Family-peer linkages for children with intellectual disability and children with learning disabilities

Outline

• Abstract
• Keywords
• 1. Introduction
• 1.1. Family-Peer Linkages in Problem Solving
• 1.2. Family Problem Solving and Children with Intellectual Disability and Learning Disabilities
• 1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses
• 2. Method
• 2.1. Participants
• 2.2. Measures
• 2.2.1. Family Problem Solving Interactions
• 2.2.2. Coded Behaviors
• 2.2.3. Peer Acceptance
• 2.3. Procedures
• 2.4. Overview of Analyses
• 3. Results
• 3.1. Group Differences in Interaction Behaviors
• 3.2. Parent Behaviors Predict Competent Child Behaviors
• 3.2.1. Prediction from Mothers' Behaviors
• 3.2.2. Prediction from Fathers' Behaviors
• 3.3. Competent Engagement in Family Problem Solving Predicts Child Peer Acceptance
• 4. Discussion
• Acknowledgements
• References

Conclusions

The purpose of this investigation was to examine how family interactions can provide a context for elementary school-age children with intellectual disability and learning disabilities to develop social interaction skills that might help them relate effectively with peers. As expected, the children with disabilities had more difficulty with family problem solving than same age peers without disabilities. The children with intellectual disability tended to use fewer problem solving skills and were less engaged in the interactions, and the children with learning disabilities were relatively negative. Regardless of disability status, however, the mothers’ behaviors appeared to facilitate competent child behaviors. Notably, the mothers’ positive problem solving, critical statements, and active listening were associated with more active and involved problem solving by the children, whereas the mothers’ directiveness was associated with less problem solving and involvement by the children. Although the fathers’ behaviors were generally similar to the mothers’ behaviors, only fathers’ critical behaviors were associated with competent active problem solving by the children, and the effect was largely accounted for by the comparison families. Regarding the link between children’s competencies with the family and their success with peers, after controlling for the generally low levels of peer acceptance for children with intellectual disability, across groups the children who were the most facilitative, the most involved, and the least negative during family problem solving experienced the highest levels of peer acceptance. These findings are important in demonstrating links between family interactions and children’s social adjustment outside of the family during this developmental period in which peer interactions become increasingly important and complex (Selman, 1980). The findings are also important for extending family-peer linkages to children with intellectual and learning disabilities who are at high risk for peer difficulties.

The specific significant links between parent and child behaviors generally conformed to family processes hypothesized to teach and promote children’s competent interpersonal skills. Notably, the association in which the mothers who displayed high rates of problem solving behaviors had children who also displayed high rates of problem solving is consistent with a pattern of behavioral symmetry, wherein parents model competent behaviors that are copied by children (Putallaz & Heflin, 1990). There was also support to the process of teaching through complementary forms of interaction (Putallaz & Heflin, 1990). Notably, high rates of active listening by the mothers, in the form of seeking the children’s opinions and summarizing their statements, were associated with more active participation in the discussion by the children. This pattern of complementary behaviors is consistent with the type of reciprocal parent-child discourse that Fenning et al. (2011) identified in children with disabilities who showed effective prosocial problem solving. Together, these symmetrical and complementary associations suggest patterns of family interaction in which the mothers model problem solving and solicit and validate the children’s participation in the discussion, and the children freely offer their opinions and ideas about how to resolve the family problem. This type of parent-child exchange is consistent with the “horizontal” style of parent-child relating that children can bring to their interactions with peers (Guralnick et al., 2007).

The association of criticism by both parents with the children’s more frequent displays of problem solving behaviors also was consistent with a complementary style of parent-child interaction that might promote children’s interpersonal competence. Parents’ critical statements were usually complaints about chores or other child-related situations in the home, and the positive association with child problem solving suggests that the criticisms challenged the children to generate and offer solutions. It is notable that the parents’ criticisms and complaints generally were not expressed with hostility, which might explain why they did not tend to elicit the type of mutual aversiveness that can erupt between parents and children, including children with disabilities (Fenning et al., 2014). Indeed, encouraging parents to use effective, non-hostile ways of stating problems or complaints is the type of skillful approach to discussing problems that is encouraged in therapeutic interventions with families (e.g., Alexander et al., 2013). For children, learning to respond to criticism in a non-defensive, self-confident way may be a useful skill for managing conflicts with peers (Vernberg, 1990).

In contrast to the facilitative parent behaviors, the directive behaviors by mothers, which involved giving children specific instructions or commands, were associated with lower rates of child involvement in the family discussions. We speculated that, unlike active listening that encourages involvement, directives might be the type of top-down, vertical communication that reduces children’s initiative (Russell et al., 1998). It is notable that directives did not make unique contributions to the predictions of the children’s behaviors, but overlapped with and were accounted for by the effects of not doing more of the productive behaviors that encouraged child involvement and problem solving. Previous research (Floyd et al., 2004) has suggested that high rates of directives by parents of children with disabilities may be attempts to keep the children engaged with the task. The current findings raise the possibility that they distract parents from other forms of relating that might be more productive for obtaining children’s active involvement.

The similarities and differences in the findings for mothers and fathers contribute to our growing understanding of parenting roles related to child and family development. Despite significant inter-parent correlations demonstrating considerable similarity in the parents’ behaviors, the inconsistencies in their association with children’s behaviors suggest different roles for the parents in these family discussions. Notably, unlike the symmetrical pattern of mutual mother-child problem solving, supportive problem solving by the fathers was associated and low levels of involvement and more negative behaviors by the children. It is possible that high rates of problem solving by fathers occurred when they engaged directly in exchanges with the mothers, and these mother-father exchanges excluded children from active, positive forms of involvement in the discussion. However, it is also possible that fathers’ problem solving was reactive to the children’s inactivity and negativity, where the fathers attempted to maintain the focus on the family problem, and model and encourage more active problem solving from unengaged children. Research with both toddlers (Clarke-Stewart, 1978) and young children with disabilities (Fenning et al., 2014) has suggested that mothers’ behaviors tend to actively lead the children’s development, whereas fathers’ behaviors are more reactive to children’s functioning. This active-reactive distinction is consistent with frequently seen patterns of similarity and complementarity in mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors with children (Cabrera et al., 2014). In the current situation of family problem solving with elementary school-age children, perhaps fathers contributed consistently with mothers in eliciting children’s problem solving from their critical statements, but complemented mothers’ actions by attempting to maintain and model problem solving for unengaged and negative children. The prediction of peer acceptance from three of the children’s behaviors, engaged, facilitative, and low levels of negativity, is consistent with developmental models of the emerging importance of these interpersonal competences during elementary school (e.g., Coie et al., 1990). That is, the ability to be warm, supportive, and engaged and involved in a non-aggressive way during interpersonal interactions likely pays off as well in children’s interactions with peers. Indeed, prosocial behaviors toward peers increase steadily from the preschool years (Fabes et al., 1999), and verbally and physically aggressive behaviors can put children at risk for peer rejection (Bierman, 2004). Also, the ability to actively listen to others has been associated with higher peer status during this developmental period (Bierman, 1986). The similarities and differences for the disability groups are also informative.

The failure to detect differences in predicting peer acceptance for children with and without disabilities may simply reflect limited power in this study to detect significant two-way interactions. Nevertheless, the group differences in rates of behaviors might have different implications for children with different limitations. For children with intellectual disability, the relatively higher rates of facilitative behaviors, paired with lower rates of problem solving and active involvement in the discussions, suggests that they may bring a different set of skills to peer interactions than other children, namely, the ability to be warm and supportive rather than taking a lead in decision making. However, for children with specific learning disabilities, relative difficulties with controlling negative responding in the family context might contribute to their difficulties with peers as well.

The findings must be considered in light of limitations of the study. Notably, the analyses had relatively low statistical power for testing complex models. Thus, the preponderance of main effects across groups might have occurred because there was limited power to detect higher order interactions in the associations among family behaviors and in predicting peer acceptance. Furthermore, the cross-sectional correlations are limited for addressing causality. There is a need for more careful longitudinal modeling of how specific behaviors with family members might lead to peer acceptance, similar to Guralnick et al.’ (2007, 2008) studies of children with intellectual disability. We relied on parents’ and teachers’ reports of peer acceptance, and did not have sociometric data from classmates. The relatively higher levels of education and occupational status for the fathers and employed mothers in the comparison group might be associated with parenting practices that could have influenced the results of this investigation. Nonetheless, the relatively lower socioeconomic status for families of children with disabilities matches population trends (e.g.; Parish, Seltzer, Greenberg, & Floyd, 2004) and, thus, is representative of experiences for these families.

Regarding implications for intervention, Guralnick (1999) has concluded that years of efforts to improve social behaviors of children with intellectual disability through child focused interventions in peer settings generally have been ineffective. Similarity, reviews of intervention research on children with learning disabilities conclude that neither social skills training (Kavale & Mostert, 2004), nor inclusive education (Estell et al., 2008) substantially improved social functioning for these students. Evidence of overlap between children’s skills with their parents and with their peers suggests that interventions might instead focus on parent-child interactions to improve behaviors that would be effective in the peer context (Guralnick, 1999). The current findings support this line of reasoning. That is, an important avenue for improving social skills for children with disabilities might be to focus on the broader family context, and help the entire family learn to relate together in effective ways.