p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:41 p.

253

The Psychosocial
Functioning of School-Age
Children Who Have Siblings
With Developmental Disabilities:
Change and Stability Over Time
Lily L. Dyson
University of Victoria

This study compared the psychosocial functioning and family psychological correlates over
time of 37 school-age children who have younger siblings with disabilities with that of 34
children with nondisabled siblings. Psychological measures showed no group differences
in the level of self-concept, social competence, and behavior adjustment at each period.
Both groups also exhibited no change except in social competence, which declined over
a 4-year period. A moderate degree of stability existed over time in all subject measures
except self-concept for children with nondisabled siblings. Of special significance, psychoso-
cial functioning of all participants, with or without a sibling with disabilities, was linked
to family psychological resources concurrently and over time with fluctuation in participant
self-concept corresponding with changes in family psychological functioning. Further re-
search and clinical implications are drawn.

The relationship between siblings is important for a child’s development (Dunn,

1988) because of the influence they have on each other (Dunn, 1988; Stoneman,
Brody, Davis, & Crapps, 1987). However, when one child is disabled the nature of
this relationship and its influence on a child’s development may differ from the
norm. A child’s disability affects the home environment (McAndrew, 1976) and,
as a result, may affect the nondisabled siblings’ psychosocial functioning over the
long term (McKeever, 1983). The effect of a child’s disability may be particularly
significant from childhood to adolescence, when children experience major physical
and psychological changes (Santrock, 1993). During this transition period, children
who have siblings with disabilities face additional demands that may affect their
psychosocial functioning. Several studies have examined elementary school-aged

Direct all correspondence to: Lily L. Dyson, Faculty of Education, University of Victoria, Box 3010,
Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3N4, Canada ,[email protected]..

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 20(2): 253–271 Copyright  1999 Elsevier Science Inc.
ISSN: 0193–3973 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

253
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:41 p. 254

254 DYSON

children’s psychosocial development in the presence of a sibling with disabilities

(e.g., Dyson, 1989; Dyson & Fewell, 1989; Ferrari, 1984; Harvey & Greenway, 1984;
Lobato, Barbour, Hall, & Miller, 1987; McHale & Gamble, 1989). However, little
is known about the long-term psychosocial functioning in children who have a
sibling with a disability as they make transition from childhood to adolescence.
Such information would enhance understanding about children’s development when
it is compounded with the presence of a disabled sibling. Useful guidance for
families of children with developmental disabilities may also result.
There is a long-standing concern that children who have siblings with disabilities
are at risk for developing deviancy (Trevino, 1979). In particular, these children
may develop a low self-concept because they identify with the negative behavior
of their siblings who have disabilities (Harvey & Greenway, 1984; Kaplan, 1969).
Children may also develop behavior problems as a result of role strains (Farber, 1959;
Fowle, 1969), pressure to make up for the deficiency of the siblings with disabilities
(Cleveland & Miller, 1977; Grossman, 1972), reduced parental attention and family
resources (Siemon, 1984), and high parental expectations (Gath & Gumley, 1987).
Social competence may also decline due to stress related to caring for a brother or
sister with disabilities (Cleveland & Miller, 1977; Grossman, 1972; Lobato et al., 1987;
McHale & Gamble, 1989; Stoneman, Brody, Davis, & Crapps, 1988).
However, the assumed negative psychosocial development of children who
have a sibling with developmental disabilities has not been consistently supported
by cross-sectional research. Some studies confirm that, in comparison with children
who have nondisabled siblings, children who have siblings with disabilities show a
lower self-concept (Ferrari, 1987; Harvey & Greenway, 1984; Kaplan, 1969), more
behavior problems (Breslau, Weitzman, & Messenger, 1981; Lavigne & Ryan, 1979),
greater social withdrawal (Lavigne & Ryan, 1979; Lobato et al., 1987), and less
social competence (Dyson, 1989). In contrast, other studies reported no significant
differences between the two groups of siblings in self-concept (Dyson, 1989, 1996;
Dyson & Fewell, 1989; Ferrari, 1984; Gayton, Friedman, Tavormina, & Tucker,
1977), behavior problems (Dyson, 1989; Ferrari, 1984; Gath, 1972), and social com-
petence (Ferrari, 1984).
There appears to be only one published longitudinal study of children who
have siblings with disabilities. In a follow-up of children who had siblings with
Down syndrome 8 to 9 years after the original study, Gath and Gumley (1984)
found that nondisabled children as a group did not exhibit more behavior problems
than children whose siblings were not nondisabled. However, more children who
have siblings with Down syndrome than children with nondisabled siblings had
behavior problems at follow-up even though no such group differences were re-
ported initially (Gath, 1972). This study suggests that behavior adjustment of chil-
dren who have siblings with disabilities may deteriorate over time. However, the
results of the study were limited by a small sample (n 5 19) with few details
and the absence of data on self-concept and social competence. The long-term
psychosocial functioning of children who have siblings with developmental disabili-
ties, therefore, remains unclear.
Although possibly the result of methodological differences, discrepant findings
from cross-sectional studies of children who have siblings with disabilities may have
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:41 p. 255

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 255

also attributed to a weak research design. Common to existing studies is a lack of

a matched comparison sample of nondisabled children (e.g., Breslau et al., 1981;
Ferrari, 1984; Gath & Gumley, 1984; Kaplan, 1969; Harvey & Greenway, 1984:
Lavigne & Ryan, 1979). A greater shortcoming of many studies appears to be the
failure to control the confounding effect of socioeconomic status (SES). Disadvanta-
geous social factors may precipitate emotional disturbances in children who have
siblings with disabilities (Gath & Gumley, 1987). For example, rates of deviancy
increased from the higher to the lower SES in both male and female children who
have siblings with Down syndrome (Gath, 1974; Gath & Gumley, 1987). Consistent
with this finding is that negative adjustment in the presence of a sibling with
disabilities has been reported primarily by studies involving lower or a wide range
of SES (e.g., Breslau et al., 1981; Ferrari, 1987; Fowle, 1969; Gath, 1973; Tew &
Laurence, 1973). In contrast, studies of middle-SES families have found more
positive effects (e.g., Daniels, Moos, Billings, & Miller, 1987; Kazak & Clark, 1986).
It is likely that families with higher SES have more resources available to manage
a child’s disability (Fischer & Roberts, 1983) and to secure respite care than families
of lower SES, and hence result in more favorable outcomes for nondisabled children
in the family.
Conflicting findings about the effect of a child with disabilities on the siblings
may also reflect a cohort effect because many studies were conducted more than
two decades ago. Significant social and political changes have taken place since
1975, when Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act,
was passed in the United States. This law and its subsequent revisions mandate
early intervention for children with disabilities and services for the family. The
changes may have positively affected family adaptation in response to a child’s
disability (Wilson, Blacher, & Baker, 1989), with positive ramifications for nondis-
abled siblings’ psychosocial functioning. Coincidentally, studies published before
the 1980s indicate predominantly negative sibling adjustment (e.g., Gath, 1974;
Tew & Laurence, 1973) and those published after the Public Law 94-142 era yield
more diverse findings (e.g., Breslau et al., 1981; Daniels et al., 1987; Dyson, 1989;
Ferrari, 1984; Lobato et al., 1987). However, existing studies do not account for
the cohort effect.
The literature thus suggests that, despite the risks associated with living with
a sibling who has disabilities, children do not necessarily deviate from the normal
course of development in self-concept, social competence, and behavior adjustment
when they have socioeconomic advantages and their families are provided with
early intervention for the children with disabilities. Nonetheless, children who have
a sibling with disabilities take on special roles that may restrict major developmental
changes that occur normally in the transition from childhood to adolescence. Re-
searchers suggest that because of a sibling’s developmental disability and its rela-
tively unchanging status, these children not only forever assume the role of an older
sibling (Farber, 1959), but may also take on excessive care-giving responsibilities
(Gath, 1974; Gath & Gumley, 1987; Stoneman, et al., 1988). This suggestion is
supported by the finding that preschool children who have siblings with disabilities
have fewer privileges and more restricted home activities than their counterparts
with nondisabled siblings (Lobato et al., 1987). Thus, against the normative condition
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:41 p. 256

256 DYSON

in which major developmental changes take place from childhood to adolescence,

children who have a disabled sibling may experience more stable development over
time. As a result, these children would experience less change in self-concept, social
competence, and behavior adjustment than is ordinary.
However, a child’s development may not be determined merely by a sibling’s
disability. A model of family adaptation proposes that family adjustment in the
presence of a member with disabilities is influenced by the family’s ecology, which
includes personal and psychosocial factors (Crnic, Friedrich, & Greenberg, 1983).
According to this model, the psychosocial functioning of children in the presence
of a sibling’s disability is influenced by personal and family psychological factors
beyond the disadvantages incurred by a disabled sibling. The nondisabled child’s
gender has been identified to be such a factor (Breslau, 1982; Gath, 1973; Lavigne &
Ryan, 1979). Recent research found that psychological resources have a more perti-
nent influence on a child’s development in the presence of a disabled sibling. Such
resources include family social support (Ferrari, 1984), family functioning, and paren-
tal stress reaction to the child with disabilities (Dyson, Edgar, & Crnic, 1989).
Social support is theorized to moderate general life (Cobb, 1976) and childhood
stress (Rutter, 1981). Parents’ emotional state has long been linked to children’s
self-esteem (Coopersmith, 1967), and the quality of the family relationship is known
to influence children’s development (Belsky, 1981; Silber, 1988). In particular, stud-
ies have shown that children who have siblings with disabilities hold a high self-
concept when they experience social support (Ferrari, 1984), a low level of parental
stress, and positive family relationships (Dyson et al., 1989). These findings suggest
a relationship between the psychosocial functioning of children who have siblings
with disabilities and family social support, parent’s stress, and family functioning.
To the extent that there are greater degrees of family social support, lower levels
of parental stress, and more positive family functioning, these children would experi-
ence a higher self-concept, more social competence, and fewer behavior problems
contemporaneously. Moreover, the relationships between family psychological re-
sources and nondisabled children’s psychosocial functioning would remain stable
over time because of the relatively stable sibling relationships created by a child’s
disabilities. To date, no studies have longitudinally examined the relationships
between a child’s psychosocial functioning and family psychosocial factors such as
family social support, parental stress, and family functioning in homes with a child
with disabilities. Yet, identification of such relationships would increase the under-
standing of child development involving a sibling with developmental disabilities.
The present study examined how the psychosocial functioning of a family and
its psychological correlates change over time in children who have siblings with
disabilities. Psychosocial functioning is measured by self-concept, behavior adjust-
ment, and social competence. The study tested three hypotheses: (1) in the presence
of socioeconomic advantages coupled with early intervention for their family, chil-
dren who have siblings with disabilities do not differ from children with nondisabled
siblings in self-concept, behavior problems, and social competence contemporane-
ously; (2) given the relatively stable developmental status of their disabled siblings,
children maintain stable psychosocial functioning over time; and (3) a relationship
exists between the psychosocial functioning and family psychological factors for
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:41 p. 257

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 257

children who have siblings with disabilities in that their psychosocial functioning is
positively related to the availability of family social support and positive family
functioning but negatively correlated with the level of parental stress both contem-
poraneously and longitudinally.

METHOD
Participants
The participants were 71 school-age children and adolescents, divided into two
groups: the first group of children who had disabled siblings consisted of 37 children
and adolescents each with a younger sibling with disabilities, and the second group
of children who had nondisabled siblings comprised 34 children and adolescents
with a nondisabled sibling. These participants represented 65% of those (n 5 110)
who participated in the original study that took place 4 years earlier (Time 1). The
initial study included school-age children, half of whom had and half of whom did
not have a younger sibling with disabilities (Dyson, 1989). Seventy-nine of the
original families were located for the follow-up study (Time 2), and 74 (94%) of
them completed the study. Of those who did not complete the study, one family
believed they no longer qualified for the study because of the death of their child
who had a severe disability. Of the families who completed the study, one did not
complete the questionnaires and two were excluded because the disability status
of the younger index sibling had changed from nondisabled to disabled.
The participants in this study (Time 2) were between 11 and 18 years of age.
The younger siblings, under the age of 7 years at Time 1, were between 5 and 11.5
years at the time of the follow-up study. The mean age of the children in the group
with disabled siblings was 13.7 years (SD 5 2.0, range 5 11.5–18), and for the group
with nondisabled siblings, the mean age was 13.6 years (SD 5 2.1, range 5 11–18).
The mean age of the younger sibling for the group with disabled siblings was 9.1
years (SD 5 1.7, range 5 5–11.5), and for the group with nondisabled siblings, the
mean age was 8.4 years (SD 5 1.5, range 5 5–11). Disability was classified according
to medical and educational diagnoses. Disability types and the number of children
in each included: mental retardation (n 5 15), physical and sensory handicaps (n 5
16), developmental delay (n 5 2), and speech disorders and learning disabilities
(including attention deficit disorder) (n 5 4). The degrees of severity and the
number of children ranged from mild (n 5 11), moderate (n 5 15), and severe
(n 5 8), to profound (n 5 3).
The two groups of children continued to be matched by SES at Time 2. However,
they were no longer perfectly matched in family structure because of the presence
of one new single-parent family in the group of children with nondisabled siblings.
Based on Hollingshead’s (1975) classification, the children came from primarily
middle socioeconomic homes (95%) with two parents (91%). There were 42 Cana-
dian families (22 in the group with disabled and 20 in the group with nondisabled
siblings) and 29 American families (15 in the group with disabled and 14 in the
group with nondisabled siblings). All families except one resided in the Pacific
Northwest region of Canada and the United States. Other participant characteristics
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:41 p. 258

258 DYSON

Table 1. Selected Participant Characteristics at Follow-Up by Group

Group
No. With Disabled No. With Nondisabled
Siblings Siblings
Characteristic (n 5 37) (n 5 34)
Sex of Participants
Male 25 24
Female 12 10
Sex of Younger Sibling
Male 23 14
Female 14 20
Family Structure
2-parent 33 32
1-parent 4 2
Socioeconomic Status
Lower 3 1
Lower-middle 10 9
Middle 24 24
Race
Caucasian 34 27
Others 3 7

at Time 2 are presented in Table 1. Additional family demographic information at

Time 2 is reported elsewhere (Dyson, 1993), and participant features at Time 1
appeared earlier (Dyson, 1989). A distinct feature of the groups of families with
children who have disabilities was that the children with disabilities were all at-
tending early intervention or special kindergarten programs during the initial study
(Dyson, 1989).

Procedure
In the initial study, families who had children with disabilities were recruited
from community or university early childhood and kindergarten early intervention
programs located in two metropolitan cities in the Pacific Northwest region of
Canada and the United States. Families with nondisabled children were recruited
from nonspecialized, community preschools or kindergarten classes in the same
region. After families gave their verbal or informal written consent through their
respective programs, the investigator contacted them by telephone and explained
the study.
At the follow-up, the investigator contacted families by telephone and invited
them to participate in the second phase. Packets of child and parent questionnaires
were mailed to the 69 families who consented to participate in the follow-up study.
The packets also contained a letter reiterating the purpose of the study. The mailing
was necessitated by family needs, and reinforced by the reality that some families
had moved too far away to be interviewed in person. The principal investigator
and her assistant used the designated child and family assessment scales to interview
other families (n 5 10) in person.
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 259

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 259

Instruments
In addition to an updated demographic sheet for the family, participants and
their parents completed the same set of child and family measures as before. At
Time 1, most (87%) of the family scales were completed by the mother, 4% by the
father, and 9% by both parents together. At Time 2, both parents took part as
much as was feasible. To be consistent in parent participation over time, however,
only those responses where the same parent or parents completed the instruments
in both studies were selected for the present analysis. In families where both parents
took part in the initial study, the average score in family measures at Time 2 of
the two parents was used. As a result, 92% (65 sets) of the family questionnaires
and scales were completed by the mother, 3% (2 sets) by fathers alone, and 6%
(4 sets) by both parents. Instruments completed are as follows.

The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (The Way I Feel About Myself).
Completed by the nondisabled participants, the Children’s Self-Concept Scale
(Piers & Harris, 1984) is an 80-item scale recording children’s self-appraisal in
such psychological domains as behavior, intellectual and school status, physical
appearance and attributes, anxiety, popularity, and happiness and satisfaction. The
scale yields a total score that was used in the analysis, with a higher score indicating
a higher self-concept. With estimates of internal consistency of between .78 and
.93 (Cronbach alpha) and test–retest reliabilities of .71 to .77, the scale is considered
to have high psychometric quality (Epstein, 1985). The internal consistency for the
present sample was high (Cronbach alpha of .93).

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Parents rated the nondisabled chil-
dren on the CBCL (Achenbach, 1991). This 118-item scale evaluates the behavior
problems and social competence of children aged 4 to 18 years (Achenbach, 1991).
The scale consists of behavior problems and social competence scales. A total
behavior problems score is calculated, with a high score indicating more behavior
problems and a high social competence score indicating a higher degree of social
competence. The behavior problems scale includes two broad bands, internalizing
and externalizing, to distinguish two contrasting groups of behavior problems: over-
controlled and inhibited versus undercontrolled and antisocial. The CBCL is consid-
ered to have adequate reliability and validity (Freeman, 1985). High internal consis-
tency (Cronbach alpha of .91) was obtained with the present sample. The total
scale scores of the CBCL can be converted to t-scores, which were used in the
analysis along with the standard scores of the two broad bands.

The Family Support Scale. To measure the degree to which different sources
of support have been helpful to a family raising a young child, parents completed
the Family Support Scale (Dunst, Jenkins, & Trivette, 1984). This is an 18-item
self-report scale that has high degrees of internal consistency and test–retest reliabil-
ity (Dunst et al., 1984). The internal consistency with the present sample was .76
(Cronbach alpha). The total score was used in the data analysis.
The Questionnaire on Resources and Stress Short Form. The Questionnaire
on Resources and Stress Short Form (Friedrich, Greenberg, & Crnic, 1983), a short
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 260

260 DYSON

form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress (Holroyd, 1974), assesses the
impact of a family member with chronic illness or developmental handicaps on
other members. In the present study, the family member was the younger sibling
with disabilities. Respondents answer with “True” or “False” to items such as:
“Other members of the family have to do without things because of (child
with disabilities).” The scale has demonstrated reliability when used with families
who have children with handicaps (Friedrich et al., 1983; Friedrich, Wilturner, &
Cohen, 1985). Completed by the parents, the scale yields a total score that was
used in the analysis, a higher score indicating more stress. The internal consistency
with the present sample was high, with Cronbach alpha of .95.
The Family Environment Scale (FES)-Form R. To measure family function-
ing, parents completed the FES-Form R (Moos & Moos, 1981). This is a 90-item
true-or-false scale that measures the social and environmental characteristics of
a family. The FES consists of 10 scales sampling three underlying domains: (1)
Relationship, assessing the degree of cohesion, conflict, and freedom for expression
in the family; (2) Personal Growth, measuring the degree of family emphasis on
personal growth and development in cultural and recreational activities; and (3)
System Maintenance, estimating the extent to which organization and rules are
applied to operate family life. Internal consistencies for the 10 subscales range from
.61 to .78, and test–retest reliabilities range from .68 to .86, which are within the
acceptable range (Moos & Moos, 1981). The domain scores were used in the data
analysis.

RESULTS
Data were analyzed with SPSS-X (Version 4.1), 3rd Edition (SPSS Inc., 1988).
Measures for the participants (children who have a younger sibling with or without
a disability) consisted of self-concept, behavior problems, and social competence.
Family psychological measures included parental stress, family social support, and
domains of the Family Environment Scale, which are Relationship, Personal
Growth, and System Maintenance. The first analysis examined whether participants
who took part in the follow-up were representative of the initial sample. Multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on the Time 1 subject measures
of those who were and those who were not located for the Time 2 study. No
between-group difference was found in self-concept, behavior problems, and social
competence (F(3,106) 5 .98, p . .40). To ensure that fathers and mothers would
have responded similarly to justify the present use of both fathers and mothers as
informants for family measures, t-tests were performed on the scores for parental
stress, family social support, and dimensions of family functioning. The results
showed no differences between fathers and mothers in any of the family measures
(p . .11).

Differences in Psychosocial Functioning Between Group and Time

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and ranges)
for self-concept, behavior problems, and social competence for each group of chil-
dren at each period of the study.
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 261

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 261

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics (Mean [M], Standard

Deviation [SD], and Range) for Self-Concept, Social
Competence, and Behavior Problems, by Group and Time

Time 1 Time 2
Measure M SD Range M SD Range
Self-Concept
Disableda 65.4 8.1 43–78 62.5 14.2 21–80
Nondisabledb 66.0 9.7 35–79 63.9 10.0 27–75
Social Competencec
Disabled 51.2 10.1 24–69 46.8 7.2 32–65
Nondisabled 53.4 8.7 37–69 52.0 9.7 32–70
Behavior Problems
Disabled 48.3 8.7 30–69 48.7 9.5 23–70
Nondisabled 50.3 9.4 34–74 50.1 10.2 34–77
a
Note: Group with disabled siblings. b Group with nondisabled siblings. c In
t-score. n 5 37 for group with disabled siblings; n 5 34 for group with
nondisabled siblings.

To examine whether self-concept, behavior problems, and social competence

differed with group, time, and participant gender, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with repeated measures was performed with each dependent variable, using a 2
(group) 3 2 (time) 3 2 (participant gender) design with time as the repeated factor.
Although the gender of the participants was not the present interest, it was included
in the analysis because it may affect participants’ functioning as reviewed earlier.
The result showed that on the self-concept score, there was no significant interaction
effect of time, group, and participant gender, nor main effect of time, group, or
participant gender (p . .20 for all). On the behavior problems measure, the interac-
tion effect of time, group, and participant gender was short of statistical significance
(p . .06), and the main effect of group, time, or participant gender was not significant
(p . .40 for all). To examine behavior problems more thoroughly, MANOVA
repeated measures was applied to the two broad bands, Internal and External, of
the Behavior Problems Scale of the CBCL. The design was 2 (group) 3 2 (time)
3 2 (participant gender). No significant multivariate effect was found for interaction
(p . .33 for all) or main effect (p . .11 for all) on Internal and External. ANOVA
repeated measures of the social competence scores showed neither interaction effect
of group, time, and participant gender nor the main effect of group or participant
gender (p . .06 for all). However, a significant main effect of time (p , .05) was
found, indicating that both groups had a lower degree of social competence in Time
2 than in Time 1 (M 5 49.3 vs. M 5 52.2).
Within-group variability was present in all subject measures at each period and
in each group. As shown in Table 2, greater variability appeared in the group with
disabled siblings at Time 2 than at Time 1 in the self-concept scores (range 5 21–80,
SD 5 14.2 vs. range 5 43–78, SD 5 8.1). This was in part because the scores of
four participants decreased by more than 20 points from Time 1 to Time 2.
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 262

262 DYSON

Table 3. Correlations Between Time 1 and Time 2 for Self-Concept, Behavior Problems,
and Social Competence by Group

Group With Disabled Siblings Group With Nondisabled Siblings

(n 5 37) (n 5 34)
Self-Concept .41* .06
Behavior Problems .44** .54**
Social Competence .54*** .56**

* p , .05. ** p , .01. *** p , .001.

Stability Over Time in Psychosocial Functioning

Stability in the participants’ psychosocial functioning from Time 1 to Time 2
was further examined using Pearson correlation for each group. Table 3 shows
correlation between the two periods for the two groups. Differences in the correla-
tion between the groups were tested after using the Fisher Z-score transformations
(Howell, 1982). The result showed that the two groups did not differ significantly
in the magnitude of correlation from each other at any period (p . .05). However,
despite moderate degrees of correlation (r-values ranging from .41 to .54) between
periods in all subject measures for the group with disabled siblings, no significant
correlation existed between periods in self-concept for the group with nondisabled
siblings (r 5 .06). For both groups of participants, higher degrees of association
between periods appeared in social competence and behavior problems and lower
in self-concept.

Relationship Between Psychosocial Functioning and Family

Psychological Variables
The initial analyses examined the relationship between family psychological
measures and participants’ psychosocial functioning at each period separately for
each group. As correlation patterns between participant and family measures were
similar between the two groups, with and without disabled siblings, the groups were
amalgamated for each period to increase statistical power. Correlation matrix was
calculated, using the S-Plus program (Spector, 1994), on the participant and family
variables for the two periods: both within each period and cross-periods (Time 1
vs. Time 2). Two families were excluded from this analysis because of missing data
at Time 2 on the FES scale. As a result, 69 families were included for both periods.
The significance level of each correlation was subsequently determined based on
comparison to the critical levels of r0.05 5 .237 and r0.01 5 .308. The results are
presented in Table 4. Details of family measures that were not the focus of the
present analysis are reported elsewhere (Dyson, 1993).
The Fisher-Z transformations test was used to test for possible significant differ-
ences between the correlation obtained for each period on the participant–family
measure. There were no significant differences between periods (p . .05 for all).
Moreover, Table 4 shows similar correlation patterns between participant and family
measures and between periods although there were slight variations in the strength
 Table 4. Correlation Matrix for Family and Sibling Measures at Time 1 and Time 2 for All Siblings
(Group With and Without Disabled Siblings Together)

Time 1 (N 5 69) Time 2 (N 5 69)

a
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time 1
p91978$u15

1 QRS —
2 FSS 2.10 —
3 FESRE 2.30* .17 —
4 FESPG 2.10 .21 .34** —
5 FESSM 2.23 .11 .43** .27* —
6 Self 2.15 .05 .33** .20 .10 —
7 Beh .17 2.08 2.31** 2.11 2.28* 2.52*** —
8 SOCOMP 2.21 .23 .41*** .52** .28* .37** 2.25* —
Time 2
1 QRS-F .82** 2.00 2.11 2.01 2.08 2.13 .03 2.14 —
2 FSS 2.02 .57** .14 .33* .12 .08 2.17 .22 2.04 —
3 FESRE 2.37** .04 .35** .05 .37** .03 2.24* .15 2.37** .29* —
4 FESPG 2.13 .10 .13 .65** .31** .10 .00 .39** 2.17 .26* .22 —
08-11-99 17:51:42

5 FESSM 2.24* .01 .27* .06 .47** 2.18 2.04 .20 2.11 2.03 .50*** 218 —
6 Self 2.03 .13 2.07 .12 2.11 .13 2.11 .27* 2.12 .14 .18 .25* .19 —
7 Beh .18 2.27* 2.24* 2.08 2.28* 2.37** .62** 2.23 .04 2.26* 2.34* 2.06 2.13 2.40* —
8 SOCOMP 2.24* .16 .47** .32** .32** .32** 2.27* .55** 2.22 .24* .33** .36** .21 .30* 2.38** —
a
Note: QRS 5 Parental Stress; FSS 5 Family Support Scale; FESRE 5 Family Relationship; FESPG 5 Personal Growth; FESSM 5 System Maintenance; Self 5 Self-
THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
p. 263

Concept; Beh 5 Behaviour Problem; SOCOMP 5 Social Competence. * p , .05. ** p , .01. *** p , .001.
263
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 264

264 DYSON

of correlation. Participants’ self-concept and social competence were in general

negatively related to parental stress and positively related to positive family func-
tioning within each period and between periods; behavior problems were in general
positively related to parental stress but negatively to availability of family support
and positive family functioning. Between-periods variations occurred in the strength
of the relationship between certain participant measures and family variables. For
example, although the correlations between participants’ self-concept and family
variables were in the same direction for all periods, self-concept was more strongly
correlated, in the positive fashion, with Relationship at Time 1 but with Personal
Growth at Time 2. A similar pattern occurred in the relationships between behavior
problems and family measures between periods, with the number of behavior prob-
lems being consistently correlated negatively with Relationships at Time 1 and
Time 2 and, additionally, with System Maintenance at Time 1 and Family Social
Support at Time 2. The stable relationship was most apparent between social
competence and Relationship and Personal Growth, which were consistently corre-
lated in the positive direction at each period.
The cross-lagged relationships between sibling and family measures largely
followed the same direction as those within each period, although in a weaker
degree. The only exception was self-concept, which showed no significant relation-
ships with family measures across periods. In contrast, social competence was consis-
tently related to family measures across periods.

Post-Hoc Analysis of Within-Group Variability

Within-group variability in subject measures at each period and over time
suggest that although some participants functioned well in the measured psychoso-
cial domains, others did not. As greater variability appeared in self-concept, post-
hoc analyses were performed to explain possible sources of variability. Changed
scores in self-concept between Time 1 and Time 2 were computed separately for
each group of children. This was carried out by subtracting the Time 2 scores from
the Time 1 scores. Based on the change scores, participants were divided into two
subgroups: the Increasers for those with an increase and the Decreasers for those
with a decrease in the self-concept score. No participants maintained the same score
between the periods. In the group with disabled siblings, 17 (46%) showed an increase
in the self-concept score and 20 (54%) showed a decrease; in the group with nondis-
abled siblings, 13 (38%) showed an increase and 21 (62%) showed a decrease.
To examine the sources of changes in the siblings’ self-concept, a series of tests
(ANOVAs) was conducted to examine differences between the two subgroups, the
Increasers and the Decreasers, in such demographic variables as SES, family struc-
ture (one- or two-parent), and the gender of the participants (the older nondisabled
siblings). A t-test was also performed on the ages of the two subgroups. The
demographic variables were included because they are known to influence human
development, gender of the nondisabled sibling being particularly identified as a
potential factor influencing the nondisabled sibling’s development as reviewed ear-
lier. The results showed no significant differences in SES, family structure, or gender
of the younger or older siblings within each group (p . .09 for all) between the
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 265

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 265

Increasers and the Decreasers. Nor was a difference found on the age of the
participants (p . .98).
Subsequent analyses, using paired t-tests, examined if changes existed between
periods in the studied family psychological variables in the Increasers and the
Decreasers for each group of children. Table 5 presents the results with means
and standard deviation for self-concept at each period for the Increasers and the
Decreasers.
Overall, Increasers experienced either no change or an increase in positive
family factors, whereas Decreasers experienced a decline in the level of positive
family factors. For the group with disabled siblings, although no differences were
found between periods for the Increasers, the Decreasers showed a significant
increase in parental stress (Questionnaire on Resources and Stress Short Form)
and a reduction in family cohesiveness and nurturing (Relationship). For the group
with nondisabled siblings, significant differences were found on certain family mea-
sures for both the Increasers and the Decreasers. For the Increasers, there was an
increase in family cohesiveness and nurturing (Relationship) and family’s organiza-
tion (System Maintenance). In contrast, the Decreasers showed reduced family
organization (System Maintenance) and family social support.

Post-Hoc Analysis Using Only Mothers as Raters

Because of the present sampling characteristics, which included mothers, fa-
thers, and father and mother pairs, a post-hoc analysis was conducted to determine
if a homogenous group of raters such as mothers alone would have produced
different results. For the analysis, families with mothers alone as raters (n 5 65) were
entered into the analysis. A series of ANOVA repeated measures was respectively
performed on self-concept, behavior problems, and social competence, using a 2
(group) 3 2 (time) design with time as the repeated factor. As with the results
from the initial analyses using the mixture of mothers, fathers, and father and
mother pairs as raters, the results showed no significant interaction effect of group
and time for all measures (p . .80 for self-concept; p . .10 for social competence;
p . .80 for behavior problems).

DISCUSSION
The present study examined the state, changes over time, and family psychological
correlates of self-concept, behavior adjustment, and social competence in children
who have siblings with disabilities. The results fail to reject the hypothesis that with
social advantages and the support of early intervention for the family, children who
have siblings with disabilities as a group do not differ from children who have
nondisabled siblings in the level of self-concept, behavior adjustment, and social
competence contemporaneously and over time. The results also show that as a
group, self-concept and behaviour adjustment remained constant in children who
have siblings with disabilities in a manner similar to children who do not have
disabled siblings. However, both groups of children were rated by their parents to
have less social competence over time. These findings support cross-sectional studies
 266

Table 5. t-Tests of Changes over Time in Family Psychological Measures for the Increasers and the Decreasers in Self-Concept by
Disability Group

Group With Disabilities Group Without Disabilities

p91978$u15

Increasers (n 5 17) Decreasers (n 5 20) Increasers (n 5 13) Decreasers (n 5 21)

Measure Time M SD t M SD t M SD t M SD t
Self-Concept 1 62.8 6.1 8.5**** 67.6 8.9 4.6**** 57.9 8.7 4.0** 71.0 6.4 4.6****
2 70.5 6.1 55.7 15.7 68.1 4.0 61.2 11.7
QRS-F 1 15.0 8.3 .64 16.0 10.9 2.3* 4.4 4.7 1.2 2.9 4.3 0
2 14.3 8.5 20.7 12.5 3.7 5.5 2.9 2.9 2.9
DYSON

FES-Rea 1 8.8 4.5 .75 11.9 4.3 3.0** 8.9 2.5 11.7 3.5 1.5
2 10.0 4.5 8.8 5.9 11.0 2.9 3.4*** 10.4 3.3
FES-PGb 1 27.8 5.7 .10 8.5 4.9 .96 26.7 6.0 1.5 28.0 4.3 .26
2 27.9 3.7 27.7 5.5 28.8 5.4 27.8 4.6
FES-SMc 1 .35 2.2 .32 1.0 3.0 1.35 .1 3.5 2.5* 1.7 2.0 2.0*
2 .53 2.2 .1 3.3 1.3 1.8 2.5 .38 2.8
08-11-99 17:51:42

FSS 1 31.8 12.5 1.7 25.9 9.8 1.3 26.9 8.2 .4 28.5 7.1 3.5**
2 27.6 10.1 23.5 8.9 25.8 8.8 22.4 7.5
a
Note: FES-Re, FES-Relationship. b FES-PG, FES-Personal Growth. c FES-SM, FES-System Maintenance. * p , .05. ** p , .01. *** p , .001. **** p , .0001.
p. 266
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 267

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 267

that found no significant differences between children who have siblings with disabil-
ities and children who have siblings without disabilities in self-concept (Dyson,
1996; Dyson & Fewell, 1989; Ferrari, 1984; Gayton et al., 1977), behavior problems
(Ferrari, 1984), and social competence (Ferrari, 1984). The results, however, contradict
Gath and Gumley’s (1984) longitudinal data, which show a greater number of children
who have siblings with disabilities developing behaviour problems over time.
The consistency and discrepancy between the present results and others may
be attributed to sample characteristics. This study shared with the studies by Dyson
and Fewell (1989), Ferrari (1984), and Gayton et al. (1977) the inclusion of middle
SES families. The study differed from Gath and Gumley’s (1984) study where about
half of the families lived in “council housing,” indicating lower socioeconomic
background. Social and economic advantages, reinforced by early intervention pro-
grams for the families, may have contributed to the positive psychosocial functioning
of the children presently observed. Other contributing factors may include the
benefits of living with a sibling with disabilities (Grossman, 1972) and the supportive
sibling relationships generated by family adversities (Dunn, Slomkowski, & Beard-
sall, 1994). Although the decline in social competence in both groups of siblings
may represent a regression to the means, it may also reflect the developmental
trend as children enter adolescence. Participants at this stage of development may be
less involved with household chores, children’s organizations, and group activities,
leading their parents to rate them to have less social competence.
The psychosocial functioning of all participants, with or without a sibling who
has disabilities, showed a moderate degree of stability over time. Most showed
greater stability in behavior adjustment and social competence and less stability in
self-concept. This finding is partly congruent with the observation of the continuity
of child development (e.g., Cummings, Iannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1989; DuBois,
Felner, Brand, Adam, & Evans, 1992). Of interest, children who have siblings with
disabilities as a group displayed greater stability in self-concept than children with
nondisabled siblings. This result preliminarily supports the assumption that living
with a brother or sister with disabilities may generate an environment that is more
stable than ordinary in maintaining self-concept.
As hypothesized, psychosocial functioning of all participants, regardless of their
siblings’ abilities, was related to family psychological factors. The relationship was
relatively stable over a 4-year period. The largely similar pattern of the relationship
between participant psychosocial functioning measures and family psychological
variables transcended all periods: within each period and across periods. Variations
occurred only in the strength of the association between the participant and family
measures at different periods. Family psychological factors such as parental stress,
family social support, and aspects of family functioning (family relationships, fami-
ly’s emphasis on personal growth, and the degree of family organization) were
differentially related to participant psychosocial functioning at each period and
between periods, although in varying strengths. Positive family relationships and
family’s emphasis on personal growth, in particular, were consistently linked to
positive participant psychosocial functioning. The present results thus concur with
other findings (Brody, Stoneman, & Burke, 1987) and the theoretical proposition
that family patterns and processes influence development in children who have
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:42 p. 268

268 DYSON

siblings with disabilities (Brody & Stoneman, 1993). However, the study also indi-
cates that different family psychological factors may be more pertinent for different
aspects of children’s psychosocial functioning at different periods. The relationships
between participants’ psychosocial functioning and family psychological resources
appear to be strongest during Time 2.
Of further significance, children did not react uniformly over time in psychoso-
cial functioning in the presence or absence of a sibling’s disability. Although as a
group, children who have siblings with disabilities did not differ from others with
nondisabled siblings in general psychosocial functioning, individual participants
underwent changes over time, some showing increase and others showing decrease
in the level of self-concept. This observation was not restricted to those with disabled
siblings. Most striking are the corresponding changes between children’s self-con-
cept and family psychological resources. Among all participants, with or without a
sibling with disabilities, self-concept in general improved over time in those with no
negative changes or those with favorable changes in family psychological processes
involving parental stress, family organization, and family relationship. Conversely,
self-concept declined over time in children who were exposed to greater parental
stress and lesser degrees of positive family relationships, family system maintenance,
and family social support.
The present study used a stringent experimental design including such compo-
nents as matched samples of families of children with and without disabilities,
control over socioeconomic disadvantages, and the participation of both children
and parents as informants for participant development. Thus, with longitudinal data
and consistent findings within-period and between-periods, the results question the
common assumption that the presence of a sibling with disabilities at home would
impair a child’s self-concept, behavior adjustment, and social competence. The results
support a theoretical proposition that although children are faced with possible psycho-
logical risks when they have a sibling with disabilities, with socioeconomic advantages
and early intervention for the family, their development in self-concept, behavior
adjustment, and social competence proceeds along the normal developmental course
largely with no negative effects. It appears that a child’s psychosocial functioning is
not influenced as much by a sibling’s disability as by the family’s psychological pro-
cesses such as parents’ emotional adjustment, availability of social support to the
family, family relationships, and the family’s emphasis on personal growth. In fact,
negative family psychological processes may disrupt continuity in children’s psychoso-
cial functioning regardless of whether a sibling is disabled or not.
The inclusion of a number of disabilities in the present study may be viewed
as a weakness in the study design, which would have warranted a further analysis
of the effect of type of disabilities. Such an analysis could not be meaningfully
performed because of the relatively small sample size. Other researchers, however,
have found that diagnosis categories of children did not distinguish family psycholog-
ical adjustment (Stein & Jessop, 1989). Nonetheless, the effect of the type of disabil-
ity should be examined in future studies with a larger sample.
The present results set the stage for further replication with other longitudinal
data and the identification of individual variations. A larger sample would also
permit validation of currently identified family psychological correlates of sibling
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:43 p. 269

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 269

psychosocial functioning, leading to the study of other social and psychological

correlates. One such factor may be the strategy used by siblings for coping with
daily stresses of living with a child with disabilities (Gamble & McHale, 1989). Such
a strategy may be identified through the study of sibling interaction.
Clinically, individualized intervention is advisable for children who experience
psychosocial difficulties because of a sibling’s disability. One useful approach is to
improve family psychological resources such as parental emotional adjustment,
family social support, and family relationships and functioning. Of greater import
is to prevent the potentially adverse effect of a sibling’s disability on the child by
providing early support and compensation in family resources for social disadvan-
tages. These measures must be taken not only contemporaneously but also over time.

Acknowledgments: This study was funded by the Washington Association for

Retarded Citizens Research Trust Fund, the University of Victoria, and a general
grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. The author thanks
the families who kindly participated in this study. Appreciation is extended to Dr.
Roger Davidson, Department of Mathematics, University of Victoria, for assistance
in the calculation of the correlation matrix.

REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington:
University of Vermont.
Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental Psychology, 15, 601–607.
Breslau, N. (1982). Siblings of disabled children: Birth order and age-spacing effects. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 10, 85–96.
Breslau, N., Weitzman, M., & Messenger, K. (1981). Psychologic functioning of siblings of disabled
children. Pediatrics, 67, 344–353.
Brody, G. H., & Stoneman, Z. (1993). Parameters for inclusion in studies on siblings relationships: Some
heuristic suggestions. In Z. Stoneman, & P. W. Berman (Eds.), The effects of mental retardation,
disability, and illness on sibling relationships: Research issues and challenges (pp. 275–286). Balti-
more: Paul H. Brookes.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Burke, M. (1987). Family system and individual child correlates of sibling
behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 56l–569.
Cleveland, D. S., & Miller, N. B. (1977). Attitudes and life commitments of older siblings of mentally
retarded adults: An exploratory study. Mental Retardation, 15, 38–41.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300–313.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: N. H. Freeman.
Crnic, K., Friedrich, W. N., & Greenberg, M. T. (1983). Adaptation of families with mentally retarded
children: A model of stress, coping, and family ecology. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
88, 125–138.
Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1989). Aggression between peers in early childhood:
Individual continuity and developmental change. Child Development, 60, 887–895.
Daniels, D., Moos, R. H., Billings, A. G., & Miller III, J. J. (1987). Psychological risk and resistance
factors among children with chronic illness, healthy siblings, and healthy controls. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 295–308.
DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Adam, A. M., & Evans, E. G. (1992). A prospective study of
life stress, social support, and adaptation in early adolescence. Child Development, 63, 542–557.
Dunn, J. (1988). Sibling influences on childhood development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, 29, 119–127.
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:43 p. 270

270 DYSON

Dunn, J., Slomkowski, C., & Beardsall, L. (1994). Sibling relationships from the preschool period through
childhood and early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 315–324.
Dunst, C. J., Jenkins, V., & Trivette, C. M. (1984). Family support scale: Reliability and validity. Journal
of Individual, Family and Community Wellness, l, 45–52.
Dyson, L. (1989). Adjustment of siblings of handicapped children: A comparison. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 14, 215–229.
Dyson, L. (1993). Response to the presence of a child with handicaps—Parental stress and family
functioning over time. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 98, 207–218.
Dyson, L. (1996). Family experiences of learning disabilities: Parents, family and siblings. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 29, 280–286.
Dyson, L., Edgar, E., & Crnic, K. (1989). Psychological predictors of adjustment by siblings of develop-
mentally disabled children. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 94(3), 292–302.
Dyson, L., & Fewell, R. (1989). A comparison of the self-concept of siblings of handicapped children
and siblings of nonhandicapped children. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 230–238.
Epstein, J. H. (1985). Review of the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale (The Way I Feel About
Myself). In J. V. Mitchell, Jr., (Ed.), The ninth mental measurement yearbook (pp. 1167–1169).
Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, the University of Nebraska.
Farber, B. (1959). Effects of a severely retarded child on family integration. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 24(2, Serial No. 71).
Ferrari, M. (1984). Chronic illness: Psychosocial effects on siblings—I. Chronically ill boys. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 459–476.
Ferrari, M. (1987). The diabetic child and well sibling: Risks to the well child’s self-concept. Children’s
Health Care, 15, 141–147.
Fischer, J., & Roberts, S. C. (1983). The effect of the mentally retarded child on his siblings. Education,
103, 399–401.
Fowle, C. M. (1969). The effect of the severely mentally retarded child on his family. American Journal
of Mental Deficiency, 73, 468–473.
Freeman, B. J. (1985). Review of Child Behavior Checklist. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental
measurements yearbook (pp. 300–301). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements,
University of Nebraska.
Friedrich, W. N., Greenberg, M. T., & Crnic, K. A. (1983). A short-form of the Questionnaire on
Resources and Stress. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 41–48.
Friedrich, W. N., Wilturner, L. T., & Cohen, D. S. (1985). Coping resources and parenting mentally
retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 130–139.
Gamble, W. C., & McHale, S. M. (1989). Stress and coping strategies of children with disabled and
non-disabled siblings. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 353–373.
Gath, A. (1972). The mental health of siblings of congenitally abnormal children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 13, 211–218.
Gath, A. (1973). The school aged siblings of Mongol children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 123, 161–167.
Gath, A. (1974). Sibling reactions to mental handicap: A comparison of the brothers and sisters of
Mongol children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 15, 187–198.
Gath, A., & Gumley, D. (1984). Down Syndrome and family: Follow-up of children first seen in infancy.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 26, 500–508.
Gath, A., & Gumley, D. (1987). Retarded children and their siblings. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 28, 715–730.
Gayton, W. F., Friedman, S. B., Tavormina, J. F., & Tucker, P. (1977). Children with cystic fibrosis: I.
Psychological test finding of patients, siblings and parents. Pediatrics, 59, 888–894.
Grossman, F. K. (1972). Brothers and sisters of retarded children: An exploratory study. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press.
Harvey, D. H., & Greenway, A. P. (1984). The self-concept of physically handicapped children and
their nonhandicapped siblings: An empirical investigation. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 25, 273–284.
Hollingshead, A. A. (1975). Four-factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University,
New Haven, CT.
Holroyd, J. (1974). The Questionnaire on Resources and Stress: An instrument to measure family
response to a handicapped family member. Journal of Community Psychology, 2, 92–94.
 p91978$$15 08-11-99 17:51:43 p. 271

THE PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTIONING OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 271

Howell, D. C. (1982). Statistical methods for psychology. Boston: Duxbury Press.

Kaplan, F. (1969). Siblings of the retarded. In S. B. Sarason & J. Doris (Eds.), Psychological problems
in mental deficiency (4th ed., pp. 186–208). New York: Harper & Row.
Kazak, A. E., & Clark, M. W. (1986). Stress in families of children with myelomeningocele. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 28, 220–228.
Lavigne, J., & Ryan, M. (1979). Psychologic adjustment of siblings of children with chronic illness.
Pediatrics, 63, 616–626.
Lobato, D., Barbour, L., Hall, L. J., & Miller, C. T. (1987). Psychosocial characteristics of preschool
siblings of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
15, 329–338.
McAndrew, I. (1976). Children with a handicap and their families. Child Care: Health and Development,
2, 213–227.
McHale, S., & Gamble, W. (1989). Sibling relationships of children with disabled and non-disabled
brothers and sisters. Developmental Psychology, 25, 421–429.
McKeever, P. (1983). Siblings of chronically ill children. A literature review with implications for research
and practice. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 209–218.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. (1981). Family Environment Scale. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychology Press.
Piers, E. V., & Harris, D. B. (1984). The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale (The Way I Feel
About Myself). Los Angeles, California: Western Psychological Services.
Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping and development: Some issues and some questions. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 323–356.
Santrock, J. W. (1993). Adolescence: An introduction. Madison, WI: WCB Brown & Benchmark.
Sieman, M. (1984). Siblings of the chronically ill or disabled child. Nursing Clinics of North America,
19, 295–307.
Silber, S. (1988). Family influences on early development. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
8, 1–23.
Spector, P. (1994). An introduction to S and S-Plus. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSS-X user’s guide, 3rd ed.. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Stein, R. E. K., & Jessop, D. J. (1989). What diagnosis does not tell: The case for a noncategorical
approach to chronic illness in childhood. Social Science and Medicine, 29, 769–778.
Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., Davis, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1987). Mentally retarded children and
their older same-sex siblings: Naturalistic in-home observations. American Journal of Mental
Retardation, 92. 290–298.
Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., Davis, C. H., & Crapps, J. M (1988). Childcare responsibilities, peer
relations, and sibling conflict: Older siblings of mentally retarded children. American Journal of
Mental Retardation, 93, 174–183.
Tew, B., & Laurence, K. M. (1973). Mothers, brothers, and sisters of patients with spina bifida. Develop-
mental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15(6, suppl. 29), 69–76.
Trevino, F. (1979). Siblings of handicapped children: Identifying those at risk. Social Casework, 60, 488–493.
Wilson, J., Blacher, J., & Baker, B. L. (1989). Siblings of children with severe handicaps. Mental
Retardation, 27, 167–173.