~a~ter" Of · SC":~~: }~: ·

"';"-\·h e sis sub mi t te d totheSchool ofG~"aduate

.Studie s'-i n-p a"rt i al'"fUlfti'l lllent:'

~t'

^-

t~

r'equlr~ments

^{_for the}

"\1~l1r"";;

^{ot ."<}

~a~ter" Of · SC":~~: }~: ·

^- I.

-

..

^',..

;,.

. .st.John's

..

MOTHERS' EXPECTAT IONSFOR THE FU'I't!RES

O~..!.HEIRMENT ALLYHANDICAPP ED

CHILD REN

BY

e,@ L,iseAnn e'No seworthY', B.Sc. ,

. ..

~

. ..

'De'p~'?tlllent

_{~ . .~'-}^of_:

PBYCh~l~

_{. ~- .} ^.

Hemoria l·un~~e~:i.ty....

? .:

Newtou~dla~d JU~'Y.1988~~^...:.,.

'..'"

":-:.

.'~

.

" ",

Newfoundland

:J .

. \

.ISBN:,O-3 1 5,~4 5 08 6 .,.X

.'1'lleauthordc'~pyrl9ht^{owner) . L',auteur} (ti,tuiaire,du droit·

·h..a. r ee e rye d oth er (> d-f'auteur) Be r'.erYe,leB publicat io n.rightllir>arid au.treedroitl!de' PUbli.cattonJ

:::e~~~~e ~~~~~~:·;~:om~~~

^"

. :~ t /aa~ t =~&::, · "~·ld:_ ~-fon~:

may:be prInted.oro otherwlBe d o l yent-Itre i.priIl6. eu reproduced.withotit.his /her autrement repr04uits .an. een"

.written permieeion.. .autorillatlon"cr i t s . .

i.'autorl.ation a"t ' accord'e A la .Biblioth,&qu~ nationale du Canada de .icrofil•• r cette.th~.e et de"prAter'ou ,d e vendre deli exe.plairell 4u

film. "

'\ .

~~~lIt~:i~::r::~~be~rb~9:::t~~

Canada .eo- .icrofilm thill the BiB and to lend or Bell -copiell of the film.

u .

influence

,th~

development'of mate r na l

e~pectations,

^{I.e., family}

-0; prof~~~ i~nal ~upport

^and

~OCi.o.economic

^{stat us'of}

~hefamili~s

had little effect inthi s study. All resu l ts.d e s cribe d !n'thi s

. st~dY

^{were done so}

Wit~ tau~~on

^{in ligh t}

of

the,'small

.sam~le

^{si z e}

(n

:.--'1 ) .·

expectations is~e ry.much'Infllienoed,by.th~mot'h.i'.'.~~lm'"tllon.

of the.chlldrens' degree o'f h~andicapping,condition.

analysis:reve,aledth~tmoth·e,r's~.'perceptio.n~,o'r their'

..:...:-: ab ilities

i ~ i~-flue~ced" bY ~others. ·'p~rcePtions ^{'A f}

Twenty-e~tmot hers'of 29 school -age~ ,menta liy'handicapped children-w;;;:

interv~ewed

'a t home during·t h esU\lU!lElr of

19.~7

^{.t o}

cr.term~~ewhat expectations"tJ'le.y·h,.ildf~rthe fut u res of their childr'enand~~determinewhat factors in~luenced'cneee expectations,

Data'a-nalys s showe~that:a ll.Jnot h er s haddeve.lo~ed

"'b

^expectia'tLona'.for

'~..

/

iii'

_ACKNOWLE DG£!'l ENTS

'I;

'I wou l d

lik~' to" aC~OWled9'e th~

^G.

A~eh~r ~nst1tute, .'

.

, TOrO'n~o, to~ th~

^{Sc ottishRite}

·ch~rit~ble·. FOUnda~i~n'

^BurSa'ry

aw~rded

^me_,^{. ;}_" ^tll.e·1985_. ^-

81 _. ~cad:miC _{' . ,}

^y'_".^{a r. · .}

-I_would liketo of f ermysincerethanksto boththe'Roma n Catholic

SC~OO'l_ ~~ard '

^andth'::

~va_~~!1C~'~>9c;~~ated

^{Sch ool}

Boar~ " ­

.{or..thei r assist ance

..

In distritiUfinq\.y

'.

^:..~ le t t e r^.

,-

ant(c~:msent

.

fo~'

. . .-¥_.-~~ ~e z:nO~hers""'Of. stude_~t~,

^..w.lth

~enta.l .pa~dicaps~_

^{'. ._. \:l.}

t ",

^I"wouJ.d'also iiita"t o'o f f er'my'

sb,~~re' appre~i~tion

^{'t oDr. ..}

• ..'Abe

_~o~s. M~

^•.

HalC~llll· ~~~nt '

^and'?r..·.

K~l Harf~ io~: thei~ _g~i~ari~~'

.;'a~d'inva luable.-:ad~i ce:.' .. .,'

'I , "

C'

\ :~:

;

;~~

;

~;:'

.r:";j :

.. ;,

F -

:

^\

\

^":

"

",':,

~~

I ^"

' ;J

. .

,T A BLE OF'CONTENTS

~~~O~.~':t~:~:~t~. ; :.~ :: : :: :: : : .: : : : : : ; :: : : : : : : : : : ~: :: :: : : : :.~ ~~~

·

INT RODUCT I ON••••••••••••.•.' •• •••••• • •••••• • ••'•• ••••••.••••• ••l - Ma tet nal Expectations-an d'P e r c e p t i' o n s of ' .

=~~~[~'· Demo.r'~1ca

^{.' ,....•. •00••}

~ ;i

^.\•

n

^{• •• •}

·,

^{o• •••}

'I!\

^0,o••• • '. "\.

; . > ..

~dexo~V-e l O p.lll ent •••••••. •••••: •••.••••••• • • •:1••••••••• 28, , . , ", Index of"Mate rnal,Expi5!ctations•• ••'••.,.,-•••••• ••• 28

- ·-Mater~~1~~~~;~~:~~~:~~ . ~~~~7~: . _ ::: - :::.:' ::: ':, :::: .: ::::: ;~ :

F~~;~~~t~~f~~:n~:_~.:~ ~~~ ~~.;:~:.~~~:~~. ~~ ..: ;.' 3 2

.!

' MO~~i~~i:~a:~~~~~~~.~: . ~~~:_~~:·~7:'?~~~:,~ .' " :,~i ,~

Socioeconomic'Status'••••\• ",,'•".' ••',' ',~_••38 Fami-ly andPro.tessionaisupport "••• •"••• • ••39 . School.Program ••;••••.••••••••••~•••••••.••••••• :;42 sunm\ary and.-Conclusioris·••:•••·•• • ••• :••;•••;•••••;.••:'.47'i

7-~--

^__

~",,:~ili:l~~;: : " : : : ":: : " : :: : . : : " : :: : ::" :: : :: : . . : ' :: :: : , ::: -: :: : ' : : : ::::: ::H ⁱ

. '. ~::~=~~~ ~: ~:;;~~sP=~~:~~1~~sQ~~~t.I~~~:~;eF~:~ . :: : : : : : : : :. ::;

APPENDIX C: ChildExpectations Scale:,:,":,"":; .,;.;•.•'•••••• •••• '.7 31

APPENDIX,0: Demographics~ues.tionnaire.•"."•••• •• ••••,•••••,78

\,

\

,

^.

,LIST OF TABLES

..

^,

" , I

Maternal.

ra't..ing~ ·

of .children b;

-aeg:~

^of.

han.dicapando~eralldevelopment....•. ..•.• ..~...5.~

Reliability'an~lysiS ^for ~he'~'ndex

oi "_ .

Mater~alExpectations',..: ....•.\ ;,',. 56 . Individuals'ubjectscores'for Index of • Maternal Expecta tionsand IndexofPerceived :

Abjl!.lty, , , , 57\

Reliabilityanalysis:fO~'the Index of . . ' \ ..

PerceivedAbility ...,._..;...•. . •. .;~•...•..• ••...58 \ ChiI'dren's

perc~ived deg~ee of.handic~p

^{' \.,}

;byschool-program.attended during,t h e ,

1986 - 87"a c 8 g e mi cy~ar•·.••~ :.•:.·••"..•••• •••59 "

IN~RODUCTION

All parents set goals and have expectationsfor the' futures

.

^~

.Oftn~ir.children'I'Parents of Chil.drenw.it h_m~ntalhandicap s are nodi f f.e r e nt from other parentsip terms of deve loping goa l s for the futures of their children.I Researchhas indicated'that the

- I -. ., - .'

expectations~eve~~pedby parents~f menta~.lY·handicap~e~ ,""

childrenran~~\f rrmunrealist;ica~lYhigh(given the degree of·t he .chi1d'_~.ha~d_iC!l\i~ng'.c ond i t i on )t~eX,tramely'loW"~Whe~.parents"

fe~the r e·ar.ei~no..alt:rriati.V~s,for th,:eirch il~ren)..~he : "

researcher',sown

1,~~perie~ce

ⁱⁿ

th~

^{field,M. services.}tofamil1;?s_ '

'Wi t h a mentallyh~ndica'pped^{member has:allowedfor}observat i~n·.o,t'

a'

,n~mb:e~ _, '

^of

vari!~i~~(some _{' I \-,. , "}

^0-£

_, whic~ _{' ,-}

^have"

_' ~een-"';'incorporated _{" '.}

^into

_'

_~

thisstud y ) thatjma:t,influence parentalexpec tations.

, ' In

~~n~~a~, 'l!',ot~\~rs'

^are

.t~e Prim~ry-

^care givers for mentally ha nd.i c a ppe d familyme mbe r s.. Although exceptionsto'tJ:l,is

. ' I , . . "

generalizationhavebltC~memore.f r e,que nt 0:erthe years , fathers who act.ee primaby care",g i ve r s arestill very much-in't he

I

minori~Y. Thusl , l~ was~'ided

^{to include onlymothers inthis'}

Jstudy.Mothers

0:1 Childr~'n ,wi~h

^me,ntal

hand -1~aps

vary,greatl}in the i r-expectat!o s, goals'and servlc,-seeking behav iour. Some mot.he r s expect 01ythatttie ; r...m.entallY

handi.~aP .

^pe.d

~hi. '.dr.e .n

^'wiil

, athome , i~hin'thefa~ilyuni t, andrece i v ethe'lov e and' c~~r~the~need; other':~othe~.s.\ake pl.-ansfor th e i r C,hildre n'~~

move out of and,.liv e'Ingro up-):1ome s,o r-supe r viSe d _, "•. Some m,ot he rsof scho~l -agedchildren.~ith.'

? '. ,-

. , .. . . . ~

MaternAl Exp ectati 2n s^<!Intiperceptio nof Cbi1\:lre ns" Abilit.ieS ,Pu ent-s' evaiu~tiofi,s, ~Of^{·t,h ef r c}hi:J,drens''a b,i i l i i e s,ha ve.be en

e~a.m~,n~~

^'.

in tw/~~~~~~f ~~Y

^..

~~~~~.~~

^...

~~.~,!~:~' .~~~_~r~~s _ ~.' . .'

the irchlldre~s '3bll~tiesrelative.tothe abilitiesof·non-

helDClicappe~ ag~.~~~rs, a~d

^{(2) by}

com~a~in9", ~arents'

^;ppraisals

'~t -, th~.~r ~h-ild~B;:' ~~lli~i~s.

^",ith

'a~;~aisalSOf prOfe~s~~na~s~_

basedon.the,

res~;ts , of

some'

st.a~~ardized.

test'of

.tunctio~i~g.,

menta l lla ndicaps-~anttheir children to attend.se,mi:integrated Cl l l . . ;ot he r s ecveceeestron91yforfull integrati~n ⁱⁿ

re9~iar ~·las~es.

^{Whilesomemothers do'}

n~t"consid!il.r

^trainingfor

the ir

Chlldre~

^{'pa st}

~~ ~~~d~tOry ~Ch~o~i.-

^pe;iod,

bthe~

^mothers

make~pl~lnS ~or.th:~~r_Ch i idrEm

to

^{en,te:.;:frogr amsthatoffer}SU~h^.

~ervice~~~s;pr;:e~vocatio~altra.i~,ing , a,hrIt.ered~orkSh~PSand .eVi.p~oylne nttr a in i ng.The. que st i on,th a t:p r e c ipi t a t e d, this study

:: _ ,

....:.. ,' . " .

^(. . ,

was, "What.leadsto-this gr e at range of'expectations ?'!, Thisstudy

addr~se~

^two'

ciueg~~o~~:

^{(1) "Wha t}

exp~ctations

, ' " ': ." I " " .

dO"mot,~-e~~'~fJllen.~l~Y.h~ndlcaPI!~d,ch~'1dre!l'hold..in,~rms"'

.ed ucationa r andvocational,a c hie veme nJsas well as residential

alte rnatives for thei r.

chi~d~en?" a~d

⁽²⁾""Wha t,

influenc~s· th~·

:d'eve l o pmJ nt'·of th eseexp~ctations?"^Ar~viewof"pre~ious^research·

"indica t e s t. .hree factors. .".wh,i c h may, influence"'mothers.

.

expectations^{~.' -"' ,}

to r

th~ tut~reg

^of.

th~ir mentallY~handi"cappedchiid~en:

^(1)'-

I . .: . . ' " .

mothers~:~"alu~~~o~sof.t he i r,.Childr~n'sabill~~es, (2 ) family socioe co nomi c st atus , and.(3)'t he"amount and type:~ffamilyand;

professi~:mal

^{s'upp or t}

availabl~J,

..

Le. ,-i nt e l l i ge nc e test .

A number ofst u d i e s have exa mined~others' ev al uat ions of the.a bi liti esof"the irment~'ilYh~ndicappedchildren, relative to

(one monthafter the begirrningof thefi rst schoolye a r ) they made.anymention of intellectualdeficiency . Twenty-sevenof the si?, t y

paren.t~ Wi~h child~~n

^{'i n}

t~e Ex~erimental

^Group,were jUdged to be,aware of an; "mental ha ndicapand eighteen,of the'sixty

o t

parents ....ith 'ehiidren int.h e Control Group·....ere judged to be

.

" ~

the abilities of non-handicapped' ch ild r e n . Meyerowitz, (1967 )

~ exa:~n~d

,how parental'

awarene~s

of mental reta:dation

affecte~._----~

^....

'/<

.pa.~ental.v iews of their,cnil~rens ' future.~^,Thesa~Ple.tor th1s.

research included parents of 180c~ildrenenteringthe~i rst grade of a public sc hoo l system.One-hundred and twentyof these

~

^{children were}

hl,bele~ m~nta'l1Y

handicapped (b ase d on I(;I.ec c r e s.

. ~ . / . ' . . I

rangi'ng from60

''', ,85)

and, as stated-byMey erowitz,' were .., randomly

aS~igned/to

^{eithera"regular c}r esa (Co nt r o l Group n• '6 0 )_,

o~·· ^a

_.'.

':spec'i~1e~ucat'~~n

_{,"," I}

Clas~ '(Ex~erimental. Gro~p

_{' . ~ ,,: -}

^{n ...}

^·'60).

" '~

'Ke yerowit'z'dt enote that placement ofch'ild r e n into the

J::)cpe~imen~ai

^Grou,pdid

re~ui~e- parenta~

^consent:'In

~

^{Criteri on}

Gro~p, ~er,60children (lQ'sranging from90 - ,,1 0) in regular

¢Cl asses , "ho sefa mi l i es had been matched,with thoseof the

~andicap~ed'

^{children, on}eec t ceccn ca i cst a tus . Parents

of

all the Chil,en./ we~einterviewed at home,three t~mesov e r ""f two y~a ~

period. .

Parents....er e jUdged to be "a....are" o! a~entalhandicap in afr'children if, during the course of thefi r s t home interview

r

fI·'

t,·

~;'

'.'

.

• I

P~8vteuslY,

parentalperm l s s"ionveerequired,to pface.

c~ildren

In a' 's pe c ia l. class .

T~ia pei:mi~slon

^was"

obt~i~edfollcwlng p ~re~ts

.

.

.

"aware",'the'measure was gen erallyuns~:ructured ._Ase co nd , and,

re~t;,ed

^problem

in~OlYe~ th~ trea~tllent\

^{ot' Ble}

pa re~ts

^whose

'Ch.ildre~

were placed

' i~

^t'h"eExperimenta{

G~oup:

As st a t e d

It is intere stingto not e that three pare ntsW'ith child r en in t~ecri terioncrroup'~erejudged-to'be awa re ofII mental handicapinthe.irch ildren.

Ana lys is of expe c t at i onsfor thefuture"indic a t e dt~a t par.nt~of the-me"tal~yhan~icappedchildren(bo th the Cont r o l and Exper imental1:;roups combi ne d ) hadsignificant lylo wer

,...- - .

, /.educationa l expe ctations tha ndidthe parent sot theCr i t e ri on

y : ' .

^{Gr o up}

Child~en5Wlt~ r~~pect ~o occup,,:~ion

^and

abllity~

^{paren ts}

I','

of

^the'Crite:r:ionGro upwere fou nd

to

h~vesignificantlyhigher, .e~alu":t!ons,of t~eir~hildren' sabilitie s and"O~'I'~tional.

exp~ctatio/^{_,tha n'.}pare~~s:o.~^the con~rol G~OUP. p~,r~nt~_~~_~he.

.cont~ol/G~oupte nded to have higher abilit,Y '~Yal!Ja,~ionsand occu~.a~iona~._exp~ctat~onstha~di dp~~entsot:t he Exper ben.t al Gr o,up, al thoug h'thesedifferences~erenot signi f icant .

The ma jor problemwith.thisstudylies~eme4a sur e of '. parentalewaaene as,Whil e some criteriaguide lines.1JIereemployed to

dich'otomiz~

^parentsinto

catego .ri~s.ot .a~a;e" an~

,"una1Jlare " , i.e., par-entswhb statedth a t their child renwerejudged. tobe

i~~ellectu~llY

de tic i e!'1tby

pr~fe~sion~ls h~d

^{to express'}

Ii', f.::

a-

..'

t , ..

,.

~~:,,--"

i .

r

~'.

attentivenessand cooperationduringthe testing .

•During

th~

^{cog nitive}

t~stinq sessio~_mother~

^and

ind.e~end·ent:

obserVers~othratedthe boys en~ttent,ive~es,sand·-coope r~t1o.!':

Observe rs,werenot"toldwheth~r~thechll d-tbey were ob8e~in9was

. • ' . I

,.delaye d or not (al t!J,oug h th eautho~s,con'cede"th5~·tho..obs'ervers

the special class. "

A~tudyby ';,rbin. Steer andLyons, (1983) examiiied...m'other 's ,~~

estimate,s'oftheirchildren~sabilities.This stud r l?Qked'a~ _ estimates" of mothers of developmentally delayed childrenrel ll,tiv~

to estimatesof

~others

of non-delayed child&;en;

as~wel~ .~~ , th~

absolutedifferenc':!betw~en actualtestp,e r f o rma nc e and mothers' 'estima t e s for bothgr,o~ps. '~ eve."teen mothersofdeVeil~pmentallY . _.

delaye d

pr~-schoOI

^boys

~

^an.d

.seven~een

^{mothe rsof}no n-del a ye dpr e-. \

' ." SC~hO~l bOY~ were, .aSk~dto,: '(1),p~edicthowt~elrsonswould ' .- ,

perform on~heEmbedded Fig ure sTe~t " (2) pr,edic~ the performa nce of the "average:c h ildof the~a~e,age'.' and (3) ~atethe i.r s~n'~ .

·5 spec~ficailYto mental retardation,,di dstress.th,.ne·~~-&ri4

~ot-el'l.tlalb~nefits of children'splacement intothe~pecial' class ..·I t is possiblethat such treatmen.t.influencedth e way these parents thought about their children both1'0tennsof

'abilitle~

^and

expectatio~~.

^{Further, i tis not}st-a"t'e.d.by)the authorshow many parent~, f~llowing ^meettngswith schoo l

. . . .. . .r

officia~s , refused to allow the.i:r c;:hildren-:--t0at t e nc;t the-e pe c i al class.It is,thereforep'ossiblethatsome childre~^whoh~~^{been .}

"r a ndoml y

as~igned '

^{to the}

Explirimenta~

^{Groupacitually}

b~~ame.

^part\

.~f:,'the'Co n t r o l Gr oup when the'irparent~tefusedtheme~tryinto'

. -

e:

lIIayhaveknown, beca useoC inform a tionobtained froIDthe'mo t h e r s duringthe pr e-te s t Inte rv'!e v ) •

.~eBu ltsoCthi sstu d ysh owe d thatthe lDothersof the ncn- del ayed boysthought th eirchildren wouldsc o r ehi g h er thanth e average ch ild, while mothers of th e delayed boysth!='ugh t their

·60nswouldsc:'0re"l owe r.'Both groupsof motherspr e d i cte d . that thei r BO~Swo uld performbet t e r thanth e y act ua llydid, but mot he rs of delay e dboy spre dic tedbe tter perf orm ance (in

, • .J

c.ompa r i s on to actua ltest results) by.4wider ma rgi n. The differencebetwe en"actua l a~dpredictedperform ance was

s lg~ificant

_. ^{for the}_. ^-

mot~~rs

,^of

deVelo·~mentallY

de l a yed boys'but

"n ot for'the)JIoth~rs'o f ncn-deta ye d boy;. Therewasno signifi-cant·

·,:!l fte~ence...in.at~entivene!rBand~ooperationbetw:e enth.e dev eiopmenta lly''d e l a ye dboysandthe non-delayed'boysas rated by

".

.

. , . '. ". .. ' , \ "":

·thecbeervers,However , whe ncompared to theobs erve r.. mot h e r s ot ,

t;h~

^{de layed,boys}

'~a~e~ ~~eir<sons

^as.l e s s cccpereefve

an~

. , ,

-

attentive, wh ile Ilothers-ofnon - d ela ye d boys ratedthe ir sons as :';o r ecoo per a t i ve

a~d a~~enti~e. T~e

^{authors contend tha t} mo t.he r s ot deve l o pmenta l l y d.elay ed boys··a ttrib uted.the lowte st's c o r-e s

the~r ~o~s' .~ad o~;a#in~~

^to

t~eir

^sons'

~a~k

^of

coopera~io'n

^{,a nd}

motivation andnotto,the ir intellactu al defici t.This ,s ub s eque ntl Y',t~ansi·~tesint oalite'ot "~onsist:a~tdisappro val and paren tal disappo i ntment" (S~rbin:sta er , Ly ons ,.1983 . p , 89 ).

. A's t ud y byVenn, DUB~se^andHerbI e»,' ·(1977 )surveye d parents ,and teac hers'of tensever ely

han~ii~pped

^{ch ild re nto'exami ne -, .}

~~eir

^{expec t a t ions 'fo r the adult'Itves}of the child r e n. All of

the chi l d ren we r e visual lyimpaired and hada~leas t: one other handicappi~gcondition (although th e la tter.wa"a not speciti ed). Chronological ages of the ohildren ranged tromJ ~16 yearswith

! . .

developmental ages ranging from 2 - 8 years.

elementar:y.s c h oo l.

-

' - - '

-:..:.

Both pa r e n t s and teachers of enese ton children we r e asked.

\'

.

^{' "}

to cdmpletea questionnaire" whichwa s designed to re t I lJc t a cont i nuumI ofle v e l s of potentia~ achievement inareas of

education, vocational'placement, reside n t ia l indepe ndel"\Pe,~ocia l rerationships, and. tlnn ua l earni ngs. comparisonsw~rethen lI\e.de between thepafen~sresponses and the teache:sre~pon~es.·

Analysisof thequeet.LonnaLr a,r e s u l is i.ndicatedtha·t parents had highere~pecta~ions·fo r th e ir children's ac hieve me n t,s in all areas",wi.th th e exception qf self- helP'skills·...in which~eachers

'had higher

expectatio~s . AlthO~9h.~nt

expectations

w~'~e

_g'.:'neral ly higher thantea c '.1e;r expectations, the diffe rence _ _bet~.~enetta two grsmpswasno t significant.-Th.ed1tfer~mce

--

bet~eE!O ~ate9ories w~s a~so

^not'

Signific~nt.

^{There was, however,}

~ .. - _. -

. .

asigni~i can tdifference betwe e n-cu n e expectations pf pa ront;e and teachers fo r thehighe.stlever of educational aChievement: While par e n t s expected thei r children to achieve an educationalle~el

b~l~menta~and

'j u n i o r

h~9h

^school,.t .e a c h s·rB expecte d

th~

ehi l d re n toat ta i nan educational le v e l .betwe en kin d erg arten llnd

I

venn , Du BoseandHerbler f1977), concluded~hatwhile paren t"s

~Ol~

.s i i 9 ht lY higher

exbectati~na

^{fDr thead u l t}

live~

^_

their severelyhan d i c a p pe d children,.bo~hparenta aDd te a ch.er s

hadexpe c t a"t ions torthe~echildrenthAt'gene ra liy ee:ll

'1n

the' midd l e ofthecontinu'a

0t.

lIc;hie vellental~o.r.natives:~o^__

rel i ab i l i t y or valIditydata were.reported fo~the.~':le 6tio n n air.

us e d in this study.While eau c a tional'e xp e ctatio nsdiffered

.

\

betwee ntea c h e r s a,nd pa re n ts , thisdi r Ctilre n e eco uld have beendue

~^to

,

mot h e r s re po rting expecta tions'

i .

bas~d.

.

'~n^{actualgra d e}

- .

lev~l ^..

aChie~lI!I.mentOf

r r:

^{c~i.ldrenwhi le teac~ers.werere~rting}

expectations balil$d on ac tua l'edu catio na l ac c omplish ment

" , . I ' (

reg8rdl,e s B of qrl!lde le v e l. Anothe r ex p la n a t ionfor the .

"'.

^{/ '}

^.

.

dls~repancN~efwee,n

p..•.rents•.andt..

El~Cher

^..•'

~xp

^.•

ct.it~ons

^..COUld.,.l ie

~---in-thediffei fl;t ectuc a,tiona'l background .·oC'theparents and._;.,:.·

c •

'teo!l,~herB: Howe~er, e ~tional

back ground

~nfonnation ·~·n

^{'pare nts}

·

am1',t~~~her,f w~,~ 'n~t ~~~O~~hj~S , ~~~d'Y~

^{. •, :.}••"."' " .

· ,-"\AnintereBt~ng a8sump't i o n islIla~inY.'i r tua l l y allstudies

th at oll'lpare:parents'.an dpr~feSSional~''perc e p t i o nsi?f .~h.ildrens ~.~,abll it1~••:When par e n·ts'._ex.pect~·~ion~.or.,pe rc~Ptions

are.h.ighe r thanth o•• or'Pro f ~ss i onal s , th~paren t s '.expectati o n s,

or·percePt).on~~re labelled as~.ing'."unrealistlca lIY·high'" ^{I t}

18 seldo~ass u lIledthat.the expectationso r perc ep1ttiorisOf';~

pror. s" i onals are

",""

^."unrealiBticall~^{. . . .}low":."The question" then

.

'i'~~

'

what\ex~~tlY conatit~t.s"realisti c " expectat1o~s.~r per~ePt.i on9. otability? One way to der i ne.rea l isfllis in te t'1lls otscore s

g.n~rat.d ·

^on

re~iabl~ " ~tandard test~

^ot

tunc~ionl~g

^or

·in"teUigence: . . .." • ..; I .

Some~tudie~ ^{hav e e}xa mi n e dparElnt~l^{.ev a lu at i ons of}th~ir

-...;

.1

by co mp a ri n g parents ' eV<:Il ua t i o n s of their childrens' abilities with the results.of some standardizedtestof'f unct ionin g . The s e st u d.le s vneveai:.t~mpted/t·o^{add re s s the is su e s} of "predi ctive realism".de f inedas thereal ism9f ex peee e e Lcn regarding tho Ch i ld '~future.achieve~ents(WQl tesber~e r.a n d.Kurtz. 1971).·zuk·

,( 195 9 )contendedthat!parent s ofmentall y han d ica p pedchi l d r e n.

eXhibited~pOS it?,~ b i~S^{inho wth e y} portr';'y e dthei~^children'a abil i t i es. Zuk refe rred'to't h i s.bia s as aut is t i c: distortion .lind def ined ,

it

aspare iltsunrea l isticevalu a t i on ofthe pote"il't.i a l of

.

.

theirhllndi~appedchi ldre nfor futu regrowth .' a nd develop ment .ZU,k

-

' .

.

\

..

^' ,

ueedtr.heVinel andMa tur ity Scal e (Doll , 1!U 5) toassessrparentEi'

}." .:

pe~cePt~:~nSOf m~ntallY hllndic~.pped .,~~rSery ~,ChO~l~~S '.-'1'eac~~rB\

;.\... ~~~<

^{.0 ['th.ee..}

e." p~~~SC

^..

~OOlers

^alSO.,c.omPle..te.,dth.esca l e.

~

^{com.pariso n}

O J .

,':.' "~"':'th e So cialQuot~ents(SO) for each child. re sultingtt'o m llnalyss

t. , . ~"t" intonn~tion giv~n

^{by_th e}

p~r~n~s

^ami

tea~hers i~d i~ated t.ha~

pa r ents c~nsi stentlyrated the:i rch il d r e n'sab ili t ies,h ig he r th an t~~chers"~ ^{t t wa,sal so;fo u n d'that}chi1d~ens~ ^{deri ved}SQ_based on'

·in fo rmat i o nsu p p Il:'d bypa rent s was

sig~ifi~antly hig~er '

^{thM IQ}

~coresobtained " from~ec.entsta~dardizea^{test s}. 't n a revie w~t

this stUdy;'.Wo l f e ns ber g e r and Ku r t; z (1971 ),poin t out that the assumption upon whi.Ch~U Kba s ed hi sre s e,arch l.e •• that~O ' s,a nd. '!O·B~.~re^{.alwa y·s equal,is now known to be}inv a l i d.

,~ens~n~a~a"KOgan.(196;q,reportedt~_at. when'compa'red 't oa

~ro fesB iona l'sratingof children-based-ontheJen s enand K09 an

Rat~~g 'sca~~.

(jen se n ,

~~~an,

^.

~'9~2) , mot~e;~-~-t'----ch~ldr~n

^"',hO'

.wsrebothp~ysicallyan d intellectua,llY handic,,"pp edwere more

io likelyto ra t ethei r children'unre a li s tic ally high,thanwere '

• . ', J .

1119the r s otless handicappedchildren . I tisinterestingto note tha t Je nsenand K09an:stind ing s

aD

^{in-directoppositicmtothe}

findi n gs or Zuk

'('1.~~9J

^vh9

'concluded ~hat 't~e'

^{presence'ot a.}

phYlllca lhandicap'ina child who was alsomenta l l y handlc:::apped

\reducedparents'tendencyt~over.e s t l ma \:eth e ir children"'s' abi lit i e s..

.Inast udyconducted byBarclayand Vaught,.(196.4), mothers ot 40 ch ildrenwithcereb~alpals y.( 20 cr,wbo.tl'lwereuno,erthe age

.ot six-years ) co mpl eted the'Jen senandK~gan^{Rat i ngScale} (Jens~n'

\&

,xoq~n. ·.~96-2,>·" T~~~ . ~C~rle, .wa~ .deSi~~~~~~;fi~.~ll~~ ~o : · " ,. .

"invest.t.gatethe te nde ncy of parentsto.over est ima t e the ultimate

·iev~l.

^of·

ach~eve~ent

^{of the}

C~ild'"

^.

('Bar~~'a~

^"

~au9ht,

^·1.964,

" '.'

..

;'.

. '.-

^{. '" \}

p.62)'.,Aper.s~ncompletingthis scal,:,..est.ima~e~:':ltu r e- achie~~me'nt^{.in areas}

o r

^{education, vocation,'and"}"social

. 7). . . c. . '

!~n~~.t;~i.ng.".A,r~ti~gscale, bas e d on.~esta nt Ord: Bi ne t , FOrlDt-

.H and the VinelandMaturity,Sc ale,was~lsofilled:out

b Y. .

the

inveBtig~t.o~s. ThulI,..tes't resultswer~used.a s ab'!'si s tor est~~at~s

o .t.

~uture-~chi~vem~nt b~th~.~v~s~lgat~rs:and .d it te r e ncesbet:-re en'mot he r s ' ratings and theinv e s t i g at ors ' tes't-

ba s ed ratill9s were compared"

Results showed that the

.mo~h~r 's

^r'atlngs'

o r

^{the'ch ild's}

~bli.ity/wa~ S'i~1'l:iric,antlY, hi9h~~

^{.t h arl}

tt~~ r~s'eaicher;s .;ati~gs.

Fu.rth~i~

^when

~hlldren '5 inteil"e~tual

^abilities were

ex~mined,

^it,

.'

'wa~ fo~nd

^{thattor thos e.}

j~dged

^to,b.e

"b~rderlJ.ne' lIl~nt~liy

^-,

:reta~ed" or~~lOw

^.

~,he 1II0th~;S-

rated their

c~Ud~en'S:

ab'il"ity in

': '.'<. \ '

.J.

;, .~ ','~

.,,~

"11 an unrealisticallyposl~ivedirecti~n. ~e9ardless^{at'the i r age or} mot o r lovalvemant.

AlIIajo r prob l emwi t h this study lies 1nth e inve s t i ga to rs' assumpt ion thatparental predicti on s-Of'abilityand aChieve ment are lessvalid than theresearchers' pr~dictlons.-Wol !ensbe~ger andKurtz (1971 ), whodefi ~e~~ren tal realis,,- as theparen~'s tendencyto accuratelyassess his/herchild'sabilities, disabilitie~.and ~de'~aCYofbeha~iour. conte ndt~atparente~IlY . ve r y well be a~leto correctl yestimat~_t he ir Ch ild' s.functioning level1n te rm s'0 1"dev'elopm~ntal'ageor som~simil.a~descripto r.' However,i.t.is.quitepos sible:that"..,hat professiona l shave."

:4be led as"unrea~istic'"is'ac t u allythe parents,re l uc t a nc e

or:

.'ina b i lit y 'to give an accurat e,'IQe~t1mate^{or ac cepta'}d i a gnos t i C:

' . .

..

- .

.

...^' . '

.~label...hi~hfo r them peese s ea.strong~:,negati;"e co ~notat ion,

A

study by

Ha~to. ·B~~""';~.

^{Gallant ,}

S"mYtl'i. ""orbet~

^,

~~Lennon

(19 B,e )

le~. m~er~e

^{'suppor t}

~b

^{.the.c o ntentiOn that}

·par~nts

^c_an.

acc.ura telYa'ss ess theabillti.e~of.t.heir.chi l dren.'I'hfs stud y·::

i~VOIVed

a prog ra me"aluation of the

~irect Ho~e

^servtces.

~ .

' .

^. ~

.

^{. .}

..

"

prog~alll, an in~ho~e. ear lyint e rv e nt i o npr~ramJorme nta l ly. -: hand,i~~p~dpre-schoo1ersan,dthe i r families.Slbject~ere _.

parents~:20~.chi~renwho eit her.had previous

v.

re?e1ved , or were, ~tthe.~imeo.t th~stUdy , ret:e l v ing.t he's rYice~'p~rt,r:'f

the's cre eni ng'requi~emen~s^{of the}Dii:'e~t^Home ervice~'prog~~m- ~s'

the

AIPer~oli' ~~yelOpme~ta'I'

prOf il e'(Al pe rn Bo ll,

', 'i:9~\) ,

~hich'assesses"th.~·de~elo~lIIen.tal~g~:~f:t ,h8,c na(in.mo~~_hS)c'~~'_.

;. .:fivediff ere n t d~~~10pm8ntala~eas. Fr~m'8CO . .'.Of

in di; ..

ldUal '

.,

.:.

12

entrY -1Ei~el

Alpern-Boll

asses~;~nts ,

the researchersderived.t he.

"Devel'opmental

~lay

^·Severit y Index"'( DOSI )',.e measure ofseve ; i t y

\Of'

han~!e'~p,

^{basedon the}

~:l1~ter~nce"'~:t~ee'n,

the child"s

~evelopmental.age and chronological age (attime,of,fir st

aS8eS9~ent)" diVi~~d

^by

C~i:OnOI~gi~~I/~,(:l~t.

^timeof.

fi,::s~

~esessmentl. Whe~^{,th- t._.meas urewa s..}c.o'~p~r'e'(r~O'p~rents'"^own.

"r at f hg s 9f th e i t: chUdrens' functioning'leve ls'(bas ed~ma4

,p'oill t.

s~a~~

! ' ^{rang ing f}. , ^{r om}mild to p-{otound)' . ' ., ,t he

co~r'~lat~on'

. . .^{wa s:}

~?~. ,.(~, .<.',:OOl.~ .

^The

r~~~arc.hers : .a~s~,:; ,foun,iI,' a;,~~o~r~~tt~ ,

^(x-

.38,'Q:·<.OOl).beeween parents ' rating s and','c hU dren ' scu r rent developmental.age.

Whiie ablet~aSS9SSth~ir"childr'en',s'ab il i ties',"itmay well

\ . . , '," "" ,'.

be.'tha~,m~thersof,chlldrEmwi t h.mentai'·:harid!caps'.e'or'other

,:h~,:~~'~ca~~i:~g: C~hdiH~n~l

^do

~a~~ , ~ ~e:"~ncy-:::,~ ,m:k.:' h~gh~r -~,

estimatesof,'the,qpilities8!",d;future'~ahie,:,ements^{of their .}

~.h! ld~~ri tha~ '~be ~~tim.ates

^'Of..

pro~e~s~onalS , ~·Sin.g s:a~dardized

.tes t s ._.Howev.er, a stl,ldy by Hunt .ane paraskevopoulos (1980 )'of 50

',' .' '"

,.

"" , .

,...

^{' _. '}

mot he r s"C1.f,non-hand!capped'.pr~,school children shows,tha t they too

h~~e

^{II):'enden cy towa'rd}

:h~~her '~Btimates

^of

~

^{abilities:0£}

their

ch!ldre~. · The'p~~mise

^{'Of,the s$udy}

~as: ttiat ·mother~·

^who

I .": .' . ' , "'" " ','. .',',. , .. .

.~..know,,~,h~~r?hilc¥'e,~,:s,a b il i tie s,a!1d,in~~rests'.are.les s liJs~IY,to

·c.

0"K .~roo

^__

~~ .~~ .

^t.

~,.m

^_Wl...

^{t'\_ _} 'nViron",~n.~s

^p..

bSi .",~~ ~~th

^.•.r

~.or!nq

^..

,unde~at ._o

^.hes

' - '.or·,di~sslngovermatches. ,Childrenwere tes t ed on 96.items.

;~~.ct;.ci ,~~·

^{b;ju s,t}

~~dQr,., , ~~.thin >: ~nd. abov

^•.

~,h~ . abiii·t~

^of

^{the "}

4v8rag'~ ~hl~d~ : ~11e'

^one

'~esearch' a~~ista~t t~~t~d

^the

~hi~d,

. ',.,

" ,.'

^{" ,.,.}

.- " . ,

^{' . ,.'}

.:another.re~earch..as.slstantinteryi ewed the J;IIp'ther,'and"asked'.h·er

13

to'pr e d i c t how her child would

~erform

^{oneachitem. Results}

showedtha t, on the whole, the mothers'pa r t i c ipa ti ng in this study had a tendency to overestimate; ofthe'numb e r.of

i~ems t~~;·~'.

which the child would respondco r r e c t l y . The mean numberofIiams"

passed by the chiidrenwasless" by 16, than'the mean pumber of ite;swh,i.ch their mot herspredict~dthey wouldP~S9.'Resultsot :this study then, indicate that i t is not'onl y motherso~menta lly.

handicapped'children "";he estimatethei:tCh.lld"ren .S ab i lit ies t'o be.high~rthan professionalsorte s t s wC!u ldineieat,:,'_mothers, as a whole have'a tendencyto do this.

-." . Socioeconomic status .

:Fa mil y,

soc~oeconO~i.C

^status

a~~ lev~l

^.of

~arental

,',exps'ctationsa~pe~rto b'e'n~gi\t.ivelYccz-r-e j.ated, zano; (1970)

exeatned the imp~.ctof',s oc i a l class,on parental.evaluat ionsof

•th~i=,:mental1Yh,andicappedchildren~Ofthe'p~rents n,-"",,~-~-'--4 mentallyhandicapped children.at~endingten pUblic's c hoo l s in upstate.New'la r k, ~leven'parsl\ts were rate d,~ suppe r middle :c l a s s, twe nt y-n ine asIl\id~leclass,forty-sixas'lower middle;

classandtwenty'as'lower caeee,'.These rati ngs were..ba s e d'on t'he .

' . .,

, "

^{" , '}

Holl ing s he a d_{. .} 'I nd e x,_, of Social Position (Ho l lingshea d_, - &Redlic h ,

-19 58).la na.f oundth at'pare~'tso( uppe'r-an'dmiddle-.class'status

werl! moreo~tennegat i ve.,~n.theireva'luat,io~of the i r Child,...th~~", parents'ofl~~er'middle and^{lowe r:}ela~s^{stat-us. In}re te r l£ing to .the ir child 'ssocial,

,i.n~elle~tua.i

^and

. i~dependence

abil i ti es,;

~t

wa s.found that pa re nts of thelowe r,cias s status.mo re,ott~ri'

"

14

expreseed high than low est i matesofach:i~vemen't·....hi le parentsof upper ami'

ml~dle cl~ss st~~us rnore oft'e~ ' E1~pres;~t

^{low th anhigh}

estimates,of achievem ent.

lo we r ct eeest a t us. :rhus, lower.ctee e parentlJprobablyhave lane points out tJ:tat middlean d uppercl ass parents pla c e a greater value'o ned u c a t i on an d ac n Le v eeenc th a l) do parent,s of

. " .

emphasis'on physical ac h i e veme n t than'o n men t al',achi e,,:e nien t . I t ,is~oBsible^thatpare.n~s!"i~hiri:<~he^:.ower.~o~ioeconomic cllH~ses

do_n o t'.i:.dentify.II.menta~..~andicap,asrell~ilyas they would: a ,PhYSiC:lll~andicllP'(~OlfenSberger~\I(u:rtz " 1971)', _ "

On the basis of intervie wswith 76 mothers of mildly and B.ever~iym~~~allY'handicappe~ ~hildr~nl iv i ng.in Isra e l,Welle r ,

conclUded that,middle .c l a s s mothers, higher exp ectations for their mentallyhand i c apped ci1£ ld ren eeceuse tti.eY

~ttac~· . less

ⁱmportance tothe Chi ict:ssl,ow' educa:~onal.progrfs s .' , . -:...( .

In terms· Of parental real i sm.i napp ra i~ i n'gthe abili t i e s of

thei~ ment~llYhandicapp ed:c~ild'~en>~ol~enSberqer^{an d.Kurtz•.}

~ 1~'?1): '~lSO-^found~~:,p~_r.ents_ o~fhig-ho.r_andmiddle:socioeconomic stat u s are'mo r e real~sti.cthan'parents·o f l o we r socioec onom i c

" , .',. ----~ . -,

status. If,oltensberg er·contends tha t the upper an d!l!,i dd leclass

.f u t u r e.or~el}ted ~nd:^see_educ~t~~~as^the,.rn~in^means-.ot:

~-'--;-- . -- e:-C hi~ ev -;- in~-~ -;'v.rd

^.6bl l i t y a ndeore er prest ige. ';"eng t h ••)idd 1e cr e e e , education·i s aiso,see":~s re l atedto intelligence._Th e' lower class, on the-otherhand,aremo r e concer nedwit h the demandsot:the'immediat.esit l,la tio\,! an:dtend to pla ce,mo r e

classparents-.

wi th se v e r el y han dica p pedch i ldren,~oreac c ura t e l y appraisedthe ,u"cti~n'ingle v el oftheir chi ld re n.t h an did lowe r

retardedchi l dren. The au thorsnote

t;0talot 151 fami l i e s we~e icientif~ed. torthi s st Udy.'throug h the ed u ca't ional facj,l it i e s se rvi ng'LakeCou n ty. l;,.lli~ois.'I

A ll ot

, .' ! . . '

In elCamini n q changestha t oc c u rin fa mi l y suppor t net works

. .. I . . . . ~-

'over-th~life cy.,:-leofl1\~ntallYhand i c app ed~rson8, Su e 1 z l eand Keena n (19 8 1 ) ha d.330mo~he rsl whosechi ld re n range d inag e from a few months to 21.yea rs:c omple t ea len g t h y mai l -o u t survey."A thatthisf~ndingmay;,wellbe a resul t of anintera c t i o n of social class~n~degrfe of handica p. Th eyex p l a i n that_while middle-cla s s mothers may havebe e n moreintel lect ual lyaler_t.t.o their childrens' hand~Cappingconci'itions,'" it is al,s o plausib l e

. I .

t~atmot.hers of ehildf inwi th severe ment.al h~ndloep sare-less able~ha~mot.hersofctUd.:..::n withmi ld men,tal,ha 'ndi c a p s , to distortthe i~eVS1UaUr S

0 .'

theirchildren'spoten tial.

·/lv a D a ' , . SOdal suppor~ ^{. .}

:Itis

l_i~elY,

^that

~ a~eAtal ,~eXP/1~t.';'tions .;

" ",inf l Ue n Ced.'b Y-'

~

"elO:pert.s" in the'f i e l d of menta l ret.i!l. r d at i o n ,,f a mi l y membereand

.' I · . · · .

self-h e lp gr o u p s comprisedof othe r pare nt s wi thmentally

. I

handicapped childre n .,Althoughttlereha v e been nost u d i e s examin~ngt~he l in kbetw~enI

" ?"

~qurces and'_parental expectations , anu mb e r ~fstudies .n a v a -examined useof social

. I

su p p o r t ~ndth emediatin

lg influence of socia l supporton_p a re nt a l ,

a t t itu d e s.

' .

" , . ' " .

.

examined themeciiat ingirttluen cesor socia l supp o rt ,1n't e rms of

. . . " . '.'

..

^{' '}..'

.; . .

.. ^{, .-}

.bot h sat1~ faction.with the var i ous sourc e s of.:sup p o r t an~the

n~~r,ot8upport'sou~cesavd l a ble;"Th isstud ywa~^{base d.on'a}

8Y~t~~8 ,~e~ry ·~~i.Ch ,~~t;~ l"~~es :th~t"·~.~l~l:. netwo.rk~"a n~

^the,'

, , . . '. r .

.

,

~.'l/".l':, :.,.~.,~:~"!,i'.::'

y :..

^{:;.~.~'-':i:.i','•.~},":" ':" :.~:·~;'. ;.'c~_·.''f,}~·r;''-'''''~.':,'::J..:':·~''~;r';-t'''('·...:; :.:·.y;-,·,:,l.~:<:-':.":'~;"\~"'~(.~''':l,~~'~::~:-:q: .,,!~~,.

, '

" ~ . ^. .(

th••• t. .llie . w. r•• •

~'ed

^{cons en ttorm. to sign, in.lcatlng •}

i"'

theirwillingnesstopar t icipate1n~hestud y.While a totaler 458 ta lail1esconse nted tocOllp letethe survey the final nUl'lber f responde nts ':as 330-,t).lS nWllber/epresent. J.9\ of the

totil

nu~erof familiesor.i9i n ally ~entiUed^{and.72.1\of thoSi-\.thO}

c~ulent.edto participate. I tshouldbenoted , wheninterpretinq the

r~8\11ts

^{of this study,tha t}

al~h~U9h 'the 'nu~~er

^{of s:i;ects}

waa

l~r~e,

^{they.co u ld}

^represent

^a

somew~at.

^{biased'saIlP lf}

~ Resultsofth"e "util ization

at

Servlcesll'data-indic a t eth at

pers~nal, supp~.~t_ n~t~orks~ende~

^{'t o}

decl1~e

^as','

.child~t;n

^{b.e c a me}

ol~er. S!gniticantdecl1p esin.~heuse"o! tafdly.membe rsor fr i e nd s,'u baby-sittersor'for ~espltealso'oc cur r e d as. the·' .

' :~hild'ren gre.w

^{old·er.AlthO'U9h:}

no~ .Si~nific·ant;{here 'vi:-~ "

d~cline .

^as"

~~.ll .,

^{.i n}

~he ~~rents

^{...Ur i}.li zat i o n' .of

n rap··ses~~ons~

,with ,the rpare nts andparentco uns e l ling andguidance. A • poui~exp lanation ot..thisd~creaseduti l i 2l1;tio n. eifsu~portwas

at~~i_but.ed

^to

~ per~_eived: d~~reaSed ~umb~r ,

^of

,!:"uppc"~ op~ions

^"

ava il a b letopa r e ntsof older'm~ntal1 yhal)dicapped chil dren.This ex pl anationwas

fUrth~r

suppo ited

bY~ finding~

that pare nesof mental ly

.h~nd.1cappe~

^{··youz:'.g.adu lts}

pe~ce1ve,ci

^,a

'g~~~~:~ '~u~e.~

^of.,

unmet servi.ce ne e dsthan.'didpare ntso~any,othe r age group . An.exPll.o·rat o ry st udy'by Duostj'Trivette and Cr oss (198'6),

17·

,

^{' .}

.

suppor t that ne tworktnembersprovi de b~thdirectly and indi rectl y influencethe behaviour, attitudes,expectat i~ns

and

know'helgaof

, ' \ " t

parents andth e i rOf f s p ring as W'ell as other ne t work members.

Su;Sj...ects....ere 137parents whowere\ partici pantsin an ea rly

...~.. I . \ .

) in~~ntion~rogralllforh~ndicapP~danddeV~lopmen~all Y-l!lt~riSk . pr e - s chool e r s. Resultsof thethree self-re portsurveyscOJllPleted by the parents ind icated that,pa re nts who weremore satisfied wi t hthe i r supportnetwork tended-ee bele s s'pr ot e cti ve of.their children ...Parentswnc reported .inad~,quatesu p po rts were foundto__

'-i.ncrea~e"

the degree of

ov'er-pr6~ecti~eness

^{asthei rchildren}

g;~\rI

o~der._

^{rn termso'f aparen t.spercElPt\fn.of his/ chil d}

^{' s' .}

^.>i,

beh av i o u r" i t was foundtha t . 9...ithmo r esuppo rtive networks rate d tl;leir7 dr~J:\:, ~shavin gle~s,t rOUb le s ome behaviors than did families withminimal supports•.

'<'0 Pessimism (undef1!;led by the authors)concerni n gth e

'child r e n.'sfuturewas rep o rted to be significan tly're late d to the sex of thechild (parents of f~we r e morepessilllisti~^thar;i pa r ent !;l of m.ales) and the age of the child.(paren tsof older childre nwere,;mor~pessimistic than parents of youn ge r ,child r en).Parents of men taHy ha nd i c apped childre n were mere .pessimist'ie

abo~~

^their

childre~s' f~ture~l

^tha n parent s at'

~hysically,handicappedchi ldren. P.e.ssimis~was fou n d toincreas~: wi t h~ncrea~in9~ge.^{of th e children , especia l'ly amongpa r ents} with l.arger ...de grees.of su p po r t. T.~e^{authors a}lso rep ortedthat th e amo untof pro g resschi ldren madeov erthecourseof a year (obt aine d'

~y

^{exami ning}

re~"o~ds ^of

^the

ch~ldren's

^IQ't e st s')

~

^W'IlB'

.l.,.

~

. , U

81wnlflc antl yralaCad to socia l sup p or t intha t ch ildre nwere

~re'like lyto make prQgressitthey had parents with.suppo rtive socia l networks.

The majorproblelllwiththisstudy, give n-thatit was

exPlo~atory^{Inna t ure was that} the dependent eeesuees wezeeee".

oper a t iona llyde tl ned torthe re a d e r.As a re Gult. it is

~'UCUlt

^to

properl~

^lnte rp ret a

nU~ber

^{0·' . ;}01co m"".

:llIIIlmuJ1.

II1 sUllllllary . itapp e ars.t h a tmothers of deve Lop jaerrtiaILy de l ay ed Children"

h'~V~~owe.r educat~O~al an(occupati~al

expect ati on.sth a n do mo th"er:sofnon-d~layedchildren . Howe ve r ,.• th-'yotte n have higher_-expectationsandestima t e s of ability than

the"re s ul ts. o t standardiz.edtestswould war ra nt. As shownbyHunt

.a.ndParaskevopoulos.(1980),the discrep.anci e s ~et,!een,mothers ' estima tes otabilityand;~t imat~s,derived troma'st,:"ndard iz ~d.

,t e s ts of functi~~in9, may not.be'confinedto'mothers of ^#'

de.ve lopmen t ally delayedchildren.Therema y~ea te nd e nc y amonq allmother sto ovsre s t illlatetheabilitiesand achievement

· ~~tentla'1..,o~ tJ;~ir children'~ 'Th~ r~l~tionship'~etween

exp~cb.tionsandsocioeconomi cstatus,

tS

w8;llas betw.een.' expectationsand avd l ab ility ot siJppor t servicesisLea s clear,

. .,.. . . ·1

arid may, in tact, be dep/imdenton mothers perc e ptionsof chlld#ens'abl~ities a.n.d~~rthequa lityot the:suppo r t'ava'ila bl\ tot~e'f a milyas a whole.":

.This,study.wil l ~x~,1;lriewha t e~.~ctationsmothers hold tor

thefuture s of their ment a lly ha nd i cappedchildreninareasot -.~i educational andvoc 1iorial achi eve ment , residential plae,emen ta'nd

,~

/

indepe nde ncein da il y li ving'. In additio n, possiblefactors influenci ngthe.de ve l op men t of theseexpect~t ionswi l l be explored by exa_.mini ng th e eff ect of chi l d r e ns ' ab il i t ie sen e'

~ -- .

d,e gre e of handicap, presentschoo l place me nt , the amountof both profess iona land Camilysupp ort ava ilable,to themo t h e r s and the i!:...ch ildrenand thefa~i.lysoci o e conomi c sta t us.on' .thei r expec ta tionsof their; ch ild.

20

/

MET HOD

SamPling Pr g c e d ure

Sub j ect s to r thi sst udywe r e mothetswhose mentally han~lcappe'1;'ehi ldren

.'

were attendi~.gpr imary, e~l,~me:ntary, junior high~ or high schoo ldu ringth e-198 6- 87ac a de mi c year. Priorto sUb jec t selecti~n.^a researQ~^{propos.al was}-"sub~itted

t6

the

"~ ,.Superintendentsof boththe Roman'Ca tholi c and Avalon

C~nsolidgtedSchool Boards.Approval was so u g h t tose n d lette r s to mothe rs of students attend,in,g either nevefepeencar Programs or .Trai nabler:tel'Jta~llYHandicapped (TMft)ej .eee ee , requesttngtheir

IlIss'ist~nce'in the study of materna l.expec:tations'for the-future l"ive~^{of theirmenta.l1y}handicapped:chl ldren.

.

FOllOWing -'~;;r~;a l ~f

^•

p~oposa~

^{and m}e e ti n gs.wi t hSc h oo l Board~tficia}'s, ~^{tot a l of.13}s~hools (6

.

"Roma n Catholic^. ~nd⁷ Ava l o nConsolidated)-In theSt."J,ohn'sand me t ropo l i t a n areawere -

'identi~ied

^as,

~.avillg ~v"elopmental ~rograms I~n d/~r

^TMH

~lass e.s.

^"\

Meeti!l9s wi t h.~i;'indpal~of these schoolsrevealeda total ot:151 st udent s la bel l e d, "mentally"handicapped"'.

Pri ncip a ls of each schoo l weresuppliedwith packagesto"be

. ~ .

distribu ted , bythe Developmentalc.lass or TMH teachers, t·oeach

s~udent·

^to

~ring

^home

~o hi~Jher'

mo.ther (Se e Appendix A'). The se packa g"esc6ntalned·ale tte r ofint r o d uc tio n"and

explan~tion

^from

th ere s e arc h er, a cenaeet; f~rm,"a nd a pre-addressed ,stamped envelo pe."?the rs~i~hingto par!=icipat:e in the rese"archvere' aske dto co"mpl.e te theco ns e nt _fo~~'andsendit to"th e researcher

21 int~_-:env elo pe'provided.

One hundredand fift y-o ne pac ka ge s",eredistr ibutedto the

sChOOls~en

^June

4

and Jun e 8, 19 87.Twenty - n i neIllothe rs ag r e e dto partfc!pate andwere contac tedby tel e ph on e. toarra ng e II

conv~n~e:y '

^{t t}i me for the.eese a r ca eeto conduct a homevi Sit\ .

. . .

.. Ethic cons idera tio ns relate dtocontide nt ial1ty ne c e ssitatedthis mul t i plest age de liveryile thod fordist ribu ti ng th e or i g i na l pe c xec eetothe sUbjects.In orde r toget the resea rc he r'ste tte r of int r od uc t ion

an4

explanation and the con s ent formstothe 151 mo t he r s 4n the Ident1!ledpopUl a t i on, wh~ l ep.reservingtheir,con !identialitythepackagesha d togo fr om the sch ool principa l

to

the ereee r e eete a c he r to'the stud~nts^tobringho metpthe i rmothe r s.withou t th~researc he r

·~.!!in9"^{ab le . :iden tity} indlvidua ls.'It ,is,l ikely tha t 'llnUlll~er'ot

thes~.p,ackag e s were.J.os t at e~ch.ste p.Ope erthe maj o r tact. ors·

,whichmay haveco~tributed.to' thelosso~p.ac ka ge·s wa s.t he ~imlng

. J

,.",'1 ' : ',; ';._·~_:'1", _. 1, 7., .J.~.;.:jf':

-.

'';-,

.ot:the(del~ve ry,.l.e.,June..~hichisth~,endOf,th eSCho~i. ye~r:·, I For exaepre, teachersareconc e rnedwithe~of ye ar pro j e c ts , tamil iesmay go onva c a t i o n ear l y , etc•. Package s pl aced In ,chi1~rens~ bo~k,bags,.be cause itwa s the',endotthe school yea r ,

.ma y not.~avebeenchec k.e d by parents.

AS'

~others

nllllle s ...wereunknown to the res;llrcher untilthe\ -';;ons ent

~o~s w~'re ,~e't~rned!

^{it was'}Impoll9;b1e"t o to l iow -upWit'h

the,m,?t h e r s-t.cdlscove,rhow~~llnyhadact~al'lyrece1vedt~'e

~aCkage. Because of'thistheres'~,onsera,te~f19.2'of the populat~onshouldnot be~iewedasan 80.8\refusalrat e .

.If.one

~.sullles

^{that al l l5 i'mothers'actual ly}

rece i~ed ~~~

^'.

pa ck a ges thatwere distrib':"tedby th e schools, it is_possible

.' \

. ..

.

pe rcep~ioh,Q~l)St1o~'na1~e^{(PpQ).wa s} d~signed.·^{p!oirri'arily}.to.~va:l ~a ~~^. mot h e r ' s perc e pt i o n s ot-theda.velop·~Q·rt,ta-1 leYe~Ofthei~'m~~tdi'y"

handicap~ed' ~hild'ren

^(See

APp'endi~

^8)..

Fi;te~n

^{_ottfle 21items'}

scaledesf9nedtoaBsessex pe ctati ons'that mot hers hOld',re9ard~n9­ the

t'utu~es o~. thei~.' ~.nt·a~l,! ha~d·i~apped··~hild~en~. Exp~ctat~~n~

- . -

th atthissa mpl e i . biased. Possibleb~ a s e s. ig h t inc.!:ude

'r e s pondents personal charac t e.i ls t i cssuch .s helpfulnessor

.inc reA sed intere s t in'tl'tewell-beingof the ir children. However,

~

^{. i i.} dif f i cul t to

.

.~ehow the s e or any other particula r

..

. c"{'rfSterist~csIII \l~tentlYinfluenced thede pendent

var f ab l e s ee-this stud\ " ~

, .v ~

- A -t;:tnlmflnt~

^opd

.PT9ced~r.~ .

^{' . • '.}

---.:_~.

Th r ee'questionn a ire swere employe d in,t h is st u d y. The Pa r,e nt·

v, 23

are assessed In thedomai nsot schooli n9. physica l andfinanoial indepe n d e n c e, socialization ilndco_uni tyin';olvement; li Vi ng and wor kingenviron.ent~. and su ppo r t progra..involve.ent·(S e e App e ndixCI. Theorder.in Which the Parent'P\rce ption.

.Questionna ir~.^{an d}~e".Ch~~~Expectations,St::d ew~reC~D1Pl~.tb(W'a~^•. rando.lized ac r olils 5\,lb~e?~", ~~ubjectscompletedthe ~e

que st l0J"na ire aonthe~:rOW?-in the prese nceot theres e arc her••

The DellloqraphlcQu~stio~nai~ein..y.lu d : d~estlonBreqard·1~9,..

.mar i t a l st a t us ,familY,inc~m8':n~^ag

8 :

'&~u;ca~'10~^.and'oc c u'p a tl ?'n'.\ '

of mothe rs ,,s p o us esand off,spring'( See"~Append l~. The

". ... 'Dem~9'raPhiCQU~~ti~mna~re(~~s^{al wayea.a}dm'i nis tere dle st;.it~IIIB^{-.. , ...}

~,

^'wereasked ora lly arid

re~po~s~s recorde~

^by.the

r~e~archer·."

^'::

~, '. .". ', .~-Kl~--':t~~r~~'-:w-e~e ~eview,~'~.' ~y :~th~ ! r~Be~~~~~r ~-nd

~

^{. hflr}.superv i s ory,CornlQl t te eccieneueeclarityof each ite lll. As

;' . '. 't:,ell ..

:~~e ~est io~n~i~es 'wer~ pre-t~8i:~d

^{'With' three}

'~ott'!er~ o~' n"an-:~andi~apped

_,

chy.~ren

^'to

e~~ure

_.

~iaritl~~

_..1

ea~h I

_·

te~~ - '

/ ^{. .}

.

^/

,~SULTSAND DIS CUSSION

:2 4

, The purposeott~iSre~archwastwo-told :.to,discov,!r w!'tat expectati o ns.mothers hel-C:l.to r'th~urelJat the irme ntally ha ndica ppe d childrenandtodiscav~rwhattac to rs'intLuen ced the' de velopment at these.xp~ctations.

DemogTj'lp hiC§

Theti'nalsa mp l e tor.t his res e arch included 28 (18.5\.cr the 'popul llt'ion,originallycontac ted ) mothers o'f!'llIentall~-hand i c a pped

. , c ", " -..'" .- •.' - \ ,

chil d re n atte nding,scho.ol•.one-mothe ~,whoha~ orl~in.allY I Cons ented,

t'~

^{participate in th e's tUd Y,'}

~ould

^,not',ar r a ng e,ahome.. \ '.'

~1&~t ~.r th~ resear~h~i. ~.~~~e he'~, ChH~ ~IlS h~ital1Zed

^.\

dur i ngthei1llt~'c olie ct1onpe;-iod. ,. ' ,";' . ' . \....

. A ll

sUbji! cts"re'si d:d.in'th emet' ;po l1fa n

a're~

^{of st.}

JOh~" s:

^:\.

sixteen

(~7 . n ; - resided

^{,i n}

~e '6ity of ~~~ ~;--Ohn' s 'it'self :' ,eig~~

\( 2S.6i).resided.In the·Hi.

p~ari;GOUldS/Kli~ride·"a~ea.;

^{thre e : I}

(10 .7'):rEiside~"i~theTo r bay/ Hi dd l e Cove/Pouch co';"e'a'rea,.and cne.

(J.ni..:re·s~dedin~on~eption Ba.is.~uth~.

.

... .

\ ,

. ' . .. . .

In! o mati on onthema rit alstatus.of the SUb j e c ts.revealed "

that

twenty-.~6re~. (~.n). wer~ ~arr1ed: .to~~

^{(1 4.;3\) were}

'either'~

separated,

WidOW~.d

^ordivo't-,c ed and.

~?e,

^{d:6').w.asnevermarr ied .}

Mother'sages,ranged tr om 28'.to 59,y~~rswith t'he .aver'a qe ';'ge; ,

be~ng

⁴¹

y~;'rs

^{'(.s.D'";8.S7 ) .}One subje ct''d i d

n~~ diSCIo~d

^her

a~e . , Dell1ogr~phic

^{intormation'collectedOn}

ot~~~" '~alll~'IY memb~rs zn:~wed

spouses

~f, .~Ubj 8Cts

^{ra nge d in age'}

.f~O~. ~~ ,~o ~.~. Y~~~S ,

^wi_thoali'

W:~ '.~~ ':.:

· t ·

i !''': .', \<; ';:•.. :;,~L~~;··\V~~;.~J;~~~~'>.' ;<:iL~~~jj·.::~4iL'i;';,:::,~~;; ,~:;~~, ⁾

'... >': ave r a ge ageat 41.yea rs (a.D.'.:.

,.44J t J

'. . ' .

~

.

. .EdUCatit" 1.V.~.at"ot he r s showedt~~!-seven.( 2 5 ' ) had.not , co mpletedscn,olin9.past 9rade 8; sl~teen (5 7. H ) ~adup to gorade 11educat!-on; two (7.H~ had~all.pleledone toth~eeyear~ot university and three (10.7'.had completedbetween tour-andsix ye a r s of. university. Five

mother~

^{(17.9') had}cOll'lpl e t eJ course'".;

work and'o bt a i ne dd~PIOma?rOmpost-'secondary"institutions', otherthan university,Informat ionon educationlev el sot spouse s ,,'.:~:

ahcwed t:wo

seouse~ (7:

H)had

~omPleted .,~nlY JUni~r Hig~

^{.SChO·Ol.,. ,..}

; , i

' :::: : :::d (::::t: e h::.h:::r:C::~:n::::::~;~·:;d t :;::.1 _::~:::t::e '. •. ;.~·,.,!,:,;" i,:.:

had att endedeither:'-d'

pOlytech~lcal

^or

cOIllDl~n~~y,c~~~~g~, ~;u~

^{. .}

...:~

117

^,it)

h~d earned ~ i~lemas f re. thsse in"~itutien)<,"'..· ( . . .. ~

Twen~y~tour

mot h er &: werebiological IIlOt h e r s, one was

a~, \ . .' _~~

ado ptiv e pare ntand thr e e wE;retostermo t he r s.Otthe,:hree ~"',,~....~,~

ros t e r mbtbe_rs; Onehad'two men t a lly ha nd icappedchildren,.both'

:j

,•ot'whom were" O.

'~~\1ded

~<^'in the study. Thus

"

,

Wh11~' . ~~e :

^number

'

^{'o t}

. ~ <~

~

~subjectswas 28mothe rs, intormationwas collectedand teparted ':' ~

·on 29 children

~ith ment~andicaps.

^Mothersot

eleve~

^{(37.9 \) ,.•}

;~

c~ildren fint ~eca~~ aware ef their~~'s ments1 -handiC~:" · 'j

atbi~other8ot nine (31.ot) child re nreP:S:d sus,pectinl;'. ",,'"

thei r chi, en,were not devel opingnorma llyandsb~~Uentlyhad :'::1,~,' the s e sus picion' confirmed-b y'me d ic alpro f e s si onals. Mothe rsot

"three (9.7l)'

child;erl...;,.report~d

^{that.the y}

~lrst

^{beca e e}

·aw~~~t.,_~,

^.,9J

.) i

'\ ^{" ' , , ' , ..} ,'-~

their ch ildren'smentalhandicap when the schoo ls,inwhic h the y - -';d'

·were enrolled'rec ommend e d:a s s e ssme nt or:,t he l r children's

\~-,

^-'

~

" . " ,

; ~

:;,~,~

. "", ,-,_ "' ,." _.,_,.~,,<., ,'''.'' ,<",."..

v,..;;'.:"C".,;,:c;. ':':-;·,

~,.., ~:~.,$~