Demographic variables and fathers' involvement with their child with disabilities

Demographic variables and fathers’ involvementwith their child with disabilitiesJózefa Bragiel and Przemysław E. KaniokOpole University

Key words: Demographic variables, fathers’ involvement, child with disabilities, disability.

The main purpose of this study is to examinewhether fathers’ involvement with their child withdisabilities is correlated with some of the demo-graphic variables. Data were collected from 243Polish fathers who were married and who had atleast one child with disabilities. The issue wasassessed by two measures: a Questionnaire and theFather Involvement Scale. The results of the mul-tiple regression show that fathers’ involvement issignificantly (P < 0.05) correlated with the level offathers’ concentration on the needs of their childwith disabilities, the level of fathers’ cooperationwith their wives, the number of years during whichparents cared for a child with disabilities, timedevoted by fathers daily for their child with disabili-ties, fathers’ self-esteem, fathers’ education, thelevel of disability of a child, the level of fathers’ skillsin dealing with their child with disabilities and thelevel of fathers’ knowledge about their child withdisabilities.

IntroductionThe purpose of our research was to examine whether someof the chosen demographic variables were significantly(P < 0.05) correlated with fathers’ involvement with theirchild with disabilities. Fathers of children with disabilitiesused to be perceived in the literature as the ‘peripheralparent’ (Herbert and Carpenter, 1994; MacDonald andHastings, 2010, p. 486). An example of this tendency toperceive fathers as less engaged with their children can bewell seen in home–school relations where fathers are lesslikely than mothers to be involved in their children’sschools (Eccles and Harold, 1996, p. 18; Olsen and Fuller,2008, p. 303; Roopnarine, 2013, p. 220). Some researchersemphasise that despite the interdisciplinary discussionabout the ‘new man’ and ‘new father’, most men are notwilling to change the traditional patterns of child care andhousework (Francis, 2006, p. 25). At the same time, numer-ous studies related to parental involvement foreground theperspectives of mothers, not fathers (Feiler, 2010, p. 20).However, in the last four decades, researchers have focusedmore attention on fathers’ involvement with their childwith disabilities (Baruch and Barnett, 1986; Floyd, Gilliomand Costigan, 1998; Konstantareas and Homatidis, 1988;Macdonald and Hastings, 2010; Marks and Dollahite,

2001; McBride, 1989; Olsson and Hwang, 2006; Pruett,1989; Simmerman, Blacher and Baker, 2001; Willoughbyand Glidden, 1995). Notably in the 1990s, a few research-ers made an attempt to examine the correlates varyinglevels of paternal engagement (Koestner, Franz andWeinberger, 1990; Mosely and Thomson, 1995). Theresults of their research were very consistent. Children,whose fathers were highly involved, had increased cogni-tive competence, increased empathy, fewer sex-stereotypedbeliefs and a more internal locus of control (Lamb, 2010,p. 7). Fathers’ involvement seems to be correlated withvarious variables. For instance, the link between fathers’involvement with their child with disabilities and theirwell-being was supported by the study of Pruett (1989)who noted that fathers who are fully engaged with theirchild with disabilities are happier with themselves andshow fewer signs of physical illness. The evidence pro-vided by Mansfield (2006) indicates that fathers’ with-drawal from their involvement with their child withdisabilities can be related to their general feeling of beingunhappy. The results of the recent research are supportedby the conceptual model proposed by Glenn (2007, p. 20)that illustrates the way in which parenting behaviour maycorrelate with some other variables (see Figure 1).

Glenn described in her model that parents caught in thenegative cycle of relationships tend to follow a patternwhere the mother feels unsupported by her husband con-cerning the raising of the child. She becomes critical of herhusband that results in increased marital conflict. Thehusband begins to feel unhappy in the marriage and sowithdraws, becoming less involved with the parenting of thechild and leaving the mother feeling even more unsupported(Mansfield, 2006). The complexity of the interactive rela-tionship between paternal involvement with the variousdemographic variables requires further studies. Therefore,the purpose of our paper is to examine whether fathers’involvement with their child with disabilities has some par-ticular predictors. Because of the fact that fathers’ involve-ment is a multidimensional construct that includes affective,cognitive and ethical components (Bradford et al., 2002),for the purpose of this research, we distinguished fivecomponents of fathers’ involvement with their child withdisabilities: interest in the child’s life, care, education, reha-bilitation and active help in achieving independence by theirchildren.

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2014 43–50doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12005

43© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Another aspect to consider in the relation between thechosen demographic variables and fathers’ involvementwith their child with disabilities involves the Polish dimen-sion. In the past, the segregation of children with disabilitieswas the norm in Poland (Gil, 2007, p. 40). Since 1922,when Maria Grzegorzewska established the Institute ofSpecial Pedagogy in Warsaw, throughout the communistperiod that lasted for over 40 years, there was no inclusiveeducation for children with disabilities. Most of them werekept in homes you mean or in full-time institutional care,attending special schools organised by religious or secularorganisations, only sometimes financially supported by thecommunist government (Gil, 2007, p. 43). Bridge (2004)emphasised that ‘in the Eastern European countriesincluded in the communist system of the USSR, parents ofdisabled children were encouraged to commit their disabledchild to institutional care’ (p. 89). It was believed that thetreatment of individuals with disabilities during commu-nism was characterised by a social environment in whichdisability was a source of shame and denial (InnocentiResearch Centre, 2005, p. v). Despite the Polish Associa-tion for People with Mental Handicap established in 1963,one of the first nationwide parents’ movements in commu-nist block (Holland, 2010, p. 18), parents had still limitedaccess to rehabilitation services. The situation startedchanging after the collapse of the communist government in1989. In 1991, the Polish parliament passed a new Educa-tion Bill that created organisational norms for inclusiveeducation and integration institutions. According to its

Article 4, teachers were expected to keep personal dignityand well-being of students at the forefront of their work(Gil, 2007, p. 44). Since that time, the situation of familiesand their children with disabilities has changed. They canhave access to the latest methods of rehabilitation of theirchildren as well as receiving support from numerous Polishnon-governmental organisations (NGOs). The number ofNGOs for individuals with disabilities is 6200 (UNICEF,2002, p. 10). However, it does not solve the entire problemmainly because in contemporary Poland, the number ofchildren with disabilities aged 0–14 is high. For instance, in1988, there were 147 900 children with disabilities, and in1996, their total number was 288 100 (UNICEF, 2002, p.5). Therefore, the idea of including children with disabili-ties in mainstream schools and providing help and supportto their parents encountered serious obstacles. In 1996,80 000 out of 119 000 children with disabilities were still inseparate schools and only 5800 in mainstream schools(Ainscow and Haile-Giorgis, 1998, p. 20). Moreover, in1996, every sixth family with a child with a disability couldonly afford the cheapest food and clothes, while everyeighth, such family could not even afford this modestexpense. A lack of up-to-date statistical data makes itimpossible to estimate the number of children with disabili-ties living in poor families (UNICEF, 2002, p. 36).

MethodWe conducted our research among a sample of 243 Polishfathers who remained married and who had at least one

Figure 1: Proposed by Glenn (2007), model of negative relationship processes for parents of children with disabilities

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 43–50

44 © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN

child with a disability. Nearly 40% of the children werereported to have cerebral palsy (39.09%). Other childrenwere diagnosed with intellectual disability (18.93), Downsyndrome (17.70%), autism (6.17%), deaf-blindness(5.76%), spina bifida (3.29%), attention deficit hyperactiv-ity disorder (1.65%), hydrocephalus (1.23%), spinal mus-cular atrophy (1.23%) and other disabilities (2.89%). Thelack of recent statistical data on Polish parents who hadchildren with disabilities forced us to use a snowball sam-pling. Babbie (2010) defined it as ‘a nonprobability-sampling method, often employed in the field of research,whereby each person interviewed may be asked to suggestadditional people for interviewing’ (p. 208). This method isappropriate especially when the members of a particularpopulation are difficult to find. The probe consisted offathers who lived in Opole state – a region in south-westernPoland. The men agreed to participate in the research.During the interviews with the fathers, we complied withthe ethical guidelines of the British Educational ResearchAssociation. In the study, we examined the correlationbetween chosen demographic variables and fathers’involvement. This issue was assessed by the two measures,the Sociodemographic Questionnaire and the FatherInvolvement Scale (FIS). The researcher-developed Socio-demographic Questionnaire contained 16 items concerning:fathers’ age, education, place of residence, number of chil-dren with disabilities in the family, age, sex and level ofdisability of a child, duration of marriage when a child withdisabilities was born, the number of years during whichparents cared for a child with disabilities, time devoted byfathers daily for their child with disabilities, the level offathers’ knowledge about their child with disabilities, thelevel of fathers’ concentration on the needs of their childwith disabilities, the level of fathers’ skills in dealing withtheir child with disabilities, the level of help and supportreceived by fathers from other people, the fathers’ self-esteem, and the level of fathers’ cooperation with theirwives.

The FIS assesses the extent to which fathers perceived theirinvolvement with their child with disabilities. Despitealready known measures that assess fathers’ involvement,such as the Paternal Index of Childcare Involvement(PICCI) developed by Radin (Pleck, 1997), the FatherhoodScale (Dick, 2004), the Inventory of Father Involvement(Bradford et al., 2002), Nurturant Fathering Scale (Finleyand Schwartz, 2004) and FIS (Finley and Schwartz, 2004),none of them include activity characteristics for fathers ofchildren with disabilities. The scale, developed by us, con-sists of five eight-item subscales that relate to the five com-ponents of fathers’ involvement: interest in the disabledchild’s life, care, education, rehabilitation and active help inachieving independence by their children. The 40 items onthe scale were developed on the basis of literature anddiscussions with fathers about their involvement with theirchild with disabilities. The measure was tested by 10 com-petent judges who were the members of the Social Peda-gogy Unit at Opole University. The ‘competent judges’ aredefined as experts who assess each feature of a particularmeasure (Strykowski, 1997, p. 39). The validity of the

scale’s final version, tested with the use of the Cronbach’salpha method, had a satisfactory level (Cronbach’s alpha>0.80). Each item could be rated by fathers on a five-pointscale, where one means never, two means rarely, threemeans sometimes, four means often and five means always.The final result of this measure is a quantitative indicatorreceived by adding points obtained by fathers in particularcomponents of the scale. The maximum amount of pointsthat can be obtained in the scale is equal to 200 points. Fortypoints is the minimum number of points that can beobtained in the scale. In the presented research, Spearman’srank calculation coefficients were used to test which com-ponents of fathers’ involvement with their child with dis-abilities are significantly correlated with their maritalsatisfaction.

ResultsIn order to make sure that the correlation between variableswould not interfere with the final results of the multipleregression, we calculated Spearman’s rank correlation coef-ficients. The results of the Spearman’s analysis showed that3 out of 16 variables are significantly (P < 0.01) correlatedwith each other. These were as follows: age of a father, ageof a child and number of years during which parents caredfor a child with disabilities. The significant correlationbetween these three variables excluded two of them fromfurther analysis. The variable that remained from the Spear-man analysis was number of years during which parentscared for a child with disabilities. The final number ofvariables analysed in the multiple regression was 14. Theresults of the multiple regression indicated that fathers’involvement is significantly (P < 0.05) affected by 9 out of14 variables, in its five components defined for the purposeof this research: interest in the child’s life, care, education,rehabilitation and active help in achieving independence bytheir children.

Factors affecting fathers’ interest in the child’s lifeWithin the range of the first component of fathers’ involve-ment – interest in the child’s life – the significant associa-tion was with two variables (depicted in Table 1): the levelof fathers’ concentration on the needs of their child withdisabilities (b = 0.22, P = 0.00) and the level of fathers’cooperation with their wives (b = 0.27, P = 0.00). Thismeans that when fathers are more interested in the needs oftheir child with disabilities and when they more frequentlycooperate with their wives, they become more interested in

Table 1: Summary of the multiple regression forpredicting fathers’ interest in the child’s life

Independent variables B SE B b P

Level of fathers’ concentration on the

needs of their child with disabilities

0.120 0.041 0.22 0.003

Level of fathers’ cooperation with

their wives

0.163 0.045 0.27 0.000

R2 = 0.20, F(2.24) = 30.60, P < 0.000

SE, Standard error of multiple regression coefficient.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 43–50

45© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN

their child’s life. This model explained only 20% of thevariance, R2 = 0.20, F(2,24) = 30.60, P = 0.00.

Factors affecting fathers’ involvement in the care of theirchild with disabilitiesThe second component of fathers’ involvement – involve-ment in the care of their child with disabilities – was sig-nificantly (P < 0.001) correlated with three variables(depicted in Table 2): the number of years during whichparents cared for their child with disabilities (b = -0.27),time devoted by fathers daily for their child with dis-abilities (b = 0.25) and the level of fathers’ cooperationwith their wives (b = 0.28). The results of the multipleregression conducted within the range of this componentindicated that the more years fathers care for their childwith disabilities, the less they are involved in it. Withthe increase of time devoted daily by fathers for their chil-dren with disabilities, they become more involved in thecare of them. Furthermore, when fathers more willinglycooperate with their wives, they are also more involved inthe care of their disabled children. The variance wasexplained by this model only in 28%, R2 = 0.28, F(6,24) =30.60, P = 0.00.

Factors affecting fathers’ involvement in the education oftheir child with disabilitiesThe third area of the fathers’ involvement – involvement inthe education of their child with disabilities – was signifi-cantly (P < 0.05) correlated with three variables (depicted inTable 3): the level of fathers’ concentration on the needs oftheir child with disabilities (b = 0.26), fathers’ self-esteem(b = -0.18) and the level of fathers’ cooperation with theirwives (b = 0.20). This implies that the more fathers con-centrate on child’s needs and the more they cooperate withtheir wives, the more frequent is their involvement in theeducation of their child with disabilities. Surprisingly, whenfathers evaluate themselves better than they are perceivedby others, they become less involved in the education oftheir child. The model associated with this component ofthe fathers’ involvement explained only 12% of the vari-ance, R2 = 0.12, F(3,24) = 11.25, P = 0.00.

Factors affecting fathers’ involvement in therehabilitation of their child with disabilitiesThe fourth component of the fathers’ involvement –involvement in the rehabilitation of their child with disabili-ties – was significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with fivevariables (depicted in Table 4): fathers’ education (b =0.22), the level of disability of a child (b = 0.18), thenumber of years during which parents cared for their childwith disabilities (b = –0.25), the level of fathers’ skills indealing with their child with disabilities (b = 0.19) and thelevel of fathers’ cooperation with their wives (b = 0.28).These findings indicate that the higher the level of educationfathers have, the more they are involved in the rehabilitationof their child with disabilities. It is noteworthy that the levelof child’s disability is also important for the fathers’involvement. The more profound disabilities children have,the more time their fathers spend on their rehabilitation. Themore years fathers care for their children with disabilities,the less they are involved in their rehabilitation. This can beexplained by the fact that when children become older anda little bit more independent, their fathers’ input into theirrehabilitation decreases. When fathers possess a higherlevel of skills in dealing with their disabled children and

Table 2: Summary of the multiple regression forpredicting fathers’ involvement in the care of their childwith disabilities

Independent variables B SE B b P

Number of years during which

parents cared for their child

with disabilities

-0.268 0.059 -0.27 0.000

Time devoted by fathers daily for

their child with disabilities

0.034 0.008 0.25 0.000

Level of fathers’ cooperation with

their wives

0.196 0.042 0.28 0.000

R2 = 0.28, F(6,24) = 30.60, P < 0.000

SE, Standard error of multiple regression coefficient.

Table 3: Summary of the multiple regression forpredicting fathers’ involvement in the education of theirchild with disabilities

Independent variables B SE B B P

Level of fathers’ concentration on

the needs of their child with

disabilities

0.187 0.058 0.26 0.001

Fathers’ self-esteem -0.140 0.058 -0.18 0.016

Level of fathers’ cooperation with

their wives

0.158 0.066 0.20 0.018

R2 = 0.12, F(3,24) = 11.25, P < 0.000

SE, Standard error of multiple regression coefficient.

Table 4: Summary of the multiple regression forpredicting fathers’ involvement in the rehabilitation oftheir child with disabilities

Independent variables B SE B b P

Fathers’ education 0.242 0.062 0.22 0.000

Level of disability of a child 0.232 0.072 0.18 0.001

Number of years during which

parents cared for their child

with disabilities

-0.254 0.057 –0.25 0.000

Level of fathers’ skills in dealing

with their child with disabilities

0.111 0.038 0.19 0.004

Level of fathers’ cooperation with

their wives

0.201 0.046 0.28 0.000

R2 = 0.31, F(5,24) = 21.18, P < 0.000

SE, Standard error of multiple regression coefficient.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 43–50

46 © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN

when they cooperate with their wives more often, theybecome more involved in their rehabilitation. The presentedmodel explained 31% of the variance, R2 = 00.31, F(5,24) =21.18, P = 0.00.

Factors affecting fathers’ active help in achievingindependence by their child with disabilitiesThe fifth component of the fathers’ involvement – activehelp in achieving independence by their child with disabili-ties – was significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with twovariables (depicted in Table 5): the level of fathers’ knowl-edge about their child with disabilities (b = 0.17) and thelevel of fathers’ concentration on the needs of their childwith disabilities (b = 0.23). The results underline that whenfathers represent a higher level of knowledge about theirchild with disabilities and when they more frequently con-centrate on her or his needs, they more actively help heror him in achieving independence. The variance wasexplained by this model only in 10%, R2 = 0.10, F(3,24) =9.12, P = 0.00.

DiscussionIn the presented research, we examined whether fathers’involvement with their child with disabilities was correlatedwith particular demographic variables. The main results canbe summarised as follows. First, the results of the multipleregression indicated that fathers’ involvement with theirchild with disabilities was significantly (P < 0.05) affectedby 9 out of 14 variables. Second, four out of five compo-nents of father involvement – interest in the child’s life,care, education, and his or her rehabilitation – were signifi-cantly (P < 0.05) affected by the same variable: the level offathers’ cooperation with their wives. Thereby, we con-firmed the conceptual model proposed by Glenn (2007)where fathers’ cooperation with mothers appeared to be akey element in a very complex interactive relationshipbetween paternal involvement and chosen demographicvariables. It is unclear why there is no significant correla-tion between this particular variable and the fifth compo-nent of the fathers’ involvement – fathers’ active help inachieving independence by their child with disabilities.This might suggest that for some children with disabilitieswho were less than 18 years old or who have alreadyreached the age of 18 but who would always be children for

their parents, achievement of independence was completelyimpossible. Therefore, fathers, being aware of this fact,might have sometimes abandoned cooperation with theirwives within that range.

When considering the results of this study, a few limita-tions must be acknowledged. First, because of the lack ofup-to-date statistical data on the population of families andtheir children with disabilities living in Poland, we usedsnowball sampling in the presented research. In spite of thefact that the non-probability sample cannot be used torelate to the general population, the results are still note-worthy, and we can make some assumptions. The secondlimitation is that we focused only on the fathers’ perspec-tives. However, the particular sample was chosen inten-tionally, as our intention was to focus only on fathers’perception of chosen demographic variables and theirinvolvement with their child with disabilities. Furthermore,we investigated mothers’ perceptions of fathers’ involve-ment in another study, but we did not include them asparticipants of this research because of the risk of expand-ing the statistical analysis too much. Third, we did notexamine the correlation between types of children’s dis-abilities with their fathers’ involvement, as nearly 40% ofthem had cerebral palsy and the rest had various disabili-ties and disorders, for instance, intellectual disability,Down syndrome or autism. Their proportions could beinconsistent with the distribution of disabilities among thepopulation of Polish children with disabilities. Fourth,even though we did not create a model that wouldcompletely predict fathers’ involvement (our modelsexplain only 10–30% of the variance), we hope thatresearchers will undertake further investigations, evaluateand improve the empirical findings presented in this paper.We also believe that the FIS used in the presented study(enclosed in the Appendix) will offer researchers an alter-native measure of father involvement. We perceive the FISas a potential source of knowledge about fathers’ involve-ment for specialists and researchers in their work andstudies.

Despite limitations of the study, it provides new informationabout the predictors of fathers’ involvement with their childwith disabilities. In conclusion, the major implication ofthis study is that fathers should cooperate more consistentlywith their wives within the range of interest, care, educationand rehabilitation of their child with disabilities. This seemsto be a very difficult task as parents concentrate more onchild care one at a time than taking into account theirbilateral cooperation.

Address for correspondencePrzemysław E. Kaniok,Opole University,ul. Oleska 48, 45-052 Opole,Poland.Email: kaniokp@uni.opole.pl.

Table 5: Summary of the multiple regression forpredicting fathers’ active help in achievingindependence by their child with disabilities

Independent variables B SE B b P

Level of fathers’ knowledge about

their child with disabilities

0.130 0.065 0.17 0.047

Level of fathers’ concentration on

the needs of their child with

disabilities

0.181 0.069 0.23 0.010

R2 = 0.10, F(3,24) = 9.12, P < 0.000

SE, Standard error of multiple regression coefficient.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 43–50

47© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN

Appendix

Father involvement scale (version for fathers)This part of the questionnaire consists of 40 statements which characterise how you deal with your child.

Please, read the following statements carefully and tick (next to each sentence) only one of the five possibilities given, whichexpresses the frequency with which you, as father, deal with your child.

No. Sentences Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

1. I talk to my child about his/her interests.

2. I talk to my child about his/her plans for the future.

3. I read books to/with my child and then talk about them.

4. I spend my free time with my child by playing with him/her, going for walks, playing

sports, going to the cinema or theatre, etc.

5. I show my love to my child by telling him/her this, hugging him/her, being with him/her.

6. I make sure that my child can participate in family meetings.

7. I keep in touch with the school or institution which my child attends.

8. I talk to my child about how he/she feels in the company of his/her peers.

9. I participate in daily hygiene of my child.

10. I prepare meals and participate in feeding my child.

11. I participate in dressing my child.

12. I take my child for a walk.

13. I give medicines to my child.

14. I take my child to and from the place where he/she stays during the day.

15. I take my child to physicians, specialists or physical therapists.

16. I help my child with maintenance of tidiness and order in his/her room.

17. I teach my child values in which I believe and experience which I have gained by myself.

18. I teach my child how to deal with difficult situations.

19. I teach my child positive reactions to obstacles.

20. I teach my child how to accept his/her disability.

21. I praise my child if he/she deserves it.

22. I punish my child for bad behaviour.

23. I teach my child basic principles generally respected by society.

24. I teach my child how to express directly his/her emotions and ways of being resistant to

insistent people when something is against his/her will.

25. I participate in the rehabilitation of my child.

26. I rehabilitate my child on vacation.

27. I encourage my child to participate in his/her rehabilitation.

28. I participate in courses associated with rehabilitation of disabled children.

29. I discuss rehabilitation exercises for my child with physicians and specialists.

30. I rehabilitate my child using the latest methods.

31. I show my joy when seeing progress in my child’s rehabilitation.

32. I look for equipment and people required for the rehabilitation of my child.

33. I teach my child personal skills within the range of toileting, dressing and eating.

34. I teach my child how to do housework, wash, prepare meals, do shopping, mail

letters, etc.

35. I teach my child how to get from place to place and how to use means of public

transport.

36. I help my child with doing his/her homework.

37. I teach my child how to make new contacts with other people and how to sustain them.

38. I teach my child how to use his/her free time.

39. I teach my child how to deal with money.

40. I teach my child how to use telephone and use it to deal with various matters.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 43–50

48 © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN

References

Ainscow, M. & Haile-Giorgis, M. (1998) The educationof children with special needs: barriers andopportunities in Central and Eastern Europe. InnocentiOccasional Papers. Economic and Social PolicySeries, no. 67. Florence, UNICEF.

Babbie, E. (2010) The Basics of Social Research,(Fifth edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth CengageLearning.

Baruch, G. K. & Barnett, R. C. (1986) ‘Consequences offathers’ participation in family work: parents’ role,strain and well-being.’ Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51 (5), pp. 983–92.

Bradford, K. P., Hawkins, A., Palkovitz, R., Christiansen,S. L. & Day, R. D. (2002) ‘The Inventory of FatherInvolvement: a pilot study of a new measure of fatherinvolvement.’ Journal of Men’s Studies, 10 (2), pp.183–96.

Bridge, G. (2004) ‘Disabled children and their familiesin Ukraine: health and mental health issues forfamilies caring for their disabled child at home.’Journal of Health Care Social Work, 39 (1/2),pp. 89–105.

Dick, G. L. (2004) ‘The fatherhood scale.’ Research onSocial Work Practice, 14 (2), pp. 80–92.

Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. D. (1996) ‘Family involvementin children’s and adoloscents’ schooling.’ In A. Booth& J. F. Dunn (eds), Family-School Links. How DoThey Affect Educational Outcomes?, pp. 3–34.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Feiler, A. (2010) Engaging ‘Hard to Reach’ Parents.Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Finley, G. E. & Schwartz, S. J. (2004) ‘The FatherInvolvement and Nurturant Fathering scales:retrospective measures for adolescent and adultchildren.’ Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 64 (1), pp. 143–64.

Floyd, F. J., Gilliom, L. A. & Costigan, C. L. (1998)‘Marriage and the parenting alliance: longitudinalprediction of change in parenting perceptions andbehaviours.’ Child Development, 69 (5), pp.1461–79.

Francis, B. (2006) ‘The nature of gender.’ In C. Skelton,B. Francis & L. Smulyan (eds), The Sage Handbookof Gender and Education, pp. 7–17. London: SagePublication Ltd.

Gil, M. (2007) ‘From segregation to equalization: thePolish perspective on educating children withintellectual disabilities.’ Journal of ContemporaryIssues in Education, 2 (1), pp. 40–52.

Glenn, F. (2007) Growing Together of Drifting Apart?Children with Disabilities and Their Parents’Relationship. London: One Plus One.

Herbert, E. & Carpenter, B. (1994) ‘Fathers – thesecondary partners: professional perceptions and afather’s recollections.’ Children and Society, 8, pp.31–41.

Holland, D. (2010) ‘Social entrepreneurs and NGOs forpeople with mental disabilities in post-communist

Europe: implications for international policy.’ TheReview of Disability Studies: An InternationalJournal, 6 (4), pp. 10–29.

Innocenti Research Centre (2005) Children and Disabilityin Transition in CEE/CIS and Baltic States. Florence,Italy: UNICEF.

Koestner, R., Franz, C. & Weinberger, J. (1990) ‘Thefamily origins of empathic concern: a 26-yearlongitudinal study.’ Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 58, pp. 709–17.

Konstantareas, M. M. & Homatidis, S. (1988) ‘Stress anddifferential parental involvement in families of autisticand learning disabled children.’ In D. E. Hibbs (ed.),Children and Families: Studies in Prevention andIntervention, pp. 321–36. New York: InternationalUniversities Press.

Lamb, M. E. (2010) ‘How do fathers influence children’sdevelopment? Let me count the ways.’ In M. E. Lamb(ed.), The Role of the Father in Child Development,(5th edn), pp. 1–26. New York: John Wiley and Sons,Inc.

MacDonald, E. E. & Hastings, R. P. (2010) ‘Fathers ofchildren with developmental disabilities.’ In M. E.Lamb (ed.), The Role of the Father in ChildDevelopment, (5th edn), pp. 486–516. New York:John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Mansfield, P. (2006) Helping parents get along better.The evidence and how One Plus One uses it. London.Presentation given to Beverly Hughes MP.

Marks, L. D. & Dollahite, D. C. (2001) ‘Religion,relationships, and responsible fathering in Latter-DaySaint families of children with special needs.’ Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 18 (5), pp.625–50.

McBride, B. A. (1989) ‘Stress and fathers’ parentalcompetence: implications for family life andparent educators.’ Family Relations, 38 (4),pp. 385–9.

Mosely, J. & Thomson, E. (1995) ‘Fathering behaviorand child outcomes: the role of race and poverty.’In W. Marsiglio (ed.), Fatherhood: ContemporaryTheory, Research, and Social Policy, pp. 148–65.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Olsen, G. W. & Fuller, M. L. (2008) Home-SchoolRelations. Working Successfully with Parents andFamilies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,Inc.

Olsson, M. B. & Hwang, C. P. (2006) ‘Well-being,involvement in paid work and division of child-care inparents of children with intellectual disabilities inSweden.’ Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,50 (12), pp. 963–9.

Pleck, J. H. (1997) ‘Paternal involvement: levels,sources and consequences.’ In M. E. Lamb (ed.),The Role of the Father in Child Development, pp.66–103.(3rd edn). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Pruett, K. (1989) The Promise of Fatherhood: Fathersin Their Relationships with Infants, Toddlers, andService Providers. Washington: National Center for

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 43–50

49© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN

Clinical Infant Programs Sixth Biennial NationalTraining Institute.

Roopnarine, J. L. (2013) ‘Fathers in Caribbean culturalcommunities.’ In D. W. Shwalb, B. J. Shwalb & M. E.Lamb (eds), Fathers in Cultural Context, pp. 203–27.(1st edn). New York: Routledge.

Simmerman, S., Blacher, J. & Baker, B. L. (2001)‘Fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of fatherinvolvement in families with young children with adisability.’ Journal of Intellectual and DevelopmentalDisability, 26 (4), pp. 325–38.

Strykowski, W. (1997) ‘Problematyka badawczatechnologii kształcenia [Research problems concerningeducational technology].’ Neodidagmata, 23, pp.31–42.

UNICEF (2002) Children and Disability in Poland.Country Analytical Report. Florence, Italy: UNICEF.

Willoughby, J. C. & Glidden, L. M. (1995) ‘Fathershelping out: shared child care and marital satisfactionof parents of children with disabilities.’ AmericanJournal on Mental Retardation, 99 (4), pp.399–406.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 43–50

50 © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2013 NASEN