Fathers' and mothers' perceptions of father ...

Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 325–338, 2001

Fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of father involvement in families with young children with a disability

SUSAN SIMMERMAN, JAN BLACHER1 University of California, Riverside

BRUCE L BAKER University of California, Los Angeles Parents assessed the extent of father involvement in the lives of their young children with severe intellectual disability, as well as their satisfaction with that involvement. This study assessed 60 families at two time points about 1.5 years apart. There was high agreement between mothers and fathers concerning the extent of fathers’ help, which was highest in the areas of playing, nurturing, discipline, and deciding on services. Most mothers were satis ed with the extent of fathers’ help. Mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help related more strongly to indicators of family well-being than the actual extent of fathers’ help. In regression analyses, mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help explained signi cant variance in mothers’ and fathers’ marital adjustment at both time points, even after the contributions of child maladaptive behaviour and caretaking burden were accounted for. The implications of father involvement considerations for counselling are considered.

Parents of children with a disability experience high levels of distress, variously referred to as child-related stress or caretaking burden (Baker, Blacher, Kopp & Kraemer, 1997; Dyson, 1997; Hodapp, Fidler & Smith, 1998; Trute, 1995). There is evidence, however, that different types of social support can buffer the impact of a challenging child on the parents (Dunst, Trivette & Cross, 1986; Suarez & Baker, 1997). Much of this research has focused on mothers, as they continue to assume the primary role in child rearing, whether or not the child has a 1

Address for correspondence : Jan Blacher, School of Education, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.

ISSN 1366-8250 print/ISSN 1469-953 2 online/01/040325-14 Ó 2001 Australian Society for the Study of Intelectual Disability Inc. DOI: 10.1080/1366825012008733 5

326

Simmerman, Blacher, & Baker

disability . With the challenges of disability , however, the mother’s well-being may be particularly affected by the extent to which fathers provide support. In the present study we focused on one type of support, fathers’ help with child rearing and mothers’ satisfaction with that help, in families with a young child with a severe disability . Moreover, we examined whether fathers’ help related to the parents’ caretaking burden and marital adjustment, and we did so at two time points, 1.5 years apart. While it is important to understand how parents are coping personally, it is essential to investigate how they work together. Our rst question was a two-part one: To what extent do fathers help with child rearing, and how satis ed are mothers with the fathers’ help? The potential roles of a father/husband include his vitally important day-to-day physical assistance and psychologica l support of the mother, as well as his involvement with or care-giving of his child with a disability . Studies of families with normally developing children have found that the father’s participation in child care and/or housework related to aspects of the mother’s employment. Father participation was greater when the mother worked longer hours (Bonney, Kelley & Levant, 1999), earned a larger share of the family income, and had more favourable attitudes towards employment (Ishii-Kuntz & Coltrane, 1992). Moreover, couples in which the father assumed a larger share of child care were more satis ed with the arrangement and were more happily married (Deutsch, Lozy & Saxon, 1993). Also, Voydanoff and Donnelly (1999), studying 970 married mothers, found that mothers who perceived the balance of household tasks as unfair had greater psychologica l distress and poorer marital quality. In families of children with developmenta l disability , Dyson (1997) found, at a more general level, that the stress that mothers and fathers perceived was related to “their own and their spouse’s appraisal of the functioning of their family in terms of nurturance, facilitation of personal growth, and ability to maintain the family system” (p. 276; also Gavidia-Payne & Stoneman, 1997; Heller, Hsieh & Rowitz, 1997). Noh, Dumas, Wolf and Fisman (1989) similarly reported that the well-being of women under chronic life strain (e.g., parenting a child with a severe disability ) was positively affected by spousal support. Our second question, was, then: Does the fathers’ help with child care and/or the mothers’ satisfaction with it relate to the parents’ perceived burden of care? Erickson and Upshur (1989) addressed this question and found that the mother’s perception of child caretaking burden was lighter when the father participated in tasks and provided expressive support to her [see also Heller et al., (1997)]. On the other hand, “disharmony” between perceived and desired spousal support was found by Bristol, Gallagher and Schopler (1988) to predict poorer parental adaptation in families with children with developmental disability . There is some evidence that father participation in child care in uences both parents’ appraisal of the burden of care, whereby higher involvement increases positive family coping and marital adjustment for both mother and father (Trute, 1990; Willoughby & Glidden, 1995). Our third, and related question was: Does the fathers’ help with child care and/or the mothers’ satisfaction with it relate to the parents’ marital adjustment? Marital

Perceptions of father involvement

327

adjustment is another support domain involving fathers in intact families. The presence of a child with a disability has been associated not only with personal stress but also with a lowering of parents’ reported marital satisfaction and adjustment (Bristol et al., 1988; Rousey, Best & Blacher, 1992; Willoughby & Glidden, 1995). The increased demands of child care, the additional worries, and the physical and emotional fatigue all seem to have the potential of lowering dyadic adjustment and satisfaction. Trute (1990) clari es the implications of the signi cant role of the parental subsystem on the family as a whole, stating that marital satisfaction is “a strong predictor of positive family coping with stressors associated with family care” of a child with a disability (p. 292). Thus, we expect that caretaking burden and marital adjustment will be associated. Trute (1990) found that 52% of the variance in family adjustment could be explained by marital cohesion (unity, pulling together), paternal education, and marital consensus (agreement, harmony). Taken together, several studies suggest that the presence of a productive marital subsystem positively impacts the parents individually , their marriage, their family, and their ability to cope with the myriad details of the burden of caring for their child with a disability (Gavidia-Payne & Stoneman, 1997; Krauss, 1993; Trute, 1995). Baker, Landen and Kashima (1991) found, for example, that parents with low marital adjustment participating in a parent training programme were less likely to follow through on agreed-upon teaching procedures. Few studies, however, have speci cally examined the role of father involvement. Thus, we perceived a need to investigate the way in which father involvement with child rearing relates both to the parents’ perceived caretaking burden and marital adjustment. The current study, then, examined three aspects of father involvement with a child who has severe retardation: (1) the extent to which mothers and fathers perceive that the father is helping with child-related tasks, and their respective satisfaction with father involvement; (2) the relationship between father involvement and caretaking burden, and (3) the relationship between father involvement and marital adjustment.

Method Sample The 60 participating families had children with severe intellectual disability . These were the families with complete mother and father data from a larger sample of 72 families who were participating in a longitudina l study. The families had been recruited from Southern California Regional Centers, central referral agencies for persons with developmenta l disability . The Regional Centers contacted appropriate families and those who were interested in participating independently called or sent back a postcard to our staff, who scheduled interviews. To assess the stability of parental perceptions, data were collected during two time periods approximately 1.5 years apart, referred to as time 1 (T1) and time 2 (T2). Most families in the present sample had intact marriages (88%); in the remain-

328


der, both parents were still actively involved with the child. At T1, the fathers’ mean age was 43 years [standard deviation (SD) 5 6.6, range 5 27–62], and the mothers’ mean age was 40 years (SD 5 5.6, range 5 27–59). Most parents (74% of mothers and 80% of fathers) reported some degree of post-high school education. The families primarily identi ed their ethnicity as Anglo-American (77%), with 7% African-American, 5% Latino, 1% Asian-American, and 10% mixed or other. At T1, the mean age of the target children was 11 years (SD 5 1.7, range 5 8.4– 14.6). The children had severe intellectua l disability and related developmental disability ; classi cations of intellectual disability had been made by the Regional Centers, and had served as an initial selection criterion. This was a generally low functioning group of children; 30% were non-ambulatory. Functioning levels at T1, as determined by the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow, Balla & Cicchetti, 1984), placed the mean communication level at 25.4 months, the mean daily living skills level at 31.2 months, and the socialisatio n level at 28.5 months. The lowest possible standard score for the overall Vineland Adaptive Behavior Composite is 20. In this sample, the mean standard score at T1 was 29.2 (SD 5 12.9; range 20–74). Adaptive behaviour was very stable from T1 to T2(r 5 0.94); there was a slight although not signi cant decrease. The mean maladaptive behaviour score at T1, also derived from the Vineland Scales, was 17.3 (SD 5 9.2, range 1–46). Maladaptive behaviour was also stable from T1 to T2(r 5 0.77); there was a slight although not signi cant decrease. Adaptive and maladaptive behaviour scores were not signi cantly related at either time point. Procedure The measures of interest in the present study were obtained from surveys sent to the parents and completed separately by mothers and fathers. These were three questionnaire s addressing father involvement in child care, the perception of caretaking burden, and marital adjustment. At each time point, the parents were also interviewed in their homes, as part of a larger study; during this interview, demographic information was updated and any missing questionnair e data were completed. Measures Father Help and Satisfactio n Scale (FHSS; Van der Giessen, 1991). This measure was developed to assess father participation in the care of a child with a handicap, and each parent’s satisfaction with father participation . It is a Likert-style scale with 10 questions in the child care areas of feeding, hygiene, nurturing, dressing, teaching/therapy, playing, discipline, driving to appointments , deciding on services, and “other”. (All parents scored the “other” category, although they did not consistentl y write down what kind of additiona l help they were referring to.) Scores are totalled to obtain an overall score for the amount of help received from the father and satisfaction with this level of help. The help scale allows responses to


329

each item from 0 to 6 (0 5 father gives no assistance; 1 5 gives a little help; 2 5 gives some help; 3 5 father helps with about half of this task; 4 5 often helps; 5 5 helps with most of the task; 6 5 father does this entire task); the total possible score ranges from 0 to 60. The satisfaction scale allows responses to each item from 1 to 5 (1 5 not at all satis ed; 2 5 a little satis ed; 3 5 somewhat satis ed, “it’s OK”; 4 5 satis ed; 5 5 very satis ed), the total possible score ranges from 0 to 50. The mother and father each completed the FHSS. The test–retest correlations (T1 to T2) for the help scale were: mothers r 5 0.81 (p , 0.001); fathers r 5 0.71 (p , 0.001). The test–retest correlations for the satisfaction scale were: mothers r 5 0.69 (p , 0.001); fathers r 5 0.52 (p , 0.001). Total scale reliabilities for the FHSS help scales (for mothers and fathers, at T1 and T2) ranged from alphas of 0.85 to 0.89. Reliabilities for the FHSS satisfaction scale ranged from 0.79 to 0.92. Perceived Burden of Care Scale (Zarit, Reever & Bach-Peterson, 1980). This scale, measuring the subjective burden of care-giving, has 29 items, rated: 0, not at all true; 1, somewhat true; or 2, extremely true. While originally developed for relatives of impaired elderly persons, this scale has been widely used in studies of care providers for adults and children with mental retardation (Baker & Blacher, in press; Freedman, Grif ths, Krauss & Seltzer, 1999; Seltzer, Krauss & Tsunematsu, 1993). A sample item is: “Because of my involvement with my son/daughter, I don’t have enough time for myself”. Positively worded items (“I feel useful in my interactions with my son/daughter”) are re-coded. The total score can range from 0 to 58, with higher scores re ecting greater perceived burden of care-giving. Locke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Freeston & Plechaty, 1997; Locke & Wallace, 1959). This is a brief assessment of marital adjustment, with 15 Likert scale items assessing overall marital satisfaction and aspects of the marital relationship (e.g., handling family nances, sexual relations, and philosophy of life). Scoring categories vary across items, with a possible range of 2–158; higher scores indicate greater marital adjustment. The MAT has been widely used as a broad-based assessment of marital adjustment, and has been found to have adequate reliability and good criterion-related validity (Freeston & Plechaty, 1997). In the present study, The MAT was administered to mothers and fathers at each time point.

Results Fathers’ help Table 1 shows the fathers’ help variables, indicating what percentage of mothers and fathers rated fathers’ help levels for each variable at half or more than half of the time (i.e., a score of 3 or higher on the help scale). Thus, for example, 33% of mothers at T1 rated fathers as helping with hygiene half or more than half of the time. About two-thirds of fathers were viewed, by mothers and fathers at T1 and T2, to be helping half or more of the time on these variables: playing, nurturing, discipline , and deciding services. By contrast, only about one-third of fathers were viewed, by mothers and fathers at T1 and T2, to be helping half or more of the time

330


on these variables: feeding, dressing, teaching/therapy, and driving to appointments. Table 2 shows the means (SD) for fathers’ help across the two time points. Mean scores from mothers and fathers, and at the two time points, were quite similar— about 21 or 22, where 30 indicated helping half of the time. These scores varied little for either mothers or fathers across time. Moreover, mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of fathers’ help agreed substantiall y at each time point. Mothers’ and fathers’ help scores were moderately correlated at T1 (r 5 0.63, p , 0.001) and T2 (r 5 0.60, p , 0.001), and they did not differ signi cantly at either time point (T1: t 5 0.79; T2: t 5 0.71). Thus, mothers’ and fathers’ responses to these questions were fairly stable and consistent over time and between parents. Satisfactio n with fathers ’ help Table 1 shows the satisfaction scores on the fathers’ help variables, indicating the percentage of mothers and fathers who rated their satisfaction with fathers’ help levels for each variable at “OK” or better (a score of 3 or more on the satisfaction scale). Thus, for example, 86% of mothers at T1 rated their satisfaction with the level of fathers’ help with hygiene at “OK” or better. A uniformly high percentage of mothers and fathers, at T1 and T2, gave satisfaction ratings of “OK” or better across all help variables. Satisfaction did not appear to be related strongly to the extent of fathers’ help, with similarly high percentages of satis ed parents in areas with lower or higher actual father help. The correlations between the fathers’ reports of helping and the mothers’ satisfaction with the fathers’ help were modest; at T1, r 5 0.41, p , 0.001, and at T2, r 5 0.33, p , 0.01. Table 2 shows the means (SD) for satisfaction with fathers’ help across the two time points. Here, the mean level of satisfaction with fathers’ help for mothers and fathers ranged between 32 and 36 points (between “It’s OK” and “Satis ed”), suggesting that the average parent is fairly satis ed with the extent of father involvement. Some parents reported that they were completely satis ed with the father’s level of involvement; ve mothers and three fathers had the maximum score of 50. In general, these scores varied little for either mothers or fathers across time. Mothers’ and fathers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help were not correlated signi cantly (T1: r 5 0.12; T2: r 5 0.21). The means did not differ signi cantly at either time point (T1: t 5 0.05; T2: t 5 1.11). We examined the relationship between child functioning and fathers’ help. Neither child adaptive behaviour nor maladaptive behaviour related to either parent’s assessment of the extent to which the father helped, or to their satisfaction with the father’s help. Burden of care Mothers’ and fathers’ scores on perceived burden of care were positively correlated at T1 (r 5 0.53, p , 0.001) and T2 (r 5 0.59, p , 0.001). Table 2 shows means (SD) for burden scores; the scores showed little stability from T1 to T2, and they

33% 34% 23% 26%

88% 90% 77% 90%

33% 44% 30% 38%

86% 88% 74% 95%

Teaching/ Dressing

79% 83% 70% 76%

33% 24% 36% 40%

therapy

81% 95% 83% 90%

67% 68% 66% 57%

Playing

86% 95% 85% 93%

79% 76% 70% 60%

Nurturing

86% 93% 91% 93%

71% 70% 61% 58%

Discipline

77% 78% 79% 90%

35% 27% 26% 31%

Driving to appointments

81% 95% 77% 90%

36% 35% 30% 26%

Feeding

Help scale: percentage of responses reporting fathers’ help half or more of the time. Satisfaction scale: percentage of responses reporting satisfaction with fathers’ help “OK” or better.

b

a

Helpa Mothers T1 Fathers T1 Mothers T2 Fathers T2 Satisfactionb Mothers T1 Fathers T1 Mothers T2 Fathers T2

Hygiene

84% 90% 85% 98%

67% 68% 68% 62%

Deciding services

95% 95% 70% 89%

80% 85% 46% 70%

Other

Percentages of fathers’ help and satisfaction scale: item level, for mothers and fathers at time 1 (T1) and time 2 (T2)

Table 1

Perceptions of father involvement 331

21.8 32.5 110.6 14.7

T2

(10.0) 20.6 (9.0) (9.0) 34.5 (9.5) (27.1) 113.4 (28.1) (7.1) 17.7 (8.3)

T1 0.81*** 0.69*** 0.76*** 0.29*

rT12 2

T1

1.50 20.9 (8.2) 2.13* 32.6 (7.2) 1.17 114.2 (23.7) 2.54** 14.1 (8.2)

t-test T12 21.3 36.0 112.5 16.6

(8.5) (6.9) (28.7) (8.0)

T2

Father t-test T12

0.71*** 0.47 0.52*** 3.83*** 0.76*** 2 0.73 0.36** 2.12*

rT12

*p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001. FHSS, Father Help and Satisfaction Scale; MAT, score from the Locke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Test; Burden, score from Perceived Burden of Care Scale.

FHSS help FHSS satisfaction MAT Burden

Scale

Mother

Mother and father means (standard deviations) at time 1 (T1) and time 2 (T2), with t-tests of differences (T1 to T2 for each parent)

Table 2

332



333

increased signi cantly for both parents. Child adaptive behaviour did not relate to either parent’s perceived burden at either time point. Child maladaptive behaviour was signi cantly related to both mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of burden, but only at T2 (r 5 0.44, p , 0.01 and r 5 0.26, p , 0.05, respectively). Neither mothers’ nor fathers’ reports of fathers’ help related to burden scores at either time point. Mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help was marginally related to her burden score at T1 (r 5 2 0.27, p , 0.05) but not at T2 (r 5 2 0.22, not signi cant). Mothers who were more satis ed with fathers’ help reported lower caretaking burden. Marital adjustment Mothers’ and fathers’ MAT scores were positively correlated at T1 (r 5 0.70, p , 0.001) and at T2 (r 5 0.72, p , 0.001). Table 2 shows the means (SD) for MAT scores. For mothers and fathers, scores were signi cantly correlated across time points (each r 5 0.76, p , 0.001). There was no consistent change in mean scores over time. Child adaptive behaviour did not relate to either parent’s marital adjustment score at either time point. Child maladaptive behaviour, however, was consistently related to parents’ marital adjustment; for mothers r 5 2 0.25, p , 0.06 at T1, r 5 2 0.36, p , 0.01 at T2; for fathers r 5 2 0.36, p , 0.01 at T1, r 5 2 0.25, p , 0.06 at T2. Greater child maladaptive behaviour was associated with lower marital adjustment for both parents. Table 3 shows the correlations between the father involvement variables and marital adjustment. At both time points mothers’ assessment of fathers’ help was related signi cantly to her marital adjustment. A much stronger relationship was found with mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help. Thus, mothers who perceived that fathers helped more, and who were more satis ed with the father’s help, reported higher marital adjustment. Fathers’ marital adjustment was not related to the extent of his help, but was positively related to both his own and his wife’s satisfaction with his help. Our two indicators of family well-being, caretaking burden and marital adjustment, were associated for mothers at both time points (T1: r 5 2 0.29, p , 0.05; T2: r 5 2 0.42, p , 0.01) and for fathers at T2 (T1: r 5 2 0.10, not signi cant; T2: r 5 2 0.59, p , 0.001). Parents reporting greater burden tended to report lower marital adjustment. Because several variables were signi cantly associated with marital adjustment, we examined these further to assess their relative contributions . Predictors of marital adjustment To examine further the relationships between marital adjustment and several predictor variables (maladaptive behaviour, caretaking burden, satisfaction with father’s help), we performed hierarchical regression analyses. In the rst step we entered the child’s maladaptive behaviour score and in the second step the parents’ burden score. In the third step we entered the mother’s satisfaction with the father’s help. In this way we could see if the key father involvement indicator—mother’s satisfaction with his involvement—explained unique variance after accounting for

334


Table 3 Correlations of fathers’ help and satisfaction scores, with marital adjustment, for mothers and fathers at time 1 (T1) and time 2 (T2) Mothers’ marital adjustment T1 Mothers’ report of fathers’ help: T1 Mothers’ report of fathers’ help: T2 Fathers’ report of his help: T1 Fathers’ report of his help: T2 Mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help: T1 Mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help: T2 Fathers’ satisfaction with his help: T1 Fathers’ satisfaction with his help: T2 *p ,

0.29* 0.17 0.47*** 0.22

T2 0.25 0.25* 0.15 0.08 0.37** 0.40* 0.21 0.24

Fathers’ marital adjustment T1 0.16

T2

0.02 0.31* 0.31*

2

0.21 0.16 0.13 0.03 0.38** 0.38** 0.28* 0.36**

0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001.

child-related variables. These analyses for mothers’ and fathers’ marital adjustment at each time point are shown in Table 4. In every analysis, mothers’ satisfaction with father involvement accounted for signi cant variance in marital adjustment over and above that attributable to child maladaptive behaviour and caretaking burden. We chose to enter mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help because it is a better predictor than fathers’ satisfaction, even to fathers’ marital adjustment. The actual extent of fathers’ help is not a predictor. We reran these analyses including the extent of fathers’ help in step 3 along with the satisfaction score; in no case was there an increase in variance explained. Discussion In our families where a child has severe intellectual disability , the fathers appeared to be quite involved in child-rearing roles and the mothers reported being satis ed with the degree of fathers’ help. The two spouses agreed highly on their assessment of the level of fathers’ help and these perceptions held across two time points about 1.5 years apart. Both parents perceived fathers as being most involved in the parenting roles of playing, nurturing, discipline, and deciding on services. Fathers were least involved in hygiene, dressing, feeding, teaching and therapy, and driving to appointments . Mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help was only moderately related to the extent of help that the father was actually seen to be providing. Mothers’ satisfaction was consistentl y high, thus limiting the possible correlation with this and other variables; it appeared essentially as high in those areas where fathers’ help was lower, as it was in the areas where fathers’ help was higher. These ndings suggest that fathers’ help cannot be viewed in isolation from the dyadic relationship . The degree and particular ways that a father is involved re ect not only his preferences but also his wife’s preferences, as both report being satis ed with the pattern of involve-


335

Table 4 Hierarchical regression analyses on marital adjustment, for mothers and fathers Parent/time Mother T1 Child T1 Mother T1 Mother T1 Mother T2 Child T2 Mother T2 Mother T2 Father T1 Child T1 Father T1 Mother T1 Father T2 Child T2 Father T2 Mother T2 *p , 0.05; **p ,

Variable

R

R2

Change in R2

Maladaptive behaviour Caretaking burden Satisfaction with fathers’ help

0.25 0.36 0.54

0.06 0.13 0.30

0.062 0.071 0.164

3.86 4.66* 13.08**


0.36 0.47 0.57

0.13 0.22 0.32

0.132 0.087 0.105

8.82** 6.32* 8.71**


0.36 0.37 0.48

0.13 0.14 0.23

0.133 0.004 0.089

8.91** 0.24 6.42*


0.25 0.60 0.71

0.06 0.36 0.50

0.062 0.301 0.141

3.81 26.97*** 15.95***

0.01; ***p ,

F change in R2

0.001.

ment. This is consistent with the ndings of a study of child care in the rst year of life with normally developing infants (Vandell, Hyde, Plant & Essex, 1997). The authors found that mothers who preferred the father to serve as a care provider reported less anger, depression, and anxiety when the father participated. Conversely, mothers who did not prefer the father to be in the caretaking role experienced elevated emotional problems when the father did participate. We studied the relationship between father involvement and both parents’ perception of caretaking burden. Surprisingly , the actual extent of fathers’ help had no relationship to reported burden, for either parent. However, mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help was modestly related to her burden score at both assessments, although the second just missed statistica l signi cance, and fathers’ satisfaction with his own help was modestly related to his burden score at the second assessment. As noted above, the high overall satisfaction with father involvement reported by mothers may have limited the extent to which this variable could correlate with our measures of family well-being. The relationship s found do suggest that the critical dimension is mothers’ satisfaction with help rather than the extent of that help per se. We further considered whether father involvement related to marital adjustment, and these relationship s were much stronger than to burden. Mothers’ perception of the extent of help was modestly, but signi cantly, related to her marital adjustment at both time points, although fathers’ was not. However, satisfaction with father involvement consistentl y had a signi cant moderate relationship to marital adjustment. In regression analyses, controlling for child maladaptive behaviour and caretaking burden, mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ help accounted for signi cant variance in both mothers’ and fathers’ marital adjustment. This is consistent with

336


the ndings of Willoughby and Glidden (1995), who found that discrepancies between desired spousal support and actual spousal support, another way of assessing satisfaction with spousal support, predicted marital satisfaction. We should note that ours was a longitudina l sample and the children were already in their early teens. Over the previous years some families had divorced, and it may be that in some of these cases the mothers were especially dissatis ed with the father’s involvement, thus limiting the degree of this relationship at the time of the present study. We have viewed satisfaction with father involvement as contributin g to higher marital adjustment and, to a lesser degree, to lower child-rearing burden. We recognise, however, that these are correlational ndings based on informants ’ reports of their own perceptions, so conclusions about the direction of in uence are not possible. Our longitudina l design does not help to clarify the direction issue, in part because the satisfaction with help and marital adjustment scores are highly stable across the time points. Future investigation s should consider this relationship further, and also expand the dyadic measures. For example, if the parental relationship is cohesive, and mothers and fathers are in agreement about family functioning as well as about the care of their child with a disability , then the likelihood of either parent feeling overwhelmed with burden may diminish. Expanding the support variables to include family cohesion and agreement about child rearing may help further our understandin g of family well-being domains such as marital adjustment and burden (Suarez & Baker, 1997). This study speci cally focused on families with children with severe retardation. Child adaptive behaviour was not related to our help, satisfaction, burden, and adjustment variables; this is understandable because, despite some variability, the range of child functioning was restricted, thereby limiting possible relationships . The literature suggests that varying degrees and types of child disability may tax the parental relationship (and thus the functioning of the entire family) to a greater or lesser extent (Bristol et al., 1988; Trute & Hauch, 1988). It may be that maladaptive behaviour is a more in uential factor than adaptive behaviour; in the present sample maladaptive behaviour, although not related to fathers’ help variables, was related to indicators of family well-being. Additional studies using families who have children with other degrees and/or types of disability would be warranted to understand fully the impact of father participation in child rearing on various measures of well-being (Pelchat et al., 1999b; Pruchno & Patrick, 1999; Suarez & Baker, 1997). These results may also vary according to socio-economic status, ethnicity and father or mother level of education (Trute, 1990), and should also be expanded on in these directions. Although our families had children who were in middle to late childhood, these unique family relationship s and patterns of coping were probably developing since the child’s infancy (Greenbaum & Auerbach, 1998). Investigating families of children with severe disability at different points in the family life span may clarify father involvement and its relationship to family well-being further. Indeed, father involvement in child rearing may account for more variance in indicators of family well-being when children are younger and the daily caretaking demands heavier.


337

The present ndings have implications for counselling parents of children with severe handicap. First, and most obviously , such counselling should involve fathers, separately as well as with their spouses (Pelchat, Bisson, Ricard, Perreault & Bouchard, 1999a; West, 1998). It appears that the child’s maladaptive behaviour relates to each parent’s experience of caretaking burden and, even more so, marital adjustment. Thus, programmes aimed at coping positively with dif cult child behaviours will probably have broader bene ts to family well-being. There is some evidence for such “family generalisation ” following educational programmes for parents of children with intellectual disability (Baker, 1997; Baker et al., 1991). The present ndings also imply, however, that both parents’ marital adjustment might be increased by exploring in counselling how the couple divides responsibilities for child care tasks, how satis ed each partner is with the arrangement, and what changes might especially increase the mother’s satisfaction with the father’s involvement. Acknowledgement This study was supported by the US National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, grant no. HD21324, Jan Blacher. The authors greatly appreciate the contributions to data collection by Ms Gaby van de Giessen and the staff of the University of California, Riverside, Families Project. References Baker, B. L. (1997). Parent training. In J. W. Jacobson & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Manual of diagnosis and professional practice in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Baker, B. L., & Blacher, J. (in press). For better or worse?: impact of residential placement on families. Mental Retardation. Baker, B. L., Blacher, J., Kopp, C. B., & Kraemer, B. R. (1997). Parenting children with mental retardation. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 20, 1–45. Baker, B. L., Landen, S. J., & Kashima, K. J. (1991). Effects of parent training on families of children with mental retardation: increased burden or generalized bene t? American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 127–136. Bonney, J. F., Kelley, M. L., & Levant, R. F. (1999). A model of fathers’ behavioral involvement in child care in dual-earner families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 401–415. Bristol, M. M., Gallagher, J. J., & Schopler, E. (1988). Mothers and fathers of young developmentally disabled and nondisabled boys: adaptation and spousal support. Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 441–451. Deutsch, F. M., Lozy, J. L., & Saxon, S. (1993). Taking credit: couples’ reports of contributions to child care. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 421–437. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cross, A. H. (1986). Mediating in uences of social support: personal, family, and child outcomes. American Journal of Mental De ciency, 90(4), 403–417. Dyson, L. L. (1997). Fathers and mothers of school-age children with developmental disabilities: parental stress, family functioning, and social support. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102(3), 267–279. Erickson, M., & Upshur, C. C. (1989). Caretaking burden and social support: comparison of mothers of infants with and without disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94(3), 250–258. Freedman, R. I., Grif ths, D., Krauss, M. W., & Seltzer, M. M. (1999). Patterns of respite use by aging mothers of adults with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 93–103. Freeston, M. H., & Plechaty, M. (1997). Reconsiderations of the Locke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Test: is it still relevant for the 1990s? Psychological Reports, 81, 419–434.

338


Gavidia-Payne, S., & Stoneman, Z. (1997). Family predictors of maternal and paternal involvement in programs for young children with disabilities. Child Development, 68(4), 701–717. Greenbaum, C. W., & Auerbach, J. G. (1998). The environment of the child with mental retardation: risk, vulnerability, and resilience. In J. A. Burack, R. M. Hodapp, & E. Zigler (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation and development (pp. 583–605). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heller, T., Hsieh, K., & Rowitz, L. (1997). Maternal and paternal caregiving of persons with mental retardation across the lifespan. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 46(4), 407–415. Hodapp, R. M., Fidler, D. J., & Smith, A. C. M. (1998). Stress and coping in families of children with Smith-Magenis syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42(5), 331–340. Ishii-Kuntz, M., & Coltrane, S. (1992). Predicting the sharing of household labor: are parenting and housework distinct? Sociological Perspectives, 35, 629–647. Krauss, M. W. (1993). Child-related and parenting stress: similarities and differences between mothers and fathers of children with disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97(4), 393–404. Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: their reliability and validity. Journal of Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255. Noh, S., Dumas, J. E., Wolf, L. C., & Fisman, S. N. (1989). Delineating sources of stress in parents of exceptional children. Family Relations, 38(4), 456–461. Pelchat, D., Bisson, J., Ricard, N., Perreault, M., & Bouchard, J. M. (1999a). Longitudinal effects of an early family intervention programme on the adaptation of parents of children with a disability. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 36(6), 465–477. Pelchat, D., Ricard, N., Bouchard, J. M., Perreault, M., Saucier, J. F., Berthiaume, M., & Bisson, J. (1999b). Adaptation of parents in relation to their 6-month-old infant’s type of disability. Child: Care, Health & Development, 25(5), 377–397. Pruchno, R., & Patrick, J. H. (1999). Mothers and fathers of adults with chronic disabilities. Research on Aging, 21(5), 682–713. Rousey, A., Best, S., & Blacher, J. (1992). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of stress and coping with children who have severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97(1), 99–109. Seltzer, M. M., Krauss, M. W., & Tsunematsu, N. (1993). Adults with Down Syndrome and their aging mothers: diagnostic group differences. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 496–508. Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Suarez, L. M., & Baker, B. L. (1997). Child externalizing behavior and parents’ stress: the role of social support. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 46(4), 373–381. Trute, B. (1990). Child and parent predictors of family adjustment in households containing young developmentally disabled children. Family Relations, 39(3), 292–297. Trute, B. (1995). Gender differences in the psychological adjustment of parents of young, developmentally disabled children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 36(7), 1225–1242. Trute, B., & Hauch, C. (1988). Building on family strength: a study of families with positive adjustment to the birth of a developmentally disabled child. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 14(2), 185–193. Van der Giessen, E. G. (1991). Father involvement in families with children who have severe handicaps: relationship to stress and marital adjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside. Vandell, D. L., Hyde, J. S., Plant, E. A., & Essex, M. J. (1997). Fathers and “others” as infant-care providers: predictors of parents’ emotional well-being and marital satisfaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 361–385. Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. (1999). The intersection of time in activities and perceived unfairness in relation to psychological distress and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 739–751. West, A. (1998). The piloting of a group for the fathers of children with Down syndrome. Child: Care, Health, & Development, 24(4), 289–294. Willoughby, J. C., & Glidden, L. M. (1995). Fathers helping out: shared child care and marital satisfaction of parents of children with disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99(4), 399–406. Zarit, S. H., Reever, K. E., & Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist, 20(6), 649–655.

Copyright of Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.