat stories which helps to develop their fund of knowledge. In art, the use of circles and simple designs are evident. All in all, the three-year- old moves positively forward to meet each new adventure. According to Piaget, a child in his/her third year of life is operating within the pre-conceptual stage of the pre-operational period of cognitive development (Pulaski, 1978). An important aspect in the development of cognition during this time is the appearance of the symbolic function (Ginsburg, 1969). The symbolic function manifests itself in several ways. The child begins to employ mental symbols in drawings and dreams by deferred imitation and search, by engaging in make—believe play and by using words. A three year old begins to develop the ability to make something-~a visual image, a word, or an object--stand for or represent 27 something else which is not present. Prior to this age, the child's thinking was more concrete and limited to immediately present objects. This ability to symbolize makes it possible for a child to operate on new levels. While the child manages quite realistically in the physical world, his/her thinking is still egocentric and dominated by a sense of magic omnipotence. Piaget argues that the child's thought depends less on his language than his language does on his thought. The child interprets words in terms of his own personal system of meanings. The child achieves mature thought only after a long process of development in which the role of language is but one contributing factor. Family Stress The Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE) was chosen as the instrument to be used in this study to collect data regarding the amount and types of stress in the families of handicapped and nonhandicapped children (McCubbin, Patterson, and Urlson, 1981). The foundation of the research which was conducted to develop the FILE was based on the work of Hill (1949). Hill, who studied the stressors of war separation and reunion in families, developed the ABCX family crisis model. ABCX stands for: A (the stressor event)--interacting with B (the family's crisis meeting resources)—-interacting with C (the definition the family makes of the event)--which produces X (the crisis). The authors of the FILE (McCubbin and Patterson, 1981) expanded Hill's theory, which focused mainly on pre-crisis variables, to develop a dynamic model to explain the efforts families make "over time" to adapt to crises. The Double ABCX model was formulated which added post- 28 crisis variables to describe: a) additional life stressors and strains which impact on family adaptation, b) the critical psychological, intra—- familial, and social factors used by families to manage crisis situations, c) the processes engaged in by families to achieve satisfactory resolution, and d) the outcome of these efforts. The resulting model, aAbBchX, contains these variables: the aA factor is the pile-up of stressful events persisting over time; the b3 factor pertains to the newly activated resources (individual, family, and community) strengthened or developed in response to the demands of the crisis situation; and the cC factor is the family's perception of the crisis situation resulting in an imbalance in the family system. Coping is seen as a multifaceted process consisting of the interactions among the family's resources, perception, and behavioral responses to the pile-up as they try to achieve a balance in family functioning. Family coping efforts are directed at eliminating stressors, managing the hardships, resolving intra-family conflicts, as well as acquiring and expanding social, psychological, and material resources needed to facilitate family adaptations. The xX factor is the outcome of the family's adaptation to the crisis. Family adaptation is achieved through reciprocal family relationships where the demand of one family unit (individual, family system, community) is met by the capabilities of another so as to achieve a balance at two primary levels of interaction, i.e., individual-family system, and family system-community interactions. The concept of family adaptation is used to describe a continuum of outcomes, ranging from bonadaptation (the positive end) to maladaptation (the negative end). Because family adaptation involves the management 29 of often competing dimensions of family life, such as member independence and family togetherness, it is likely to contain the element of compromise. Successful forms of family adaptation then involve compromise that preserves the integrity of the family system and also permits the family unit and its members to continue on their developmental course, and maintain a position of self-determination. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This section will describe the research design, the dependent and independent variables, the measures, the sample, the handicapping conditions, the hypotheses, and the analyses to be used. Research Desigp The design of this study has two components. The initial component involves a descriptive study of parental perceptions of parenting practices on the part of parents of a first-born handicapped child. The second part of the study compares the parental perceptions of these parents with those of parents of a first-born nonhandicapped child. An interview format was used to collect data. The three sets of data obtained from mothers and fathers are: demographic family data, information regarding parents' perceptions of their actual parenting practices, and responses to a questionnaire regarding family stress. Analyses Descriptive analyses and comparative analyses were used. Frequencies were run to describe the characteristics of the handicapped and nonhandicapped data sets. The descriptive statistics of the sample's features included frequencies of family, parent, and child characteristics. Important beliefs of mothers and fathers from both the handicapped and nonhandicapped family status were computed from Q-sort item means. Methods used in the comparative analysis included analysis of variance and multiple regression. 30 31 Because the nature of handicaps and the severity of impairments vary, the handicapped sample was organized into four categories according to type and degree of handicap. ANOVA procedures were run to detect group differences between these subgroups. Results showed that the handicapped sample could be treated as one group rather than four separate subgroups. ANOVA procedures were used to test the hypotheses dealing with differences between the handicapped/nonhandicapped groups and between mothers and fathers. Repeated measures ANOVA tests were used to analyze the intra-familyr differences in actual parenting practices. The stepwise multiple regression technique were used to account for the variance in the dependent variables with the independent variables. Dependent and Independent Variables The study involved four sets of dependent variables, which included the NC-158 Q-sort scores from the actual parenting sort, mother/father difference scores; the parenting constructs; and measures of family stress. Perceptions of actual parenting practices were obtained from both parents. A "difference" measure quantifying intrafamilial differences between mothers' and fathers' parenting perceptions was included in the dependent variable set. In addition, in an attempt to further identify specific parenting perceptions, ad hoc constructs involving more than one of the Q-sort items were identified. The parenting constructs of protectiveness, independence, and dependence were identified. These constructs were operationalized with the help of a panel of five experts who were instructed to read the 72 items and indicate which items represented the target behaviors. A reliability coefficient of 80% was considered 32 acceptable for including the item in the construct list. The parents' responses of selected items were totaled and analyzed to determine the extent that these behaviors reflected actual parent-child interactions with their handicapped or nonhandicapped child. A measure of family stress formed the final dependent variable in the study of families with a young handicapped member. The primary independent variables included family status (handicapped/nonhandicapped) as well as the gender of the parent (mother/father). Also of interest was the environment in which the child was reared (rural/urban) and age of child, both of which were controlled by exclusion. Additional independent variables included: the age of the parent, the years of parent's formal education, parent occupations, gender of child, family income, and religious affiliation. Measures The NC-158 Q-Sort Inventory of Parenting Behaviors (Lawton, et al., 1983) was the primary criterion measure to accomplish these ends. Seventy—two parenting behaviors were identified and classified under four developmental categories, i.e., physical, intellectual, emotional and social. The placement of these 72 items on a scale ranging from 1 (most like me) to 9 (least like me) was the basis for quantifying parents' perceptions of their parenting beliefs. The Q-sort method used in this study is an ipsative procedure. As such, the 72 items describing parenting perceptions were scaled or ordered relative to each other. Block (1978) maintains that studies using Q-methodology having an appropriate number of items and a large sample size will have items that are normally distributed. Block further supports the position that parametric analysis is appropriate for these items. 33 The Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes was administered to each family to determine total family life changes as well as specific areas of family stress. Family demographics were collected at the time of the in-home interview. An instrument developed by the NC-158 project was used to gather this data. The Sample The sample for the analyses of differences between mothers' and fathers' perceptions of their parenting behaviors consists of two data sets. The first set consists of 29 rural Michigan mothers and fathers of first-born three-year-old children identified as having a handicapping condition. These volunteer parents were recruited from 13 intermediate school districts in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, as their children were being served in a preschool special education program. The second set of data used in the analysis is composed of 25 rural Michigan mothers and fathers of first-born three- year-old children with no known handicaps. Data for this set of parents were collected as part of a larger study entitled, "A Study of Beliefs about Parenting in Rural and Urban Populations" (Lawton, et al., 1981). An overview of the study sample is presented in Figure 3.1. 34 Michigan Rural Data Set ——_—_-_———-_—-—_———_——-—_ Parents' Perceptibns of Actual Parenting Behaviors Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes k 54 Mothers and Fathers N=lO8 J F29 Mothers and Fathers 0 65 Mothers and Fathers of a Handicapped Child of a Non-handicapped ' '51":— _N: - FN: 1' — "' " Child EM! TM! SI Other L t J Figure 3.1. Michigan Rural Data Set Procedure The recruitment procedure for the set of parents of first-born three-year-old children with no known handicaps consisted of three approaches by which to identify eligible parents. These approaches were: 1) telephone solicitation made from a list of perspective participants which was generated from birth records published in local newspapers and by credit bureau statistics, 2) flyers describing the study posted in preschools and daycare centers, asking for those parents meeting the criteria to participate, and 3) a presentation given to expectant parent classes in local hospitals. Appointments were made for a home interview with those volunteers who met the eligibility criteria. The procedure for recruiting parents of a handicapped child required a different approach due to the confidential nature of the personal information being sought as protected under the Right to Privacy Act. 35 The steps taken to identify parents of a handicapped child who were willing to participate were: 1) a telephone call was made to Special Education Directors in rural Michigan explaining the project and requesting their assistance in recruiting eligible parents of a handicapped child, 2) packets of information regarding the study were sent to those school districts who agreed to disseminate the literature to parents of handicapped children who met the qualifications, and 3) those parents choosing to participate contacted the investigator directly. Subsequently, an appointment was made to collect data during a home interview. The map in Figure 3.2 graphically shows the rural geographical areas in which the participants of the study reside. 37 The 29 families having a handicapped child report the following breakdown of handicapping condition, organized around the following groups: 1) Educable Mentally Impaired, 2) Trainable Mentally Impaired, 3) Severely Impaired, and 4) Other. Table 3.1 Handicapped Sample of Three-year-olds According to Sex of Child and Handicapping Condition Boy Girl Number of Cases 6 2 Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) I.Q. 69 to 55 8 5 2 Trainable Mentally Impaired (TMI) I.Q. 54 to 40 7 5 2 Severely Impaired (SI) I.Q. 39 and below 7 1 0 Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI) 1* 1 0 Severe Speech/Language 1* O l Visually Impaired 1* _§_ _1_ Hearing Impaired _fl: 21 8 Totals 29 * Sensory and Other Category (N=7) Since the children's impairments vary from sensory losses to mild, moderate, and severe impairments, these groups will be examined to determine whether each subgroup should be treated separately or whether they can be combined into one group and treated as representative of the: handicapped sample. This will be discussed in the following section entitled, Handicapping Condition. Both data sets in this study consist of families living in rural Michigan. The major independent variable is concerned with family 38 status, i.e., handicapped versus nonhandicapped, therefore the accompanying demographics are divided according to these two classifications. The mothers' characteristics of both data sets are summarized in Table 3.2a and Table 3.2b. Mothers of a handicapped child show an age range from 21 to 55 years, with a mean of 30.2 years. Mothers of a nonhandicapped child show an age range from 20 to 37 years, with a mean of 27.6 years. The group mean of mothers of a handicapped child was inflated due to having more mothers in the upper age classifications. The two groups match more closely in the lower age classifications. Indications are that mothers of a handicapped child in this study waited longer than mothers of a nonhandicapped child to have their first child. As for educational level, the years of education for mothers of a handicapped child range from nine to 16 years, with a mean of 13.3 years. Mothers of a nonhandicapped child show an educational range from 12 to 18 years, with a mean of 14.3 years. Both the educational range and the mean score indicate higher educational attainment for mothers of a nonhandicapped child. Regarding occupational status, more than twice as many mothers of a handicapped child indicate that they are non- employed than their counterparts. This may suggest that these mothers are needed at home to provide care for their young, handicapped child. Thus, occupational options appear to be greater among mothers of a young, nonhandicapped child. 39 Table 3.2a Sample Characteristics of Mothers According to Family Status, Age and Education Mothers of Mothers of Handicapped Nonhandicapped H/NH Child Child Mothers (n829) (n-25) (n-54) MOTHERS' AGE Years Number Percent Number Percent Under 21 0 0.0 2 8.0 21 - 25 10 34.4 7 28.0 26 - 30 6 20.7 7 28.0 31 - 35 7 24.1 8 2.0 36 - 40 5 17.2 1 4.0 Over 40 1 3.4 0 0.0 Years Years Minimum age 21 20 Maximum age 55 37 Average 30.2 27.6 MOTHERS' EDUCATION Years Number Percent Number Percent Total N Less than high school 4 13.8 0 0 4 High school 11 37.9 9 36 20 Some college 7 24.1 6 24 13 College graduate 7 24.1 4 16 ll Post-graduate 0 0.0 6 24 6 Years Years Minimum education 9 12 Maximum education 16 18 Average 13.276 14.320 40 Table 3.2b Sample CharacteristiCs of Mothers According to Occupation MOTHERS' OCCUPATION Hollingshead Class Hollingshead Class Non-employed (housewife) 18 8 Manual laborers 0 3 Unskilled 0 0 Semiskilled l 3 Skilled 0 1 Clerical 2 2 Technicians 0 2 Managers 4 4 Administrators 4 2 Executives 0 0 The fathers' characteristics of both data sets are summarized in Table 3.3a and Table 3.3b. Fathers of a handicapped child show an age range from 22 to 56 years, with a mean of approximately 33 years. Fathers of a nonhandicapped child, like their spouses, show an age range from 20 to 37 but with a mean of 28.4 years. A similar pattern is found with fathers as with mothers, that is, older fathers in the handicapped group and younger fathers in the nonhandicapped group. These two groups match more closely in the mid-range age classifications. With respect to educational level, the years of education for fathers of a handicapped child range from eight to 23 years, with a mean of 13.8 years. Fathers of a nonhandicapped child show an educational range from 12 to 22 years, with a mean of 14.6 years. Like the mothers, both the range of years of schooling and fathers' mean score indicate a higher educational attainment for fathers of a nonhandicapped child. As for occupational status, nearly all occupational levels are represented in both groups of fathers. 41 Mean scores for years of schooling for mothers and fathers of the same family status reflect similar educational backgrounds among these parents. Parents in all groups except mothers of a handicapped child indicate educational achievement within the post-graduate category. Some mothers and fathers of a handicapped child report they have not completed a high school education, whereas, all of the mothers and fathers of a nonhandicapped child have completed at least a high school education. Table 3.3a 42 Sample Characteristics of Fathers According to Family Status, Age and Education Fathers of Fathers of Handicapped Nonhandicapped H/NH Child Child Fathers (n-29) (n-25) (n-54) FATHERS' AGE Years Number Percent Number Percent Under 21 0 0.0 3 12.0 21 - 25 2 6.9 4 16.0 26 - 30 10 34.5 9 36.0 31 - 35 9 31.0 8 32.0 36 - 40 5 17.2 1 4.0 Over 40 3 10.3 0 0.0 Years Years Minimum age 22 20 Maximum age 56 37 Average 32.96 28.4 FATHERS' EDUCATION Years Number Percent Number Percent Total N Less than high school 4 13.8 0 0 4 High school 7 24.1 9 36 16 Some college 10 34.5 7 28 17 College graduate 3 10.3 3 12 6 Post-graduate 5 17.2 6 24 11 Years Years Minimum education 8 12 Maximum education 23 22 Average \ 13.793 14.560 43 Table 3.3b Sample Characteristics of Fathers According to Occupation FATHERS' OCCUPATION Hollingshead Class Hollingshead Class Non—employed Manual laborers Unskilled Semiskilled Skilled Clerical Technicians Managers Administrators Executives t—NOQNCDO‘NOO HwmeO‘wv—t—ov— Family characteristics include family income and religious affiliation and are represented in Table 3.4. With respect to family income, the pattern seemed to be that more families of a handicapped child report income within the lower income category, while their nonhandicapped counterparts indicated more families with income within the higher income category. In regards to religious affiliation, the numbers of family members affiliated with the Catholic or Protestant religions were spread fairly evenly among both family groups. The Other religious category contained considerably more proponents from families of the handicapped than the nonhandicapped. All in all, religious affiliation among all parents in the study was quite evenly divided with one-third Catholic, one-third Protestant, and one-third with no religious affiliation. Characteristics of the children showed decidedly more boys than girls in the sample of handicapped children. This same discrepancy was found in the general population as well. Both groups were evenly matched when it comes to the means of the age of the children. 44» 45 Table 3.4 Sample Characteristics of Families and Children Families of a Families of a Families Handicapped Nonhandicapped Combined Child (n-29) Child (n-25) (n-54) FAMILIES Family Income Freq. Per Freq. Per. Freq. Per. $10,000 or Less 6 22.2 2 9.0 8 16.3 $11,000 - $20,999 10 37.0 7 31.8 17 34.7 $21,000 - $30,999 8 29.6 7 31.8 15 30.6 $31,000 - $40,999 1 3.7 5 22.7 6 12.3 $41,000 or More 2 7.4 1 4.5 3 6.1 No Answer 2 3 5 Religious Affiliation and Type Yes Mom Dad Mom Dad Total Catholic 10 9 7 7 33 Protestant 8 7 8 8 31 Other 3 2 0 1 6 No Affiliation 8 11 8 7 34 No Answer 0 0 2 2 4 CHILDREN Sex of Child Number Number Total Boy 21 12 33 Girl 8 13 21 Age of Child Months Months Months Boy 38.6 36.9 37.9 Girl 37.6 37.2 37.3 Total 37.7 Age Range Months Months Months Minimum 33 33 33 Maximum 45 52 45 46 HandicappingiCondition This aspect of the study was designed to determine how parenting practices may vary depending on the type and degree of the handicapping condition. The literature reports conflicting evidence with regard to this issue. It may be that the overriding theme that covers all varieties of handicaps is the prevailing notion of "differentness" (Ross, 1972). This idea suggests that all handicapping conditions represent a quality of "differentness" which separates them from the norm yet unifies them as a generic group. Because the nature of the handicap and the severity of impairment vary, the handicapped sample was categorized by type of handicap and degree of impairment. The sample included the following four groups: educable mentally impaired (mild); trainable mentally impaired (moderate); severely impaired (severe mental and multiple impairments); and, others (physical, speech/language, and sensory impairments, but no mental impairments). Initial statistical analyses were run to detect significant differences in parental perceptions of their behaviors according to type and severity of handicapping condition. This was done to determine whether each subgroup should be treated separately or whether the families can be grouped together into one group which would globally represent the handicapped sample. Based on the ANOVA results which were run to test for group differences between type and severity of handicap, the decision was made to include all of the handicapped samples into one group. The ANOVA runs on each of 72 items showed that there were few significant statistical differences between groups of handicapping conditions. 47 Research Questions and Hypotheses The following research questions and hypotheses were developed to address the purpose of this study. Research Question 1 H01 Hl H02 H2 Do mothers of a handicapped child and fathers of a handicapped child differ in their perceptions of their actual parenting behaviors depending on the nature and the degree of the handicap, i.e., E.M.I., T.M.I., 8.1., and Other? There are no differences among mothers' actual parenting perceptions depending on the nature and the degree of the handicapping condition. There are differences among the mothers' actual parenting perceptions depending on the nature and the degree of the handicapping condition, with mothers of a Severely Impaired child showing greater differences than mothers from the other handicapping groups. There are no differences among fathers' actual parenting perceptions depending on the nature and the degree of the handicapping condition, i.e., E.M.I., T.M.I., 8.1., and Other. There are differences among the fathers' actual parenting perceptions depending on the nature and the degree of the handicapping condition, with fathers of a Severely Impaired child showing greater differences than fathers from the other handicapping groups. Research Question 2 H03 H3 H04 Do mothers and fathers with a handicapped child differ from mothers and fathers with a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting activities regarding protectiveness, dependence, and independence? There are no differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness. There are differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness with mothers of a handicapped child more likely to show protective parenting behaviors. There are no differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness. H4 H05 H5 H06 H6 H07 H7 H08 H8 148 There are differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness with fathers of a handicapped child more likely to show protective parenting behaviors. There are no differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering dependence. There are differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering dependence with mothers of a handicapped child more likely to foster dependent behaviors in their children. There are no differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering dependence. There are differences among fathers of handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering dependence with fathers of a handicapped child more likely to foster dependent behaviors in their children. There are no differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering independence. There are differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering independence with mothers of a handicapped child less likely to foster independent behaviors in their children. There are no differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering independence. There are differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering independence with fathers of a handicapped child less likely to foster independent behavior in their children. Research Question 3 be parents with a handicapped child differ from parents with a nonhandicapped child in the extent of intra-family differences in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness, dependence, and independence? H09 H9 H010 H10 H011 H11 49 There are no differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness. There are differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness with parents of a handicapped child showing greater intra-family differences. There are no differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding dependence. There are differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding dependence with parents of a handicapped child showing greater intra-family differences. There are no differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding independence. There are differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding independence with parents of a handicapped child showing greater intra-family differences. Research Question 4 H012 H12 H013 H13 Do families with a handicapped child differ from families with a nonhandicapped child in their reported types and amounts of family stress regarding family life changes? There are no differences in total recent stress between families with a handicapped child and families with a nonhandicapped child. There are differences in total recent stress between families with a handicapped child and families with a nonhandicapped child with the families of a handicapped child likely to show greater total recent stress. There are no differences in total past stress between families with a handicapped child and families with a nonhandicapped child. There are differences in total past stress between families with a handicapped child and families with a nonhandicapped child with the families of a handicapped child likely to show greater total past stress. 50 Research Question 5 H014 H14 H015 H15 H016 H16 Are there differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parent, religious affiliation, family status and sex of child in accounting for the variance in parents' perceptions of actual parenting activities regarding protectiveness, dependence, and independence? Education of parent is not the strongest dimension influencing parents‘ perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding protectiveness with their children. Education of parent is the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding protectiveness with their children. Sex of child is not the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding dependence with their children. Sex of child is the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding dependence with their children. Sex of child is not the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding independence with their children. Sex of child is the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding independence with their children. Research Question 6 H017 H17 Are there differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness, dependence, and independence? There are no differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness. There are differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness. 51 H018 There are no differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding dependence. H18 There are differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding dependence. H019 There are no differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding independence. H19 There are differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding independence. Research Question 7 Are there differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, sex, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status and sex of child in accounting for variance in family stress regarding family life changes? H020 There are no differences between the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status and sex of child in accounting for variance in family stress regarding family life changes. H20 There are differences between the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status and sex of child in accounting for variance in family stress regarding total recent family life changes. H021 There are no differences between the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status and sex of child in accounting for variance in family stress regarding total past family life changes. 52 H21 There are differences between the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status and sex of child in accounting for variance in family stress regarding total past family life changes. Analyses The SPSS and SL Micro programs were used to perform analysis of variance to test for group differences between family status (handicapped/nonhandicapped) and mothers/fathers for the dependent variables of protectiveness, independence, and dependence. Scheffe' contrasts were run on those items showing a significant difference between groups of more than two to find out which pairs are accounting for the difference. The MANOVA procedure was also used to test for differences in family status on the dependent variable of family stress. As previously mentioned, ANOVA's were run to test differences in the four handicap groups for all 72 Q-sort items. Multiple regressions were used to measure the relationships between each of the constructs and the independent variables of occupation, age of parent, years of parents' education, family income, religious affiliation, and sex of child. Repeated measures ANOVA tests were used to analyze the mother/father differences within the family on the constructs of protectiveness, independence, and dependence. Frequency counts were completed to describe family demographics. Rankings for top and bottom ten means of the 72 items were completed for mothers/fathers; handicapped and nonhandicapped; and, the four disability groups. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The main purpose of this study was to establish a better understanding of the perceptions which parents have of the ways in which they interact with their young child. The primary focus was on how actual childrearing practices as reported by mothers and fathers of.a handicapped child differed from those of parents of a nonhandicapped child. A further investigation described the ways in which parents of a handicapped child differed in their parenting beliefs according to the type and severity of their child's handicapping condition. In addition, intra-family differences were explored by comparing similarities and differences in the beliefs of mothers' and fathers' within families. A measure of family stress, determined for both types of families, assessed differences of stress between families of a handicapped child and families of a nonhandicapped child. Finally, demographic variables were analyzed to measure their impact on the dimensions of parenting beliefs according to family status, mother/father differences, and family stress. This chapter is organized around responses to the research hypotheses. The results are divided into five sections: 1) childrearing perceptions of mothers and fathers according to the type/severity of their child's handicap; 2) parents' perceptions according to family status (i.e., presence of a handicapped or nonhandicapped child); 3) intra-family differences based on family 53 54 status; 4) amount and type of family stress according to family status, and; 5) the impact of demographic variables on the aforementioned dependent variables. ChildrearingfiPerceptions of Mothers and Fathers According to the Type/Severity of the Child's Handicap Handicapped Sample The handicapped sample was organized into four categories according to type and degree of handicap. The variety of handicaps range from three levels of mental handicaps (mild, moderate, and severe) to sensory and other impairments. The three categories of mental impairment are: 1) mild (educable mentally impaired), 2) moderate (trainable mentally impaired), and 3) severe (multiple impairments which include mental as well as additional disabilities). Children in the fourth handicapping group have no identified mental impairment but they are affected by another handicapping condition, e.g., (impaired vision, hearing, speech/ language, or a physical disability). The four categories are referred to in abbreviated form as follows: 1) E.M.I.: educable mentally impaired 2) T.M.I.: trainable mentally impaired 3) 8.1.: severely impaired 4) Other: impaired vision, hearing, physical, or speech/language impaired. Two Formats Used to Present Data Two different formats are used in presenting the results. They are: 1) an analysis of items found to be significantly different among parental groups based on results of the ANOVA procedure, and 2) a ranking 55 of important beliefs of mothers and fathers which range from "most like me" to "least like me." Both of the formats are used in order to provide a thorough description of these mothers' and fathers' parenting perceptions. Using the first format, the discussion of the mothers' and the fathers‘ results are organized by the sex of parent and the four general developmental domains of the criterion variable: physical, intellectual, social, and emotional. The results of the analysis of variance for the mothers and the fathers from the four handicapping groups are shown in the accompanying tables. Only those items with significantly dissimilar responses are presented. To assist in making comparisons between means among handicapping groups, Scheffe' contrasts were run on those items showing a significant difference between groups of more than two to find out which pairs accounted for the difference (Kirk, 1982). The Scheffe's S test was performed on all items which showed an overall probability of chance of P<.05 difference between groups of handicapped children for both the mothers and the fathers. Simple paired comparisons were made between the four groups of handicaps. The Scheffe' values are reported for each item as well as a chart describing which paired groups are significantly different. An average difference of 1.2 points from the mean among two of the four groups connotes a significant difference. In the discussion to follow, a 1.0 point difference is regarded as a "meaningful" difference between mothers or among fathers of different handicapping groups. Using the second format, the 72 items which represent parents' beliefs are ranked from top to bottom in sequential order as determined 56 by the group mean score for each item. The five items at each end of the continuum are considered to be more important to the parents than the items holding a midway position. The presentation of results begins with how mothers with a handicapped child vary in their perceptions according to the type of handicapped child in their family. This is followed by how fathers' perceptions differ depending on which handicapped group they are in. Each item in which a significant difference was found is reported in the following tables according to three parts. Table (a) reports the results of the analysis of variance test on the item, which indicates those items in which a significant difference was found between groups; Table (b) lists the means and standard deviations of the item, which can be used to study specific differences between groups; and Table (c) shows the results of the Scheffe' contrasts, which indicates where group differences were found. Hypothesis 1 H1 There are differences among the mothers' actual parenting perceptions depending on the nature and the degree of the handicapping condition, with mothers of a Severely Impaired child showing greater differences than mothers from the other handicapping groups. Mothers of a Handicapped Child Physical Domain. Tables 4.1a, 4.2a, and 4.3a report the items in the physical domain which were significantly different among mothers with a child in one of the handicapping groups. Half of all the item differences between mothers is found in this category. Three items, P09, P16, and P18, are listed in these tables. All of the physical domain items in which a significant difference was found 57 include the Severely Impaired group of mothers who rank these physical domain items lower (most like me) than mothers in the other three groups. Table 4.1a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P09, "I get involved with my child in physically active play." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F—Ratio F—Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 27.376 9.125 Within Groups (Residual) 25 55.589 2.224 4.104* .0169 Total 28 82.966 2.963 * Significant at the P<.05 58 Table 4.1b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P09, "I get involved with my child in physically active play." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 4.63 1.69 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 4.00 1.00 7 Severely Impaired 2.43 1.27 7 Other Impaired Group 5.00 1.83 7 Total 4.03 1.72 29 Table 4.1c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P09, "1 get involved with my child in physically active play." Group Group Group Group Mean Group SI TMI EMI Other 2.43 SI 4.00 TMI 4.63 EMI 5.00 Other * The value actually compared with mean (J)—-mean (I) is 1.0544. Ranges for the 0.050 level--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. 59 Table 4.2a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P16, "I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 24.707 8.236 Within Groups (Residual) 25 63.500 2.540 3.242* .0389 Total 28 88.207 3.150 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.2b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P16, "I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch." Type of Handicapi Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 5.25 1.67 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 5.71 1.25 7 Severely Impaired 3.86 1.35 7 Other Impaired Group 6.43 1.99 7 Total 5.31 1.77 29 60 Table 4.2c Results of the Scheffe's 8 Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P16, "I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch." Group Group Group Group Mean Group SI EMI TMI Other 3.86 SI 5.25 EMI 5.71 TMI 6.43 Other * The value actually compared with mean (J)--mean (I) is 1.1269. Ranges for the 0.050 level--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. Table 4.3a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P18, "I provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 33.962 11.321 Within Groups (Residual) 25 68.589 2.744 4.126* .0166 Total 28 102.552 3.663 * Significant at the P<.05 61 Table 4.3b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P18, "1 provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 6.13 1.46 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 7.00 1.53 7 Severely Impaired 4.00 1.00 7 Other Impaired Group 5.43 2.37 7 Total 5.66 1.91 29 Table 4.3c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P18, "1 provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise." Group Group Group Group Mean Group SI Other EMI TMI 4.00 SI 5.43 Other 6.13 EMI 7.00 TMI * The value actually compared with mean (J)—-mean (I) is 1.17. Ranges for the 0.050 1evel——4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. 62 Intellectual Domain. According to Tables 4.4a and 4.4b, one item in the intellectual domain showed differences among mothers of children with various handicapping conditions. Mothers with mildly impaired (E.M.I.) children regarded item 121, "talking about television programs with their child," closer to "most like me" than Other mothers who ranked this item closer to "least like me." Social Domain. There were no significant differences in mothers' perceptions by handicapped type among social domain items. Table 4.4a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 121, "I talk with my child about television programs we watch together." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 28.558 9.519 Within Groups (Residual) 25 77.304 3.092 3.079* .0458 Total 28 105.862 3.781 * Significant at the P<.05 63 Table 4.4b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 121, "I talk with my child about television programs we watch together." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N. Educable Mentally Impaired 5.38 2.00 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 7.14 1.57 7 Severely Impaired 7.57 2.15 7 Other Impaired Group 7.86 1.07 7 Total 6.93 1.94 29 According to the Scheffe' analysis for Item 121, "I talk with my child about television programs we watch together," no two groups were significantly different at the 0.050 level. Emotional Domain. The three items shown in Tables 4.5 a, b and c; 4.6 a, b and c; and 4.7 a, b and c show differences in mothers' responses to emotional issues. Two of the items, E57 and E60, are concerned with child management techniques while the third item, E71, regards family interaction. Item E57 involves a significant difference in the beliefs between mothers of 8.1. children and mothers from the Other and the E.M.I. groups. Item E60 shows differences between mothers of the 8.1. group and the Others. Item E71 reports a difference between the T.M.I. groups of mothers and mothers from the E.M.I. and the Other group. 64 In summary, the developmental areas which showed the greatest amount of difference among mothers' perceptions between handicapping conditions were in the physical and emotional domains, with the most amount of agreement found in the intellectual and social domains. The results of the ANOVA procedure show that these mothers of a handicapped child differed in their parenting beliefs on seven of the 72 Q-sort items. As reported in the Scheffe' tables, of the seven items showing a significant difference, four of the seven, or nearly 60% of the differences involved extreme mean scores in both the 8.1. and the Other groups. Individually, differences related to the 8.1. group (six) outnumbered those related to the Other group (five) by one. Based on these results, hypothesis H1 was accepted. Table 4.5a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E57, "1 punish my child for misbehaving." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 51.731 17.244 Within Groups (Residual) 25 77.304 3.092 5.577* .0045 Total 28 129.034 4.608 * Significant at the P<.05 65 Table 4.5b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E57, "I punish my child for misbehaving." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 3.63 1.19 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 4.57 2.51 7 Severely Impaired 6.57 2.07 7 Other Impaired Group 3.00 8.2 7 Total 4.41 2.15 29 Table 4.5c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E57, "I punish my child for misbehaving." Group Group Group Group Mean Group Other EMI TMI SI 3.00 Other 3.63 EMI 4.57 TMI 6.57 SI * * The value actually compared with mean (J)--mean (I) is 1.2434. Ranges for the 0.050 level--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. 66 Table 4.6a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E60, "I talk to my child about his or her misbehaviors." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F—Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 33.652 11.217 Within Groups (Residual) 25 67.589 2.704 4.149* .0162 Total 28 101.241 3.616 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.6b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E60, "I talk to my child about his or her misbehaviors." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 4.63 1.69 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 4.86 1.77 7 Severely Impaired 5.71 1.80 7 Other Impaired Group 2.71 1.25 7 Total 4.48 1.90 29 67 Table 4.6c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E60, "I talk to my child about his or her misbehaviors." Group Group Group Group Mean Group Other EMI TMI SI 2.71 Other 4.63 EMI 4.86 TMI 5.71 SI * The value actually compared with mean (J)--mean (I) is 1.1627. Ranges for the 0.050 level--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. Table 4.7a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 47.475 15.825 Within Groups (Residual) 25 80.732 3.229 4.900* .0082 Total 28 128.207 4.579 * Significant at the P<.05 68 Table 4.7b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 2.63 1.30 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 5.57 2.64 7 Severely Impaired 4.29 1.50 7 Other Impaired Group 2.43 1.51 7 Total 3.69 2.14 29 Table 4.7c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Mothers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together." Group Group Group Group Mean Group Other EMI SI TMI 2.43 Other 2.63 EMI 4.29 SI 5.57 TMI * * The value actually compared with mean (J)-—mean (I) is 1.2707. Ranges for the 0.050 level--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. 69 Descriptions of Mothers' Important Beliefs This section describes important beliefs held by mothers of a handicapped child. The four categories of handicapping conditions are listed under separate columns so comparisons can be made based on the type of handicapping condition. The 72 Q-sort items are ranked by group means according to type of handicap and sex of parent. The top and bottom five items of the 72 parenting beliefs are used to describe the important beliefs that mothers of a handicapped child reported to be "most like me" (low score beginning with 1) or "least like me" (high score ending with 9). Ranking the items in order of importance provides insight into parents' beliefs about parenting and assists in making comparisons between groups. Each item in Table 4.8 through 4.9 is identified by a letter and a number. The letter corresponds to the beginning letter of the developmental domain of the item (i.e., Physical, Intellectual, Social, and Emotional), while the numbers, ranging from 1 to 72, represent the arbitrarily assigned numbers used to identify the item on the Q-sort instrument. When comparisons are made between groups, the guidelines from the Scheffe' findings are used. An average difference of 1.2 points between items scores is regarded as significant, whereas, a 1.0 point difference is treated as meaningful. The fathers' results are described in the same manner in the section which follows. 70 Mothers' "Most Like Me" Items--Handicapped. The top beliefs of mothers of a handicapped child are shown in Table 4.8. The two developmental areas which showed the most representation in the mothers' top five rankings ("most like me") were the physical and emotional domains. Over half (11) of the total items (20) in the top five from all handicapping groups were from the emotional domain, making it the highest ranked domain among mothers of a handicapped child. The least represented domains were intellectual and social. There were three of 20 items from the intellectual domain ranked in the top five and no items from the social domain. Total agreement among mothers was found across the four types of handicapping conditions on the number one ranked item. Mothers from each handicapping category ranked item E62, "I show my child some sort of physical affection daily," to be the highest ranked "most like me" item. In addition, three of the four groups ranked E64, "I often praise my child," among the top five. Providing nutritionally balanced meals, P05, was more important for mothers in the two groups of the more severely impaired children (T.M.I. and 8.1.) than mothers in the mildly impaired groups. Mothers from all of the groups were in close agreement in placing item 119, "I provide educational toys or games for my child," within the top six items. Mothers from the two groups with the mildest types of handicaps (Other and E.M.I.) included item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together," in their top five, whereas the mothers with children having more severe impairments ranked this item significantly lower. 71 Two items in the top five rankings, items E71 and P09, were found to be significantly different among these mothers based upon analysis of variance. There was a modicum of agreement between groups on their important "most like me" beliefs since only a total of 12 items were needed to identify the top five items across the four groups. EMI Rank/Mean TMI Rank/Mean Table 4.8 Top Five Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap SI Rank/Mean Other Rank/Mean Item 1 3O 28 12 1 .50 .50 .63 .63 .75 .13 .00 .88 .75 .88 .63 .50 l 20 11 47 17 19 1 .57 .14 .29 .57 .00 .14 .29 .29 .43 .86 .00 .00 1 25 10 27 16 13 1 .57 .14 .00 .29 .86 .29 .86 .43 .86 .86 .43 .14 l 31 l7 16 10 29 39 l. 71 .71 .29 .43 .43 .29 .35 .57 .71 .29 .00 .29 E62 I34 P06 E71* E64 P04 P05 119 P01 E63 P09* E72 72 I show my child some sort of physical affection daily. I often sit and read to my child or have my child read to me. I make sure my child has good health habits. My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together. I often praise my child. I provide opportunities for my child to nap, rest, or relax. I make sure my child eats nutritionally balanced meals. I provide educational toys or games for my child. I encourage my child to use his or her hands skillfully. I encourage my child to be affectionate (kissing, hugging). I get involved with my child in physically active play. I comfort my child when he or she cries at night. * This item is significantly different between groups. 73 Mothers' "Least Like Me" Items--Handicapped. The items ranked as "least like me" by mothers of a handicapped child are shown in Table 4.9. The developmental area which showed the least interest among these mothers was the social domain. The domain with the next most "least like me" items was the emotional domain. The intellectual domain constituted the remaining "least like me" responses. with the physical domain going unmentioned. 74 Table 4.9 Bottom Five Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap EMI TMI SI Other Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Item 72 8.38 72 8.29 72 8.57 72 8.56 E67 I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me. 71 8.25 69 7.29 71 8.14 63 6.57 839 I encourage my child to get involved in competitive activities. 70 8.00 70 7.29 57 6.29 70 7.43 E65 I reward my child with a gift when he/she is good. 69 7.88 62 6.71 55 6.29 68 7.29 846 I encourage my child to play mostly with same age playmates. 68 7.38 52 6.00 56 6.29 64 6.57 S49 I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself. 55 5.88 71 7.43 69 7.43 61 6.43 E66 I send my child away from me for misbehaving. 43 5.38 68 7.14 70 7.57 71 7.86 121* I talk with my child about T.V. programs we watch together. 54 5.88 60 6.43 68 7.43 41 5.00 843 I encourage my child to help other children. 63 6.5 66 6.86 44 5.71 69 7.43 SS3 I encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds. * This item is significantly different between the four groups. 75 As with the top ranked "most like me" item, there was complete agreement among these mothers on the item which they considered to be "least like me." Mothers in all four groups ranked item E67, "1 threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," as the least likely behavior in which they engage. Three of the four groups ranked items S39, E65, and 121 in the bottom five category. Item 121, "I talk with my child about T.V. programs we watch together," was found to be significantly different between mothers as reported in the ANOVA tables. The single group departing from the beliefs of the remaining three groups was the mothers of E.M.I. children, who considered this item as "more like me" than the rest of the mothers. Two of the four groups ranked items S46 and E66 within the bottom five category. There was more overall agreement in what constitutes least desirable parenting behavior than in the previous ranking of the most desirable parenting traits since only nine items were used to rank the bottom five items among the four handicapping groups. Of the mothers' top five and bottom five rankings, only three of them were found to be significantly different based on the ANOVA test. The next section reports the findings of the differences among the fathers' of a handicapped child according to the type of the child's impairment. As with the mothers, tables are included showing the results of the ANOVA procedure, the means and standard deviations of the significantly different items, the Scheffe' S test results, and the fathers' top five and bottom five item rankings. 76 Hypothesis 2 H2 There are differences among fathers' actual parenting perceptions depending on the nature and the degree of the handicapping condition, with fathers of a Severely Impaired child showing greater differences than fathers from the other handicapping groups. Fathers of a Handicapped Child The discussion now focuses on how fathers with a handicapped child vary in their parenting perceptions according to the type of handicapped child in their family. The results are presented by using the same formats as the preceding mothers' discussion. Physical Domain. Table 4.10a reports the one item in the physical domain which was significantly different among fathers with a child in one of the handicapping groups. Item 12 has to do with the child's health. Fathers with a child in the Severely Impaired group ranked item 12, "taking their child for regular medical and dental check-ups," closer to "most like me" than fathers in the E.M.I. category who considered the item to be closer to "least like me." 77 Table 4.10a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P12, "I take my child to regular medical and dental check—ups." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 39.330 13.110 Within Groups (Residual) 25 99.429 A 3.977 3.296* .0369 Total 28 138.759 4.956 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.10b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item P12, "1 take my child to regular medical and dental check-ups." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 6.50 1.77 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 4.14 1.95 7 Severely Impaired 3.43 1.81 7 Other Impaired Group 4.86 2.41 7 Total 4.79 2.23 29 78 According to the Scheffe' analysis for Item P12, "1 take my child to regular medical and dental checkups," no two groups were significantly different at the 0.050 level. Intellectual Domain. In the intellectual domain fathers differed significantly on two items. The two items, 122 and 127, appear in the ANOVA Tables 4.11a and 4.12s. Tables 4.11b and 4.12b report the means and standard deviations of these items. Tables 4.11c and 4.12c show the results of the Scheffe' contrasts. Fathers of E.M.I. children indicated they were more inclined to play number and word games with their child than fathers in the other handicapping groups, with 8.1. fathers reporting "least like me" on this item. Item 27, "teaching a child to have a good memory," was ranked as "most like me" by fathers of 8.1. children and "least like me" by fathers of T.M.I. children. Table 4.11s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 122, "I play number and word games with my child." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 49.830 16.610 Within Groups (Residual) 25 60.929 2.437 6.815* .0016 Total 28 110.759 3.956 * Significant at the P<.05 79 Table 4.11b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 122, "I play number and word games with my child." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 4.25 1.28 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 5.43 1.51 7 Severely Impaired 7.86 1.35 7 Other Impaired Group 5.86 2.03 7 Total 5.79 1.99 29 Table 4.11c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item I22, "I play number and word games with my child." Group Group Group Group Mean Group EMI TMI Other SI 4.25 EMI 5.43 TMI 5.86 Other 7.86 SI * The value actually compared with mean (J)--mean (I) is 1.1039. Ranges for the 0.050 1evel--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. 80 Table 4.12s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 127, "I teach my child to have a good memory (play peek-a-boo; find toys that have been hidden; remember story he or she has read)." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F—Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 25.958 8.653 Within Groups (Residual) 25 63.214 2.529 3.422* .0326 Total 28 89.172 3.185 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.12b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item I27, "I teach my child to have a good memory (play peek-a-boo; find toys that have been hidden; remember story he or she has read)." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 4.75 .71 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 6.00 2.31 7 Severely Impaired 3.43 1.40 7 Other Impaired Group 4.00 1.63 7 Total 4.55 1.78 29 81 Table 4.12c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 127, "I teach my child to have a good memory (play peek-a-boo; find toys that have been hidden; remember story he or she has read)." Group Group Group Group Mean Gropp SI Other EMI TMI 3.43 SI 4.00 Other 4.75 EMI 6.00 TMI * The value actually compared with mean (J)--mean (I) is 1.1244. Ranges for the 0.050 level--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. Social Domain. Two items appear in the ANOVA Tables 4.13a and 4.14a as significantly different among fathers of the four handicapping groups regarding social development. Both of these social items, 837 and S38, were ranked by the fathers of 8.1. youngsters as "least like me." Tables 4.13b and 4.14b list the means and standard deviations of these items. Tables 4.13c and 4.14c show the results of the Scheffe' contrasts. Fathers in the 8.1. group scored significantly higher (least like me) on item 37, "I encourage my child to share toys," than all of the remaining fathers. 82 As reported in the next section, fathers from the Other group, with a child with sensory/other impairments chose this item as their number one selection, ranking it as "most like me" from the entire list of 72 items. Conversely, fathers of 8.1. children ranked this "share toys" items in the bottom five listing of the 72 Q—sort items, indicating that it was one of the "least like me" items according to these fathers. Item 38, "I encourage my child to get involved in group play," was regarded by fathers of the E.M.I. group as "most like me" showing a significant difference from fathers of the 8.1. group who ranked it as "least like me." Table 4.13a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 837, "I encourage my child to share toys." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 117.509 39.170 Within Groups (Residual) 25 83.732 3.349 11.695* .0001 Total 28 102.241 7.187 * Significant at the P<.05 83 Table 4.13b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item S37, "1 encourage my child to share toys." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 4.13 2.30 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 4.29 1.70 7 Severely Impaired 7.71 1.38 7 Other Impaired Group 2.00 1.73 7 Total 4.52 2.68 29 Table 4.13c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item S37, "1 encourage my child to share toys." Group Group Group Group Mean Group, Other EMI TMI SI 2.00 Other 4.13 EMI 4.29 TMI 7.71 SI * * * The value actually compared with mean (J)--mean (I) is 1.2941. Ranges for the 0.050 1eve1-—4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. Table 4.14a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item $38, "I encourage my child to get involved in group play." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F—Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 56.030 18.677 Within Groups (Residual) 25 83.143 3.326 5.616* .0044 Total 28 139.172 4.970 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.14b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item S38, "1 encourage my child to get involved in group play." Type of Handicap Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 3.50 1.41 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 6.29 2.14 7 Severely Impaired 7.14 2.34 7 Other Impaired Group 5.14 1.22 7 Total 5.45 2.23 29 85 Table 4.14c Results of the Scheffe's S Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item 838, "I encourage my child to get involved in group play." Group Group Group Group Mean Group EMI Other TMI SI 3.50 EMI 5.14 Other 6.29 TMI 7.14 SI * The value actually compared with mean (J)--mean (I) is 1.2895. Ranges for the 0.050 level--4.24. * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level. Emotional Domain. One item in the emotional domain showed a significant difference between these fathers. As presented in Table 4.15a, Item E72, "I comfort my child when he or she cries at night," indicated that 8.1. fathers are more likely to comfort their child at night than fathers in the E.M.I. group. In summary, the developmental areas which showed the greatest variation among fathers' perceptions according to the type of handicapping condition were in the intellectual and social domains (with mothers it was in the physical and emotional domains). The most amount of agreement among these fathers was found in the physical and emotional domains. 86 The results of the ANOVA test showed that these fathers of a handicapped child differed in their parenting beliefs on six of the 72 Q-sort items. As reported in the Scheffe' tables, the majority of the fathers' differences were found in the 8.1. group. Of the six items showing a significant difference, four of the six, or approximately 67% of the difference involved extreme mean scores of the 8.1. fathers. Hypothesis H2 was accepted. Based on the foregoing results, early evidence indicated that part of the variance in the fathers' responses could be attributed to their spouses' shared involvement with the child. This topic will be considered later in the third section. Table 4.15a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E72, "I comfort my child when he or she cries a night." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F—Prob. Between Groups (Type of Handicap) 3 45.105 15.035 Within Groups (Residual) 25 125.446 5.018 2.996* .0497 Total 28 170.552 6.091 * Significant at the P<.05 87 Table 4.15b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Handicapped Child by Type of Handicap for Item E72, "1 comfort my child when he or she cries a night." Type of Handicqp Means Standard Deviation N Educable Mentally Impaired 6.13 2.03 8 Trainable Mentally Impaired 3.86 2.19 7 Severely Impaired 3.00 2.31 7 Other Impaired Group 5.43 2.44 7 Total 4.66 2.47 29 According to the Scheffe' analysis for Item E72, "1 comfort my child when he or she cries at night," no two groups were significantly different at the 0.050 level. Descriptions of Fathers' Important Beliefs The attention now focuses on how these fathers ranked the 72 items in the order of their importance. First the items ranked as "most like me" are described, followed by an explanation of the fathers' "least like me" items. Fathers' "Most Like Me" Items--Handicapped. The top beliefs of fathers of a handicapped child are shown in Table 4.16. The two developmental categories which dominated the ranking of the top five items reported by fathers as "most like me" were the physical and emotional domains. Nineteen of the 20 items ranked in the top five by fathers in the four handicapping groups were from these two areas, with the one remaining item coming from the social domain. For these fathers, physical items (11) outnumbered all others as being the 88 most important to them during their transactions with their child. There were no items chosen in the top five group from the intellectual domain. There was agreement among three of the four groups regarding the "most like me" item. Fathers from all groups, except the ones in the Other group, ranked E62, "1 show my child some sort of physical affection daily," as the predominant item. The fathers in the Other group chose 837, "I encourage my child to share toys," as their "most like me" item. This item, 837, was the only item within the top five rankings that was found to be significantly different between these fathers, as mentioned in the previous section regarding ANOVA findings. This same item is listed in the bottom five rankings as "least like me" by the 8.1. group of fathers. The next item that was ranked in the top five list by fathers in three of the four groups was P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." The group dissenting from this ranking were the fathers of the 8.1. children. Two of the four groups ranked items P09, E64, and P05 within the top five category. Each of the remaining items of importance, E55, P04, and P08, were specifically ranked by individual groups as one of their top five choices. Table 4.16 89 Top Five Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap EMI TMI SI Other Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Item 1 1.25 1 1.86 1 1.71 4 2.71 E62 I show my child some sort of physical affection daily. 2 2.38 12 3.27 4 2.57 6 3.00 P09 I get involved with my child in physically active play. 3 2.50 5 3.29 11 3.29 2 2.14 P03 I provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors. 4 2.75 6 3.29 17 3.57 11 3.71 E63 I encourage my child to be affectionate (kissing, hugging). 5 2.86 7 3.29 5 2.71 17 4.00 E64 I often praise my child. 7 3.13 2 2.57 2 2.14 18 4.29 P05 I make sure my child eats nutritionally balanced meals. 10 3.50 3 2.57 6 2.88 19 4.43 P06 I make sure my child has good health habits. 6 3.00 4 2.71 19 4.14 10 3.71 P08 I encourage my child to feed himself or herself. 13 3.75 18 4.00 3 2.57 13 4.00 P04 I provide opportunities for my child to nap, rest, or relax. 19 4.13 24 4.29 69 7.71 1 2.00 837* I encourage my child to share toys. 9 3.5 9 3.43 23 4.29 3 2.71 P02 I encourage my child to try new physical activities. 14 3.75 21 4.14 64 6.57 5 2.86 E55 1 spank my child when necessary. * This item is significantly different between the four groups. 9O Fathers' "Least Like Me" Items--Handicapped. Table 4.17 lists the bottom five items as reported by fathers of a handicapped child. The items were fairly evenly spread among the three developmental areas of emotional, social, and intellectual. Fathers selected only two items in this listing from the physical domain, making it the least represented area in the bottom five rankings. Three of the four groups ranked E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," as the item which was "least like me." The group of fathers who dissented from this view (8.1. group) selected 121, "I talk with my child about T.V. programs we watch together," as their least likely parenting behavior. The same three groups of fathers (E.M.I., T.M.I., and Other) were in agreement on item 846, "I encourage my child to play with the same age playmates," by placing it within the bottom five ranking. Two of the four groups ranked items S39, 120, and E66 in the bottom five category. The remaining eight items were selected individually by one of the groups of fathers as "least like me." Two of the items in this listing, 122 and S37, were identified as significantly different based on the results of the ANOVA procedure. There was a fairly even balance in the number of total items needed for these fathers to rank their top five (12 items used) and bottom five (13 items used) items. Within these top and bottom items, only two were designated as significantly different according to the ANOVA results. This compares favorably with the mothers' rankings which contained a total of three significantly different items in the combined lists. Table 4.17 91 Bottom Five Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort By Type of Handicap EMI TMI SI Other Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Rank/Mean Item 72 8.37 72 8.29 66 6.86 72 8.00 E67 I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me. 71 7.63 71 7.14 60 6.14 70 7.43 846 I encourage my child to play mostly with the same age playmates. 70 7.13 53 5.71 25 4.43 63 6.14 E58 I make sure my child has some privacy. 69 7.13 70 7.00 59 6.14 48 5.43 839 I encourage my child to get involved in competitive activities. 68 7.00 62 6.43 27 4.71 29 4.71 E65 I reward my child with a gift when he or she is good. 51 5.88 69 7.00 71 8.00 62 6.14 120 I encourage my child to watch T.V. 55 6.13 68 7.00 28 4.86 67 6.86 P07 I talk with my child about his or her body. 66 6.88 65 6.71 72 8.29 64 6.57 121 I talk with my child about T.V. programs we watch together. 20 4.25 44 5.43 70 7.86 55 5.86 122* I play number and word games with my child. 19 4.13 24 4.29 69 7.71 l 2.00 837* I encourage my child to share toys. 67 6.71 54 6.00 68 7.14 71 7.71 E66 1 send my child away from me for misbehaving. 53 6.00 49 5.57 65 6.86 69 7.14 130 I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them. 92 Table 4.17 (cont'd.) 26 4.63 42 5.29 30 4.86 68 6.86 P17 1 encourage my child to get involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises. * This item is significantly different between the four groups. Decision Statement As reported earlier, the analysis of variance procedure was used on the responses of the mothers' and the fathers' from the four handicapping groups. Of the 72 Q-sort items which were analyzed to detect differences among the mothers, and also among the fathers, a total of 13 items showed significant differences in parental perceptions between the four handicapping groups. That is, mothers differed significantly on seven of the items, while the fathers showed a significant difference on six of them. The items on which they differed varied between the mothers and the fathers. The remaining items, from 90 to 921 of the total Q-sort measure, were not significantly different between the mothers or the fathers of the various handicapping groups. With 90 to 92% agreement among items, it was decided to combine the Q-sort responses of the four handicapping groups into one generic group to be used as a standard of comparison with mothers and fathers of a nonhandicapped child. The results of that part of the study will be discussed in the next section. Table 4.18 summarizes the items which were found to be significantly different between the mothers and the fathers of a handicapped child by type/severity of handicap. 93 Table 4.18 Items Significantly Different Among Mothers and Fathers of a Handicapped Child By Type/Severity of Handicap Mothers Fathers P09 121 E57 P12 122 S37 E72 P16 E60 127 838 P18 E71 7/72 I 10% Significant Difference 6/72 - 8% Significant Difference 90% Agreement 92% Agreement Parents' Perceptions Accordingyto Family Status: Handicapped Child Versus Nonhandicapped Child in the Family This section deals with the main concern of this study, how do parents of a handicapped child differ from parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions regarding their parenting behaviors. The results are discussed under two main headings, Building Constructs and, Descriptions of Parents' Important Beliefs. The findings of the ANOVA procedure are reported as part of the discussion on construct building, whereas, a description of parents' important beliefs is presented by a listing of their rankings of the 72 Q-sort items. These rankings include the top ten and bottom ten ranking of parents' beliefs, ranging from "most like me" to "least like me." The parenting beliefs of mothers of a handicapped child are contrasted with mothers of a nonhandicapped child. Likewise, a similar discussion of the fathers' beliefs follows. Finally, the hypotheses which are associated with these issues are stated and resolved. 94 Building_Constructs: Protectiveness, Dupendence, and Independence In an attempt to further identify specific parenting perceptions, constructs involving more than one of the Q-sort items were identified. The parenting constructs of protectiveness, dependence, and independence were explored. Figure 4.1 lists the items selected as those parenting behaviors which reflect the three constructs of interest. These constructs were operationalized with the help of a panel of five experts, men and women, who were instructed to read the 72 items and indicate which items represented parenting behaviors denoting protectiveness, dependence and independence. A reliability coefficient of .80 was considered acceptable for including the item in the construct list. In addition, the parents' responses of selected items were analyzed statistically to determine further reliability of the proposed constructs. Analysis was also done to establish the extent that these construct attributes differed between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child. The following section reports the procedure which was taken to determine the statistical reliability of these constructs. Following this is a description of the other attempts which were made to cluster items together in order to establish meaningful constructs for the purpose of analysis. 95 Protectiveness (Unlike) P02 I encourage my child to try new physical activities. P03 I provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors. P10 1 involve my child in group physical or sport activities. P17 1 encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises. 129 I take my child on trips out of the house whenever possible. 838 I encourage my child to get involved in group play. 839 I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities. 841 1 encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary. 853 I encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds. E61 1 encourage my child to express his or her feelings openly. Dependence (Like) 128 I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching). 850 I encourage my child to ask for help. E70 1 step in when my child has problems with another child. Independence (Like) P08 I encourage my child to feed himself or herself. P13 1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike). I30 I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them. 847 1 encourage my child to do things on his or her own. 849 I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself. E69 1 provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment out of doing things on his or her own. Figure 4.1 Items of the Constructs: Protectiveness, Dependence, and Independence Reliability of Constructs A reliability coefficient of .80 was the standard used to include an item as part of one of the constructs of interest (i.e., protectiveness, dependence, and independence). For an item to be included under a particular construct, four of the five experts who evaluated the items must have decided that it was representative of the construct in question. To substantiate these raters' selections, Cronbach's Alpha 96 was applied to determine the reliability of the constructs based on the Q-sort responses. Results of the reliability procedure are found in Table 4.19. The SPSS-X statistical package was used to establish the reliability coefficients. Cronbach's Alpha, a measure of internal consistency, computes the correlations within each person on the proposed construct items and then finds an average over all the people. As the coefficients indicate, reliabilities of the three constructs ranged from -.1121 to .2273. Efforts were made to improve the reliabilities of the constructs by deleting selected items which increased the coefficients to the range of .1151 to .3500, which was still below acceptable levels. Various combinations of items were tried to increase the construct reliabilities but the coefficients remained too low to be useful (.0533 to .2511). At this point, other alternatives were used to arrive at compatible items which would represent the identified constructs. The results of two of the methods which were tried, discriminant analysis and factor analysis, are reported next. Table 4.19 Results of Statistical Reliability of Three Constructs: Protectiveness, Dependence, and Independence Reliability Coefficient Construct Items (Cronbach's A1ph§2_ Protectiveness 2, 3, 10, 17, 29, 38, 39, 41, 53, 61 .2273 Dependence 28, 50, 70 .1139 Independence 8, 13, 30, 47, 49, 69 -.1121 97 Discriminant Factor Analysis This procedure was used to identify items which might show a pattern of consistency so that a construct could be developed. Discriminant analysis is a process intended to maximize the differences between handicapped and nonhandicapped groups on selected items. Those items found to be significant, if any, are then inserted into a formula with specified weights to form a new variable which represents the construct of interest. Of the three constructs tested, only one showed any degree of promise. From the construct Independence, items 8, 13, and 30 were reported as significant and were assigned a function. Although these three were mathematically correct, they could not be interpreted to logically fit any theoretical construct. Factor analysis using a varimax rotation was used on each set of items from the three constructs. Four factors resulted from the protectiveness items but variability within each factor prevented any reasonable interpretation. In each factor, only two or three items of the ten items tested had factor score coefficients of a strong enough magnitude to be considered useful. Testing for factors in the constructs of independence and dependence resulted in similar findings. Based upon the results of the discriminant and factor analyses it was decided to abandon the notion of construct cohesion and to scrutinize and discuss the individual items within each construct in which significant differences were found. In the next section, the ANOVA results, mean scores and standard deviations of the items within each proposed construct are reported. The accompanying tables and figures depict the responses of the mothers and fathers to the 98 individual items which comprise the constructs. The results demonstrate the lack of consistency in the responses, without which reliability is unattainable. Following this general presentation, the discussion will focus on answering the hypotheses. Protectiveness The ten items which composed the construct protectiveness are noted in the following list. The three items from this list which were found to be significantly different among the entire population are designated with an asterisk (*). Protectiveness (Unlike). P02* I encourage my child to try new physical activities. P03* 1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors. P10 1 involve my child in group physical or sport activities. P17 1 encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruise. 129 I take my child on trips out of the house whenever possible. 838 I encourage my child to get involved in group play. 839* I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities. 841 I encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary. SS3 1 encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds. E61 1 encourage my child to express his or her feelings openly. The ANOVA results of these ten "protectiveness" items and their mean scores and standard deviations, arranged according to family status and sex of parent, are reported in Table 4.20 through Table 4.29 inclusively. The items in these tables reported as significantly different are identified by an asterisk (*) after the F—Ratio. The SL Micro software program used to compute the ANOVA results reported an F-Ratio but did not include an F-Probability as in the other ANOVA tables. A statistical chart indicated that the critical F—Value with 3 and 104 degrees of freedom was >2.69 (Kirk, 1982, pg. 814). 99 Items P02, P03, and S39 were found to be significantly different among all of the mothers and fathers in this study. items showed reasonable agreement in these parents' perceptions. The remaining seven This construct was abandoned due to lack of reliability among the majority of the items. Table 4.20a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 36.271 12.090 Within Groups (Residual) 104 411.396 3.956 3.056* Total 107 447.667 4.184 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.20b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." Family Status 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child Mothers Fathers 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child Mothers Fathers Entire Population Means 4.586 3.483 4.560 5.040 4.389 100 Standard Deviation Number 2.096 2.115 1.938 1.744 2.045 58 29 29 50 25 25 108 Table 4.21s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 25.396 8.465 Within Groups (Residual) 104 257.150 2.473 3.424* Total 107 282.546 2.641 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.21b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." 101 Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 3.655 1.632 29 Fathers 2.793 1.373 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 4.000 1.732 25 Fathers 3.920 1.552 25 Entire Population 3.565 1.625 108 Table 4.22a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P10, "1 involve my child in group physical or sport activities." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 6.068 2.023 Within Groups (Residual) 104 402.257 3.868 0.523 Total 107 408.324 3.816 102 Table 4.22b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P10, "1 involve my child in group physical or sport activities." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 6.690 1.734 29 Fathers 6.103 1.839 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.400 2.102 25 Fathers 6.160 2.211 25 Entire Population 6.343 1.953 108 Table 4.23a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P17, "1 encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 4.372 1.457 Within Groups (Residual) 104 326.036 3.135 0.465 Total 107 330.407 3.088 Table 4.23b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P17, "1 encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises." 103 Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 5.138 1.663 29 Fathers 5.379 1.821 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 5.600 1.500 25 Fathers 5.640 2.059 25 Entire Population 5.426 1.757 108 Table 4.24a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 129, "I take my child on trips out of the house whenever possible." . Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 4.667 1.556 Within Groups (Residual) 104 285.583 2.746 0.566 Total 107 290.250 2.713 Table 4.24b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three—year-old Child by Family Status for Item 129, "I take my child on trips out of the house whenever possible." 104 Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 3.828 1.627 29 Fathers 3.966 1.783 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 4.320 1.600 25 Fathers 4.280 1.595 25 Entire Population 4.083 1.647 108 Table 4.25s Results of a One—Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 838, "I encourage my child to get involved in group play." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 5.952 1.984 Within Groups (Residual) 104 416.372 4.004 0.496 Total 107 422.324 3.947 105 Table 4.25b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 838, "I encourage my child to get involved in group play." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 5.000 2.155 29 Fathers 5.448 2.229 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 5.320 1.725 25 Fathers 5.640 1.777 25 Entire Population 5.343 1.987 108 Table 4.26a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 33.691 11.230 Within Groups (Residual) 104 423.967 4.077 2.755* Total 107 457.657 4.277 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.26b Means and Standard Deviations of 106 Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 7.586 1.637 29 Fathers 6.448 2.515 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.200 2.062 25 Fathers 6.360 1.705 25 Entire Population 6.676 2.068 108 Table 4.27a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 841, "1 encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 9.257 3.086 Within Groups (Residual) 104 621.743 5.978 0.516 Total 107 631.000 5.897 Table 4.27b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 841, "I encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary." Family Status 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child Mothers Fathers 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child Mothers Fathers Entire Population Means 5.931 5.483 5.400 5.120 5.500 107 Standard Deviation Number 2.137 2.214 2.915 2.522 2.428 58 29 29 50 25 25 108 Table 4.28s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 853, "I encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 7.027 2.342 Within Groups (Residual) 104 383.890 3.691 0.635 Total 107 390.917 3.653 Table 4.28b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 853, "I encourage my child to play with children from different backgrounds." FamilySStatus 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child Mothers Fathers 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child Mothers Fathers Entire Population Means 6.621 6.069 6.480 6.040 6.306 108 Standard Deviation Number 1.425 1.944 1.896 2.371 1.911 58 29 29 50 25 25 108 Table 4.29s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E61, "1 encourage my child to express his or her feelings openly." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 3.381 1.127 Within Groups (Residual) 104 381.286 3.666 0.307 Total 107 384.667 3.595 109 Table 4.29b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E61, "1 encourage my child to express his or her feelings openly." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 5.724 1.623 29 Fathers 5.552 1.938 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.040 2.010 25 Fathers 5.840 2.095 25 Entire Population 5.778 1.896 108 Hypothesis 3 H3 There are differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness with mothers of a handicapped child more likely to show protective parenting behaviors. Hypothesis 4 H4 There are differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness with fathers of a handicapped child more likely to show protective parenting behaviors. Mothers Mothers' responses to the items representing protectiveness showed a mixture of high and low ratings by these mothers of a handicapped and nonhandicapped child. Only one item, 839, showed a significant difference between these two groups of mothers, with the mothers of a nonhandicapped child indicating that they were more likely to involve 110 their child in competitive activities than mothers of a handicapped child. The ANOVA procedure was run using the SPSS-X statistical package and produced the F-ratio and F-probability for each item. Table 4.30a reports the ANOVA results and Table 4.30b shows the mothers' mean scores and standard deviations on this item. The scores of the remaining items are similar and show no pattern of directionality. See Figure 4.2 for a graphic representation of these mothers' scores. An asterisk (*) denotes the item(s) which is(are) significantly different between these mothers. Based on the findings of this single item, H3 was accepted. Table 4.30a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 25.7989 25.7989 Within Groups (Residual) 52 177.0345 3.4045 7.5778* .0081 Total 53 202.8333 * Significant at the P<.05 111 Table 4.306 Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three—year-old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Mothers of a Handicapped Child 7.586 1.637 29 2. Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child 6.200 2.062 25 Total 6.9444 1.9563 54 112 9_ "Least Like Me" I '10 | ()4. C) 1— "M t L’k M " — 08 1 e e 0: Handicapped e = Nonhandicapped X A A A A A A A A A A Items 2 3 10 17 29 38 39 41 53 61 * Significant difference at P<.05 Figure 4.2 Mothers of a Handicapped Child and Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Protectiveness 113 Fathers Two items representing protectiveness as reported by the fathers showed a significant difference between groups. Items P02 and P03 indicated that fathers of a handicapped child were more likely to encourage their child to try new physical activities and to provide their child with the opportunity to play outdoors than fathers of a nonhandicapped child. Table 4.31s and b and Table 4.32a and b show the fathers' mean scores and standard deviations on these items. The pattern of the fathers of a handicapped child shows the opposite of the predicted direction of these items. Figure 4.3 shows these fathers' scores in graph form. These results show that fathers of a handicapped child rated seven of these items as "most like me" and three as "least like me." Indications are that these fathers do not foster protectiveness in their young children. Hypothesis H4 was rejected. Table 4.31s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 32.5579 32.5579 Within Groups (Residual) 52 198.2014 3.8116 8.5419* .0051 Total 53 230.7593 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.3lb Means and Standard Deviations of 114 Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Fathers of a Handicapped Child 3.4828 2. Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child 5.0400 Total 4.2037 2.1149 29 1.7436 25 2.0866 54 Table 4.32a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." Degrees of Source of Variation Freedom Sum of Mean Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 Within Groups (Residual) 52 Total 53 17.0495 17.0495 110.5986 2.1269 127.6481 8.0162* .0066 * Significant at the P<.05 115 Table 4.32b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." Familnytatus Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Fathers of a Handicapped Child 2.7931 1.3727 29 2. Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child 3.9200 1.5524 25 Total 3.3148 1.5519 54 116 9_ "Least Like Me" 8_ 7: ' 1. I O 9 o 6_ ., ‘. C) - C) C) C) _ 2 9 5: ' .. — 1. _ . O 4: , 1.1 — C) : o 3- 2: : o = Handicapped N ' N 1- M03"— lee “9 O: Nonhandicapped E- Items 2 3 10 17 29 38 39 41 53 61 'k * * Significant difference at P<.05 Figure 4.3 Fathers of a Handicapped Child and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Protectiveness 117 Dependence The three items which were included in the construct dependence are presented in the following list. Item 128 bears an asterisk. This denotes that parents' beliefs regarding this item were significantly different, whereas their beliefs of the remaining two items were reasonably similar. Dependence (Like). 128* I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching). 850 I encourage my child to ask for help. E70 1 step in when my child has problems with another child. The ANOVA results of these three "dependence" items along with their mean scores are reported in Tables 4.33 through 4.35. The critical F-Value with 3 and 104 degrees of freedom is >2.69. The construct was discarded due to a lack of consistency among items of the mothers' and fathers' responses. Hypothesis 5 H5 There are differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering dependence with mothers of a handicapped child more likely to foster dependent behaviors in their children. Hypothesis 6 H6 There are differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering dependence with fathers of a handicapped child more likely to foster dependent behaviors in their children. 118 Table 4.33a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squures Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 32.576 10.859 Within Groups (Residual) 104 317.498 3.053 3.557* Total 107 350.074 3.272 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.33b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 4.000 1.363 29 Fathers 4.172 1.583 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 5.200 1.732 25 Fathers 5.160 2.267 25 Entire Population 4.593 1.809 108 Table 4.34s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 850, "I encourage my child to ask for help." 119 Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 4.213 1.404 Within Groups (Residual) 104 331.222 3.185 0.441 Total 107 335.435 3.135 Table 4.34b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 850, "I encourage my child to ask for help." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 5.345 1.675 29 Fathers 5.241 2.081 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 4.840 1.519 25 Fathers 5.000 1.780 25 Entire Population 5.120 1.771 108 Table 4.35a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for 120 Item E70, "1 step in when my child has problems with another child." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 8.565 2.855 Within Groups (Residual) 104 402.731 3.872 0.737 Total 107 411.296 3.844 Mothers and Item E70, "1 Family Status 1. Parents Mothers Fathers 2. Parents Mothers Fathers of of Table 4.35b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for step in when my child has problems with another child." Means a Handicapped Child 6.483 5.897 a Nonhandicapped Child 6.280 6.640 Entire Population 6.315 Standard Deviation Number 1.661 2.440 1.969 1.655 1.961 29 29 25 25 58 50 108 121 Mothers and Fathers One of the three items under the rubric of dependence was found to be significantly different, but only between the mothers in the two groups and not the fathers. Item 128, "I help my child do most things," was reportedly "more like" the mothers of a handicapped child than the mothers in the control group. Table 4.36s reports the ANOVA results and Table 3.36b shows the mothers’ mean scores and standard deviations on this item. This was the direction which was predicted for both mothers and fathers of a handicapped child. The fathers were just shy of a significant difference, but did show a meaningful difference. See Figures 4.4 and 4.5 to see these items graphed. Hypotheses H5 was accepted and H6 was rejected. Independence The six items which composed the construct independence are noted in the following list. The four items from this list which were found to be significantly different among the entire population are marked with an asterisk (*). Independence (Like). P08* 1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself. P13* 1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike). 130* I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them. 847 I encourage my child to do things on his or her own. 849* I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself. E69 1 provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment our of doing things on his or her own. 122 Table 4.36s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year—old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F—Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 19.3333 19.3333 Within Groups (Residual) 52 124.0000 2.3846 8.1075* .0063 Total 53 143.3333 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.36b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." Family Status 1. Mothers of a Handicapped Child 2. Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child Total Means Standard Deviation Number 4.0000 1.3628 29 5.2000 1.7321 25 4.5556 1.6445 54 123 9_ "Least Like Me" ‘ .1. o l (N‘~ 1_ "Most Like Me" O = Handicapped - 0 = Nonhandicapped A A A Items 28 50 70 * * Significant difference at P<.05 Figure 4.4 Mothers of a Handicapped Child and Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Dependence 124 9_ "Least Like Me" 1: "Most Like Me" 0 = Handicapped __ O: Nonhandicapped A A A Items 28 50 7O Figure 4.5 Fathers of a Handicapped Child and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Dependence 125 The results of the ANOVA's which were run to test these six "independence" items are reported in Table 4.37 through Table 4.42 inclusively. The critical F-Value with 3 and 104 degrees of freedom was >2.69. Items P08, P13, 130, and 849 were found to be significantly different among all of the mothers and fathers in this study. More items placed under the construct of independence were found to be significantly different between both mothers and fathers in the two groups than items in the other two constructs. Figures 4.6 and 4.7 visually illustrate the items of interest for this construct. The construct failed to develop as intended because the direction of the differences was not consistent between items. Thus, this construct was abandoned as were the previous two. Hypothesis 7 H7 There are differences among mothers of a handicapped child and mothers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering independence with mothers of a handicapped child less likely to foster independent behaviors in their children. Hypothesis 8 H8 There are differences among fathers of a handicapped child and fathers of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting behaviors regarding fostering independence with fathers of a handicapped child less likely to foster independent behaviors in their children. Mothers and Fathers Fathers indicated four of the six items as significantly different between groups and the mothers revealed three of the same items as different between them as the fathers did. Mothers and fathers of a handicapped child responded in the same direction on these significant items: they regard themselves as encouraging their child to feed himself/herself and as encouraging their child to move and explore 126 freely. In addition, these mothers and fathers of a handicapped child were less likely to permit their child to make mistakes even when they could prevent them, than parents of a nonhandicapped child. Further, a significant difference between fathers was reported on Item 849, with fathers of a nonhandicapped child indicating that they were more likely to encourage their child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself, than fathers of a handicapped child. Tables 4.43 through 4.49 and Figures 4.6 and 4.7 report these findings. Based upon these results, Hypotheses H7 and H8 were rejected. Table 4.37s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 76.200 25.400 Within Groups (Residual) 104 350.800 3.373 7.530* Total 107 427.000 3.991 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.37b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." Family Status 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child Mothers Fathers 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child Mothers Fathers Entire Population Means 3.448 3.379 5.360 4.720 4.167 127 Standard Deviation Number 1.785 1.699 2.079 1.792 1.998 58 29 29 50 25 25 108 Table 4.38s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 90.470 30.157 Within Groups (Residual) 104 344.270 3.310 9.110* Total 107 434.741 4.063 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.38b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." 128 Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 4.207 1.424 29 Fathers 4.655 1.396 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.400 2.273 25 Fathers 6.040 2.131 25 Entire Population 5.259 2.016 108 Table 4.39s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when 1 can prevent them." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 68.539 22.846 Within Groups (Residual) 104 444.378 4.273 5.347* Total 107 512.917 4.794 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.39b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three—year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them." 129 Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 5.759 1.976 29 Fathers 6.379 1.590 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 4.480 2.201 25 Fathers 4.600 2.483 25 Entire Population 5.361 2.189 108 Table 4.40s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 847, "1 encourage my child to do things on his or her own." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 4.441 1.480 Within Groups (Residual) 104 204.077 1.962 0.754 Total 107 208.519 1.949 Table 4.40b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 847, "I encourage my child to do things on his or her own." 130 Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 4.103 .175 29 Fathers 4.621 .178 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 4.240 .715 25 Fathers 4.200 .528 25 Entire Population 4.296 .396 108 Table 4.41a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 37.032 12.344 Within Groups (Residual) 104 312.634 3.006 4.106* Total 107 349.667 3.268 * Significant at the P<.05 131 Table 4.41b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 6.586 1.402 29 Fathers 6.000 1.648 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.120 1.833 25 Fathers 4.960 2.051 25 Entire Population 5.944 1.808 108 Table 4.42s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E69, "1 provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment out of doing things on his or her own." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio Between Groups (Main Effects) (Family Status) 3 5.629 1.876 Within Groups (Residual) 104 205.139 1.972 0.951 Total 107 210.769 1.970 132 Table 4.42b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item E69, "1 provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment out of doing things on his or her own." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 5.483 1.455 29 Fathers 5.828 1.338 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 5.640 1.604 25 Fathers 5.200 1.190 25 Entire Population 5.546 1.403 108 Table 4.43s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 49.0676 49.0676 Within Groups (Residual) 52 192.9324 3.7102 13.2249* .0006 Total 53 242.0000 * Significant at the P<.05 133 Table 4.43b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Mothers of a Handicapped Child 3.4483 1.7846 29 2. Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child 5.3600 2.0793 25 Total 4.3333 2.1368 54 Table 4.44s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 64.5747 64.5747 Within Groups (Residual) 52 180.7586 3.4761 18.5766* .0001 Total 53 245.3333 * Significant at the P<.05 134 Table 4.44b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number' 1. Mothers of a Handicapped Child 4.2069 1.4238 29 2. Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child 6.4000 2.2730 25 Total 5.2222 2.1515 54 Table 4.45a Results of a One—Way Analysis of Variance Test for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when 1 can prevent them." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 21.9497 21.9497 Within Groups (Residual) 52 225.5503 4.3375 5.0604* .0287 Total 53 247.5000 * Significant at the P<.05 135 Table 4.45b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number' 1. Mothers of a Handicapped Child 5.7586 1.9758 29 2. Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child 4.4800 2.2008 25 Total 5.1667 2.1610 54 136 9_ "Least Like Me" h. I '1. C) I (M. I. 1: "Most Like Me" _ o = Handicapped ,1“ O = Nonhandicapped A A A A A A Items 8 13 30 47 49 69 a * * * Significant difference at P<.05 Figure 4.6 Mothers of a Handicapped Child and Mothers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Independence 137 Table 4.46s Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 24.1324 24.1324 Within Groups (Residual) 52 157.8676 3.0359 7.9490* .0068 Total 53 182.0000 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.46b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Fathers of a Handicapped Child 3.3793 1.6990 29 2. Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child 4.7200 1.7916 25 Total 4.0000 1.8531 54 138 Table 4.47a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 25.7475 25.7475 Within Groups (Residual) 52 163.5117 3.1445 8.1882* .0061 Total 53 189.2593 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.47b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." Family Status 1. Fathers of a Handicapped Child 2. Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Total Means Standard Deviation Number 4.6552 1.3958 29 6.0400 2.1307 25 5.2963 1.8897 54 139 Table 4.48a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 42.5057 42.5057 Within Groups (Residual) 52 218.8276 4.2082 10.1006* .0025 Total 53 261.3333 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.48b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them." Family Status 1. Fathers of a Handicapped Child 2. Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Total Means Standard Deviation Number 6.3793 1.5905 29 4.6000 2.4833 25 5.5556 2.2205 54 140 Table 4.49a Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Test for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. Between Groups (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 14.5215 14.5215 Within Groups (Residual) 52 176.9600 3.4031 4.2672* .0439 Total 53 191.4815 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.49b Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Fathers of a Handicapped Child 6.0000 1.6475 29 2. Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child 4.9600 2.0510 25 Total 5.5185 1.9008 54 141 9_ "Least Like Me" 8— 7: : Q _ I. Y 6_ 7' i ’ o : :f e 5: . ._ ; _ 'f I. 4: i : s 3: 2: 1: "Most Like Me" __ o = Handicapped ;— O = Nonhandicapped Items 8 13 30 47 49 69 * * * a * Significant difference at P<.05 Figure 4.7 Fathers of a Handicapped Child and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped Child Group Means for Items of the Construct Independence 142 Descriptions of Parents' Important Beliefs According to Family Status Mothers and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped/Handicapped Child. This section describes important beliefs as reported by mothers and fathers of a nonhandicapped child and contrasts these beliefs with mothers and fathers of a handicapped child. First, rankings of important beliefs of mothers of a nonhandicapped child are discussed and later contrasted with the beliefs of mothers of a handicapped child. Those items reported as "most like me" are listed under the top ten heading, while "least like me" items are found under the bottom ten listing. Next, a discussion of the important beliefs of fathers is given, following a similar format. To enable family status comparisons, rankings and mean scores of parents of a nonhandicapped child are shown in the left column of the accompanying tables, whereas the handicapped rankings are found in the right hand column. Mothers' "Most Like Me” Items--Nonhandicapped. As shown in Table 4.64, the top ten items of these mothers were divided fairly evenly between three of the developmental domains, i.e., emotional, physical, and intellectual, with items from the emotional domain being most important. No items from the social domain were mentioned in the top ten "most like me" listing. The highest ranked belief of these mothers was item E62, "1 show my child some sort of physical affection daily." Close behind was E63 where mothers expect their child to reciprocate the affection. The results show that according to the mean scores of items E57 and E64, these mothers seemed to place similar value on praise (3.56) and punishment (3.80). 143 Further, interspersed with the top affective items were important items of the physical domain (P12, P05, and P03) in regards to health, nutrition, and exercise. Finally, items 123, I32, and 134 from the intellectual domain completed the top ten listing. Table 4.64 Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort by Family Status 144 Nonhandicapped Handicapped RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN l 2.24 E62 1 show my child some sort of physical 1 1.59 affection daily. 2 3.12 E63 I encourage my child to be affectionate 5 2.72 (kissing, hugging). 3 3.16 P12 1 take my child for regular medical and 10 3.55 dental checkups. 4 3.56 E64@ 1 often praise my child. 2 2.52 5 3.80 P05@ 1 make sure my child eats nutritionally 4 2.69 balanced meals. 6 3.80 E57 1 punish my child for misbehaving. 23+ 4.41 7 3.84 123 I pronounce words correctly when I talk to 12 3.69 my child. 8 3.84 134 I often sit and read to my child or have my 16 3.83 child read to me. 9 3.96 132 I show my child how to use things or how 31 4.76 things work. 10 4.00 P03 1 provide my child with the opportunity to 11 3.66 play outdoors. 15 4.16 119* I provide educational toys or games for my 3 2.55 child. 12 4.12 P04 1 provide opportunities for my child to nap, 6 3.21 rest, or relax. 24 4.56 E72* 1 comfort my child when he or she cries at 7 3.24 night. 29 4.68 P06* 1 make sure my child has good health habits. 8 3.28 49 5.36 P08* 1 encourage my child to feed himself or 9 3.45 herself. * This item is significantly different between the mothers of these two groups. This item is significantly different between the mothers of a handicapped child. This item is meaningfully different between the mothers of these two groups. 145 Mothers' ”Least Like Me" Items--Nonhandicapped. The bottom ten rankings (least like me) and mean scores of mothers of a nonhandicapped child are presented in the left column in Table 4.65. On the right are similar data as reported by mothers of a handicapped child. All four of the developmental domains were represented in the "least like me" items of the bottom ten rankings of mothers of a nonhandicapped child. Solidly in last place was E67, "1 threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me." Noticeably evident in this bottom ten ranking but missing from the top ten listing were items from the social domain (846, 853, S39, and 849). The remaining "least like me" items formed a varied group. Table 4.65 Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Mothers Actual Sort by Family Status 146 Nonhandicapped Handicapped RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN 72 7.68 E67 1 threaten to leave my child if he/she 72 8.45 disobeys me. 71 6.64 E66 1 send my child away from me for 67 6.76 misbehaving. 70 6.56 846 I encourage my child to play mostly with 69 7.07 the same age playmates. 69 6.52 120 I encourage my child to watch T.V. 65 6.62 68 6.48 853 I encourage my child to play with children 65 6.62 from different backgrounds. 67 6.40 P13* 1 encourage my child to move and explore 21 4.21 freely. 66 6.40 P10 1 involve my child in group physical or 66 6.69 sport activities. 65 6.28 E70 1 step in when my child has problems with 62 6.48 another child. 64 6.20 839* I encourage my child to get involved in 71 7.59 competitive activities. 63 6.12 E58 1 make sure my child has some privacy. 53 5.86 43 5.24 E65* I reward my child with a gift when he or 70 7.28 she is good. 55 5.72 121* I talk with my child about T.V. programs 68+ 6.93 we watch together. 62 6.12 849 I encourage my child to be assertive or 63 6.59 stand up for himself or herself. * This item is significantly different between the mothers of these two groups. + This item is significantly different between the mothers of handicapped child. 147 Fathers' "Most Like Me" Items--Nonhandicapped. Top ten rankings and mean scores of fathers of a nonhandicapped child are shown in the left column of Table 4.66. On the right side of this table are rankings and mean scores of the fathers of a handicapped child. Twice as many items in the top ten list of these fathers came from the emotional domain (E62, E63, E71, and E64) than from the other three categories, of which the remaining items were split evenly. For the first time, items from the social domain (S37 and 854) appeared in the top ten list. These fathers also included in their top ten ranking two items each from the intellectual (126 and 125) and physical (P09 and P03) domains. As with the mothers' ranking, the highest ranked belief of these fathers was item E62, "1 show my child some sort of physical affection daily." Close behind was E63 where fathers expect their child to reciprocate the affection. Table 4.66 Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort by Family Status 148 Nonhandicapped Handicapped RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN l 2.72 E62 I show my child some sort of physical 1 1.86 affection daily. 2 2.88 E63 I encourage my child to be affectionate 6 3.31 (kissing, hugging). 3 3.52 P09 1 get involved with my child in physically 3 2.86 active play. 4 3.52 126* I encourage my child to ask questions. 39 5.24 5 3.60 837 I encourage my child to share toys. 21+ 4.52 6 3.80 E71 My spouse and I often play with our child 15 4.03 so that we can enjoy being together. 7 3.84 854* I encourage my child to take turns. 49 5.48 8 3.92 P03* 1 provide my child with the opportunity to 2 2.79 play outdoors. 9 4.04 E64 1 often praise my child. 5 3.21 10 4.08 125@ I talk with my child about what happened 42 5.28 during the day. 11 4.12 P05* 1 make sure my child eats nutritionally 4 3.03 balanced meals. 40 5.12 P06* 1 make sure my child has good health habits. 7 3.35 26 4.72 P08* 1 encourage my child to feed himself or 8 3.38 herself. 36 5.04 P02* 1 encourage my child to try new physical 9 3.48 activities. 19 4.36 P04 I provide opportunities for my child to 10 3.59 nap, rest, or relax. * This item is significantly different between the fathers of these two groups. + This item is significantly different between the fathers of a handicapped child. This item is significantly different between the fathers groups. of these two 149 Fathers' "Least Like Me” Items--Nonhandicapped. The bottom ten beliefs of fathers of a nonhandicapped child are shown in the left-hand column of Table 4.67, with their counterparts' rankings and mean scores on the right. All four of the developmental domains were represented in the "least like me" items of the bottom ten rankings of fathers of a nonhandicapped child. Items from the emotional domain (E67, E70, E66, and E68) outnumbered the other developmental areas, with social domains (S39, S46, and 853) being mentioned next as "least like me" among these fathers. In last place was item E67, "1 threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me." Table 4.68 summarizes the items which were found to be significantly different between the mothers of a handicapped and nonhandicapped child and between the fathers of a handicapped and nonhandicapped child. Table 4.67 Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Fathers Actual Sort by Family Status 150 Nonhandicapped Handicapped RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN 72 7.40 E67 1 threaten to leave my child if he/she 72 7.90 disobeys me. 71 7.08 120 1 encourage my child to watch T.V. 68 6.72 70 6.64 E70 1 step in when my child has problems with 59 5.90 another child. 69 6.52 E66 I send my child away from me for 69 6.86 misbehaving. 68 6.40 121 I talk with my child about T.V. programs 70 7.10 we watch together. 67 6.36 839 I encourage my child to get involved in 67 6.45 competitive activities. 66 6.16 E68* I teach my child to be considerate of 30 4.79 others. 65 6.16 P10 1 involve my child in group physical or 64 6.10 group activities. 64 6.12 S46@ 1 encourage my child to play mostly with 71 7.10 the same age playmates. 63 6.04 853 1 encourage my child to play with children 62 6.07 from different backgrounds. 62 6.04 P13* 1 encourage my child to move and explore 26 4.66 freely. 23 4.60 130* I let my child make mistakes even when I 66 6.38 can prevent them. 59 5.68 P07 I talk with my child about his or her body. 65 6.21 51 5.88 E56 I ignore my child's temper tantrums. 63 6.07 53 5.48 851 I teach my child behavior through example. 61 6.07 * This item is significantly different between the fathers of these two groups. @ This item is meaningfully different between the fathers of these two groups. 151 Table 4.68 Items Significantly Different Among Mothers and Fathers by Family Status Mothers Fathers P01 119 S39 E65 P01 126 S49 E68 P06 121 851 E72 P02 130 854 P08 126 854 P03 P11 128 P05 P13 130 P06 P14 136 P08 P11 P13 17/72 I 24% Significant Difference 13/72 - 18% Significant Difference 76% Agreement 82% Agreement Intra-family Differences (Mother/Father) Based on Family Status Parents, as individuals who have had unique family and life experiences, also have particular ways of interpreting their parenting role. In our society males and females are socialized differently, resulting in varied ways of determining roles within the family. Consequently we can expect mothers and fathers to have different perceptions of how they "should" behave as parent figures in their own unique families. This part of the study examines how parents within the family differ in their beliefs regarding specific parenting behaviors. The discussion focuses on family differences (mother/father) on those construct items which were found to be different among the entire population of parents according to the previously reported ANOVA's. 152 The statistical results of the repeated measures ANOVA tests on selected items are presented in the accompanying tables. Mother and father measures on the same variable are the repeated part of this procedure. The Family (N = 54) is the unit of measure (Schumm, Barnes, Bolman, Jurich, and Milliken, 1984). There are two ANOVA tables in eaclI repeated measure analysis. The first is the Between Subjects, in this case, this is the test of a difference of KIND (Nonhandicap or Handicap). The second ANOVA is the Within Subjects, or FAMILY (Mothers or Fathers). To help with further interpretations of the findings, tables which report the mean scores and standard deviations of family members' responses to each item of concern are included. Hypothesis 9 H9 There are differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness with parents of a handicapped child showing greater intra-family differences. Three items from the construct protectiveness were found to be significantly different among all of the parents in the study. They are listed in Figure 4.8. Number Item P02 1 encourage my child to try new physical activities. P03 1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors. 839 I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities. Figure 4.8 "Protectiveness" Items Which are Significantly Different Among A11 Parents According to Family Status 153 Tables 4.70a through 4.72a report the findings of the repeated measures ANOVA tests of the three items from the construct protectiveness. As indicated in Figure 4.9, the graph for item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities," illustrates an interaction between Kind and Family, disallowing any interpretation for that item. No significant differences were found between the mothers and fathers on items P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors" and 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." The Kind by Family analysis also showed no significant differences, i.e., no interactions. Figure 4.9 also provides a visual representation of the relationships between sex of parent and family status of items P03 and 839. Table 4.69 Repeated Measures Results of "Protectiveness" Items Correlations Between Subjects Within Subjects Moms Dads Items Nonhand. vs. Hand. Moms vs. Dads Nonhand. Hand. P02 .053* -- Interaction -- .03 .00 P03 .019 > No Signif. -- .09 -.10 839 .068 < No Signif. —- .20 -.09 * = should not interpret as there was an interaction In examining the degree of the mother/father differences, the trend appears to support the hypothesis but statistical evidence is lacking to sustain this position, therefore Hypothesis H9 was rejected. 154 Table 4.70a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 208.93 4.02 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 15.74 15.74 3.92 .053 WITHIN Within Cells 52 202.46 3.89 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 2.61 2.61 .67 .417 Kind by Family 1 16.83 16.83 4.32 .043* * Interaction. Table 4.70b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P02, "1 encourage my child to try new physical activities." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 4.586 2.096 29 Fathers 3.483 2.115 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 4.560 1.938 25 Fathers 5.040 1.744 25 Total 4.389 2.045 108 Table 4.71s Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) 155 Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 128.51 2.47 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 14.54 14.54 5.88 .019 WITHIN Within Cells 52 128.64 2.47 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 5.96 5.96 2.41 .127 Kind by Family 1 4.11 4.11 1.66 .203 Table 4.71b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 3.655 1.632 29 Fathers 2.793 1.373 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 4.000 1.732 25 Fathers 3.920 1.552 25 Total 3.565 1.625 108 Table 4.72a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) 156 Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F—Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 218.56 4.20 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 14.59 14.59 3.47 .068 WITHIN Within Cells 52 205.40 3.95 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 6.42 6.42 1.63 .208 Kind by Family 1 11.31 11.31 2.86 .097 Table 4.72b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 7.586 1.637 29 Fathers 6.448 2.515 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.200 2.062 25 Fathers 6.360 1.705 25 Total 6.676 2.068 108 157 9 § 1 < 3 o = Handicapped if e a: Nonhandicapped 3? Mothers Fathers P02 § 4 — H 0\o o - Handicapped O - Nonhandicapped XI I” ICO d1 Mothers Fathers P03 13. I: 0--‘~‘~“::8 e k 5 o - Handicapped 2"" e - Nonhandicapped if Mothers Fathers S39 Figure 4.9 "Protectiveness" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/Nonhandicap 158 Hypothesis 10 H10 There are differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding dependence with parents of a handicapped child showing greater intra-family differences. One item from the construct dependence was found to be significantly different among the parents in the entire population. The item is listed in Figure 4.10. Number Item 128 I help my child do most things (by showing, telling or teaching). Figure 4.10 "Dependence" Item Which is Significantly Different Among All Parents Table 4.74a reports the findings of the repeated measures ANOVA test of item 128, "I help my child do most things." The accompanying graph (Figure 4.11) gives a visual representation of the relationship between Kind and Family. No significant difference was found between the mothers and fathers on this item. In fact, nearly identical mean scores for mothers' and fathers' were found for this item. The Kind by Family analysis also showed no significant difference. Hypothesis 10 was rejected. 159 Table 4.73 Repeated Measures Results of "Dependence" Items Correlations Between Subjects Within Subjects Moms Dads Items Nonhand. vs. Hand. Moms vs. Dads Nonhand. Hand. 128 .003 > No Signif. -- .02 .12 Table 4.74a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 167.95 3.23 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 32.13 32.13 9.95 .003 WITHIN Within Cells 52 149.55 2.88 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 .12 .12 .04 .840 Kind by Family 1 .30 .30 .11 .747 160 Table 4.74b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 4.000 29 Fathers 4.172 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 5.200 25 Fathers 5.160 25 Total 4.593 108 .5. §. .— _. 2 a . ng o - Handicapped {1: O - N onhendicapped Mothers Fathers 128 Figure 4.11 "Dependence" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/Nonhandicap 161 Hypothesis 11 H11 There are differences in the extent of intra-family difference between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding independence with parents of a handicapped child showing greater intra-family differences. Four items from the construct independence were found to be significantly different among all of the parents in the study (N = 108). They are listed in Figure 4.12. Number Item P08 I encourage my child to feed himself or herself. P13 1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike). I30 I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them. 849 I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself. Figure 4.12 "Independence" Items Which are Significantly Different Among All Parents Tables 4.75a through 4.78a report the findings of the repeated measures ANOVA tests of the four items from the construct independence. One of the items, 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself," indicated a significant difference between mothers and fathers. Results indicate that mothers and fathers of a nonhandicapped child showed a significant difference on this item, whereas mothers and fathers of a handicapped child tended to show more agreement. 162 No significant differences were found among the mothers and fathers on the remaining items. This is observed by the gentle slope of the mother/father lines which are displayed on the graphs in Figure 4.13. Table 4.75a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) 163 Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 193.99 3.73 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 71.01 71.01 19.03 .000 WITHIN Within Cells 52 156.81 3.02 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 3.37 3.37 1.12 .295 Kind by Family 1 2.19 2.19 .73 .398 Table 4.75b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 3.448 1.785 29 Fathers 3.379 1.699 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 5.360 2.079 25 Fathers 4.720 1.792 25 Total 4.167 1.998 108 Table 4.76a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) 164 Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 232.80 4.48 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 85.94 85.94 19.20 .000 WITHIN Within Cells 52 111.47 2.14 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 .05 .05 .02 .876 Kind by Family 1 4.39 4.39 2.05 .159 Table 4.76b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item P13, "1 encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike)." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 4.207 1.424 29 Fathers 4.655 1.396 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.400 2.273 25 Fathers 6.040 2.131 25 Total 5.259 2.016 108 Table 4.77a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) 165 Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 278.64 5.36 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 62.77 62.77 11.71 .001 WITHIN Within Cells 52 165.73 3.19 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 3.68 3.68 1.16 .287 Kind by Family 1 1.68 1.68 .53 .471 Table 4.77b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 130, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents Mothers Fathers 2. Parents Mothers Fathers Total of a Handicapped Child 5.759 6.379 of a Nonhandicapped Child 4.480 4.600 5.361 1.976 1.590 2.201 2.483 2.189 58 29 29 50 25 25 108 Table 4.78a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Test of Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself," According to Family (Mothers and Fathers) and Kind (Handicap/Nonhandicap) 166 Degrees of Sum of Mean Source of Variation Freedom Squares Squares F-Ratio F-Prob. BETWEEN Within Cells 52 153.44 2.95 Kind (Handicap/Nonhand) 1 15.23 15.23 5.16 .027 WITHIN Within Cells 52 159.20 3.06 Family (Moms/Dads) 1 20.47 20.47 6.69* .013 Kind by Family 1 2.21 2.21 .72 .399 * Significant at the P<.05 Table 4.78b Means and Standard Deviations of Mothers and Fathers of a Three-year-old Child by Family Status for Item 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Family Status Means Standard Deviation Number 1. Parents of a Handicapped Child 58 Mothers 6.586 1.402 29 Fathers 6.000 1.648 29 2. Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 50 Mothers 6.120 1.833 25 Fathers 4.960 2.051 25 Total 5.944 1.808 108 167 I0) / :4 .3 “E —o 2 o = Handicapped 1” I = Nonhandica ed at pp Mothers Fathers P08 I Q \. .5 :4- o/0 3 o = Handicapped "M s - Nonhandicapped if Mothers Fathers P13 Figure 4.13a "Independence" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/Nonhandicap 168 I .9. 0/0 5 —-e :1. " g o = Handicapped w" 0 - Nonhandicapped if!" Mothers Fathers 130 I 9 \ Ea O--~\a\\\\\\. .14. § 1.- o - Handicapped "‘ I - Nonhandicapped {F Mothers Fathers "' S49 Figure 4.13b "Independence" Items Mothers/Fathers; Handicap/Nonhandicap 169 Table 4.79 Repeated Measures Results of "Independence" Items Correlations Between Subjects Within Subjects Moms Dads Items Nonhand. vs. Hand. Moms vs. Dads Nonhand. Hand. P08 .000 > No Signif. -- .05 .17 P13 .000 > No Signif. -- .49 .07 I30 .001 < No Signif. -- .52 -.14 849 .027 > .013 > .00 -.05 On the one item in which a mother/father difference was reported, the findings showed the opposite of the predicted outcome. Hypothesis H11 was rejected. Descriptions of Parents' Important Beliefs According to Sex of Parent This section describes important beliefs as reported by mothers and fathers of a three-year-old child. The format used here is similar to that used previously when describing the rankings of parents' beliefs. A mother and a father subset of parents of a handicapped child was formed by combining the parents' scores from the four handicapping groups for each gender. The parents of a nonhandicapped child were split into two groups according to the sex of the parent. To assist in interpreting differences in the mother/father rankings, a standard of comparison was used. A 1.0 point difference was regarded as "meaningful" and was based on the reasoning that a choice was made when placing an item in column A or column B. Since there was a 1.0 point difference from column to column, it is reasonable to assume that 170 a meaningful decision was made when the item was placed in one column than another one. The ANOVA procedure was not used to test mother/father differences, so it was undetermined how big of a difference constituted a "significant" difference. In using the Scheffe' contrasts on earlier data, a 1.2 point difference or larger was considered as a "significant" difference. The same standards will be used in interpreting the mother/father differences which follow. Mother/Father Rankings--Handicapped--Top Ten Table 4.80 presents the top ten items as reported by mothers and fathers of a handicapped child. Except for the top item, the positions of the items are varied between the mothers and the fathers of a handicapped child. In general, the two developmental areas most widely represented in the top ten items are the physical and the emotional domains. Seven of the top ten items reported by the fathers were from the physical domain contrasted with five of the ten as reported by mothers. Next favored was the emotional domain with mothers selecting four of the ten from this area compared to fathers who selected three. Noticeably missing from the top ten rankings of parents of a handicapped child were items from the social and intellectual domains. Both mothers and fathers concur that their number one parenting transaction with their handicapped child is item E62, "1 show my child some sort of physical affection daily." Agreement is also found on item P05, "1 make sure my child eats nutritionally balanced meals," which ranks fourth. "I often praise my child," is ranked within the top five items among both of the parents. The remaining rankings between mothers and fathers are scattered throughout the list. 171 As evidenced by the rankings and mean scores of items P02 and P09, meaningful differences exist between the mothers and fathers on these items from the physical domain, in favor of the fathers' "most like nmf' scores. In contrast, these mothers consider themselves to "more likely" engage in the parenting tasks as described in items 119, E72, and P12. Overall, considerable agreement is noted since only a total of 13 items was used to complete the top ten rankings among both groups. 172 Table 4.80 Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Handicapped Child Mothers Fathers RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN 1 1.59 E62 I show my child some sort of physical l 1.86 affection daily. 2 2.52 E64 1 often praise my child. 5 3.21 3 2.55 119* I provide educational toys or games for my 11 3.66 child. 4 2.69 P05 1 make sure my child eats nutritionally 4 3.03 balanced meals. 5 2.72 E63 1 encourage my child to be affectionate 6 3.31 (kissing, hugging). 6 3.21 P04 1 provide opportunities for my child to nap, 10 3.59 rest, or relax. 7 3.24 E72* 1 comfort my child when he or she cries at 27 4.66 night. 8 3.28 P06 1 make sure my child has good health habits. 7 3.35 9 3.45 P08 1 encourage my child to feed himself or 8 3.38 herself. 10 3.55 P12* 1 take my child for regular medical and 28 4.79 dental checkups. 11 3.66 P03 I provide my child with the opportunity to 2 2.79 play outdoors. 19 4.03 P09* 1 get involved with my child in physically 3 2.86 active play. 29 4.59 P02* 1 encourage my child to try new physical 9 3.48 activities. * Meaningful/significant difference 173 Mother/Father Ranking§--Handicapped--Bottom Ten "Least like me" rankings of mothers and fathers of a handicapped child are shown in Table 4.81. The order of these items vary between parents, except for the last item, E67, but the mean scores of 11 of the 13 remaining items are comparable. Total agreement is found among both parents by placing item E67, "1 threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," solidly in the last position of parent-child transactions. The two items showing a "meaningful" difference in mothers' and fathers' beliefs are 839 and E65. Close agreement is noted among the parents in regards to which parenting behaviors are "least likely" when considering that only a total of 14 items were selected to list the bottom ten rankings of both parents. Table 4.81 Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Handicapped Child 174 Mothers Fathers RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN 72 8.45 E67 1 threaten to leave my child if he/she 72 7.90 disobeys me. 71 7.59 839* I encourage my child to get involved in 67 6.45 competitive activities. 70 7.28 E65* 1 reward my child with a gift when he or she 55 5.76 is good. 69 7.07 846 I encourage my child to play mostly with the 71 7.10 same age playmates. 68 6.93 121 I talk with my child about T.V. programs we 70 7.10 watch together. 67 6.76 E66 1 send my child away from me for misbehaving. 69 6.86 66 6.69 P10 1 involve my child in group physical or 64 6.10 sport activities. 65 6.62 853 I encourage my child to play with children 62 6.07 from different backgrounds. 64 6.62 120 I encourage my child to watch T.V. 68 6.72 63 6.59 849 I encourage my child to be assertive or 60 6.00 stand up for himself or herself. 50 5.76 130 I let my child make mistakes even when I can 66 6.38 prevent them. 54 5.90 P07 I talk with my child about his or her body. 65 6.21 51 5.79 E56 I ignore my child's temper tantrums. 63 6.07 52 5.83 851 I teach my child social behavior through 61 6.07 example. * Meaningful/significant difference 175 Mother/Father Rankiug§--Nonhandicapped--Top Ten Table 4.82 presents the top ten items as reported by mothers (left column) and fathers (right column) of a nonhandicapped child. A total of 16 items were used to complete the top ten rankings among mothers and fathers in this group. All of the developmental areas are represented in the fathers' top ten list, whereas only three areas were selected by the mothers, who omitted the social domain. Both mothers and fathers concur that their number one parenting transaction with their young, nonhandicapped child is E62, "1 show my child some sort of physical affection daily." Agreement is also found on item E63, "1 encourage my child to be affectionate (kissing, hugging)," which ranks second on the list. The remaining rankings between mothers and fathers are disparate. Four of the mean scores (P12, 123, P09, and 125) reflect a meaningful difference between these parents' perceptions. Two items from the social domain (837 and 854) which appear in the top ten list were ranked highly by the fathers, but went unmentioned by the mothers. Intellectual domain items (123, 132, I34, 125 and 126) chosen for the top ten list by the parents of a nonhandicapped child outnumber those selected by parents of a handicapped child by five to one. Table 4.82 Top Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 176 Mothers Fathers RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN l 2.24 E62 I show my child some sort of physical l 2.72 affection daily. 2 3.12 E63 I encourage my child to be affectionate 2 2.88 (kissing, hugging). 3 3.16 P12* I take my child for regular medical and 28 4.80 dental checkups. 4 3.56 E64 I often praise my child. 9 4.04 5 3.80 P05 I make sure my child eats nutritionally 11 4.12 balanced meals. 6 3.80 E57 1 punish my child for misbehaving. 18 4.28 7 3.84 123* I pronounce words correctly when I talk to 32 4.92 my child. 8 3.84 134 I often sit and read to my child or have my 22 4.56 child read to me. 9 3.96 132 I show my child how to use things or how 25 4.68 things work. 10 4.00 P03 I provide my child with the opportunity to 8 3.92 play outdoors. 30 4.68 P09* I get involved with my child in physically 3 3.52 active play. 11 4.04 126 I encourage my child to ask questions. 4 3.52 14 4.12 837 I encourage my child to share toys. 5 3.60 28 4.64 E71 My spouse and I often play with our child so 6 3.80 that we can enjoy being together. 21 4.36 854 I encourage my child to take turns. 7 3.84 45 5.28 125* I talk with child about what happened during 10 4.08 the day. * Meaningful/significant difference 177 Mother/Father Rankings--Nonhandicapped-~Bottom Ten "Least like me" rankings of mothers and fathers of a nonhandicapped child are shown in Table 4.83. A total of 13 items were selected to list the bottom ten rankings among the mothers and fathers in this group. The rank order of these "least like me" items vary between parents, except for the last item, E67. Mean scores of 11 of the 12 remaining items are comparable. Total agreement is found among both parents by placing item E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," in the last position of parent-child transactions. The single item showing a meaningful difference in mothers' and fathers' beliefs is 849, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Table 4.83 Bottom Ten Ranked Items of Rural Parents of a Nonhandicapped Child 178 Mothers Fathers RANK/MEAN ITEM RANK/MEAN 72 7.68 E67 I threaten to leave my child if he/she 72 7.40 disobeys me. 71 6.64 E66 I send my child away from me for misbehaving. 69 6.52 70 6.56 846 I encourage my child to play mostly with the 64 6.12 same age playmates. 69 6.52 120 I encourage my child to watch T.V. 71 7.08 68 6.48 $53 I encourage my child to play with children 63 6.04 from different backgrounds. 67 6.40 P13 I encourage my child to move and explore 62 6.04 freely. 66 6.40 P10 I involve my child in group physical or 65 6.16 sport activities. 65 6.28 E70 I step in when my child has problems with 70 6.64 another child. 64 6.20 839 I encourage my child to get involved in 67 6.36 competitive activities. 63 6.12 E58 I make sure my child has some privacy. 46 5.24 62 6.12 S49* I encourage my child to be assertive or 34 4.96 stand up for himself or herself. 55 5.72 121 I talk with my child about T.V. programs we 68 6.40 watch together. 48 5.32 E68 I teach my child to be considerate of others. 66 6.16 * Meaningful/significant difference. 179 The Amount and Type of Family Stress According to Family Status The Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE) was the instrument used to collect data regarding the amount and types of stress in the handicapped and nonhandicapped families in this study (McCubbin, Patterson, and Wilson, 1981). FILE is a 71-item self-report instrument designed to record life events and changes experienced by a family during the last year (Recent stress). It also indicates certain life events a family experienced prior to the last year (Past stress). One FILE was completed for each family. The FILE instrument was chosen partly because of the nine subscales which depict different stressful events that all families might encounter. Another feature of the FILE is that it includes the notion of stress pile-up which is helpful in understanding the long-term effect of stressful life events experienced by a family. In addition, families with a chronically ill child were included in the sample during the standardization procedure of the instrument. The overall internal reliability (Chronbach's alpha) for the FILE is .72. Construct validity and predictive validity were reported as they correlate to other dimensions of family functioning. The nine subscales of the FILE are as follows: I. Intra-family Strains: includes items which disclose conflict issues and tension between family members, and parenting strains. II. Marital Strains. III. Pregnancy and Childbearing Strains. 180 IV. Finance and Business Strains: combining sources of increased strain on a family's supply of money, and strains arising from a family-owned business or investments. V. Work-Family Transitions. VI. Illness and Family "Care" Strains: includes illness onset and child care, chronic illness strains, and dependency strains. VII. Losses: deaths or broken relationships. VIII. Transitions "In and Out". IX. Legal: focuses on a member breaking laws. X. Total Recent Family Life Changes. XI. Total Past Family Life Changes. Hypothesis 12 H12 There are differences in total recent stress between families with a handicapped child and families with a nonhandicapped child with the families of a handicapped child likely to show greater total recent stress. Hypothesis l3 813 There are differences in total past stress between families with a handicapped child and families with a nonhandicapped child with the families of a handicapped child likely to show greater total past stress. The scores for each of the nine subscales and the total recent and past family life changes were computed. The mean scores and standard deviations of these data are shown in Table 4.84 according to family stress . Table 4.84 Group Means and Standard Deviations of Families of a Handicapped/Nonhandicapped Child for Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE) Handicapped Family 181 Nonhandicapped Family FILE Subscale Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Intra-Family Strains 3.207 1.989 3.182 2.612 17 items Marital Strains .103 .310 .273 .550 4 items Pregnancy Strains .276 .591 .500 .598 4 items Finance and Business Strains 2.069 1.462 2.227 1.478 12 items Work-Family Strains 1.862 1.787 1.545 1.535 10 items Illness and Family "Care" .793 1.177 .727 .985 8 items Losses .483 .785 .318 .568 6 items Transitions "In and Out" .138 .351 .182 .501 5 items Legal Violations .172 .468 .000 .000 5 items Total Recent Stress During Last 12 Months 9.103 5.348 8.955 5.859 71 items Total Past Stress Before Last 12 Months 3.690 3.526 3.000 2.289 34 items The MANOVA procedure was run to test for differences between the handicapped and nonhandicapped groups for each subscale and the totals. There results are reported in Table 4.85. 182 Table 4.85 Results of MANOVA Test of Families of a Handicapped/Nonhandicapped Child for Univariate F—tests on FILE Subscales With (1,49) Degrees of Freedom FILE Subscale F Sig. of F Intra-family Strains .00152 .969 Marital Strains 1.94020 .170 Pregnancy Strains 1.78076 .188 Finance and Business Strains .14530 .705 Work-Family Strains .44238 .509 Illness Strains .04493 .833 Losses .69138 .410 Transitions "In and Out" .13538 .715 Legal 2.96872 .091 Total Recent Stress .00893 .925 Total Past Stress .63628 .429 There were no significant differences within subscale scores between families of a handicapped member and families of a nonhandicapped member. Likewise, the measures of overall recent and past stress among both types of families showed no significant differences. The hypothesis for H12 and H13 were rejected. As a further comparison, the results of this study are recorded in Table 4.86, Profile of Family Life Changes. The mean scores are entered on the bar graph on the line according to each subscale. Note that all of the scores of the families of both a handicapped and a nonhandicapped child fell within the average range on the normed sample. Intro-Family Marital Pregnancy Finance-Business work-Family Transitions Illness ' Losses Transitions "In and Out“ Legal Total Recent Family Life Changes Total Post Family Life Chdhges Table 4.86 FILE Profile of Family Life Changes 1E33 —-r—E=E*23“1 1w 44* . L111L414LLJ.1L11 J $1L111 lil liIL] ' I i;2:ii52_l .._1 ‘1 n . I . l . u E J 0 ii 41 1 1 i l, 1 I 1 iii 1 Li I 1 l 1 I 1 I 1 l a l I 0 5 IO 15 20 25 . AALLIL. .lllu."JAL‘ LALLLLLLLILL.‘ 30 ALLLLJ 1A1A+llLLLlllJJ19 o a a' 35.. 40 45 50 5: 00 O = Handicapped e = Nonhandicapped 184 The Impact of the Demographic Variables on Parents' Perceptions Regressions for Significant "Construct” Items The latter part of this section reports the results of the analysis of stepwise regressions focusing on the "construct" items which were found to be significantly different between mothers and/or fathers of a handicapped/nonhandicapped child. Since only one item (S49) was found to be significantly different between mothers and fathers, a family mean was computed for the remaining items which was uSed as the dependent variable in the regression formula. Hypothesis 14 8014 Education of parent is not the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding protectiveness with their children. The results of the stepwise regressions for items P02, P03, and S39 are reported in Tables 4.87 through 4.89. The family mean for item P02, "I encourage my child to try new physical activities," was 4.36. The regression indicated mothers' occupation to be the strongest weighted factor in the model. The results show that mothers who work as a housewife were more likely to encourage their child to try new physical activities than mothers who are employed. Mothers ranking higher on the professional ladder were less likely to engage in this activity than mothers who work at a less skilled occupation. 185 Table 4.87 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P02 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R a .339 R Square - .115 F-Statistics 6.1l* Degrees of Freedom 1 and 47 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig. T Mothers' Occupation -.159 -2.47* .017 * Significant at P< The family mean opportunity to play family status to be results demonstrate .05 for item P03, "I provide my child with the outdoors," was 3.55. The regression indicated the strongest weighted factor in the model. The that families of a handicapped child were more likely to provide opportunities for their child to play outdoors than families of a nonhandicapped child. 186 Table 4.88 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P03 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R - .328 R Square - .107 F-Statistics 5.65* Degrees of Freedom 1 and 47 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig. T Family Status .773 2.377* .0216 * Significant at P<.05 The family mean for item 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities," was 6.67. The regression indicated that again the family status was the strongest predictor in the model. The results illustrate that families of a nonhandicapped child were more likely to involve their child in competitive activities than families of a handicapped child. This item was regarded as a "least like me" behavior for both of these family types so it is unlikely that either of the families will highly encourage competitive activities in their three-year-old children. The null hypothesis for H014 was accepted. 187 Table 4.89 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item S39 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year—old Child Multiple R = .291 R Square - .084 F-Statistics 4.34* Degrees of Freedom 1 and 47 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Variable Coefficient T-Statistic ‘ Sig. T Family Status -.892 -2.082* .043 * Significant at P<.05 Hypothesis 15 H015 Sex of child is not the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding dependence with their children. The results of the stepwise regressions for item 128 are reported in Table 4.90. The family mean for item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching), was 5.40. The regression indicated that sex of child was the strongest weighted factor in the model, followed by family status. The results indicated that families were more likely to help their child when it was a nonhandicapped girl and they were least likely to help their child when it was a handicapped boy. It appears that handicapped girls and nonhandicapped boys received similar amounts of help which was somewhere between the others mentioned. The null hypothesis for H015 was rejected. 188 Table 4.90 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item 128 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R = .536 R Square - .287 F-Statistics 9.27* Degrees of Freedom 2 and 46 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Cumulative Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig. T R Square Child's Sex -1.07 -2.938* .005 .19 Family Status -.88 -2.466* .017 .29 * Significant at P<.05 Hypothesis l6 H016 Sex of child is not the strongest dimension influencing parents' perceptions of their actual parenting behavior regarding independence with their children. The results of the stepwise regressions for items P08, P13, and 130 are reported in Tables 4.91 through 4.93. The results of one additional "independence" item, $49, will be reported in the next section which explains intra-family differences. This was the only "construct" item in which there was a significant difference found between mothers and fathers. The family mean for item P08, "1 encourage my child to feed himself or herself," was 4.05. The regression indicated that family status was the strongest weighted factor in the model. Families of a handicapped child were more likely to encourage their child to feed themselves than their nonhandicapped counterparts. 189 Table 4.91 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P08 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R = .495 R Square - .245 F-Statistics 15.23* Degrees of Freedom 1 and 47 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig. T Family Status 1.557 3.092* .0003 * Significant at P<.05 The family mean for item P13, "I encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike), was 5.214. The regression again indicated that family status was the strongest weighted factor in the model. Families of a handicapped child were more likely to encourage their child to move and explore freely than families of a nonhandicapped. 190 Table 4.92 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item P13 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R = .546 R Square - .298 F—Statistics l9.99* Degrees of Freedom 1 and 47 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig. T Family Status 1.88 4.472* .0000 * Significant at P<.05 The family mean for item I30, "I let my child make mistakes even when I can prevent them," was 5.34. The regression indicated that family status was the strongest weighted factor in the model, followed by mothers' religious affiliation, and mothers' education. Families of a nonhandicapped child were more likely to allow their child to make mistakes even when they can prevent them than families of a handicapped child. Families with a mother who reported that she had no religious affiliation were more likely to let their child make mistakes than those families where mothers reported that they did have a religious affiliation. Finally, as the mothers' education increased, so did the likelihood that the family would let their child make mistakes even when they could prevent them. The null hypothesis for H016 was accepted. 191 Table 4.93 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item I30 from Independent Variables for Families of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R = .627 R Square - .394 F-Statistics 9.74* Degrees of Freedom 3 and 45 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Cumulative Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig. T R Square Family Status -1.289 -2.874* .0062 .231 Mothers' Religious Affiliation 1.255 2.749* .0086 .321 Mothers' Education -.457 -2.317* .0251 .394 * Significant at P<.05 The ANOVA results of the differences between the parenting perceptions of mothers and fathers indicated that they were in more agreement than disagreement regarding their parenting beliefs. The only "construct" item (independence) showing a significant difference between mothers and fathers is was S49, "1 encourage my child to be assertive and stand up for himself or herself." The results will be shared below under hypothesis H019. Hypothesis l7 H017 There are no differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness. 192 Hypothesis 18 H018 There are no differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding dependence. There are no results to report for H017 and H018 since no intra- family differences were found on the ANOVA's for the items associated with these "constructs." The Hypotheses H017 and H018 were neither accepted nor rejected because they were not tested. According to the data, testing of these hypotheses was contraindicated. Hypothesis 19 H019 There are no differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding independence. The results of the stepwise regressions for mothers and fathers for item 849 are reported in Tables 4.94 and 4.95. The mothers' mean for item $49, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself," was 6.449. The regression indicated that the mothers' religious affiliation was the strongest weighted factor in the model, followed by sex of child. The results showed that mothers who have no religious affiliation tended to promote assertiveness in their daughters more so than in their sons. The mothers least likely to promote assertiveness in their youngster were those who had a religious affiliation and a son. 193 Table 4.94 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item $49 from Independent Variables for Mothers of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R = .436 R Square - .189 F-Statistics 5.39* Degrees of Freedom 2 and 46 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Cumulative Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig.T R Square Mothers' Religious Affiliation 1.013 2.318* .0249 .101 Child's Sex -.956 -2.239* .0300 .190 * Significant at P<.05 The fathers' mean score for item S49, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself," was 5.447. The regression indicated that family status was the strongest weighted factor in the model. The results show that these fathers of a nonhandicapped child were more likely to encourage their child to be assertive than fathers of a handicapped child. The hypothesis for H019 was rejected. 194 Table 4.95 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Parenting Perceptions Regarding Item S49 from Independent Variables for Fathers of a Three-year-old Child Multiple R = .316 R Square - .099 F-Statistics 4.98* Degrees of Freedom 1 and 45 Stepwise Regression Procedure Unstandardized Regression Variable Coefficient T-Statistic Sig. T Family Status -1.213 -2.232* .0306 * Significant at P<.05 Family Stress Since the results of the MANOVA test on the family stress data revealed no significant differences between families of a handicapped member and families of a nonhandicapped member, there were no data to analyze for the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 20 H020 There are no differences between the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for the variance in the family stress regarding total recent family life changes. Hypothesis 21 H021 There are no differences between the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for the variance in family stress regarding total past family life changes. 195 The hypotheses for H020 and H021 were neither accepted nor rejected because they were not tested. According to the data, hypothesis testing was contraindicated. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This study was designed to explore the parenting beliefs of first- time parents of a handicapped child and to compare them with the beliefs of first-time parents of a nonhandicapped child. An investigation of similarities and differences in mothers' and fathers' perceptions in these two groups was accomplished. The parenting beliefs of mothers and fathers of a handicapped child were investigated in relation to the nature and degree of their child's handicapping condition. In addition, family stress was evaluated for both groups. Finally, the relationship between the parents' perceptions of their parenting behaviors and the demographic variables which impact on parent/child transactions was examined. As in the Results chapter, the discussion is organized by research question. Research Question 1 Do mothers of a handicapped child and fathers of a handicapped child differ in their perceptions of their actual parenting behaviors depending on the nature and the degree of the handicap, i.e., E.M.I., T.M.I., 3.1., and Other? The results of the analyses indicated that there were significant differences in some of the parenting beliefs between the mothers and between the fathers of children with different handicapping conditions. As reported, significant differences among mothers were found on seven of the Q-sort items whereas fathers differed on six of them. The following discussion describes these differences between the mothers and then focuses on the fathers' differences. 196 197 Mothers of a Handicapped Child The three items from the physical domain on which the mothers differed were P09, "1 get involved with my child in physically active play," P16, "I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch," and P18, "I provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise." There was evidence that mothers of a child with severe impairments regard their child's physical development as a higher priority than mothers who child has a sensory or otherwise mild impairment. This may be the case because the children in the 8.1. group often have multiple disabilities, including cerebral palsy, which impairs their motor functioning. As such, physical or occupational therapy is part of their daily regimen to develop these motor skills. Parents of young children are taught to administer therapeutic procedures in the home as they dress and/or play with their child. However, it is unnecessary for parents in the Other group to consider their child's physical development as a major concern providing he or she is already making satisfactory progress in this area. The one item from the intellectual domain on which these mothers differed concerns talking about television programs with their child, with the E.M.I. mothers rating this as "most like me" and mothers from the Other group rating it as "least like me." One possible explanation for this is that children in the Other group watch less television due to their visual and hearing impairments. Being unable to see or hear the television comfortably would deter them from watching it. Parents of E.M.I. children who talk with their child about television programs they watch together are using this experience to develop language skills as well as to interact socially. 198 There were no significant differences in mothers' perceptions by handicapped type among social domain items. This suggests that there is agreement across groups on social items. The remaining three items which showed significant difference between these mothers were from the emotional developmental domain. The information from items E57 add E60 suggested that the trend in child management techniques among these mothers was that more punishment and more talk about misbehavior was directed towards mildly impaired children with gradually less punishment given and less talk about misbehavior done as the impairments became more severe. This is understandable in that the more severely handicapped children are less likely to misbehave due to their limited physical and verbal abilities. The more capable the child, then the greater the variety of child management techniques being used. Based on scores from items E71, it appears that according to these mothers' perceptions that husband, wife and children with the milder impairments were more likely to interact as a triad enjoying each others company than parents of more severely impaired children. Mothers' Important Beliefs Mothers' ”Most Like Me” Items--Handicapped. The emotional domain was regarded as most important to these mothers, with over half of the total items in the top five from each group being selected from this domain. The next most popular domain was the physical, followed by intellectual, and in last place was the social, with no representation in the top five rankings. Total agreement among mothers was found across the four types of handicapping conditions on the number one ranked items. Mothers from 199 each handicapping category ranked item E62, I show my child some sort of physical affection daily, to be the foremost item as "most like me." The remainder of the rankings showed more variation although there was a modicum of agreement since only a total of 12 items were needed to identify the top five items across the four groups. Three of the four groups ranked E64, "1 often praise my child," among the top five. The mothers who ranked this item lower (in seventh place) were mothers of T.M.I. children. Providing nutritionally balanced meals was more important for mothers in the two groups of the more severely impaired children (T.M.I. and S.I.) than it was for mothers with a mildly impaired child, who rated this item as less important as the child’s impairment lessened. Mothers from all of the groups were in close agreement in placing item 119, I provide educational toys or games for my child, within the top five or six items. This suggests that these mothers value intellectual pursuits regardless of the type or degree of their child's handicap. The two items shown to be significantly different as a result of the ANOVA procedure were E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together," and P09, "1 get involved with my child in physically active play." Mothers from the two groups with the mildest types of handicaps (Other and E.M.I.) included item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together," in their top five. Their group means were significantly closer to "most like me" on this item than mothers from the groups having more severely impaired children. Based on this finding it appears that mothers of more severely impaired children consider it 200 "less likely" that they and their spouse play with their child so they can enjoy being together than the mothers in the other two groups. This may indicate a tendency within a family of severely impaired children to work more than play together and that these parents find outlets other than playing with their child to enjoy being together. It also suggests that parent-child interactions within these families may be on a one-to- one basis which could allow one parent respite while the other provides childcare. The other item found to be significantly different between these mothers is P09, "I get involved with my child in physically active play." The two groups with divergent beliefs on this item were the 8.1. group and the Other group. Mothers of 8.1. children ranked this item regarding physically active play as significantly closer to "most like me" than the mothers of lesser impaired children in the Other group. Children with milder handicaps usually need less encouragement to become physically active than children with severe impairments. The 8.1. children usually require daily physical involvement from a caretaker as part of their physical/occupational therapy treatment program. Mothers' "Least Like Me" Items--Handicapped. More items from the social domain were represented in these mothers' bottom five rankings than the rest of the domains combined. There were no items from the physical domain selected as "least like me." There was complete agreement among these mothers on the item which they considered to be "least like me." Item E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," was ranked by the mothers in all four groups as the least likely behavior in which they engage. This item is negatively loaded and contrasts with these mothers' top ranked item which is emotionally positive. 201 Three of the four groups ranked items 839, E65, and I21 in the bottom five category. These mothers considered themselves least likely to: encourage competitive activities; reward their child with a gift for being good; or, talk with their child about T.V. programs they watch together. The one group in four that differed in the placement of these items were: The Other group mothers perceived themselves as more likely to encourage competitive activities, and the Severely Impaired group mothers were more likely to reward their child for being good. The last item, 121, regarding talking with their children about T.V. programs they watch together, was found to be significantly different among these groups of mothers. The results of the ANOVA procedure showed that the mothers of Educable Mentally Impaired children were more likely to talk to their child about T.V. programs they watch together than the rest of the mothers. It is suggested that E.M.I. children may be more receptive to television viewing than the remaining handicapped groups which impairments, mental or otherwise, probably interfere with this activity. In addition, these mothers may see the value in this activity as it relates to their child's intellectual and social development. Two of the four groups ranked items 846 and E66 within the bottom five category. The mothers with a child in one of the two groups with milder impairments (Other and E.M.I.) considered themselves least likely to encourage play with same age playmates. The mothers with a child in one of the two groups with more severe impairments (T.M.I. and S.I.) perceived themselves as least likely to send their child away from them for misbehaving. Both of these items seem to reflect an attitude of showing more care and protection for children with more severe disabilities. 202 There was more overall agreement in what constitutes least desirable parenting behavior than in the previous ranking of most desirable parenting traits, since only nine items were used to rank the bottom five items among the four handicapping groups, whereas 12 items were used to identify the top five items. Fathers of a Handicapped Child Fathers of a handicapped child differed in their parenting perceptions on one item from the physical domain. The fact that only one item was significantly different among fathers suggests that fathers were more in agreement about physical domain items than mothers who showed differences in four times as many of these items. Fathers with a child in the 8.1. group ranked item P12, "I take my child to regular medical and dental check-ups," closer to "most like me" than fathers in the E.M.I. category who considered the item to be closer to "least like me." It appears that regular contact with professional health care workers is more typical of fathers with an 8.1. child than fathers in any other group. Due to the nature of the multiple problems associated with 8.1. children it is reasonable that this item is appraised as it is. Overall, item 12 was ranked higher by mothers as "most like me," with a mean score of 3.55, than fathers, whose mean score of >1 point difference (4.79) suggesting that mothers, more than fathers, are responsible for this caretaking activity. Fathers differed on two items from the intellectual domain. Fathers of E.M.I. children were more inclined to "play number and word games with their child" than fathers in the other handicapping groups, while S.I. fathers reported this item to be more "least like me." Playing number and word games with their child was shown to be more 203 appropriate for fathers of children with a mild mental disability than for fathers of Severely Impaired children. These mildly mentally impaired children are most likely more "ready" for these intellectual tasks than their severely impaired peers. Item 127, "teaching a child to have a good memory," was rated as "most like me" by fathers of 8.1. children and "least like me" by fathers of T.M.I. children. Playing peek-a-boo is a task used to develop memory and establish object permanence, normally during infancy. The 8.1. fathers undoubtedly interpreted this item accordingly, indicating that their severely impaired child is functioning at this developmental level, which is much lower than their peers. It is unclear why T.M.I. fathers ranked themselves as "least like me" on this item except that their child has mastered this task and has advanced toward more appropriate developmental tasks. Two items from the social domain were found to be significantly different among these fathers. The two items were concerned with sharing toys and getting involved in group play. Fathers in the Other group chose item 37, "I encourage my child to share toys," as their number one selection as "most like me." Evidently their three-year-old child is developing his or her social skills right on schedule so that learning to share is a top priority. Likewise, seeing that the ability to share also enhances the child's chances for social acceptance, a mainstreaming issue, may spur fathers in this group to regard this behavior highly. Item 38, "I encourage my child to get involved in group play," was regarded by fathers of the E.M.I. group as "most like me." Three-year- old E.M.I. children most likely will be attending a half-day preschool 204 special education program with mainstreaming. Participating in a group activity with nonhandicapped peers may encourage their fathers to value the development of social skills and to do what they can to help make this happen. The 8.1. fathers rated both of these social items as "least like me." Due to an 8.1. child's severe limitations, he or she is unable to relate to other people in socially typical ways. They lack motor, mental, and communication abilities which are required for a child to share toys. They are unable to participate in group play for the same reasons. One item, E72, in the emotional domain showed a significant difference between these fathers. It showed a bipolar placement with T.M.I. and 8.1. fathers reporting that they were more likely to comfort their child at night than fathers in the E.M.I. and Other groups. The trend seems to be that the more severe the disability, the more likely the father will comfort his child at night. Conversely, children with a milder handicap are less likely to be comforted by their father at night. The mothers' responses need to be considered as well in order to get the total impact of this parenting activity on parent-child interactions. Fathers' Important Beliefs Fathers' "Most Like Me" Items--Handicapped. These fathers favored items from the physical domain to express their "most like me" parenting beliefs more than items from any other developmental area. In second place were items from the emotional domain. Items from the social and intellectual domains were given the least value. 205 There was agreement among three of the four groups regarding the number one item. All fathers except those in the Other group ranked E62, "1 show my child some sort of physical affection daily," as the predominant item. In this respect they concurred with the mothers' perceptions. The group of fathers who dissented from this view were the fathers from the Other group who chose S37, "1 encourage my child to share toys," as their "most like me" item. There was an extreme difference of opinion on this item, with fathers of the Other group ranking it as their number one choice and fathers of the 8.1. group listing it as number 69. As a result, it showed up as significantly different on the ANOVA procedure. The next item that was ranked in the top five list by fathers in three of the four groups was P03, "1 provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." The group who differed from this ranking was the fathers of 8.1. children. Children with severe impairments are often nonambulatory which makes it difficult for these children to play outdoors. In this case, caregivers either provide for indoor play activities or arrange for their disabled child to be transported outdoors by a wheelchair. Two of the four groups ranked items P09, E64, and P05 within the top five category. Fathers in the groups of E.M.I. and 8.1. perceived themselves as getting involved with their child in physically active play (P09) and often praising their child (E64) whereas fathers in the other two groups placed less emphasis on these behaviors. Fathers in the two groups of more severely impaired children, T.M.I. and 8.1., ranked P05, "I make sure my child has good health habits," as their second most important item. There was a steady pattern of placing less 206 importance on this item as the severity of the handicap lessens. Encouraging good health habits is probably one area in which these fathers can exert some control over their child's condition. It is also an activity which reflects the "survival" nature of rearing a severely impaired child. Each of the remaining items of importance were specifically ranked by only one of the groups as one of their top five choices. Of interest is item E55, where fathers in the Other group were the only ones who indicated that they regard "spanking their child when necessary" to be an item of importance to them. Fathers in the 8.1. group were the only ones to rank P04, "I provide opportunities for my child to nap, rest, or relax," as an item of consequence. And learning to eat independently (P08) was placed in the top five listing only by fathers with a T.M.I. child. Fathers' "Least Like Me" Items--Handicapped. The developmental domains were evenly represented in the bottom five listing, except for the physical domain which was included in only two of the 13 items listed. Three of the four groups ranked E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," as the item which is "least like me." In this respect these fathers' selection of the bottom item corresponded with the mothers' choice. The group of fathers who dissented from this view (8.1. group) selected 121, "I talk with my child about T.V. programs we " as their least likely parenting behavior. The same watch together, three groups of fathers (E.M.I., T.M.I., and Other) were in agreement on items S46, "1 encourage my child to play with the same age playmates," by placing it within the bottom five ranking. 207 Two of the four groups ranked items 839, 120, and E66 in the bottom five category. These fathers considered themselves least likely to: encourage competitive activities; encourage T.V. watching; or, to send their child away from them for misbehaving. The remaining eight items were singularly considered as "least like me" by one of the groups of fathers. In these bottom five rankings, the E.M.I. fathers solely included items E58 and E65; the T.M.I. fathers listed P07; the 8.1. fathers reported items 121, I22, and S37; and, the fathers from the Other group chose I30 and P17. Decision Statement The results of the statistical analyses which were run to detect differences in parental perceptions of their behaviors according to type and severity of handicapping condition showed that although differences were found among the four groups, they were nonetheless more alike than different, both from the mothers' point of view and also from the fathers'. As such, they were regarded as a group unto themselves for further analysis, rather than being subdivided into separate categories according to type/severity of handicapping condition. Research Question 2 Do mothers and fathers with a handicapped child differ from mothers and fathers with a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions of actual parenting activities regarding protectiveness, dependence, and independence? The literature on families of a handicapped child consider that these families are prone to overprotect their offspring and thereby foster dependent behavior in their young handicapped child. The family dynamics related to this parental behavior are understandable and yet the outcome of developing an individual who is dependent on others, possibly for a lifetime, conflicts with current educational philosophy 208 of developing the quality of independence in all persons, regardless of handicapping condition. This study examined the three constructs of protectiveness, dependence, and independence, as operationalized by a panel of experts, to investigate the soundness of the existing literature. Building Constructs: Protectiveness, Dependence, and Independence Two different methods were used to identify, and then to establish the reliability, of the following constructs: protectiveness, dependence, and independence. First, a panel of experts was asked to select, from the pool of 72 Q-sort items, those items which reflect the qualities of the constructs of interest. Those items chosen by the panel in which there was at least 80% agreement were included under the rubric of the selected constructs. In addition, to verify the cohesiveness of the selected construct items, statistical tests were run on the data. Without establishing the statistical reliability of the constructs, any subsequent statistical procedure would produce confounding results. The following discussion explains the steps taken to substantiate the selections made by the panel so that these constructs could be identified and further utilized. Reliabilities, Discriminant Analysis, and Factor Analysis The results of the statistical analysis to determine the reliability of the constructs produced coefficients ranging from -.1121 to .2273. Although the constructs were theoretically sound, they did not conform to the results of the parents' responses, and as such had limited usefulness in answering the research questions. Plotting the responses of the mothers and the fathers on a graph provided a visual explanation 209 of why the reliabilities were low. Although the responses of the entire population of 108 parents were used to determine the constructs' reliabilities, this discussion is organized by sex of parent to match the results of the hypotheses. Protectiveness The reliability coefficient for the ten items which comprised the construct protectiveness was .2273. This was the highest reliability of the three constructs which were tested. Of the ten items, only three were found to be significantly different among all of the parents based on family status. The mothers differed on item, 839, "I encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities." The difference between the mothers was in the hypothesized direction, with mothers of a handicapped child less likely to encourage competitive activities than their nonhandicapped counterparts. Although the mothers of both groups ranked the item toward the "least like me" end of the continuum, the mothers of a handicapped child were more extreme in their beliefs, suggesting they are more protective of their handicapped child than the mothers in the nonhandicapped group. Children with a handicap are less likely to be successful when competing with their nonhandicapped peers so it is understandable why these mothers responded as they did. Due to the inability to maintain fair competition between the handicapped and nonhandicapped population, "special" programs, such as special education and Special Olympics, have been developed to enhance the chances for success among the handicapped population. The remaining nine "protectiveness" items on which the mothers showed relative agreement show mothers of a handicapped child favored 21C) protective behaviors on four of the items whereas mothers of a nonhandicapped child perceived themselves to exhibit protective behaviors on five of the items. With this bi-directional trend, the construct among the mothers did not develop. The fathers differed on two of the ten items under the construct of protectiveness. They were P02, "I encourage my child to try new physical activities," and P03, "I provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors." Both items were in the same direction, but opposite of the direction hypothesized. It appears that fathers of a handicapped child are not overly protective with their young child since on these items they scored themselves as "more likely" to engage in these outgoing activities than fathers of a nonhandicapped child. These fathers seemed to recognize the value of these physical activities as they contribute toward their child's development. They showed relative agreement in the remaining eight items, with five of the items showing fathers of a handicapped child to be less protective than fathers of a nonhandicapped child. Protectiveness seems to be a parenting trait in which all parents of a young child engage to some extent, irregardless of whether or not the child has a handicapping condition. The mixture of high and low responses rather than a general trend in one direction, among both the mothers and the fathers, explained why the reliability test was low. The plan of using the construct "protectiveness" was abandoned due to no empirical support from the data. 211 Dependence The construct of dependence consisted of three items. The reliability coefficient for these items was .1139, indicating low reliability among this construct. One of these items was found to be significantly different among all of the parents according to family status. The mothers differed on item 128, "I help my child do most things (by showing, telling, or teaching)." The difference was in the hypothesized direction, with mothers of a handicapped child more likely to help their child do most things than their nonhandicapped counterparts. The mothers were stronger in their beliefs on this item than they were on the protectiveness item, S39, regarding subjecting their child to competition. This suggests that these mothers of a handicapped child are more protective in their "helping" parenting behaviors than mothers of a nonhandicapped child. Most likely, young handicapped children, due to their slower rate of development, elicit more "helping" responses from their mothers than do their nonhandicapped peers. Additionally, in their desire for their handicapped child to develop to the utmost, mothers take an active role in their child's development by helping him/her to do most things. The remaining two items showed reasonable agreement between these mothers but the direction of both items, 850 and E70, was opposite to the hypothesized direction. This indicates that mothers of a nonhandicapped child are likely to be protective of their youngster by stepping in when their child has problems with another child and by encouraging their child to ask for help. 212 Fathers did not differ significantly on any of the three items concerned with the construct dependence. Fathers responses were mixed and bi-directional, contributing to the low reliability of the construct. Fathers of a handicapped child were in agreement with their spouses on item 128, indicating that they help their child do most things just as much as their spouses do. These fathers of a handicapped child also tended to step in when their child has problems with another child more so than any of the other parent groups. The overall reliability of the three items from the construct dependence was lower from the ten items comprising the construct protectiveness. The construct of dependence was discarded in favor of resorting to an item by item analysis. Independence The six items which composed the construct independence had a reliability coefficient of -.1121. This was the weakest reliability of the three proposed constructs. Although more of the items were significantly different than in the other two constructs, they showed less consistency. Two of the three items in which the mothers differed favored the mothers of a handicapped child to foster independence, the opposite direction of what was hypothesized. The remaining item was weighted in the reverse direction, thereby cancelling out the cohesiveness in the proposed construct. The three items which were found to be significantly different between mothers were: P08, P13, and I30. The mothers of a handicapped child rated themselves as "more likely" to encourage their child to feed himself/herself and to encourage their child to move and explore freely. 213 To encourage these skills is to encourage independent behavior on the part of the children. It seems that the mothers of a nonhandicapped child rated themselves as "less likely" to engage in these behaviors, not because they discouraged independent behavior in their children, but because their children acquired these skills promptly and needed no encouragement to do so. On the other hand, mothers of a nonhandicapped child were "more likely" than their counterparts to let their child make mistakes even when they can prevent them. The mothers of a handicapped child apparently feel it is unwise to allow their child to make mistakes for fear that they may get into the habit of doing it wrong. Once a handicapped child learns a "wrong” pattern of behavior, intensive effort is required to relearn the task. The remaining independence items on which the mothers showed relative agreement indicate a mixture of strength and direction, thereby cancelling out the consistency among items. The fathers' scores indicated differences on four independence levels. Three were the same as the mothers, and in the same direction. The additional item was, S49, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Fathers of a nonhandicapped child were "more likely" to promote assertiveness in their child than were fathers of a handicapped child. This item adds to the strength of the hypothesis but is cancelled by the conflicting results of the other constructs items. In general, mothers and fathers from both groups showed mixed results on their parenting behaviors related to the construct independence. 214 In summary, based on the construct items which were significantly different between parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child, the mothers of a handicapped child were more likely to exhibit parenting behaviors that contribute toward protectiveness and dependency, whereas fathers of a handicapped child did not. Finally, mothers and fathers of a handicapped child were in agreement in their parenting perceptions regarding items from the construct independence, showing behaviors which both enhance and inhibit independence in their child. Nonconstruct Items The nonconstruct items which were found to be significantly different between mothers and fathers according to family status were presented in the appendix section for information only. Since they were unrelated to the research question, the results will not be discussed here. They do, however, provide a broader understanding of the differences between these two types of families. The other methods which were used to derive constructs from the data were explained in Chapter IV. The statistical techniques of discriminant analysis and factor analysis both failed to develop groups of items to form useful constructs as intended. The conflicting responses to individual items help explain why construct building was difficult to achieve. Description of Parents' Important Beliefs According to Family Status Mothers and Fathers of a Nonhandicapped/Handicapped Child Mothers' "Most Like Me“ Items--Nonhandicapped. The top ten items of these mothers of a nonhandicapped child were divided fairly evenly between three of the developmental domains, i.e., 215 emotional, physical, and intellectual, with items from the emotional domain being most important. The highest ranked item by these mothers was item E62, "I show my child some sort of physical affection daily," directly followed by item E63, "1 encourage my child to be affectionate (kissing, hugging)." We see that an expectation of these mothers is that their child return the affection which is given them. No items from the social domain were mentioned in the top ten "most like me" listing by these mothers. Within the emotional domain, both positive and negative emotions were included, with the positive items outnumbering the negatives ones three to one. In this respect, affection and praise were reported as high priority, but following close behind was punishment for misbehaving. This demonstrates the view that both positive and negative emotions are believed to be needed for effective discipline, with the emphasis toward the positive pole. In looking at mean scores of praise and punishment, the results showed that these mothers seemed to place similar value on praise (3.56) and punishment (3.80). Further, interspersed with the top affective items were important items of the physical domain in regards to health, nutrition, and exercise. Three items from the intellectual domain completed the top ten listing. In summary, these mothers' parenting perceptions seemed to suggest the importance of placing sharing emphasis on the development of their child's spirit, body, and mind. They most likely would subscribe to the holistic developmental model as presented in the review of literature of this study. What was missing at this point were indications of the importance of a child's social development. 216 Mother/Mother Contrasts Mothers from both groups agreed on the importance of the number one items, E62, "I show my child some sort of physical affection daily." Subsequently, there was 802 agreement between these mothers regarding the importance of the top five items. Although ranking positions varied, four of the five of the highest ranked items were found at the top of both mothers' lists. These are: E62, E63, E64, and P05. Significant differences between these mothers were found regarding their mean scores on items 119, E72, P06, and P08. In this respect, mothers of a handicapped child considered themselves to be more likely to provide educational toys or games for their child than the mothers of a nonhandicapped child. This suggests that these mothers value educational accomplishment for their handicapped child. It may be a matter of helping their child compensate for his/her limitations by placing more emphasis of learning tasks at an early age. These same mothers were "more likely" to comfort their child when he or she cries at night than mothers in the nonhandicapped group, indicating that young handicapped children require more attention during the nighttime hours than their nonhandicapped peers. Mothers of a handicapped child indicated that they "make sure their child has good health habits" more so than the mothers of a handicapped child. The physical dimension of health appears to be the foundation of a child's development and an area in which the mother has some control. And finally, mothers of a handicapped child considered themselves as "more likely" to "encourage their child to feed himself or herself" suggesting that a nonhandicapped child will learn this task automatically does not need further encouragement from his/her mother. 217 Two items represented a meaningful difference between these mothers. They are, E64 and P05. Mothers of a handicapped child regarded themselves to "praise their child" and to "make sure their child eats nutritionally balanced meals" more so than their nonhandicapped counterparts. Children having limited abilities benefit from the praise they receive from persons in their human environment. This helps spur them on to put more effort into their daily developmental tasks. Mothers' ”Least Like Me” Items--Nonhandicapped All four of the developmental domains were represented in the "least like me" items in the bottom ten rankings of mothers of a nonhandicapped child. These mothers placed firmly in the last place item E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me." This was followed by item E66, "1 send my child away from me for misbehaving." Both of these items have a "rejection" quality to them that these mothers rated as "least like me." These rural mothers permitted their three-year-old to play with children of different ages but they were unlikely to encourage relationships with children from different backgrounds. There are fewer opportunities to interact with persons from a different culture in rural Michigan than in an urban setting. These mothers also indicated that they were "least likely" to "encourage their child to watch T.V." It may be that either young children do not need encouragement to watch T.V. by their mothers or that these mothers discourage T.V. viewing and prefer their child do other activities. Noticeably evident in this ranking but missing from the top ten listing were three items from the social domain. Ranking these social items as "least like me" does not indicate that socialization was unimportant to these mothers. The items themselves do not seem to 218 pertain to important social development issues in the life of a three- year-old child. Mother/Mother Contrasts Mothers from both groups agreed on the most extreme "least like me" item, E67, by placing it solidly in last position. This makes an obvious statement of their strong disapproval of threatening to leave their child in order to get compliance from him/her. Comparing mean scores and rankings of mothers of a nonhandicapped child with mothers of a handicapped child, we find the former mothers less likely to encourage their child to move and explore freely, and more likely to encourage their child to get involved in competitive activities; reward their child with a gift when he or she is good; and, talk with their child about T.V. programs they watch together. The mothers of a handicapped child appeared to still be involved with developing their child's gross motor abilities by ranking P13 as "more like me" than their nonhandicapped counterparts, whose children apparently do not need encouragement to move and explore freely. It has been previously mentioned that handicapped children are further "handicapped" when it comes to competitive activities, thus mothers of a handicapped child were "less likely" than mothers of a nonhandicapped child to encourage involvement in competitive activities. Mothers of a handicapped child offered more praise to their child for his/her accomplishments (as reported in the last section) but were "less likely" than mothers of a nonhandicapped child to reward with a gift for good behavior. It could be that handicapped children "need" and "deserve" a gift for being good more so than their nonhandicapped peers, but their mothers seem to expect good behavior without offering a tangible reward. 219 Lastly, mothers of a handicapped child were "less likely" to "talk with my child about T.V. programs we watch together" than mothers of a nonhandicapped child. Talking with a three-year-old child requires verbal skills on the part of both the mother and the child. It is common for a handicapped child to experience delayed language skills, either receptively or expressively or both. Talking about T.V. programs which they watch together is a good way for a mother to help develop her child's language skills. Fathers' ”Most Like Me” Items--Honhandicapped Twice as many items in the top ten list of these fathers of a nonhandicapped child came from the emotional domain than from the other three categories, of which the remaining items were split evenly. All four of the items from the emotional domain reflect positive efforts to build sound, loving father/child relationships. Like the mothers, these fathers chose items E62 and E63 as their first and second ranked items, representing the parent/child reciprocity of affection. According to these fathers' perceptions, they ranked item E71, "My spouse and I often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together," as an important item, even though their spouses did not concur. They were in agreement with their spouse by considering it important to "praise our child." For the first time, items from the social domain appeared in the top ten list. These fathers chose S37 and $54 to show that they encourage prosocial behavior (sharing and taking turns) in their three-year-old children. These fathers of a nonhandicapped child, ranked these social items higher than any other group. Perhaps due to their experience in the workplace they have learned to value these traits. 22C) In their top ten rankings, these fathers also included two items each from the intellectual and physical domains, indicating that they promote their child's curiosity by encouraging their child to ask questions and they stimulate verbal skills by talking with their child about what happened during the day, as well as, actively play with their' child, and provide opportunities for their child to play outdoors. Iteni P09, "I get involved with my child in physically active play," was ranked in the third position by both groups of fathers but it did not appear at all on the mothers' top ten listing. Based on their placement of items in the top ten listing from the intellectual domain, these fathers chose different methods of stimulating their child's intellectual abilities than the parents in the other groups. Father/Father Cogparisons Fathers from both groups agreed on the importance of the number one item, E62, I show my child some sort of physical affection. Beyond this, fathers disagreed on half of the remaining top ten items. Fathers of a nonhandicapped child were "more likely" than fathers of a handicapped child to: encourage their child to ask questions; encourage their child to take turns; and, talk with their child about what happened during the day. They were "less likely" to provide opportunities for their child to play outdoors than fathers of a handicapped child. These findings point out the differences in the roles of fathering a more verbal, intellectually curious, and socially competent nonhandicapped child and fathering a child who seems to exhibit delayed development in the physical domain who needs continual stimulation in order to develop their physical abilities. 221 In general, fathers of a handicapped child placed heavy emphasis on their child’s physical development at the expense of slighting the intellectual and social areas. These children seem to still be at the sensory-motor stage of development, which precedes, and is the foundation for, the remaining developmental areas (Piaget). Seven of the top ten items ranked by these fathers came from the physical domain, with the remaining three from the emotional domain. Fathers' "Least Like Me" Items--Honhandicapped All four developmental domains were represented in the "least like me" items which were found in the bottom ten rankings of fathers of a nonhandicapped child. Items from the emotional domain, some negative and others positive, outnumbered the other developmental areas, with social domain items being next most popular as "least like me" among these fathers. In last place was item E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me." Following close behind was, "I encourage my child to watch T.V.," item 120. These fathers also perceived themselves as refraining from "stepping in when their child has problems with another child," E70, nor did they consider "talking with their child about T.V. programs they watch together," (121), as an important parenting behavior. Involvement in "group competitive activities" seemed inappropriate for these fathers of a three-year-old, as did "encouraging play with children of the same age or different background." Father/Father Comparisons Fathers from both groups agreed on the most "least like me" item, E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," by placing it in last position. Subsequently, there was 80% agreement among these 222 fathers regarding the importance of the bottom five items. Although the ranking positions varied, four of the five lowest ranked items were found at the bottom of both fathers' lists. These were: E67, 120, E66, and 121. Fathers from both groups agreed that they are "least likely" to "encourage my child to watch T.V.," "send my child away from me for misbehaving," or "talk with my child about T.V. programs we watch together." Differences were found between these fathers when examining their mean scores on items E68, S46, P13, and I30. In this respect, fathers of a handicapped child considered themselves to be "more likely" to: "teach their child to be considerate of others," and "encourage their child to move and explore freely," than their counterparts. Conversely, fathers of a nonhandicapped child considered themselves to be "more likely" to: "encourage their child to play mostly with same age playmates" and, "let their child make mistakes even when they can prevent them," than fathers in the handicapped group. Fathers of a handicapped child, probably in an attempt to develop their child's social skills which will contribute to his/her social acceptance and success in the mainstream, rated themselves as "teaching my child to be considerate of others," more so than the fathers of a nonhandicapped child. The fathers of a handicapped child also reported that they were more apt to "encourage my child to move and explore freely," than their counterparts, in order to improve their child's gross motor skills. On the other hand, fathers of a nonhandicapped child considered that they allowed their child to "make mistakes even when I can prevent them," which puts them in a more permissive, relaxed and trusting mode of parenting than the fathers from the other group. 223 It is unclear why these fathers of a nonhandicapped child tend to be reluctant in permitting their child to play with children other than same age playmates. Research Question 3 Do parents with a handicapped child differ from parents with a nonhandicapped child in the extent of intra—family differences in their perceptions of their parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness, dependency and independence? In our society males and females are socialized differently, resulting in varied ways of determining roles within the family. Consequently we can expect mothers and fathers to have different perceptions of how they "should" behave as parent figures in their own unique families. Although the constructs of protectiveness, dependence and independence did not materialize as anticipated, certain of the construct items were predictably reliable and were found useful for further analysis. To study mother/father differences among families with a handicapped/nonhandicapped child, those construct items which were determined to be significantly different between either the mothers or the fathers were singled out for further study. In this case, the unit of study was defined as the Family, as formed by combining the mothers' and the fathers' scores. The repeated measures ANOVA procedure was used here to take into consideration the "family factor," where there was more than one family member contributing input, rather than making a simple comparison between the mothers' and/or the fathers' scores. In general, on most of the items which were analyzed, the findings showed that the parenting beliefs of the mothers and fathers tended to be more alike than different. 224 The one exception of these data was found on item S49, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Fathers were significantly "more likely" to endorse this belief than mothers. Fathers of a nonhandicapped child were the "most likely" of all the groups of parents to support this parenting behavior. Of the remaining seven items which were analyzed for mother/father differences, six of them supported the theory of a "family factor." That is, there was general agreement among the mothers and fathers according to the family status to which they belong, i.e., handicapped/ nonhandicapped. The amount of agreement/disagreement between the mother/father combinations did not vary considerably according to family status as predicted. Mother/father combinations showed similar patterns of agreement/disagreement irregardless of whether their child was handicapped or not. The one item in which there was an interaction amounted to a mathematical difference of only .026 between mean scores. Descriptions of Parents' Important Beliefs Accordingpto Sex of Parent Mother/Father Rankipgs--Handicapped--Top Ten In general, the two developmental areas most widely represented in the top ten items were the physical and the emotional domains. Seven of the top ten items reported by the fathers were from the physical domain contrasted with five of the ten as reported by mothers. Next favored was the emotional domain with mothers selecting four of the ten from this area compared to fathers who selected three. Noticeably missing from the top ten ranking were items from the social and intellectual domains. 225 Both mothers and fathers concurred that their number one parenting transaction with their handicapped child was showing some sort of physical affection daily. Agreement was also found on the health issue of making sure their child eats nutritionally balanced meals, which ranked fourth. The remaining rankings between mothers and fathers were scattered throughout the list. These mothers of a handicapped child perceived themselves as more likely than the fathers to provide educational toys for their handicapped child; to comfort their child when he/she cries at night; and to take their child for regular medical and dental checkups. Fathers on the other hand considered themselves as more likely to encourage their child to try new physical activities and to get involved in physically active play with their child than do the mothers. Mother/Father Rankings--Handicapped--Bottom Ten Close agreement is noted between parents regarding which parenting behaviors were least likely when considering that only a total of 14 items were selected to list the bottom ten rankings of both parents. The order of these items varied between parents, except for the last item, but comparable mean scores of 11 of the 13 remaining items suggest similar beliefs among these parents. Total agreement was found among both parents by placing item E67, "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," solidly in the last position of parent-child transactions. Two items showed a meaningful difference in mothers' and fathers' beliefs in rearing their handicapped child. Keeping in mind that these are two of the most "least like me" parenting activities, results indicated that fathers were more likely than mothers to encourage their 226 child to get involved in competitive activities, and also "more likely" to reward their child with a gift when he or she is good. In general, these parents reported more agreement in their beliefs about what not to do with their child than what £p_gp. Mother/Father Rankings--Honhandicapped--Top Ten More variation was found in these parents' perceptions of their parenting behaviors than in the parents of a handicapped child, in that a total of 16 items were used to complete the top ten rankings among mothers and fathers in this group compared to only 13 items used by the group of parents of a handicapped child. All of the developmental areas were represented in the fathers' top ten list, whereas only three areas were selected by the mothers who omitted the social domain. This contrasts with the parents of a handicapped child who favored two developmental domains as their top ten choices, namely, physical and emotional. Intellectual domain items chosen for the top ten list by the parents of a nonhandicapped child outnumbered those selected by parents of a handicapped child by five to one. Both mothers and fathers concurred that their number one parenting transaction with their young, nonhandicapped child was to show their child some sort of physical attention daily. Agreement by both parents was also found on the second "most like me" item which is to encourage their child to be affectionate (kissing, hugging). The remaining rankings between mothers and fathers were disparate although only four of the mean scores reflected a meaningful difference. These mothers, as with the mothers of a handicapped child, perceived themselves as more likely than fathers to take their child for regular 227 medical and dental checkups. In addition, mothers of a nonhandicapped child considered that they, more than the child's father, pronounced words correctly when they talk to their child. On the other hand, these fathers, as with the fathers of a handicapped child, perceived themselves as more likely than mothers to get involved with their child in physically active play. Finally, fathers of a nonhandicapped child considered that they, more so than the child's mother, talked with their child about what happened during the day. The only two items from the social domain which appeared in the top ten list of these parents were ranked highly by the fathers, and unmentioned by the mothers. Mother/Father Rankings--Nonhandicapped--Bottom Ten Close agreement is noted between both of the parents regarding which parenting behaviors were "least likely" when considering that only a total of 13 items were selected to list the bottom ten rankings of both parents. The order of these "least like me" items varied between parents, except for the last item, but comparable mean scores of 11 of the 12 remaining items suggest similar beliefs among these parents. Like the parents of a handicapped child, total agreement was found among both parents of a nonhandicapped child by indicating that it was "least like" them to threaten to leave their child if he/she disobeys them. This parenting behavior was placed solidly in the last position of parent-child transactions. The single item that showed a meaningful difference in these mothers' and fathers' beliefs as a "least like me" activity was "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself." Results indicated that fathers were more likely than mothers to encourage assertiveness in their young child. 228 As with parents of a handicapped chid, these parents of a nonhandicapped child reported more agreement in their beliefs about what 225 to do with their child than what to do. Based on the foregoing results, early evidence indicates that part of the variance in the parents' responses can be attributed to their spouses' shared involvement with the child. What is meant by this is, the mother and father work as a partnership, each with their own family and parenting roles. If the mother scores high on an item, then perhaps the father will score it lower, indicating that one of the two are interacting in a certain way with their child so that the other parent need not take on this job. The responses of the parents of a handicapped child tend to be more extreme than their nonhandicapped counterparts. In comparing the parents' scores of the "most like me" and "least like me" activities we find that parents of a handicapped child indicate that they are more intense in their beliefs than parents of a nonhandicapped child. Research Question 4 Do families with a handicapped child differ from families with a nonhandicapped child in their reported types and amounts of family stress regarding family life changes? The results of the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE) indicated that there were no significant differences between families of a handicapped child and families of a nonhandicapped child regarding the types and amounts of family stress. Each of the nine subscales which encompass the FILE and the totals of recent and past family life changes demonstrated similarities between these two family types. All scores from both of the family types fell within the normal range when compared to the standardized sample. 229 Three subscales were closer to significance than the remaining eleven measures. Firstly, the families of a handicapped child were more likely than their nonhandicapped counterparts in this sample to be involved with legal issues. This is explained due to the reportedly "zero" involvement with the law according to the nonhandicapped families, whereas the handicapped families had minimal legal violations. Overall, even the handicapped families were below the norm when compared with the standardized population. Next, marital strains was a subscale which showed some degree of difference between these two groups of families. Both types of families in this study were within the average range when compared to the normed group, however, the nonhandicapped families in this study tended to show higher marital strains than the families of a handicapped child. This is contrary to what was hypothesized according to some of the literature. Finally, these families tended to differ regarding pregnancy strains, with the families of a nonhandicapped child likely to show almost twice the amount of pregnancy strains as the families of a nonhandicapped child. Item Analysis Noticeable differences were found in the item analyses. Item 13 from Intra-family strains, "Increase in the amount of 'outside activities' which the child(ren) are involved in," showed that families of a handicapped child were twice as likely to answer "yes' on this item than families of a nonhandicapped child. Likewise, Item 14, "Increased disagreement about a member's friends or activities," followed the same trend. Finally, families of a handicapped child were twice as likely to answer "yes" on "increase in the number of tasks or chores which don't get done." 230 With marital strains, both families were similar in their responses, in that all families reported that no "spouse/parent was separated or divorced" during the past three years. "Increased difficulty with sexual relationship between husband and wife," was more predominant in the nonhandicapped couples than in their handicapped counterparts. The parents of a nonhandicapped child were almost twice as likely to "give birth or adopt a child" as parents of a handicapped child. Significantly more families of a handicapped child (three) "went on welfare" than the families of a nonhandicapped child, who reported no incidence of this happening. Overall, only 10% of the handicapped sample indicated that they had gone "on welfare." Families of a handicapped child were more apt to "move to a new apartment/home" than their nonhandicapped counterparts. A child "changing to a new school" was decidedly more like a family with a handicapped child. It was nearly twice as difficult "to arrange for satisfactory child care" for families of a handicapped child than for families of a nonhandicapped youngster. Two families of a handicapped child experienced the death of a child whereas no child deaths were reported in the families of a nonhandicapped child. Families of a handicapped child reported minor legal violations, i.e., "a member went to jail or juvenile detention;" "a member was picked up by police or arrested;" "a member ran away from home;" and "a member dropped out of school or was suspended from school." There were no reported incidences of "physical or sexual abuse or violence in the home" of either of these two types of families. 231 Possible Explanations The results are encouraging, yet at the same time baffling. Families of a handicapped child are reportedly victims of higher levels of stress than nonhandicapped families. The results of similar levels of stress reported by the sample group and the control group may be explained by a number of factors. The total recent stress (during the last 12 months) was even for these two groups. The total past stress (before the last 12 months) tended to be higher for the families of a handicapped child and pointed toward the direction of a meaningful difference. During the initial phase of dealing with the shock of the unexpected crisis of giving birth to a handicapped child, stress levels are at their highest. A higher level of past stress as noted among these families of a handicapped child may support the claims found in the literature. Subsequently, as time passes and the family begins to adjust to the reality of their situation, they begin the process of working toward "normalization" and "acceptance." It takes time to take the necessary steps toward finding the resources that are needed to meet the child's needs, and in turn to help the family return to a state of equilibrium. During the years of adjusting to their "different" child, families are in contact with specialists and community resources whose mission it is to provide needed family support services. Medical, educational, and financial support is available. By age three, handicapped children often begin a formal preschool program. All families who participated in this study were identified by being associated with a special education preschool program in their local school district. During the course of the 232. interview, these families reported the numerous agencies and various resources from which they have had services. It is felt that since these families have found the necessary family support services by the time their child is three-years-old, that their levels of family stress are within the normal range. Another possible reason for not showing differences among handicapped and nonhandicapped families on the stress instrument is that the areas where families of a handicapped child experience a significant amount of stress (emotional/psychological) are not measured on the FILE. Further investigation must be made into this issue of family stress. Finally, the results of this study support the position that levels of stress among families of a three-year-old child are similar regardless of whether the child has a handicapping condition or not. Research Question 5 Are there differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parent, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for the variance in parents' perceptions of actual parenting activities regarding protectiveness, dependence, and independence? The proposed constructs of protectiveness, dependence, and independence did not uphold the test of reliability so they were unable to be used in their entirety. However, each construct contained items which when analyzed by themselves helped to provide a better understanding of the differences between the families with a handicapped or nonhandicapped child. The independent variable which accounted for the greatest percentage of variance according to the stepwise regressions was family status. All but one of the items which were analyzed included family status as one of the predictors which accounted for the variance in the parents' 233 responses. This finding supports the major thesis of this research whose main emphasis has been to study the impact on which the presence of a handicapped child has upon the parents' beliefs. The other independent variables which accounted for a significant amount of the variance in parents' responses were: A. Mothers' occupation: mothers who spent more time at home with their child rather than at a job away from home were more likely to encourage their child to try new physical activities. B. Mothers' religious affiliation: mothers who indicated that they had no religious affiliation accounted for 9% of the variance in letting their child make mistakes even when it could be prevented. C. Mothers' education: mothers with higher educational levels were more apt to let their child make mistakes than mothers with less education. D. Sex of child: parents were most likely to help their child do most things, thereby facilitating a dependent relationship, if the child was a nonhandicapped girl. Conversely, parents were least likely to help their child do most things, thereby fostering independence in the child, if the youngster was a handicapped boy. Research Question 6 Are there differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for variance in intra-family differences (mother/father) in their perceived actual parenting behaviors regarding protectiveness, dependence, and independence? One item from the construct independence, S49, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself," was found to be significantly different between the mothers and the fathers. Stepwise regressions were run separately on the mothers' data and also the fathers'. 234 Mothers The two factors which accounted for 19% of the variance in these mothers' responses on this item were: mothers' religious affiliation and sex of child. The mothers' religious affiliation had a negative effect on the "assertiveness" item, so that these mothers were least likely to promote assertiveness in their children if they were affiliated with a religion. The effect of sex of child on the "assertiveness" item with these mothers was that they were more likely to encourage assertiveness in their daughters than in their sons. In explaining these influences, it seems as though assertiveness is contrary to religious teachings, which are stronger at promoting a loving, thoughtful, and considerate attitude than in exhibiting assertive qualities. Regarding the association between the mother/daughter dyad in promoting assertiveness, this may be one impact that the women's movement has had on the mothers of today as it has influenced their parenting attitudes. In general, the mothers' religious affiliation placed a negative impact on promoting assertiveness on their child, whereas the child's sex (girl) tended to emphasize the promotion of assertiveness by these mothers. Fathers With the fathers, the one factor which contributed significantly to the amount of variance in the "assertiveness" item was family status. Those fathers of a nonhandicapped child encouraged their child to be more assertive, regardless of the sex of the child, than the fathers of a handicapped child. None of the other variables entered into the equation. This finding supports the hypothesis that parents of a 235 handicapped child are less likely to promote independence in their child, as it pertains to this item, than their nonhandicapped counterparts. Research Question 7 Are there differences in the strengths of the independent dimensions of family income, occupation, sex, age and education of parents, religious affiliation, family status, and sex of child in accounting for the variance in family stress regarding family life changes? Stepwise regressions were not run on the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE) subscales or totals since the results of the MANOVA's indicated there were no significant differences on these measures between families of a handicapped member and families of a nonhandicapped member. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY The childrearing perceptions of the mothers and the fathers in the study were analyzed in three parts. First, according to the type or severity of their child's handicap; then, according to family status, based upon the presence of a handicapped or nonhandicapped child in the family; and lastly, according to intra-family (mother/father) differences based on family status. The two formats which were used to present the data in each part included the analyses of items found to be significantly different among parental groups based on results of the ANOVA procedure, and a ranking of important beliefs of mothers and fathers, ranging from "most like me" to "least like me." The handicapped sample was organized into four groups according to the type and degree of the child's handicap. There were three categories of mental impairment ranging from mild to severe (educable mentally impaired, trainable mentally impaired, and severely impaired) and a fourth category, called Other, which included sensory and impairments other than mental. The results of the analyses indicated significant differences on some of the parenting beliefs between the mothers and between the fathers of children from different handicapping conditions. Overall, mothers differed in their beliefs on seven of the Q-sort items, whereas fathers differed on six of them. 236 237 The main concern of this study was how parents of a handicapped child differ from parents of a nonhandicapped child in their perceptions regarding parent-child interactions. Eight of the nineteen items which were tested using the ANOVA procedure were found to be significantly different by family status among the mothers and fathers in this study. The results were somewhat contradictory, clearly calling for further research. The mothers of a handicapped child, however, were found to be more likely to exhibit "protective" behaviors, by indicating they were less likely to encourage their child to be competitive than mothers of a nonhandicapped child. An opposite pattern than the one predicted occurred for the fathers, with fathers of a handicapped child showing less "protective" behaviors, indicating they were more likely to encourage physical and outdoor activities than fathers of a nonhandicapped child. In addition, mothers of a handicapped child indicated that they were more likely to foster "dependent" behavior by helping their child do most things than mothers of a nonhandicapped child. Fathers showed no significant difference in this regard. Four items associated with fostering "independent" behavior in children were reported as significantly different between these two groups of parents. Mothers and fathers of a handicapped child reported that they encourage physical accomplishment but are less likely to allow their child to make mistakes than mothers and fathers of a nonhandicapped child. Only between the fathers was there a difference in the assertiveness item, with fathers of a handicapped child less likely to encourage assertive behavior in their child than fathers of a nonhandicapped child. 238 Both groups of parents agreed on the top ranked item, "I show my child some sort of physical affection daily." Similar agreement among both groups was reported by ranking "I threaten to leave my child if he/she disobeys me," as the least favored item. Differences between these two groups are noticed by further examining the ranking data. These rankings suggest that mothers and fathers of a handicapped child are more intense in their parenting beliefs than parents of a nonhandicapped child. The group means for items at each end of the ranking spectrums are ranked by parents of a handicapped child closer to the "most like" or "less like" them extreme than their nonhandicapped counterparts. Another difference between these groups was their parenting belief ranked second in importance. Parents of a nonhandicapped child consider the second most important item to be to encourage their child to be affectionate, whereas parents of a handicapped child rank this item to be their fifth (mothers) or sixth (fathers) choice. Intra-family differences examined how parents within the family differ in their beliefs regarding specific childrearing behaviors. Mother/father differences were analyzed on those items (eight in all) found to be significantly different among the parents in the study. Of these eight items showing major differences between parents' beliefs, one was found to be significantly different for mothers and fathers. The item showing this mother/father difference was $49, "I encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself," with fathers reporting that this item as "more like" them than the mothers. Greater mother/father differences on this item were found between mothers and fathers of a nonhandicapped child than between the parents of a handicapped child. 239 Other variables accounting for variance on this item were the mothers' religious affiliation, and the sex of the child. The results showed that mothers who have no religious affiliation tend to promote assertiveness in a daughter more so than in a son. The rankings of parents' important beliefs show the fathers more likely to interact with their child on a physical level and mothers to be more concerned with child care, educational and health related issues. The results of the families' responses to the family stress instrument, the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE), indicated no significant differences in the amounts and types of family stress between families of a handicapped child and families of a nonhandicapped child. There was however a trend for families of a handicapped child, to report meaningfully more "past stress" than families of a nonhandicapped child. One reason for these findings may be that the families have had three years since the birth of their child to adjust to the crisis of parenting an atypical youngster and to identify necessary coping resources. It is possible that by the time these families were interviewed, much of their stress had been relieved. Eleven demographic variables were analyzed to determine their relationship to parents' perceptions. Of these, five were found to have significant effects. The five independent variables which accounted for the greatest amount of variance according to the stepwise regressions were: family status, mothers' occupation, mothers' religious affiliation, mothers' education, and sex of child. Among these, the single most influential variable was family status, or the presence of a handicapped or nonhandicapped child in the family. All but one of the items which were examined reported family status as the predictor which 240 accounted for the most variability in the parents' responses. This finding supports the major thesis of this study as regards to the impact of having a handicapped child on parents' childrearing beliefs. Apparent in the remaining variables which were found to relate to parenting perceptions is the mothers' role. Three of the four remaining variables involved either the mothers' occupation, religious affiliation, or education as accounting for variability in parents' responses. Sex of child was also shown to have a relationship to parent-child interactions. In summary, the primary contributions of this study were: 1) the identification of the ways in which parents of a handicapped child vary in their childrearing perceptions according to the type and severity of their child's handicapping condition; 2) the identification of the ways in which parents of a first-born three-year-old child vary in their childrearing beliefs according to their family status; 3) the identification of the ways in which mothers and fathers vary in their perceptions of parent-child interactions; 4) the identification of the relationships between parents' childrearing perceptions and selected demographic variables; and 5) the examination of family stress issues among these families. Although the findings of this study have provided normative data indicating how parents of a handicapped child and parents of a nonhandicapped child perceive their interactions with their offspring, the results are limited and call for further research. Limitations of the Study There are several limitations of the study which deserve consideration. The overall sample size was small. In addition, dividing the handicapped sample into four groups according to the 241 type/severity of the child's handicapping condition resulted in balanced but even smaller cell sizes. Further sampling limitations arose from differences in sampling characteristics between the mothers and the fathers in the two groups. In general, the parents of a nonhandicapped child were three to four years younger, had approximately one more year of schooling, and contained fewer non-employed mothers than the parents of the handicapped group. Income levels in the families of a handicapped child were skewed more toward the lower income ranges than the nonhandicapped families. Also, the families of a handicapped child contained disproportionately more boys than girls, whereas the mix between boys and girls in families of the nonhandicapped children was even. Finally, the sample was limited to first-time mothers and fathers from intact families living in rural Michigan. Because of this latter restriction, the research is limited in its generalizability to American families at large. Voluntary participation in the study might have resulted in a sample of parents who felt confident in their parenting roles and possibly less threatened than those parents who chose not to participate. If so, the results contain an additional bias. Overall, the parents' motivation to participate is undetermined. The self-report nature of the criterion data is another limitation. There were no observations of actual parenting behaviors, only self- reports from each parent. How accurately these self-reports reflect actual childrearing beliefs and concomitant childrearing behaviors is unknown. Further systematic, reliable observations of parent-child behavior is needed. 242 The average age of the children in the study whose parents were interviewed was approximately 37 months. The data are limited to these parents' childrearing perceptions at this point in time and will undoubtedly change over time. Implications and Suggestions for Future Research These findings are preliminary and suggest that future research be directed toward validating parental reports of their childrearing beliefs by combining them with observational data of actual of parent- child interactions. Future investigations into family stress issues are also needed on a longitudinal basis to determine how families are affected by different stressors at different stages of the child's developmental cycle. This study also indicates a need for more research emphasis on the social dimensions of rearing a three-year-old handicapped child. With the exploding trend in educational practice toward the inclusion of fill children into the mainstream of education, regardless of handicapping condition, comes increased family responsibilities to prepare children having a handicapping condition to interact in social situations with their handicapped peers. The data indicate that parents agree more on what not to do as a parent than what £g_gg. Further research examining more proactive approaches to parenting, rather than reactive methods, is needed. Finally, this research would encourage the increased inclusion of both mothers gpd fathers as research subjects. Too often in the past the fathers' contributions in childrearing endeavors have been overlooked in research studies. As fathers become more involved in parenting activities, knowledge regarding their parenting functions is becoming more and more important in understanding the ecological development of the child within the family system. APPENDIX A NC-158 Q-SORT INVENTORY OF PARENTING BEHAVIORS BIC-158 Q-SORT INVENTORY OP PARENTING BEHAVIORS We“ P01. P02. P03. P04. P05. P06. P07. P08. P09. P10. P11. P12. P13. P14. P15. P16. P17. P18. I encourage my child to use his or her hands skillfully (reach for a rattle or color or cut with scissors). [encourage my child to try new physical activities. I provide my child with the opportunity to play outdoors. [provide opportunities for my child to nap, rest, or relax. [make sure my child eats nutritionally balanced meals. I make sure my child has good health habits. [talk with my child about his or her body. [encourage my child to feed himself or herself. [get involved with my child in physically active play. [involve my child in group physical or sport activities. [ encourage my childs eye/hand coordination (reaching or grasping an object or assembling a puzzle). [take my child to regular medical and dental check-ups. [encourage my child to move and explore freely (crawling around the floor or walking around the yard or riding a trike). [help or encourage my child to take a bath. ”l encourage my child to clean his or her mouth or teeth each day. I teach my child to roll, kick, throw, or catch. [ encourage my child to be involved in motor activities in spite of minor bumps and bruises. [provide my child with daily opportunities for physical exercise. 243 244 Intellectual [19. [provide educational toys or games for my child. [20. [encourage my child to watch television. [21. [ talk with my child about television programs we watch together. [22. [play number and word games with my child. [23. [pronounce words correctly when [talk to my child. [24. [show my child how to solve a problem step by step. [25. [talk with my child about what happened during the day. [26. [encourage my child to ask questions. [27. [teach my child to have a good memory (play peek-a-boo; find toys that have been hidden; remember a story he or she has heard). :28. [help my child do most things (by showing, telling. or tannins)- [29. [take my child on trips out of the house whenever possible. V [30. [let my child make mistakes even when [ can prevent them, [31. [talk to my child about how things look or how things happen. [32. [show my child how to me things or how things work. [33. [teach my child how to help me. [34. [often sit and read to my child or have my child read to me. [35. [listen when my .child tells me stories. [36. [ encourage my child to be creative. M 83?. 838. S3 9. S40. 841. 842. 343. 345. 846. 847. 848. 849. 850. 851. 852. 353. $54. 245 [encourage my child to share toys. [encourage my child to get involved in group play. [encourage my child to be involved in competitive activities. [encourage my child to play with both boys and girls. [encourage my child to defend himself or herself if necessary. [encourage my child to initiate games with other children. [encourage my child to help other children. [ encourage my child not to be shy. [teach my child to be responsible. [encourage my child to play mostly with the same age playmates. [enema-age my child to do things on his or her own. ' [teach my child to be polite. [encourage my child to be assertive or stand up for himself or herself. [encourage my child to ask for help. ‘- I teach my child social behavior through example. [teach my child to obey rules [have set. [encomge my child to play with children from different backgrounds. [encourage my child to take turns. 246 Emotional 355. E56. 857. £58. £59. EGO. E61. 262. £83. £34. 385. 266. E67. E68. 369. E70. E71. E72. [spank my child when necessary. [ignore my child's temper tantrums. [punish my child for misbehaving. [make sure my child has some privacy. [encourage pretend play for expression of feelings. [talk to my child about his or her misbehavior. [encourage my child to express his or her feelings OPOHIY- . [show my child some sort of physical affection daily (kisses, NEWS: 993-) [encourage my child to be affectionate (kissing. buzzing)- [often praise my child. [reward my child with a gift when he or she is good. [ send my child away from me, for misbehaving (put in crib or send to bedroom). [threaten to leave my child if he or she disobeys me. [teach my child to be considerate of others. [ provide opportunities for my child to make choices so as to get enjoyment out of doing things on his or her own. [step in when my child has problems with another child. My spouse and [often play with our child so that we can enjoy being together. [comfort my child when he or she cries at night. APPENDIX B BACKGROUND-~DEMOGRAPHIC--INFORMATION [D interview Questions: Background -- Demographic -- information Either or both parents: [."He would like to know a bit about your background. Would you tell me your age. educational background. and occupation?" Hother: Age (years) Father: Age g(years)_ Education (years)_ Education .iyear§)_ Occupations(s) Occupations(s) . 2. “To be able to describe the sample of families helping with this research we would appreciate knowing your approximate family income. About how much would you eStimate your family income was last year? How would you describe your ethnic background? Have you been living here for the last three years? or in this con- munity? Yes No Comment: 3. "Let's talk about now. when was '(cnild's name) fichild's name) born? (month) (day)? (year) Is your first child? Yes No (circle answer) (child's name) (if not the first child. ask “How many older children are there in your family? ) "How many younger children?" Ages? was the birth “routine" or were there some complications or a multiple birth? How did you feel about having the baby? How is doing now? IIEhiio's name) 247 5. 10. Do you consider yourself affiliated with an organized religion? 243 Yes Ho If yes. which religion: Are your parenting attitudes mainly influenced by: D The way you were raised (your parents' styles) O Professional recommendations and advice (doctors ,teachers etc DHedia (books, movies, ‘1'. V., P. 2.1.. etc.) D Friends' recommendations and advice UYour spouse's style UOther 24y biological parents are: How much time do you spend each Elli“. ‘ §u_s_b_gn_d_ week working outside the home? married to each other . separated 3333' ' divorced Average hours spent working both deceased outside the home (job) weekly father deceased, mother living _mother deceased, father living —father has remarried mother has r-arried Husband : Average hours spent working outside the hone (Job) each week: From birth to age 6 I lived with: . wife Husband my. biological father and mother my biological father and step- mother my mother only my father only my guardian other ( please specify) From ages 7-12 I lived with: Life Husband _my biological father and mother _my biological father and step- mother _my biological mother and step- father my mother only _my father only mvguardian _other ( please specify) From ages 119-18 I lived with: Wife Husband my biological father and mother _my biological father and step- mother _my biological mother and step- father _my mother only my father only my guardian other (please specify) 249 What agenciesflnstitutions/organizations have you been involved with since the birth of your chili? Name of organization Rate your satisfaction of the helpfullness ofeaditoyoufamfly. What additional services would be beneficial to you? What is/was the family’s reaction to your child? How. would things be differenot if you lived in an urban area rather than a rural one? See if you can predict rural/urban differences? Additional omments: APPENDIX C FAMILY INVENTORY OF LIFE EVENTS AND CHANGES FAMILY STRAINS AND PARENT'CHILD INTERACTIONS GO W’IN’l-IAM). THE IMWWI’IW on nus ouesnowims mu. HELP us TO see HAYS nut STRAINS WITHIN THE FAMILY AND FAMILY INTERACTIONS ARE RELATED. 250 PURPOSE Over their hie cycle. all tamilies experience many changes as a due IO external circumstances The IoIlowrng IISI OI Iamily M: r. members are connected to each other in some way. Iamlty to some degree. term commitment. ”FAMILY" means a group oI two or more marriage or adoption. This persons living together who are related by blood. includes persons who live with you and to whom you have a long DIRECTION '0'!) INS CHANGE HAPPEN IN YOUR FAMILY?" Please read each lamily IiIe change and decide whether It happened to any member at your lamily—lncluding you. a DURING THE lAST YEAR FI'“. decide it it happened any time during the last 12 months and check YES or NO. 0 BEFORE LAST YEAR Second. for some family changes decade H II happened anytime beIore the last 12 months and check YES or NO It IS okay to check YES twice it it happened both times-belore last year and during the past year. J ,Dueingiast‘ ”Mantis Yes No it t! idea test I: Mgr-the Yes No U 0 result at normal growth and development at members and hangcg can happen in a Iamily at any time. Because Iamily a lite change tor any one member allects all the other persons in the DID 1N! CHANGE DID "It CHANG! HAPPEN IN want» in man IAMILV’ YOUR FAMILY? FAMILY LIFE CHANGES -°""_‘ '"'—' FAMILY LIFE CHANGES . Dunne test Ielere last Denna last Islets us: I? Merits I? l-‘ontt-s '2 Months I? "We 'es No Yes No Yes No Yes No I Will-“MI" S'IRAINS I2 Inrreaged dullrculty tn managtng mIantIsI U D t Increase e' husband'lathet s tune away n D 'r H '1 lO-l "’ "W """’V t) Increase an the amount at ”eats-de act-mes" D D 1 Increase el ante-mother's tame away i l n U U “M” "" ‘M‘m" "' ”I'M " "a “m” M Increased DISI'IGM about a member's D D 3 A member appears to have IMMMI C C? I] U Inends er actmtues eblems at l5 Increase an the number 0' problem er mes C O I A member appears to depend on «the! 0 Cl 0 0 “my. “.1 I" resolved ' or ‘3'th . .. ts lrtrease an the number at tests er shares 0 D 5 Increase n tenllvct bemen husband 5' I.- m” don‘t get done and was I Increase as arguments beneeen pavendsl ' I1 I? time...“ "an." mu m...“ .g .m D [j , it‘d (Midtefil . 7 lrcrease It (00M! among eNdren In I l (1 I ““33“ ”um; the “new ' I lrcveased dr’lacult‘l in Inseam I l, I I! Spouse parent was separated or snorted D U C teenage thlrenl _ ___— 9 lat-eased Mu!" a mum srheel -' l ' l l" Spouse parent has at- ena-v U U C! age cn-Idtrerl IS '2 vs! . .. _ --....... . . - ...... -......_ -” M- _-.. . . - M. - - -- --. 20 2"err-true dammit. m menu-r; cum U I) III I' "used on‘h'u't. w Haney-cg . l t _ preschool age cP-ldlrefll l2“: e mi __ I”: .1”'_""'_ 9' ."ff'fl’ ”W“ It l-created salt-cult: In Manse-0g toddlerlsl ' I l 7' "'00?“ ”"3"" M" ""J‘ D n '- II : . ml relat-onsI-lo temeen tester-s and _wde e L 251 ‘t‘ oto Ht cu mn lHI (tuna! “G! to." I1, '.' I9; name. an In"! HIMII 4" YOUR IAMKW MI HA - FAMILY LIFE CHANGES ‘ . “" '— FA LY LIFE C NGES a..." “u h..." h... Donne last Ietare lo: I,‘ 1.1-«the t) I.!-- rt -. I? Marat-s I? “or" one I“ veg no Yes No too II.- III. PREGNANCY AND CNIIDIEAIINC stunts VI IIINISS AMI “MI" (“I SIRAINS n 5900!! g.‘ unwanted t' d'IIICn'I P'W'Ct :- 2‘ .:a r: 1! Poor-n: quagm- hen-no "loosely al an n (1.. D C' . . - _ . _ I'LuOfl n An unnamed member became e-egnant : 3 f T- n 0...: 3...... u. ...,«. .g. ,., *r'fi a U U I: It A meet me an soon-on : I: a I I so (am Ie'atwe no mm at the Ian-Iv 0 D D C _ ... _. - her. one setteush' .e 25 A men-tar gave built to or adopted a cN-I ' 3 '3 '- 5! A Amhe- heron-e ens-rm dvsabled or I." T? D I: thron-ta'lr 4| IV. FINANC! AND IUSINESS sraams '—'""' ’ ' ' " ' ' 52 Decreased outta". 4- manage. a chroma!» Q U U C 2| look eat a loan or rel-ranted a loan to - f 1 U '"I a or d-sabled "a... cover *tveased eaoenses —— —-~—- 51 Men-bet or close velaI-ve ms tom-nee to C] D D C 2) w.“ en noise. I_ I. U [1 C} an unstttutton or nuvstng hone ’ ' . . 51 Increased vests-s b '4. to stance duet: fl" at "I n h *- c -: I to r: '. ‘ - . ' 2| £529.“ “,5: :3: t." :3: axis - fl : 'v'anc-al hats to _husta'd s and or Me I eatentlsl ” C30”! .. Ao'veultute He'll! SIC!“ fi.;fl. ‘ ! i-I. {'1 F 55 let"! erred ‘2'” 'u“. " 8008*” be 9 i" e: la' 1 'o'a'ues winch buns lent-Iv Westments ”' """" ""‘I' ”'9 m °' ”M" ml mm 30 A «career stoned a new busvness ‘ 3 '.l I I ‘ I ... -..N-.-- . . .. .. 55 A parent-spouse c'ed ~.: 5' ‘.' J: Purchased or burn a home a! I? ‘L? U - .. ' 57. A child men-bet dues U C'.‘ 3 A . n "s “'1 r ‘- —. J? ”"0" pm {"6 . c" m o " mm “m " ' 1 SI Death at husbands or notes parent or D D D -... lJ Increas -: I-nanetal debts due Io over use '2 CI "0" "m“ oI cred-t cards "“"‘ '"" " ". '— ‘ "‘ ‘ "' 30 Increased strarn on Dandy “men" to. I: D 5! Close hand at the 'a-n-ty ted D D D C . medtca' dental expenses -— -- ~----' -- -4...” - fl _ 35 Intrease: strata on leads 'nerey' lot I: r." .9 2:33;; "a M “WM” was ”flu"? D n - - Iood teams-g energy. horns care ._ ....._ "’ _- '-_ ‘I A member "5:th 39' g mtg-.9.”- "a g e 2‘? lnttetsed SIIIID on lantvlv "rnonev' lot D ... n F M D close I: II tfioldI'e-I s educatven 0,." .,. "mm. we “m" o, ,3 0., VIII, taawstnous "m me our- elm-on earner-Is A? A memoet was named C) D V WDII-FAMIU IIANSIIIDNS AND stunts . _ 3 A mar-sec changed to a new ”career I: U D D ‘3 "In. AM mempe' 'e't home '7 I3 ' AA A tree-g adult men-em began tol'ege let U D J! A mentor lost or dust a lot -. Cl C' U ”u ”1" school "I II .0 ‘ an..." m,“ Iron “0,. . 65 A mother Herod. best new or a new person move 0 U C! D D D Into the household 1' A «levee! started or returned to wort 3': 3 fl 0 ‘5 A 91"“ “WI-"P "M" "hr" W "AMI: otooton'l D U- . .- .. .. all" homo Ana-.- 'von- Itch-t:I In: a long tune I: A Ute-the! sIPpped wool a, t9. ascended perm CI u . Ie g. la-d all. leave at absence strAeI ulflnvjimtqu Decrease n ”mm...“ m", ”Mm", C’ I") i) A member went to tool at weenie detentoon LI 0 u 5 ”‘3‘" ’A‘ “'93" "”‘WW ”I" U 5' Ill A matter we: need as by pence or attested I'l .’ J . oeoe'e at work _ .--. . _ .-..... . __ . g5 . app-gut. .gg gramme! if more or my. :3 D .9 I" .‘h'l' 0‘ SCH!“ 05"1' 0' V'D'I'ICI II I“. q I"! D C more respons'on-t-es I-nn-e. A! Ian-J. «tend to a new home atamrenr 'L' ' ' m A "PMP' can ease Iron: Mug [3 D U C- H A 0 ‘: adolescent Member tho-oed to a "J ' I- II A umber sort-red out at street or was 0 U. I" SEDDDI 9" SU‘ECD‘DD ”on Sch“. 9!: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY \ Andrews, Mary P., Bubolz, Margaret M. and Paolucci, Beatrice. "An Ecological Approach to the Study of the Family.” Marriage and Family Review, Vol. 3 (1/2), (Spring/Summer, 1980): 29-49. Barry, P. Summary of the comprehensive needs study. Hashington, D. C.: Urban Institute, 1975. Bartz, H. H. ”Selected childrearing tasks and the problems of mothers and fathers.” The Family Coordinator, 1978, 27, 209-215. Becht, C. "Systems Theory, The Key to Holism and Reductioniam.” BioScience, vol. 25, Ho. 10, October, 1975, pp. 569-579. Block, J. The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment and ngchiatric Research. Palo Alto, California, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 1978. Boger, 3., Pease, D., and Haas, 3. ”Parents' Perceptions of Parenting: A Longitudinal Regional Study of Rural/Urban Parenting.” Occasional Paper, Institute for Family and Child Study, 1987. Bronfenbrenner, U. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard university Press, 1979. Bronfenbrenner, U. ”Ecological Systems Theory," in Annals of Child Development, Volume 6, pgs. 187-249, JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, Conn., 1989. Bubolz, Margaret M. Handout No. 2, Family and Child Sciences hh6, Fall term 1981(9). Bubolz, Margaret M. Class notes, Family and Child Sciences A56, Fall term 1981(b). _ . Bubolz, Margaret M., Hicher, Joanne B. and Sontag M. Suzanne. ”The Human Ecosystem: A Model.” Journal of Home Economics, (Spring, 1979): 28-31. Bubolz, Margaret M. and Whiren, Alice. ”The Family of the Handicapped: An Ecological Model for Policy and Practice.” Family Relations, (January, 1984), Vol. 33, Ho. 1, 5-12. Buckley, H. ”Society as a Complex Adaptive System." 'In: Halter Buckley (Hd.), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago, Illinois: Adline Publishing Co., 1968. 252 253 Busch-Rossnagel, N. A. "Where is the handicap in disability? The contextual impact of physical disability." In R. M. Lerner and N. A. Busch-Roasnagel (Bds.), Individuals as producers of their development: A life-span perspective. New York: Academic Press, 1981. ' Clarke-Stewart, K. A. ”Popular primers for parents.” American Psychologist, 1978, 359-369. Drotar, D., Crawford, P., and Bush, M. (1984). The family context of childhood chronic illness. In M. C. Hisenberg, L. C. Sutkin and M. A. Jansen (Bds.), Chronic illness and disability through the life span. New York: Springer. Duval, B. M. Marriage and Family Development. New York: Lippincott Co., 1977. Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and Society (2nd edition). Norton, New York, 1963. Erikson, Erik H. The Life Cycle Completed: A Review. Norton, New York, 1982. Ginsburg, Herbert and Opper, Sylvia. Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development: An Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Bnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969. Griffore, Robert J. (1981). Child Development: An Educational Perspective. Charles Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Hill, Reuben. Families Under Stress. Harper and Row, New York, 1949. Ilg, F. L. and Ames, L. B. (1955). Child Behavior, Harper and Row, New York. Kirk, Roger B. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, ' 2nd edition. Monterey, California, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1982. Lawton, J., Coleman, M., Boger, R., Pease, D., Galejs, I., Poresky, R. and Looney, B. "A Q-Sort Assessment of Parents' Beliefs About Parenting in Six Midwestern States." Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer, 1983. Lawton, J., Coleman, M., Boger, R., Galejs, I., Pease, D., Poresky, R. and Looney, B. NC-158 Q-Sort Inventory of Parenting Behaviors. Institute for Family and Child Study, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1983. McCandless, Boyd R. and Evans, Ellis, D. Children and Youth: Psychosocial Development. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, 1978. McCubbin, Hamilton I. and Patterson, Joan M. ”Family Stress and Adaptation to Crises: A Double ABCX Model of Family Behavior." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 13-27, 1981). 254 Melson, Gail F. Family and Environment, An Ecosystem Perspective. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Co., 1980. Michigan Department of Education, Special Education Services. Summary of Special Education, Student Counts, From 1975 to 1986, August 1, 1987. Miller, James G. and Miller, Jessie Louise. "Systems Science: An Emerging Interdisciplinary Field.” The Center Mpgazine, Sept./Oct., 1981, pp. 64- 55. Nye, F. Ivan and Berardo, Felix, M. (Eds.). Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1981. Paolucci, Beatrice, Hall, Olive and Axinn, Nancy. Family Decision Makipg: An Ecosystem Approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977. Pulaski, Mary Ann Spencer. Your Bapy's Mind and How It Grows: Pipget's Theory for Parents. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., New York, 1978. Ross, Alan 0. The Exceptional Child in the Family. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1972. Schumm, Walter R., Barnes, Howard, L., Bollman, Stephen R., Jurich, Anthony P. and Milliken, George A. ”Approaches to the Statistical Analysis of Family Data.” Mimeographed manuscript, 1983. Seligman, Milton and Darling, Rosalyn (1989). Ordinary Families, Special Children. New York: Guilford Press. Snow, M. Report of the regional parenting surveys. Unpublished manuscript, Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Charleston, West Virginia, 1981. Solnit, A. J. and Stark, M. H. (1961). "Mourning the birth of a defective child.” Psychoanalytical Studies of the Child, (16) 523-537. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. #24, "Household and Family Characteristics: March 1987,” U. S. Government Printing Office, Hashington, D. C., 1988. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1988 (108th edition). Table No. 62, Households and Persons in Households, 1986, by Type of Household and Presence of Children. Washington, D. C., 1987, 46. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: -1989 (109th edition). Washington, D. C., 1989, 67. Watzlawick, Paul, Beavin, Janet H. and Jackson, Don D. Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: w. W. Norton and Co., 1967.