View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Role of Marital Quality and Spousal Support in Behaviour Problems of Children with and without Intellectual Disability

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Role of Marital Quality and Spousal Support in Behaviour Problems of Children with and without Intellectual Disability
Language: English
Authors: Wieland, N., Baker, B. L.
Source: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Jul 2010 54(7):620-633.
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: 14
Publication Date: 2010
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Check Lists, Behavior Problems, Mothers, Marital Satisfaction, Mental Retardation, Parenting Styles, Child Rearing, Child Behavior, Measures (Individuals), Comparative Analysis, Young Children, Stress Variables
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Child Behavior Checklist
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01293.x
ISSN: 0964-2633
Abstract: Background: Children with intellectual disability (ID) have been found to be at an increased risk for developing behavioural problems. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the marital domain, including marital quality and spousal support, and behaviour problems in children with and without ID. Methods: The relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems was examined in 132 families of 6-year-olds with and without ID. Using hierarchical regression, these relationships were also studied over time from child ages 6-8 years. Child behaviour problems were assessed with mother-reported Child Behavior Checklist. The marital domain was measured using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale-7 and the Spousal Support and Agreement Scale. Mother-reported parenting stress and observed parenting practices were tested as potential mediators of the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems. Results: Mean levels of the marital domain were not significantly different between typically developing (TD) and ID groups, but there were significantly greater levels of variance in reported marital quality in the ID group at ages 6, 7 and 8. The marital domain score at child age 6 years predicted child behaviour problems at age 8 for the TD group only. This predictive relationship appeared to be a unidirectional effect, as child behaviour problems at age 6 were not found to predict levels of the marital domain at age 8. Parenting stress partially mediated this relationship for the TD group. Conclusions: The marital domain may have a greater impact on behavioural outcomes for TD children. Implications for future research and interventions are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 41
Entry Date: 2010
Accession Number: EJ886850
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF_Ai2x7o6lGcqppU4dTR80AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN8Bt75U7vuqdflnvAIBEICBmg2fzIWO6pPylYNOzw3IRCYxUYO3RZ759VWpRKYdf1TWIDR9y8zJrbhpCqJwAflXMcCCtXiQllLKrQ0-6EsJbg4pE_-WCEJLBDkfvis--Nb9f_8JkXWU7n26WX_c3PWlUdIYC_jfp5_WAbl6r-KmXjLmCRzCEPKgOIOSg4YkwXSgS564ykLKg_BO7oj9Ol0Dp6W0Y9QprJlm79I=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0053854407;eul01jul.10;2019Jun04.10:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0053854407-1">The role of marital quality and spousal support in behaviour problems of children with and without intellectual disability. </title> <p>Background  Children with intellectual disability (ID) have been found to be at an increased risk for developing behavioural problems. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the marital domain, including marital quality and spousal support, and behaviour problems in children with and without ID. Methods  The relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems was examined in 132 families of 6‐year‐olds with and without ID. Using hierarchical regression, these relationships were also studied over time from child ages 6–8 years. Child behaviour problems were assessed with mother‐reported Child Behavior Checklist. The marital domain was measured using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale‐7 and the Spousal Support and Agreement Scale. Mother‐reported parenting stress and observed parenting practices were tested as potential mediators of the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems. Results  Mean levels of the marital domain were not significantly different between typically developing (TD) and ID groups, but there were significantly greater levels of variance in reported marital quality in the ID group at ages 6, 7 and 8. The marital domain score at child age 6 years predicted child behaviour problems at age 8 for the TD group only. This predictive relationship appeared to be a unidirectional effect, as child behaviour problems at age 6 were not found to predict levels of the marital domain at age 8. Parenting stress partially mediated this relationship for the TD group. Conclusions  The marital domain may have a greater impact on behavioural outcomes for TD children. Implications for future research and interventions are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: child; behavior problems; intellectual disability; marital</p> <p>Adults with ID have been found to be at an increased risk for co‐morbid psychiatric disorders ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref1">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref2">28</reflink>]), known as dual diagnosis. More recently, the same phenomenon has been identified in adolescents and children with ID. Children with ID are at increased risk for developing behavioural problems, with a third to a half consistently found to meet criteria for clinical level behaviour problems and/or a co‐morbid mental disorder ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]). However, the process and timing for the emergence of this 'dual diagnosis' of ID and mental disorder are unclear. As children develop within a broader family context it is important to consider how family factors might influence child behaviour and vice versa. One critical area is the marital domain, including both marital quality and spousal support. The current study aimed to examine the bidirectional relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems in a longitudinal sample of children with and without ID and their families.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-2">Differences in the marital domain in families of children with and without disabilities</hd> <p>There is considerable debate regarding the impact of a child with disabilities on the marital relationship. Historically, there was a persistent belief voiced in the literature that raising a child with disability had a negative impact on parents, including on their marital relations ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref6">34</reflink>]). Disability in this case encompasses both ID and other types of impairments (e.g. physical disabilities). Some researchers found significantly lower levels of marital satisfaction and higher rates of divorce and separation ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref8">41</reflink>]). However, other researchers reported no significant differences in these marital domain indicators ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]). Interestingly, a few studies even revealed higher levels of marital satisfaction among parents of children with disabilities, indicating that for some this experience may actually strengthen the marital dyad and bring parents closer together ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref12">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a historical and meta‐analytic review, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>]) compared levels of divorce and marital satisfaction/discord in parents of children with and without developmental disabilities. They reported an effect size of 0.21, indicating that a child's disability in the family was correlated with a slight increase in marital strain. They noted that this impact is small and does not support the historical view that children with disabilities cause severe family strain in nearly all families. This small effect size may also suggest that there is a wider range of marital experiences for parents of children with ID compared with parents of typically developing (TD) children, with some dyads facing more difficulties in their marriage and others growing stronger through the experience.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]) examined the marital adjustment of parents of young children with disabilities and found that the couples reported average to above average marital adjustment. Further analyses showed that wives reported higher marital adjustment when their husbands used problem‐focused coping strategies versus emotion‐focused strategies. Thus, there still remains more to determine about the impact of parenting a child with disabilities on the marital domain and what factors might moderate this effect and lead to better outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-3">Effects of marital quality on parent–child relations</hd> <p>Marital quality and spousal support may also impact the quality of parent–child relations. Most of the research in this area has been conducted with TD children and their families. Two models, derived from TD samples, of the effects of marital quality on parenting result in opposite predictions. The spillover hypothesis, a term adapted from sociological literature on stress, is defined as the transfer of mood, affect or behaviour from one setting to another ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]), in this case from the marital relationship to the parent–child relationship. The compensatory hypothesis suggests that an individual searches for opposite experiences and satisfactions to make up, or compensate for, shortcomings in another system ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]). The latter authors conducted a meta‐analytic review with TD populations to determine the strength and direction of this relationship, finding a positive linkage that supports the spillover hypothesis.</p> <p>Although [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]) paper focused exclusively on TD children, their framework can also be applied to families of children with ID. In a study of adaptation of parents with developmentally delayed and TD boys, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) found that expressive support from one's spouse was the best predictor, over and above measures of instrumental spousal support, of quality of parenting observed in the home for both mothers and fathers. These results also lend support to the spillover hypothesis, as expressive support from one's spouse predicted higher quality of parenting while less support was associated with a harsher style of parenting.</p> <p>In addition to a direct link between marital domain factors and parent–child relations, spousal support may impact parenting indirectly through a parent's psychological distress. In a study of 451 families with TD children, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref19">37</reflink>]) examined the impact of economic pressure on psychological distress, spousal support and quality of parenting. The authors found that spousal support had both a direct effect on parenting and an indirect effect on parenting through depression. For mothers, spousal support moderated the impact of economic strain on parenting by reducing the negative impact of depression on parental behaviour. Thus, marital domain factors have been shown to affect parental behaviour through both direct and indirect pathways. Again, this work reflects the experience of TD children, and the present study examines the interrelationships of these constructs comparing children with TD and ID.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-4">Effects of marital quality on child outcomes</hd> <p>A meta‐analysis of the association between marital adjustment and children's behaviour problems, derived from studies of TD children, identified an effect size of 0.32 ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]). However, this does not appear to be only a direct relationship. There is a need for studies of moderation (conditions under which this relationship is stronger or weaker) and mediation (mechanisms through which marital adjustment impacts child problems). In another study with TD children, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]) proposed parental psychological symptoms as a moderator of the relationship between marital satisfaction and child adjustment problems in a sample of 51 families. Results indicated that for mothers, but not fathers, the relationship between poorer marital functioning and negative effects on children's adjustment problems was greater when psychological symptoms (the moderator) were higher. As there is a dearth of research examining these relationships in children with ID, the current study addressed the relationship studied by [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref22">30</reflink>]) in a longitudinal design comparing children with TD and ID.</p> <p>There are few studies of mediation, although [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]) found evidence to suggest that the relationship between marital adjustment and TD children's behaviour problems was mediated by childrearing disagreements. Moreover, overreactive parenting also mediated the relation of childrearing disagreements and child behaviour problems. The authors, then, found support for a sequence whereby poor marital adjustment led to childrearing disagreements and overreactive parenting which, in turn, exacerbated child behaviour problems. Results from this study can only be applied to TD populations, and these processes were only assessed at one time point. These results support [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]) model of determinants of parenting, which suggests that the impact of marital relations on a child's behaviour is mediated by parenting practices. This model indicates a directional relationship from marital relations to parenting to child development. However, the work of both [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]) and [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]) may only be generalised to TD populations, prompting the need to study these interrelated factors in children with ID and assessing whether both groups function similarly.</p> <p>Another possible mediator is parenting stress, based on evidence that high marital stress increases child behaviour problems in children with or without ID ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]). In the present study we examined the mediating roles of parenting practices and parenting stress on the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems. These mediators were examined in two groups representing children with typical development and children with ID, and they were also assessed over a 2‐year time period.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-5">The current study</hd> <p>The current study aimed to build upon and extend findings that suggest a meaningful relationship exists between the marital domain and children's behaviour problems. Given the greatly elevated risk for behaviour problems in children with ID, family influences are important to examine for understanding the onset and maintenance of such difficulties. The marital domain can be viewed as encompassing both marital quality and spousal support around childrearing. Thus, this study examined the combined impact of these two correlated indicators on child behaviour problems over time in families of children with ID or typical development. We also examined the moderating role of mothers' psychological adjustment and the mediating roles of parenting stress and parenting behaviours over time.</p> <p>The majority of research in these areas has focused primarily on TD children. This study builds on previous literature by examining these constructs comparing a group of children with ID with a control group of children with typical development. This aspect of the study strengthens our ability to draw conclusions about how processes in the ID group may be similar to, or diverge from, a TD group. In addition, most previous studies have employed a cross‐sectional design examining only one point in development. By studying these measures over a 2‐year period, the longitudinal design allows us to address the directionality of effects.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-6">Research questions/hypotheses</hd> <p>We addressed four questions concerning the marital domain and child behaviour problems across middle childhood: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) are there differences in marital quality and spousal support between mothers of children with TD vs. those with ID? We hypothesised that the mean marital domain scores would not differ, but that the variance would be greater in the ID group; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) are there bivariate relationships between mothers' marital domain scores and child total, externalising and internalising behaviour problems, and do these relationships differ between families of children with TD and ID? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>) do mother‐reported marital domain scores at child age 6 years predict changes in child behaviour problems by child at age 8? Conversely, do levels of child behaviour problems at age 6 predict changes in the marital domain by child at age 8? and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>) if a relationship was found between the marital domain and child behaviour problems, we planned to analyse for moderation and mediation. We hypothesised that maternal well‐being would moderate this relationship, such that higher levels of psychological symptoms in mothers would be associated with a more negative impact of low marital domain ratings on child outcomes. We also hypothesised that observed maternal parenting behaviours, particularly negative/critical parenting and/or mother‐reported parenting stress, would mediate the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems. To our knowledge there are no studies examining these moderating and mediating relationships in an ID sample.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0053854407-8">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 132 families participating in a longitudinal study of young children with samples drawn from Southern California (79%) and Central Pennsylvania (21%). This 'Collaborative Family Study' has been based at three universities: Penn State University, UCLA and University of California, Riverside. The present sample was comprised of families with intact marriages and complete data from mothers on the key measures at child ages 6 and 8 years. Children were classified as ID (<emph>n</emph> = 48) or TD (<emph>n</emph> = 84).</p> <p>Families had been recruited into the longitudinal study when the target child was 3 years old. Children in the TD group were recruited primarily through pre‐schools and day‐care programmes. Children in the ID group were recruited through community agencies that provide services for people with ID. In California, practically all families with young children with ID register for services with these local agencies. School and agency personnel mailed brochures describing the study to families who met selection criteria, and interested parents phoned the research centre.</p> <p>Based on the Stanford‐Binet‐IV and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales administered at age 5 years, children were classified as intellectual delayed [IQ and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) scores of 84 or lower] or TD (IQ and VABS scores of 85 or higher). A further IQ breakdown of the ID group by DSM IV criteria ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]) was borderline (IQ 71–84, <emph>n</emph> = 15), mild ID (IQ 51–70, <emph>n</emph> = 24) and moderate ID (IQ = 35–50, <emph>n</emph> = 9). In order to maximise statistical power and potential variance in child characteristics, borderline children were included in the ID group. Preliminary analyses indicated that the borderline group did not significantly differ from the remaining ID participants on any of the variables of interest.</p> <p>Table 1 shows demographics by ID and TD group. Maternal education and family income differed significantly between status groups, with families of children with ID having lower levels of both. The only significant relationship between these socio‐economic variables and marital scores was between family income and spousal support. Thus, income was co‐varied in the analysis that looked at status group differences in spousal support.</p> <p>1 Demographic information by cognitive status group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th><bold>TD (<italic>n</italic> = 84)</bold></th><th><bold>ID (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</bold></th><th><bold><italic>t</italic>/χ2</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Child variables</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Gender (% boys)</td><td>56%</td><td>56.20%</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.001</td></tr><tr><td> Race (% Caucasian)</td><td>66.70%</td><td>60.40%</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.52</td></tr><tr><td> Stanford‐Binet Score (60 mos)</td><td>104.4 (SD = 12.4)</td><td>61.9 (SD = 14.1)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 17.99***</td></tr><tr><td>Family variables</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Maternal race (% Caucasian)</td><td>60.40%</td><td>75%</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 3.10</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal education†</td><td>16.3 (SD = 2.3)</td><td>14.6 (SD = 2.0)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 4.25***</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal age</td><td>38.1 (SD = 5.6)</td><td>36.1 (SD = 6.3)</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 23.6</td></tr><tr><td> Maternal employment‡</td><td>66.70%</td><td>52.10%</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 2.74</td></tr><tr><td> Family income (% $50K+)</td><td>76.10%</td><td>56.20%</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.24*</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *  <emph>P</emph> < 0.05,</p> <ulist> <item>2 **  <emph>P</emph> < 0.01,</item> <item>3 ***  <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>4 †  Mean grade completed.</item> <item>5 ‡  % employed outside home.</item> <item>6 ID, intellectual disability; TD, typically developing.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0053854407-9">Procedures</hd> <p>All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the three participating universities. Measures of the child's intellectual level and adaptive behaviour were obtained as part of an annual assessment in research centre visit at child age 5. All other data examined in the present study were collected at annual in‐home assessments conducted at child age 6, 7 and 8 years. Demographic information was obtained in an interview with the mother. Measures of child behaviour problems, maternal well‐being, maternal stress, marital quality and spousal support were part of a packet of measures completed by mothers. Mother–child interactions were collected through live coding by members of the research team at child age 7 years.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-10">Measures</hd> <p>Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scale‐Fourth Edition ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]): Child intellectual status was evaluated with the composite IQ score from the Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scale‐Fourth Edition, a widely used instrument that has high internal consistency ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]) and good evidence of validity ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref36">40</reflink>]). This instrument is particularly well suited to the evaluation of children with delays, as the examiner adapts starting points according to the child's developmental level.</p> <p>Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>]): Child adaptive behaviour was assessed using the VABS, a semi‐structured interview that assesses the adaptive behaviour of individuals with or without disabilities. In the present study, mothers were informants and reported on behaviours that their children usually do. Three sub‐scales were used: communication, daily living skills and socialisation. These were combined to form an Adaptive Behavior Composite score with alpha = 0.93.</p> <p>Dyadic Adjustment Scale‐7 (DAS‐7; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref38">23</reflink>]): The DAS‐7 is a 7‐item self‐reported measure of marital adjustment, which has related highly to the longer 32‐item Dyadic Adjustment Scale ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]). Three items ask participants to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with their partners on issues pertinent to married life, and three items ask for ratings of how often they engage in various activities with their partner. The final item asks for a rating of their degree of happiness in their relationship. The total score of DAS‐7 is a measure of marital quality. Alpha for mothers' scores at child age 6 was 0.87.</p> <p>Spousal Agreement and Support Scale ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]): The Spousal Agreement and Support Scale is a 13‐item questionnaire that measures co‐parenting processes in regard to child problems and support in childrearing. Items are rated on a 6‐point Likert scale ranging from 'definitely agree' to 'definitely disagree.' The scale consists of two sub‐scale scores and a total score. Six items are used to calculate perceived parental agreement on whether (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>) the child has problems; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>) they are concerned about the child's problems; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>) they think the child needs help. Seven items refer to spousal support in childrearing. We used the total score as a measure of spousal support. Alpha for mothers' total scores at age 6 was 0.84.</p> <p>Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]): The CBCL is a widely used and well‐standardised parent rating scale for behaviour problems of children aged 6–18 years. The 113‐item measure asks parents to rate how frequently their child engages in a range of problematic behaviours on a scale of 0 (none), 1 (some) or 2 (usually). Ratings yield a total problems T score, as well as two broadband T scores (externalising and internalising) that indicate a child's problems relative to others of the same gender and age. For this study, all three T scores (mean = 50; SD = 10) from the mother report were used. Alphas for mothers' total, externalising and internalising scores at age 6 were 0.94, 0.88 and 0.83, respectively.</p> <p>Parent Child Interaction Rating System (PCIRS; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]): To assess parent–child interactions, we utilised coding from 30‐min naturalistic observations of the family at dinnertime at child age 7. During these observations, an observer scored mothers' and fathers' positive and negative affect, sensitivity, intrusiveness, detachedness, cognitive stimulation and dyadic pleasure and conflict. The PCIRS, after thorough observer training, has acceptable reliability ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>]). Adequate within‐site and across‐site reliability for this measure has been established with kappa coefficients ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]). Two parent composites, determined from factor analysis ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]), were maternal positive parenting and maternal negative‐critical parenting. The composite for maternal positive parenting was created by adding z‐scores for positive affect, sensitivity, stimulation of cognition and subtracting detachment. The composite for negative‐critical parenting was derived by adding z‐scores for intrusiveness and detachment. For this study, we used the two maternal parenting composites as measures of the mother–child relationship and maternal parenting.</p> <p>Symptom Checklist (SCL‐35; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref50">14</reflink>]): The SCL is a well‐established 35‐item self‐reported measure of psychological symptomatology across dimensions of anxiety, depression, hostility and interpersonal relatedness. We used the total score as a measure of maternal well‐being. In the present sample total score alpha for mothers was 0.94.</p> <p>Family Impact Questionnaire (FIQ; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref51">15</reflink>]): The FIQ is a 50‐item questionnaire designed to measure the parents' perceptions of the impact of their child on the family relative to the impact that 'most children his/her age have on their family.' The questionnaire assesses negative impact on perceptions of parenting and on relationships, negative impacts on finances, marriage, and siblings, and positive impact on perceptions of parenting. We used mothers' 20‐item total negative impact score as a proxy measure of maternal stress. In the present sample, the alpha for mothers' FIQ‐negative scale at child age 7 was 0.91. The FIQ negative impact score has been found to have a highly significant correlation with the well‐established Parenting Stress Index, indicating its utility as a measure of parental stress ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-11">Analysis plan</hd> <p>Data were examined for potential outliers on all measures, and any score that was more than three times the standard deviation from the mean in either direction was adjusted to be + or − three SDs. Marital quality and spousal support were moderately correlated at child ages 6, 7, and 8 years (r = 0.54, 0.53, and 0.51, respectively, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001). Following initial analyses of status group differences on marital quality and spousal support, in order to reduce the number of analyses and gain a richer and more parsimonious understanding of the impact of the marital domain, we created a composite variable at each age by transforming the marital quality and spousal support scores to z‐scores and then adding the z‐scores. These marital domain composite scores were used in all bivariate and regression analyses.</p> <p>Independent samples <emph>t</emph>‐tests, ANCOVA, correlations and multiple regression analyses were used to address our research questions. To test for significant differences between the ID and TD groups means, independent samples <emph>t</emph>‐tests were used for marital quality and ANOVA, controlling for family income, was used to test for spousal support. <emph>F</emph> ratios were used to test for standard deviation differences. Correlations within the two status groups addressed whether there were bivariate relationships between child behaviour problems and the marital domain. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine whether marital domain factors predicted levels of child behaviour problems over time (and vice versa). Regression analyses were also conducted to test for moderation and mediation.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0053854407-13">Status group differences on marital variables</hd> <p>Table 2 shows status group differences on marital variables. There were no significant differences in the mean levels of marital quality or spousal support reported by mothers of children with and without ID at ages 6, 7 and 8. There were, however, significantly greater variances in the level of marital quality reported by mothers of the ID group at each time point. There were no significant differences in the variances of spousal support. Marital quality and spousal support means were highly stable over time. In repeated measures ANOVAs, the time effect did not approach significance for either variable in either status group.</p> <p>2 Status group differences (means and variances) on marital variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Variable</bold></th><th><bold>TD (SD)</bold></th><th><bold>ID (SD)</bold></th><th><italic><bold>t</bold></italic>*<italic><bold>/F</bold></italic>*<bold>means</bold></th><th><bold>df</bold></th><th><italic><bold>P</bold></italic></th><th><italic><bold>F</bold></italic>**<bold>variance</bold></th><th><italic><bold>P</bold></italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Marital quality age 6</td><td>23.6 (5.5)</td><td>22.4 (7.3)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 1.01</td><td>77.96</td><td>0.31</td><td>4.73</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Marital quality age 7</td><td>23.3 (5.5)</td><td>22.4 (7.2)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 0.74</td><td>79.61</td><td>0.46</td><td>5.33</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Marital quality age 8</td><td>23.3 (5.4)</td><td>22.5 (7.2)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 0.67</td><td>78.39</td><td>0.51</td><td>4.05</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Spousal support age 6</td><td>39.8 (6.3)</td><td>38.0 (6.7)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 0.58</td><td>1</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.81</td></tr><tr><td>Spousal support age 7</td><td>39.6 (5.9)</td><td>39.8 (6.3)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 0.17</td><td>1</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.62</td></tr><tr><td>Spousal support age 8</td><td>39.0 (6.4)</td><td>38.0 (7.3)</td><td><italic>F</italic> = 0.01</td><td>1</td><td>0.92</td><td>0 2.51</td><td>0.12</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 *  Mean differences,</item> <item>8 **  ** Standard deviation differences.</item> <item>9 ID, intellectual disability; TD, typically developing.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0053854407-14">Bivariate associations between marital variables and child behaviour problems</hd> <p>We created a composite marital domain variable (see Analysis Plan). Table 3 shows bivariate correlations between mother‐reported marital domain and child behaviour problem scores (total, externalising and internalising scores), within the TD and ID groups. In the TD group there were significant negative correlations between the marital domain variable and all three child behaviour problem scores; higher marital domain scores were associated with lower behaviour problems. Correlations were consistently lower and non‐significant in the ID group; however, none of the TD–ID correlation differences were statistically significant ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref53">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>3 Correlations between CBCL T scores (total, externalising and internalising) and the marital domain composite (marital quality + spousal support), at child ages 6–8 years, by status group (TD/ID)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Total CBCL</bold></th><th><bold>Marital domain (TD/ID)</bold></th><th><bold>Ext CBCL</bold></th><th><bold>Marital domain (TD/ID)</bold></th><th><bold>Int CBCL</bold></th><th><bold>Marital domain (TD/ID)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>r = −0.23*/−0.03 <italic>P</italic> = 0.27</td><td>Age 6</td><td>r = −0.17/−0.16 <italic>P</italic> = 0.96</td><td>Age 6</td><td>r = −0.29**/0.07 <italic>P</italic> = 0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Age 7</td><td>r = −0.34**/−0.17 <italic>P</italic> = 0.33</td><td>Age 7</td><td>r = −0.26*/−0.21 <italic>P</italic> = 0.78</td><td>Age 7</td><td>r = −0.43***/−0.24 <italic>P</italic> = 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Age 8</td><td>r = −0.33**/−0.03 <italic>P</italic> = 0.09</td><td>Age 8</td><td>r = −0.30**/−0.06 <italic>P</italic> = 0.18</td><td>Age 8</td><td>r = −0.40***/−0.09 <italic>P</italic> = 0.07</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 *  <emph>P</emph> < 0.05,</item> <item>11 **  <emph>P</emph> < 0.01,</item> <item>12 ***  <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>13 CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; ID, intellectual disability; TD, typically developing.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0053854407-15">Marital variables predicting levels of child outcomes over time</hd> <p>In the TD group, child behaviour problems decreased significantly from age 6 to 7 to 8 for the CBCL total score (<emph>F</emph> = 5.18, <emph>P</emph> = 0.02) and marginally for externalising (<emph>F</emph> = 3.52, <emph>P</emph> = 0.06) and internalising (<emph>F</emph> = 3.40, <emph>P</emph> = 0.07) scores. In the ID group, behaviour problem scores increased slightly but no analysis approached significance. To determine whether the marital domain predicted child outcomes over time, regression analyses were conducted within each status group (TD, ID). In each group, three analyses were run with the dependent variables being child CBCL total, externalising and internalising scores at age 8. Independent variables were child CBCL scores at age 6 and the marital domain composite, as well as the change in the marital domain composite from child age 6 to 8. In each regression, the relevant CBCL score at age 6 was entered in Step 1, and the marital domain scores were entered in Step 2. Results of these analyses for the TD and ID groups are discussed below.</p> <p>Table 4 shows regression analyses for TD families. The marital composite at child age 6 significantly predicted total child behaviour problem scores at age 8 for the TD group, after controlling for earlier behaviour problems. Similar TD group results were found with externalising and internalising behaviour problem scores in the regression analyses. In all three analyses, the significant predictive variable was the marital composite score at age 6; the change score from 6 to 8 did not contribute significantly; this is likely explained mainly by the relatively high level of consistency of the marital domain scores across time points. As noted, means did not differ over time. Also, correlations between the two time points for the marital domain variable were r = 0.74 for the TD group and r = 0.64 for the ID group, both <emph>P</emph> < 0.001. We further examined the direction of the significant relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problem change. We divided the marital domain scores at age 6 into thirds and examined these by CBCL scores from age 6 to 8 years with repeated measures ANOVA. For total scores, the CBCL by marital domain interaction was significant, <emph>F</emph> = 3.51, <emph>P</emph> = 0.03. The highest marital domain group decreased considerably (−4.97) points; the middle group decreased slightly (−0.59) and the lowest group increased slightly (+0.61). For externalising scores, the CBCL by marital domain interaction was also significant, <emph>F</emph> = 3.94, <emph>P</emph> = 0.02, and the pattern of changes was highly similar to the pattern of Total score changes. Internalising scores changes were in the same direction but the interaction was not significant.</p> <p>4 Marital composite predicting total, externalising and internalising CBCL age 8 years (TD group)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Variable</bold></th><th><italic><bold>B</bold></italic></th><th><italic><bold>SE B</bold></italic></th><th><italic><bold>β</bold></italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Total CBCL age 8</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> CBCL age 6</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.61***</td></tr><tr><td> Mother marital composite age 6</td><td>−2.1</td><td>0.57</td><td>−0.31***</td></tr><tr><td> Δ Marital composite from age 6 to 8</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td> R<sup>2</sup></td><td /><td>0.56***</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Externalising CBCL age 8</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> CBCL age 6</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.66***</td></tr><tr><td> Mother marital composite age 6</td><td>−1.99</td><td>0.56</td><td>−0.29**</td></tr><tr><td> Δ Marital composite from age 6 to 8</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td> R<sup>2</sup></td><td /><td>0.59**</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Internalising CBCL age 8</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> CBCL age 6</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.50***</td></tr><tr><td> Mother marital composite age 6</td><td>−2.24</td><td>0.65</td><td>−0.34**</td></tr><tr><td> Δ Marital composite from age 6 to 8</td><td>−0.77</td><td>0.89</td><td>−0.08</td></tr><tr><td> R<sup>2</sup></td><td /><td>0.44**</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>14 *  <emph>P</emph> < 0.05,</item> <item>15 **  <emph>P</emph> < 0.01,</item> <item>16 ***  <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>17 CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; TD, typically developing.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 5 shows regression analyses for ID families. Here, neither the marital domain score at child age 6 nor the change score predicted changes in any child behaviour problems score at child age 8. CBCL scores were highly stable, especially in the ID group. Age 6 to 8 correlations for total scores were r = 0.69 for TD and r = 0.88 for ID, both <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</p> <p>5 Marital composite predicting total, externalising and internalising CBCL age 8 years (ID group)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Variable</bold></th><th><italic><bold>B</bold></italic></th><th><italic><bold>SE B</bold></italic></th><th><italic><bold>β</bold></italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Total CBCL age 8</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>CBCL age 6</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.89*</td></tr><tr><td> Mother marital composite age 6</td><td>−0.46</td><td>0.38</td><td>−0.09</td></tr><tr><td> Δ Marital composite from age 6 to 8</td><td>−0.62</td><td>0.44</td><td>−0.11</td></tr><tr><td> R<sup>2</sup></td><td /><td>0.78</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Externalising CBCL age 8</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> CBCL age 6</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.81*</td></tr><tr><td> Mother marital composite age 6</td><td>−0.01</td><td>0.47</td><td>−0.002</td></tr><tr><td> Δ Marital composite from age 6 to 8</td><td>−0.64</td><td>0.54</td><td>−0.12</td></tr><tr><td> R<sup>2</sup></td><td /><td>0.64</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Internalising CBCL age 8</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> CBCL age 6</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.80*</td></tr><tr><td> Mother marital composite age 6</td><td>−0.88</td><td>0.51</td><td>−0.17</td></tr><tr><td> Δ Marital composite from age 6 to 8</td><td>−0.83</td><td>0.59</td><td>−0.14</td></tr><tr><td> R<sup>2</sup></td><td /><td>0.65</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>18 *  <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>19 CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; ID, intellectual disability.</item> </ulist> <p>All of these reports of relationships between the marital domain and child behaviour problems raise the possible limitation of shared method variance, as measures were taken from the same reporter (mother). To address this, we reran the above regression analyses, substituting father CBCL scores for mother ones. Interestingly, the significant relationships between mother‐reported marital domain at age 6 and child behaviour problems at age 8 (controlling for CBCL scores at age 6) were replicated and even strengthened. For the TD group, significant relationships between marital domain and CBCL scores were replicated for total scores (Standardised beta = −0.24, <emph>P</emph> < 0.01), externalising scores (Standardised beta = −0.23, <emph>P</emph> < 0.01) and internalising scores (Standardised beta = −0.30, <emph>P</emph> = 0.001). For the ID group, the relationships between marital domain and both total and externalising CBCL scores were stronger but still non‐significant. However, here the relationship was significant for internalising scores (Standardised beta = −0.30, <emph>P</emph> = 0.02).</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-16">Child outcomes predicting levels of marital variables over time</hd> <p>In order to test for bidirectional influences – whether child behaviour problems also predicted subsequent marital domain functioning – regression analyses for TD and ID were run with the model reversed. Here the dependent variable was the marital domain score at child age 8 years. Separate regressions were run with each independent variable, total, externalising and internalising behaviour problems scores, as well as the change in these variables from age 6 to 8 years. The marital domain at age 6 was entered in Step 1, and child behaviour problem scores at age 6 as well as the change scores were entered in Step 2. In none of the six regression analyses (three independent variables, two status groups) did child behaviour problems at age 6 significantly predict marital domain scores at age 8 (not shown).</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-17">Moderating effect of mother psychological well‐being</hd> <p>In order to test the moderating effect of mother psychological well‐being in the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems, the marital domain variable and mother psychological well‐being, operationalised by the SCL, were first transformed to z‐scores. The dependent variables were the CBCL scores (analyses conducted for Total, Externalising, and Internalising scores) at child age 8. Age 6 CBCL score was entered as Step 1, marital domain and psychological well‐being at age 6 were entered as Step 2, and the product of the z‐scores for marital domain and psychological well‐being at age 6 was entered as Step 3. Results (not shown) indicated no significant main effect for psychological well‐being, and no significant moderator effect for the interaction between well‐being and marital domain score for the TD or ID groups. As expected, main effects were found significant for the marital domain predicting child behaviour problems in the TD group only.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-18">Mediating effect of the mother–child relationship and maternal stress</hd> <p>Parenting behaviours could not be tested as a mediator, as the conditions for mediation were not met in either status group ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]). Marital domain scores at child age 6 were not related to any potential maternal parenting variable at child age 7 (PCIRS positive and negative‐critical parenting composites).</p> <p>Parenting stress, however, was found to be a mediator of the relationship between the marital domain at child age 6 and child behaviour problems (total score) at age 8 for the TD group only. For this group, in addition to a significant relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems (Standardised beta = −0.46 <emph>P</emph> < 0.001), the marital domain at age 6 was also significantly related to maternal stress at child age 7 (Standardised beta = −0.33 <emph>P</emph> < 0.01). Thus, the first two steps of mediation were met, and regression analyses were used to test for mediation. Results indicated that with the marital domain (age 6) and maternal stress (age 7) scores included in the model predicting child behaviour problems (age 8), maternal stress was significantly related to child behaviour problems (Standardised beta = 0.55 <emph>P</emph> < 0.001). In this same model, the marital domain was also significantly related to child behaviour problems (standardised beta = −0.26; <emph>P</emph> < 0.01), but to a lesser degree than when analysed as a total effect (see Fig. 1). A Sobel test was significant (Sobel = −2.82; <emph>P</emph> < 0.01, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]), indicating that maternal stress partially mediated the relationship between the marital domain and the total score child behaviour problems in the TD group. For the ID group, the conditions of mediation were not met, as the marital domain did not predict child behaviour problems.</p> <p>Graph: 1 Final model for TD group: marital domain (age 6 years) and child behaviour problems (total score age 8 years) relationship partially mediated by maternal parenting stress (age 7 years).</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-19">Discussion</hd> <p>We studied the marital domain, determined from marital quality and spousal support combined, in relation to child behaviour problems in middle childhood. We analysed these relationships in two groups: families of a child with ID and a comparison group of families of a child with typical cognitive development (TD. Our first question asked whether TD and ID group mothers differed in the mean and variance of the marital domain measures. Neither mean marital quality nor spousal support scores differed significantly between the two groups at any child age assessed. This finding supports the work of [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]), who suggest that the impact of raising a child with a disability may not be as damaging to the marital unit as once perceived. We considered the representativeness of our DAS‐7 scores in relation to those in a large study reporting DAS‐7 norms ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref57">23</reflink>]), where means were 15.7 for distressed and 26.2 for non‐distressed couples. The present means (range 22.4 to 23.6) were closer to respondents characterised as non‐distressed.</p> <p>When interpreting these results, one important factor would be the duration of the marriages. Unfortunately, we did not systematically obtain this information. However, it can be estimated that these marriages were on average at least 7–9 years long, and in many cases longer, during the child age 6 to 8 years period assessed. The marital literature suggests that the first years of marriage are a particularly vulnerable time for adjustment and marital dissolution ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]). Thus, this sample of parents represents couples who kept their marriages intact through this early risk period. It is possible that differences in marital quality between the TD and ID groups may have been more pronounced early in the marriages. For most families with children with ID, this is a time when parents learn of their child's ID status, a transition that can be stressful and challenging to the relationship. These challenging experiences may generate either positive or negative change in a relationship, potentially leading to the greater variability in marital quality for families of children with ID found here.</p> <p>Variance in marital quality scores was significantly higher for the ID than the TD group. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>]) reviewed literature that compared marital quality in parents of children with and without disabilities and found different studies reporting poorer marital quality, no difference in marital quality, and even higher marital quality for parents with a child with a disability. Thus, it may be that raising a child with ID can serve as an impetus to bring a couple closer or lead to increased friction, suggesting a greater range in marital experiences than would be found when raising TD children. The theoretical framework of the ABCX models supports this idea ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref60">35</reflink>]), as raising a child with ID, considered a major stressor to the relationship (A), can either strengthen or erode family well‐being (X) depending on the resources available to parents (B) and their interpretation of the event (C).</p> <p>It is notable that the discrepancy in variance levels was significant for marital quality but not spousal support. As spousal support includes the degree of agreement around the child's problems and ways of handling their problems, it can be hypothesised that parents caring for a child with ID will tend to recognise similar concerns faced by their children and the variance in the level of spousal support may not be expected to differ significantly from the TD group. However, the measure of marital quality reflects more global feelings about the relationship, which as noted may vary more widely among parents raising a child with ID compared with TD.</p> <p>Our second question posited a negative relationship between marital domain measures and child behaviour problems. To reduce the number of analyses and also to capture the broader impact of marital relationships on children, we combined the two separate measures into a marital domain score. Correlations of the marital domain score with children's total, externalising and internalising CBCL scores at child ages 6, 7, and 8 were modest but statistically significant in the TD group for 8 of 9 analyses. Higher marital domain scores were consistently related to lower child behaviour problem scores. In the ID group, however, none of the nine correlations was significant. The consistent relationship that was found in the TD group but not the ID group is more than just a question of statistical power, a consideration because the ID sample was smaller. Indeed, if the ID samples were equivalent to the TD one, only one of the ID group correlations would fall below <emph>P</emph> < 0.05.</p> <p>Another possible explanation for the lack of apparent relationship between marital relationship and child behaviour problems in the ID group is that these children may experience their parents' marital relations differently from TD children. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]), writing about the relationship between the marital domain and child–parent relationships in TD children, posit multiple pathways of influence encompassed by the spillover hypothesis, including parents modelling poor emotion regulation and engaging in inconsistent discipline. Children exposed to levels of marital discord may also experience a lack of family stability, leading to internalising feelings of depression and anxiety. TD children in middle childhood may be more attuned to the emotional climate of the home, including the level of marital discord and dissatisfaction. These cues may not be as salient for children with ID, in part because of their lag in development. It can be hypothesised that a distal factor like marital relations may not have as much of an impact on a child with ID than on a TD child. Other parental factors, including levels of parenting stress and parent teaching techniques like scaffolding, may have a more critical role in shaping behaviours in children with ID ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]). These are all directional explanations, however, that cannot be addressed in correlations at a single point.</p> <p>Thus, a key strength of the longitudinal design of this study was the ability to study the directional impact of the marital domain on child behaviour problems (and vice versa) over time. Our third question considered whether marital domain scores at child age 6 years would predict changes in behaviour problems across time, by child age 8. Using regression analyses, the marital domain at child age 6 significantly predicted child behaviour problems at age 8, after controlling for age 6 behaviour problems. This relationship was found, however, only for the TD group, and was found for total, internalising and externalising behaviour problems. The relationship did not even approach significance in the ID group. One possible explanation of the status group difference is the much higher stability of behaviour problems in the ID group from age 6 to 8 (for total score, Standardised beta = 0.89) than in the TD group (for total score, Standardised beta = 0.61). Thus, there was much less change available in the ID group to be explained by marital influences or any other hypothesised variables. The predictive relationship appeared to be a unidirectional effect, as child behaviour problems at age 6 did not predict changes in the marital domain by child age 8. These results support the meta‐analysis by [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]), suggesting a relationship between marital conflict and child behaviour problems. The longitudinal design of the study strengthens the conclusion that the marital domain is impacting child behaviour problems rather than a bidirectional relationship.</p> <p>Surprisingly, results indicated that mother well‐being measured on the SCL did not moderate the significant relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems. This finding was not consistent with [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>]) finding that the relationship of poorer marital functioning and negative effects on children's adjustment problems was greater when maternal psychological symptoms were higher.</p> <p>Maternal stress partially and significantly mediated the relationship in the TD group of the marital domain to child behaviour problem change. The quality of the marital relationship affected mothers' stress levels, and these in turn affected the child's expression of behaviour problems. This finding adds to the limited body of literature identifying mediating factors in the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour in TD populations. Whereas many mediation studies examine only one point in time, a key strength of the current study was the use of a longitudinal design to study mediation. It may be that less stressed mothers are likely to be more engaged and consistent in parenting; this and other possible explanations of the mechanism by which maternal stress affects child behaviour problems require future study. In a related study of mediation in a TD sample, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>]) found evidence that parental depression mediated the relationship between parental stress and disrupted discipline practices, and that disrupted discipline practices mediated the relationship between parental depression and adolescent boys' adjustment. Results from [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref66">12</reflink>]) and the current study lend evidence to the spillover hypothesis (versus compensatory hypothesis) discussed by [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]) in reference to the relationship between marital quality and parent–child relations. Thus, negative effects in one system (in this case, the marital domain), transfer to other systems (parental stress and the parent–child relationship), leading to the expression of higher child behaviour problems.</p> <p>In the present study, there was no evidence that the marital domain related to observed less positive or more negative/controlling parenting by mothers. This was unexpected, given the theoretical and empirical support for an association between the marital domain and parent–child relationships. There were some possible limitations in the rating system used. Parenting behaviours were rated in just one 30‐min home visit, perhaps not capturing a large enough sample of parenting behaviour to be a valid indicator. Too, the observation measure used in this study captured naturalistic interactions between parents and children during dinnertime; this setting may not have provided enough opportunities to observe certain salient aspects of the parent–child relationship, such as discipline practices. In the [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref68">12</reflink>]) study, parental discipline was assessed through observer impression as well as parent report, providing a more comprehensive picture of this aspect of parenting. A related limitation of the current study is that the significant findings were based on self‐reported measures from the same informant (mothers) and thus were subject to response bias. While parenting stress and marital quality are subjective perceptions, future researchers could obtain more objective measures of child behaviour problems and/or measures from multiple informants.</p> <p>Despite these limitations, we can conclude that in middle childhood the marital domain has an effect on the level of child behaviour problems in TD children and that this relationship is partially mediated through maternal stress. Future research should aim to study what elements of marital satisfaction or dissatisfaction particularly contribute to child behaviour problems. A further understanding of the mechanisms involved also awaits further study, with longitudinal samples and richer observation of parenting behaviours.</p> <p>The present findings have implications for therapeutic interventions for families of children with and without ID. It is important for therapists to know: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) that couples raising a child with ID may not experience a higher level of marital distress than couples with TD children; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>) that in families of children with TD, difficulties in the marital domain may still lead to greater child behaviour problems; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>) that parenting stress is likely to explain the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems. Thus, couple counselling may be able to exert an indirect influence on TD children's behaviour problems.</p> <hd id="AN0053854407-20">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This article is based on activities of the Collaborative Family Study, supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grants 34879‐1459 (K.A. Crnic, principal investigator, B.L. Baker, J. Blacher, & C. Edelbrock, co‐investigators) and 2RO1HD034879‐11 (B.L. Baker, principal investigator, J. Blacher, co‐investigator). The authors are grateful to Cameron Neece and Dr. Thomas Bradbury, as well as to the participant families and to the staff at the Collaborative Family Study who made this work possible.</p> <ref id="AN0053854407-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach T. M. & Rescorla L. A. (2001) Manual for the ASEBA School‐Age Forms and Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families, Burlington.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn. text revision). American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref31" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L. & Heller T. L. (1996) Preschool children with externalizing behaviors: experience of fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 26, 513 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L., Blacher J., Crnic K. A. & Edelbrock C. (2002) Behavior problems and parenting stress in families of three‐year‐old children with and without developmental delays. American Journal of Mental Retardation 107, 433 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref28" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L., McIntyre L. L., Blacher J., Crnic K., Edelbrock C. & Low C. (2003) Pre‐school children with and without developmental delay: behavior problems and parenting stress over time. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 217 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref62" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker J. K., Fenning R. M., Crnic K. A., Baker B. L. & Blacher J. (2007) Prediction of social skills in six‐year‐old children with and without developmental delays: contributions of early regulation and maternal scaffolding. American Journal of Mental Retardation 112, 375 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref54" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baron R. M. & Kenny D. A. (1986) The moderator‐mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref24" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Belsky J. (1984) The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child Development 55, 83 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref45" type="bt">9</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 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bristol M. M., Gallagher J. J. & Schopler E. (1988) Mothers and fathers of young developmentally disabled and nondisabled boys: adaptation and spousal support. Developmental Psychology 24, 441 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buehler C., Anthony C., Krishnakumar A. & Stone G. (1997) Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies 6, 223 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conger R. D., Patterson G. R. & Ge X. (1995) It takes two to replicate: a mediational model for the impact of parents' stress on adolescent adjustment. Child Development 66, 80 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crnic K. A., Gaze C. & Hoffman C. (2005) Cumulative parenting stress across the preschool period: relations to maternal parenting and child behavior at age 5. Infant and Child Development 14, 117 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derogatis L. R. (1992) The Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, Scoring, & Procedures Manual II, 2nd edn. Clinical Psychometric Research, John Hopkins University, Baltimore.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donenberg G. & Baker B. L. (1993) The impact of young children with externalizing behavior on their families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 21, 179 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emerson E. (2003) Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents with and without intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 51 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erel O. & Burman B. (1995) Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent‐child relations: a meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 118, 108 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fenning R., Baker J. K., Baker B. L. & Crnic K. A. (2007) Parenting children with borderline intellectual functioning: a unique risk population. American Journal of Mental Retardation 112, 107 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gavidia‐Payne S. & Stoneman Z. (2006) Marital adjustment of parents of young children with disabilities: associations with daily hassles and problem‐focused coping. American Journal of Mental Retardation 111, 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glutting J. J. (1989) Introduction to the structure and application of the stanford‐binet intelligence scale – fourth edition. Journal of School Psychology 27, 69 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guess P. E. (1998) Parental perceptions of stress and coping: families of preschoolers with and without disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 59, 0459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller T. L., Baker B. L., Henker B. & Hinshaw S. P. (1996) Externalizing behavior and cognitive functioning from preschool to first grade: stability and predictors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 25, 376 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunsley J., Best M., Lefebvre M. & Vito D. (2001) The seven item short form of the dyadic adjustment scale: further evidence for the construct validity. The American Journal of Family Therapy 29, 325 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaptein S., Jansen D. E. M. C., Vogels A. G. C. & Reijneveld S. A. (2008) Mental health problems in children with intellectual disability: use of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52, 125 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazak A. E. (1987) Families with disabled children: stress and social networks in three samples. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 15, 137 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreider R. M. & Fields J. M. (2002) Fall, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 1996. U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports 18, 70 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menolascino F. J. & Fleisher M. H. (1991) Developmental concepts in mental retardation and mental illness. Comprehensive Mental Health Care 1, 45 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nezu C. M., Nezu A. M. & Gill‐Weiss M. J. (1992) Psychopathology in Persons with Mental Retardation. Research Press, Champaign, IL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Leary S. G. & Vidair H. B. (2005) Marital adjustment, child‐rearing disagreements, and overreactive parenting: predicting child behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology 19, 208 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papp L. M., Goeke‐Morey M. C. & Cummings M. E. (2004) Mothers' and fathers' psychological adjustment and marital functioning: examination of direct and interactive links with child adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies 13, 469 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher K. J. (2002) Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients [Computer software]. Available at: <ulink href="http://www.quantpsy.org">http://www.quantpsy.org</ulink> (retrieved 8th July 2009).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher K. J. & Leonardelli G. J. (2001) Calculation for the Sobel test. [Computer software]. Available at: <ulink href="http://www.quantpsy.org">http://www.quantpsy.org</ulink> (retrieved 1st June 2009).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Repetti R. L. (1987) Links between work and the family role. In: Family Processes and Problems: Social Psychological Aspects (ed. S. Okamp), pp. 98 – 127. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risdal D. & Singer G. H. S. (2004) Marital adjustment in parents of children with disabilities: a historical review and meta‐analysis. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 29, 95 – 103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saloviita T., Itälinna M. & Leinonen E. (2003) Explaining the parental stress of fathers and mothers for a child with intellectual disability: a double ABCX Model. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 300 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seltzer M. M., Greenberg J. S., Floyd F. J., Pettee Y. & Hong J. (2001) Life course impacts of parenting a child with a disability. American Journal of Mental Retardation 106, 265 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons R. L., Lorenz F. O., Wu C. & Conger R. D. (1992) Support from spouse as mediator and moderator of the disruptive influence of economic strain on parenting. Child Development 63, 1282 – 301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparrow S. S., Balla D. V. & Cicchetti D. V. (1984) Vineland Scales of Adapative Behavior : interview edition, survey form, American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, MN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taanila A., Kokkonen J. & Jaervelin M. R. (1996) The long‐term effects of children's early onset disability on marital relationships. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 38, 567 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorndike R. L., Hagen E. P. & Sattler J. M. (1986) Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Test, 4th edn. Riverside Publishing, Itasca, IL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witt W. P., Riley A. W. & Coiro M. J. (2003) Childhood functional status, family stressors, and psychological adjustment among school‐aged children with disabilities in the United States. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 157, 687 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By N. Wieland and B. L. Baker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref65"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ886850
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Role of Marital Quality and Spousal Support in Behaviour Problems of Children with and without Intellectual Disability
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wieland%2C+N%2E%22">Wieland, N.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baker%2C+B%2E+L%2E%22">Baker, B. L.</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 2010 54(7):620-633.
– 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: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Check+Lists%22">Check Lists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Marital+Satisfaction%22">Marital Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Retardation%22">Mental Retardation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Rearing%22">Child Rearing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Dyadic+Adjustment+Scale%22">Dyadic Adjustment Scale</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Child+Behavior+Checklist%22">Child Behavior Checklist</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01293.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-2633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Children with intellectual disability (ID) have been found to be at an increased risk for developing behavioural problems. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the marital domain, including marital quality and spousal support, and behaviour problems in children with and without ID. Methods: The relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems was examined in 132 families of 6-year-olds with and without ID. Using hierarchical regression, these relationships were also studied over time from child ages 6-8 years. Child behaviour problems were assessed with mother-reported Child Behavior Checklist. The marital domain was measured using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale-7 and the Spousal Support and Agreement Scale. Mother-reported parenting stress and observed parenting practices were tested as potential mediators of the relationship between the marital domain and child behaviour problems. Results: Mean levels of the marital domain were not significantly different between typically developing (TD) and ID groups, but there were significantly greater levels of variance in reported marital quality in the ID group at ages 6, 7 and 8. The marital domain score at child age 6 years predicted child behaviour problems at age 8 for the TD group only. This predictive relationship appeared to be a unidirectional effect, as child behaviour problems at age 6 were not found to predict levels of the marital domain at age 8. Parenting stress partially mediated this relationship for the TD group. Conclusions: The marital domain may have a greater impact on behavioural outcomes for TD children. Implications for future research and interventions are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 41
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ886850
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ886850
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01293.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 620
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Check Lists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Marital Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Retardation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Rearing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dyadic Adjustment Scale
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior Checklist
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Role of Marital Quality and Spousal Support in Behaviour Problems of Children with and without Intellectual Disability
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wieland, N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baker, B. L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2010
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-2633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1