Focus On the Positive: Adolescents with ASD and Their Impact On the Family

Background: Raising a child with any disability significantly affects families. Parents of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), in particular, can experience negative effects, including more stress and depressive symptoms (Abbeduto et al., 2004; Blacher & McIntyre 2006; Eisenhower et al., 2005). Less attention has been paid to examining positive family experiences (e.g., family closeness). Blacher and Baker (2007) found that parents reported the same level of positive impact, regardless of whether their child was typically developing or had developmental delay.  A focus on the positive during the transition period of adolescence will help to better understand family processes.

Objectives: This study will examine both the positive and negative impact of adolescents on their families, comparing families of adolescents with ASD, intellectual disability (ID), and typical development (TD). Family impact will be considered in the context of the adolescent’s social skills and behavior problems.

Methods:  Participants in this study were assessed as part of a longitudinal study of child and adolescent development; all youth in the three groups were age 13: TD (n=81; Mean IQ=110), ID (n=23; MIQ=59), ASD (n=24; MIQ=98). Groups did not differ on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic variables. The projected final sample size for ASD is 40. Positive and negative impacts were measured using mother report on the Family Impact Questionnaire (FIQ; Donenberg & Baker, 1993). Social skills were measured using mother report on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990) and behavior problems on the Child Behavior Checklist 6-18 (CBCL; Achenbach, 2000).

Results: Preliminary results indicate group differences in both positive (p = .015) and negative (p < .001) impact of the adolescent on the family. Tukey post-hoc analyses revealed that the adolescents with TD had a more positive impact on their families  (M=15.8, SD=5.2) than adolescents with ASD (M=12.2, SD=5.8). Positive impact in the ID group (M=13.9, SD=5.7) was not significantly different from either group. Adolescents with ASD (M=23.5, SD=15.7) and ID (M=22.3, SD=13.8) had a more negative impact on their families than the adolescents with TD (M=9.6, SD=8.2). Results also revealed group differences in social skills (p <.001) and behavior problems (p <.001); adolescents in the ID and ASD groups exhibited poorer social skills and more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems than the TD group. Based on these findings, additional analyses will determine if these variables can account for the group differences in positive and negative family impact.

Conclusions: These results show that while families of adolescents with ASD and ID both exhibit increased negative impact, only families of adolescents with ASD exhibit reduced positive impact. Given previous research suggesting that perceived positive impact can buffer the relationship between child behavior problems and parenting stress (Blacher & Baker, 2007), this finding can help explain the increased difficulties experienced by families raising children with ASD, and pointedly suggests areas for intervening with parent expectations.