View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Resilient Parenting of Preschool Children at Developmental Risk

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Resilient Parenting of Preschool Children at Developmental Risk
Language: English
Authors: Ellingsen, R., Baker, B. L., Blacher, J.
Source: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Jul 2014 58(7):664-678.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Child Rearing, Parenting Styles, Young Children, Low Income Groups, Behavior Problems, Developmental Delays, Parent Child Relationship, Mothers, Educational Attainment, Health, Psychological Patterns, Parent Influence, Resilience (Psychology), Interaction, At Risk Persons
DOI: 10.1111/jir.12063
ISSN: 0964-2633
Abstract: Background: Given the great benefits of effective parenting to child development under normal circumstances, and the even greater benefits in the face of risk, it is important to understand why some parents manage to be effective in their interactions with their child despite facing formidable challenges. This study examined factors that promoted effective parenting in the presence of child developmental delay, high child behaviour problems, and low family income. Method: Data were obtained from 232 families at child age 3 and 5 years. Using an adapted ABCX model, we examined three risk domains (child developmental delay, child behaviour problems, and low family income) and three protective factors (mother's education, health, and optimism). The outcome of interest was positive parenting as coded from mother-child interactions. Results: Levels of positive parenting differed across levels of risk. Education and optimism appeared to be protective factors for positive parenting at ages 3 and 5, and health appeared to be an additional protective factor at age 5. There was an interaction between risk and education at age 3; mothers with higher education engaged in more positive parenting at higher levels of risk than did mothers with less education. There was also an interaction between risk and optimism at age 3; mothers with higher optimism engaged in more positive parenting at lower levels of risk than did mothers with less optimism. The risk index did not predict change in positive parenting from age 3-5, but the protective factor of maternal health predicted positive changes. Conclusions: This study examined factors leading to positive parenting in the face of risk, a topic that has received less attention in the literature on disability. Limitations, future directions, and implications for intervention are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1030331
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEBgxa9fG7ot63ZJKSC0Wj5AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNYP-ZhaEuHf7o1mkwIBEICBmkMEotgTxFZu9yDb1i0HKtFsD6l5c0audkZqIa9x5oKFbA6o2vMv_rFR71hvaiRP_uJpegXUtvAlFL7IGOFSunPlELdgd-aljPsx04_z6JillIfH6j25VTBUS1z6Xlp7kxCM65Hbn6IVJIAf2ZhkD0YMI6QybZXKfMYLYYuoGrK5CpbukNGjPaBxc4cOuIMseo1b5JhIXL4rVrI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0096383653;eul01jul.14;2018Jul09.15:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0096383653-1">Resilient parenting of preschool children at developmental risk. </title> <p>Background: Given the great benefits of effective parenting to child development under normal circumstances, and the even greater benefits in the face of risk, it is important to understand why some parents manage to be effective in their interactions with their child despite facing formidable challenges. This study examined factors that promoted effective parenting in the presence of child developmental delay, high child behaviour problems, and low family income. Method: Data were obtained from 232 families at child age 3 and 5 years. Using an adapted ABCX model, we examined three risk domains (child developmental delay, child behaviour problems, and low family income) and three protective factors (mother's education, health, and optimism). The outcome of interest was positive parenting as coded from mother–child interactions. Results: Levels of positive parenting differed across levels of risk. Education and optimism appeared to be protective factors for positive parenting at ages 3 and 5, and health appeared to be an additional protective factor at age 5. There was an interaction between risk and education at age 3; mothers with higher education engaged in more positive parenting at higher levels of risk than did mothers with less education. There was also an interaction between risk and optimism at age 3; mothers with higher optimism engaged in more positive parenting at lower levels of risk than did mothers with less optimism. The risk index did not predict change in positive parenting from age 3–5, but the protective factor of maternal health predicted positive changes. Conclusions: This study examined factors leading to positive parenting in the face of risk, a topic that has received less attention in the literature on disability. Limitations, future directions, and implications for intervention are discussed.</p> <p>resilience; parenting; parents; developmental delay</p> <p>Over the past several decades researchers have used the concept of resilience as a way to study the processes and mechanisms through which exposure to risk factors may, in some cases, still be associated with positive outcomes. Resilience can take on many forms, but the two crucial conditions that must be present are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) a significant threat or difficult circumstance; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) positive adaptation (Luthar et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>] ). In short, resilience can be defined as doing better than expected in difficult circumstances. This study focuses on the specific domain of parenting resilience. While most resilience research has focused on child outcomes, a focus on parenting outcomes is important as well, both in its own right and as it affects child outcomes. Across studies there is consistent evidence that positive parenting is a strong protective factor for children's outcomes (Howard & Johnson [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>] ; Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>] ; Luthar & Brown [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref6">41</reflink>] ; Vanderbilt‐Adriance & Shaw [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref7">64</reflink>] ). Positive, supportive parenting – defined in this study as high positive affect, sensitivity, and stimulation of cognition, and low negative affect, intrusiveness, and detachment (see Methods) – helps children develop intrinsic resilient capacities and effective coping responses to stressors (Howard & Johnson [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref8">33</reflink>] ; Masten [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref9">49</reflink>] ). Yet little is known about what factors lead to positive parenting (Luthar et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>] ). Given the great benefits of effective parenting to child development under normal circumstances, and the even greater benefits in the face of risk (Greenberg & Crnic [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>] ), it is important to understand why some parents manage to be effective in their interactions with their child despite facing formidable challenges.</p> <p>Resilience models must be developed with consideration to developmental theory as well as prominent features within the particular adversity circumstance under study (Luthar et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref12">43</reflink>] ). There are several existing complex models of parenting (Bornstein [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>] ), but broadly there is consensus that important determinants of parenting include child characteristics, family economic resources, and parent characteristics. These three determinants are seen as influencing more proximal determinants such as parent mental health, marital relationships, and social support. Because parental competence is multiply determined, it stands to reason that the parenting system is buffered against threats to its integrity that derive from weaknesses in any single source. Guided by these broader parenting models, the present study examines mothers of preschool‐age children who present with risk factors in the realms of child characteristics and family economic resources and what potential protective factors might be particularly important for positive parenting in this population.</p> <p>The three specific risk factors we examined that would be likely to impair positive parenting were child developmental delay (DD), high child behaviour problems, and low family income. These risk factors often present together, with higher prevalence of intellectual disability (ID) in low socio‐economic status communities (Leonard & Wen [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>] ; Emerson [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref15">21</reflink>] ) and more behaviour problems in children with DD than typically developing children (Feldman et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>] ; Hudson et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>] ). In regard to the risk factor of child developmental delay, there is evidence that child developmental delay has a significant negative impact on parental functioning (Herring et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>] ), as well as negative parenting behaviour specifically (Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>] ). Children with DD are more likely to have parents who are more intrusive and who display more negative affect than parents of typically developing (TD) children (Floyd et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>] ). As noted by Brown et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>] ), the parent of a child with a disability may be required to spend more time in direct contact with the child; when the parenting‐child interaction is perceived as less rewarding the parent may be more likely to show heightened levels of negative affect.</p> <p>The second risk factor of interest – child behaviour problems – has been found to be a significant predictor of parenting stress (Baker et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>] ; Lecavalier et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref23">37</reflink>] ). While the majority of research in this area has focused on the effect of parenting on child behaviour problems, there is emerging evidence that the relationship is reciprocal and that child behaviour problems predict increased parenting stress over time (Neece et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref24">51</reflink>] ) and also predict negative parenting practices (Marchand et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref25">48</reflink>] ; Snyder et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref26">59</reflink>] ; Pardini et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref27">54</reflink>] ). If a child has a difficult temperament and exhibits frequent behaviour problems the parent is more likely to respond negatively, providing fewer positive interactions than if a child is more easy‐going (Collins et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Lastly, lower levels of financial resources may also predict more negative parenting practices (Degarmo et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>] ; Linver et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>] ; Chaudhuri et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>] ). Parents with lower income have been found to be less child‐centred and nurturing and more rejecting in interactions with their children than parents with higher income (Mistry et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref32">50</reflink>] ). This finding has been attributed in part to increased stress levels and fewer resources (e.g. child care) for parents with low income (McLoyd [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref33">47</reflink>] ).</p> <p>With consideration to the often co‐occurring risk factors outlined above in the realms of child characteristics and family economic resources, we examined potential parent characteristics that might act as protective factors to facilitate positive parenting in the face of child and economic risk. Based on findings in developmental and resilience literature, and the specific risk factors in our model, we examined three potential mother‐related protective factors: mother's education, health, and dispositional optimism.</p> <p>Mother education has been identified repeatedly as a correlate or predictor of positive parenting behaviour (Richman et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>] ; Blacher et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>] ). Education may provide mothers with important cognitive resources that help them to engage in more effective parenting (Neitzel & Stright [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref36">53</reflink>] ). Too, education may be a mechanism for mothers to develop self‐efficacy (Coleman & Karraker [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>] ); mothers with more education may feel more capable of handling their parenting responsibilities. Fox et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>] ) found that mothers with more education were less likely to perceive their children as difficult, suggesting that education may act as a protective factor in modifying the effects of child temperament on parenting behaviour.</p> <p>Surprisingly, there is little research on how maternal health affects parenting behaviour. It is reasonable to assume that diminished health, which takes a toll on emotional, physical, and cognitive resources, would make it difficult to engage in positive parenting behaviours. Conversely, good health and associated higher levels of energy may increase the likelihood of positive parenting, even in the face of adverse circumstances. The little research there is in this area does suggest that mothers with impaired health engage in less effective parenting behaviours. Nehring & Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref39">52</reflink>] ) found that mothers with chronic illness displayed reduced parenting efficacy. Evans et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>] ) compared the parenting strategies used by mothers with chronic pain to parenting strategies used by a control group of mothers without pain. They found that mothers with chronic pain were more likely to engage in permissive parenting and develop a poorer relationship with their child.</p> <p>Dispositional optimism is a relatively stable, general tendency of individuals to expect positive outcomes (Scheier & Carver [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref41">56</reflink>] ). Individuals high in optimism typically have better psychological adjustment to negative life events (Brissette et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>] ). Fletcher & Clarke ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>] ), for example, found that parents who adapted most successfully to having a child with cancer tended to perceive the good in situations. Specific to mothers of children with developmental delays or disabilities, maternal optimism is related to increased positive affect and decreased negative affect and more adaptive coping strategies (Blacher et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>] ). For example, Baker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>] ) found that when child behaviour problems were high, mothers with higher dispositional optimism reported higher scores on measures of well‐being than did mothers who were less optimistic. Specific to the outcome of parenting, Hjelle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref46">32</reflink>] ) found that maternal optimism was positively related to maternal warmth and negatively related to aggression, hostility, indifference, and neglect. Similarly, Jones et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref47">36</reflink>] ) found that maternal optimism was associated with positive parenting in inner‐city African American single mothers. Overall, the literature suggests that optimism helps maintain positive parenting during adverse times (Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref48">61</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-2">Current study model and hypotheses</hd> <p>Many researchers have used the ABCX model to conceptualise factors predicting parenting stress (McCubbin et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref50">45</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref51">46</reflink>] ). Figure [NaN] shows our adaptation of this model to include the three risk domains described above (A): child DD status, high child behaviour problems, and low income. The outcome of interest (X) was observed mothers' positive parenting behaviours. We hypothesised that each of these risk factors would predict poorer parenting (A–X), and that the effect on parenting behaviour would be cumulative, or even compounded, when more than one risk factor was present. We also hypothesised that the A–X relationship would be buffered by resources (B: mother education and perceived health), and cognitions (C: mother dispositional optimism). We hypothesised that higher levels of these resources and cognitions would buffer the A–X relationship; that is, they would, in the face of risk, increase the likelihood of positive (resilient) parenting.</p> <p>Resilient parenting was assessed from child age 3 to 5 years old. First, the A–X relationship was examined to validate the risk factors concurrently at age 3 and again at age 5. Second, the full model was assessed to determine which resources and cognitions acted as protective factors, at age 3 and again at age 5. Third, we examined whether risk factors at age 3 predicted the change in positive parenting over a two‐year period. Resilience does not always involve doing well during or even shortly after stressful circumstances, but in the longer term (Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref52">31</reflink>] ). Therefore, it is important to assess parenting later in time. Furthermore, this design allowed for examination of continuity and discontinuity in resilient parenting over time. It is possible that certain protective factors may be more or less helpful as one's child moves through developmental transitions.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-3">Methods</hd> <hd id="AN0096383653-4">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were families in a longitudinal study of young children, with samples assessed at two locations in Southern California (74%) and one in Central Pennsylvania (26%). The present sample included 232 families with complete data at child age 3, drawn from an initial sample of n = 238.</p> <p>Families of children with developmental delays at age 3 years were recruited primarily through agencies that provide and purchase diagnostic and intervention services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Children who had an autism diagnosis at the initial evaluation were excluded. Families of children with typical development were recruited primarily through local preschools and daycare programmes. Further selection criteria were that the child score in the range of normal cognitive development and not have been born prematurely or have any developmental disability.</p> <p>Based on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development‐II (Bayley [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>] ) at age 3 years, children were divided into two groups: developmental delay (DD, score 40–84, n = 100) or typically developing (TD, score 85 or higher, n = 132). The inclusion criteria for DD included children with borderline intellectual functioning (DSM‐IV‐TR, APA [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>] ) (IQ 71–84, n = 22) or mild or moderate developmental delays (IQ 70 or lower, n = 78). There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics or key study variables between the DD and Borderline intellectual functioning groups, and thus these two groups were combined as DD.</p> <p>Table [NaN] shows child, mother, and family demographic characteristics at child age 3. In the full sample there were more boys (58.0%) than girls. Mother race/ethnicity was 64.0% European American, 20.1% Latino, 7.5% African American, 5.0% Asian American, and 2.1% classified as ‘other’. Recruitment initially focused on intact families, so 85.7% of participants were married (defined here as legally married or living together at least 6 months). The average socio‐economic status was moderately high; 51.6% of families had an annual income above $50 000 (in 1998–2001 dollars) and the average years of schooling for mothers was 3 years of college.</p> <p>Demographic characteristics for child, mother, and family at age 3 ( n  = 232)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>Typically developing (n = 132)</th><th>DD/Borderline (n = 100)</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup> and t</th></tr><tr><td>Child</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender (% male)</td><td align="char" char=".">52.3</td><td align="char" char=".">66.0</td><td align="char" char=".">χ<sup>2</sup> = 4.41*</td></tr><tr><td>Race/ethnicity (% Caucasian)</td><td align="char" char=".">60.6</td><td align="char" char=".">59.0</td><td align="char" char=".">χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Bayley scale score</td><td align="char" char=".">104.4 (11.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">60.1 (13.1)</td><td align="char" char=".">t = 27.32</td></tr><tr><td>Behaviour problems (CBCL total)</td><td align="char" char=".">50.7 (9.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">56.3 (10.8)</td><td>t = −4.14</td></tr><tr><td>Mother and family</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mother age in years</td><td align="char" char=".">34.2 (5.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">32.8 (6.3)</td><td>t = 1.83</td></tr><tr><td>Mother race/ethnicity (% Caucasian)</td><td align="char" char=".">66.7</td><td align="char" char=".">59.0</td><td align="char" char=".">χ<sup>2</sup> = 1.44</td></tr><tr><td>Mother education (mean grade in school)</td><td align="char" char=".">15.8 (2.5)</td><td align="char" char=".">14.4 (2.4)</td><td>t = 4.31</td></tr><tr><td>Mother employment (% employed)</td><td align="char" char=".">61.4</td><td align="char" char=".">50.0</td><td align="char" char=".">χ<sup>2</sup> = 2.99</td></tr><tr><td>Mother health (1–4 scale)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.4 (0.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.1 (0.7)</td><td>t = 3.38</td></tr><tr><td>Marital status (% married)</td><td align="char" char=".">89.4</td><td align="char" char=".">81.0</td><td align="char" char=".">χ<sup>2</sup> = 3.29</td></tr><tr><td>Mother optimism (LOT‐R)</td><td align="char" char=".">16.5 (4.2)</td><td align="char" char=".">15.2 (4.6)</td><td>t = 2.33*</td></tr><tr><td>Mother positive parenting (z score)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.5 (3.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.8 (4.2)</td><td>t = 6.04</td></tr><tr><td>Family annual income (% 50 K)</td><td align="char" char=".">59.8</td><td align="char" char=".">42.0</td><td align="char" char=".">χ<sup>2</sup> = 7.26*</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.</p> <p>2 DD, developmental delay; CBCL, Child Behaviour Checklist; LOT‐R, Life Orientation Test‐Revised.</p> <p>The TD and DD groups differed significantly on several demographic variables. The DD group had significantly more boys, and were lower than the TD group on two socio‐economic indicators, mothers' mean grade in school and family income. These were not covaried in analyses, because child gender did not relate to the positive parenting outcome variable, and the socio‐economic indicators were already in the analyses as independent variables.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-5">Procedures</hd> <p>All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the universities involved. In recruiting participants, school and agency personnel mailed brochures describing the study to families who met selection criteria and interested parents contacted the research centre closest to them. Data were obtained through child assessments and mother‐completed questionnaires at child age 3. Prior to the age 3 home visit, parents received an informed consent form and completed a telephone interview. Two examiners visited the family's home; after reviewing study procedures and obtaining formal parental informed consent, they administered the Bayley Scales of Infant Development‐II (Bayley [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>] ) to the child while the mother filled out questionnaires. The mother and child also came to the child study centre at child age 3 and age 5, where they were observed interacting in free play and problem‐solving tasks. While questionnaire data were obtained from mothers and fathers (when available), fathers were not required to attend centre visits, and thus we do not have their data on our dependent variable – parenting. Families received an honorarium for their participation.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-6">Measures of risk factors</hd> <hd id="AN0096383653-7">Child developmental status</hd> <p>Bayley Scales of Infant Development‐II (BSID‐II; Bayley [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>] ). Administered at child age 3 only, the Bayley is a widely used assessment of mental and motor development in children aged 1–42 months. Only the mental development items were administered, which yielded a mental development index (MDI), normed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Bayley ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>] ) reported high short‐term test–retest reliability for the MDI (r = 0.91). With children aged 36–42 months, the mental development index related to the Full‐Scale IQ of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Revised, r = 0.73 (Bayley [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref58">6</reflink>] ). The risk cut‐off used was a score below 85.</p> <p>Stanford–Binet IV (Thorndike et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref59">62</reflink>] ). Administered at child age 5, the Stanford–Binet IV was administered to assess children's cognitive abilities at age 5. The Stanford–Binet IV yields an IQ score with a normative mean = 100 and SD = 15, and is particularly well suited to the evaluation of children with delays, because the examiner adapts starting points according to the child's developmental level. The risk cut‐off used was a score below 85.</p> <p>The following measures were all administered at child ages 3 and 5.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-8">Child behaviour problems</hd> <p>Child Behaviour Checklist for ages 1.5–5 (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>] ). The CBCL assesses behaviour problems in children with or without delayed development. This preschool form has 99 items that indicate child problems. The respondent indicates whether each item is (0) not true, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) somewhat or sometimes true, or (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>) very true or often true, now or in the past 2 months. In the present sample, total score alpha for mothers at 36 months was 0.94. The present study utilised only total CBCL problem behaviour scores; these are converted to T scores with a mean of 50 and SD of 10. Behaviour problems were determined following Achenbach and Rescorla's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>] ) suggested groupings of non‐clinical (T score < 60) and clinical (T score ≥ 60, indicating borderline or clinical range). The risk cut‐off used was a T score greater than or equal to 60.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-9">Family income</hd> <p>Family Information Form. A family demographic assessment, administered to mothers, included an item assessing total family annual income. The item provided eight ranges of annual income: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>) $0–$15 000, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>) $15 001–$25 000, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>) $25 001–$35 000, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>) $35 001–$50 000, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>) $50 001–$70 000, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>) $70 001–$95 000, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>) $95 001–$150 000, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>) >$150 000. The 2001 poverty guideline for a four‐person family was $17 650 (US Department of Health & Human Services). We dichotomised the family income variable so that the risk factor cut‐off was annual income equal to or less than $35 000 (twice the poverty guideline or below).</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-10">Measures of protective factors</hd> <hd id="AN0096383653-11">Mother education</hd> <p>Family Information Form. An item on the family demographic assessment asked how many years of education the mother had completed. Responses in this sample ranged from grade 10 to grade 20 (8 years of education post‐high school).</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-12">Mother health</hd> <p>Family Information Form. An item on the family demographic assessment asked the mother to rate her health in general. The response options were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>) Poor; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>) Fair; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>) Good; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>) Excellent. This single‐item measure of perceived health has been shown to predict morbidity and mortality across a range of diseases and populations (Idler & Benyamini [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref76">35</reflink>] ) and previous research has demonstrated its construct validity among parents of individuals with ID (Seltzer & Krauss [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref77">58</reflink>] ; Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref78">15</reflink>] ; Eisenhower et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref79">20</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-13">Mother optimism</hd> <p>Life Orientation Test‐Revised (LOT‐R; Scheier & Carver [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref80">56</reflink>] ). The LOT‐R is a six‐item (plus four filler items) self‐report measure of dispositional optimism, or people's generalised positive (or negative) expectancies about the future in general. Sample items include: ‘In uncertain times I usually expect the best’, and ‘If something can go wrong for me, it will’. Each item is rated on a five‐point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Answers to the three negatively worded items are reversed and the six items are summed for scoring (possible range 0–24). Alpha for the present sample at the 36‐month assessment was 0.82.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-14">Measure of outcome</hd> <hd id="AN0096383653-15">Positive parenting</hd> <p>Parent–Child Interaction Rating Scale (Belsky et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref81">7</reflink>] ). Parenting was coded from a lab observation of mother and child. A number of parent, child, and dyadic behaviours were videotaped during free play, three problem‐solving tasks, and clean up. Pairs of coders rated each videotape. They rated each of the behaviours on a five‐point Likert scale (1 = not at all characteristic, 5 = highly or predominantly characteristic) that considered both the frequency and intensity of the expressed affect or behaviour and arrived at a consensus code. Reliability was defined as a criterion of over 70% exact agreement with the primary coder and 95% agreement within one scale point. The present study examined the dimensions of Positive Affect, Negative Affect, Sensitivity, Stimulation of Cognition, Intrusiveness and Detachment. Positive affect included the verbal and behavioural expression of positive regard or affect, warmth, and affection. Negative affect referred to the verbal and behavioural expression of negative emotion, disapproval, and hostility. Sensitivity was defined by maternal behaviour that was child‐centred and developmentally appropriate (e.g. the sensitive mother was responsive to the child's needs, soothed the child when necessary, and provided appropriate structure and stimulation). Stimulation of cognition reflected maternal attempts to foster the child's cognitive growth at a developmentally appropriate level. Intrusiveness referred to imposition of the mother's agenda on the child despite signals from the child that a different activity, level, or pace of interaction was needed. Finally, detachment represented marked non‐responsiveness and a lack of awareness of the child's needs. The codes from all situations (free play, three problem‐solving tasks, and clean up) were combined to create composites of the dimensions. The dimension scale scores were converted to z scores, which were combined to create the Positive Parenting composite (Positive Affect + Sensitivity + Stimulation − Detachment) and Negative Parenting composite (Negative Affect + Intrusiveness). These factors has been established and replicated through factor analyses conducted in several different labs (Woodworth et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref82">65</reflink>] ; Aber et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>] ; Fenning et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref84">24</reflink>] ).</p> <p>While positive parenting and negative parenting are two separate constructs, we believe that it is important to consider both as it more fully captures the overall picture of parenting rather then considering positive parenting alone. For example, a parent could well be high in positive affect (a positive parenting dimension) while at the same time intrusive (a negative parenting dimension). Thus, the Negative Parenting composite was subtracted from the Positive Parenting composite to create an overall score more accurately reflecting Positive Parenting.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-16">Results</hd> <hd id="AN0096383653-17">Risk factors and positive parenting</hd> <p>Table [NaN] shows the phi coefficients among the three dichotomised risk factors (0 = no risk, 1 = meets risk criterion) at both child age 3 and age 5 years. These were mostly in the small range (<0.25), suggesting that they were mainly independent constructs.</p> <p>Phi coefficients among dichotomised risk factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>Child behaviour problems</th><th>Family income</th></tr><tr><td>Phi coefficients among dichotomised risk factors at age 3</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Child DD/TD status</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td>Child behaviour problems</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Phi coefficients among dichotomised risk factors at age 5</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Child DD/TD status</td><td align="char" char=".">0.22</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Child behaviour problems</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01,*** P < 0.001.</item> <item>4 DD, developmental delay; TD, typically developing.</item> </ulist> <p>Table [NaN] shows the point‐biserial correlations between each dichotomised risk factor and the positive parenting score. These were all statistically significant at age 3 and at age 5. At each age the three dichotomised risk factors were combined into a composite defined as ‘level of risk’, so that scores ranged from 0 (no risk factors present) to 3 (all three risk factors present).</p> <p>Point biserial correlation coefficients between dichotomised risk factors and positive parenting</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>Positive parenting (age 3)</th><th>Positive parenting (age 5)</th></tr><tr><td>Age 3 child status (0 = TD, 1 = ID)</td><td>−0.38</td><td>−0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3 behaviour problems</td><td>−0.23</td><td>−0.26</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3 low income</td><td>−0.33</td><td>−0.33</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5 child status</td><td>–</td><td>−0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5 behaviour problems</td><td>–</td><td>−0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5 low income</td><td>–</td><td>−0.37</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.</item> <item>6 DD, developmental delay; TD, typically developing.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0096383653-18">Analyses at child age 3</hd> <p>At child age 3, 39.7% (n = 92) of children had no risk factors, 35.3% (n = 82) had one risk factor, 16.4% (n = 38) had two risk factors, and 8.6% (n = 20) had all three risk factors. Of the children with one risk factor, 54.9% (n = 45) had developmental delay, 15.5% (n = 13) had clinical range behaviour problems, and 29.3% (n = 24) had low family income. Of the children with two risk factors, 92.1% (n = 35) had developmental delay, 44.7% (n = 17) had clinical range behaviour problems, and 63.2% (n = 24) had low income. As shown in Fig. [NaN] , levels of positive parenting differed significantly across levels of risk F<subs>3,230</subs> = 22.87, P < 0.001 (η<sups>2</sups> = 0.23). Tukey post hoc comparisons of the four groups indicated that mothers of children with no risk factors (M = 2.40, 95% CI [1.60, 3.20]) displayed significantly higher levels of positive parenting (z scores) than mothers of children with one risk factor (M = −0.48, 95% CI [−1.34, 0.37]), P < 0.001; two risk factors (M = −2.97, 95% CI [−4.21, 1.74]), P < 0.001; or three risk factors (M = −2.73, 95% CI [−4.45, 1.01]), P < 0.001. In addition, mothers of children with two risk factors displayed lower levels of positive parenting than mothers of children with one risk factor, P < 0.01.</p> <p>We regressed level of risk, the three protective factors (education, health, and optimism), and interactions between risk and each protective factor on positive parenting in three steps. In step 1, level of risk was entered, and in step 2 the three protective factors were entered. In step 3, the three interaction terms between risk and each protective factor were entered. Table [NaN] summarises the results of this regression. Level of risk by itself was a significant predictor of positive parenting. When the three protective factors were included in the model, higher levels of risk still predicted less positive parenting at age 3. More education and higher levels of optimism still entered significantly. When the three interactions with risk were entered into the model, two were significant. The interaction between risk and education revealed that mothers with more education engaged in more positive parenting at higher levels of risk than mothers with less education. The interaction between risk and optimism suggested that mothers with more optimism engaged in more positive parenting at lower levels of risk than mothers with less optimism, but at higher levels of risk optimism was no longer a buffer.</p> <p>Concurrent predictions of positive parenting at age 3 with risk, protective factors, and interactions at age 3 ( n  = 232)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>B</th><th>Std. error of B</th><th>β</th><th>t</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><td>Step 1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Level of risk</td><td>−2.06</td><td>0.27</td><td>−0.45</td><td>−7.61</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Step 2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Level of risk (age 3)</td><td>−1.34</td><td>0.30</td><td>−0.29</td><td>−4.44</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Education (age 3)</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.20</td><td>3.14</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Health (age 3)</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.08</td><td>1.29</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Optimism (age 3)</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.15</td><td>2.53</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Step 3</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Level of risk (age 3)</td><td>−1.51</td><td>0.33</td><td>−0.33</td><td>−4.62</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Education (age 3)</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.18</td><td>2.89</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Health (age 3)</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.93</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Optimism (age 3)</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.17</td><td>2.72</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Risk education</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.15</td><td>2.45</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Risk health</td><td>−0.38</td><td>0.41</td><td>−0.06</td><td>−0.93</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Risk optimism</td><td>−0.12</td><td>0.06</td><td>−0.13</td><td>−2.01</td><td /></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-19">Analyses at child age 5</hd> <p>At child age 5, 44.5% (n = 93) of mothers had no risk factors, 34.0% (n = 71) had one risk factor, 15.8% (n = 33) had two risk factors, and 5.7% (n = 12) had all three risk factors. Of the children with one risk factor, 49.3% (n = 35) had developmental delay, 14.1% (n = 10) had clinical range behaviour problems, and 36.6% (n = 26) had low family income. Of the children with two risk factors, 75.8% (n = 25) had developmental delay, 54.5% (n = 18) had clinical range behaviour problems, and 69.7% (n = 23) had low income. As shown in Fig. [NaN] , at child age 5 levels of positive parenting also differed significantly across levels of risk F<subs>3,199</subs> = 12.64, P < 0.001 (η<sups>2</sups> = 0.16). Similar to findings at child age 3, 2 years later mothers with no risk factors (M = 1.50, 95% CI [0.71, 2.30]) displayed higher levels of positive parenting than those with one risk factor (M = −0.50, 95% CI [−1.40, 0.40]), P < 0.01; two risk factors (M = −1.93, 95% CI [−3.20, −0.65]), P < 0.001; or three risk factors (M = −4.09, 95% CI [−6.24, 1.94]), P < 0.001. In addition, mothers with three risk factors displayed lower levels of positive parenting than those with one risk factor, P < 0.05.</p> <p>The three‐step regression used for age 3 variables was conducted for the same variables based on scores at age 5. Table [NaN] summarises the results of these regressions. Level of risk by itself was still a significant predictor of positive parenting. When the three protective factors were included in the model, higher levels of risk still predicted less positive parenting at age 5 but higher levels of maternal health, and optimism each buffered this relationship. Higher maternal education predicted more positive parenting at trend level. Interactions between level of risk and each protective factor were not significant, so the regression analysis was rerun and reported without them.</p> <p>Concurrent predictions of positive parenting at age 5 with risk and protective factors at age 5 ( n  = 202)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>B</th><th>Std. error of B</th><th>β</th><th>t</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><td>Step 1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Level of risk</td><td>−1.81</td><td>0.29</td><td>−0.40</td><td>−6.16</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Step 2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Level of risk (age 5)</td><td>−1.13</td><td>0.33</td><td>−0.25</td><td>−3.38</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Education (age 5)</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.13</td><td>1.79</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Health (age 5)</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.14</td><td>2.04</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Optimism (age 5)</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.16</td><td>2.33</td><td /></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 +  P < 0.10, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-20">Analyses from child age 3–5</hd> <p>We also examined whether the risk and protective factors at child age 3 predicted change in positive parenting from age 3 to age 5. This was a more stringent test of the power of these variables, as positive parenting was moderately stable across this time period (r = 0.49). In step 1 we entered the positive parenting z score at age 3, in step 2 we entered the risk score at age 3, and in step 3 we entered the three protective factors assessed at age 3. The dependent variable was the positive parenting z score at age 5. This regression analysis is shown in Table [NaN] . Positive parenting at age 3 was a significant predictor of positive parenting at age 5 in all three steps. Level of risk was not a significant predictor of positive parenting at age 5 in the second and third step. Mother's health was a significant predictor of change in positive parenting in the third step. Education and optimism were not significant predictors of change.</p> <p>Predicting positive parenting at age 5 with positive‐negative parenting, risk, and protective factors at age 3 ( n  = 207)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>B</th><th>Std. error of B</th><th>β</th><th>t</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><td>Step 1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Positive parenting (age 3)</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.59</td><td>10.48</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Step 2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Positive parenting (age 3)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.54</td><td>8.40</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Level of risk (age 3)</td><td>−0.49</td><td>0.28</td><td>−0.11</td><td>−1.76</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Step 3</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Positive parenting (age 3)</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.53</td><td>8.02</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Level of risk (age 3)</td><td>−0.34</td><td>0.30</td><td>−0.08</td><td>−1.16</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Education (age 3)</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.55</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Health (age 3)</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.15</td><td>2.46</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Optimism (age 3)</td><td>−0.08</td><td>0.05</td><td>−0.09</td><td>−1.51</td><td /></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>9 + P < 0.10, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-21">Discussion</hd> <p>This study examined protective factors that could influence resilient parenting behaviour in the face of risk, defined as child developmental delay, high child behaviour problems, and low family income. We asked whether each of the risk factors would predict less positive parenting and whether the effect on parenting behaviour would be cumulative when more than one risk factor was present. We defined positive parenting as the sum of four positive parenting codes minus two negative parenting codes, in an attempt to better capture the total parenting atmosphere that the child experiences. As predicted, each of the three risk factors related to less positive parenting at child age 3. Moreover, the effects of risk were cumulative. The three risk factors were combined into a risk index, and as the risk index rose from 0 to 3 risk factors, levels of positive parenting decreased accordingly.</p> <p>We further hypothesised that the relationship between a higher risk index and lower positive parenting would be buffered by mothers' resources (education, health) and cognitions (dispositional optimism). We predicted that higher levels of these variables would increase the likelihood of positive (resilient) parenting in the face of risk. At child age 3, higher levels of education and optimism were demonstrated to be protective factors. That is, parental functioning appeared to be protected when parent personal resources (i.e. mother education and optimism) were intact to promote positive parenting.</p> <p>To further assess the protective value of these variables, we looked at the interactions between level of risk and each protective factor. There was a significant interaction between level of risk and education, such that mothers with more education engaged in more positive parenting at higher levels of risk than mothers with less education. This finding suggests that education is a key variable in increasing the likelihood of resilient parenting. Similar results were reported by Neitzel & Stright ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref85">53</reflink>] ), who found that mothers who perceived their children as difficult were less likely to parent effectively. However, the most educated mothers actually demonstrated more effective parenting when they perceived their children as difficult. There was also a significant interaction between level of risk and dispositional optimism, such that mothers with more optimism engaged in more positive parenting at lower levels of risk than mothers with less optimism. It is important to recognise the role of optimism, as it still contributed to positive parenting, above and beyond levels of risk. This is consistent with other studies where parental optimism was associated with positive affect and aspects of psychological well‐being in children with IDs (Taunt & Hastings [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref86">60</reflink>] ) as well as in children with autism spectrum disorders (Ekas et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref87">19</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Resilient parenting can be defined as positively adapting to the circumstances after some time to adjust (Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref88">31</reflink>] ). For example, mothers may become more acclimated to their child's disability over time. On the other hand, mothers may become more aware of their child's limitations as their child's peers advance in their academics and social relationships. Therefore, it is important to assess the outcome – positive parenting – later in time. In order to replicate the model and assess how risk and protective factors might change in salience at a later time point, we ran the same analyses at child age 5. Again, level of risk by itself was a significant predictor of positive parenting. When the three protective factors were included in the model the strong relationship between level of risk and positive parenting decreased (though remained significant). Higher levels of health and optimism significantly predicted more positive parenting and higher levels of education predicted more positive parenting at trend level.</p> <p>We further examined whether risk and protective factors measured at age 3 would relate to change in positive parenting from age 3 to 5. Earlier positive parenting was a strong predictor of subsequent positive parenting, and in this analysis the risk index did not predict change in positive parenting. However, the protective factor of better maternal health predicted positive changes. This suggests that maternal health is an important variable to consider as an influence on parenting practices. It is interesting that maternal health did not predict parenting at child age 3, and yet predicted an increase in positive parenting from child age 3–5. Perhaps the effects of poor health become more pronounced with the passage of time. Furthermore, maternal health is a stable construct and is highly correlated at age 3 and age 5 (r = 0.55, P < 0.001). Therefore, maternal health may be more important at age 5, perhaps because of additional stressors such as school entry that can be especially difficult for someone in poor health, than at child age 3. Although there is little research in this area, especially in the disability literature, this result coincides with the existing research on mothers with chronic illness that suggests poor health predicts reduced parenting efficacy and poorer parenting practices (Nehring & Cohen [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref89">52</reflink>] ; Evans et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref90">22</reflink>] ). The results of the current study suggest that maternal health is a powerful enough variable to predict change in parenting practices over 2 years; in fact, it was the only variable to predict change in parenting. This finding should certainly be further investigated in future studies.</p> <p>This study examined a realm that has been largely neglected in the literature. There is a plethora of evidence on the benefits of effective parenting for child development, especially in the face of risk. However, there has been little research examining what factors lead to positive parenting (Luthar et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref91">43</reflink>] ). The preliminary evidence from the present study suggests that parenting is less positive given child risk factors, but also that mother attributes can buffer this risk‐poorer parenting relationship. It should be noted that maternal mental health also was examined as a potential protective factor and, unexpectedly, was not a significant protective factor for positive parenting. This may be because of the age of the children in our sample and the inclusion of positive parenting in our outcome variable. Previous research has demonstrated that the association between depression and parenting is stronger among mothers of infants than mothers of toddlers and preschool‐age children. Additionally, previous research has shown a moderate association between maternal depression and negative parenting, but a relatively small association between maternal depression and positive parenting (Lovejoy et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref92">40</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Some notable strengths in the methodology were the observational measure of parenting behaviour and longitudinal data that allowed us to assess differences in resilient parenting at two age points and to examine the model concurrently as well as predicatively. It is useful to consider the results within the context of methodological challenges and opportunities. While there was adequate variability in the number of risk factors present in this study, it would be important for future research to examine these processes in the context of a higher‐risk sample (e.g. more severe developmental delay, families living in greater poverty, and mothers with less education) to enhance generalisability. It would also be important for researchers to examine additional potential risk and protective factors. This study focused on protective constructs centring on the individual; however, there are likely additional external protective factors, such as social support, that would account for more of the variance in the model. It will also be important for future researchers to collect data (e.g. regarding severity of child behaviour problems, depiction of maternal health) from multiple reporters and methods. Other than the observational measure of parenting, this study used only mother‐report and questionnaire measures.</p> <p>Parenting outcome is an ongoing process rather than an endpoint and it will likely be influenced by different factors across time. Thus, it would be helpful if future studies could examine this construct and its impact across later stages of the child's development. Future research in this area also could benefit from more qualitative research. Most of the existing literature has applied the concept of resilience as an academic concept, rather than actually asking mothers about what helps or does not help them to overcome different kinds of adversity. Also, greater attention should be given to individual and cultural differences as there are numerous interpretations of what constitutes adverse or stressful circumstances, and it is difficult to capture these interpretations using standard measures that do not tap into ethnic diversity (Ungar [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref93">63</reflink>] ).</p> <p>These findings have implications for intervention, specifically parent support programmes. For example, optimism appears to be an important protective factor for positive parenting and there is evidence that higher dispositional optimism can be learned (Seligman [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref94">57</reflink>] ). Parents with the risk factors identified in this study (and possibly others illuminated by future research) should be targeted for such parenting interventions that shift the focus from problems to strengths and opportunities. A focus on resilient parenting directs attention toward promoting positive parent cognitions and adaptive environmental resources to build parenting strengths, which fits well with the current interest in more positive approaches to family support (Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>] ; Ekas et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref96">19</reflink>] ; Guralnick [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref97">29</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0096383653-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This paper was based on the activities of the Collaborative Family Study, supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Grant number: 34879‐1459 (Principal Investigators, Bruce L. Baker, Jan Blacher, Keith Crnic). We are indebted to our staff, to the doctoral students who worked on this study, and to the families who participated in this longitudinal research.</p> <ref id="AN0096383653-23"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Aber J. L., Belsky J., Slade A. & Crnic K. ( 1999 ) Stability and change in mothers' representations of their relationship with their toddlers. Developmental Psychology 35, 1038 – 1047. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Achenbach T. M. & Rescorla L. A. ( 2000 ) Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families, Burlington, VT. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref54" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>American Psychiatric Association (APA). ( 2000 ) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‐IV), Fourth edition text revision. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Baker B. L., McIntyre L. L., Blacher J., Crnic K. A., Edelbrock C. & Low C. ( 2003 ) Preschool children with and without developmental delay: behavior problems and parenting stress over time. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 217 – 230. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref45" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Baker B. L., Blacher J. & Olsson M. B. ( 2005 ) Preschool children with and without developmental delay: behavior problems, parents' optimism‐pessimism, and well‐being. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 49, 575 – 590. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref53" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Bayley N. ( 1993 ) Bayley Scales of Infant Development Manual, 2nd edn. Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref70" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Belsky J., Crnic K. & Woodworth S. ( 1995 ) Personality and parenting: exploring the mediating role of transient mood and daily hassles. Journal of Personality 63, 905 – 929. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref44" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Blacher J., Baker B. L. & Berdovits L. (in press) Family perspectives on child disability: views from the sunny side of the street. In: Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Disability (ed. M. L. Wehmeyer ). Oxford University Press, Inc, New York. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Blacher J., Baker B. L. & Kaladjian A. ( 2013 ) Syndrome specificity and mother‐child interactions: examining positive and negative parenting across contexts and time. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 43, 761 – 774. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref13" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Bornstein M. H. (ed.) ( 2002 ) Handbook of Parenting, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Mahwah, NJ. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref42" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Brissette I., Scheier M. F. & Carver C. S. ( 2002 ) The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, 102 – 111. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref19" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Brown M. A., McIntyre L. L., Crnic K. A., Baker B. L. & Blacher J. ( 2011 ) Preschool children with and without developmental delay: risk, parenting, and child demandingness. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities 4, 206 – 226. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref5" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Burchinal M., Roberts J. E., Zeisel S. A., Hennon E. A. & Hooper S. ( 2006 ) Social risk and protective child, parenting, and child care factors in early elementary school years. Parenting: Science and Practice 6, 79 – 113. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref31" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Chaudhuri J. H., Easterbrooks M. A. & Davis C. R. ( 2009 ) The relation between emotional availability and parenting style: cultural and economic factors in a diverse sample of young mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice 9, 277 – 299. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref78" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Chen S. C., Ryan‐Henry S., Heller T. & Chen E. H. ( 2001 ) Health status of mothers of adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 45, 439 – 449. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref28" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Collins A. W., Maccoby E. E., Steinberg L., Hetherington E. M. & Bornstein M. H. ( 2000 ) Contemporary research on parenting. The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist 55, 218 – 232. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref37" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Coleman P. K. & Karraker K. H. ( 1998 ) Self‐efficacy and parenting quality: finding and future applications. Developmental Review 18, 47 – 85. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref29" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Degarmo D. S., Forgatch M. S. & Martinez C. R. ( 1999 ) Parenting of divorced mothers as a link between social status and boys' academic outcomes: unpacking the effects of socioeconomic status. Child Development 70, 1213 – 1245. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref87" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Ekas N. V., Lickenbrock D. M. & Whitman T. L. ( 2010 ) Optimism, social support, and well‐being in mothers of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 40, 1274 – 1284. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref79" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Eisenhower A. S., Baker B. L. & Blacher J. ( 2009 ) Children's delayed development and behavior problems: impact on mothers' perceived physical health across early childhood. Social Science & Medicine 68, 89 – 99. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref15" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Emerson E. ( 2012 ) Deprivation, ethnicity and the prevalence of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 66, 218 – 224. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref40" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Evans S., Shipton E. A. & Keenan T. ( 2006 ) The relationship between maternal chronic pain and child adjustment: the role of parenting as a mediator. The Journal of Pain 7, 236 – 243. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref16" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Feldman M. A., Hancock C. L., Rielly N., Minnes P. & Cairns C. ( 2000 ) Behavior problems in young children with or at risk for developmental delay. Journal of Child and Family Studies 9, 247 – 261. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref84" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Fenning R. M., Baker J. K., Bruce B. L. & Crnic K. A. ( 2007 ) Parenting children with borderline intellectual functioning: a unique risk population. American Journal on Mental Retardation 112, 107 – 121. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref43" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Fletcher P. C. & Clarke J. ( 2003 ) When your child has cancer: a discussion of factors that affect mothers' abilities to cope. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 21, 81 – 99. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref20" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Floyd F. J., Harter K. S. & Costigan C. L. ( 2004 ) Family problem‐solving with children who have mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation 109, 507 – 524. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref38" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Fox R. A., Platz D. L. & Bentley K. S. ( 1995 ) Maternal factors related to parenting practices, developmental expectations, and perceptions of child behavior problems. Journal of Genetic Psychology 156, 431 – 441. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref11" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Greenberg M. T. & Crnic K. A. ( 1988 ) Longitudinal predictors of developmental status and social‐interaction in premature and full‐term infants at age 2. Child Development 59, 554 – 570. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref97" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Guralnick M. J. ( 2011 ) Why early intervention works: a systems perspective. Infants and Young Children 24, 6 – 28. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref18" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Herring S., Gray K., Taffe J., Tonge B., Sweeney D. & Einfeld S. ( 2006 ) Behaviour and emotional problems in toddlers with pervasive developmental disorders and developmental delay: associations with parental mental health and family functioning. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50, 874 – 882. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref52" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Hill M., Stafford A., Seaman P., Ross N. & Daniel B. ( 2007 ) Parenting and Resilience. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, England. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref46" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Hjelle L. A., Busch E. A. & Warren J. E. ( 1996 ) Explanatory style, dispositional optimism, and reported parental behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development 157, 489 – 499. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref4" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Howard S. & Johnson B. ( 2000 ) What makes the difference? Children and teachers talk about resilient outcomes for children ‘at risk’. Educational Studies 26, 321 – 337. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref17" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Hudson A. M., Mathews J. M., Gavidia‐Payne S. T., Cameron C. A., Mildon R. L., Radler G. A. et al. ( 2003 ) Evaluation of an intervention system for parents of children with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 238 – 249. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref76" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Idler E. L. & Benyamini Y. ( 1997 ) Self‐rated health and mortality: a review of twenty‐seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 38, 21 – 37. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref47" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Jones D. J., Forehand R., Brody G. H. & Armistead L. ( 2002 ) Positive parenting and child psychosocial adjustment in inner‐city single‐parent African American families: the role of maternal optimism. Behavior Modification 26, 464 – 481. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref23" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Lecavalier L., Leone S. & Wiltz J. ( 2006 ) The impact of behaviour problems on caregiver stress in young people with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50, 172 – 183. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref14" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Leonard H. & Wen X. Y. ( 2002 ) The epidemiology of mental retardation: challenges and opportunities in the new millennium. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 8, 117 – 134. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref30" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Linver M. R., Brooks‐Gunn J. & Kohen D. E. ( 2002 ) Family processes as pathways from income to young children's development. Developmental Psychology 38, 719 – 734. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref92" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Lovejoy M. C., Graczyk P. A., O'Hare E. & Neuman G. ( 2000 ) Maternal depression and parenting behavior: a meta‐analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review 20, 561 – 592. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref6" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Luthar S. S. & Brown P. J. ( 2007 ) Maximizing resilience through diverse levels of inquiry: prevailing paradigms, possibilities, and priorities for the future. Development and Psychopathology 19, 931 – 955. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref3" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Luthar S. S., Cicchetti D. & Becker B. ( 2000 ) The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development 71, 543 – 562. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref10" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Luthar S. S., Sawyer J. A. & Brown P. J. ( 2006 ) Conceptual issues in studies of resilience. Past, present, and future research. Resilience in. Children 1094, 105 – 115. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref49" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>McCubbin H. I., Sussman M. B. & Patterson J. M. ( 1983 ) Social Stress and the Family: Advances and Developments in Family Stress Theory and Research. Haworth Press, New York, NY. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref50" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>McCubbin H. I., Thompson A. I. & McCubbin M. A. ( 1996 ) Family Assessment: Resiliency, Coping and Adaptation. University of Wisconsin Publishers, Madison, WI. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref51" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>McCubbin H. I., Hamilton I., Thompson E. A., Thompson A. I. & Futrell J. A. ( 1999 ) The Dynamics of Resilient Families. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref33" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>McLoyd V. C. ( 1998 ) Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist 53, 185 – 204. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref25" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Marchand J. F., Hock E. & Widaman K. ( 2002 ) Mutual relations between mothers' depressive symptoms and hostile‐controlling behavior and young children's externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Parenting: Science and Practice 2, 335 – 353. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref9" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Masten A. S. ( 2001 ) Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. American Psychologist 56, 227 – 238. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref32" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Mistry R. S., Biesanz J. C., Taylor L. C., Burchinal M. & Cox M. J. ( 2004 ) Family income and its relation to preschool children's adjustment for families in the NICHD study of early child care. Developmental Psychology 40, 727 – 745. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref24" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Neece C. L., Green S. A. & Baker B. L. ( 2012 ) Parenting stress and child behavior problems: a transactional relationship across time. American Journal on. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 117, 48 – 66. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref39" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Nehring W. M. & Cohen F. L. ( 1995 ) The development of an instrument to measure the effects of a parent's chronic illness on parenting tasks. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 18, 111 – 123. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref36" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Neitzel C. & Stright A. D. ( 2004 ) Parenting behaviours during child problem solving: the roles of child temperament, mother education and personality and the problem‐solving context. International Journal of Behavioral Development 28, 166 – 179. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref27" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Pardini D. A., Fite P. J. & Burke J. D. ( 2008 ) Bidirectional associations between parenting practices and conduct problems in boys from childhood to adolescence: the moderating effect of age and African‐American ethnicity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36, 647 – 662. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref34" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Richman A. L., Miller P. M. & LeVine R. A. ( 1992 ) Cultural and educational variations in maternal responsiveness. Developmental Psychology 28, 614 – 621. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib56" idref="ref41" type="bt">56</bibl> <bibtext>Scheier M. E. & Carver C. S. ( 1985 ) Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health. Psychology 4, 219 – 247. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib57" idref="ref94" type="bt">57</bibl> <bibtext>Seligman M. E. P. ( 2002 ) Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. Simon and Schuster, New York. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib58" idref="ref77" type="bt">58</bibl> <bibtext>Seltzer M. M. & Krauss M. W. ( 1989 ) Aging parents with adult mentally retarded children: family risk factors and sources of support. American Journal on Mental Retardation 94, 303 – 312. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib59" idref="ref26" type="bt">59</bibl> <bibtext>Snyder J., Cramer A., Afrank J. & Patterson G. R. ( 2005 ) The contributions of ineffective discipline and parental hostile attributions of child misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental Psychology 41, 30 – 41. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib60" idref="ref86" type="bt">60</bibl> <bibtext>Taunt H. M. & Hastings R. P. ( 2002 ) Positive impact of children with developmental disabilities in their families: a preliminary study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 37, 410 – 420. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib61" idref="ref48" type="bt">61</bibl> <bibtext>Taylor Z. E., Larsen‐Rife D., Conger R. D., Widaman K. F. & Cutrona C. E. ( 2010 ) Life stress, maternal optimism, and adolescent competence in single mother, African American families. Journal of Family Psychology 24, 468 – 477. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib62" idref="ref59" type="bt">62</bibl> <bibtext>Thorndike R. L., Hagen E. P. & Sattler J. M. ( 1986 ) Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scale, 4th edn. Riverside Publishing, Itasca, IL. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib63" idref="ref93" type="bt">63</bibl> <bibtext>Ungar M. ( 2004 ) A constructionist discourse on resilience: multiple contexts, multiple realities among at‐risk children and youth. Youth & Society 35, 341 – 365. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib64" idref="ref7" type="bt">64</bibl> <bibtext>Vanderbilt‐Adriance K. & Shaw D. S. ( 2008 ) Protective factors and the development of resilience in the context of neighborhood disadvantage. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36, 887 – 901. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib65" idref="ref82" type="bt">65</bibl> <bibtext>Woodworth S., Belsky J. & Crnic K. ( 1996 ) The determinants of fathering during the child's second and third years of life: a developmental analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family 58, 679 – 692. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Graph: Conceptual model of child risk and parenting outcome with mothers' resources and cognitions as protective factors.</p> <p>Graph: Positive parenting (z scores) by risk index (number of risk factors). Note. Risk at age 3 related to positive parenting at age 5 showed similar results to the risk by positive parenting relationship when both were considered at same age (3 or 5).</p> <aug> <p>By R. Ellingsen; B. L. Baker; J. Blacher and K. Crnic</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1030331
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Resilient Parenting of Preschool Children at Developmental Risk
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ellingsen%2C+R%2E%22">Ellingsen, R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baker%2C+B%2E+L%2E%22">Baker, B. L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Blacher%2C+J%2E%22">Blacher, J.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Intellectual+Disability+Research%22"><i>Journal of Intellectual Disability Research</i></searchLink>. Jul 2014 58(7):664-678.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Rearing%22">Child Rearing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Groups%22">Low Income Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Delays%22">Developmental Delays</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attainment%22">Educational Attainment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health%22">Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Influence%22">Parent Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Persons%22">At Risk Persons</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/jir.12063
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-2633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Given the great benefits of effective parenting to child development under normal circumstances, and the even greater benefits in the face of risk, it is important to understand why some parents manage to be effective in their interactions with their child despite facing formidable challenges. This study examined factors that promoted effective parenting in the presence of child developmental delay, high child behaviour problems, and low family income. Method: Data were obtained from 232 families at child age 3 and 5 years. Using an adapted ABCX model, we examined three risk domains (child developmental delay, child behaviour problems, and low family income) and three protective factors (mother's education, health, and optimism). The outcome of interest was positive parenting as coded from mother-child interactions. Results: Levels of positive parenting differed across levels of risk. Education and optimism appeared to be protective factors for positive parenting at ages 3 and 5, and health appeared to be an additional protective factor at age 5. There was an interaction between risk and education at age 3; mothers with higher education engaged in more positive parenting at higher levels of risk than did mothers with less education. There was also an interaction between risk and optimism at age 3; mothers with higher optimism engaged in more positive parenting at lower levels of risk than did mothers with less optimism. The risk index did not predict change in positive parenting from age 3-5, but the protective factor of maternal health predicted positive changes. Conclusions: This study examined factors leading to positive parenting in the face of risk, a topic that has received less attention in the literature on disability. Limitations, future directions, and implications for intervention are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1030331
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1030331
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/jir.12063
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 664
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Child Rearing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Delays
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attainment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Influence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Persons
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Resilient Parenting of Preschool Children at Developmental Risk
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ellingsen, R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baker, B. L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Blacher, J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-2633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1