Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Individuals who have a disability find it more difficult to transition into adulthood and to function independently, which is why it is important to find factors that can help ease this shift (Arnett, 2007; Galambos, Magill-Evans & Darrah, 2008). A study conducted by Rehm, Fuentes-Afflick, Fisher, and Chesla (2012) found that 29% of teenagers who had a physical disability, that impacted development, required external assistance when trying to transition into adulthood. Along with physical disabilities, psychiatric disabilities are a primary form of disability faced by individuals. Physical disability refers to any motor-related debility faced by a person that impairs functioning during a typical daily routine (Maalouf, Hatoum, Atwi & Boustany, 2016), whereas psychiatric disability refers to any mental disability that impairs functioning during daily life (Widmer, Kempf-Constantin & Carminati, 2010). The impact of disability on an individuals ability to successfully complete various aspects of adulthood, such as gaining independence, has been researched previously.
Previous Literature
Studies by Henninger and Taylor (2014) and Conger and Little (2010) found that young adults considered independence from their parents, both in terms of their responsibility for themselves and financially, as the most integral factor to signify having entered adulthood. This was supported by Carr, et al. (2014) and Guess, Benson, Siegel-Causey, and Agran (2008), who found that very few individuals living with a psychiatric disability have the skills to live independently, with financial and personal autonomy, when they reach emerging adulthood. Having a disability causes dependence on other people to be able to engage in basic daily activities, thus limiting the amount of independence that is attainable during adult life (Guess et al., 2008).
Some studies also invested the effects of having siblings on people with a disability, such as the research conducted by Canary (2008) and Strohm (2008), which found having a younger sibling increased responsibility in disabled individuals due to the added demand placed on them to take care of their sibling. This links to Moyson and Roeyers’s (2012) research, which found that a sense of adjustment is always present in the relationship between physically disabled, and able-bodied, siblings. This adjustment increases the opportunity for both parties to grow up faster than their peers and aids in the ability of disabled individuals, who do find it harder to transition into adulthood, to reach integral milestones, such as living independently, in emerging adulthood (Moyson & Roeyers, 2012). Similarly, having siblings forces disabled individuals to not be entirely reliant on caregivers as attention in the family is being divided across multiple children (Orsmond, Kuo & Seltzer, 2009). Orsmond, Kuo, and Seltzer (2009, p. 9) also found that the more siblings a person with a psychiatric disability identity has, the more opportunities there are to share the caregiver role . This provides more support and growth potential for disabled individuals.
In contrast, research has found that there is a negative impact on the development and maturation of non-disabled younger siblings when they are continually exposed to an older sibling that has a communication developmental disability (Burke, 2010; Canary, 2008; McHale, Updegraff & Whiteman, 2012).
Current Study
The current research does not focus on ways disabled individuals can improve their level of independence, from teenagers to emerging adults (Rehm, Fuentes-Afflick, Fisher, & Chesla, 2012). Whilst there is some research dedicated to exploring the impact disability and independence can have on families (Henninger and Taylor, 2014), there are no explicit studies that explore the influence, certain family groups, in particular siblings, have during this transitional time. Also, no studies compare physically disabled individuals with psychiatrically disabled individuals, in regards to the differences faced with gaining independence during emerging adulthood. Instead, there is a focus on the issues associated with having a disability identity and having independence simultaneously, during and beyond emerging adulthood (Carr et al., 2014). Areas such as becoming financially independent and living independently are key factors that separate the emerging adult developmental stage from the adolescent stage (Arnett, 2000). Finding ways of supporting disabled individuals, to better aid their transition into having higher independence levels in emerging adulthood is important and necessary to research due to the extra boundaries, created by their disability, that are already delaying their shift into emerging adulthood (Janus, 2009).
The aim of this experiment was to see whether there was a difference between individuals with a physical disability, and those with a psychiatric disability, in terms of their ability to successfully become independent in adulthood. This study aimed to find out whether having siblings increased the likelihood of shifting and functioning independently in adulthood successfully. Individuals, aged 18 to 29 years, with a physical disability identity would have higher levels of independence achievement, during the emerging adulthood stage, if they have at least one biological sibling compared to having non-biological siblings, as opposed to those who identify with a psychiatric disability.
Methods
Participants
Two thousand and ninety-seven (Male = 526, Female = 1541, Other = 30) university students (Mean = 21.10 years, SD = 4.81 years) were voluntarily sampled.
The original sample included 3200 participants, aged 18 to 25, and spanned all ethnic groups, who were sampled across 32 academic establishments in the United States. Participants were initially excluded from the data set if they did not respond to the questions about disability identity or siblings, with further data revisions limiting the inclusion criteria to identify with a physical or psychiatric disability identity and an acknowledgment of, siblings. Ethics approval was gained prior to this study being conducted and permission was provided to use the data for this research.
Measures
The markers of the emerging adulthood questionnaire (MOA) were used to measure the participants level of independence during emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2001; Fosse, Grahe & Reifman, 2016). Block 1 of the questionnaire contained 20 questions, which focused on the signposts of independence, such as making independent decisions . There were two subcategories: importance, which was rated on a four-point scale ranging from not to very, and achievement, which was rated on a three-point scale ranging from no to yes. For the importance subcategory, a not indicated that independence was not considered an essential marker for entering emerging adulthood whilst a very deemed independence as essential for determining whether you have entered emerging adulthood; the scoring of the answers rose in 1-point intervals, with a not being scored 0 points and a very being scored 4 points. For the achievement subcategory, a no indicated that independence had not been achieved by the participant and a yes indicated that it had been achieved; also scoring of the answers rose in 1-point intervals, with a not being awarded 0 points and a yes being awarded 2 points. For both subsections, the higher the final score, the higher the agreement with the question. The MOA questionnaire had good internal reliability (Arnett, 2001). Cronbachs alpha for the importance of independence = .65 and for the achievement of independence = .70 (Fosse, Grahe & Reifman, 2016).
The Personal opinions questionnaires subscale four: disability oriented, contained 11 items, which participants responded to with either true or false with true being scored as 1 point and a false being scored as 0 points; higher amounts of points equates to a greater level of independence. (Bolton & Brookings, 1998). The subscale had high reliability and the questionnaire as a whole had good valid and consistent reliability (Bolton & Brookings, 1998). Cronbachs alpha = .62 (Fosse, Grahe & Reifman, 2016).
The number of siblings was self-reported by participants.
Design
The independent variables are the type of disability, physical or psychiatric, and whether the participant has at least 1 biological sibling. The dependent variable is achieved independence during emerging adulthood. This is an experimental research design and will include controlling and manipulating the type of disability (psychical or psychiatric) simultaneously with the number and type of siblings (none, at least 1 biological, at least 1 adopted, or step).
Results
SPSS version 25 was used to analyze the data. The p-value threshold used to determine a statistically significant finding was ± = .05. Levenes Test proved that the data was not homogenous with p = .01. See appendix 1 for full output. Examining the z-scores checked for outliers, and any outliers were removed from the data set. The data was cleaned to only include physical and psychiatric abilities, achieved independence, and siblings, as the other aspects of the data were not necessary for the study.
Descriptive statistics
The average age of all the participants was 21 years and there were 2012 total participants (Males = 526, Females = 1541, Others = 30) that identified with having, or not having, a disability identity. There were 42 participants that identified with having a physical disability only wit (Mean = 1.96, SD = .444) whilst 223 participants identified with having a psychiatric disability only (Mean = 1.84, SD = .423). Participants with a physical disability and siblings (Mean = 1.99, SD = .492), and participants with a psychiatric disability and siblings (Mean = 1.84, SD = .440) have similar average scores. See appendix 2 for full disability descriptive statistics.
Primary Analysis
The primary analysis indicated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between having siblings, a physical disability, and achieved independence (p= .237). Similarly, having siblings, having a psychiatric disability, and achieving independence did not have a statistically significant relationship (p= .371). The partial eta-squared for the relationship between having siblings and a physical disability was .013, which is a small effect size. The partial eta-squared for the relationship between having siblings and a psychiatric disability was .016, which is a small effect size.
A two-way analysis of variance was conducted on the influence of two independent variables (type of disability and siblings) on achieved independence during emerging adulthood. The type of disability included two groups (physical and psychiatric) and siblings included two levels (at least one biological sibling and no siblings). All effects were statistically significant at the .05 significance level. The main effect for physical disability had an F ratio of F(1, 1880) = 6.5, p =.011, and the main effect for psychiatric disability had an F ratio of F(1, 1880) = .324, p < .001. The interaction effect between physical disability and siblings was F(21, 1880) = 1.20, p = .237. The interaction effect between psychiatric disability and siblings was F(29, 1880) = 1.07, p = .371. See appendix 3 for full ANOVA output.
Discussion
This study hypothesized that individuals with a physical disability identity would have higher levels of independence achievement, during the emerging adulthood stage, if they have at least one biological sibling compared to having at least one non-biological sibling, as opposed to those who identify with a psychiatric disability. This was not supported by the findings as there was a non-significant relationship between the effects of having a physical disability and siblings on achieved independence. The relationship between psychiatric disability and siblings on achieved independence was also not significant.
This is similar to research conducted by (Henninger & Taylor, 2014) that focused on the role of the family in aiding the transition into adulthood in disabled individuals. Henninger & Taylors (2014) research concluded that having an agreement between the goals of the disabled individual and the goals of their family could improve transitional success.
Another study that focused on the role of the family was Rehm, Fuentes-Afflick, Fisher, and Chesla (2012) that found the role of the family was not as influential as external programs during the transitional period for disabled individuals. This was similar to this study as the lack of impact of familial relationships on achieving markers of adulthood, such as achieving independence, was highlighted.
On the other hand, this research contradicts the findings by Canary (2008) and Strohm (2008), which found an increased sense of independence in disabled people with younger siblings. This could be due to the lack of separation between younger and older siblings in this study, something that was evident in both Canary’s (2008) and Strohms (2008) studies.
Strengths and Limitations
A strength of the study was that sibling groups were separated by frequency and relationship, such as 2-3 biological siblings, only 1 step-sibling, etc. This allowed for a clear understanding of how certain types of siblings impacted independence. However, a limitation of the study was that the sibling’s groups often intersected, such as having the group for at least 1 older sibling encompassing all biological, step, and adopted siblings, which does not allow for a specific correlation to be made. Further research should specifically focus on the influence of one type of sibling group, either biological, step or adopted, to be able to compare isolated findings with the findings of this research. This would help fill out any missing information in regards to sibling impact on disabled individuals ability to achieve independence.
The disability categories were also a limitation of the study as they were very broad, which narrowed the amount of explicit information that could be learned. Whilst this research did find a non-significant relationship between siblings, psychiatric disabilities, and achieved independence, the specific types of psychiatric disabilities, such as whether they are primarily personality based or if they impact intelligence, are not known. Whilst having a clear distinction between groups was a strength, as it removed any possibility of overlap between people who identify with a physical and a psychiatric disability, more research will need to be conducted with more niche samples. For instance, comparing achieved independence during adulthood in individuals who were born with a physical disability from the waist down compared to those who acquired it later in life. Having a greater understanding of how certain disability types affect the ability to have independence in adulthood could assist in finding ways to assist individuals during the transition period.
Conclusion
This study found that there was no significant relationship between physical disability and achieving independence in emerging adulthood, when they have at least one biological sibling, compared to those with a psychiatric disability identity. Also, there was not a large discrepancy between the two groups as a small effect size was observed on the impact of having siblings and a physical or psychiatric disability on achieved independence, which indicates similarities between the two disability groups and achieving independence. This addressed the aim of the research, which was to investigate whether the type of disability a person and the type of siblings a person has, impacts the ability to be independent in adulthood, as well as whether having siblings impacts the ability to achieve independence.
The findings of this study consider the impact of having a familial unit on transitioning into adulthood for individuals with a disability and open the door to further investigate the influence different types of relationships can have on disabled individuals. This can lead to family-based interventions being created that can provide close proximity transitional support for disabled people.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.