ir it

MATERNAL DIRECTIVENESS:

I'I'S RELATIONTO DEVELOPMENTALLYDELAYEDCHILDREN'S COMPETENCE AND INTERACTIONAL BEHAVIOR

by CIBarbara Ward Caines

Athes i s sub mitt e d to the Schoolof Graduate StUdies in partial fulfilmentof the

requ irements for the degree of Masterof Education

Department of Educational Psychology Memorial universityof Newfoundland

August1991

St .John's NeWfoundland

1.1

Theauthorhasgrantedan irrevoeable000- exclusivencenceallowingtheNationalUbrary ofCanadato reproduce,loan.distributeor seR coples of hislh erthesisby anymeansand in f,fIyfannor termer.makingthisthesisawibble to Interested persons.

Theautt\ocretainsownership01the copyright inhislherthesis.Neitherthe thesis nor substantialextracts fromitmaybepmledor otherwise reproduced withouthislherper- mission.

L'euteur8SCCOfdeunelicencejrrevocataeat nonexclusive pennettanlAIaBibflotM que natone le duCanadadereprodulre. prAter.

dlslribuerouvendre descoplesdo sathose dequelquementere at sousquelqueforme quecesoli pourmettredes exemotalresdo cettethese IIla dispositiondespcrsonnes fntereesees.

l'auleurconserveIapropriell!dudroitd'aul eur quiprotegesathese.NiIathesenidesexirens subslantielsde ceae-crnedoivent 6tre imprimes auec tremen t reprodu il ssans son aulorisa lioo.

Canada

\

\ ~

l

I

Ack nowledg emen t s

There are several peopleI wish to acknowledgefor thei r valuableassistance and time in complet ingthis thesis:

ur. Kofi Marfo, my thesis advisor, for his support, encouragement, assistance, long distance suggesti ons,and for gi v i n g me anappreciation of theresearchproc e ss.

Dr.Glen Sheppard, my thesisco-advisor, [or takingtime (on short not ice) from abusy schedule tooff e r suggestio ns and helpful advice.

Judy Fu rlo ng , for her diligenceand patiencein cod ing the videotapes.

Victor, my hus b a nd , for his co n fi d e nc e and support throughout the past two years.

Mypa r e nt s ,fo r their never-endingsupport and encourage- ment.

Myfrie ndsand other familymembers, for their assistance andpatience during the writi ngof thisthesis.

I i

J.bstra ct

The objectivesat:'thi s study....ereto firs t examine the re latio ns hip among the four type s of direc tiveness (response control, topic control, turntaJcing control, and inhibitive con trol ) that 1ll0th~rsof developmentally delayed childre n eXhib i t , and seco nd, to dete rmi ne nov these di r e c t i ve beha viors relate to the child 'sinteract ional beha vio r and devel op ment al charact eris tics. Inte r act i o ns betwee n 25 mo thersand the ir de vel opmentallydelay ed ch ild r e n duri ng15 mi nutes of fre e-play and three minutes of an instruction al ta sk were cod ed indep ende ntl y using a be havior count sys tem and a global rat i ng scal e (MUlti-Pass Coding Sys t em). The corre l a t iona l ana lysesindica t ed tha t a relatIons h i p ex i sts aJlong thefou r subtypesof directiven e s s andfurther sugges ted that ma t e rna l di rective behaviors vary as a funct ionofthe child's on-line (interactional) be ha v i or and deve lopmental char ac teris tics. In addition, the interco r relations among mate rna lbehav iorsindic a t e d thatdire c t i ve ne s sand warmthand sensi tivi tyare not incompa ti ble chara cteri stics ofmaternal behavio r. Finally, the re s ultsprovide d evidence to suggest there are notab l e ind iv idua l diff eren c e s in inte raction patterns of mothe r s and their devel opmentally dela ye d chil d ren .

Thisstud y conc l ude s witha discussionof the findings anda se t of re c ommendat i ons .

iii

TableofContents

Pag e

Acknowledgements Abstract List of Tables

CHAPTER

INT:ROOUCTION st<ot.ement of Purpose Background Infor ma t i on Rationale

A Note on Choiceof Term inology

i l iii ....i i

10

I I REVIEW OFTHELITERATURE

DeflningMaternal Direct ive ness operationalizationof the Di rect iveness

Construct in the Mental Retardation Literature

Re s e a r c h Design Comparative studies

12 12

17 19 20

Correlationalstudies 23

De s c r i p tive Studies 24 Findi ngs FromComparative studies 25

Directiveness inRelationto Response Control

iv

25

CHAPTER Pag e Directiveness in Relation to

Topic Control 35

Directiveness in Relationto Tu r n-Ta k i ng control 3' Directiveness in Relationto

Restrictions, Terminations and

Interferences 40

FindingsfromatuddesExamin i ng IndividualDifferences

"

Summary 51

III METHODOLOGY 53

The Sample 53

The Design 56

TheInstruments 56

BatelleDevelopmenta l Inventory 56 Multi-Pass: A Scheme for Coding

Parent-ChildInteraction 59

Procedures 61

Administration of Instruments 61 VideotapingofInte r a c t i o ns 61 CodingVi de ot ape dInt e r a ct i on s 62 Observer Trainingand Reliabilities 63

Ethical Considerations 69

CHAPTER Page

IV RESULTS 70

Rela tionshipsAmong theFour Di mens io ns

of Dirac t iveBehavio r 70

Relati ons h ipBetwe en Child Behav i o r and Child Develo p me n ta l Indices n RelationshipBetween Se l e ctedParenta l

Behaviorand Childoevercpecne and Behavior

"

RelationshipBetweenMaterna l Di recti v e Beha vi orandchildCompet ence

andInt e r a c t ion a l Beh a v i or 7.

Rela tionshipsBetween MaternalDire c t i v e aenevtcrcand Other Mate rna l Behaviors 79 Re lati onsh i pBe t we en Ma t ernal

Ins tructional Beh a v ior and Child Developmen talCharacteris tics 81

Summaryof HainFindinqs 82

DI S CUSSIONSANDCONCLUSIONS 85

Recommenda tions OJ

References 96

Appe ncUces

Appe ndi xA

-

-

vi

Listof Table s

Page

Table 1 Directivenessin Relation to Response Control 26 Table2 Directivenessin Relation to Topic control 36 Table3 Directiveness in Relation to Turn-Taking

Control J9

41 Table" Directiveness in Relationto Restrictions,

TerminationsandIn t erf ere nc e s Table 5 Geographic Distribution of Child Management

Specialists (CMS) and child Participants 54 Table 6 Breakdown of ChildrenBy Handicapping

condition

Table 7 Family Demographic Characteristics Table 8 Definitions and Reliab ilitiesFor Behaviors

Measuredin Pass One

Table 9 Definitionsand ReliabilitiesFor Behaviors Measured in Pass Two

Table 10 Definitio ns and ReliabilitiesFor Behaviors Measuredin Pass Three

55 57

6'

66

67 Table 11 Definitio ns and Re lia b i lit i e s For Behaviors

Measured on th e Behavior RatingScale 68 Table 12 Intercorrelations Amon g theFourTy p e s of

Ma t e rnalDi r e c t i v e Behaviors andEs t imate s of SharedVariance Between Pairs

vii

72

77 75 Page Table 13 Relationships Betweenchild aehevior

ca ceqo rLe s and Child DevelopmentalMeasures 7J Table 14 Intercorrelations Among Child Behavior

categories

Table 15 Relationships BetweenSelectedParental Behavior and Children's Development and Behavior

Table 16 RelationshipsBetweenMaternal Directive Behaviorsand Child Developmentalxeaaures and Behavioral Ratings

Table 17 RelationshipsBetween Maternal Directive Behaviors and OtherMaternalBeh a v i o r s 80 Table 18 RelationshipsBet....eenMaterna l Inst ructional

Behaviorsand ChildDevelopmenta l Characteristics

viii

82

CHAPTERI Introduction

statemen tof Purpose

The purpose (If this study ...as twofold. The firstgoal was to examine the relationship among the four types of direct ivenessthat mothersof developmentallydelayed children exhibit. The second purpose was to determine how these maternal directive behaviors relate to the behavior and developmental characteristics of developmentally delayed children.

Based upon a review of the relevant literature, tihe followingresearch questions were selectedfor the purpose of thiscorrelational stUdy:

1. What relationship existsamong the four dimensions of maternaldirectiveness?

2. Whatrelationshipexists betwee nchild behavior and child developmental characteristics?

3. Wha t is the relationshipbetween selected parental behaviors and childdevelopmentandbehavior?

4. What is the relationship between maternal directive behavior and child competen c e ?

5. Wha t relationship exi sts betweenmaterna ldirective behaviorand othermate rn al be hav i o r s ?

6. Wha t is the relationshipbetw ee n mat e r nalins t r uc- tionalbehaviorsandchild developmentalcha rac t eristics?

The following Sec t ion presentsthe backgroundinformation tor th is study.

Ithasbe e n generallyAcceptedthroughout the literature thatenvironme ntal influe nc e s, and gene tic programndng and maturationalstatus int e r ac t to af fec t the co urseof mental de ve l o pme nt (Sattler ,1988 ) . A majorport i on ofthevari a t i on in children's perfor mance on tests of menbeI abili ty and achievement hasbeen attributedin thepastthree decade s to differences in famil yenv i r onment or backgrou nd (He nde rson, 1981). Thu s , the fa milyenv ironme nt- -the major social iz in g agent of theyoungchild--is cru c i alto a ch ild 'sdevelopment, particula rl y in vi e w ofBloom's (1964) conclusion (cited in He nd e r son, 1981) tha t most of a child'sbasic int ellectua l development is comp l e tedbef or e the age of schoo l att e nd a nc e.

A major influentia l fa ctor in the family environment invo lves th e paren t/child rd a t i o ns hip . Study of th i s relationship has typ i c all y consis ted of examining the behaviors , at t i t Udes, beliefs andvalues that gi ve sha peto the social circ umstanc e s in which pa r ents and ch ildre n interact (Laosa, 1981). A child's mostvaluable intellectual experi e ncesduring earl y child hoodoccurininteractionwit h anoth e r person(Laosa,1982). It isthr oug hthe interact ion process that early learning occurs and this, as Hende r s on (1981 ) sugge sts , buildsthefo undat ions forlaterin fo~ation

processing. Infants arebornwi th the capacityto adapt to the environment. However, the wayan in f a nt experiences his/her environment can aff e ct his/her development, in particular, coqn i t ivede veIopaent;, Therefore, it is evident tha t the infant'seao:-lyyears and environmentare of critical importance to the ch ild's development of competence. The parent-childinterac t i onprocessis a crucialel eme nt o~this earl yenv ironment and provides the immediate context for the child'sacqu isit ionof compe t e nce (Ro , 1976).

signif i c ant sh iftshaveoccurredin thepast fe wdecades inthe wa ytheparent/ch ildinterac tionalprocess isconcep- tuali ze d. The traditio nalviewofparent/childint e ractionas a unid irec t iona l process , inwh ich the pare nt was se en as having cOlDplete control and in fl ue nc o on the in f a nt' s behavior, is no longer consideredappropriate. TIlis approach le a ve s ma nyiss ue suna ns we r ed. Bell's(1968) reinterpretation ofthe dir e c tio n of effe cts in socializationstudie sis now widely accepted. The shiftnowis towards a bidir ectional approach, implying that the parent and child have mutua l effectsoneachother 's be hav i or (Bel l , 1974 ). As ares ul t, th e infa nt can be seen as a cont ributor to his /he r own soci a li za t ion. The inf a ntcontri butestosoc ia l inte ra c t i on bybeing resp ons i ve and by active l y ini tiatingsocia linte rac- tio ns (Be ll,1974). Furthe r more, the infant at an ea rly age iscapableofava ri e ty ofperceptual andcogniti ve achieve- ments,which in tur n make thein fanta capable partner inthe

interac tionalsystem (Parke, 1975) .

Thus, it be co mesevidentthat the study of pare nt -child interactio nre ally is a stud yof re c iproc a l exchangesbetween twointe r a cti ve or ganisms. Accordingto Bell (1974).althoug h th epa rent and thechilddiffergreatly inmaturity, they do not differ incompetance , in te:-:msofthe i r abilityto affect each other.

Howev e r, when Bell (1968) proposed this concept of interaction,he fail e dtoemph a s i z ethe temporaldimen.. ionsof mother-chi ldinteractions. Samero!!(1975) stressedthene e d to vi ew parent -chil d relationships in te r ms of ongoing hi s t or i e s of interaction, whichresul t ina better understand- ing of de ve l opme nt a l outcomes. From this perspective, it is the minuteto minute ongoi ng inter a cti ons between parent and childthatare of importa nce. senero r r (1975) sugg ests tha t if developmental processes are to be understood i t will be th rough "a continu ousassessmentof thetran s a c t i on s between the chil d andhisenvironmenttode t e r mi ne bow these transac- tions facil i tateor hinderadaptive integrationas both the chil dandhis sur r ound ingschangeand evolve" (p. 283). Thus, parent-chi l d interac t ion is at sovie wed as a transact ional proceas- r-aprocess whic h consists ofthe transactionsbetween biol og i ca l and env i r on men t a l factors. Moreover, the term trans a c t i on str essesthe multi-facetedeff e c tsthatin f a ntand parent ha ve on each other as wel l asthe effects that the beh a vior of each has on hi s / her own SUbsequent behavior

(Bromwich, 19811.

Underthe transactional mod e l. Marfo (1988) suggeststhat both paren t and childIlut ua l l y affect each other, thro ugh each partner's relatively stable and trans ient characte ris ti cs.

This llode1 represents fur t h e r developmentof thebidirectional rel ationship ot parent-child interactions in that it also recognizesthe continua l and progressiveinteractionbetween the or g anismand hi s/herenv iro nme nt (Kysela &Marf o,1983 ). A fair amount ofparent-ch ild interact ionre sea rc h has related mea sur e s or child r e n's intel lectual competence to variou s aspects of parenta l beh a v i o r , wi t h the majority of the s e studiesfocusingonmat ernalbehavior . Their findings sugges t tha t the child'smost valuab le intellectual experi- ences dur i ng ear ly childhood oc cur in intera cti o ns with anothe r personwho explains, reasons Wit h , teaches, helps.

entertains. co nve r s eswith, praises, sh ares , and expandsthe child's activities (teeee, 198 2 ). It is generally accepted that these beha viors ,as well asma t e r n a l wannthandsensitiv- ity ,ez-ebene fi cial tothe child'sintellectualdeve lopment . Incontra st . child- rea ringpr ac tices cha r acter ized bystrict control, coa xing. commands, thre ats and pun i s hment are believe dtobe less adva nt a ge ous tothe ch i l d ' s devel opment (Clarke-stewart , 1973) .

Somestudies suggest that certai n type s of st imulation mayfac ilitatecogn itive develo pment (RO, 197 6). Theextent to whic hthe mothe r provide s forfr e qu entencounte rswi t h a

wide va r ietyof situationscaninflu e nce the inf an t's learn- ing. Al s o, ma t e r na l vi su alattentiv e ne s s llIay in f luence and facilitatethe infant 's attentivene s s totheenv iro nme nt and subsequent stimulation (Osofsky, Conno rs. 19 79). In add i- tion, the wa ys in whi c h pare nts organize and a r-r-anqe the inrant's homeenvironmentandset limi tsonthi s se ttingcan also indirectly influence cogniti ve and social development (Po\oler , Parke, 198 2).

Oth erenvironmental processes--attitudes, dispositLo nu and pattern s of interactionamong (iJmi l y mcmbcrs--i nthenome ha v e been found to corre late \oIith children's Ln ce ltoct.uot developme nt(Laosa ,1982).

In view of the reciprocal nat u re of the parent-ch ild interactionalsys tem, it is nece s s ary to exami ne the ch i 11.1 characteri st i c s and attr i bute s tha t influ e nce paren t al behavior . Fromthe ear liestwe e ks of life, it is the inf,'1nt wh o effecti ve lypromotes man yof the inte rac tions (Beckwith , 1972) . A number ofinfantcharacter i st i c s hav e been acknowl- edged in the lite ra tu r e as affect i ng the K1ot he r - c h ild rel a- tionship. Thes e charac t e ris tics include temperament, sex, birt h order , state, respo nsive ness to tactile, visual, and au di t o r ystimuli,andvocaliza tions(Osofsky&Conno rs,1979).

Re su lts fr omthe incr easi ng number of studies witih infa nts forceus, as Osofsky&Connorsobce rve, to recognizeinfiJnts as complexorganismswith individualized patternsof reactiv- ityand activity preferenc es from birt hthat coincid ewith,

infringe upon, and affect maternal interests.

physical characteristics of infants can also affect maternal inte ractional style. For example, the infantIs responses infl ue nce the mother's feelings and her behavior toward the infant. Infantswho are disadvantaged or handi- capped infl ue nceparentalbehavior in theint e r a c tio n process, especiallyin the waya pare nt relates tothe in f a nt (oecrsky

&Connors, 1979). Moreover, many infants withdevelopmental

delaysor otherne ur ol og i c al lybasedhandicapsrespondin ways sUfficient lydeviantto make mutual lypreasucecreint e r a c tio n between mother and infant difficult to ach ieve (Bromwich, 1976). Thus, the early ye a r s are even more crucial for mentallyhandicapped anddevelopmentallydelayed childrenif optimaland developmentally enha nc ingpa r en t-c h ild interac- tionsareto be achieved.

Thefollowingsectionpresents a rationalefor this study and the basis for the formu lationofthe researchqu e s t i o ns whichit addresses.

In recentyears,many st udiesha ve soug h t to examinethe effects of a childIs ha nd icap p ing condition on materna l inte rac tionstyle,by comparingdyadicinte r a c t i ons inv ol v i ng mentally ha ndi c a pped and nanhandicapped ch Lkdcen (Buckhalt, Rutherfo r d &Goldbe rg, 1978 ; Cunni ngham , Reuler, Blackwel l &

Deck, 19811 Eheart, 198 2 : Jon es , 1980;Ma r shall,Hegrenes &

Goldste i n , 19731Stoneman, Brody&Abbott, 1983). Arecurring findi ng from thi s body of research is that, while me nt a lly handica pped children are characterized by inactivityand unresponsive ness(Ehear t,1982; Terda1 ,Jackson

&Garner,1976), their mot he rstend to behi g hl y directiveand unrespo nsive (Cunningham et al., 1981; Hanzlick&Stevenson, 1986 ).

Since, asTannoc k (1988b )observes,therate of language lea rning innormallydevelopingchildren ha s beennegativ ely correlatedwithmeasures of maternal directiveness (Nelson, 1973; Newport, Gl e itman&Gleitman , 1977 1McDonald & Pien, 1982;), maternal language addressed to mentally handicapped childrenhas general lybeen interpretedas beingle s sfa vour- ablefo r languagelearn ing tha n languageaddr-ee s ed toncenajLy devel oping childre n(Ca r dos o- Mar t i ns&Me r v i s, 198 5 1 Cunni ng - hamet a1., 1981). Becausementally ha nd i c app e d children are exposed to significant lyhighe r amountsof directiveness, it hasbeenge nera llyacc e pt e d that maternal directiveness mu!>t accou nt, at leastin part, forthe poor deve lopmentaloutcomes associated wit hmental handicap. Howe ve r, asMa r f a (1990) suggests, thi s opinion of ma t erna l directiveness as an inherentl y nega t i ve inte r a cti onal phe no men o n precluding re sp o mliven ess is si mpl i stic in its failure to disting uis h betw e e n the adaptivequalities of par en tal behavio r and the potentialde velopme nt alef fe c t s of suc hadapt ivebehavior.

Incont r ast,ot he rinves tiga tors ha ve arguedthat mothers

of lIenta lly han d icapp e d child ren are no more dire cti v e unr e s ponsive tha n mothe rsofnonhandica ppedchild ren(O'Ke lly- Coll a rd, 1978 : Ronda l , 197 8), andtha t menta llyhandicapped chil d ren ar e as responsive as (CUnni ngham eta1., 1981 ) or lIor e respon s i ve (Hanz lick , Ste v en s on , 198 6 ) tha n nonhandi- cappe d children.

These divergent findings in the mental retardat i o n literature , as Tannoc k (198 8b) alsoobse rv e s , areconf oun ded by: (a) failure to acknowl edge the mu l tid i mens ionalnature of the directiven e ss co ns t r uct; (b) methodol ogical is sue s (nomothe ticcompari sons versus correlational analyses) ; and (c) the use of observ ationalmethods that failtoconsider the lIot he r andchild as an interactive, dyad i cunit.

Inaddi tio n, the ove n;ohe l mi ngmajorityofbetwee ngro up desig ns has failed to acknOWledge tha t llIot hers of mentally hand icapped children are a heteroge neo us group and tha t va ria nc e doe s exist in mothe r-ch ild dyads. Inmuc hof thi s re search, the l'laingoa l has been to esta blish whe the r one group of mo the rs issues mor e direct i ve s than the other. Fur the rmore, fe w stud i es have atte mpted toidentifyfactors (othermaternal and child behaviors )as soc i atedwith increased use of directives (Mahoney , 19 88b; Maurer &Sherrod, 198 7 ; Tannock, 1988b ). Thu,; ,thereis aneedtoranIncreeseofocu s on ind i vid ua l differences in the stUdy of directiven ess in order to identify variabl es that may be associated wi t h mate r nal directi ven e s s .Very few studi e s in the literature

10 haveexa mi n e din d i v i d ual differencesin te r ms ofdirectiveness (Crawley&Spiker,19 8 3 ; Maho ney ,J.983,1988a, 198Bb;xencn e y, Finger&Pow{'!ll, '!.~ S '5 ).

Thesig nificanceof this correlat iona l study isth a t i t attempts to cxamtne individual differe nces in patterns of mothe r-d e vel op me nta lly delayedchild dy a d s, interms of the mult i d i men sion al c:omponen ts of maternal directivebeh av i o r. There is a need to focu s on sou rces of variations within groups of mothe r-ha ndicappedchilddyads. ThisstudyinveEoti- gatesabroade rrange ofbo thmaterna landchildinteractional behaviors and, th us , considers th e mother and child as fin interac tive, dyad i c uni t.

A Note on Choiceor Terminology

Cli nically, thechild r eninth isst udymaymo re appropri- at ely be classified und e r the two labels "d ev elopment a lly di s abled" and "d e v e l opment all y delayed". Oevelopme ntally di s a ble d child renare thosewithchro nicdisab ilities whi c h re s ult from menta l and/ o r phys i c al imp a i r men t and manifest themselvesin su bs tantia l functionallimitationsinsuch areas as ac adem icski ll s, commu nicat ion ,socia l skijl s, mobili ty, sel f-care, and cap a cit y for inde pendent liv i ng (Bernhe imer&

Keogh, 19 86).Ch ildre nwi t hsuc hconditions as Downsyndrome, cerebra l pa l s y,hydroceph alusand spinabi f i d aar e covered by the developmental di s abilities la be l.

Incon t rast theterm developmental lydelayed is used to

11 descri be children who ma nife st signs of slow dev el opme nt and lan guage/colUllunica tio n problems, but who exh i bit no cl e ar signs of as s ociated physical or bi ol ogical impairme nts (Be r nheilller, Keogh , 1986).

Sixty percent of the childre n in this study could be class ifie d asdev e l op men tall y disab l ed, while 40\ fe llunder the deve lop mental ly delayed cate go r y. Howeve r, the term

"deve l o pmen taldelay ed "wi llbeusedgenerical ly to des c r i be the entiresamp le.

12 CHAPTER II

Rev iew of th e Lit erature

Detinhq Maternal Directiveness

Re s e a r c h has highlight edthe dyed i cm"tureof theparent- ch i ldre la t i onship(Bell, 19 68;Lewis' Rosenb lulII, 1974). I t is believed that a mutuality is establis he d towhi c h both partner's active ly contribute. Thu s , the par ent-c h ild relationsh ip is a systemch aracterizedby directio n alityand reciprocity. This contrad i c t sthe early vie w of this rela - tions h ipas one inwhich powerf uladultssha pechil dbehavior.

However ,the r e areoccasionswhe remot he rs dohaveto ta kethe ini tiative and the r e f orf', may exert greater influe nc e over thei r ch ild,an d asSc h a ffer and Crook (1979 )sugges t,mothers of te nhave "purpos e s and goals of their own Which theyneed to co nve y to their children and with which th e children ar e expecbed to comply" (p.986). The fargreaterpower potent ial of parents should notbe ignored(Hoffllan, 1915).

The te rm mater na lcont r ol or"d ire c t i vene s s "thenre f ers to both ve rbal andnonverba l be hav iors employed bythe mother tocha ngetheong oing beha viorofthe childdur in g any gi v e n time (Marfo, 1990 ). As su c h, the te rm shoul d not be under- st oodsolely ina neg ative manner- -one thatdepictspunf str- ment ,restraint, and force. Maternal cont r o l te chn i que sar e designed to influe nc ethe Child'sbehavior. Such dire ctiv e behavior is a commonas pe ct foundininte rac tions be t we e ntwo

13 or more individuals and, as Schaffe r (198 4 ) notes, the significance of controltechniquesis particula rlymarked in pa r e nt- ch ild interact ionsduringthe earlyyears. In viewof th i s ,di re c t i v e behavior appears the nto be a normalaspect of pare n ting--not an attribute to be construed as comp l e t e l y ne gati ve or limit.edto a pathological population. To inter- pr et directive behavior as a negative pa re nting technique, neglects themany positive ways open to par e ntsfor influenc- ing their child'sbehavior (Schaffer&Crook, 19 7 9). Maternal control tech n i que s or directives have been shown in the developme nta l literatu re to be influencedby thefoll owing characteristicsof thech ild: age (Bellinger,1979 ; Schaffer

& Cr o ok , 1979)1 lingui stic ability (Schneiderman, 1983);

cogni tivedevelopme nt, andchild's foc us of attentionat the ti me (Schaffer& Crook, 1979; Schaffer, He pbu r n &collis , 1983). Because mat ernal directivestendtobe influenced by the characte ristics ot: the child, th i s seemsto implythat mothers show sensit iv itywhe n enga ging in directivebehavior. Neverthel ess , there exi sts negative connotations regarding directiveness inthede velop me nta l lite rature.

McDonaldand Pi e n(1982) found that mothers' dir ect i ves hada signi f icant ne g ativ e rel a tionsh ipwithmot he rs ' ques- tio ns to childrenages 29 to 36 mont hs. Nelson (1973) who followed 18 children (ages 10 to 15 months) for one yea r, found that mate rnal di r e cti ons , instructions, commands and re que sts we re negat i v ely relatedto the chi l d' s pr og r e s s in

I r

I

! ^f

14 comprehend i ng la ngu a ge and ac qu i r i ng an early voca bulary.

Meth e rs'di r ect i ons we r eal s o foundtobenegatively re lated to mot h ers 'questions . Rube ns t einandHowe s (1979)foundthat in both homes and daycar-e centers, care qiver cont rol and restrict iv e nes s surf a c e d as negative influe nce s on the develo pment a l le vel of in f a nt pla y. ae ....portet al. (19771 foundth atlllot hers ' unintell i gi ble utte ra ncesandaffi rma t ive imperative s pred i cted 510....synti!lcti c developmentin one - to two-year-o ldchildr en.

In otherinvestigationsthat have exa mi ned the met.er-naI use of impe r ati ves, similar find i ngs ne ve conclude d t.hnt;

ma t e r n a lcont r o l techniques we r e found toinhi bit thechild's, development (Ol son-Fu l era, 1982; Clar ke -S t ewa r t , 1973 ) .

The pra ctic eof perceiving directive nessas 1I negative intera ction phe nomen on has be en furt her st re ng th e ne d and sustai ne d inthementa l retardationliterature by a nuaber of studie s that investigatedtheinteraction patt erns ofno t hers and theirlIe ntally handicapped children, in cont rast to the interactio n pa ttern s of ect bexs and thei r non handi c a pped children.Gene ra ll y,inmilch ofthisresearch, a significa ntly higher inciden c e of ma t erna l di re c ti ve behav ior has been reportedfor mothersof mentallyha ndi ca pped children compared to mot he rs of nonhandicappe d children (Breine r &Forehand , 1982; cunningham et al., 19 81, Ehea r t, 1982; Mahoney , Roben al t, 1986 ).

Becaus e materna l directive ne s s in the developmental

15 lit e ra tu re is perceive d to be ne g a tive l y re l ated to the development of compete nce in children, and th a t mentally handica pp e d children are expos e d to grea te r amo u nt s of directiveness , it is often interprete d in the men talretarda- ti on lit e ra ture thatmate rnal directiveness must accountfor par t of the poor developmental outcomes associated with menta lly han d i c ap ped ch ildre n(Ma r fo ,1990). Suchint erpre ta- ti ons lead to the unde rs t a nding th at a hi gh inc iden ce of maternal dire ctive nes s may be detr i mental to the child 's development .

Howev e r, incontras t ,thech ild - driventheory(Mahone y, Fors " Wood, 1990 ) wou l d notsup port the view of mater na l di r ective ness as an inh erentl y probl e mati c and negat i ve int eract ionbehavior. Acc o rding to this the ory, mate rnal directive behavior is dete rJlli ned by the child's le ve l of participa tioninthe in te raction. As such,this theory tends tosuggestthat the child's on-line behaviorat"':r a ctsmate rnal directi ve behavior. Mo the rsof lientallyhandicappe dchildre n are viewed as hav i ng hig her rat es of direct ive be ha v i or be causetheir childrenshow gre ate r pa s s ivity inint eraction than do nonhandic app ed children. Tannoc k 's (l9 88b) findi ng s indicate that maternaldirectivenes smay se rve asa supportive st r a t ogy to enha nce developmentally immature childr en' s abil itytopart i cipatemot-e full y ininteract i o n. In addi- ti o n, Maurer and Sherrod (1987) conceptua l i z ed maternal dir ect i ve behavior as an ada pti ve stra t e gy to enabte and

,.

intensify the childI5 participation in the In c e r act Lon process.

The child-driventheoryis consistent with Bell'sccrrt roj, the ory (Bel l & Harper, 1977). According to Bell, it is assumed that both participantsin a parent-childinteraction exerttwo type s of control (upper-limitand lower-limit) on each other'sbehavior"rela t i v e to the intensity, frequency or situationalappropriateness of behavior shown by the other"

{p, 65). In terms of theparent, lower-limit control behavior primes and stimulates the child's behavior where it is perceived to be belowan acceptablele v e l,or is nonexistent.

Maternal directive behaviorswould fall within the lower-limit control behaviors. In view of this theory, mothers of mentally handicapped children use greater amounts of lower-limit control behaviors due to their childrensI passivity than mothersof nonhandicappedchildren.

Both the ch i ld-driven and control th e o r i e s provide support for observingmaternaldirectivenessas an adaptive- strategic behavior. Because child pathology exists, as Sc haffer(1984) notes, it should not be thoughtof asle ad ing to a deviant dyadic pat tern. Motherscan learn to compensate fo r infa n tsI diminishedcapacities to participatein social in t erac ti o n, in order to function satisfactorily in the parent - c hild system.

17 Operll.tionali zati on of the Directiveness Construct in the

~:en t a lRetardationLiterature

Although the directiveness construct has had a number of definitionsin the empirical literature, it is often charac - terized as a unidimensional construct. Several operational definitionsexist in the research. Ma r f o (1990) presentedan extensive discussion of different operational definitions.

Fou roperational definitions,offered by Marfo (1990)willbe examined inthis section , eachde s c rib i ng adi f f e r e nt dimen- sion of maternaldirectiveness : (a) response contro l; (b) topic control; (e) turn-takingcontrol;and Cd) restrictions, terminations and int e r f e r e nc e s .

The term"r e s po ns e control "refers to a mother 'stendency to issue commands, askcommand questions, or make demandsof the child to respond. Each of these behaviors serves to solicit a response from the child (Tannock, 1988a, 1988b ; Ma r f a , 1990). A number of st udieShave utilizedthis defini - tionof dire ctiv enesseither directlyor indirectly (Breiner

&Fo r e ha nd , 19821 Buium, Rynders&Turnure, 197 4 ; Cunningham et;a1., 1981jCardoso-Martins &Mervis,1985; Garrard, 1989;

Hanzl ik&<sueve nscn,198 6;Mahoney&Robenalt,1986;Maurer&

snccrod, 1987) .

"Top i c control"involvesthe mother'stendency to control the topicby usingut t e r a nc e s or turns,or by lead taking and introducing toys or activities, that are unrelated to the child'songoingC1ctivityor topic (Tannock, 1988 b).

re Studies that haveimplementedtopic co nt r ol as an inde x of maternal con t r o l include Jo ne s (1980 ) , Ta nno c k (198 6a , 1988b),Mahoney (1 9 83 , 198B a) ,Mahoneyet a1. (1985 ) , Ehe a r t (1982), cu n ni n g h am et al. (1981), and Ca r d o so-Ma r t ins a nd Mervis(1985).

"Turntakingcontrol",amoreglobaloperati o nal i zat i on of directiveness, addresses theextentto whichmothersdo minate the interact ion by cont r i buti ng long and frequen t tu r ns (Tannock, 19 88 a, 1988b) . Us i n g a proc eduredevelopedby Kaye and Charney (1 980 ), a turnisdef ined asany be h a v io r produced bv eithera parentor childduring the interac t i.o npr oce s s.

It could be "a single ut t e ra nc e with ac c ompany i ngge s ture s , two or more utterances strungtoge the rwithouta pausebet ween them or nonverbalacts" (Ka ye&Charney, p,21 01). Turnsare usually classified into four categories : mand s, responses, response-mands and unlinke d turns. Indexing maternal directivenessunder thissystem examines the rat io of maternal turns (inany category) to the tota l numberof turns taken by the child (Mahoney&Robenalt, 1986).

Other investigat ions that have employed tur nta ki ng controlas aninde x of controlinc l ude Tannock(198813,1988 b), Mahoney and Robenalt (1986), Maho ney et a1. (1990) , and Mahoney (1983).

The final operational definition of di rect ive nes s involves the mothers' tendency to restrict, terminate and int e r f e r e withthe chi l d'sactiv ity. Davis andOliver (198 0)I

19 Stoneman et al. (1983),Kogan, wimbergerand Bobbit (1969)and Herman and Shant z (1 9 8 3) have allcoded restrictions, termina- tions or interferencesas instances of maternal control.

It is evidentfr om this discussion that eachoperational de fi ni t io n describes a dif ferent subtype of directive behavior. Manystudies have rest.rictedthe inves tigationof dt rectIvenessto frequency countsof response control and as such ha v e failed to address the complexity of directive behavior. Moreover,the discrepantfindingsin the l i terature areconfounded by the variationsinthe definitions used to measure directiveness (Tannock ,1988b ). Thus,as Marfo(1990) suggests, operationalizi ng directiveness in terms of the cl a s s i f i cati on of subtypesdiscussed he reprovides a frame work for interpretingthefind i n g s of indi vidualinvestigations.

ResearchDesign

Methodologicalis s ue s, in particu lar th e researchdesigns have also resu lted in conflicting findi ngs in te r ms of maternaldirective ness. In addition, there sea r c h design has alsocontributedto thenegativeconnotationsas s oc iat e d with directiveness . Th e three major research designs to be discussed in th i s section are comparative, correlat iveand descriptivedesigns.

20 comparative st u cHell..

Most research on th e interactio nof mothe rs and their handicappedchildren has foc used on nomothet i c (ha ndic a pped and nonhandi capped) compa r i so ns. That is , a between group design has been utilized to invest igate the inte rac t ion patterns ofmot he r- ha nd i c a p p e dan d mother-nonhand l c appedchild dyads (Marshallet al., 197 3; Eh e a r t , 19 8 2 ;Cunni nghameta1., 1981 ;Gutma n &Ron d al , 197 9 1Mahoney&Robenalt , 19 8 6 ) .

Three majo r matching procedures have be en used in the comparat ive st ud i e s: chronolog i c a l ag e matchi ng (Ma rshal l at aL,,19731 Buiumetal.,19 74;Stonema n et al . ,1963;Bre i ne r

& Forehand, 1982; Buckhalt et a1., 19 78; Herma n & Shant z , 1983);mentalage match ing(Terdalet al.,197 6 ; Ehe art , 1982;

Cunningham etaL.,1981;Garrard, 19 89;Jones , 1980;Marfa &

xyeete , 198 8 );and language mat.c h Lnq,us u a llyon the bas i s of meanlength of utterance(Rondal, 1977,1978; Gutman&Rondal , 1979 ; Davis &Oliver, 198 0; Cardos o-Mart in s &Merv i s , 198 5 ; Maurer & Sherrod, 1987; xan cney&Robe na l t, 1986; Ta nn ock, 1988b).

Eac hofthe mat-ching procedur es revealsdifferenttypes of information. The chronological age (CA) match simpl y reveals whetherQpopulationof han dicappedchildren di ffe r s from a population of nonhandicapped children at the aemc chronologica l age. Clearly, as Rosenberg& Robinson (1988) observe, it does little todis t i ngu ish between the effects associate d with a di s ability versus the effects of child

21

abilities on maternal behavior . The CA match de s i gn is limited in itsabilit y to identify reasons for group differ- encesand as Marfo(198 4)notes, itis not altogetherclear whethe r such di f f e r e nc e s are attri butable to diffe rences in typ e of child (handicapped versus nonhandicapped) or to the lev el of functioning (lowversushigh functioning). It is a known fact that at a giv e n CA, mentally ha ndica pped and nonha nd i c a p pe d childre nwill differ in developmenta l le v e l s and la ng u a ge abilities , and furthermore, these factors are kno wn toinfluencematernal language (Tannock, 1988b ).

This met hod ologica l problem has been add r e s s ed by matchingchildren for mental age (MA). It has been sugges ted tha t MAmatch i ngproceduresmay offera more sensitivemeasu re for comparison as it all ows investigato rsto controlfo r a dev e lo pmental la g on the par t of the mentallyhandicapped child (Lei f e r & Lewis, 1984). ThUS, a mentia L age match pr oposes to reveal similar i ties and diffe r e n c e s When the ch i ldren are funct ioning at similar de velopme nt a l levels . Howe ve r , when ment a llyhandicappedandnanhan d i c a pp edindivid- ua ls are matched on MA,there is no assurance that their specific skillsand co mpetencies willbe si mi l ar (Sto nema n, 1989). More over , asStonema n (1989) observes,the us e of MA match de sign s canbe fur t he r compromIsed due to difficult ies in obt a ining valid MAassessmen tspart icularlywithseverely mentallyhandicappedchild ren.

In additio n , thismat c hi ng proceduredoes notedd rees th e

issuethat handicapped and nonhandicappedchildren matched for MA maystilldiffer in language abilities. Me nt a ll y handi- capped childrendonot appear to developla ngua ge onpa r with eit he r CA or MA matched no nha nd i c a ppe d children (Cardoso- Mllo r t ins & Me rv i s , 198 5 ). Mot he r s of mentally handicapped children change their own la ng uag e as a function of the child'slinguistic abilities (Randal, 1988). Thus, inorder toexami ne that mater nallanguageto hand icappedchildren is faulty, it must be shown, as Rondal observes thatde f i c i t s exists in the input when handicapped and nonha ndic a ppe d childrenare comparedat similar levels of language develop- ment. Howev er , language matchingeither on the basis of mean le ng t h of utterance orameasure of receptive or expressive la ng uag e doesnot always ensu re comparable linguistic skills (TannoCk ,1988b). Forexample, mental lyha nd i c a ppe d children demons t rate more advanced-vocabulary (Ronda1, 1978) and conversational-respons e (Leifer & Lewis, 1984), but less advancedsyntacticabilities (Rondal, 1978) thanMW- ma t c he d nonhand icapped ch ildren. Generally the research produces disc r e pa nt fi nd i ngs regarding maternal directiveness when ha nd ica pp ed and nonhandicapped children are matched fo r language abilities(Randal,1977 ,1978; Gutman&Randal,197 9 ; Cardoso-Mart i ns&Mervis, 198 51 Davis,Stroud&Green, 1988 ) It is necessary to exercisecaution when attempting to cl ass i f yanymate rnal inte ractionstyles as uniquecharacter- isticsof mothersofhan d ica ppe d children. One must demon-

23 strat e that these characte ris tics hold regardless of the child'smental,lIlo t o r,or linguistic competence (Harfo,1984) . Byusing l'lIultipleccapa r-Lson groups,forexample usingCA,MA, and la nguageabilitymatch, a more precise and conceptually clea rergroupcomparis on is prov ided, than wouldres u l t fro ll usingamoreglobalHA lIIatchdesign (stoneman , 19 89 ).Multiple compa riso ngroupscan add int e rpr etat i ve powerto are s e a r c h desig n(~vis&Oliver,19 8 0;Maure r &Sherrod,1987;'rennc cx , 198 8b; Mah on e y ' Robena l t, 19 8 61 Carduso- Mart ins , Mervis, 19 85 ; Ma h o n ey et ai , 19 90).

In general , betwe en group.resee rchdesigns comparingthe mother-ch ild interac tion proc e s s in patho logic andnonpatho- logic popu lat ions have be en us e f ul as preliminary research (Crawl ey ' spiker , 1983). However, such comparative studies can be llIisleading it compa ri sonstrategiesarenot clearly conceptua lizedandwell executed (s t o ne man . 19 8 9 ) . Moreover, by focus ing on nomothetic comparisons, much of the past research ha s failed to exeatnethe variancethat does existin IlOther-childdyads.

Correhtion al .tudies .

A corre l at iona l invest i ga t ion le nd sits elfto moreappr o- priatelyexaminingthe"''101aindividualdifferencecontinuum, byexaminingindividual difference s inmot he r-ch ild inte ra c- tionpatterns and child competence wit hina sampl e of ha nd i - cappe d childr e n. As ar-e eu jt; ,th e quest ion of whethe r mother-

"

han d i c app e d chi lddyads, as agr o u p , differfrom othermother nonhand icappedchilddyadswouldbe eliminated. However, such re sea r c h la g s sign ificantlybeh indcomparativestudies wh i c h examine groupdifferences (Marfo, 199 0 ) . Only a hand f ul of inve s t iga t i o n s exist in the literature that examines individ- ua l dif fere ncesdirectly in terms of mother-childinteraction pa tte rns and child compe tence within a sample of ha nd i c a ppe d chi ldren (Crawley & Spiker, 198 3; Mah oney et a1., 1985;

Ma h on e y 1988a, 1988b).

Descriptive st udies.

Eve n fewer descriptive studiesexist that investigate ind ividua l diffe r en c e s inmother-handicappedchild interaction patterns. Ma ho n e y (1983 ) .theonly descriptivestudyknownto th i s researche r, emp loyeda long i t ud ina l re s e a r ch designto examine individualdifferences inthe in teraction pat t e rn s of two mot he r - h a ndicappedchilddyads.

Bot h thecorr e lationa l and descript ivedesigns recognize thepotent i a l lyimpo r t ant in d iv id ua l dif f e r e nc e sth a t exist in mot her-hand i cappe d ch ild dyads. Simila r ly, as Marfo (1990) ob s e rves , the few studies that have examined individual differe nces di r ect l y havereportedevid e n ce tothe effect that mothers of hand i capp ed child re n exhibit a wide rang e of di f f ere n c e s not onl yin inte r actional st yl e in ge neral, but al s o inthe use ofdi r e ctive s.

25 Findings from comparat i ve studie s

As a major focusof thisinvestigationisthe multidimen- sional aspects of directiveness, thevarious studies will be rev iewe d in terms of their operationalization ofth edir e c t - ivenessconstruct.

Di rec t i ve ne ss in relat ionto response control. Most empirical research on directivenes s has examined commands and imperative utterances as an index of contro l.

Table 1 summarizes the findingsand met ho do log ica l as pe cts of studies relatingdi rectivenessto response control.

The finding that mothersofmentallyhand i cappedchildre n tend to be more co nt roll i ng and directive in interactions with their ch i l d isconsis tentacrossth est u d i e s usinga CAma tch (Kogan et al., 1969; Ma r s h a ll et aL,, 1973 ; Buium et al., 1974: Breiner & Forehand, 1982; Herman & Sha nt z , 1983T Stonemanet aI., 198 3) .

In the Ma r shall et al. (19 73 ) study.mothers ,liketheir children, were compared on the four verbal operants- -mand s, tacts, intraverbals, and echolcs. While the twogroupsof mothers did not differ on the frequency of tacts, int r a - verbals, and echoics, mothers of mentally retarded children showed a greater frequency of mands (de ma nd i ng . commandi ng . re q ue s ti ng . asking). The mentallyretarded children produced significantlymore echoic behaviors and le s s tacts, intra- verbalsand mands. These findings were consisten twith the

T.ble1

Ulre <:'lIv ene s sInHelal lon 10Hespo n•• \,;onlrOI

""" ...

00-_ _

,~~ BMavl.... Fl. IrI .m fl ndl"" .

(Child..n) Crll.,I. eo- M...u..cl

Ehe'"l'96O!J ^{8 loWdfl!:}_Hir...3C.P~439-49__{....k- . .}11 ~onbNilotr,p.

...

, ....

...

8_1udIcI: :N031 mon!'11 endo....tIonof • '-0

... -

rMyPlftlfllL

"'"'""-

"'-

^{.... .-...}

= . "'-- --

1lo1h9fO<lPl_3-5y....

...

(1113) mIIchilcl,...

_.fI'IIIId..

ta<:u..InI<...tbII •.

5IO<>1m.... ees CA.;end••. ' _pley: M".m.1. a.h ....io'eounl DS ehild' ...I....npon~ blI

IlfOdy& Abbotl 8nonhandie. ppe<l ..e•• ndPl'"

"-

" ""'

blhlviorl com .... ndlo,

' .-

...

"'

-.

...

, .

...

.... -

... .

. -- - ^...

- ^-

Bun.m.

' '''

Rynd...& Snon'N,dtd ",.1.... . 110 tt,kl;Ll b beh.viOl' ImPl" t"""'" .nt l ""u1I IO\llnplll.r.t""' ...of

Tumu.. (lg74 / Ilo1hgroupI 2.f rnonlh' IInc. . OS.h~d,... high.,I'lqu.ncy

vllmPl fllill...",.nU I.

~

~

e ¹

;

nat _~i !j ^,

" .~ , ^~i

8' ·' _{i!H ~t}

~ I _i~i ti]i il

imi .ni~

Ii ^d ,. ^{Hn H!}

^jig _dJ

..

" ^{If l!hi j;~~ !F II.}

~ ~

l~dj f

~~

L

:1

:1

j p n i~

·i

~!i

j"

n H

. i; _P q II , . ! I r· ,Ii

," Hh ^{~ ~';} J ^u!

^.0.

H .. _Hi

Ii

~.

^dl

, 0

"

^{~~ ~}

~~

it • ^o! . f; .

! •• _1*

^,.

., _H

~!

..

H

_m ~ !i .

. ^3"

g'~i

1 ^{11 i~}

8 ! ~

8 m ₁₁ a j

^I- _~H~ ^a

le.. z!e

s

" •• ^!i~

1 ^{( [} . _{: i_} ^;

I ^] Ii ^m

27

•

H H

^! m

28

1 1

!

H l i~~

~~

~ I ^Hl

g~ _'a

:

t!

_{! t f} ^{H i} i n ^p _: ^i;; _{" I.} ^{IH~ i} ~ i " i~~ h

' !', ^; .;~l i!~]!

~~

jlflii ^{:i Jlc! d '}

^• ~ ~ n ^{~ii iiiti}

i i

l~ ·i ⁱ

j ", .

" ,.

ii~

. HI H i ii~

II

_ij ^' . _. ^If i . ^{P .t If}

ll~ fh

~ l -= _~ l b

II ^i"s

^f

^.

^H! 'I~~j

i

~l

i

,"

!~j]~5 8~~ '~

H I m

[ [ '0

i:

"

, .

, . .

.~

H.B ^' . ^{i.! s}

J!

^,;.

H 1 _. I _{! ~} 1 ;

~ ~~i ~~ m _!!i ^gii t ^{HI ,} t

lilolDlilol.<i ~=1 ~'a ~

~

il ^H

Ih H ^"'I

~

jil ^h , .

29

88~

- - ' -- -

'0

31

results of an earlier stud y (Koganet a1., 19 69) inwhich mothers of three- to seven-yea r old retarded childrenwe r e found togive more orders andto askmore leading questi o ns tha nmothersof four-andfive-yearoldno nre t arde d compa r ison children.

ThE';Buium et a1. (1974) investiga tion of the early materna l l ingu isticenvironment of norma l and Down synd rome (OS) language le a rn i ng childrenreported that the OS children received a different linguistic inpu t th a n the normal children. The OS ch ildren we r e exposed to a higherfrequency of imperati ve sentences.

using frequency of commands as an index Clf control, Breineran d Forehand (1982) fou nd mothers offou r- to five- year-o ld ret ard e d children tobe more con trollin gtha n mo t h e r s of nonretarded children . The mental l y retarde d child r e n were significantly less complian t to materna l comman d s . Sim ilarly , stonemanet a1. (1983) foun dmothersof retarded chi l drento besignificant l ymore verbal lyand no nv e r ba lly commandingthan mothe r s of nonreta rded ch ildren. Th e mentall y re t a r d e d chi ldren we r e reported to be less respo nsive. Co mpara bl e findings were observe d by Herma n s shan t.a (1983) in that mothers of lO- year-old ed u c a b l e mentally retarded ch ildren is s u e dsignif i c a nt l y more commandsthan mot hers of nonre ta rd e d ch ildren.

The evidence from the CA matchstudies indicate that mo thersof mentally handicappedchild ren, while providing a

J2 diff eren t linguistic environment to their childrenproduc e merernandsand imperativesentencesthanmot he r s of nonhandi- capped children. In contrast, the mentally handicapped childrentended to be less responsive. les sactivel yengaged ininte r act i o nandmor e echoic.

Sixof the studies reported inTable 1 matched han d i - cappe d andno nh an d i c ap pe d childre nonthe basis of level of cogniti v efu nctioni ng (Cunn ing hamet ai.,19 81 ; Eheart, 198 2 ; HanzIiek&steve nso n , 19 8 6 ; Garr a rd, 19B9; Ma r f o &Kys el a, 198 8; Terdalet al . ,1976).

Ge n erally,thesestudies repo r t e d findings similar to the CAmatc hed studies(Marsha ll et al ., 1973;stonema net aL, , 19 B3; He rman ' Shantz, 1983: Kogan etl!ll . , 1969; Brei ne r &

Foreha n d, 1982; BuiulIl et al., 1974). Mothers of mentally ha ndi capped children issued significantly mo r e ccnsends and command -questions , wh ilethe i r childrenwereless interacti ve and less respons ive. However, HlIIrto lIInd Xysela (1988 ) observe ddeve Lcpa errt.alLyolder childrento be more responsive to Jloth e r'sverbalizations. Similarly, Terdalet 031. (197G) re port e d that devetepaenta Lt.y younger children issued mo r e inade q u a te re s po ns e s to mate r nal be nev t c r . In contrast, Hanzlik and Steve nso n (1986 ) indic ate d tha t whe n dev e l op- me ntal lydisab led childr enwerecompared tonorma lmental age (HA)matche d children, no diffe r e nc e s wereno t e d inchild's le vel ofbehavior.

Theremaining st udiesin Table1incorporatedthe child's

3J

level of la ngua ge development into the i r matching crit e ria (Cardoso - Hartins , Mervis, 1985f Da v i s &Oliver , 1980: Davis et al.,198 8 : Gu tma n&Randa l,1979; Mahoney'Robe na l t ,198 6:

Mahoneyet al. ,1990:Maurer&Sherrod ,1987:'ranncck ,1988a).

and hav e re port ed discrepantfindings . Cardoso-Martinsand Mervis (1985), Davis et a1. (1988), Mahoney and Robenal t (1986).andMa ho neyat a1. (1990). all indicated that mot hers of mentallyha nd i c ap pe d child r e nexhi biteda highe r inciden c e of imperative uttera n ces,commands, andmands thanmothe r s of nonhand icapped chi ldre n during free pl ay. In Tannoc kIs (1988a ) stud y, moth e r s of ch ildrenwithDownsynd r omeissue d 50\ mor e oblige turns than did mothers of nonretard e d chi l dren. However, no dif fe r e nc eswere fo und whe nmate r nal oblige turns were calculated asa proportionof the mother 's to t a l turns. No difference s werenoted Inre s pons e control betwee n th etwo groupsof children. Bothgroupsof child r e n contribu t ed ve ry few oblige tur n s incomparisonwi th their mothe rs.

Ma urer andSherrod (198 7 ) re po r ted that whenusinga CA mat c h, pare nts of Downsyndromechi ldrenwere more dire c t i v e, howe ver,thesedif f e r e ncesdisappeare d whenthe chi l d r enwere matchedonmental age andverba l age. Th e child's MAand verba l age appea r to have a grea ter impac t on the pa r ents' directivebeh a vior tha n doe sCA. Gutman and Rond al (197 9) wh o ma t ched aub'[e c't.a acco rdi ng to mea n IQng thofut t e r a nc e (MLU) reported nogroup diffQrQnc e s in mate rna l use of man ds, and

34 Rondal (1977),observed thatth e r e were no differencesinthe qualityof ling ui s t i c environment (proportionsof imperative sentences) for Down syndrome and nonretardedchildren. Davis and Oliver (1980), who matched on linguistic ability as determined by the mothers, foundthat mothers of retarded children tendedto be less directiveand morevocallystimu- la ti ng thanmothers of nonretardedchildren .

Free pl a y situations were used in the majority of comparativestudies that examine ddi r e c t i v e n e s s in relationto response control. However, Hermanand Shantz (198 3),Cunning- haDat a1. (1981). Tardal at a1. (197 6) and Davisat a1.

(1988) inc l ude d a situation where the mother was asked to ins t r uct the ch il d. cunningham et a1. (1981 ), Herman and Shantz (1983),and Terdal et a1. (1976) found that mothers of children wit h mental re t a r dat i o n were more directive than control mothers when teaching, whereas Davis et a1. (1988) fo und no suchdifference. Specifically, mothersof mentally retarded children were moredirective during free-play but du r i ng the te a c h i ng task, they changed their directive behavior ve r y little in comparison to the control mothers.

The controlmothers alteredtheir directivebehavior to levels pr e v i ou sly adopted in free-play by mothers of mentally reta r de d children. Thus,these findingsten d to indicate some inconsis tencies in examini ngresponse controlacross various contexts (free play versus te a c hing task). However, the major ity of the s e stud iessuggest mothers of mentallynendf-

35 cappe d children exhi bit mo r e respo nse cont rol during a teachingtask thanlI.oth e r s of nonha nd icappedchildren.

pff ect ive n e s sinrelation to topiccon ~ .

Someof th e differences noted in in t era c t io n patterns between mo t he r-ha ndica pped and mother-nonhandicapped child dyads have emerged from studies using top i c control as an index of directlven e s s (Eheart, 198 21Jones, 198 0 ; Cardoso- Ma rt ins &Me rv i s , 1985; Ta nn ock , 1988a ; Cunning hamet a1.. 1981) • Table 2 providesasummary of desi g nand method olo g i c al characteris tics of the inv e s t i ga t i o ns operat iona liz inq directiveness interas of topic contro l.

Jo ne s (1980)examined mot h e r sIstyleof interaction using lIot her directed versus ch ild directed play activity as an index of topic control, and reported that. Down sy nd r ome childr en ....ere inv olve d in more mo the r-d i n,c t e d act ivi ties, ....hereas nonretarded children had a higher frequ e ncy of child- directed pl a y. Similar patterns of play intera ctions we re repor t ed in the Eheart (1982) study . Forlllot her-nonre t a rd e d ch ild dya ds, sig.1ificantlymoreinteractiontookpl acearound chil d selec ted to ys, whereas interaction be t we e n mother - ment a l ly re t a r ded child dyads ce ntere d aroundmothe rselected toys.

I tis significant tonotetha t out ofthe five studies reportingdataondire c t i ve nes s inrelation to topic control, onlyone (CUnninghamet al., 1981 ) usedbotha free playand

i{ li!ij ^{I i} I Wf~j

I It ^{I' t';} _!In ^f~H _I ^HPrp _~H!UI I t!

_! ^il _hhi ^{lH i}

_HUI h'"

_t qlHI,i _!

_H"1i~

IH ^'r

tllj

n ^{jH ,} . _i ^{. Ii-} jjh ^hHI ~ll-~~I _ii:1 ^{"Ii t ·, :} j ^!, IHiI ^'~l

^f

.Ii} l .z ...1I '6Ei~

t· hj ^{! i .}

1 ^i".!

,. il. Hi iu Hi iii ^{t ~}

)1

^{._t "tf H} ,

ri - hHi ^i-

!!2 ii i ^{!l -} d'

....e~

. , • •1

H _,dH lH,

. . ^, _hi ^j~l

:n

^{lit h'i} _sn

~ ae

,11 ⁱ .

_{f 1.}

~ h ^I i~

~ n _~J ^il U

it ^~~

^{.1 !g So}

~

~i j d HI

s

!!! ^{., - ,}

s _~!

! •

j ^...,•.<iol

--

~

i _! ^[ [ i~

H ^jj~

! I 1 !:a ^{fi o:}

~ ^dlH

36

I f

I i

) 7

st ru c tu r e d task si tua t i ontoexami n emot her -child interacti on patterns and still repo rted findings similar to thosestudi es simply usingafree playcontext (Ehea rt , 198 2 ;Jones,1980;

Cardoso-Hartins ,Me rv is , 1985 :Tannock,1988a).Thisseemsto sug g e s t that regardl e s sof observationalcontext(unstructured vers us structured ta sk) mot hers of ment a lly ha ndicappe d ch i l d ren exerci s e greatQrtopic control.

Tan nock(1988a) and Cardoso-Martins&Mervis(1985) While usi ng mUlt i -matchi ngcrite r ia (mental age and communicative ability), found mothers of Downsyndrome chil dre nto exert greater topiccont rol than mothersof nonhandlca ppedchildren.

Similarfindingswerere po r t e dfromstud ies usinga mentalag e match (Eheart , 1982;Jones, 198 0; CUnningha m et a1., 1981).

Generally, thesefindi ngsten d tosugge s t tha t mothe rsof menta lly!la nd ica pped childrenare mor e directive in terms of topic ccntacf, inthat they tende d to directtheir child' s at t e nt ionto not h e r-s e l ec t ed top icsand toys.Thispatternof int e r a c tio nwasobs ervedin bothfr e e play andstru c tu r ed ta s k se t t i ngs. Men ':allyhandicapped childrenwe r e reportedtobe le s s re s po ns ive and less inte r a c t i ve tha n nonh a ndi c a ppe d child r en. However ,a more recent investigationsheds newligh t on the latte r sta teme nt. Ta nnoc k (1988a) compared 11Down syndr ome and11 no nr eta rd ed ch ild renmatchedoncommunicative ability , menta l age and demographicvariablesand reported no cle a r differenc e s be t we e n the twogroup sofch ildre ninterm s ofto pic control.

J8 Directiyenessin re l a tio n toturn takingcontro l.

Theinvestigations that exantnedirectivenessin relation to turntaki ng control are summa r iz e d in Table 3. Each of these studies, using a behavior countsy s t e m, examined the extenttoWhich there wasa tu rnbalanceor imbalance between the motherandchild dya d .

Each of the stUdies presented in this ta ble employed mUlti-match i ngcriteria(d e ve lopme nta l age andlanguag eage), as wellas observedmother -childdyadsin a free play co n te x t. In bothof Tannock's(l9 68a , 1988b) inv est igation ssign ificant groupdi ffe renceswere found,inte r ms of turntaking co nt r ol, between mother-handicapped and mo t he r-no nha ndica pped child dyads. Mothersof Down syndrome ch i l d r e n were foundtoengage in a faster pa c ed interaction ; they contributedsignificantly mo r e utterances and turns per minute than mothers of the nonhandicapped children. In cont r as t, the twogroups of childrendid not differ in terns of their overallnumber of uttera ncesor turns.Both groups of child r e n co nt ri bu ted turns at a slower rate than theirmothers.

Tannock1s findings regarding the child'5 behav iorare inconsistentwith the r.esults from the Mahoneyand Robena l t (1986) study.Their sample of Downsynd r ome children engaged in significantlyfewer turnsthan their normal co unt erpart s.

However, the mothersof Down syndrome ch ildre n wereequally responsive to the i r children'scommunicat ion, but were also the moredominant communicationpartners. In a more recent