A comparison of coping strategies used by parents ofchildren with disabilities and parents of children withoutdisabilities

Angela Paster, David Brandwein *, Joanne Walsh

Kean University, 1000 Morris Ave., Union, NJ 07083, United States

Previously researchers have reported higher levels of stress among families of children withdisabilities than among comparison groups of families of typically developing children (Bailey & Smith,2000; Kazak & Marvin, 1984). According to the 2000 United States Census (United States Census Bureau,2000), approximately 2,840,735 American children between the ages of 5–17 years have a disability. Theparents of these children face the difficulty of balancing normal parental tasks with treatment programs,additional physical duties, and needing to adjust emotionally to their child not living up to theirexpectations. Difficulties encountered by parents coping with a child with a disability have been cited asa source of anxiety, overprotection, rigidity, and a greater emphasis on control within the family(Lardieri, Blacher, & Swanson, 2000). Parents may experience loss of friendships, feelings of isolation,anger, resentment, shock, and sadness. These feelings may lead to anxiety, tension, and stress.

Research in Developmental Disabilities 30 (2009) 1337–1342

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 5 January 2009

Received in revised form 26 May 2009

Accepted 27 May 2009

Keywords:

Coping strategies

Parents of children with disabilities

A B S T R A C T

The purpose of this study was to determine whether coping

strategies differ in parents of children with disabilities and parents

of children without disabilities. Participants consisted of 112

parents, including 50 parents of children with disabilities and 62

parents of children without disabilities. It was hypothesized that

coping strategies would be different between the two parent

groups. It was also hypothesized that parents of children with

disabilities would Seek Social Support and utilize Planful Problem

Solving more often than parents of children without disabilities.

Coping strategies employed were significantly different between

the groups. Seeking Social Support was a more commonly used

method of coping among parents of children with disabilities, as

was Escape Avoidance and Positive Reappraisal.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: dbrandwe@kean.edu (D. Brandwein).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities

0891-4222/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2009.05.010

Although living with a child in the family who has a disability can be challenging, if the parents areequipped with proper coping techniques, these challenges are not impossible to overcome. Lazarusand Folkman (1984) defined coping as ‘‘the cognitive and behavioral efforts used to manage a stressfulsituation and to manage the negative emotions that result from the stressful situation.’’ Coping refersto what people do to manage stressful events or situations in their lives. It includes any attempt oreffort to manage stress, regardless of how well it works. The literature shows that financial status,marital status (McAnaney, 1989), and gender (Jacobs, 1996; Kwai-Sang & Li-Tsang, 1999; Lewis-Abney, 1993) each play a role in the way parents cope with their child.

The experience of having a child with a disability may strengthen families once they are equippedwith appropriate coping strategies to assist them through difficult situations (Summers, Behr, &Turnbull, 1989). Parents of children with disabilities identified their children as reasons forstrengthened family ties, strengthened religious faith, and an expanded social network. Other sourcesof family strength included greater pride and sense of accomplishment, greater knowledge aboutdisabilities, less likelihood to take things for granted, and greater tolerance, sensitivity, and patience.They experienced increased personal growth, assumed more personal control, and tried to live lifemore slowly (Turnbull, Behr, & Tollefson, 1986). Abbott and Meredith (1986) indicated that whenfamilies have ample coping strategies, it provides for a stronger, more functional family unit.

The purpose of the present study is to compare and contrast coping strategies used by parents ofchildren with disabilities and parents of children without disabilities. It is hypothesized that copingstrategies will be different between the two groups of parents; particularly, parents of children withdisabilities will utilize Seeking Social Support and Planful Problem Solving, two strategies from theWays of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) more often than parents of children withoutdisabilities. Once professionals identify the most commonly used and effective coping strategies, theycan provide parent training, help create support networks and teach families strategies andtechniques, which may have a positive outcome on the entire family unit.

1. Methods

1.1. Participants

Participants in this research project included parents/guardians of children between the ages of 6and 18 from one area of suburban New Jersey. The sample included 50 parents/guardians of childrenwith disabilities and 62 parents/guardians of children without disabilities. Children of these parents/guardians were not physically involved in any aspect of data collection.

The primary information gathered through the demographic questionnaire included the status of thechild (with a disability or without) and the child’s age. Additional information collected through thedemographic questionnaire included the gender, age, marital status, ethnicity, education, and householdincome of the parent completing the questionnaire, as seen in Table 1. The data showed that the samplepopulation was comprised of 32 male and 80 female parents. Thirty point four percent of participantswere 31–40 years old, 43.8% were 41–50 years old, 24.1% were 51–60 years old, and 1.8% were 61 yearsand older. Education levels of parents/guardians fell into the following categories: 5.4% had a high schooldiploma, 9.8% completed some college (no degree), 6.3% received an Associate or technical degree, 45.5%held a Bachelor’s degree, and 33% had a graduate or professional degree. The majority of participantswere married (86.6%), while 8% were divorced, 2.7% were single parents, and 1.8% were widowed. Theethnicity of participants varied with 87.5% Caucasian/White, 5.4% Hispanic parents, 4.5% AfricanAmerican, and 2.7% Asian/Pacific Islander. Most participants described their household income as$150,000 or more (39.3%), while 0.9% described their household income as less than $24,999, 6.3% as$25,000–49,999, 24.1% as $50,000–99,999, 19.6% as $100,000–124,999, and 9.8% as $125,000–149,999.

1.2. Instruments

Parental coping strategies were measured with the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WOCQ)(Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). The questionnaire consists of 66 items measuring a range of ideas andactions used in managing stressful situations or events. Participants indicated on a 4-point Likert type

A. Paster et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 30 (2009) 1337–13421338

scale (0 = Does not apply or not used, 1 = Used somewhat, 2 = Used quite a bit, 3 = Used a great deal)the extent to which they used a given coping strategy when dealing with a recent difficult situation.This study asked parents to report on a recent difficult situation that involved their child withdisabilities or their child without disabilities. The eight types of coping strategies identified in thisquestionnaire are Planful Problem Solving, Seeking Social Support, Confrontive Coping, Distancing,Self-control, Escape Avoidance, Accepting Responsibility, and Positive Reappraisal.

The Planful Problem Solving subscale consists of questions about deliberate problem focusedefforts to change the situation and use an analytic approach to problem solving. The Seeking SocialSupport subscale looks at seeking informational, tangible, and emotional support. The ConfrontiveCoping subscale examines how parents assess aggressive efforts to alter situations, involving hostilityand risk taking. The Distancing subscale looks at the individuals’ cognitive efforts to detach andminimize significance of the situation. The Self-controlling subscale looks at how the individualcompleting the questionnaire regulates feelings and actions. The Escape Avoidance subscale focuseson wishful thinking and avoiding the problem. The Accepting Responsibility subscale asks parents toacknowledge his or her role in the problem and tries to put things right. The last subscale, PositiveReappraisal, determines whether the individual, when faced with a problem, can create a positivefeeling and focus on personal growth.

Table 1Demographic characteristics of sample (N = 112).

Characteristic F %

Child has a disability 50 44.6

Child does not have a disability 62 55.4

Gender

Male 32 28.6

Female 80 71.4

Age

31–40 34 30.4

41–50 49 43.8

51–60 27 24.1

61 and older 2 1.8

Education

High school diploma 6 5.4

Some college, no degree 11 9.8

Associate or technical degree 7 6.3

Bachelor’s degree 51 45.5

Graduate degree/professional 37 33

Relationship status

Single 3 2.7

Separated 1 .9

Married 97 86.6

Divorced 9 8

Widowed

Ethnicity

Asian/Pacific Islander 3 2.7

Caucasian/White 98 87.5

African American 5 4.5

Hispanic 6 5.4

Household income

Less than $24,999 1 .9

$25,000–49,999 7 6.3

$50,000–99,999 27 24.1

$100,000–124,999 22 19.6

$125,000–149,000 11 9.8

$150,000 or more 44 39.3

A. Paster et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 30 (2009) 1337–1342 1339

1.3. Procedure

Before recruiting participants, this research project was reviewed and approved by theInstitutional Review Board at Kean University in Union, New Jersey. Parents were then recruitedthrough a local school district. Written permission was received from the superintendent of thedistrict and two principals of schools in the same district. Two schools sponsored the events; howeverthe events were open to the entire district as well as to the general public, thus providing a mixed anddiversified sampling of parents. After acquiring permission to attend these events, the PrincipalInvestigator distributed and collected all materials. The collection of data took place at four differentevents. These activities included a presentation on social skills, an Awareness Expo that consisted ofmultiple workshops presented by the professional community, a presentation on bullying, and anopen house. The Principal Investigator was introduced at each of the events by the facilitator. Thepurpose of this study was briefly explained by the facilitator during each general information sessionand he/she then directed parents to the Principal Investigator. Permission was granted for a table to beset up where a packet of materials was distributed to parents and collected by the PrincipalInvestigator.

The packet of materials consisted of instructions, one demographic questionnaire, one Ways ofCoping Questionnaire, one consent form, and two privacy-guard envelopes. One envelope was used forthe consent form and one envelope was used for the two questionnaires to allow for confidentiality.Parents were given the option of completing the materials at the event or mailing the completed formsto the Principal Investigator. Parents who chose to return the questionnaire and consent form at theevent were directed to a centrally located collection box to deposit their sealed envelopes. Participantswho chose the later option were provided with two addressed, postage-paid, privacy-guard envelopesso that they could mail the questionnaires and consent form back to the Principal Investigator througha Kean University mailing address. The expected duration for questionnaire completion was 10–15 min.

Once participants completed the consent form and questionnaires, they received a debriefing formfrom the Principal Investigator. Individuals who handed in the materials during an event were given adebriefing form by the Principal Investigator. Those who asked to mail the materials back to thePrincipal Investigator were given a debriefing form when they received the addressed, postage-paid,privacy-guard envelopes. The debriefing form notified the parents of the intent of the research study,an explanation about risks and participation, and contact information for the Principal Investigatorand Faculty advisor if any participants had questions or concerns once the questionnaires werecompleted. The procedure remained consistent for all four events that the Principal Investigatorattended.

2. Results

It was hypothesized that coping strategies used would be different among the two groups ofparents. As seen in Table 2, there was a significant difference between overall coping strategies ofparents of children with disabilities (M = 10.118, SD = 2.9) and those of parents of children withoutdisabilities (M = 8.65, SD = 2.62, F(1,110) = 7.846, p = .006). It is important to note that there werestatistically significant differences for three of the eight coping strategies identified in the Ways ofCoping Questionnaire between the two groups of parents who were surveyed.

It was further hypothesized that Seeking Social Support would be a more popularly used methodfor parents of children with disabilities than it would be for parents of children without disabilities. Asseen in Table 3, the mean for the Seeking Social Support coping strategy for parents of children with

Table 2Coping strategy by disability status.

N X SD t Sig.

Parent of a child with a disability 50 10.118 2.905 2.801 p = .006

Parent of a child without a disability 62 8.653 2.623

A. Paster et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 30 (2009) 1337–13421340

disabilities (M = 1.57, SD = .776) was significantly higher than those of parents of children withoutdisabilities (M = 1.288, SD = .637, F(1,110) = 4.471, p = .037).

Although originally hypothesized that Planful Problem Solving would be a strategy more popularlyused by parents of children with disabilities, the difference for this strategy among the two groups wasnot significant. However, the mean for the parents of children with disabilities (M = 1.763, SD = .457)that use this strategy was slightly higher than the mean of parents of children without disabilities(M = 1.640, SD = .529) that use this strategy.

Although not hypothesized, it is interesting to note that there was a significant difference betweentwo other coping strategies among the two groups of parents. The mean for the Escape Avoidancestrategy for parents of children with disabilities (M = .933, SD = .672) was significantly higher thanthose of parents of children without disabilities (M = .518, SD = .454, F(1,110) = 15.055, p = .000). Themean for the Positive Reappraisal strategy for parents of children with disabilities (M = 1.409,SD = .664) was also found to be significantly higher than those of parents of children withoutdisabilities (M = 1.157, SD = .613), F(1,110) = 4.339, p = .040).

3. Discussion

The current study examined what coping strategies are used by parents of children with andwithout disabilities. Previous research has shown that parents of children with disabilities usedifferent coping strategies and they use them more often than parents of children without disabilitieswhen dealing with stressful situations involving their children (Summers et al., 1989).

This study confirmed that parents of children with disabilities utilize different coping strategiesthan parents of children without disabilities. It was hypothesized that there would be differences incoping strategies between the two sample groups because research has shown that parents of childrenwith disabilities have more stressors and varied situations in their life than parents of childrenwithout disabilities, as supported by Lessenberry and Rehfeldt (2004). Therefore, it is assumed thatboth groups would utilize different strategies to cope with the varying situations they encounter withtheir children. This study supported this hypothesis and found parents of children with disabilitiespreferred different coping strategies than parents of children without disabilities.

The current research also showed that although not statistically significant, each of the eightcoping strategies was used more often by parents of children with disabilities. This may suggest thatparents of children with disabilities more actively employ coping strategies.

According to Dunn, Burbine, Bowers, and Tantleff-Dunn (2001), parents of children withdisabilities reported less stress and fewer depression symptoms when they had access to socialsupport. The same study also reported that parents who created a predetermined plan of action whendealing with their child were able to cope with the situation more effectively. As hypothesized in thecurrent study, the strategies of Seeking Social Support and Planful Problem Solving were both found to

Table 3Analysis of individual coping strategies as per ways of coping questionnaire.

X SD F Sig.

Seeking Social Support

Parent of a child with a disability 1.570 .776 4.471 *

Parent of a child without disability 1.288 .637

Planful Problem Solving

Parent of a child with disability 1.763 .457 1.703

Parent of a child without disability 1.640 .529

Escape Avoidance

Parent of a child with disability .933 .672 15.055 *

Parent of a child without disability .518 .454

Positive Reappraisal

Parent of a child with disability 1.409 .664 4.339 *

Parent of a child without disability 1.157 .613

* Significance based on p value <.05.

A. Paster et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 30 (2009) 1337–1342 1341

be used more often by parents of children with disabilities, but only Seeking Social Support revealed asignificant difference. It is possible that Planful Problem Solving was not the most popularly chosenstrategy because it requires more time and effort to plan and carry out.

There were also two strategies (Escape Avoidance and Positive Reappraisal) that were nothypothesized as being more frequently chosen by parents of children with disabilities but were foundto have a significant difference. Escape Avoidance was not hypothesized as being a more commonlyused coping strategy because based on the research of Dunn et al. (2001), this emotion-focused style ofcoping was found to predict increased depression and isolation. Therefore, it was found to bebeneficial to discourage the use of this strategy, including hoping for miracles, having fantasies, usingfood or drugs, and avoiding others. Positive Reappraisal was not thought to be a strategy that would beused more frequently by parents of children with disabilities because it is more abstract thinking thanthe chosen strategy of Seeking Social Support that was hypothesized to be a more popular method.

Several limitations of the current study should be noted. One of them is the nature of the self-administered coping measure. Participants may not have answer honestly or they may haveaccidentally skipped questions since they were not being monitored. Also, parents of a child with adisability and a child without a disability it may have been difficult to distinguish coping strategiesused with one child from those used with the other.

Another noteworthy limitation is the study’s reliance on a voluntary Caucasian sample withunequal male and female participants from a single public school district. Additionally, the majority ofthe participants were married and reported a household annual income of $100,000 or more. Furtherresearch should sample a larger population that includes a more balanced group of males and females.The sample should also draw from more diverse ethnic backgrounds. Other factors that might beconsidered in further studies are the marital status and the socio-economical status of participants.Further research could compare coping strategies of parents with a child that has a disability and is anonly child to coping strategies of parents who have a child with a disability as well as other childrenwithout disabilities.

References

Abbott, D. A., & Meredith, W. H. (1986). Strengths of parents with retarded children. Family Relations, 35, 371–375.Bailey, A. B., & Smith, S. W. (2000). Providing effective coping strategies and supports for families with children with disabilities.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(3), 294–296.Dunn, M. E., Burbine, T., Bowers, C. A., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2001). Moderators of stress in parents of children with autism. Community

Mental Health Journal, 37, 39–52.Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Ways of coping questionnaire sampler set: Manual, test booklet, scoring key. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press Inc.Jacobs, E. (1996). Parenting the child with learning disabilities: The challenge of mothering and fathering. Learning Disabilities Journal,

6, 1–6.Kazak, A. E., & Marvin, R. S. (1984). Differences, difficulties, and adaptation: Stress and social networks in families with handicapped

children. National Council on Family Relations, 33, 67–77.Kwai-Sang, Y. M., & Li-Tsang, W. P. (1999). Adjustment and adaptation in parents of children with developmental disability in two-

parent families: A review of the characteristics and attributes. British Journal of Disabilities, 45, 38–51.Lardieri, L. A., Blacher, J., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Sibling relationships and parent stress in families of children with and without

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 23, 105–116.Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Lessenberry, B. M., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2004). Evaluating stress levels of parents of children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(2),

231–244.Lewis-Abney, K. (1993). Correlates of family functioning when a child has attention deficit disorder. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric

Nursing, 16(3), 175–190.McAnaney, K. (1989). Single parenting. The Exceptional Parent, 19, 28–32.Summers, J. A., Behr, S. K., & Turnbull, A. P. (1989). Positive adaptation and coping strengths of families who have children with

disabilities. Support for Caregiving Families, 27–40.Turnbull, A. P., Behr, S. K., & Tollefson, N. (1986, May). Positive contributions that persons with mental retardation make to their families.

Paper presented at American Association on Mental Deficiency, Denver, CO.U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Disability and American families: United States. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/

prod/2005pubs/censr-23.pdf.

A. Paster et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 30 (2009) 1337–13421342