The relationship between attitude to disabled siblings and ratings of behavioural competency

Abstract

The impact of maturation factors and Auctioning level on the relationship between disabled and non-disabled siblings was examined. Two groups of adults, distinguished by level of functioning of their mentally retarded sibling, completed a Schaefer Sibling Behavior Inventory (SBI) and participated in a semi-structured interview. The latter explored a number of dimensions of the relationship including degree of warmth, contact and involvement. Judgements about involvement and comfort as remembered from the past and judgements about the present were obtained to derive hypotheses about possible changes with time. Data from the SBI indicated that si^iificantly more competent siblings tended to be involved in relationships with a higher degree of reciprocity. In contrast, measures of attitude derived from interview data did not appear to relate to the functioning level of the sibling in any systematic manner. The results suggest that level of discomfort with peers may decrease significantly over the years with neither level of functioning nor gender being important variables. "The extent to which non-disabled individuals expressed a preparedness to participate in the life of their disabled sibling may relate to the life-stage of the two. Males in particular anticipated increased future involvement. Although higher-functioning siblings were described as more active in the relationship, this did not appear to influence perceived positiveness of regard. The implications of these results are discussed briefly. disabled siblings have appeared in the literature (Correa et al., 1986;Hannah & Midlarsky, 1985;Simeonsson & McHale, 1981). The hypothesis underlying many of the reported studies is that there exists some fundamental qualitative difference between this relationship and the normal sibling relationship which may have implications for the psychological functioning of the non-disabled brother or sister. Results are equiyocal, with other variables such as age, gender, severity and type of disability, birth order, and family structure having an important contributory role (Breslau, 1982;Breslau et al.

Siblings of Adults With Developmental Disabilities: Psychosocial Outcomes, Relationships, and Future Planning

“…Nondisabled siblings felt knowledgeable about the needs of their disabled siblings. The majority of studies found that siblings had positive relationships with their brother or sister with disabilities (Bigby, 1997; Greenberg, Seltzer, Orsmond, & Krauss, 1999; Griffiths & Unger, 1994; Hodapp & Urbano, 2007; Krauss et al., 1996; Marks et al., 2005; Seltzer et al., 1991; Seltzer, Krauss, Hong, & Orsmond, 2001; Wilson, Mcgillivray, & Zetlin, 1992; Zetlin, 1986). Over time, a more positive relationship developed between siblings who have a brother or sister with disabilities (Orsmond & Seltzer, 2000).…”

Siblings of individuals with autism or Down syndrome: effects on adult lives

“…The positive association between level of independence and aspects of the sibling relationship is supported by prior research on siblings of adults with ID (Wilson et al . 1992).…”

“…In contrast, Orsmond & Seltzer (2000) found that sisters were equally close to brothers and sisters with ID, but that brothers who had a sister with ID felt less positively about their sibling relationship. Wilson et al. (1992) found that the gender of the sibling with the disability did not influence ratings of the sibling relationship.…”

Adult Siblings Consider the Future: Emergent Themes

“…According to Zetlin (1986) and Rigney (2009) the most commonly reported relationship between adults in this situation is that of warm feelings with minimal contact; however, Heller & Arnold (2010) identified that most siblings, predominantly sisters, reported close relationships and regular contact. This again reiterates the possible impact of gender, life stage, birth order and level of disability upon sibling relationships in the presence of intellectual disability (Richardson 2009;Doody et al 2010), however, no conclusion upon the influence of such factors is reached (Wilson et al 1992).…”