At-Risk Toddlers and Their Mothers: The Special Case of Physical Handicap

Abstract

Previous studies of school-aged children with physical handicaps indicate passivity, inhibition, and deficits in cognitive-linguistic functioning, sometimes interpreted as consequent to parent-child problems. The present study examined the functioning of toddlers with physical anomalies (but without CNS damage) in comparison to premature toddlers (who share deviant early experience but not deviant physical appearance) and to normal toddlers. 14 mother-child pairs in each group were videotaped at 9, 12, 18, and 24 months in a variety of semistructured situations. Both premature and handicapped toddlers performed more poorly in measures of social initiative, focused play, language production, and 2-year IQ. In addition, handicapped toddlers manifested increased distractibility, decreased compliance, and reluctance to separate from their mothers. Mothers of both prematures and handicapped toddlers were more initiating and less responsive than controls, while mothers of handicapped children were also more likely to both encourage and ignore their toddlers. Patterns previously reported for older children are therefore found here with toddlers. Maternal patterns are interpreted as supporting Bell's model of compensatory "lower-limit" effects.

Maternal interactive behaviour towards children with and children without cleft lip and palate

“…In the study of Wasserman et al (1985), the finding of decreased responsivity for mothers of handicapped children is indissolubly bound up with the finding of increased initiating and stimulating behaviour, which by definition is incompatible with responsive behaviour (Koomen and Hoeksma, 1990). The authors conclude that mothers in their group of atrisk toddlers seem to respond to very real differences in child competence by 'using classes of behaviors aimed at stimulating, focusing and "revving up" their children' (Wasserman et al, 1985, p.79).…”

“…The few empirical studies on this subject suggest an affirmative answer to this question. Field and VegaLahr (1984) and Wasserman et al (1985Wasserman et al ( ,1987) report a significantly lower responsivity for mothers of infants with cleft lip and palate than for mothers of normal infants. It should be added that the findings of Field and Vega-Lahr refer to 3-monthold children, whereas the findings of Wasserman et al (1985Wasserman et al ( , 1987 relate to older children, aged 9-24 and 9-12 months, respectively.…”

“…Field and VegaLahr (1984) and Wasserman et al (1985Wasserman et al ( ,1987) report a significantly lower responsivity for mothers of infants with cleft lip and palate than for mothers of normal infants. It should be added that the findings of Field and Vega-Lahr refer to 3-monthold children, whereas the findings of Wasserman et al (1985Wasserman et al ( , 1987 relate to older children, aged 9-24 and 9-12 months, respectively. In agreement with these results, one of our own investigations (Hoeksma et al, 1990), based on the sample used in the present study, revealed that mothers of children with cleft lip and palate contributed less to the harmony of early mother-child interaction than mothers of children without such an anomaly.…”

“…In agreement with these results, one of our own investigations (Hoeksma et al, 1990), based on the sample used in the present study, revealed that mothers of children with cleft lip and palate contributed less to the harmony of early mother-child interaction than mothers of children without such an anomaly. In addition to a decreased responsivity on the part of the mother, some investigators also report decreased responsivity (Field and Vega-Lahr, 1984) and diminished social initiative (Wasserman et al, 1985) on the part of the infant. It is plausible, however, that associated malformations contributed substantially to the negative findings for children with clefts in the sample of Wasserman et al (1985) (see Koomen and Hoeksma, 1990).…”

Assisting the development of infants born prematurely using a self-regulation framework and relationship-based intervention process

“…Compared to infants born at term, infants born early are initially more irritable and take longer to settle into a routine [7] . They are less playful as 4 month olds [8] , and parents face a longer wait for them to become mobile and play well on their own [9,10] . Parents of premature infants initially report feeling helpless in their parenting role [11] and continue to perceive themselves as less competent and their infants more vulnerable as their children grow older [12,13] .…”