Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

300

pp
Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKJIDRJournal of Intellectual Disability Research-Blackwell Science Ltd, Original ArticleExplaining

parental stressT. Saloviita et al.

Explaining the parental stress of fathers and mothers

caring for a child with intellectual disability: a Double
ABCX Model
T. Saloviita, M. Itlinna & E. Leinonen
Department of Special Education, University of Jyvskyl, Jyvskyl, Finland

Abstract
Background Twenty variables based on the Double
ABCX Model of adaptation and selected on the basis
of previous research were chosen to explain the
parental stress of the mothers (n = ) and fathers
(n = ) of children with an intellectual disability
(age range = years).
Methods Principal component analysis, rotated into
varimax-criterion, was done separately for mothers
and fathers. The solution containing eight factors was
considered best for both groups. They accounted for
more than % of the total variance of the original
variables. These eight orthogonal components were
then entered into a stepwise regression analysis that
was done separately for mothers and fathers.
Results The multiple regression equations obtained
explained % of the variance in maternal stress and
% of the variance in paternal stress. The equations
for mothers and fathers contained six and seven components, respectively.
Conclusions The variables used in the present study
were highly successful in accounting for parental
stress. The results confirm the importance of inter-

Correspondence: Timo Saloviita, Department of Special Education,

University of Jyvskyl, PO Box , FIN- Jyvskyl, Finland
(e-mail: saloviita@edu.jyu.fi).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

vening factors in explaining the stress. The single

most important predictor of parental stress was the
negative definition of the situation. In mothers, the
negative definition was associated with the behavioural problems of the child while, in fathers it was
connected with the experienced social acceptance of
the child.
Keywords children, coping, family, multiple
regression, stress

Introduction
Family caregiving involving children with disabilities
is not necessarily a negative experience (Abbot &
Meredith ; Summers et al. ). However,
there is a large body of literature supporting the
notion that caregiver stress is a more common phenomenon among family members who provide home
care for children with severe handicaps than it is
among other parents (Friedrich & Friedrich ;
Beckman ; Dyson , ; Singer & Irvin
; Walker et al. ; Scott et al. ).
It has become apparent that family outcomes following the impact of a stressor event, such as the
discovered severe disability of a child, are the result
of multiple factors interacting with each other
(McCubbin & Patterson ; Singer & Irvin ).

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

301
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

Therefore, a multivariate model is needed that examines psychological, intra-familial and social variables
simultaneously. Three basic phenomena have been
typically noted: the stressful event, the outcome of
the stress and the intervening factors between the two
(Lavee et al. ). One popular framework for analysing parental stress has been the stress and coping
theory of Lazarus & Folkman (), as applied to
families by McCubbin & Patterson (). They
extended the classic ABCX Model of Reuben Hill
(, ) to a Double ABCX Model. They added
the factor of time into the model and, thus, enlarged
it to also comprise a post-crisis adaptation.
In the Double ABCX Model, the stressor element
(aA) consists of the pile-up of stressors and strains.
The model also contains two mediating variables:
existing and expanded family resources for meeting
the demands and needs (bB), and the meaning the
family assigns to their situation (cC). Coping is a
bridging concept in the model and is understood as
an attempt to restore balance in family functioning.
Family crisis and post-crisis adaptation (xX) is the
outcome factor. Family adaptation is seen as a continuum of outcomes ranging from the balanced bonadaptation to the negative maladaptation, which is
characterized by a continued imbalance in family
functioning.
One line of research concerning the Double ABCX
Model has focused on causal modelling and the
ordering of variables (Lavee et al. ; Orr et al.
). Other studies have concentrated on the predictive power of the elements of the model (Quine &
Pahl ; Bristol ; Lustig & Akey ; Baxter
et al. ). Using a multiple regression procedure,
Bristol () showed that the Double ABCX Model
was an effective way of conceptualizing the process
of adaptation among mothers of children with disabilities. All elements of the model did significantly
predict measures of family adaptation (Bristol ).
The model accounted for % of variance in in-home
family adaptation, % of variance in depressive
symptoms and % of variance in marital adjustment. Lustig & Akey () found that social support, family adaptability (bB factors) and family
sense of coherence (cC factor) accounted for % of
the variance associated with family adaptation in
families caring for an adult with intellectual disability
(ID). Quine & Pahl () entered stressor and
resource variables into a multiple regression analysis

to explain the stress in families caregiving for a

child with severe mental handicap. The variables
accounted for % of the variance in the stress of
mothers as measured by the Malaise Inventory.
The Double ABCX Model treats the family as a
unit, but most variables have been typically operationalized and measured on an individual basis. This
has made it possible to search for the differences in
adaptation between mothers and fathers. They have
not usually differed in the amount of total stress
experienced (Rousey et al. ; Krauss ; Dyson
; Flaherty & Glidden ), but differences have
been reported in the most powerful predictors of
parenting stress. These predictors are evidenced
differently in fathers and mothers. Fathers have
reported more stress related to their relationship with
their child, whereas mothers have been more affected
by their personal support networks (Krauss ).
Sources of stress have also varied. Fathers have
reported more problems than mothers with attachment, while mothers have reported more problems
with their parental role, sense of competence and also
in their relationship with their spouse (Beckman
).
Family adaptation has been measured in different
ways. In actuality, only a few studies have applied
family-level measures, such as marital satisfaction or
in-home marital adaptation as dependent variables
(e.g. Abbot & Meredith ; Bristol ; Lustig &
Akey ; Flaherty & Glidden ). For the most
part, family adaptation has been measured through
psychosomatic symptoms or stress experienced by
parents. Common ways of measuring parental stress
have been the Parenting Stress Index (Abidin )
or the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress
(Friedrich et al. ).
The aim of the present authors was to predict the
adaptation of fathers and mothers caregiving for a
child with an ID using the components of the Double
ABCX Model of family adaptation. These components included family demands associated with the
child (aA), family adaptive resources (bB) and family
definition of the situation (cC). Each of these components were covered by several variables, mostly
collected from previous research as explained in the
method section. In order to avoid problems associated with multi-collinearity of independent variables,
we used principal component analysis and varimaxrotation to produce uncorrelated components for

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

302
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

multiple regression analysis. The purpose of this

study was to add to the growing body of research on
family stress by examining the predictive power of
selected variables on the stress of mothers and
fathers, and by comparing them with each other. The
present study especially tried to investigate the relative importance of the various components of the
Double ABXC Model in explaining the adaptation of
mothers and fathers as measured with a single dependent variable of parental stress.

Subjects and methods

Population and sample
In Finland, public services for families who have a
child with disabilities include free services provided
by child healthcare clinics and free education. Special
services, such as personal assistance in day care, rehabilitation and prosthetic aids, are also free of charge.
Parents pay a fee for day care. Monthly monetary
support for families is guaranteed through heightened care allowance. Special care services, such as
day care centres, sheltered workshops, institutional
care and community-based group homes, are also
available. The services are extensive, but often provided in a sheltered environment.
The present authors used the database of the
Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA) to
obtain a population for this study. The target population was defined as consisting of children from the
ages of one to years for whom KELA has administered disability allowance or child disability allowance on the basis of ID. In addition, the authors
requested that the child live in a Finnish-speaking
family where both the mother and the father were
present. Families with more than one child with ID
were excluded from the sample.
Stratified random sampling was done to guarantee
that all age groups would receive adequate representation. Because the authors wanted to find more cases
in the younger age groups, the sample size of children
under school age was about while the sample size
for adults was about . In the age groups of
years, all cases had to be included in order to obtain
adequate group sizes. The final sample consisted of
cases.
For the purposes of principal component analysis
and regression analysis performed in the present

study, only age groups from one to years were

included. Limiting the analysis to this group made
the sample more homogenous in relation to the age
of the child. Measurement on coping strategies was
also done only for this smaller sample. However,
psychometric analyses concerning the properties of
the different scales were done with the entire sample.

Data gathering
Data were gathered through a questionnaire which
consisted of three different forms, one to be answered
by the mother, one by the father and one by both
together. The questionnaire was pre-tested by having
two families complete the forms in the presence of
researchers. The questionnaire was sent by post in
to those families who were included in the sample. After one month, the questionnaire was re-sent
to those families who failed to respond to the first
mailing. The sampling and the mailing were done by
the research office of KELA.

Participants and non-respondents

A total of families or % of the sample answered
at least one part of the questionnaire. A general questionnaire, or form A, was obtained from % of the
sample. This questionnaire contained questions on
the family and child, and was completed by mother,
father or both together. Forms B and C were similar
to each other, but the first was intended for mothers
and the second for fathers. Form B was returned
by % of the mothers and form C by % of the
fathers.
When the level of disability of the children in the
sample was compared with official statistics (Sosiaalihallitus ), an under-representation of children
with profound disabilities was observed. The present
authors also noted that parents who immediately
responded to the first mailing were better educated
than those answering after the follow-up mailing.
Their children were also younger than in the latter
group.
The mean age of mothers was years (range =
years) and the mean age of fathers years
(range = years). Out of the children with ID,
% were female and % were male. Their level of
disability was mild (%), moderate (%), severe
(%) or profound (%).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

303
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

The questionnaire was returned by families of

children ranging in age from one to years. The
response rate was %. For full analysis, complete
data was available from mothers and fathers.
In the smaller sample of children with an age range
from one to years, the mean age of mothers was
years (range = years) and the mean age of
fathers years (range = years). Out of the
children with ID, % were female and % were
male. Their level of disability was mild (%), moderate (%), severe (%) or profound (%).

Questionnaire
Measurement of parental stress
Parental stress was measured by using a modified
Finnish version of the Questionnaire on Resources
and Stress, Friedrich Edition, called the QRS-FIN
(QRS-F; Friedrich et al. ) that was, in turn, a
short-form of the original questionnaire of Holroyd
(). The QRS-F was a -item, true-false instrument that had been shown to be a reliable and valid
instrument for the measurement of both positive and
negative dimensions of parental stress (Friedrich
et al. ; Rousey et al. ). Factor analysis done
from the QRS-F revealed four independent factors:
Parent and Family Problems, Pessimism, Child
Characteristics, and Physical Incapacitation
(Friedrich et al. ). Glidden () has noted that
the original QRS was planned to identify families
who might require assistance. Therefore, besides
gauging stresses and strains, it contained also items
measuring demands. In order to make the scale more
focused on parental stress, the present authors constructed the Finnish version of the QRS-F by omitting those items which scored highly on the last two
factors of Child Characteristics and Physical Incapacitation. In this study, the authors treated child
characteristics as independent variables. Therefore, it
would have been confusing to include these items in
a measurement of parental stress. They accepted only
those items which scored highly on the first two factors of Parent and Family Problems, and Pessimism.
Additionally, the authors accepted items and ,
which concerned negative feelings of parents when
they were seen together with the child in public. In
their view, these two items measured parental stress
more than the characteristics of the child. The final

QRS-F scale consisted of items. The original truefalse structure was also changed to a four-answer
alternative Likert Scale in order to widen the distribution of the data. Items in the scale ranged from
strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree.
The internal consistency of the QRS-F was . as
measured by Cronbachs alpha.
Measurement of family demands (aA factor)
As a measure of pile-up factor, the present authors
selected () the age of the child, () adaptive skills,
() challenging behaviour and () level of disability.
The adaptive skills of the child were measured by a
-item scale constructed for this study. It consisted
of subscales of motor skills, self-help skills, communication skills and social skills. Every skill was scored
either as fully mastered, partially mastered or not at
all mastered. The items were selected from existing
scales of adaptive behaviour, but mainly from the
Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP;
Bruininks et al. ). The internal consistency of
the scale was . as measured by Cronbachs alpha.
The age validity of the scale was acceptable up to the
age of years. After this age, the sum score of adaptive behaviour no longer increased with age, indicating the absence of more demanding skills in the
scale.
The challenging behaviour of the child was measured by using a modified version of the problem
behaviour scale of the ICAP inventory (Bruininks
et al. ). The items included were: hurtful to self,
hurtful to others, destructive to property, unusual or
repetitive behaviour, withdrawal, hyperactive behaviour (new item), sleep disturbance (new item), and
disruptive, socially offensive or uncooperative behaviour. Each item was scored by level of severity: () no
problem or mild problem; () serious problem; or ()
extremely serious problem. The frequency of the
behaviour was scored as: () never; () one to three
times a month; () one to six times a week; or ()
daily. This new scoring was more simple than the
original one. Cronbachs alpha for the modified scale
was . by frequency counts and . by severity
counts.
Severity of disability was measured by a seven-item
disability sum scale. First, the level of ID was scored
from to and multiplied by two. Secondly, functional limitations in seeing, hearing, vision, seizures,

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

304
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

use of arms/hands and general health were evaluated

either as causing no limitations, modest limitations
or serious limitations in daily activities. Thirdly,
functional limitations in mobility were scored from
() walks independently to () confined to bed.
Cronbachs alpha for the disability scale was ..
Measurement of family adaptive resources (bB factor)
Family adaptive resources were measured first by
using the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) of Locke
& Wallace (). This -item test using a five-point
Likert scale assesses perceived marital adjustment. It
has been shown to distinguish couples referred for
clinical intervention from non-distressed couples,
and couples and single parents with children who
have disabilities from parents of non-disabled children (Locke & Wallace ; Bristol et al. ). In
the present study, the internal consistency of the scale
as measured by Cronbachs alpha was . for mothers and . for fathers.
Expressive support obtained from the spouse was
measured by using the short form of the Personal
Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR;
Schaefer & Olson ). The original inventory was
a -item scale consisting of subscales of emotional
intimacy, social intimacy, sexual intimacy, recreational intimacy and a conventionality scale. For the
short form, the present authors selected three items
from each subscale on the basis of factor analysis
made by Schaefer & Olson (). The scale of sexual
intimacy was excluded from the study. The reliability
of the modified intimacy inventory was . for
mothers and . for fathers.
Instrumental support obtained from the spouse
was measured with a three-item Likert scale constructed for the present study. The items were: My
spouse participates sufficiently in the care of our disabled child; I share our housework equally with my
spouse; and My spouse participates sufficiently in
housework. The reliability of the scale as measured
by Cronbachs alpha was . for mothers and .
for fathers. The low reliability for fathers was caused
by weak correlation of the second item with the other
two items, indicating that fathers with unequal participation regarded the participation of their spouses
as sufficient.
Informal and formal support obtained by parents
was assessed with the Family Support Inventory con-

structed for this study using the Family Support

Scale of Dunst et al. () as a model. It was
designed to assess the degree to which different
sources of support have been helpful to parents in
the preceding months of the study. Ratings were
made on a five-point Likert scale ranging from not at
all helpful to extremely helpful. The Informal Support Scale contained the items of spouse, children,
grandparents, other relatives, other families of children with disabilities and other friends. The Formal
Support Scale contained professional groups; for
example, day care personnel, doctors and social
workers.
Experienced social acceptance of the child was
measured with a three-item, four-point Likert scale
constructed for the present study. The items asked
whether neighbours and acquaintances of the family
would accept the child as a neighbour as an adult, as
the friend of their children of the same age and as
the classmate of their children of the same age. The
reliability of this inventory as measured by Cronbachs alpha was . for mothers and . for
fathers.
Perceived control of the parents over their life
events was measured by the five-item index using a
four-point Likert scale developed by Schulz & Decker
(). The participants had to indicate the degree of
control they had to achieve or obtain what is important to you, make your interactions with others end
up the way you expect them to, cope successfully
when stressed, solve problems and the good things
that happen to you as a result of your own actions.
In their study, Schulz & Decker ) reported a
Cronbachs alpha of ., but in the present study, it
remained as low as . for mothers and . for
fathers. However, the authors retained the scale
because previous research has shown that locus of
control is an important dimension in explaining
parental stress (Frey et al. ).
The Ways of Coping Checklist (Revised) by
Vitaliano et al. () was used to measure the coping
strategies of parents derived from Lazarus transactional model of stress. The checklist was shortened to
items by dropping five items from the first subscale
of Problem-Focused Coping, which was considered
unnecessarily large. The checklist consisted of subscales of Problem-Focused Coping (e.g. Just took
things one step at a time), a Seeks Social Support
scale (e.g. Talked to someone about how I was feel-

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

305
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

ing), a Blamed Self scale (e.g. Blamed yourself), a

Wishful Thinking scale (e.g. Hoped a miracle would
happen), and an Avoidance scale (e.g. Slept more
than usual). The participant was asked to think
about a difficult situation with the child and answer
yes or no to each question. KuderRichardson reliabilities for the scales varied between . and ..
Measurement of family definition and meaning
(cC factor)
The meaning that the parents gave to their situation
was measured first by the Social Readjustment Rating
scale of Holmes & Rahe (). The original form of
this scale contained life events rated according to
their relative degree of necessary readjustment and
was obtained from subjects. The death of a
spouse was given a value of , with other events
ranking in descending order of needed readjustment.
The present authors selected for this study a list of
events beginning with a death of spouse (scored
) to beginning or ending school (scored ).
Participants were requested to score their present
experience concerning the ID of their child in relationship to these ratings.
The second means of measuring the experience of
having a child with an ID was the Definition scale in
a Likert format developed by M. M. Bristol and
R. F. DeVellis (Ogle ; Bristol ). On the basis
of factor analysis, the items were grouped into three
subscales which corresponded with the original division made by Bristol: the four-item meaning/purpose
scale (e.g. Caring for my child is an opportunity to
learn new skills), a four-item self-blame scale (e.g.
My childs problems are a punishment for something
someone in the family has done) and a three-item
catastrophe/burden scale (e.g. My childs having a
handicap is one of the worst possible things that
could happen to our family). One item was removed
from the original -item scale because of a low communality estimate. Measured by Cronbachs alpha,
the reliabilities varied between . and . for different scales.

Method of analysis
Principal component analysis was done using the
SPSS statistical package to reduce the number of
independent variables listed in Table to a smaller

number of uncorrelated principal components. The

obtained factor matrix was rotated into varimaxcriterion, where the number of variables having high
loadings on a factor were minimized. The analysis
was done separately for mothers and fathers. Minimum requirements for a reliable analysis were fulfilled because there were more than five individuals
per variable and more than individuals for analysis (Gorsuch ). Using parental stress as a criterion variable and eight rotated orthogonal factors as
independent variables, a stepwise regression analysis
was done to explain the stress of fathers and mothers.
The coefficient of determination (R2) was used as a
measure of the goodness of fit of the linear model
obtained. Adjusted R2 was used to reflect the goodness of fit of the model in the population. The distributions of dependent variables, as well as the
residuals, were checked for normality, and Mahalanobis Distance was included to test for multivariate
outliers.

Results
Principal component analysis
The principal component analysis was done for
variables separately for mothers and fathers. In both
cases, a solution of eight components was selected.
This was done because the eight-component solution
produced similar structures between fathers and
mothers, and these were also quite easily interpreted
after rotation. Because a high explanation percentage
was strived for, the last two components in mothers
and fathers were accepted, even if the factors loaded
high only on a single variable (for the discussion
of this criterion, see Stevens ). The principal
component solutions were rotated into a varimaxcriterion, which assumes that factors are uncorrelated.
Table contains the results for mothers and
Table the results for fathers. The rotated principal
components were named on the basis of variables
loading at least at a level of . on the component
in question. The factor loadings are interpreted as
correlations of variables with the component. The
eight-factor solution of mothers explained % of the
total variance of the variables included. The components were quite easy to name on the basis of their
content. The fourth component was the most complicated. Besides containing definitions of the situa-

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

306
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

Table 1 Independent variables used in the

present study and their measurement

Variable

Measurement

Independent variables
1 Age of the child
2 Adaptive behaviour of the child
3 Challenging behaviour
4 Severity of disability of the child
5 Marital adjustment
6 Expressive support from spouse
7 Instrumental support from spouse
8 Informal social support
9 Formal social support
10 Acceptance of the child
11 Locus of control
12 Stressful life events
13 Experience of meaning
14 elf-blame as definition
15 Child as burden
16 Problem solving
17 Support seeking
18 Self-blame as coping
19 Wishful thinking
20 Avoidance

Twenty-five-item scale
Eight-item scale
Eight-item scale
Locke & Wallace (1959)
Schaefer & Olson (1981), short form
Three-item scale
Six-item scale
Thirteen-item scale
Three-item scale
Schulz & Decker (1985)
Holmes & Rahe (1967), short form
Bristol (1987)
Bristol (1987)
Bristol (1987)
Vitaliano et al. (1985), short form
Vitaliano et al. (1985)
Vitaliano et al. (1985)
Vitaliano et al. (1985)
Vitaliano et al. (1985)

Dependent variables
1 Parental stress

Thirty-three-item Questionnaire on
Resources and Stress Finland scale

tion, it also contained the stressor variable of the

challenging behaviour of the child, indicating close
connection between these constructs. The eightfactor solution of fathers explained % of the total
variance of the variables included. The components
of the fathers solution were very close to those of the
mothers solution. An interesting difference was that,
among fathers, the negative definition of the situation
was connected with the experienced lack of social
acceptance, while in mothers, it was connected with
the challenging behaviour of the child.

Stepwise regression analysis

Table shows the regression equation for mothers.
Two components were dropped from the mothers
equation because they did not fulfil the entry criteria:
Positive Coping Strategies and Locus of Control. The
remaining six components explained % (R2 = .)
of the variance of maternal stress (F6110 = .,
P = .).

Table shows the regression equation for fathers.

Only one component, Positive Coping Strategies, was
dropped from the equation. The remaining seven
components explained % of the variance of the
stress of fathers (F7113 = ., P = .). The column R2 change shows the independent proportion
which each of the components explained concerning
the variance in the parental stress.

Discussion
Twenty variables were used in the present study
to explain the pile-up stress of mothers and fathers
of children with an ID ranging in age from one to
years. The number of variables was reduced
through principal component analysis to eight components which were rotated into varimax-criterion.
These eight components accounted for more than
% of the total variance of the original variables.
The factor solutions for mothers and fathers were
similar to one another. They contained three identical

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

307
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

Table 2 Principal component analysis rotated into a varimax-solution for variables explaining stress by mothers (n = ).

Variable

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

h2

1 Marital Relationship
Marital adjustment
Expressive support
Instrumental support

0.88
0.87
0.69

-0.08
-0.08
0.22

-0.15
-0.15
-0.02

-0.14
-0.21
0.01

0.04
-0.01
0.29

0.12
0.06
-0.28

0.00
0.06
0.17

0.10
0.07
-0.01

0.85
0.84
0.72

2 Adaptive behaviour of the child

Adaptive behaviour
Severity of disability
Age of the child

0.00
0.03
0.01

0.90
-0.77
0.74

0.00
-0.00
-0.06

-0.12
0.04
-0.01

0.13
-0.34
-0.34

0.02
0.07
-0.00

0.10
-0.19
-0.17

-0.12
0.14
0.18

0.88
0.77
0.73

-0.12
-0.06
0.02
-0.26

0.15
-0.15
0.05
-0.04

0.77
0.76
0.62
0.60

-0.11
0.02
0.41
0.41

-0.15
0.13
-0.04
-0.10

-0.05
-0.18
0.15
-0.13

-0.12
-0.05
0.24
0.10

0.01
-0.12
-0.08
0.16

0.68
0.67
0.65
0.66

4 Definition of situation as catastrophe

Stressful life events
-0.10
Child as burden
-0.23
Challenging behaviour
-0.07
Experience of meaning
0.29

-0.08
0.03
-0.24
0.04

0.05
0.28
-0.07
0.20

0.74
0.64
0.60
-0.39

-0.12
-0.28
0.06
0.28

-0.09
-0.01
0.10
0.21

-0.03
-0.18
-0.53
-0.16

-0.12
-0.02
0.12
0.36

0.61
0.65
0.71
0.56

3 Negative coping strategies

Self-blame as definition
Self-blame as coping
Wishful thinking
Avoidance

5 Informal support
Acceptance of the child
Informal support

-0.01
0.39

0.07
0.08

-0.13
-0.06

-0.29
-0.04

0.76
0.65

0.00
0.13

-0.01
0.18

0.01
0.15

0.68
0.66

6 Positive coping strategies

Problem solving
Support seeking

-0.09
0.19

0.05
-0.11

-0.13
-0.06

0.02
-0.16

0.05
0.05

0.82
0.73

0.00
0.05

0.20
-0.38

0.74
0.75

7 Formal support
Formal support (mean)

0.11

0.04

-0.03

-0.06

0.12

0.06

0.77

0.23

0.68

8 Locus of control
Locus of control

0.14

-0.12

-0.10

-0.1

0.1

0.0

0.22

0.78

0.71

Eigenvalue
Proportion of total variance

4.23
21.2

2.35
11.9

1.92

1.39

1.25

1.1

1.03

0.91

9.6

7.0

6.2

5.5

5.2

4.5

components with exactly the same variables loading

high. These components were Adaptive Behaviour of
the Child, Negative Coping Strategies and Positive
Coping Strategies. Additionally, two other components were similar to each other: Marital Relationship
and Definition of the Situation as a Catastrophe. The
latter component was, by its content, closest to the
stress variable itself. In both parents, the definition
of the child as a burden, stressfulness of the experience and the absence of experience of meaning
loaded high on this component. Additionally, in
mothers, the challenging behaviour of the child, and
in fathers, the lack of perceived social acceptance of
the child, loaded high in this component. Thus,
among mothers, the definition of the disability of the

71.0

child as a burden or catastrophe was more connected

with the problems of the control of the childs behaviour, while among fathers, it was more connected
with the perceived attitudes of the social environment. The three remaining components were organized differently among mothers and fathers. In
mothers, informal support, formal support and locus
of control were divided between three different components. In fathers, they were combined into the
same component, whereas the challenging behaviour
of the child and instrumental support from the
spouse were differentiated into two components of
their own.
The analysis was continued by conducting a stepwise multiple regression analysis. The eight orthogo-

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

308
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

Table 3 Principal component analysis rotated into a varimax-solution for variables explaining stress by fathers (n = ).

Variable

F1

1 Definition of situation as catastrophe

Child as burden
0.77
Stressful life events
0.71
Experience of meaning
-0.58
Acceptance of the child
-0.55

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

h2

0.34
0.18
0.06
-0.09

0.15
0.17
0.02
0.12

-0.20
-0.14
0.37
0.06

0.01
0.10
0.46
0.11

0.09
0.08
0.08
0.19

-0.11
0.08
0.25
0.31

-0.01
0.07
0.13
-0.28

0.79
0.61
0.77
0.55

0.28
0.11
-0.09
0.31

0.73
0.70
0.69
0.65

0.03
0.12
0.05
0.01

0.08
-0.29
-0.08
-0.29

0.02
0.24
0.02
-0.11

-0.08
-0.05
0.32
-0.06

-0.19
-0.00
-0.25
0.16

-0.08
0.11
0.05
0.01

0.67
0.67
0.67
0.65

3 Adaptive behaviour of the child

Adaptive behaviour
-0.20
Severity of disability
0.28
Age of the child
0.25

-0.03
0.10
-0.06

-0.89
0.74
-0.73

0.03
-0.03
-0.02

0.05
0.05
0.07

-0.01
-0.05
-0.04

0.06
-0.16
-0.20

-0.22
0.22
0.15

0.89
0.71
0.67

4 Marital relationship
Marital adjustment
Expressive support (spouse)

-0.24
-0.23

-0.23
-0.20

-0.07
0.05

0.81
0.78

0.11
0.17

0.10
0.20

0.11
0.10

-0.07
-0.11

0.81
0.80

0.02
0.00

0.12
-0.00

-0.13
0.04

-0.01
0.19

0.79
0.78

0.04
0.03

0.19
-0.26

0.11
-0.10

0.72
0.72

6 Locus of control and social support

Locus of control
0.21
Informal support
-0.33
Formal support (mean)
-0.22

0.08
-0.02
-0.12

-0.04
0.03
0.13

0.14
0.27
-0.43

-0.07
0.34
0.35

0.83
0.57
0.44

0.13
0.06
-0.13

0.04
0.04
-0.38

0.78
0.63
0.75

7 Instrumental support
Instrumental support

-0.13

-0.21

-0.02

0.18

-0.02

0.11

0.79

-0.06

0.73

8 Challenging behaviour of the child

Challenging behaviour
0.06

0.01

0.25

-0.11

0.06

0.1

0.0

0.85

0.81

2 Negative coping strategies

Self-blame as definition
Wishful thinking
Self-blame as coping
Avoidance

5 Positive coping strategies

Problem solving
Support seeking

Eigenvalue
Proportion of total variance

4.67
23.4

2.43
12.2

1.94

1.28

1.26

1.06

0.9

0.84

9.7

6.4

6.3

5.3

4.5

4.2

nal components were entered into analysis to produce

regression equations separately for mothers and
fathers. Because the varimax-rotation assumes that
orthogonal factors are uncorrelated, the problem of
multi-collinearity was avoided. Thus, the size of R
was not technically limited and the importance of
each given predictor was not confounded by a correlation among predictor variables (Stevens ).
According to Stevens (), about subjects per
predictor are needed for a reliable equation. The sample sizes in this study, i.e. and , in relation to
the six or seven predictor variables, fulfilled the minimum requirements for an equation that will crossvalidate with little loss in predictive power.

71.9

The multiple regression equations explained %

of the variance on maternal stress and % of the
variance on paternal stress. The predictive power of
the equations was exceptionally high because R2 values typically move around . in educational and
psychological research (Stevens ). As noted
before, previous multiple regression analyses have
predicted from % to % of family adaptation
(Quine & Pahl ; Bristol ; Lustig & Akey
; Baxter et al. ).
The original stressor variables, or the characteristics of the child (the aA factor), predicted only % of
the stress of mothers and % of the stress of fathers
(Tables & ). In contrast to this, the mediating

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

309
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

Table 4 Explaining stress by mothers using orthogonal factors in a stepwise regression analysis (n = ): (PPMC) Pearson product moment
correlation; (part) part correlation; (partial) partial correlation; and (VIF) variance inflation factor*

Variable in the equation

Beta

R2 change

F-value

P-value

PPMC

Part

Partial

VIF

4 Definition of situation as catastrophe

5 Informal support
1 Marital relationship
3 Negative coping strategies
7 Formal support
2 Adaptive behaviour

0.53
-0.41
-0.34
0.28
-0.22
-0.12

0.29
0.17
0.12
0.08
0.05
0.02

110.04
64.33
45.93
31.18
19.04
6.39

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013

0.53
-0.41
-0.34
0.29
-0.22
-0.13

0.53
-0.41
-0.34
0.29
-0.22
-0.13

0.71
-0.61
-0.54
0.47
-0.38
-0.23

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

*Multiple R = .; R2 = .; and adjusted R2 = ..

Table 5 Explaining stress by fathers using orthogonal factors in a stepwise regression analysis (n = ): (PPMC) Pearson product moment
correlation; (part) part correlation; (partial) partial correlation; and (VIF) variance inflation factor*

Variable in the equation

Beta

R2 change

F-value

P-value

PPMC

Part

Partial

VIF

4 Definition of situation as catastrophe

1 Marital relationship
3 Negative coping strategies
8 Challenging behaviour
7 Instrumental support
6 Locus of control and social support
3 Adaptive behaviour

0.61
-0.36
0.34
0.23
-0.2
-0.19
0.16

0.37
0.14
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03

187.14
64.36
58.76
26.25
20.07
18.00
12.97

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001

0.61
-0.40
0.32
0.25
-0.19
-0.18
0.17

0.61
-0.41
0.32
0.25
-0.19
-0.18
0.17

0.79
-0.60
0.58
0.43
-0.39
-0.37
0.32

1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00

*Multiple R = .; R2 = .; and adjusted R2 = ..

variables of family resources (the bB factor)

accounted for % of the stress of mothers and %
of the stress of fathers, and family definition of the
situation (the cC factor) explained % of the stress
of mothers and % of the stress of fathers. In mothers, the role of aA factor was actually larger because
it was, in part, connected with the definition of the
situation component. However, in all, the results
indicate that the way in which parents define their
situation and the various resources available to them
are more important in the prediction of parental
stress than properties of the child. This finding is
important when considering the possibilities for
supporting family adaptation. The relatively small
predictive power of the original stressor, i.e. the characteristics of the child, may be seen as encouraging
because changing the disability of the child might be
more difficult than changing the attitudes or perceptions of the parents.
The definition of the parental situation as a
catastrophe was overwhelmingly the most impor-

tant component in explaining parental stress. In

mothers, this component was associated with the
challenging behaviour of the child, whereas in
fathers, it was associated with the perceived social
acceptance of the child. In mothers, the most
important resource was informal support, but in
fathers, it was spousal support. Thus, it seems that
mothers were more distressed by the behaviour
problems of the child than fathers, and were more
prone to seek outside help and support than fathers.
On the other hand, fathers were more distressed by
the negative attitudes of other people than mothers,
and relied more than mothers on spousal support
and their own strength.
The findings obtained in the present study found
support from many previous studies. The challenging
behaviour of the child is reported to have been
strongly associated with the stress of mothers (Quine
& Pahl ; Cameron & Orr ; Orr et al. ),
but less with the stress of fathers (Sloper et al. ;
Margalit et al. ).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

310
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

In particular, these results confirm the noted

importance of intervening factors in the explanation
of the parental stress among fathers of mothers caring for a child with ID. Various family resources have
been reported as having a significant contribution
to family adaptation (Bristol ; Lustig & Akey
). Spousal support has been shown to be an
important factor in family adaptation for both fathers
and mothers, even if fathers have obtained or relied
more on spousal support than mothers (Goldberg
et al. ; Bristol et al. ; Grant & Whittell
). Informal support has been shown to be
important for parents of children with disabilities
(Bristol ; Beckman ; Trivette & Dunst
) while formal support from authorities has
been shown to have less significance in terms of
stress reduction (Waisbren ; Bristol ; Florian & Krulik ). In the present study, negative
coping strategies had a significant role in the prediction of parental stress. This finding was also consistent with earlier research (Bristol ; Frey et al.
; Sloper et al. ). The meaning the family
assigns to the family situation has been shown to be
a significant factor in explaining parental stress (Bristol ; Lustig & Akey ). In this study, the
negative definition of the situation was strongly associated with parental stress. Orr et al. () stressed
the importance of beliefs and values of the family
as a filter through which stressors are processed.
Families who have been able to reframe their childs
disability into a positive referent or a routine component of their daily life may not experience high levels
of stress. In the present study, the negative definition
of the situation was associated with the challenging
behaviour of the child in mothers, and in fathers, the
perceived social acceptance of the child. These findings may provide insights into professional interventions which may be helpful in terms of better family
adaptation among parents. For example, more professional support should be available to help parents
to manage the challenging behaviour of their children. In this field, methodological advances in the
development of positive behaviour support methods
have been remarkable (e.g. Koegel et al. ).
The correlational method applied in the present
study does not make it possible to make firm conclusions regarding causality. Even if the model
applied contained a time factor and tried to take
the pile-up effects into consideration, the research

design was confined to self-report measures at

one single point in time. Therefore, what is clearly
needed are longitudinal studies which would measure the family adaptation over time, but studies like
the present one are also important because, among
other things, they help to develop assessment methodology for future multidimensional research on
family adaptation.

References
Abbott D. A. & Meredith W. H. () Strengths of parents
with retarded children. Family Relations , .
Abidin R. R. () Parenting Stress Index Manual. Pediatric
Psychology Press, Charlottesville, VA.
Baxter C., Cummins R. A. & Yiolitis L. () Parental
stress attributed to family members with and without
disability: a longitudinal study. Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability , .
Beckman P. J. () Comparison of mothers and fathers
perceptions of the effect of young children with and without disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation
, .
Bristol M. M. () Mothers of children with autism or
communication disorders: successful adaptation and the
Double ABCX Model. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , .
Bristol M. M., Gallagher J. J. & Schopler E. () Mothers
and fathers of young developmentally disabled and nondisabled boys: adaptation and spousal support. Developmental Psychology , .
Bruininks R. H., Hill B. K., Weatherman R. F. & Woodcock
R. W. () Inventory for Client and Agency Planning.
DLM Teaching Resources, Allen, TX.
Cameron S. J. & Orr R. R. () Stress in families of
school-aged children with delayed mental development.
Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation , .
Dunst C. J., Jenkins V. & Trivette C. M. () The Family
Support Scale: reliability and validity. Journal of Individual, Family and Community Wellness , .
Dyson L. L. () Families of young children with handicaps: parental stress and family functioning. American
Journal on Mental Retardation , .
Dyson L. L. () Fathers and mothers of school-age
children with developmental disabilities: parental stress,
family functioning, and social support. American Journal
on Mental Retardation , .
Flaherty E. M. & Glidden L. M. () Positive adjustment
in parents rearing children with Down Syndrome. Early
Education and Development , .
Florian V. & Krulik T. () Loneliness and social support
of mothers of chronically ill children. Social Science and
Medicine , .

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

311
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

Frey K. S., Greenberg M. T. & Fewell R. R. () Stress

and coping among parents of handicapped children: a
multidimensional approach. American Journal on Mental
Retardation , .

Lustig D. C. & Akey T. () Adaptation in families with

adult children with mental retardation: impact of family
strengths and appraisal. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation , .

Friedrich W. N. & Friedrich W. L. () Psychosocial

assets of parents of handicapped and nonhandicapped
children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency ,
.

Margalit M., Raviv A. & Ankonina D. B. () Coping

and coherence among parents with disabled children.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , .

Friedrich W. N., Greenberg M. T. & Crnic K. () A

short-form of the questionnaire on resources and stress.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency , .
Giddens L. M. () What we do not know about families
with children who have developmental disabilities: Questionnaire on Resources and Stress as a case study. American Journal on Mental Retardation , .
Goldberg S., Marcovitch S., MacGregor D. & Lojkasek M.
() Family responses to developmentally delayed preschoolers: etiology and the fathers role. American Journal
of Mental Deficiency , .
Gorsuch R. L. () Factor Analysis, nd edn. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Grant G. & Whittell B. () Differentiated coping strategies in families with children or adults with intellectual
disabilities: the relevance of gender, family composition
and the life span. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities , .
Hill R. () Families Under Stress. Harper & Row, New
York, NY.
Hill R. () Social stresses on the family. Social Case Work
, .
Holmes T. H. & Rahe R. H. () The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research ,
.
Holroyd J. () The Questionnaire on Resources and
Stress: an instrument to measure family response to a
handicapped family member. Journal of Community Psychology , .
Koegel L. K., Koegel R. L. & Dunlap G. () Positive
Behavioral Support. Including People with Diffficult Behavior
in the Community. Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Baltimore,
MD.
Krauss M. W. () Child-related and parenting stress:
similarities and differences between mothers and fathers
of children with disabilities. American Journal on Mental
Retardation , .
Lavee Y., McCubbin H. I. & Patterson J. M. () The
Double ABCX Model of family stress and adaptation: an
empirical test by analysis of structural equations with
latent variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family ,
.
Lazarus R. S. & Folkman S. () Stress, Appraisal and
Coping. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Locke H. J. & Wallace K. M. () Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: their reliability and validity.
Marriage and Family Living , .

McCubbin H. I. & Patterson J. M. () The family stress

process: the Double ABCX Model of adjustment and
adaptation. In: Social Stress and the Family: Advances and
Developments in Family Stress Theory and Research (eds
H. I. McCubbin, M. B. Sussman & J. M. Patterson),
pp. . Haworth Press, New York, NY.
Ogle P. L. () The sibling relationship: maternal perceptions of the nonhandicapped and handicapped/nonhandicapped sibling dyads. PhD Thesis, The University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Orr R. R., Cameron S. J. & Day D. M. () Coping with
stress in families with children who have mental retardation: an evaluation of the Double ABCX Model. American
Journal of Mental Retardation , .
Quine L. & Pahl J. () Examining the causes of stress in
families with severely mentally handicapped children.
British Journal of Social Work , .
Rousey A. M., Best S. & Blacher J. () Mothers and
fathers perceptions of stress and coping with children
who have severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental
Retardation , .
Schaefer M. T. & Olson D. H. () Assessing intimacy:
the Pair Inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
, .
Schulz R. & Decker S. () Long-term adjustment to
physical disability: the role of social support, perceived
control and self-blame. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , .
Scott B. S., Atkinson L., Minton H. L. & Bowman T.
() Psychological distress of parents of infants with
Down Syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation
, .
Singer G. H. S. & Irvin L. K. () Supporting families
of persons with severe disabilities. Emerging findings,
practices and questions. In: Critical Issues in the Lives of
People with Severe Disabilities (eds L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck
& L. Brown), pp. . Paul H. Brookes Publishing,
Baltimore, MD.
Sloper P., Knussen C., Turner S. & Cunningham C. ()
Factors related to stress and satisfaction with life in families of children with Downs syndrome. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines , .
Sosiaalihallitus () Kehitysvammaisten erityishuolto .
[Special Care for People with Mental Retardation .]
Tilastotiedotus, Helsinki. [In Finnish.]
Stevens J. () Applied Multivariate Statistics for the
Social Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

312
T. Saloviita et al. Explaining parental stress

Summers J. A., Behr S. K. & Turnbull A. P. () Positive

adaptation and coping strengths of families who have
children with disabilities. In: Support for Caregiving Families. Enabling Positive Adaptation to Disability (eds G. H.
S. Singer & L. K. Irvin), pp. . Paul H. Brookes
Publishing, Baltimore, MD.

psychometric properties. Multivariate Behavioral Research

, .
Waisbren S. E. () Parents reactions after the birth of
a developmentally disabled child. American Journal of
Mental Deficiency , .

Trivette C. M. & Dunst C. J. () Characteristics and

influences of role division and social support among
mothers of preschool children with disabilities. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education , .

Walker L. S., Van Slyke D. A. & Newbrough J. R.

() Family resources and stress: a comparison of
families of children with cystic fibrosis, diabetes and
mental retardation. Journal of Pediatric Psychology ,
.

Vitaliano P. P., Russo J., Carr J. E., Maiuro R. D. & Becker

J. () The Ways of Coping Checklist: revision and

Accepted February

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research ,