View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Siblings of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disability: Relations between Involvement, Personal Resources, Loneliness, and Their Adjustment

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Siblings of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disability: Relations between Involvement, Personal Resources, Loneliness, and Their Adjustment
Language: English
Authors: Ayelet Siman-Tov (ORCID 0000-0002-9237-8400), Adi Sharabi
Source: Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 2024 49(2):229-240.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Developmental Disabilities, Siblings, Sibling Relationship, Self Efficacy, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Adults, Well Being, Psychological Patterns, Mental Health, Adjustment (to Environment), Intellectual Disability
DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2023.2298696
ISSN: 1366-8250
1469-9532
Abstract: Background: The study examined relations between a number of variables regarding typically-developing adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disability: involvement in the lives of their siblings with disability, personal resources (self-efficacy and sense of coherence), loneliness, and adjustment. Method: Participants included 99 siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who completed questionnaires examining involvement, personal resources (self-efficacy and sense of coherence), loneliness, and adjustment. Results: Results indicated that siblings who are more involved and perceive their efficacy and coherence as higher and loneliness as lower, experience higher levels of mental wellbeing and lower levels of mental distress. Personal resources also meaningfully predicted siblings' adjustment, and mediated the relations between involvement and wellbeing. Conclusions: The current study can serve as a basis for professional and current knowledge for the construction of intervention programs to strengthen siblings' personal resources: efficacy and coherence as resilience factors that promote adjustment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1423293
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF71Qu1P4U_7p0q9q8ugT6wAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLk1nqss08MX8q8UGAIBEICBm8vAm-y9KQv0Us3T5p5ZtURKz_ca6Mt0CCGk7KaRA0nbg7e0S2gTn8eIEzhW3oyxy6uwXlm7OTGCQ1-qPrra0nKnn6NqU1QudEvjokYnnYrD81mppoXQuUZmBq8nQS6Z8VQfUMzimOYOiDfvkOo3m5wsjQ9mPix1au2k6jW0J6UfTfx5ozHFbi00rDRstP_iMYULMdSkyi_gGSM4
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177082732;ddi01jun.24;2024May16.07:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177082732-1">Siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disability: Relations between involvement, personal resources, loneliness, and their adjustment </title> <p>The study examined relations between a number of variables regarding typically-developing adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disability: involvement in the lives of their siblings with disability, personal resources (self-efficacy and sense of coherence), loneliness, and adjustment. Participants included 99 siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who completed questionnaires examining involvement, personal resources (self-efficacy and sense of coherence), loneliness, and adjustment. Results indicated that siblings who are more involved and perceive their efficacy and coherence as higher and loneliness as lower, experience higher levels of mental wellbeing and lower levels of mental distress. Personal resources also meaningfully predicted siblings' adjustment, and mediated the relations between involvement and wellbeing. The current study can serve as a basis for professional and current knowledge for the construction of intervention programs to strengthen siblings' personal resources: efficacy and coherence as resilience factors that promote adjustment.</p> <p>Keywords: Siblings; intellectual disability; autism; resources; loneliness</p> <p>Typically-developing siblings of individuals with developmental disabilities serve as a source of support for their siblings with disability. Their involvement and functioning changes through the years, and in adulthood, they are involved in issues relating to future plans but also receive responsibility for the care of their siblings with disability (Casale et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]; Heller & Arnold, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]; Nuttall et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref3">43</reflink>]). Involvement in the lives of their siblings with disability during adulthood necessitates coping with challenges and conflict, which can create stress in the family (Nuttall et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref4">43</reflink>]; Shivers & Dykens, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref5">60</reflink>]). Coping with these challenges and life stressors is related to the use of resources that are available, among them personal resources such as self-efficacy (SE) and sense of coherence ([SOC] Margalit, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref6">38</reflink>]). Similarly, the challenges that siblings experience can manifest as difficulties in psychological and social functioning and sibling relationships (Shivers et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref7">61</reflink>]). Additionally, their relations with their siblings with disabilities can be related to feelings of loneliness (Koukouriki et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]). The adjustment of siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities is impacted by a variety of factors including the nature of the relationship with their siblings, the characteristics of the disability, and family and environmental variables (Green, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]; Orsmond & Seltzer, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]; Watson et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref11">76</reflink>]). There is limited research on the adjustment of siblings, specifically adult siblings, of individuals with autism spectrum disorder, particularly in the context of their personal resources (i.e., SE and SOC) and vulnerability (i.e., loneliness). Aiming to fill this gap, the current study examines the relations amongst the involvement of siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, their personal resources (SE and SOC), their perceptions of loneliness, and their adjustment.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-2">Sibling involvement</hd> <p>Involvement of family members in caring for a child with intellectual and developmental disabilities has been examined in various contexts with an emphasis on parental involvement (e.g., Sharabi & Marom-Golan, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref12">59</reflink>]), and that of typically-developing siblings, who often are actively involved in this care (Tomeny et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref13">68</reflink>]). Throughout various developmental stages, siblings help and support their parents and their sibling with disability (Tozer et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref14">69</reflink>]). Sibling involvement changes at various stages of development, and at times, they are required to take on parental roles from a young age, which places a heavy responsibility on them for which they are not developmentally prepared – a process known as parentification (Hooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]; Tomeny et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref16">67</reflink>]). Sibling involvement includes support and physical and emotional help focused on the parents (e.g., helping with housework), alongside help and support of the sibling with disabilities, which includes overall support, coordinating therapists, representing legal rights, scheduling free time, and involvement in the sibling with disability's social life (Hall & Rossetti, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]; Rossetti & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref18">54</reflink>]; Tomeny et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref19">68</reflink>]). At times, brothers and sisters are also involved in the sibling with disability's intervention program (Wright & Beningo, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref20">78</reflink>]). In a study that explored relationships between siblings with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities (Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorder), it was found that siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities reported having a good time together, although, siblings of individuals with Down syndrome reported involvement including a positive and close emotional relationship and a broader range of shared activities with their siblings (Rossetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref21">55</reflink>]). During adulthood, in light of the possibility of their becoming the primary caretakers for the sibling with disability, sibling involvement often includes planning the sibling's future. This stage is accompanied by challenges and conflicts relating to communication with their parents regarding their involvement, with the focus on future plans (Nuttall et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref22">43</reflink>]; Rossetti & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref23">54</reflink>]). In the current study, relations were examined between involvement, including coping with challenges, with the siblings' personal resources of self-efficacy and sense of coherence.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-3">Personal resources: Self-efficacy (SE) and sense of coherence (SOC)</hd> <p>Positive outcomes are associated with having a child with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the family, such as positive sibling relationships for both the siblings with and without a disability (Rossetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref24">55</reflink>]). At the same time, negative outcomes also have been found, such as stress for family members and reduced adjustment for the typically-developing sibling (Giallo & Gvidia-Payne, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]; Shivers & Dykens, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref26">60</reflink>]). Personal resources, in particular SE and SOC, can help individuals cope with life stressors (Margalit, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>SE is generally seen as the individual's belief in their ability to meet expectations and achieve desired goals (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>], p. 2012). SE was indicated as a predictor of family adjustment in families with children with serious disabilities (Benzies et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>]). Greater SE along with other personal resources can help these families in coping with stressful situations (e.g., Tsibidaki, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref30">71</reflink>]). A study focused on siblings' SE, which assessed social, emotional, and academic efficacy, showed that siblings of a child with autism spectrum disorder reported lower scores on emotional and social efficacy, than the siblings of a typically-developing child, but similar academic efficacy (Hebelrih et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]). In a study that examined feelings of adjustment of adult siblings of individuals with a disability compared to siblings of individuals without a disability, interpersonal abilities and maternal attitudes were significantly related to SE (Grissom & Borkowski, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]). It thus appears that SE is an important resource for typically-developing siblings' functioning.</p> <p>Another personal resource that can be helpful in coping with difficult situations is SOC, which reflects an individuals' confidence that they can understand, manage, and gain meaning from aspects of their internal and external environments (Antonovsky, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>], p. 1996), such as the presence of an individual with disabilities in the family. A study on SOC among families with a child with intellectual and developmental disabilities indicated that parents of children with autism spectrum disorder had a lower level of SOC than parents with typically-developing children and SOC level among parents of a child with autism spectrum disorder was positively associated with seeking social support and self-controlling, and negatively associated with accepting responsibility and positive reappraisal (Pisula & Kossakowska, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref34">50</reflink>]). While SOC serves as a protective psychological factor (Lundman et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>]; Margalit, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]), studies show that intellectual and developmental disabilities' severity has an indirect association with typically-developing siblings' SOC, and these siblings may have a more difficult time managing and understanding their environmental stimuli (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref37">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other studies examined the relations between personal resources and feelings of loneliness among adolescents and adults, but we found no research examining these relations specifically amongst siblings of individuals with disabilities. This study examined these relations amongst typically-developing siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-4">Loneliness</hd> <p>Loneliness is an unpleasant feeling that negatively affects children's and adults' wellbeing. Loneliness is influenced by life experiences and personal variables, and can result from the discrepancy between an individual's current social relationships and their expected ones (Margalit, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]; Peplau & Perlman, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref39">49</reflink>]). Ulu-Yalçınkaya and Demir ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref40">73</reflink>]), who studied adolescents, documented siblings' loneliness as correlated to the quality of sibling relationships, along with parental acceptance and rejection, while sibling warmth and rivalry negatively related to loneliness. In terms of families with a child with intellectual and developmental disabilities, typically-developing siblings are often cognisant of whether their sibling with a disability has limited social networks and will assume the role of friend (Tomeny et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref41">68</reflink>]), and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities tend to see their siblings as their primary friends (Papoutsakia et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref42">47</reflink>]). Children and adolescent siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities demonstrate more psychological and peer problems, and lower levels of prosocial behaviour (Shivers & Dykens, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref43">60</reflink>]; Shivers et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref44">61</reflink>]). Notably, there is a paucity of research regarding loneliness in typically-developing siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A previous study did not find significant differences in loneliness between groups of siblings (children and adolescents) of individuals with autism spectrum disorder, Down syndrome, and normative development (Kaminsky & Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]). Yet, a recent study of school-aged siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder found that siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder had higher levels of loneliness and social dissatisfaction than siblings of children without disabilities (Koukouriki et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>]). Siblings cope with various negative feelings, such as loneliness, and emotional overload that can impair their adjustment. The current study examined the relations between personal resources and loneliness with sibling adjustment.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-5">Siblings' adjustment: Mental health</hd> <p>An individual is considered to have "good adjustment" when there is balance between stressful situations and the resources the individual has to meet those demands. On the flip side, maladjustment is when there is a lack of balance between demands and the individual's ability to meet those demands (Lazarus & Folkman, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref47">34</reflink>]). The current study assessed mental health, a commonly accepted measure of adjustment (McCubbin & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>]), which is generally reflected in two dimensions – psychological wellbeing and psychological distress. Psychological wellbeing generally encompasses positive aspects of mental health such as meaningful connections with others, a positive approach to life, feelings of satisfaction and pleasure from life, hopefulness, confidence, and others (Veit & Ware, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref49">75</reflink>]). Psychological distress generally encompasses the more negative aspects of mental health such as anxiety, depression, and other emotional or behavioural difficulties. The mental wellbeing in a family is influenced by the dynamics and relations between siblings, and conflictual family functioning has an impact on siblings' psychological wellbeing (Geerts-Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>]). Sibling relations, especially connection between siblings, have been shown to uniquely contribute to their wellbeing, often reflected in the literature as social and behavioural problems, competence, and self-concept (Jensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref51">28</reflink>]; Van Riper, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref52">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Results are mixed on the adjustment (mental health) of siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Some studies reveal that siblings report feelings relating to low levels of wellbeing and depressive symptoms (Koukouriki et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref53">32</reflink>]; Murrin et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref54">41</reflink>]). A meta-analysis conducted by Shivers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref55">61</reflink>]) revealed that siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder struggle with various psychosocial adjustment problems including worse internalising behaviour, greater impairment in social functioning, and poorer sibling relationships with their siblings with autism spectrum disorder compared to siblings of individuals with normative development (Shivers et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref56">61</reflink>]). At the same time, other studies found that siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities demonstrated positive outcomes such as better coping skills (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref57">63</reflink>]). Still other studies found no significant differences in adjustment between siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and those without disabilities (Rodgers et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref58">53</reflink>]). Siblings' functioning and optimal adjustment are influenced by ideal conditions, and their wellbeing is influenced by the nature of their relations with their siblings and other factors such as demographic risk factors (e.g., family size), parents' wellbeing, and sibling with disability's functioning (Green, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-6">Study aims & hypotheses</hd> <p>The study examined relations between a number of variables regarding typically-developing adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: involvement in the lives of their siblings with disability, personal resources (SE and SOC), loneliness, and adjustment (mental health). Similarly, the predictive ability of involvement, resources and loneliness for wellbeing was examined. From these aims, we derived four hypotheses:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Relations will be found between the involvement of siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their adjustment, with higher involvement associated with reports of higher mental wellbeing and lower mental distress.</item> <p></p> <item> Relations will be found between the personal resources of siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and adjustment, such that higher levels of SE and SOC will be associated with higher levels of mental wellbeing and lower mental distress.</item> <p></p> <item> Relations will be found between the loneliness experienced by siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and adjustment, such that lower levels of loneliness will be associated with higher levels of wellbeing and lower mental distress.</item> <p></p> <item> Involvement, personal resources, and loneliness will all contribute to the variance in the adjustment of siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177082732-7">Participants</hd> <p>Participants in the study included a total of 99 siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: 59 siblings of individuals with intellectual disability and 40 siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (without intellectual disability). Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 62 years (<emph>M</emph> = 29.73, <emph>SD</emph> = 8.38). Of the participants, 36% were male and 64% were female, and 33.3% of participants were the eldest in the family and 66.7% were not. Furthermore, 58.6% of siblings live with their sibling with disability and 41.4% do not. Overall, the majority of participants (62.6%) rated themselves as being of average SES, with nearly one-third reporting high SES (29.3%), and a minority identifying as being of low SES (8.1%). When comparing the autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability groups, no differences were observed in age <emph>(t = </emph>.02<emph>, p > </emph>.05), gender distribution (<emph>χ²</emph> = 2.16, <emph>p</emph> >.05<emph>),</emph> birth order (<emph>χ²</emph> =.02, <emph>p</emph> >.05), living with/without the sibling (<emph>χ²</emph> = 1.14, <emph>p</emph> >.05), or SES (<emph>χ²</emph> = 1.12, <emph>p </emph>>.05).</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-8">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177082732-9">Demographic questionnaire</hd> <p>This researcher-constructed questionnaire included items relating to the participants (e.g., sex, number of siblings, SES) and to the siblings with intellectual and developmental disabilities (e.g., sex, age, type of disability, etc.). Two items specifically related to siblings' involvement were included. One related to the level of active involvement in their sibling with disability's life: "How would you define your level of personal involvement in the care of and providing active help to your sibling with a disability?" The second item related to participants' involvement in decision-making: "To what degree do you participate in the day-to-day decisions relating to your sibling, such as buying clothing, using money, managing bank accounts." Both items were ranked on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (always).</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-10">Self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001)</hd> <p>This 8-item scale examined general self-efficacy. Items describe the extent that the individual believes in their ability to perform tasks (e.g., "I can accomplish most of the goals I set for myself"). Participants were asked to note their level of agreement with each item, on a scale ranging from 1 (agree very little) to 5 (agree very much), and higher scores indicate a higher level of self-efficacy. Internal reliability was Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> =.85 in previous studies (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>]) and <emph>α</emph> =.90 in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-11">Sense of coherence scale (Antonovsky, 1987)</hd> <p>This 29-item questionnaire asked participants to respond to descriptions of thoughts, emotions, and actions as they relate to three aspects of the term "sense of coherence": Understandability (e.g., "When you speak with people, do you have a feeling that they don't understand you?"), manageability (e.g., "Does it happen that you have emotions that you are not certain you can control"), and meaningfulness ("Do you expect that your future personal life will be filled with meaning or meaningless?"). Items are ranked on a scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much), and then averaged. Higher scores indicate a stronger SOC. Inter-item reliability ranged from Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.88–0.91 in previous studies (Antonovsky, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>]) and <emph>α</emph> = 0.92 in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-12">Loneliness scale (De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006)</hd> <p>This 9-item scale examined different aspects of loneliness. Three items related to emotional loneliness (e.g., "I feel I'm missing something when I don't have a close, true friend"), and six items related to social loneliness (e.g., "I miss not having enough people around me"). Items are ranked on a scale ranging from 1 (often applies) to 3 (rarely applies), and higher scores reflect a higher level of loneliness. Internal reliability was Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> =.71 in previous studies (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]) and <emph>α</emph> =.86 in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-13">Adjustment – mental health inventory (Veit & Ware, 1983)</hd> <p>This 38-item questionnaire related to feelings of mental wellbeing or distress over the past month. For example, "To what extent are you happy or satisfied from your personal life" (wellbeing), or "How often do you feel lonely" (distress). Items are ranked on a scale ranging from 1 (all the time) to 6 (never). The overall score serves as a Mental Health Index, with two subscales – <emph>mental wellbeing</emph> (13 items) and <emph>mental distress</emph> (25 items). Internal reliability for the questionnaire ranged from Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.83–0.92 in previous studies (Veit & Ware, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref63">75</reflink>]), and in the current study was Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> =.93 for wellbeing and <emph>α</emph> =.94 for mental distress.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-14">Procedure</hd> <p>The study was approved by the ethical review board of Kibbutzim College of Education, and the study adhered to all ethical guidelines. Siblings were recruited using an online survey distributed via social media and sent to organisations that focus on individuals with disabilities. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that data were anonymised.</p> <p>The survey included the informed consent form and completing the survey established participants' consent.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-15">Data analysis</hd> <p>Initial analyses were conducted including descriptive statistics and reliability for the above-described measures. To examine the research questions and hypotheses, Pearson correlations were conducted first. This was followed by 2 × 2 MANOVAs (Sex X Disability type) to examine differences between siblings of individuals with intellectual disability vs. those with autism spectrum disorder for the following predictor variables: personal characteristics, involvement, efficacy, SOC, and loneliness. Simple Effects analyses were used to examine statistical differences based on sex. Last, hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine variables' prediction of mental wellbeing and distress. All statistical analyses were conducted with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177082732-17">Correlations</hd> <p>Pearson correlations were conducted to examine study hypotheses regarding relations between study variables and demographic variables (age, number of siblings, SES). Table 1 presents these results, along with the means and standard deviations for the variables.</p> <p>Table 1. Pearson correlations between study variables (N = 99).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Self-involvement</td><td>Decision involvement</td><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>Sense of Coherence</td><td>Loneliness</td><td>Mental wellbeing</td><td>Mental distress</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td /><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td char=".">____</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td char=".">.15</td><td char=".">_____</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td char=".">.44***</td><td char=".">.14</td><td char=".">____</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td char=".">.36***</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.46***</td><td char=".">____</td><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td char=".">−.33***</td><td char=".">−.14</td><td char=".">−.54***</td><td char=".">−.58***</td><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td char=".">.47***</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.61***</td><td char=".">.67***</td><td char=".">−.69***</td><td>____</td><td /></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td char=".">−.20*</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.41***</td><td char=".">−.72***</td><td char=".">.57***</td><td>−.65***</td><td>_____</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td char=".">3.41</td><td char=".">3.41</td><td char=".">3.20</td><td char=".">4.43</td><td char=".">1.64</td><td char=".">52.91</td><td char=".">60.02</td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">1.32</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char=".">11.05</td><td char=".">14.48</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *<emph>p </emph><.05, **<emph>p </emph><.01, ***<emph>p </emph><.001.</p> <p>From Table 1 it can be seen that there is a significant positive correlation between self-involvement and wellbeing, such that siblings who are more involved report higher levels of mental wellbeing. Similarly, a significant negative correlation was found between self-involvement and mental distress, such that siblings who are more involved report lower mental distress. Relations between involvement in decision-making and other variables were not significant. Regarding the relations between SE and SOC and mental health, significant positive correlations were found between these variables and mental wellbeing, and significant negative correlations were found between these variables and mental distress. That is, siblings who perceive their SE and/or SOC as higher, experience higher levels of mental wellbeing and lower levels of mental distress. In terms of the relations between loneliness and mental wellbeing, significant negative correlations were found with distress, such that siblings who feel greater loneliness have lower levels of wellbeing and higher levels of distress. A significant negative correlation was found between mental wellbeing and mental distress. That is, participants who report higher levels of wellbeing experience lower levels of distress.</p> <p>The study also examined relations between demographic variables (age, number of siblings, and SES) with the study variables. Significant correlations were only found relating to SES. Specifically, higher SES was associated with higher SOC (<emph>r</emph> =.28, <emph>p </emph><.01), and SE (<emph>r</emph> =.30, <emph>p </emph><.01), and significant negative correlations were found between SES and loneliness (<emph>r</emph> = -.22, <emph>p </emph><.05), such that higher SES was associated with lower loneliness. Additionally, significant positive correlations were found between SES and mental wellbeing (<emph>r</emph> =.24, <emph>p</emph> <.05), and a significant negative correlation with mental distress (<emph>r</emph> =.28, <emph>p</emph> <.01). In other words, higher levels of SES were associated with higher levels of mental wellbeing and lower levels of mental distress.</p> <p>To examine the contribution of the predictor variables (personal characteristics, involvement, SE, SOC, loneliness) to the variance in mental wellbeing and distress, hierarchical regression were run (separately for wellbeing and for distress), with variables entered in five steps as follows. In Step 1, personal characteristics (sex, type of sibling disability, SES) were entered. In Step 2, the two involvement measures (self-involvement, decision-making) were entered, and in Step 3, the personal resources were entered (efficacy, coherence). In Step 4, loneliness was entered and in Step 5, interactions between personal characteristics and study variables were entered. The variables in the first four steps were force entered, while the interactions entered in the fifth step were based on the level of significance – only interactions that significantly contributed to variance in mental wellbeing and distress are reported here. Results revealed that 66% of the variance in mental wellbeing and 64% of mental distress were explained by the independent variables. Table 2 presents the regression results.</p> <p>Table 2. Hierarchical regression explaining variance in mental wellbeing amongst siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (N = 99).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Step</td><td>Variables</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td><italic>Std Err.</italic></td><td>Beta</td><td><italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td>Δ<italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.21***</td><td char=".">.21***</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">8.05</td><td char=".">2.14</td><td char=".">.36***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">3.04</td><td char=".">2.05</td><td char=".">.14</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">3.94</td><td char=".">1.80</td><td char=".">.21*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>2</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.31***</td><td char=".">.10***</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">5.46</td><td char=".">2.16</td><td char=".">.24*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">2.12</td><td char=".">1.96</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">3.37</td><td char=".">1.70</td><td char=".">.18*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-involvement</td><td char=".">3.50</td><td char=".">.95</td><td char=".">.35***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Decision-making</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.75</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>3</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.60***</td><td char=".">.29***</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">4.92</td><td char=".">1.69</td><td char=".">.22*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">.78</td><td char=".">1.52</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">−.34</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-involvement</td><td char=".">−1.15</td><td char=".">.79</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Decision-making</td><td char=".">−.27</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SE</td><td char=".">5.94</td><td char=".">1.70</td><td char=".">.29***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SOC</td><td char=".">5.65</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">.50***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>4</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.66***</td><td char=".">.06***</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">4.04</td><td char=".">1.60</td><td char=".">.18*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">1.43</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">−.42</td><td char=".">1.29</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-involvement</td><td char=".">1.16</td><td char=".">.74</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Decision-making</td><td char=".">−.30</td><td char=".">.54</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SE</td><td char=".">3.99</td><td char=".">1.70</td><td char=".">.19*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SOC</td><td char=".">4.19</td><td char=".">.98</td><td char=".">.35***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Loneliness</td><td char=".">−6.80</td><td char=".">1.83</td><td char=".">−.31***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Note. SES - socioeconomic status, SE – self-efficacy, SOC – sense of coherence.</item> <item>3 *<emph>p </emph><.05, **<emph>p </emph><.01, ***<emph>p </emph><.001.</item> </ulist> <p>It can be seen in Table 2 that Step 1 significantly explained 21% of the variance, with sex and SES contributing significantly. In particular, wellbeing was higher amongst sisters than brothers, and those with higher levels of SES experience higher levels of wellbeing. The addition of the two involvement measures in Step 2 contributed an additional 10% to the explanation of the variance, with a significant contribution only for self-involvement. That is, siblings who are more involved are predicted to have higher levels of wellbeing. Step 3 contributed an additional 29% to the explanation of the variance, with siblings with higher levels of SE and/or SOC reporting higher levels of wellbeing. It is important to note that entering these two variables at this step reduced the contribution of the measure for self-involvement (from β =.35, <emph>p</emph> <.001 to β =.11, <emph>p</emph> <.05). This raises the possibility of mediation.</p> <p>In order to examine this possibility of mediation, a separate Sobel analysis was run. This revealed the mediation of SE (Z = 3.70, <emph>p </emph><.001) and SOC (Z = 4.31, <emph>p </emph><.001). The significant Z scores in this analysis indicate that both SE and SOC appear to be mediating the contribution of the involvement variables to mental wellbeing. In Step 4, loneliness contributed an additional 6% to the explanation of variance, such that higher levels of loneliness predict lower levels of wellbeing. No significant contribution was found for the interactions in the fifth and final step.</p> <p>A similar regression analysis was run for mental distress, and results are displayed in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3. Hierarchical regression to explain variance in mental distress amongst siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (N = 99).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Step</td><td>Variables</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td><italic>Std Err</italic></td><td>Beta</td><td><italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td>Δ<italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.14**</td><td char=".">.14**</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">−.70</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">−6.50</td><td char=".">2.83</td><td char=".">−.22*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">−7.39</td><td char=".">2.50</td><td char=".">−.30**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>2</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.16**</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">.67</td><td char=".">3.18</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">−6.06</td><td char=".">2.89</td><td char=".">−.21*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">−7.07</td><td char=".">2.50</td><td char=".">−.28**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-involvement</td><td char=".">−1.73</td><td char=".">1.40</td><td char=".">−.13</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Decision-making</td><td char=".">−.19</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>3</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.55***</td><td char=".">.39***</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">.54</td><td char=".">2.40</td><td char=".">02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">−3.64</td><td char=".">2.17</td><td char=".">−.13</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">−1.76</td><td char=".">1.95</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-involvement</td><td char=".">−1.46</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Decision-making</td><td char=".">.40</td><td char=".">.82</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SE</td><td char=".">−3.90</td><td char=".">2.42</td><td char=".">−.14</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SOC</td><td char=".">−10.50</td><td char=".">1.36</td><td char=".">−.65***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>4</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.58***</td><td char=".">.03*</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">1.42</td><td char=".">2.36</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">−3.44</td><td char=".">2.11</td><td char=".">−.12</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">−1.68</td><td char=".">1.90</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-involvement</td><td char=".">−1.45</td><td char=".">1.09</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Decision-making</td><td char=".">.43</td><td char=".">.80</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SE</td><td char=".">−1.96</td><td char=".">2.48</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SOC</td><td char=".">−9.03</td><td char=".">1.44</td><td char=".">−.56***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Loneliness</td><td char=".">6.70</td><td char=".">2.70</td><td char=".">.23*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>5</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">.64***</td><td char=".">.06***</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex</td><td char=".">.25</td><td char=".">2.24</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Disorder type</td><td char=".">−3.70</td><td char=".">1.97</td><td char=".">−.13</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES</td><td char=".">−2.80</td><td char=".">1.81</td><td char=".">−.11</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-involvement</td><td char=".">2.39</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">.18*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Decision-making</td><td char=".">1.03</td><td char=".">.76</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SE</td><td char=".">−2.73</td><td char=".">2.35</td><td char=".">−.10</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SOC</td><td char=".">−9.00</td><td char=".">1.36</td><td char=".">−.56***</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Loneliness</td><td char=".">5.62</td><td char=".">2.60</td><td char=".">.19*</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>Sex X Loneliness</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">.20**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /><td>SES X SE</td><td char=".">3.02</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">.20**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 Note. SES - socioeconomic status, SE – self-efficacy, SOC – sense of coherence.</item> <item>5 *<emph>p </emph><.05, **<emph>p </emph><.01, ***<emph>p </emph><.001</item> </ulist> <p>As can be seen in Table 3, Step 1 revealed a significant contribution of the personal characteristics, explaining 14% of the variance in mental distress. Type of disability was significant, such that siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder report less mental distress than those with siblings with intellectual disability. SES was also significant, such that those with higher SES experience less mental distress. Step 2, which added the involvement measures did not significantly add to the explanation of the variance. At Step 3, an additional 39% of the variance was explained by the personal resources variables, with a significant result only for SOC. That is, those with higher SOC experience less mental distress. Adding loneliness in Step 4 added 3% to the explanation of variance, with those reporting greater loneliness experiencing greater mental distress. In Step 5, two significant interactions were found: Sex X Loneliness, ß =.20**, <emph>p</emph> <.01, and SES X SE, ß =.20**, <emph>p</emph> <.01. Figures 1 and 2 depict these interactions.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Relations between loneliness and mental distress according to sex.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Relations between self-efficacy & mental distress according to SES. Note. SE = self-efficacy, SES = socioeconomic status.</p> <p>Figure 1 reveals that for sisters, higher levels of loneliness are associated with greater mental distress (<emph>r</emph> =.31, <emph>p</emph> <.01), whereas for brothers, there is no significant association between loneliness and mental distress (<emph>r</emph> =.01, <emph>p</emph> >.05).</p> <p>Figure 2 reveals that amongst those with lower SES, those with higher SE have lower mental distress (<emph>r </emph>= -.21, <emph>p </emph><.05), while for those with higher SES there is no significant relation between SE and mental distress (<emph>r</emph> =.11, <emph>p</emph> >.05).</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-18">Discussion</hd> <p>This study focused on the adjustment of adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and examined the relations between their involvement, their personal resources (SE, SOC), and loneliness with their adjustment. In line with our hypotheses, greater involvement by siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who perceive their levels of SE and SOC as higher and their feelings of loneliness as lower, reported greater mental wellbeing and lower mental distress. One of the clear findings of the study indicated the role of these personal resources (SE, SOC) as variables that mediate the relations between involvement and wellbeing. Low levels of sibling involvement in the lives of their sibling with intellectual and developmental disabilities can lead to negative feelings such as guilt and self-criticism, which can serve as a source of stress that reduces the siblings' mental wellbeing. It may be that higher levels of SE and SOC amongst siblings with lower levels of involvement helps them to regulate the negative feelings that serve as stressors, which avoids the impact on their mental wellbeing. As such, SE and SOC serve as resources that inhibit the negative effects of low involvement and in this way constitute a mediating factor between siblings' low involvement and their mental wellbeing.</p> <p>These results shed light on the importance of the psychological resources of SE and SOC in the prediction of wellbeing amongst siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are less involved in the lives of their siblings with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These findings are supported by Antonovsky's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]) salutogenic model, according to which people with a high SOC have a greater ability to withstand pressure and regulate stress, and thus have higher mental wellbeing (Pallant & Lae, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref65">46</reflink>]; Soderfeldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref66">64</reflink>]). It was further found that people with a low SOC had a reduced ability to cope with stress and lower self-regulation (Yinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref67">80</reflink>]). Similarly, higher levels of SE can impact emotional self-regulation, and in turn, influence the individual's wellbeing (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]). While we did not find other studies that examined these variables amongst siblings, in studies of parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, a high SOC related positively to better adjustment and mental wellbeing and related negatively with stress (Kaniel & Siman-Tov, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref69">30</reflink>]; Hedov et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>]; Hintermair, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref71">26</reflink>]; Mak et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref72">37</reflink>]; Siman-Tov & Kaniel, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref73">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>The importance of SE and SOC was also reflected in their contribution to the interactions explaining siblings' mental distress. Amongst participants from a low SES, the higher the levels of SE, the lower the levels of their mental distress, while amongst those from a high SES, there was no significant relation between SE and distress. It seems that there is a cumulative adverse effect of a low SES and low SE on the siblings' mental distress. On the other hand, a high SES can compensate for low SE to some degree, and ease the damaging impact of low SE by providing access to support and external sources who can be paid to help in the care of the sibling with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and thus relieve the degree of the sibling's mental distress. This finding is in line with other studies that showed a negative relation between low SES and resources for coping and belief in the ability to cope amongst families of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Raikes & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref74">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the loneliness variable, an interaction emerged with siblings' sex: amongst sisters with higher levels of loneliness, relations were found between loneliness and mental distress, while amongst brothers, no such relation was found. It may be that this finding relates to differences in coping styles between the sexes. Females tend to use a coping style focused on emotion, expressing emotion, and searching for emotional support as a resource for coping with distress, while males tend to use cognitive coping strategies that focus on problem-solving (Milfont & Sibley, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref75">40</reflink>]; Rueckert et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref76">56</reflink>]; Stuijfzand et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref77">65</reflink>]; Yee & Schulz, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref78">79</reflink>]). These sex differences were also found in previous studies amongst mothers and fathers of those with special needs/autism spectrum disorder (Gray, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref79">18</reflink>]; Pelchet et al., 2003; Sullivan, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref80">66</reflink>]). It may be that the experience of loneliness amongst sisters of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities is expressed in the absence of sharing their emotional experiences with supportive individuals/groups, and in this way, increased their feelings of mental distress. In contrast, brothers may utilise the resource of emotional communication less, and may therefore be impacted less by its absence.</p> <p>Loneliness and mental health may also change at different points in development. For example, adolescence may be a time when loneliness is more prominent or mental health may be more challenging in line with developmental challenges of adolescence (e.g., Goossens, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref81">17</reflink>]). Similarly, the sibling relationship may change at different points in time and with varying ages of the siblings (Buhrmester & Furman, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>]). It is important to consider these variables at different points within the sibling relationships, and when the siblings are at different ages.</p> <p>It was interesting to find that participants whose siblings have autism spectrum disorder reported less distress than participants whose siblings have intellectual disability. Different studies have indicated a tendency to label individuals with disabilities (Reiter, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref83">52</reflink>]), and it may be that their distress stems from these negative social labels relating to individuals with intellectual disability, which may also be projected to siblings and instill in them negative feelings like shame and distress. This explanation is supported by studies showing that there is still a negative societal approach towards individuals with intellectual disability relating to their capabilities. This population is still considered to have limited capabilities and thought to lack the ability to learn and be independent (Ali et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>]; Nagata, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>]; Ouellette-Kuntz et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref86">45</reflink>]; Schalock et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref87">57</reflink>]). Moreover, it was found that the broader public prefers social connection with people with physical or sensory disabilities compared to those with intellectual disabilities (Scior, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref88">58</reflink>]; Werner, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref89">77</reflink>]). These individuals are considered one of the groups that suffer from negative labelling, social exclusion, prejudice, and multiple barriers (Scior, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref90">58</reflink>]). As a result of this kind of labelling, it was found that families of individuals with intellectual disability reveal more embarrassment and shame, which leads to mental oppression and distress (Ali et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>]). Research results indicate a negative impact of social stigma on the wellbeing of parents of children with intellectual disability; that is, a negative relation has been found between feelings of stigma and feelings of mental distress (Ali et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>]; Mak & Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref93">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>In sum, the study's results shed light on the internal dynamic amongst typically-developing adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities that can lead to feelings of wellbeing or distress. Further, the study details the relations between involvement and the psychological variables of personal resources, and loneliness, which shape the mental wellbeing/distress of these siblings. Active involvement in the lives of their siblings with intellectual and developmental disabilities likely exposes the siblings to interactions and experiences that are important in constructing their perception of SE, strengthening their SOC, and reducing their sense of loneliness and achieving greater wellbeing (Grove et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref94">21</reflink>]; Peebles & Mendaglio, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-19">Limitations & future research</hd> <p>The study's results are limited in a number of ways. Regarding methodology, the study relied on self-report questionnaires in examining the siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, which are subject to various biases (e.g., social desirability), and limited in their structured approach. To more deeply examine the siblings' subjective experience, we recommend that future research include a qualitative component, using methods such as in-depth interviews. Additionally, sibling diagnoses were reported by the participating siblings and not independently verified. We recommend that future studies include verification of the diagnoses. The study took a cross-sectional approach by examining the variables relating to siblings at a single time point. The interactions that emerged in the regression analyses should be probed in greater depth to more fully evaluate the nature of the interactions. As well, exploring the study variables longitudinally can provide a broader, more long-term view, as well as examine potential changes at different points in the life cycle. Finally, while the focus in this study was the perspective of typically-developing siblings, other perspectives exist and should be explored, including parents, the siblings with disabilities, and professionals working with the families, amongst others. Moreover, as a family systems perspective (Friedman et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref96">14</reflink>]; Turnbull et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref97">72</reflink>]) highlights the impact of all members of the family on each other, it is important to consider the role of each family member and how it may impact on the sibling relationship. This may broaden the understanding of the current study' findings.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-20">Conclusions & implications</hd> <p>The current study highlights the importance of examining the variables that contribute to the wellbeing of siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and sheds light on the internal dynamic between them that is associated with their adjustment, as reflected in their feelings of mental wellbeing or distress. Those who work with families with children with disabilities, such as special education teachers, educational counselors, psychologists, etc., should be made aware of the unique needs of siblings from a young age. In line with this, the study's findings indicate the need to develop intervention programs that strengthen resources shown to promote mental wellbeing, such as SE and SOC, and will assist siblings in developing attitudes based on positive interpretations that nourish health, wellbeing, and effective adaptation. Programs aiming to address siblings' various needs and personal resources should be adapted to their ages and family situation. Similarly, treatment models should be developed that focus on the community and the education system and wellbeing, which relate to the impact of social stigma (towards disabilities) on the mental wellbeing of siblings and family members. Promoting professional and quality models can contribute to the construction of coping processes and treatment interventions that are adapted and effective for the population.</p> <hd id="AN0177082732-21">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0177082732-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref84" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ali, A., Hassiotis, A., Strydom, A., & King, M. (2012). Self stigma in people with intellectual disabilities and courtesy stigma in family carers: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33 (6), 2122 – 2140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.06.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. Jossey Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref61" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social Science & Medicine, 36 (6), 725 – 733. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90033-Z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11 (1), 11 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/11.1.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref68" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freedman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38 (1), 9 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref29" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Benzies, K. M., Trute, B., & Worthington, C. (2013). Maternal self-efficacy and family adjustment in households with children with serious disability. Journal of Family Studies, 19 (1), 35 – 43. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2013.19.1.35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref82" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61 (5), 1387 – 1398. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casale, M. M., Burke, R. C., Arnold, C. K., & Hodapp, R. M. (2021). Getting from here to there: Future planning as reported by adult siblings of individuals with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 65 (3), 246 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4 (1), 62 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson, O. B., Feldman, D. B., & Margalit, M. (2012). A focused intervention for 1st-year college students: Promoting hope, sense of coherence, and self-efficacy. The Journal of Psychology, 146 (3), 333 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.634862</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Jong Gierveld, J., & Van Tilburg, T. (2006). A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness. Research on Aging, 28 (5), 582 – 598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027506289723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, M. M., Bowden, V. R., & Jones, E. (2003). Family nursing: Research, theory & practice. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geerts-Perry, A. T., Riggs, S. A., Kaminski, P. L., & Murrell, A. (2021). Psychological well-being and family functioning in middle childhood: The unique role of sibling relational dynamics. Journal of Family Issues, 42 (12), 2965 – 2985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X21993191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giallo, R., & Gvidia-Payne, S. (2006). Child, parent and family factors as predictors of adjustment for siblings of children with a disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50 (12), 937 – 948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00928.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goossens, L. (2018). Loneliness in adolescence: Insights from Cacioppo's evolutionary model. Child Development Perspectives, 12 (4), 230 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, D. E. (2003). Gender and coping: The parents of children with high functioning autism. Social Science & Medicine, 56 (3), 631 – 642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00059-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, L. (2013). The well-being of siblings of individuals with autism. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/417194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom, M.O., & Borkowski, J. (2002). Self-efficacy in adolescents who have siblings with or without disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107 (2), 79 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., & John, J. (2000). Services as theater: Guidelines and implications. In T. Swartz, & D. Iacobucci (Eds.), Handbook of services marketing and management (pp. 21 – 36). Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, S. A., & Rossetti, Z. (2018). The roles of adult siblings in the lives of people with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31 (3), 423 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebelrih, E. A., Hicks, R. A., & Vanstone, D. M. (2018). A study of the wellbeing of siblings of children with autism spectrum disorders: Sibling efficacy, positive and negative affect, and coping strategies. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 10 (2), 102 – 113. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v10n2p102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedov, G., Anneren, G., & Wikblad, K. (2002). Swedish parents of children with Down's syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 16 (4), 424 – 430. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-6712.2002.00109.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, T., & Arnold, C. K. (2010). Siblings of adults with developmental disabilities: Psychosocial outcomes, relationships, and future planning. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7 (1), 16 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2010.00243.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hintermair, M. (2004). Sense of coherence: A relevant resource in the coping process of mothers of deaf and hard-of-hearing children? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9 (1), 15 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enh005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooper, L. M., Doehler, K., Wallace, S. A., & Hannah, N. J. (2011). The parentification inventory: Development, validation and cross-validation. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 39 (3), 226 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2010.531652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, A. C., Nielson, M. K., & Yorgason, J. B. (2020). The longest-lasting relationship: Patterns of contact and well-being among mid- to later-life siblings. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75 (10), 2240 – 2249. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaminsky, L., & Dewey, D. (2002). Psychosocial adjustment in siblings of children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (2), 225 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaniel, S., & Siman-Tov, A. (2011). Comparison between mothers and fathers in coping with autistic children: A multivariate model. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26 (4), 479 – 493. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.597186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koukouriki, E., Athanasopoulou, E., & Andreoulakis, E. (2022). Feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in siblings of children with autism spectrum disorders: The role of birth order and perceived social support. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52 (11), 4722 – 4738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05308-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koukouriki, E., Soulis, S. G., & Andreoulakis, E. (2021). Depressive symptoms of autism spectrum disorder children's siblings in Greece: Associations with parental anxiety and social support. Autism, 25 (2), 529 – 544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320966847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latzer, Y., Katz, R., & Berger, K. (2015). Psychological distress among sisters of young females with eating disorders. Journal of Family Issues, 36 (5), 626 – 646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13487672</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal, and coping. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundman, B., Ale´x, L., Jonse´n, E., Norberg, A., Nygren, B., Fischer, R. S., & Strandberg, G. (2010). Inner strength—A theoretical analysis of salutogenic concepts. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47 (2), 251 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.05.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mak, W. W., & Cheung, R. Y. (2008). Affiliate stigma among caregivers of people with intellectual disability or mental illness. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21 (6), 532 – 545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00426.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mak, W. W. S., Ho, A. H. Y., & Law, R. W. (2007). Sense of coherence, parenting attitudes and stress among mothers of children with autism in Hong Kong. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20 (2), 157 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2006.00315.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Margalit, M. (2012). Lonely children and adolescents: Self perceptions, social exclusion and hope. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (1987). Family assessment inventories for research and practice. University of Wisconsin-Madison.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Empathic and social dominance orientations help explain gender differences in environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 85 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murrin, M., Beffel, J. H., & Nuttall, A. K. (2021). The moderating role of self-disclosure among typically developing siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30 (2), 364 – 374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01846-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagata, K. K. (2014). The scale of attitudes towards disabled persons (SADP): Cross-cultural validation in a middle income arab country, Jordan. Review of Disability Studies, 3 (4), 1 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuttall, A. K., Coberly, B., & Diesel, S. J. (2018). Childhood caregiving roles, perceptions of benefits, and future caregiving intentions among typically developing adult siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48 (4), 1199 – 1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3464-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orsmond, G. I., & Seltzer, M. M. (2009). Adolescent siblings of individuals with an autism spectrum disorder: Testing a diathesis-stress model of sibling well-being. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39 (7), 1053 – 1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0722-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Burge, P., Brown, H., & Arsenault, E. (2010). Public attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disabilities as measured by the concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23 (2), 132 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00514.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pallant, J. F., & Lae, L. (2002). Sense of coherence, well-being, coping and personality factors: Further evaluation of the sense of coherence scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 33 (1), 39 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00134-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papoutsakia, K., Genab, A., & Kalyva, E. (2013). How do children with mild intellectual disabilities perceive loneliness? Europe's Journal of Psychology, 9 (1), 51 – 61. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i1.489</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peebles, J. L., & Mendaglio, S. (2014). The impact of direct experience on preservice teachers' self-efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18 (12), 1321 – 1336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.899635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. 1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory research, and therapy. Wiley Interscience.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pisula, E., & Kossakowska, Z. (2010). Sense of coherence and coping with stress among mothers and fathers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40 (12), 1485 – 1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1001-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raikes, H. A., & Thompson, R. A. (2005). Efficacy and social support as predictors of parenting stress among families in poverty. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26 (3), 177 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter, S. (2008). Disability from a humanistic perspective: Towards a better quality of life. Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodgers, J. D., Warhol, A., Fox, J. D., McDonald, C. A., Thomeer, M. L., Lopata, C., Darrow, A. M., Szyszkowski, A. L., Biscotto, A. A., & Sheffield, T. (2016). Minimal risk of internalizing problems in typically-developing siblings of children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25 (8), 2554 – 2561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0407-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossetti, Z., & Hall, S. (2015). Adult sibling relationships with brothers and sisters with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40 (2), 120 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915592829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossetti, Z., Lee, C. E., Burke, M., & Hall, S. (2020). Perspectives about adult sibling relationships: A dyadic analysis of siblings with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 96), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rueckert, L., Branch, B., & Doan, T. (2011). Are gender differences in empathy due to differences in emotional reactivity? Psychology (savannah, Ga), 02 (06|6), 574 – 578. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.26088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., et al. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scior, K. (2011). Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32 (6), 2164 – 2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharabi, A., & Marom-Golan, D. (2018). Social support, education levels, and parents' involvement: A comparison between mothers and fathers of young children with autism spectrum disorder. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 38 (1), 54 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121418762511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shivers, C. M., & Dykens, E. M. (2017). Adolescent siblings of individuals with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities: Self-reported empathy and feelings about their brothers and sisters. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122 (1), 62 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.1.62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shivers, C. M., Jackson, J. B., & McGregor, C. M. (2019). Functioning among typically developing siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22 (2), 172 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0269-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siman-Tov, A., & Kaniel, S. (2011). Stress and personal resource as predictors of the adjustment of parents to autistic children: A multivariate model. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41 (7), 879 – 890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1112-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, L. O., Elder, J. H., Satorch, E. A., & Rowe, M. A. (2015). Predictors of sense of coherence in typically developing adolescent siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59 (1), 26 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soderfeldt, M., Soderfeldt, B., Ohlson, C. G., Theorell, T., & Jones, I. (2000). The impact of sense of coherence and high-demand/ low-control job environment on self reported health, burnout and psychophsiological stress indicators. Work Sc Stress, 14, 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuijfzand, S., De Wied, M., Kempes, M., Van de Graaff, J., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2016). Gender differences in empathic sadness towards persons of the same- versus other-sex during adolescence. Sex Roles, 75 (9-10), 434 – 446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0649-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan, A. (2002). Gender differences in coping strategies of parents of children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 8 (2), 67 – 73. https://doi.org/10.3104/reports.132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomeny, T. S., Barry, T. D., & Fair, E. C. (2017a). Parentification of adult siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Distress sibling relationship attitudes, and the role of social support. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 42 (4), 320 – 331. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1248376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomeny, T. S., Barry, T. D., Fair, E. C., & Riley, R. (2017b). Parentification of adult siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26 (4), 1056 – 1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0627-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tozer, R., Atkin, K., & Wenham, A. (2013). Continuity, commitment and context: Adult siblings of people with autism plus learning disability. Health & Social Care in the Community, 21 (5), 480 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsai, H. W. J., Cebula, K., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2016). Influences on the psychosocial adjustment of siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder in Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 32, 115 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2016.09.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsibidaki, A. (2021). Anxiety, meaning in life, self-efficacy and resilience in families with one or more members with special educational needs and disability during COVID-19 pandemic in Greece. Research in Developmental Disabilities, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Erwin, E. J., & Soodak, L. C. (2015). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust (7th Edition). Merrill Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulu-Yalçınkaya, A., & Demir, A. (2018). Loneliness with regard to maternal and paternal acceptance-rejection and sibling relationship quality. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 28 (2), 197 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2017.12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Riper, M. (2000). Family variables associated with well-being in siblings of children with Down syndrome. Journal of Family Nursing, 6 (3), 267 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1177/107484070000600305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veit, C. T., & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 (5), 730 – 742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.5.730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, L., Hanna, P., & Jones, C. T. (2021). A systematic review of the experience of being a sibling of a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26 (3), 734 – 749. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045211007921</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Werner, S. (2015). Public stigma and the perception of rights: Differences between intellectual and physical disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 262 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.12.030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, B. M., & Beningo, J. P. (2019). Autism spectrum disorder and sibling relationships: Exploring implications for intervention using a family systems framework. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28 (2), 759 – 767. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yee, J. L., & Schulz, R. (2000). Gender differences in psychiatric morbidity among family caregivers. The Gerontologist, 40 (2), 147 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.2.147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yinga, W., Leeb, A., & ôcTsaic, L. (2007). Attachment, sense of coherence, and mental health among Chinese American college students: Variation by migration status. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31 (5), 531 – 544. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.01.001</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ayelet Siman-Tov and Adi Sharabi</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref97"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1423293
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Siblings of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disability: Relations between Involvement, Personal Resources, Loneliness, and Their Adjustment
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ayelet+Siman-Tov%22">Ayelet Siman-Tov</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9237-8400">0000-0002-9237-8400</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adi+Sharabi%22">Adi Sharabi</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Intellectual+%26+Developmental+Disability%22"><i>Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability</i></searchLink>. 2024 49(2):229-240.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Disabilities%22">Developmental Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Siblings%22">Siblings</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sibling+Relationship%22">Sibling Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disability%22">Intellectual Disability</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.3109/13668250.2023.2298696
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1366-8250<br />1469-9532
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: The study examined relations between a number of variables regarding typically-developing adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disability: involvement in the lives of their siblings with disability, personal resources (self-efficacy and sense of coherence), loneliness, and adjustment. Method: Participants included 99 siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who completed questionnaires examining involvement, personal resources (self-efficacy and sense of coherence), loneliness, and adjustment. Results: Results indicated that siblings who are more involved and perceive their efficacy and coherence as higher and loneliness as lower, experience higher levels of mental wellbeing and lower levels of mental distress. Personal resources also meaningfully predicted siblings' adjustment, and mediated the relations between involvement and wellbeing. Conclusions: The current study can serve as a basis for professional and current knowledge for the construction of intervention programs to strengthen siblings' personal resources: efficacy and coherence as resilience factors that promote adjustment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1423293
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1423293
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.3109/13668250.2023.2298696
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 229
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Siblings
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sibling Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Siblings of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disability: Relations between Involvement, Personal Resources, Loneliness, and Their Adjustment
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ayelet Siman-Tov
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adi Sharabi
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1366-8250
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-9532
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability
              Type: main
ResultId 1