Gregory J. Dunkley and Dr. Susanne F. Olsen, Marriage, Family and Human Development
Research is an essential key to identifying the best way to help children cope with the various problems that arise due to having a sibling with a disability. This study addressed two research questions to further this research. First, what are the similarities and differences in coping styles of children who have siblings with differing disabilities? Second, what themes emerge from sibling responses that help us understand how their perspective compares to children that have siblings with different disabilities?
The data set was compiled by Susanne Olsen, Elaine Marshall, Barbara Mandleco, and Tina Dyches. The participants included 41 siblings in 22 families with one or more children with special needs. Of these 41 siblings, 25 were males and 16 were females. The ages of the participants ranged from 5 to 17 years old. The mean age was 10.25 years and the median age was 10 years.
Families were recruited from early intervention programs in three school districts in Utah. Trained researchers visited the homes of the families and interviewed the sibling of the child with special needs. Each child was asked about his interactions with his sibling with a disability. The measure used by the researchers was called AThe Sibling Interview Guide@ and is an adaptation of a measure used in previous research with siblings of children with disabilities.
The data included 41 interviews. The interviews were audio taped and then transcribed verbatim I identified several categories and themes through my analysis of the interviews.
I separated the children into three categories according to the disability of their sibling. The first category included physical disabilities, such as Cerebral Palsy and Spina Bifida. The second category included behavioral disabilities, such as Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. The final category contained siblings of children with down syndrome.
When the answers of the children in the three categories were compared, five different themes emerged that showed the children=s interactions with their siblings with special needs. The first theme dealt with the child=s knowledge about their sibling=s disability. I found that the child was usually more informed about the disability if it was more recognizable. For example, a child could usually tell more about his or her sibling who had physical problems than a child whose sibling had a disability such as autism where the sibling=s physical characteristics were normal.
Next, I found an overwhelming similarity between all three categories of children in that all three groups enjoyed teaching their siblings with disabilities intellectually stimulating skills. For example, some of the children enjoyed teaching their siblings sign language, how to read, or how to solve a homework problem.
Three sub-themes emerged when I looked at how the different siblings became frustrated with their sibling with special needs. First, children from all three categories showed frustration when their siblings with disabilities performed annoying acts, such as asking too many questions or touching certain things that don=t belong to the child with special needs. Second, the children from the Down’s syndrome category didn=t show frustration because of physical aggression by the sibling with special needs, but the children in the physical and behavioral categories did. Third, the children with a sibling with a physical disability showed frustration with selfishness while children in the other two categories did not.
The fourth theme showed that an overwhelming number of children in all three categories claimed that they didn’t get upset when their parents had to spend more time with the sibling with the disability. For example, one child thought that their sibling with a disability needed more attention from the parents so they could develop more skills.
The last theme showed that all the siblings in the Down’s syndrome category chose to spend time with the child with special needs for one reason or another. Some of the siblings from the physical and behavioral categories didn’t care to spend time with the child with the disability.
From the themes mentioned above, I constructed a number of conclusions that could be used by practitioners in designing programs to meet the diversified needs of children who have siblings with disabilities. First, it may be harder for parents to explain or for children to understand a disability that is less physically recognizable. Second, different types of acts frustrate the siblings of children with different disabilities. Next, many children understand that their parents need to spend more time with a sibling with a disability. Fourth, Down’s syndrome children may be slightly easier to play with than children with physical or behavioral disabilities. The last conclusion is that many children enjoy helping their siblings with disabilities learn and grow intellectually.
Because this is qualitative research, the conclusions I made were generalizable to the population. These conclusions open up many new questions that can be dealt with in a quantitative manner. The conclusions can also help parents everywhere distinguish different ways they can help their children as they interact with their siblings with disabilities.