Parental Coping Strategies and Strengths in Families of Young Children with Disabilities [608113]

Parental Coping Strategies and Strengths in Families of Young Children with Disabilities
Author(s): Sharon Lesar Judge
Source: Family Relations, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 263-268
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/584976 .
Accessed: 07/01/2015 17:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [anonimizat].
.
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Family Relations.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:33:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Parental Coping Strategies and Strengths
in Families of Young Children with Disabilities*
Sharon Lesar Judge**
This study investigated the relationship between parental perceptions of coping strategies and family strengths in families of
young children with disabilities. The 69 participants completed the Ways of Coping Questionnaire and the Family Hardiness
Index. Results indicated that the use of social supports was highly associated with family strengths. In contrast, wishful thinking,
self-blame, distancing, and self-control were negatively related to family strengths. Implications for practice are discussed.
P roponents of family-centered services for young children
with disabilities have advocated a strength-based approach
in promoting positive family functioning (Dunst, Trivette,
& Deal, 1988, 1994; Powell, Batsche, Ferro, Fox, & Dunlap,
1997; Weissbourd & Kagan, 1989). This approach assumes that
all families have strengths they can build on and that the family's
strengths, including the social networks and informal supports
already available to and within the family, should be the founda-
tion upon which new supports are designed or provided (Dunst
et al., 1994). One goal of family-centered early intervention is to
identify existing family strengths and capabilities so that inter-
ventions are built on things a particular family already does well.
By using family strengths as building blocks and tools, the fam-
ily becomes even stronger and more capable of supporting the
well-being of individual family members and the family unit
(Trivette, Dunst, Deal, Hamby, & Sexton, 1994). Since current
early intervention practices call for strength-based models of
family support, there is a pressing need for empirical evidence
about the relationship between parental coping and the family
system to guide professionals in their development of programs
and provision of services for families.
Families use a variety of coping strategies that may influence
family functioning. The work of Pearlin and Schooler (1978) and
Folkman and Lazarus (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Folkman &
Lazarus, 1985; Folkman & Lazarus, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) indicate that coping is a major factor in the relation be-
tween stressful events and adaptational outcomes. This body of
research is characterized by an interest in the different coping be-
haviors people employ in response to different life events. Family
coping strategies can potentially strengthen or maintain family
resources that serve to protect the family from the demands of
stressful encounters (McCubbin et al., 1980). The various types
of strengths that families possess reflect the way in which families
cope and grow (Dunst et al., 1988).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have defined coping as "con-
stantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific
external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or
exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 141). According to this
definition, coping includes any attempt or effort to manage stress,
regardless of how well it works. Coping strategies involve efforts
to alter the cause of the stress (problem-focused coping) and efforts
to regulate emotional responses to the stressors (emotion-focused
coping). For example, problem-focused forms of coping include
active problem-solving and seeking social support as well as ag-
gressive interpersonal efforts to alter the situation. In contrast,
emotion-focused forms of coping include detaching from the sit-
uation, controlling one's feelings, wishing the problem would go
away, and blaming oneself for the situation. According to Frey,
Greenberg, and Fewell (1989), problem-solving is the preferred
style of coping with disability-related problems. Research indi- cates that emotion-focused coping that involves wishful thinking,
denial, or avoidance is positively related to reports of depressed
moods (e.g., Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Bolger, 1990; Cronkite
& Moos, 1984; Folkman & Lazarus, 1986; Quinn, Fontana, &
Reznikoff, 1987; Wills, 1986) and problem-focused coping is as-
sociated with reduced distress (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987;
Coyne, Aldwin, & Lazarus, 1981; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-
Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986).
Promoting and building upon the range of existing family
strengths and coping strategies that occur within the family has
been suggested as a component of comprehensive support for
families that include a member with a disability (Dunst et al.,
1994; Hanline & Daley, 1992; Summers, Behr, & Turnbull, 1989;
Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990). However, few studies provide an
empirical basis to understand the coping strategies of families
that help promote family strengths. The present investigation was
designed to determine the coping strategies that were predictive
of family strengths in families of young children with disabilities.
Since family coping strategies can potentially strengthen or main-
tain family resources that serve to protect the family from the full
impact of difficulties (McCubbin et al., 1980), it is essential that
professionals promote the use of family coping strategies that
build family strengths and facilitate adaptation.
Method
Participants
The participants were 69 parents (mostly mothers; 88%) of
children with disabilities from the ages of birth to 5. Each child
and his or her family were involved in one of eight different kinds
of early intervention programs serving children with disabilities
or those at-risk for developmental delays. Recruitment letters that
described the study and invited the participation of families were
distributed by program staff or research staff. If parents elected to
participate, a set of self-report measures (described in the next
section), a background information sheet, and consent form were
either mailed or hand delivered to the families. Parents were
asked to complete and return the scales directly to the investiga-
*The research reported in this paper was supported in part by grants from the Bureau
of Research and Service, College of Education and UTK Professional Development Award
of the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance
of Julie Hall and Marian Phillips in data collection and coding procedures.
**Address correspondence to: Sharon Lesar Judge, Ph.D., University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, 331 Claxton Addition, Knoxville, TN 37996, (423) 974-4456.
Key Words: family strengths, children with disabilities, parental coping, parents of disabled
children.
(Family Relations, 1998, 47, 263-268)
1998, Vol. 47, No. 3263
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:33:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tor in the postage-paid envelope. The nature of the recruitment
process precluded the calculation of response rates because it was
not known how many families were given letters. Consequently,
the sample was one of convenience and may not have been repre-
sentative of all families served by the programs.
The background characteristics of the participants and their
families are shown in Table 1. The majority of the participants'
children had identifiable diagnoses and were considered develop-
mentally at-risk or developmentally delayed at the time data were
collected. All of the children were eligible for special education
services based on the state's criterion for defining developmental
delay. Eighteen of the children had physical/sensory impair-
ments, 13 had speech/language delays, 13 were considered devel-
opmentally at risk (medical or environmental risk for substantial
developmental delay if early intervention was not provided), 3
had cerebral palsy, and the remaining 22 had handicapping condi-
tions resulting in mild to profound degrees of development delay.
Of the children with disabilities, 68% were boys and 32% were
girls. The sample had mean socioeconomic status (SES) scores
(as indicated by the Hollingshead Four Factor Index; Holling-
shead, 1975) representative of middle social-class families. The
largest majority of demographic information available on the
study participants indicated that they were quite diverse except
for ethnicity.
Measures
The participants completed the Ways of Coping Question-
naire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) and the Family Hardiness
Index (FHI; McCubbin, McCubbin, & Thompson, 1991). The
background information (see Table 1) was obtained at the time
the participants completed the two scales.
Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Coping was assessed with
the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. This questionnaire contains a
broad range of coping and behavioral strategies that people use to
manage internal and external demands in response to difficulties
(Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986). Participants indi-
cated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (O = not used; 1 = used some-
what; 2 = used quite a bit; 3 = used a great deal) the extent to
which they used Ways of Coping Questionnaire strategies during
a recent difficult situation. Factor analysis (Folkman, Lazarus,
Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1986) of the 68 items found 8 subscales,
accounting for 46.2% of the variance, which are: (a) confrontive
coping in which aggressive efforts are used to alter the situation
(cW = .70); (b) distancing or cognitive efforts to detach oneself and
to minimize the significance of the situation (cx = .61); (c) self-
controlling efforts to regulate one's feelings and actions (cX = .70);
(d) seeking social support or efforts to seek informational, tangible,
or emotional forms of support (cx = .76); (e) self-blame or ac-
knowledging one's own role in the problem with a concomitant
theme of trying to put things right (cx = .66); (f) wishful thinking
or behavioral efforts to escape or avoid the problem (cx = .72); (g)
planful problem-solving or deliberate problem-focused efforts
coupled with an analytic approach to solve the problem (cx = .68);
and (h) positive reappraisal or efforts to create positive meaning
by focusing on personal or spiritual growth (cx = .79). We adapted
the original 68-item version to include only the 3 highest factor
loading items for each of the 8 subscales. This short-form version
was used for a matter of convenience and interest of time. Thus,
the adapted questionnaire contained 24 items that tap coping
strategies associated with ordinary stressful events in day-to-day
lives. Scores were calculated by summing the ratings for each Table 1
Characteristics of Respondents and Their Families
Characteristic Mean SD
Mother's age 30.10 5.99
Mother's years of education 12.84 2.86
Father's age 32.92 7.48
Father's years of education 13.55 3.33
Child's age (months) 36.93 15.11
Number of children in family 1.90 .910
Family SES (Hollingshead, 1975)a 36.43 16.68
Family gross monthly income $2,006.51 $1,185.09
% (n)
Married 77 53
Mother's working 38 26
Ethnic background
White 96 65
African American 3 2
Hispanic 1 1
Mother's education
Less than high school 17 11
High school graduate 43 30
Partial college/trade school 17 12
College graduate 17 12
Graduate degree 6 4
Father's education
Less than high school 23 13
High school graduate 29 18
Partial college/trade school 16 10
College graduate 16 10
Graduate degree 16 10
aThe distribution of scores according to social class is: 8-19 (low), 20-29 (low-
middle), 30-39 (middle), 40-54 (middle-high), and 55-66 (high).
subscale. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas) using re-
sponses from the current sample ranged from .41 to .65 (median
= .52).
Family Hardiness Index (FHI). The FHI (McCubbin et al.,
1991) was used to measure the internal strengths and durability
of the family characterized as a sense of control over the outcomes
of life events and hardships, a view of change as beneficial and
growth producing, and an active rather than passive orientation in
managing stressful situations. The FHI is a 20-item (ca = .82)
questionnaire consisting of four factorially derived subscales that
call for the respondents to assess the degree to which (False,
Mostly False, Mostly True, True) each statement describes their
current family situation. These subscales are (a) co-oriented com-
mitment (family's sense of internal strengths, commitment to
work together, and ability to count on each other in times of
need); (b) confidence (family's sense of being able to plan ahead,
their ability to endure hardships and experience life with interest
and meaningfulness, and a feeling that each family member's ef-
Table 2
Descriptive Data for Predictor and Outcome Variables
Measure M SD Range
Ways of coping
Confrontive coping 4.16 1.90 0-8
Distancing 2.54 1.84 0-8
Self-control 4.32 1.63 1-9
Seeking social support 4.68 2.43 0-9
Self-blame 3.67 2.24 0-9
Wishful thinking 4.25 2.52 0-9
Problem-solving 5.74 2.03 1-9
Positive reappraisal 5.38 2.24 0-9
Family Hardiness Scale
Co-oriented commitment 18.65 4.07 4-24
Confidence 9.17 3.11 0-12
Challenge 10.00 3.02 1-15
Control external 6.22 2.38 0-9
264 Family Relations
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:33:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

forts are appreciated); (c) challenge (family's efforts to be active,
to be innovative, and to experience and learn new things); and (d)
control external (family's sense of an internal locus of control
rather than being shaped by outside events and circumstances).
Results
In this section, descriptive data for the entire sample is re-
ported. An overview of mean scores and standard deviations is
provided for reference in Table 2. Then subsidiary analyses are
reported to clarify the contributions of the most potent predictors
for family-strength outcomes.
Coping Strategies
As noted in Table 2, parents used a variety of coping strategies
to manage internal and external demands. Noteworthy is that 58%
of the coping strategies used by parents were problem-focused
(42% of the possible coping strategies were emotion-focused).
The three most frequently used coping strategies rated by parents
were: (a) concentrating on the next step, (b) increased efforts to
make things work, and (c) create positive meaning by coming out
of the experience better.
The extent to which the child's age, maternal age, maternal
education, and SES were related to coping strategies was examined
through correlational analyses. A point-biserial correlation proce-
dure was used to correlate marital status with the other continuous
variables. A number of significant negative correlations were
noted between SES scores and self-blame coping efforts (r = -.33,
p < .01) and SES scores and wishful thinking coping efforts (r =
-.42, p < .001). Other significant negative correlations were
noted between maternal education and self-blame coping efforts
(r = -.27, p < .05) and maternal education and wishful thinking
coping efforts (r = -.33, p < .01). Parent's use of coping strategies
that focus on wishful thinking and self-blame is used more fre-
quently when mothers have less education and the family has a
lower SES score. A significant positive correlation was found be-
tween child's age and wishful-thinking (r = .25, p < .05) coping
strategy. Relationship Between Coping Strategies
and Family Hardiness
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis by sets (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983) was used to ascertain the sources of variations in
family strengths. The independent variables with the four differ-
ent subscales of the Family Hardiness Index as the dependent
measures were, in order of entry into the analysis, demographic
characteristics (maternal education, socioeconomic status [SES]
and child's age) and coping strategies (scores of the eight sub-
scales of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire). This methodologi-
cal approach permitted isolation of the relative contributions of
the significant family demographics first, followed by the contri-
bution of coping strategies on family strength measures. In each
analysis, the increments (I) in R2 were determined to assess
whether the different sets of independent measures accounted for
a significant proportion of variance in the dependent measures. I
analyzed the effects of family demographics first to remove all of
the variance explained by demographic considerations in an effort
to isolate the unique contribution of coping strategies explaining
the variability in each of the four family strengths subscales. The
use of this type of analytic strategy allowed me to "tease apart"
the relative importance of two equally plausible sets of explana-
tory factors on the dependent measures of research interest
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
Results of the four sets of regression analyses examining the
relationships between demographic characteristics, coping strate-
gies, and the four family-strength measures are presented in Tables
3 and 4. Overall, the social support, wishful thinking, and self-
blame, and, to a lesser degree, the distancing and self-control
coping strategies proved to be the most important correlates of
family strength outcomes. However, these analyses indicated that
neither maternal education, SES, nor child's age contributed to
these relationships. One exception to these findings was that the
family challenge strength was negatively associated with the edu-
cational level of the mother.
Confidence. After controlling for the demographic variables,
the eight coping strategies accounted for a statistically significant
Table 3
Regression Analyses of Demographic Characteristics and Coping Strategies on Family Strength Measures
Predictor variables
Strength Maternal Child's Self- Positive Confrontive Self- Social Wishful Problem subscales education SES age blame reappraisal coping Distancing control support thinking solving
Confidence -.06 .24 .16 -.13 .05 .01 -.17 -.01 .26* -.45*** -.02
Challenge -.36* .29 .02 -.28 .01 .07 .24 -.05 .40** -.17 .03
Commitment -.02 -.06 -.10 -.38** .00 .04 .31* -.37** .31* .11 -.03
Control .00 -.08 .20 -.32* .07 -.07 -.11 .18 .01 -.31* .11
Note. Beta values from regression analyses.
*p<.05. **p<.Ol. ***p<.OOl.
Table 4
Multiple Regression Coefficients (R2) and Increments (I) in R2 for the Family Strength Measures
Family Strength Variables
Confidence Challenge Commitment Control
Step Independent Variables (No .)a R2 I Overall F R2 I Overall F R2 I Overall F R2 I Overall F
1 Demographic
Characteristics (3) .24 .24 .12 .12 .09 .09 .05 .05 2 Coping Strategies (8) .62 .38 19.00* .34 .22 6.40* .41 .32 10.26* .36 .31 9.26*
aNumber of variables per set. *p < .001.
1998, Vol. 47, No. 3 265
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:33:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38% of the variance in family-confidence scores. Both the seek-
ing social support and wishful thinking coping strategies were
significantly related to the family's sense of being able to plan
ahead, endure hardships, and be appreciated for individual efforts.
These findings showed that behavioral efforts to escape or avoid
the problem were negatively related to family-confidence
strengths, whereas parental coping efforts directed at seeking social
support were positively associated with the family-confidence
strength measure. That is, parental coping efforts directed at
seeking informational and emotional social support are associ-
ated with greater family-confidence strengths.
Challenge. Taken together, the eight coping variables made
significant contributions jointly accounting for 22% of the vari-
ance in the family's efforts to be innovative, active, and experi-
ence new learning opportunities beyond that attributable to the
demographic measures. Seeking social support strategy was the
single best predictor of the family-challenge strength measure,
accounting for a statistically significant 11% of the variance. This
finding showed that acquiring social support positively predicted
family challenge strengths.
Co-oriented commitment. With all predictor variables in the
equation, the eight coping strategies accounted for 38% of the vari-
ance in coordinated commitment. Again, the demographic mea-
sures showed no relationship to coordinated commitment. The
self-blame, distancing, self-control, and social support coping
strategies were significantly related to differences in the family's
sense of internal strengths measure. This finding showed that the
internal strengths and dependability of the family were negatively
related to coping strategies that focused on controlling one's own
feelings and actions, detaching oneself from the situation, and ac-
knowledging one's own role in the problem, whereas seeking so-
cial support was positively related to the family's sense of internal
strengths.
Control external. The results from the final step of the con-
trol strength measure showed that the eight coping strategies ac-
counted for 31% of the variance. Both the self-blame and wishful
thinking coping strategies were significantly related to the fam-
ily's belief that one can influence the course of events. That is,
families who had higher control strength scores were less likely
to use coping strategies that involved self-blaming or efforts to
escape or avoid the problem. Taken together, the findings from
the analyses indicate that the sources of variance in the partici-
pants' control strength measure was not due to differences in de-
mographic characteristics but rather self-blame and wishful
thinking coping strategies.
Discussion
The findings from this study increase our understanding
about specific coping strategies that are associated with family
strengths. Parents used a variety of different styles of coping
strategies; however, parents' use of problem-focused coping
strategies that emphasize efforts to seek social support, actively
solve the problem, and maintain a positive outlook on life appeared
to be recorded more frequently. These results are similar to earlier
studies of parents of children with special needs (Christiansen,
1982; Frey et al., 1989; Gibson, 1984; Rao & Kramer, 1993).
In addition, the relationship between parental perceptions of
coping strategies and family strengths in families of young chil-
dren with disabilities was explored. Parental coping efforts di- rected at seeking emotional and informational social support
tended to be predictive of family strengths. This positive relation-
ship between social support and family strengths reflects a family's
preference to utilize resources both internal and external to the
family. This finding supports the extensive body of research docu-
menting the use of social supports as positively influencing aspects
of personal and family functioning (e.g., Crnic, Friedrich, &
Greenberg, 1983; Dunst, Trivette, & Jodry, 1997; Dunst, Trivette,
& Thompson, 1990). The use of this problem-focused coping sug-
gests that parents use strategies such as "I asked a relative or
friend I respected for advice" and "Talked to someone to find out
more about the situation" to produce satisfactory outcomes (Folk-
man, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1986).
In contrast, wishful thinking, self-blame, distancing, and
self-control were negatively related to family strengths. These
subscales of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire measure an in-
creased use in emotion-focused coping when confronting prob-
lems. Blaming oneself, believing the problem will go away,
engaging in activities that prevent confronting an issue, and try-
ing to keep one's feelings from others are all evidence of passive
appraisal. Although passively reacting to a problem may delay a
family's active or immediate response, the use of these coping
strategies by the sample in this study negatively impacted a fam-
ily's sense of mastery or competence.
The finding that positive reappraisal did not predict family
strengths does not undermine the potentially beneficial outcomes
that could result in positive growth of the family unit. Studies of
stress mediators in mothers of children with disabilities have
shown that maintaining hope and attachment (Abbott & Mered-
ith, 1986); optimism, faith, and courage (Crnic et al., 1983; Mc-
Cubbin & Huang, 1989); and an altruistic view of the situation
(Darling, 1979) were related to more positive adaptational out-
comes. The overall findings of this study, however, indicate that
professional services may best be provided by utilizing a family's
social support network in a collaborative manner.
Several factors affect the degree to which the results of this
study can be generalized to other samples. First, the majority of
the participants were Caucasian and all resided in one geographi-
cal region. The results may not be applicable to families from
other cultures or geographic areas. Additional research might ad-
dress the extent to which these results would be replicated with a
more racially and economically diverse sample. Another possible
shortcoming of this study is that the majority of the question-
naires were completed by mothers reflecting the mothers' per-
sonal assessment of coping strategies and family strengths.
Whether fathers would assess their families' coping strategies
and strengths similarly is uncertain. In addition, the exclusive use
of self-report questionnaires completed by parents and the limited
number of participants may limit the findings.
Implications for Practice
On the whole the results of this study point to the potential
relationships between various parental coping strategies and family
strengths. In addition, the study provided descriptive data concern-
ing the coping strategies that were used. This information provides
family professionals and early interventionists with a foundation
from which to make use of the family's informal and formal
sources of social support. Interventions aimed at providing support
and resources to families in ways that strengthen functioning
would seem to be an important aspect of family intervention.
266 Family Relations
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:33:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The variables most highly related to family strengths in this
study were coping strategies focused on seeking informational
and emotional support. Emotional support can be sought from
other parents of children with disabilities by joining support
groups or by having professionals help each family develop their
own personal support "directory" that contains names of people
who can provide emotional and informational support. In addition,
professionals can help families identify existing sources of infor-
mal and formal sources of support and untapped-but-potential
sources of aid and assistance that match family-identified needs.
Often many existing and potential sources of support are over-
looked by professionals because they fail to consider the full
range of social support options available to families. The process
of identifying both existing sources of support and untapped-but-
potential sources of resources and assistance can be accom-
plished either in an interview format or mapping a family's social
support network.
Research has shown that the adequacy of different types and
forms of support, especially aid and assistance that match family-
identified needs, enhances parent and family well-being, de-
creases time demands placed upon a family by a child with a
disability, and enhances positive parental perceptions of child
functioning (Dunst et al., 1997). The fact that social support has
positive influences on parent, family, and child functioning is of
special interest to professionals working in early intervention
programs. The effects of social support suggest that we should
mobilize resources from different sources as a way of meeting
family needs. In general, social support provided by informal
personal network members has been found to have the strongest
relationship to any number of outcomes (Dunst et al., 1997). Re-
search by Trivette, Dunst, Boyd and Hamby (1995) and Judge
(1997) suggests that there is considerable positive impact on par-
ent self-efficacy and personal control appraisals when profes-
sional helpgiving practices mirror the features of informal
support. This means that the manner in which professionals inter-
act with families can have either empowering or usurpating con-
sequences, depending upon the practices used by helpgiving
professionals.
In conclusion, this study provides empirical data from which
professionals can better understand the coping strategies of fami-
lies and can provide services in a manner that helps promote fam-
ily strengths. Identifying coping strategies that are associated
with family strengths is vitally important toward implementing a
strength-based, family support approach. Therefore, supportive
services should make use of the family situation as an opportu-
nity to enhance individualized coping strategies to meet the emo-
tional, social, and health needs of young children with disabilities
and their families.
References
Abbott, D. A., & Meredith, W. H. (1986). Strengths of parents with retarded
children. Family Relations, 35, 371-375.
Aldwin, C., & Revenson, T. (1987). Does coping help? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 337-348.
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 525-537.
Christiansen, L. C. (1982). Cancer in children: Parental coping strategies and
their association with family functioning. Unpublished master's thesis, Uni-
versity of Minnesota School of Nursing.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coyne, J., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stress-
ful episodes. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 90, 434-447. Crnic, K. A., Friedrich, W. N., & Greenberg, M. T. (1983). Adaptation of fami-
lies with mentally retarded children: A model of stress, coping, and family
ecology. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88(2), 125-138.
Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role of predisposing and moderating
factors in the stress-illness relationship. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
ior, 25, 372-393.
Darling, R. (1979). Families against society: A study of reaction to children with
birth defects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (1988). Enabling and empowering
families: Principles and guidelines for practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (Eds.). (1994). Supporting and
strengthening families: Vol. 1. Methods, strategies and practices. Cambridge,
MA: Brookline.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Jodry, W. (1997). Influences of social support on
children with disabilities and their families. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The ef-
fectiveness of early intervention (pp. 499-522). Baltimore: Brookes.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Thompson, R. (1990). Supporting and strength-
ening family functioning: Toward a congruence between principles and prac-
tice. Prevention in the Human Services, 9(1), 19-43.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged
community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study
of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466-475.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J.
(1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and
encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-
1003.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal,
coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 571-579.
Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., & Fewell, R. R. (1989). Stress and coping among
parents of handicapped children: A multidimensional approach. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 240-249.
Gibson, C. H. (1984). Relationships between family-related factors parent's ap-
praisal of coping, parental coping behaviors, and the impact on the family of
a child with cystic fibrosis. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Toronto
School of Nursing.
Hanline, M. F., & Daley, S. E. (1992). Family coping strategies and strengths in
Hispanic, African-American, and Caucasian families of young children. Top-
ics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 351-366.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished
paper, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT.
Judge, S. L. (1997). Parental perceptions of helpgiving practices and control ap-
praisals in early intervention programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Ed-
ucation, 17, 457-476.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
McCubbin, H. I., Joy, C., Cauble, A., Comeau, J., Patterson, J., & Needles, R.
(1980). Family stress and coping: A decade of review. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 42, 855-871.
McCubbin, M. A., & Huang, S. T. T. (1989). Family strengths in the care of
handicapped children: Targets for intervention. Family Relations, 38, 436-443.
McCubbin, M., McCubbin, H., & Thompson, A. (1991). FHI: Family Hardiness
Index. In H. McCubbin & A. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment invento-
ries for research and practice (pp. 125-141). Madison, WI: University of Wis-
consin.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.
Powell, D. S., Batsche, C. J., Ferro, J., Fox, L., & Dunlap, G. (1997). A strength-
based approach in support of multi-risk families: Principles and issues. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 1-26.
Quinn, M. E., Fontana, A. F., & Reznikoff, M. (1987). Psychological distress in
reaction to lung cancers as a function of spousal support and coping strategy.
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 4, 79-90.
Rao, R. P., & Kramer, L. (1993). Stress and coping among mothers of infants
with a sickle cell condition. Children's Health Care, 22, 169-188.
Summers, J. A., Behr, S. K., & Turnbull, A. P. (1989). Positive adaptation and
coping strengths of families who have children with disabilities. In G. H. S.
Singer & L. K. Irvin (Eds.), Support for caregiving families (pp. 27-40). Balti-
more: Brookes.
1998, Vol. 47, No. 3 267
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:33:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Boyd, K., & Hamby, D. (1995). Family-oriented
program models, helpgiving practices, and parent control appraisals. Excep-
tional Children, 62, 237-248.
Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Deal, A. G., Hamby, D. W., & Sexton, D. (1994).
Assessing family strengths and capabilities. In C. J. Dunst, C. M. Trivette, &
A. G. Deal (Eds.), Supporting and strengthening families: Vol. 1. Methods,
strategies and practices. (pp. 132-139). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1990). Families, professionals, and exception-
ality: A special partnership (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Weissbourd, B., & Kagan, S. L. (1989). Family support programs: Catalysts for
change. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 20-3 1.
Wills, T. A. (1986). Stress and coping in early adolescence: Relationships to sub-
stance use in urban high schools. Health Psychology, 5, 503-529. Sharon Lesar Judge is an assistant professor in the Inclusive
Early Childhood Education Unit at the University of Tennessee.
Received 7-29-97
Revised & Resubmitted 1-5-98
Second Revise & Resubmit 4-29-98
Accepted 5-4-98
Purchase video and audio tapes of major sessions from the
1996 Annual Conference. Great supplemental tools!
Family Policy Parenting
LI #96V9. Families and Politics in the New South Africa, LI #96V6. Effective, Enjoyable Parenting, Marilyn
Naomi Tutu. Plenary Session. M. Rossmann. Research Update for Practitioners.
LI #96V9. Reaction of Special Interest Groups to the 1996
Election, Jim Caccamo, Melissa Ness, Bernard Violence
Franklin; Moderator: Anthony Jurich. Plenary LI #96V3. Intimate and Interpersonal Violence: Politics,
Session. Policy, and Practice, Richard Gelles. Research
Update for Practitioners.
Gender Issues/Family Roles
LI #96V2. The Women's Agenda vs. the Family Agenda: Welfare Reform
Conflict or Concordance? Judith Stacey, Norval LI #96V 1. Welfare Reforn, Poverty, and Children,
Glenn. Public Policy Seminar. Ann Collins. Research Update for Practitioners.
Health Work and Family
LI #96V7. Collaborative Health Care for Families: Can LI #96V4. The Missing Middle: Working Parents in U.S.
We Do It Together? John Rolland, M.D. and Democracy and Social Policy, Theda Skocpol.
reactor panel. Special Session. Plenary Session.
LI #96V10. Time Allocation to Family, Home, Work, and
Minority/International Families Community, Alice Rossi. Burgess AwardAddress.
LI #96V5. From Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Topeka
Board of Education and Back Again: Implications
for African Americans and Their Families, Norma
Bond Burgess, Kenneth Hardy. Special Session. Video Tapes Only $39.95 each for
NCFR members! $49.95 for Non-
! National Council on Family Relations members. Audio Tapes $8.50 each.
[l ! ^ 3989 Central Ave. NE, #550 * Minneapolis, MN 55421 Prices include shipping and handling. Make
1 Phone: 612- 781-9331 a Toll Free: 888-781-9331 checks payable to NCFR. U.S. funds drawn on
FAX: 612 -781-9348 a E-mail: ncfr3989@ncfr.com U.S. banks only. MN residents add 6.5% sales tax.
NCFR Web Site: www.ncfr.com Canadian orders add 7% GST (123-830-465).
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~FR 798 i
268 Family Relations
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:33:24 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions