VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Positive Impact of Intellectual Disability on Families

Jan Blacher
University of California, Riverside
Bruce L. Baker
University of California, Los Angeles

Abstract
Understanding positive, as well as negative, impact of a child with mental retardation will
lead to a more balanced view of families and disability. In two studies we examined parents’
perceived positive impact of a child with MR/DD. Study 1 involved 282 young adults
with severe mental retardation; Study 2 involved 214 young children with, or without,
developmental delays. In both studies, positive impact was inversely related to behavior
problems. Moreover, positive impact moderated the relationship between behavior prob-
lems and parenting stress. Also, main and moderating effects of positive impact differed
by parent ethnicity. Latina mothers reported higher positive impact than Anglo mothers
did when the child had MR/DD. These findings are discussed in the context of cultural
beliefs.

The idea that a child with mental retardation
could impact his or her family positively is a rel-
atively new one. Only in the past decade or two
have researchers considered ‘‘positive impact of
the child’’ worthy of empirical study (Hastings &
Taunt, 2002; Summers, Behr, & Turnbull, 1989).
By contrast, for over half a century, published re-
search has been focused on negative impacts of
children with mental retardation on their families
(Blacher & Baker, 2002). Although a more bal-
anced view of families and disability is certainly a
conceptual step forward, there is still little well-
controlled research on positive impact (Helff &
Glidden, 1998). In the present paper we report on
two studies of the positive impact of disability,
assessing families of young children and young
adults. We examined parents’ perception of both
positive and negative impact on the family in re-
lationship to characteristics of the child (disability
status, behavior problems), the parents (mother
vs. father), and the family’s cultural heritage (An-
glo vs. Latino).
The disability field lacks theoretical models
that fully address this idea of positivity. There is
even a lack of conceptual clarity as to what is
meant by positive impact or related terms. We
propose three levels at which one could view, and
assess, the positive impact of a child on his or her
family. The first is a view that positive impacts
can be imputed by the absence of negative ones.
In this ‘‘low negative’’ view, positive impacts
would be inferred if the parent reported low scores
on measures of adverse well-being. The second is
that despite their child’s disability, parents expe-
rience many of the same joys of child-rearing that
are experienced by families of children without a
disability. In this ‘‘common benefits’’ view, posi-
tive impacts would be demonstrated by evidence
that parents of a child with disabilities report the
same types and extent of positive experiences re-
lated to childrearing that are reported by parents
of children without disabilities. The third is a view
that because of the disability the family experi-
ences unique benefits not necessarily experienced
by parents of children without disabilities. In this
‘‘special benefits’’ view, positive impacts would be
demonstrated by observations of benefits that are
not found in families without a child who has a

330 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
disability. These three perspectives often are con-
fused in the literature.
The first view of positive impact, low nega-
tive, is reflected in arguments that one way to con-
ceptualize positive perceptions is by the absence
of stress, depression, or other forms of negative
impact (Taunt & Hastings, 2002). To validate this
view, one would need to show that low scores on
measures of negative impact relate to high scores
on separate measures of positive impact; this rare-
ly has been done. Although such measures are
likely to be modestly negatively correlated, par-
ents may simultaneously report negative and pos-
itive perceptions. A two-factor model of caregiv-
ing appraisal proposed in the gerontology field
(Lawton, Moss, Kleban, Glicksman, & Ravine,
1991) and further developed with aging parents of
adult children with intellectual disabilities (Pruch-
no, Patrick, & Burant, 1996) views positive and
negative emotional states not as polar opposites
but, rather, as partially independent and as having
different antecedents. In the present studies we
examined the relationship between a measure of
positive impact and typical measures of negative
impact.
The second, common benefits, view has re-
ceived little specific attention, whereas many studies
have purported to address the third, special benefits
view (Hastings & Taunt, 2002; Sandler & Mistretta,
1998; Stainton & Besser, 1998). Unfortunately,
study methods usually have confused the two views.
For example, Stainton and Besser, through inter-
views with 17 families, asked only the question:
‘‘What are the positive impacts you feel your son
or daughter with an intellectual disability has had
on your family?’’ From qualitative analysis of re-
sponses, the authors advanced nine themes (e.g.,
source of joy and happiness, source of family unity
and closeness, source of personal growth and
strength). Sandler and Mistretta (1998) administered
a survey to 50 parents of adults with mental retar-
dation and broadly assessed positive attitudes. These
were endorsed by a high percentage of respondents
and clustered in themes of emotional adjustment
(e.g., confidence, fulfillment), attitudes toward the
adult child (e.g., feelings of happiness), positive fam-
ily impact (e.g., closeness among members), and per-
sonal growth (e.g., compassion). Similarly, Hastings
and Taunt (2002) asked parents to report on the
positive impact of the child with the disability on
the siblings and on the extended family. Parent re-
sponses included having increased sensitivity and
tolerance, a changed perspective on life, improved
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
family dynamics, and opportunities to learn new in-
formation.
Although reports from such studies have
some heuristic value in identifying themes that
might be special benefits, any conclusions must
be tempered not only because of the positive bias
in the way questions have been asked, but also
because, without adequate control groups, we can-
not know whether these are, indeed, special ben-
efits. It is important to determine whether these
perceived benefits are unique to disability or are
also reported by parents raising typically devel-
oping children, as well as the extent to which both
groups reported such benefits. In one of the few
studies to contrast parents of children with and
without disabilities, Margalit and Ankonina
(1991) found that parents of children with dis-
abilities exhibited more negative affect but that
positive affect did not differ between the groups.
The conceptual confusion surrounding posi-
tive impact is increased by two additional domains
considered in the literature. One is the focus in
some studies on positive personality dispositions in
the parent, such as optimism, empowerment, per-
ceived competence, self-mastery, or resilience (Has-
tings and Taunt, 2002; Singer & Powers, 1993).
These personal qualities are important to study
because they may buffer the impact of child chal-
lenges on parents’ well-being (Baker, Blacher, &
Olsson, 2005). Yet, they do not measure, or even
necessarily reflect, the positive impact of the
child; indeed, they may be traits that the parent
possessed before even having children. There is
ample nondisability-related literature to suggest
that positive ways of thinking can lead to better
mental health outcomes for the individual (Bower
& Segerstrom, 2004; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Pe-
terson, 2005).
The other, and related, view of positive im-
pact is found in studies that are focused on effec-
tive strategies for coping with childrearing, such
as cognitive coping (Turnbull et al., 1993) or ac-
commodation (Gallimore, Hoots, Weisner, Gar-
nier, & Guthrie, 1996). Here, too, these authors
did not speak directly about how the child posi-
tively impacts the family, although they accentu-
ated family strengths that may contribute to pos-
itive outcomes. Several researchers have combined
assessments of positive perceptions and coping
strategies. Hastings and his colleagues assessed
three domains of positive perceptions (Happiness
and Fulfillment, Strength and Family Closeness,
Personal Growth and Maturity) of 41 mothers of
331
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
children (aged 4 to 19) with intellectual disability
(Hastings, Allen, McDermott, & Still, 2002). All
three were positively related to the coping strategy
of reframing.
These various perspectives on ‘‘positive’’
come together in more generic coping models,
where ‘‘positive perception’’ is a core component,
particularly as applied to physical stress and health
outcomes (e.g., women coping with breast cancer;
Taylor, 1983; Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, &
McDowell, 2000) and psychological distress, such
as caregiving for partners with AIDS and bereave-
ment (Folkman, 1997). In these instances, positive
perceptions serve therapeutically as an adaptive
coping mechanism.
In sum, the emerging literature on positive ef-
fects is uncoordinated and inconclusive, with
varying conceptions of ‘‘positive,’’ bias in the way
questions are posed, the absence of nondisabled
control families, and a focus on mothers only. A
central problem is the shortage of standardized
measures of positive impacts. Measures of parent-
ing stress or negative impact abound, and, from
the first low negative view discussed above, one
might consider low scores to be positive. How-
ever, in addition to conceptual limitations (as it is
certainly possible to hold both positive and neg-
ative perceptions simultaneously), there is a draw-
back to many of the measures themselves. The
scales primarily used by family-disability research-
ers, such as the widely used Questionnaire on Re-
sources and Stress QRS (Holroyd, 1985), the
QRS-short form (Friedrich, Greenberg, & Crnic,
1983), or the Kansas Inventory of Parental Percep-
tions (Behr, Murphy & Summers, 1992) have a
strong disability focus and are not appropriate for
use with families who have typical children, pre-
cluding comparisons. In the present studies we
used a measure that includes a positive perception
scale and is not specific to disability, the Family
Impact Questionnaire FIQ (Donenberg & Baker,
1993). Thus, in these two studies we could address
the common benefits view of positive impact, but,
due to the nature of our measure, not the special
benefits view.
Parents’ perception of positive impact is likely
to be related to characteristics of the child but also
must be considered within the broader context of
the family and the culture. From among the many
child, family, and cultural variables that might in-
fluence parental perceptions, we focus here on
three. At the child level, behavioral challenges,
apart from cognitive disability, are likely to have
332 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
an influence on parents’ positive perceptions.
Many researchers have found that behavior and/
or mental health problems relate to parental well-
being, including measures of negative impact and
parenting stress, depression, and burden (Baker,
Blacher, Kopp, & Kraemer, 1997; Baxter, Cum-
ming, & Yiolitis, 2000; Hauser-Cram, Warfield,
Shonkoff, & Krauss, 2001; McIntyre, Blacher, &
Baker, 2002). In fact, recently investigators have
found that the well-established relationship be-
tween intellectual disability and adverse parental
well-being can be accounted for almost entirely
by child behavior problems (Baker, Blacher,
Crnic, & Edelbrock, 2002; Baker et al., 2003;
Floyd & Gallagher, 1997; Floyd & Phillippe,
1993). In the present studies we examine the re-
lationship of behavioral challenges to parent-per-
ceived positive impact of young children and
young adults.
At the family level, a key variable is parent
gender. Most researchers examining the impact of
disability on parents obtained data from mothers
only, giving an incomplete picture. Fathers usually
have different roles in the family as well as differ-
ent relationships with the child and different op-
portunities to observe the child’s behavior (Phar-
es, 1996). When both parents have been included
in studies of children with disabilities, mothers
have reported more stress than have fathers in
practically all families (summarized in Hastings,
Beck, & Hill, 2005; but see Dyson, 1997). Little
is known, however, about positive perceptions of
mothers and fathers because most reports of pos-
itive perceptions have involved only mothers (e.g.,
Hastings et al., 2002; Stainton & Besser, 1998;
Taunt & Hastings, 2002). However, Hastings,
Beck, and Hill (2005), using the Positive Contri-
butions Scale (Behr et al., 1992) with mothers and
fathers of children with intellectual disability,
found that mothers reported slightly, though sig-
nificantly, more positive perceptions of their
child.
At the cultural level, although family research
primarily has involved Euro American families,
there is developing interest in examining parent-
ing practices and beliefs about disability cross-cul-
turally (Lynch & Hanson, 2004; Zuniga, 1998).
For example, investigators have found less per-
ceived burden and more satisfaction (i.e., a posi-
tive contribution) from providing care to a child
with intellectual disabilities for African American
compared to Caucasian mothers (Valentine,
McDermott, & Anderson, 1998). Some reasons
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
for these positive perceptions include the value
attributed to intergenerational family support
(Cox, Marshall, Mandleco, & Olsen, 2003) and
the protective factor of spirituality or religious
connectedness (Billingsley, 1992; Rogers-Dulan &
Blacher, 1995). Our analysis of culture contrasts
the perceptions of parents in the dominant Unit-
ed States culture, Caucasians (herein referred to as
Anglos), and the fastest growing cultural group in
the country, namely, Latinos. Depression symp-
toms have been found to be high in Latina moth-
ers of low-functioning children with disabilities
(Blacher, Shapiro, Lopez, Diaz, & Fusco, 1997).
However, positive impact reported by Latina
mothers of young adults in a previous study was
also high, and equally so regardless of the child’s
diagnosis (i.e., autism, Down syndrome, cerebral
palsy, undifferentiated mental retardation) (Blach-
er & McIntyre, 2006). To further our understand-
ing of positive perceptions of disability, we must
consider cultural context (Hodapp, Glidden, &
Kaiser, 2005). We designed the studies in the pre-
sent paper to replicate and extend these initial
findings, contrasting positive perceptions in
mothers and fathers of children with and without
disability and considering the buffering role of
cultural group on the relationship between behav-
ior problems and positive impact.
In this paper we report on two studies of par-
ents’ perceived positive impact of a child with dis-
abilities. These studies are focused on positive par-
enting experiences that parents of children with
mental retardation may share with parents of typ-
ically developing children. Data were drawn from
two samples of families. The first, obtained from
the University of California, Riverside Families
Project, includes 282 young adults with moderate
to profound mental retardation; the second, from
the Collaborative Family Study at Penn State,
UCLA, and UC, Riverside, includes 214 young
children with mild to moderate developmental de-
lays or typical development. Our intent was not
to provide direct comparison of the two samples
(the participants were different in age and level of
functioning). Rather, the two contexts provide an
opportunity to examine the robustness of the phe-
nomenon of positive impact in families who have
children with mental retardation and to garner in-
formation about the contribution of specific child
and parent characteristics in assessment of positiv-
ity. These two samples, with overlapping mea-
sures, afforded us an opportunity to examine pos-
itive impact at two critical times in the life of the
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
child and family: preschool and the transition to
adulthood.
Five questions were of primary interest. The
first two relate to the conflicting views of positive
impact that we have considered. The others relate
to the relationship of salient child, parent, and
cultural attributes to expressed positive impact.
First, how do positive impact and negative
impact measures relate? If these measures have a
strong negative relationship, the ‘‘low negative’’
view of positive impact garners some support.
Conversely, if the measures have only a modest
relationship, this is supportive of the ‘‘two-factor’’
view, wherein positive and negative perceptions
are largely independent. Second, do parents of
children with and without disabilities differ on a
measure of positive impact that is not disability-
specific? To the extent that the groups do not dif-
fer, the findings would support the common ben-
efits view that some positive perceptions reported
by parents of children with disabilities are not spe-
cial but are shared by parents of children without
disabilities. Third, does positive impact relate to
the extent of child behavioral challenges? We ex-
amined whether positive perceptions also relate to
the extent of child and young adult behavior
problems. Fourth, does positive impact relate to
parent gender or to cultural origins? In Study 2
we examined whether mothers and fathers differ
in their perceptions of positive impact, and in
both studies we examined how positive impact is
expressed within families of Anglo and Latino or-
igins. Fifth, does positive impact moderate the es-
tablished relationship between child behavior
problems and parenting stress? Hastings and
Taunt (2002) have suggested a functional perspec-
tive of positive perceptions, in that they aid in
coping with stressors and thus buffer adverse out-
comes. There is related evidence that the person-
ality trait of optimism was a buffer for mothers,
whereby child behavior problems had the greatest
negative effect on well-being for mothers who
were least optimistic (Baker et al., 2005). Thus, we
hypothesized that parents low in perceptions of
positive impact would be more negatively affected
by child or young adult behavioral challenges
than parents with higher positive perceptions.
STUDY 1: FAMILIES PROJECT
YOUNG ADULTS
Study 1 was focused on three of the aims (1,
3, 5) identified above. First, we considered the low
333
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Positive impact of intellectual disability J. Blacher and B. L. Baker

negative view by examining the relationship be-
tween measures of well-being and positive percep-
tions. Second, we examined whether mothers’ per-
ception of positive and negative impact related to
the degree of young adult behavior and/or mental
health problems. Third, we examined the main
and moderator effects of positive impact in the
relationship between child behavior problems and
maternal well-being.
Method
Participants
Participants were mothers of 282 young adults
with moderate to profound mental retardation.
For the present study, the mean age of the young
adults was 20.3 years (range ⫽ 16 to 26). There
were 150 Anglo and 132 Latina mothers. A sub-
sample of 103 of these mothers participated in the
study reported by McIntyre et al. (2002), who re-
ported on an earlier wave of data collection. All
procedures were approved by the University’s In-
stitutional Review Board. Table 1 shows selected
demographics by sample (Anglo vs. Latino). Ma-
ternal age averaged 49 years (range ⫽ 31 to 70).
Biological mothers were the primary respondents
in 92.2% of families; thus, we refer to parents as
mothers throughout. The majority were married
(68.6%) and worked outside of the home (63.1%).
The Anglo sample was significantly higher than
the Latina sample on measures of education, in-
come, and health. The majority of the young
adults were male (56.7%) and still attending
school (58.5%). Although most young adults were
still living in the family home (89.8%), signifi-
cantly more (though still few) in the Anglo sample
were living in outside residences; their parents
were still very involved. The young adult demo-
graphics (e.g., age, ambulation, adaptive behavior,
maladaptive behavior, and mental health) were
quite similar across the Anglo and Latina samples.
The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow,
Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) mean standard scores for
both samples were about five SDs below the me-

Table 1. Study 1: Family/Mother and Young Adult Characteristics by Sample

Anglo Latino
Characteristic Mean/% Mean/% t/⌾2a
Family/Mother
Mean age in years (SD) 48.5 (5.7) 49.5 (8.1) 1.12
Education (% some college) 76.7 28.8 62.94***
Health (% reported good/excellent) 86.6 53.0 36.51***
Maternal status (% biological) 90.7 93.9 .64
Maternal employment (% employed) 68.0 57.6 2.84
Marital status (% married) 75.3 61.4 5.75*
Family Income (% ⱖ $40,000/year) 73.3 19.7 78.76***
Young adult
Mean age in years 20.4 (2.3) 20.2 (2.8) .70
Gender (% male) 57.3 56.1 .01
Ambulation (% ambulatory) 76.0 75.8 .00
School status (% exited school) 41.3 41.7 .00
Residential status (% out–of–home) 16.0 3.8 10.06**
Mean Adaptive Behavior Standard Score 25.6 (10.4) 24.2 (8.8) 1.19
Mean maladaptive behaviorb ⫺13.2 (10.5) ⫺12.7 (10.9) .38
Mean maladaptive behavior (% mod–high, SIB–R) 21.3 25.2 .39
Mean mental healthc 6.8 (5.1) 7.7 (5.7) 1.38
Mental health (% at-risk)c 33.3 41.9 1.65
Note. Anglo n ⫽ 150, Latino n ⫽ 132)
a
t is used when standard deviations are reported. bScales of Independent Behavior–Revised, General Maladaptive Index.
c
Reiss Screen Total.
*p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.

334 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER
Positive impact of intellectual disability
dian (100). This was a very low-functioning group
of young adults.
Procedure
Participants were recruited for an ongoing
longitudinal study through Southern California
Regional Centers, agencies that provide case man-
agement services to individuals with mental retar-
dation (see Blacher & McIntyre, 2006, as well as
McIntyre et al., 2002, for details on recruitment,
informed consent, and interviewer training). Data
were collected during in-home interviews with
mothers. All interviews were conducted in the pre-
ferred language of the family (English or Spanish);
most interviewers, and all interviewers for the La-
tina sample, were bilingual and Latino. Families
received honoraria for their participation.
Measures
The FIQ (Donenberg & Baker, 1993) is a 50-
item measure focused on the child’s impact on
the family compared to the impact other children
his/her age have on their families. For use with
parents of young adults, all references to ‘‘chil-
dren’’ were changed to ‘‘young adults.’’ Parents
endorse items on a 4-point scale ranging from not
at all to very much. The FIQ was developed to
address three limitations shared by most parent
stress measures used by family researchers. First,
many measures are focused on difficult child be-
haviors or skill deficits and infer parental stress
from these rather than asking parents directly
about the impact their child has on them. Second,
most measures are focused exclusively on the neg-
ative impact of the child on the family without
also assessing the child’s positive impacts. Third,
most stress measures are applicable only to fami-
lies with children who have mental retardation/
developmental disabilities or only to families with
typically developing children.
There are six scale scores on the FIQ that
measure Negative Impact on Feelings About Par-
enting, Social Relationships, Finances, Marriage
and Siblings, and Positive Impact on Feelings
About Parenting. In the present study, we utilized
a Negative Impact composite of the first two sub-
scales (20 items) as well as the Positive Impact
scale (7 items). The Negative Impact composite,
which has been used in samples with and without
mental retardation, has good reliability and valid-
ity (Baker, Heller, & Henker, 2000; Baker et al.,
2002; Blacher & McIntyre, 2006).
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
The Positive Impact scale has six items en-
dorsed on a 0 to 3 scale and one item on a 0 to
6 scale. Thus, the scale score can range from 0 to
24. Each item begins, ‘‘Compared to children,
and parents with children the same age as my
child’’ followed by, for example: (a) I enjoy the
time I spend with my child more; (b) My child
brings out feelings of happiness and pride more;
(c) My child makes me feel more energetic; and
(d) My child makes me feel more confident as a
parent. Internal reliability for mothers in the Fam-
ilies Project sample (Study 1) was an alpha of .83.
Internal reliabilities in the Collaborative Family
Study sample (Study 2) for mothers and fathers at
child age 3 years were .81 for both. At 4 years,
they were each .86; and at 5 years, .86 and .85,
respectively. Positive Impact also had moderate to
high stability over time, with Pearson rs ranging
from .60 to .75 across ages 3 to 5 years.
An additional measure of parent well-being
was the Center for Epidemiological Studies-De-
pression scale CES-D (Radloff, 1977). This is a
widely used 20-item self-report of depressive
symptoms. Alpha in the present sample was .90.
The Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised
Problem Behavior Scale SIB-R (Bruininks,
Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) is an
8-item instrument yielding the General Maladap-
tive Index, with a possible range of ⫹10 to ⫺74.
Levels of severity are delineated in the adminis-
tration manual as ⫹10 to ⫺10 ⫽ normal; ⫺11 to
⫺20 ⫽ marginally serious; ⫺21 to ⫺30 ⫽ moder-
ately serious; ⫺31 to ⫺40 ⫽ serious; ⫺41 and be-
low ⫽ very serious (Bruininks et al., 1996). We
have used a score of ⫺21 and lower to indicate a
clinical range on this measure (McIntyre et al.,
2002). The manual provides sufficient evidence
for reliability (e.g., test–retest reliability r ⫽ .86;
Cronbach alpha ⫽ .80) and validity.
The Reiss Screen for Maladaptive Behavior,
2nd ed. (Reiss, 1994) was obtained from 260 of
the 282 families. The Reiss Screen is a 38-item
screening tool used to identify mental health
problems in adolescents and adults across the full
range of mental retardation. Items describe dis-
crete behavior categories with a 3-point response
scale of (0) no problem, (1) problem, and (2) major
problem. We have used a total score of 9 or above
to indicate clinically significant risk of mental ill-
ness, as suggested by Reiss (1994). The manual
reports adequate total score internal consistency,
alphas ⬎ .70, and sufficient evidence for validity
335
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER
Positive impact of intellectual disability
based on clinical and nonclinical samples (Reiss,
1994).
Results
Positive Impact Inferred From Low-Negative
We first examined the view that positive im-
pact can be inferred from low scores on measures
of negative impact or well-being. Positive impact
correlated inversely with negative impact, r ⫽
⫺.45, p ⬍ .001. To examine this further, we di-
vided positive impact and negative impact into
thirds and compared them in cross-tabs. Of the
87 cases in the lowest third on negative impact,
only 49% fell into the highest third on positive
impact. Thus, although there was a modest cor-
relation between positive and negative impact, if
only the low third of negative impact were used
for determining positive impact, fully half of the
sample would have been misclassified. Moreover,
positive impact was not significantly correlated
with depression, r ⫽ ⫺.09.
Positive Impact and Young Adult Behavioral
Challenges
We previously reported significantly higher
positive impact scores for Latina mothers than
Figure 1. Study 1: Anglo and Latina mothers’ reports of negative and positive impacts of young adults’
behavior/mental health problem (BPMH).
336 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
Anglo mothers (Ms ⫽ 17.6 and 12.0, respective-
ly), t(267) ⫽ 9.76, p ⬍ .001 (Blacher & McIntyre,
2006). Here, we examined the relationship of
young adult behavioral challenges to negative and
positive impact separately for Latina and Anglo
mothers. Three levels of young adult behavior and
mental health problems were determined from
scores on the Reiss Screen and SIB-R. Young
adults in the nonclinical range on both scales (see
Method) received a score of 0 (n ⫽143). Young
adults in the clinical range on either scale received
a score of 1 (n ⫽ 49), and those in the clinical
range on both scales received a score of 2 (n ⫽
53). Figure 1 shows FIQ Negative and Positive Im-
pact scores by the Behavior Problems/Mental
Health Index as well as the significance of differ-
ences. One-way ANOVAs showed that negative
impact increased significantly with increasing Be-
havior Problems/Mental Health scores in both the
Anglo and Latina subsamples. Also, positive im-
pact decreased significantly, especially from low
to high Behavior Problems/Mental Health scores,
in both the Anglo and Latina subsamples.
Positive Impact as a Buffer
We further considered whether perceiving
greater positive impact of the young adult would
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
moderate, or buffer, the strong relationship be-
tween behavior/mental health problems and
mothers’ well-being. We conducted a regression
on the FIQ Negative Impact score with the whole
sample. In Step 1, we entered, as control variables,
the two demographic variables that correlated sig-
nificantly with negative impact: young adult gen-
der and Vineland Standard Score. These account-
ed for 7.8% of the variance in negative impact. In
Step 2, we entered the Reiss Screen Total score,
which accounted for 20.7% additional variance, F
(change) ⫽ 69.69, p ⬍ .001. In Step 3, we entered
the Positive Impact score, which accounted for
12.5% additional variance, F (change) ⫽ 50.68, p
⬍ .001. In Step 4, after converting the Reiss Total
and Positive Impact to z scores, we entered the
product of these two z scores as a test for mod-
eration; although this accounted for only 1.3%
additional variance, it was statistically significant,
F (change) ⫽ 5.21, p ⫽ .02. Higher positive im-
pact somewhat buffered the increase in stress that
accompanies greater young adult mental health
problems. This is shown graphically in Figure 2.
We repeated this analysis separately within the
Anglo and Latina subsamples; positive impact ac-
counted for significant additional variance in
both, but the interaction did not reached signifi-
cance in either.
Figure 2. Study 1. Positive impact as moderator of the relationship between young adult mental disorder
and parenting stress. Square, high; triangle, moderate; and circle, low positive impact.
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
Conclusions
Study 1 findings indicate that within this sam-
ple of young adults with moderate to profound
mental retardation, mothers’ perceptions of posi-
tive impact were highest when young adults did
not have behavior and/or mental health problems
high enough to be in the clinical range. Moreover,
even after accounting for young adult behavioral
challenges, mothers with higher perceptions of
positive impact reported less stress (main effect).
Perceptions of positive impact had a somewhat
greater buffering effect when behavioral challeng-
es were high (moderation effect). Although Latina
mothers reported higher positive impact scores
than Anglo mothers, positive impact related sim-
ilarly to young adult behavior and/or mental
health problems in both cultural groups.
STUDY 2: COLLABORATIVE FAMILY
STUDY YOUNG CHILDREN
In this study we investigated all five aims
identified above at a much earlier point in the
family lifespan. In this younger sample, there was
a typically developing contrast group, and data
were obtained from mothers and fathers. First, we
examined the low negative view and by contrast-
ing views of parents of children with and without
337
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Positive impact of intellectual disability J. Blacher and B. L. Baker

delay, the common benefits view. Next, we ex-
amined whether parents’ perception of positive
and negative impact related to child problem be-
haviors, to parent gender, and to culture. Finally,
we examined the main and moderator effects of
positive impact in the relationship between child
behavior problems and parent well-being for both
mothers and fathers.
Method
Participants
Participants were 214 families, recruited to
participate in a longitudinal study of young chil-
dren from ages 3 to 5 years, with samples drawn
from Southern California and Central Pennsyl-
vania. This Collaborative Family Study is based
at three universities: Penn State University, Uni-
versity of California, Los Angeles, and University
of California, Riverside. All procedures were ap-
proved by the Institutional Review Boards of the
three universities involved. The present sample
was comprised of all families for whom data were
available on the primary measures across child
ages 3, 4, and 5; this constitutes 92% of the orig-
inally recruited sample.
School and agency personnel mailed bro-
chures describing the study to families who met
selection criteria, and interested parents phoned
the research center. General selection criteria were
that the child be between 30 and 40 months of
age and not be diagnosed with autism. Participat-
ing children were classified as developmentally de-
layed (n ⫽ 82), borderline (n ⫽ 10), or nondelayed
(n ⫽ 122). Delayed group families were recruited
primarily through community agencies that serve
persons with developmental disabilities. Further
selection criteria were that the child score between
30 and 75 on the Bayley Scales of Infant Devel-
opment II (see Measures). Borderline group chil-
dren had Bayley II scores of 76 to 84. Delayed
and borderline children were combined in the
present analyses and designated as ‘‘delayed.’’
Nondelayed group families were recruited primar-
ily through local preschools and daycare programs
that serve the same catchment areas as the agen-
cies that support delayed group children. Further
selection criteria were that the child (a) score 85
or above on the Bayley II and (b) not have been
born prematurely or have had any developmental
disability.
Table 2 shows demographics separately for
the children with developmental delays and those
with no delays and their parents. Child age at in-
take averaged 35.2 months (SD ⫽ 2.9) and the
majority were boys (59%). Most children in the
delayed group had not received a specific diag-
nosis; when there was one, the most frequent was

Table 2. Study 2: Child and Family Demographics by Delay Status

Delayed No delay
(n ⫽ 92) (n ⫽ 122)
Variable Mean/% Mean/% t/⌾2a
Child
Mean age at testingb (SD) 35.6 (2.9) 34.9 (3.2) 1.73
Gender (% boys) 66.3 53.3 3.16
Mean BSID II: MDIc 60.3 (13.0) 104.2 (11.6) 25.97***
Parent and family
Marital status (% married) 80.4 88.5 2.10
Mean mother age (years) 32.5 (6.2) 34.1 (5.6) 1.93
Mean mother education (grade) 14.3 (2.4) 15.8 (2.5) 4.30***
Mother employment (%) 48.9 60.7 2.47
Mother race (% Caucasian) 58.7 66.4 1.02
Mean father education (grade)d 14.0 (2.7) 15.7 (2.9) 4.22***
Family income (%$50K⫹) 41.3 57.9 5.08*
a
ts are used when standard deviations are reported. bIn months. cBayley Scales of Infant Development, Mental Devel-
opment Index. dNs ⫽ 80 for the delayed group and 116 for the nondelayed group, respectively.
*p ⬍ .05. ***p ⬍ .001.

338 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER
Positive impact of intellectual disability
Down syndrome or cerebral palsy. Most mothers
(85%) were married because recruitment had ini-
tially focused on intact families. Mother’s race/
ethnicity was predominantly Caucasian (63%) or
Latina (21%). Mothers and fathers averaged about
15 years of school, and 51% of families had an
annual income of $50,000 or more.
The two status groups did not differ on the
child attributes shown in Table 2. except on Bay-
ley II scores. On parent and family attributes, the
highest grade completed in school was higher for
mothers and fathers in the nondelayed group as
was family income. However, because parent ed-
ucation and family income were unrelated to the
variable of interest namely, positive impact
these were not covaried in analyses.
Assessment Procedure
The data examined in this study were ob-
tained in two ways. The initial measures of child
developmental level and problem behaviors were
obtained at a home intake assessment session con-
ducted when the child was between 30 and 40
months of age. Prior to this session, parents had
completed a telephone intake interview with staff
and had received an informed consent form. Two
trained research assistants visited the family to re-
view procedures, obtain informed consent, and
administer the Bayley II to the child. Mother, and
father if present, completed a demographic ques-
tionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL, see discussion below). The CBCL was ob-
tained again at home assessment sessions when
the child was 48 and 60 months of age. The FIQ
(see Study 1) was part of a packet completed dur-
ing each annual assessment. This packet also in-
cluded the CES-D (see Study 1); alpha for the
present sample was .89. Families were paid an
honorarium for participation.
Measures
Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (Bayley,
1993). Classification of children as delayed or not
delayed at 36 and 48 months was based on the
36-month Bayley II. This is a widely used assess-
ment of mental and motor development in chil-
dren aged 1 to 42 months. It was administered in
the child’s home, with the mother present. In
most cases, there was a primary examiner and an
assistant. Only mental development items were
administered; the Mental Development Index
(MDI) is normed with a mean of 100 and an SD
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
of 15. Bayley (1993) reported high short-term
test–retest reliability for the MDI, r ⫽ .91.
Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale IV (Thorndike,
Hagan, & Sattler, 1986). Classification of children
as delayed or not delayed at 60 months was based
on the 60-month administration of the Stanford
Binet, administered in an assessment session at
the clinic.
Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 CBCL
(Achenbach, 2000). This new version of the widely
used CBCL is aimed at the preschool years. It has
99 items that indicate child problems, listed in
alphabetical order (from ‘‘aches and pains without
medical cause’’ to ‘‘worries’’) and one ‘‘other’’
item. The respondent indicates, for each item,
whether it is not true (0), somewhat or sometimes true
(1), or very true or often true (2), now or within the
past 2 months. We utilized only total problem
scores; these are converted to T scores with a
mean of 50 and an SD of 10. Total score alphas
for the present sample at the initial assessment
were .94 for both mothers and fathers. For some
analyses, behavior problem groups were deter-
mined from parents’ CBCL Total T scores follow-
ing Achenbach’s (1991) suggested cut-offs. These
were designated as low (T score ⬍ 60, indicating
nonclinical range) and high (T score ⱖ 60, indi-
cating borderline or clinical range).
Results
Positive Impact Inferred From Low Negative
We examined the view that positive impact
can be inferred from low scores on measures of
well-being. At child age 36 months, positive im-
pact correlated inversely with negative impact, r
⫽ ⫺.38, p ⬍ .001. Positive impact and negative
impact were each divided into thirds and com-
pared in cross-tabs. Of the 75 cases in the lowest
third on negative impact, 48% fell into the highest
third on positive impact. Here, too, although
there was a modest correlation between positive
and negative impact, if only the low third of neg-
ative impact were used for determining positive
impact, about half of the sample would have been
misclassified. Positive impact was not significantly
correlated with depression, r ⫽ ⫺.08.
Positive Impact by Child Delay Status and
Behavior Problems
Child behavior problems were designated as
low (nonclinical range, see Method) or high (bor-
339
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Positive impact of intellectual disability J. Blacher and B. L. Baker

Table 3. Positive Impact Reported by Mothers and Fathers of Young Children at Ages 3, 4, and 5
Years by Delay Status (DS) and Behavior Problems (BP)
Delayed No delay
Parent/
Child agea Low BP Hi BP Low BP Hi BP F (DS) F (BP) F (DS ⫻ BP)
Mothers
3 15.7 14.3 16.4 15.0 0.72 2.62 0.00
4 16.3 13.1 16.3 12.9 0.02 14.52*** 0.01
5 15.2 14.7 16.5 12.7 0.15 5.48* 3.22
Fathers
3 17.7 15.2 17.2 14.2 0.80 11.27*** 0.14
4 16.4 14.5 17.1 15.6 1.03 3.72⫹ 0.05
5 16.7 14.2 16.8 14.0 0.00 6.69** 0.02
Child age in years.
a

⫹p ⬍.10. *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.

derline/clinical range) at each assessment. Sepa- Neither the time (child age) main effect nor the
rate 2 (behavior problem level) ⫻ 2 (delay status) Parent Gender ⫻ Time interaction was significant.
ANOVAS were conducted on positive impact, for
mothers and fathers, at each assessment (child age Positive Impact by Culture
3, 4, and 5 years). Table 3 shows mean scores and We have seen in the whole sample that par-
F values for delay status, behavior problems, and ents of children with developmental delays and
the interaction. Delay status had no relationship those with children without delays reported nearly
to positive impact in any analysis, a finding that identical positive impact. This finding, however,
is considered further in our examination of cul- could mask a difference between cultural groups.
ture. Clinical-level child behavior problems, how- Table 4 shows means for Anglo and Latino par-
ever, were associated with lower positive impact
in every comparison; for mothers and fathers, the
Table 4. Positive Impact at Child Ages 3, 4, and
relationship was statistically significant in four of
5 Years by Parent and Culture
the six ANOVAs. The Delay Status ⫻ Behavior
Problems interaction term was not significant in Parent Age 3 Age 4 Age 5
any analysis.
Mother 15.6 15.7 15.4
Father 16.8 16.4 16.3
Positive Impact by Parent Gender t (paired) 2.96 1.49 2.00
There was a moderate relationship between df 189 181 177
mother and father positive impact scores at each P .003 ns .047
of the three assessments, rs ⫽ .31, .32, and .43,
respectively, all ps ⬍ .001. Correlations of positive Culture
impact scores across assessments were moderately Anglo mother 15.1 15.3 15.0
high for mothers and for fathers, ranging from .60 Latina mother 17.4 16.4 16.5
to .75, all ps ⬍ .001. Positive impact in the com- t (independent) 2.90 1.23 1.66
bined sample by parent gender (mother, father) is df 178 175 178
shown in Table 4; at each time-point, fathers ex- P .004 ns .098
pressed greater positive impact than did mothers. Anglo father 16.4 15.9 15.6
A repeated measures ANOVA on positive impact Latino father 17.7 18.0 18.3
by parent gender (mother, father) and child age
t (independent) 1.24 2.75 3.20
(3, 4, and 5), showed a significant main effect for
df 154 149 148
parent gender (Ms for mothers and fathers ⫽
P ns .008 .002
15.39 and 16.31, respectively, F ⫽ 5.90, p ⫽ .016.

340 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
ents across the three time points, with consistently
higher scores for Latino parents. The relationship
between delay status and positive impact was an-
alyzed further within these two cultural subgroups
that corresponded to those in Study 1. Because
mothers and fathers in some families had different
ethnicities, we ran analyses separately for each par-
ent. Two repeated measures ANOVAs were run
on Positive Impact ⫻ Delay Status (delays, no de-
lays) and ethnicity (Anglo, Latino) across child
ages 3, 4, and 5. Latina mothers (n ⫽ 44) reported
higher positive impact than did Anglo mothers (n
⫽ 135), but the difference did not reach statistical
significance. There was, however, a significant in-
teraction between culture and delay group,
F(1, 173) ⫽ 4.23, p ⫽ .04. Figure 3 shows the
marginal means. In the no delay group, expression
of positive impact was about the same for Anglo
and Latina mothers. In the developmental delay
group, Anglo mothers expressed lower positive
impact than did Anglo mothers in the no delay
group, whereas Latina mothers expressed higher
positive impact than did Latina mothers in the no
delay group.
Figure 3 also shows results for fathers, which
were highly similar to those for mothers. Latino
fathers reported marginally more positive impact
than did Anglo fathers, F(1, 138) ⫽ 3.69, p ⫽
.057. There was a similar interaction between cul-
ture and delay group, although only marginally
significant, F(1, 138) ⫽ 3.68, p ⫽ .057. No main
Figure 3. Study 2. Delay status and positive impact in Anglo and Latino families.
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
or interaction effects of time approached signifi-
cance in mother or father analyses.
Positive Impact as Moderator of Child
Behavior Problems and Parenting Stress
We have found a strong relationship be-
tween child behavior problems and both moth-
ers’ and fathers’ perceived negative impact, or
parenting stress, at every assessment point. We
further examined whether positive impact had a
moderator effect on this relationship, through re-
gression analyses on the FIQ Negative Impact
score at each assessment. For each analysis, we
first identified demographic variables that corre-
lated with negative impact and entered these con-
trol variables as Step 1. Step 2 was behavior prob-
lems (CBCL Total score) and Step 3 was FIQ
Positive Impact. For Step 4, following the same
procedures as in Study I, we converted the CBCL
and Positive Impact scores to z scores and en-
tered the product of these two z scores as a test
for moderation. For mothers at child age 3, these
variables accounted for 56.1% of the variance in
negative impact. The control variables (child IQ,
child gender, and mother education) accounted
for 10.1%, F(3, 209) ⫽ 7.85, p ⬍ .001, behavior
problems accounted for an additional 37.4%,
F(change, 1, 208) ⫽ 147.95, p ⬍ .001, and pos-
itive impact accounted for an additional 6.7%,
F(change, 1, 207) ⫽ 30.40, p ⬍ .001. The inter-
341
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER
Positive impact of intellectual disability
action term, indicating moderation, accounted
for an additional 1.9%, F(change; 1, 206) ⫽ 8.77,
p ⫽ .003. In the final model, behavior problems,
p ⬍ .001, positive impact, p ⬍ .001, the inter-
action term, p ⬍ .01, and child IQ, p ⬍ .05, were
all significant.
At child ages 4 and 5 years, results for mother
negative impact were highly similar, with 58.4%
and 65.3% of the variance in negative impact ac-
counted for. The control variables (in these anal-
yses, child IQ and maternal health) accounted for
12.9% and 15.7%, respectively, both ps ⬍ .001.
Behavior problems accounted for an additional
38.2% and 37.9%, both F(changes), p ⬍ .001. Pos-
itive impact accounted for an additional 4.2% and
7.3%, both F(changes), p ⬍ .001. The interaction
term, indicating moderation, accounted for an ad-
ditional 3.0% at age 4, F change (1, 199) ⫽ 14.37,
p ⬍ .001, and 4.4% at age 5, F change (1, 208) ⫽
26.49 p ⬍ .001. All of the interactions reported
evidenced the same pattern of effect as that shown
in Figure 4, which illustrates the moderation effect
at age 5 graphically, with the main and moderator
variables centered (Aiken & West, 1991).
We repeated these three regression analyses
for fathers, with very similar results. Positive im-
Figure 4. Study 2. Positive impact moderates the relationship between child behavior problems and
parenting stress (mothers, at child age 3 years). Square, high; triangle, moderate; and circle, low positive
impact.
342 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
pact accounted for significant variance in negative
impact beyond child behavior problems at child
ages 3, 4, and 5 years, all ps ⬍ .001. Positive im-
pact was also a significant moderator at ages 4 and
5; the interaction term was significant at p ⬍ .001.
At 36 months, however, the interaction was not
significant.
Discussion
We examined the positive impact of a child
with an intellectual disability on mothers and fa-
thers in two samples of families: those with (a)
preschool children (with borderline, mild, or
moderate intellectual disabilities or without intel-
lectual disabilities) and (b) young adults with se-
vere intellectual disabilities. We proposed three
ways one could conceptualize positive impact: as
low negative outcomes, as common benefits (the
same child-rearing benefits enjoyed by parents of
children without disabilities), and as special ben-
efits (derived because of the disability).
Our first question was, Can positive impact
be inferred from low scores on measures of neg-
ative impact or well-being? Findings from these
two very different samples indicated that inferring
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
positive impact from low negative impact would
be wrong as often as it would be correct, thus
providing little support for the low negative per-
spective. Moreover, positive impact was unrelated
to another measure of well-being, depression, in
both samples. Although low scores on measures
of psychopathology are, of course, desirable, one
must be cautious in interpreting these as related
to disability. Even when parents of children with
and those without disability differ on these mea-
sures, the difference is primarily related to child
behavior problems, not the disability per se (Baker
et al., 2002). Also, as we have seen here, low neg-
ative scores do not strongly predict high scores on
a more direct measure of positive impact.
Our second question was, Would there be
group differences on a measure designed to assess
common benefits? To address this question, we
utilized a Positive Impacts scale that is equally ap-
propriate for parents of children with and without
disability. In Study 2, parents of preschool-aged
children with developmental delays or no delays
differed significantly on a measure of negative im-
pact, or stress. We had previously found that in
this sample positive impact at child age 3 years
did not differ between families of delayed and typ-
ically developing children (Baker et al., 2002), and
in the present analyses we found no delay status
differences at ages 4 and 5 years as well. The ex-
pression of common benefits of parenting across
families with and without disability, despite dif-
ferences in negative impact, lends support to the
two-factor model of caregiving appraisal (Pruchno
et al., 1996) and tempers the exclusively negative
perspective that has characterized earlier literature
on families and disability.
Our third question of interest was, Do par-
ents’ reports of positive impact vary by child be-
havioral challenges? In the present studies, par-
ents’ reports of positive impact were significantly
inversely related to young adult behavior/mental
health problems and to child behavior problems
at all three assessments. This is consistent with
other findings, noted above, that child behavioral
challenges accounted for more variance in nega-
tive indicators of parental well-being than did dis-
ability status in the present samples (Baker et al.,
2002, 2003; McIntyre et al., 2002) and others
(Floyd & Gallagher, 1997; Poehlmann, Clements,
Abbeduto, & Farsad, 2005).
Our fourth question was, Which factors be-
yond the child might contribute to positive per-
ceptions of parenting? To address this question,
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
we focused on parent gender and cultural back-
ground. Within the preschool-age sample, reports
by mother and fathers of their perceptions of pos-
itive impact of parenting were not appreciably dif-
ferent, although fathers reported significantly
higher scores. As noted earlier, Hastings, Kor-
shoff‘ et al. (2005), using a different assessment of
positive perceptions, found that mothers reported
slightly higher scores. To date, perceptions of pos-
itive impact cannot be said to systematically differ
by parent gender.
Regarding culture, we sought to replicate and
extend our previous finding in the sample of
young adults with severe disability: that Latina
mothers reported much higher positive impact
than did Anglo mothers. We contrasted Latino
and Anglo subsamples from the young child sam-
ple and replicated this finding with both mothers
and fathers. Within the whole young child sam-
ple, we had found no relationship between delay
status and positive impact. However, an impor-
tant difference was masked by combining Latino
and Anglo parents because there was a significant
relationship between culture and delay group.
With typically developing children, Anglo and La-
tino mothers and fathers reported about the same
extent of positive impact. However, with devel-
opmentally delayed children, Anglo mothers and
fathers both reported lower positive impact (as ex-
pected), but Latino mothers and fathers both re-
ported higher positive impact. Although this De-
lay Status ⫻ Culture interaction was of only bor-
derline statistical significance, these results were
consistent with the very large cultural group dif-
ference in the sample of young adults, all of
whom had developmental disabilities.
To understand Latino families’ increase in
positive views in the face of disability, consider
this expression ‘‘No hay mal que por bien no ven-
ga,’’ which translates ‘‘there is nothing bad out of
which good cannot come’’ (Zuniga, 1992, p. 151).
This positive expression reflects cultural beliefs re-
lated to disability, family, and religion. For ex-
ample, Latina and non-Latina mothers may hold
some different beliefs about what are considered
acceptable child-rearing practices. Juarez (1985)
noted that, in some Latino families, it might be
deemed acceptable for a nondelayed preschooler
to drink from a baby bottle or a preteen to still
sit in her or his mother’s lap. Thus, when the son
or daughter has a disability, especially a grown
‘‘child’’ of age 20 or more whose caregiving needs
resemble those of a young child, the daily care
343
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
burden may be perceived as less stressful or drain-
ing for Latino families than for Anglo ones. In-
deed, a lack of push for independence of growing
children is characteristic of some cultures, even
more so when there is a child or young adult with
a severe disability (Rueda, Monzo, Shapiro, Go-
mez, & Blacher, 2005). Religious belief systems
also may incline Latina mothers toward positive
reframing, providing families with a spiritual
framework for understanding the disability and
for providing hope (Zuniga, 1998).
Latina mothers may report more positive im-
pact of their child with disabilities on parenting,
in part because of the importance of the parent–
child relationship in Latino families and the
mother’s own views of her child’s characteristics.
One interpretation of mother’s positive percep-
tions reflects attribution theory. In an earlier study
of 149 Latina mothers of children with develop-
mental disabilities, Chavira, Lopez, Blacher, and
Shapiro (2000) found that most mothers view
their child as not responsible for his or her be-
havior problems. By not attributing cause to the
child, mothers avoid the formulation of negative
emotions. Another interpretation reflects the em-
beddedness of the child in the family, and Latina
mothers’ great pride and responsibility in their
knowledge of their child. Thus, as reported in
Rueda et al. (2005), Latinas often feel that they
are better able to make child-related decisions
than are professionals. This empowerment is like-
ly very satisfying and positive. Furthermore, Lati-
na mothers often perceive their child as more
competent than do professionals who assess or
provide services to the child. In speaking about
her young adult son who functioned at the level
of a 6-year-old, one mother said: ‘‘He is a very
handsome young man and he is attending the
Easter Seals and his functional level is basically a
moderate mental retardation, very intelligent’’
(Rueda et al., 2005, p. 7).
Given the empirical evidence of successful in-
terventions for depression that have been formu-
lated from a positive psychology perspective (Se-
ligman et al., 2005), the possibility of building on
Latina mothers’ positive perceptions in interven-
tion programs for parents who have children with
disabilities is compelling. We note the impor-
tance, though, of documenting and considering
culturally relevant variables because Latina moth-
ers have reported some alienation in their expe-
riences with service delivery systems (Shapiro,
Monzo, Rueda, Gomez, & Blacher, 2004). None-
344 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
theless, there is potential usefulness for including
this aspect in parent education or intervention
programs, particularly where there is an emphasis
on cognitions about parenting.
Our final question was, Do parents’ percep-
tion of positive contributions of the child with
disability buffer the established relationship be-
tween child behavior problems and parenting
stress? In both samples, positive impact had a
main effect relationship to parenting stress; moth-
ers and fathers who perceived greater positive im-
pact reported lower parenting stress. Moreover,
there were significant Positive Impact ⫻ Behav-
ioral Challenge interactions in the young adult
sample and in the preschool sample for mothers
at all three time points and for fathers at two of
three time points. Thus, when child-rearing chal-
lenges were lower, there was little relationship be-
tween positive views of parenting and experienced
stress. However, when child-rearing challenges
were higher, parents who held the least positive
views of parenting reported the greatest stress. Al-
though studies have repeatedly linked child be-
havioral challenges to lowered parental well-being,
there is always considerable unexplained variance
in the well-being variables. The present finding,
that perceptions of positive impact moderate the
relationship between child challenge and parental
stress, is particularly important because it was
manifested in two large samples quite different in
age and level of disability. This finding relates to
a larger body of literature on positive thinking.
Several researchers have found that positivism in
the form of perceptions of positive meaning lead
to better outcomes in health domains, such as
breast cancer (Bower, 2005; Bower & Segerstrom,
2004). Examining mechanisms, Taylor, Lerner,
Sherman, Sage, and McDowell (2003) found that
forms of positive illusions or beliefs actually re-
duced cardiovascular responses to stress and pro-
duced lower baseline levels of cortisol.
Models of stress and coping pertaining di-
rectly to families and disability posit that the re-
lationship between child stressors and parental
well-being is affected by resources (e.g., income,
social support) and cognitions (e.g., McCubbin &
Patterson, 1983). Although some investigators
have examined the moderating role of resources
(e.g., Suarez & Baker, 1997), there is a need to
study further the personality characteristics that
parents bring with them to parenting, as well as
attitudes concerning parenting, as possible buffers
of child-rearing challenges. Recently, reported re-
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
search with the Study 2 sample found that the
personality trait of dispositional optimism mod-
erated this relationship for mothers (Baker et al.,
2005). The present findings also support the mod-
el of cognitions as moderators of child challenges
on parental outcome. However, it is notable that
in the Study 1 sample, positive views of parenting
and dispositional optimism were not significantly
related.
Finally, we note that longitudinal perspectives
on positive impact of disability are lacking in the
literature. In the present study, positive impact
was stable across the preschool years. Poehlmann
et al. (2005) have suggested that by the time a
child with intellectual disability reaches adoles-
cence, parents have had more time to reflect on
the son’s or daughter’s positive attributes and to
develop more positive perceptions. We note that
within the disability groups of our studies report-
ed here, Anglo mothers’ positive impact mean
score was 14.5 in the 3-year old sample and 12.0
in the young adult sample, whereas Latina moth-
ers had almost identical scores (Ms ⫽ 17.7 and
17.6 in the two samples, respectively). These sam-
ples, of course, differed in many respects, so al-
though these means do not support Poehlmann
et al.’s hypothesis of more positive perceptions
over time, the question can only adequately be
addressed longitudinally and in different cultural
contexts.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child
Behavior Checklist 4–18. Burlington: Universi-
ty of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (2000). Manual for the Child
Behavior Checklist 1½–5. Burlington: Univer-
sity of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regres-
sion: Testing and interpreting interactions. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Baker, B. L., Blacher, J., & Olsson, M. (2005). Pre-
school children with and without develop-
mental delay: Behaviour problems, parents’
optimism, and well being. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 49, 575–590.
Baker, B. L., Blacher, J., Crnic, K. A., & Edel-
brock, C. (2002). Behavior problems and par-
enting stress in families of three-year-old chil-
dren with and without developmental delays.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107,
433–444.
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
Baker, B. L., Blacher, J., Kopp, C. B., & Kraemer,
B. (1997). Parenting children with mental re-
tardation. International Review of Research in
Mental Retardation, 20, 1–45.
Baker, B. L., Heller, T. L., & Henker, B. (2000).
Expressed emotion, parenting stress, and ad-
justment in mothers of young children with
behavior problems. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 41, 907–915.
Baker, B. L., McIntyre, L. L., Blacher, J., Crnic,
K., Edelbrock, C., & Low, C. (2003). Pre-
school children with and without develop-
mental delay: Behavior problems and parent-
ing stress over time. Journal of Intellectual Dis-
ability Research, 47, 217–230.
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Develop-
ment Second Edition: Manual. San Antonio:
Psychological Corp.
Behr, S. K., Murphy, D. L., & Summers, J. A.
(1992). User’s manual: Kansas Inventory of Pa-
rental Perceptions (KIPP). Lawrence: University
of Kansas, Beach Center on Families and Dis-
ability.
Billingsley, A. (1992). Black families in white Amer-
ica. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blacher, J., & Baker, B. L. (2002). The best of
AAMR. Families and mental retardation: A col-
lection of notable AAMR journal articles across
the 20th century. Washington, DC: American
Association on Mental Retardation.
Blacher, J., & McIntyre, L. L. (2006). Syndrome
specificity and behavioural disorders in young
adults with intellectual disability: Cultural dif-
ferences in family impact. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 50, 184–198.
Blacher, J., Shapiro, J., Lopez, S., Diaz, L., & Fus-
co, J. (1997). Depression in Latina mothers of
children with mental retardation: A neglected
concern. American Journal on Mental Retarda-
tion, 101, 83–96.
Bower, J., Meyerowitz, B. E., Desmond, K. A.,
Bernaards, C. A., Rowland, J., & Patricia, A.
(2005). Perceptions of positive meaning and
vulnerability following breast cancer predic-
tors and outcomes among long-term breast
cancer survivors. Annals of Behavioral Medi-
cine, 29, 236–245.
Bower, J. E., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2004). Stress
management, finding benefit, and immune
function: Positive mechanisms for interven-
tion effects on physiology. Journal of Psycho-
somatic Research, 56, 9–11.
Bruininks, R. H., Woodcock, R. W., Weather-
345
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
man, R. F., & Hill, B. K. (1996). Scales of In-
dependent Behavior Revised comprehensive man-
ual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Chavira, V., Lopez, S. R., Blacher, J., & Shapiro,
S. (2000). Latina mothers’ attributions, emo-
tions, and reactions to the problem behaviors
of their children with developmental disabil-
ities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
41, 245–252.
Cox, A. H., Marshall, E. S., Mandleco, B., & Ol-
sen, S. F. (2003). Coping responses to daily
life stressor of children who have a disability.
Journal of Family Nursing, 9, 397–413.
Dyson, L. L. (1997). Fathers and mothers of
school-age children with developmental dis-
abilities: Parental stress, family functioning,
and social support. American Journal on Men-
tal Retardation, 102, 267–279.
Floyd, F. J., & Gallagher, E. M. (1997). Parental
stress, care demands, and use of support ser-
vices for school-age children with disabilities
and behavior problems. Family Relations, 46,
359–371.
Floyd, F. J., & Phillippe, K. A. (1993). Parental
interactions with children with and without
mental retardation: Behavior management,
coerciveness, and positive exchange. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 673–684.
Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states
and coping with severe stress. Social Science
and Medicine, 45, 1207–1221.
Friedrich, W. N., Greenberg, M. T., & Crnic, K.
(1983). A short-form of the Questionnaire on
Resources and Stress. American Journal of Men-
tal Deficiency, 88, 41–48.
Gallimore, R., Hoots, J. J., Weisner, T. S., Garnier,
H. E., & Guthrie, D. (1996). Family responses
to children with early developmental disabil-
ities II: Accommodation intensity and activity
in early and middle childhood. American Jour-
nal on Mental Retardation, 101, 215–232.
Hastings, R. P., Allen, R., McDermott, K., & Still,
D. (2002). Factors related to positive percep-
tions in mothers of children with intellectual
disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intel-
lectual Disabilities, 15, 269–275.
Hastings, R. P., Beck, A., & Hill, C. (2005). Posi-
tive contributions made by children with an
intellectual disability in the family. Journal of
Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 155–165.
Hastings, R. P., & Horne, S. (2004). Positive per-
ceptions held by support staff in community
346 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
mental retardation services. American Journal
on Mental Retardation, 109, 53–62.
Hastings, R. P., Korshoff, H., Brown, T., Ward,
N. J., Espinosa, F. D., & Remington, B.
(2005). Coping strategies in mothers and fa-
thers of preschool and school-age children
with autism. Autism, 9, 377–391.
Hastings, R. P., & Taunt, H. M. (2002). Positive
perceptions in families of children with de-
velopmental disabilities. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 107, 116–127.
Hauser-Cram, P., Warfield, M. E., Shonkoff, J. P.,
& Krauss, M. W. (2001). Children with dis-
abilities: A longitudinal study of child devel-
opment and parent well-being. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 66,
1–131.
Helff, C. M., & Glidden, L. M. (1998). More pos-
itive or less negative? Trends in research on
adjustment of families rearing children with
developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation,
36, 457–464.
Hodapp, R. M., Glidden, L. M., & Kaiser, A. P.
(2005). Siblings of persons with disabilities:
Toward a research agenda. Mental Retardation,
43, 334–338.
Holroyd, J. (1985). Questionnaire on Resources and
Stress manual. Unpublished manuscript, Uni-
versity of California, Los Angeles, Neuropsy-
chiatric Institute.
Juarez, R. (1985). Core issues in psychotherapy
with the Hispanic child. Psychotherapy, 22,
441–448.
Lawton, M. R., Moss, M., Kleban, M. H., Glicks-
man, A., & Ravine, M. (1991). A two-factor
model of caregiving appraisal and psycholog-
ical well-being. Journal of Gerontology: Psycho-
logical Sciences, 46, 181–189.
Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (2004). Developing
cross-cultural competence (3rd ed.). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Margalit, M., & Ankonina, D. B. (1991). Positive
and negative affect in parenting disabled chil-
dren. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 4, 289–
299.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1983). Family
transition: Adaptation to stress. In H. I.
McCubbin & C. R. Figley (Eds.), Stress and the
family: Vol. I. Coping with normative transitions
(pp. 5–23). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
McIntyre, L. L., Blacher, J., & Baker, B. L. (2002).
Behaviour/mental health problems in young
adults with intellectual disability: The impact
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007
Positive impact of intellectual disability
on families. Journal of Intellectual Disability Re-
search, 46, 239–249.
Phares, V. (1996). Fathers and developmental psycho-
pathology. New York: Wiley.
Poehlmann, J., Clements, M., Abbeduto, L., &
Farsad, V. (2005). Family experiences associ-
ated with a child’s diagnosis of fragile X or
Down syndrome: Evidence for disruption and
resilience. Mental Retardation, 43, 255–267.
Pruchno, R. A., Patrick, J. M. H., & Burant, C.
(1996). Mental health of aging women with
children who are chronically disabled: Ex-
amination of a two-factor model. Journal of
Gerontology: Social Sciences, 51B, S284–296.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-
report depression scale for research in the gen-
eral population. Applied Psychological Measure-
ment, 1, 385–401.
Reiss, S. (1994). Reiss Screen for Maladaptive Be-
havior: Test manual (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH:
IDS.
Rogers-Dulan, J., & Blacher, J. (1995). African
American families, religion, and disability: A
conceptual framework. Mental Retardation, 33,
226–238.
Rueda, R., Monzo, L., Shapiro, J., Gomez, J., &
Blacher, J. (2005). Cultural models of transi-
tion: Latina mothers of young adults with de-
velopmental disabilities. Exceptional Children,
71, 1–14.
Sandler, A. G., & Mistretta, L. A. (1998). Positive
adaptation in parents of adults with disabili-
ties. Education and Training in Mental Retar-
dation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 123–
130.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Pe-
terson, C. (2005). Positive psychology pro-
gress. Empirical validation of interventions.
American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
Shapiro, J., Monzo, L. D., Rueda, R., Gomez, J.
A., & Blacher, J. (2004). Alienated advocacy:
Latina mothers of young children with devel-
opmental disabilities speak out about service
delivery systems. Mental Retardation, 42, 37–
54.
Singer, G. H. S., & Powers, L. E. (1993). Families,
disability, and empowerment: Active coping skills
and strategies for family interventions. Baltimore:
Brookes.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V.
(1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Cir-
cle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Stainton, T., & Besser, H. (1998). The positive im-
䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION
J. Blacher and B. L. Baker
pact of children with an intellectual disability
on the family. Journal of Intellectual and Devel-
opmental Disability, 23, 57–70.
Suarez, L. M., & Baker, B. L. (1997). Child exter-
nalizing behavior and parents’ stress: The role
of social support. Family Relations, 47, 373–
381.
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: Enabling
positive adaptation to disabilities (pp. 27–40).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Taunt, H. M., & Hastings, R. P. (2002). Positive
impact of children with developmental disabil-
ities on their families: A preliminary study. Ed-
ucation and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 37, 410–420.
Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening
events: A theory of cognitive adaptation.
American Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173.
Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower,
J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000). Psycholog-
ical resources, positive illusions, and health.
American Psychologist, 55, 99–109.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage,
R. M., & McDowell, N. K. (2003). Are self-
enhancing cognitions associated with healthy
or unhealthy biological profiles? Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 85, 605–615.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M.
(1986). The Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale,
Fourth edition: Technical manual. Chicago: Riv-
erside.
Turnbull, A. P., Patterson, J. M., Behr, S. K., Mur-
phy, D. L., Marquis, J. G., & Blue-Banning,
M. J. (Eds.). (1993). Cognitive coping, families,
and disability. Baltimore: Brookes.
Valentine, D. P., McDermott, S., & Anderson, D.
(1998). Mothers of adults with mental retar-
dation: Is race a factor in perceptions of bur-
dens and gratifications? Families in Society, 79,
577–584.
Zuniga, M. E. (1992). Families with Latino roots.
In E. W. Lynch & M. J. Hanson (Eds.), De-
veloping cross-cultural competence (pp. 151–179).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Zuniga, M. E. (1998). Families with Latino roots.
In E. W. Lynch & M. J. Hanson (Eds.), De-
veloping cross-cultural competence (2nd ed., pp.
209–250). Baltimore: Brookes.
347
VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 330–348 円 SEPTEMBER 2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Positive impact of intellectual disability J. Blacher and B. L. Baker

Received 12/22/05, accepted 9/21/06.
Editor-in-charge: William E. MacLean, Jr.
This article was based on activities of the Univer-
sity of California Riverside Families Project, sup-
ported by National Institute for Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD) Grant HD 21324
(Jan Blacher, principal investigator) and The Col-
laborative Family Study, supported by NICHD
Grant 34879-1459 (Keith Crnic, principal inves-
tigator; Bruce Baker, Jan Blacher, and Craig Edel-
brock, co-principal investigators). We are indebted
to our staff and doctoral students at UC Riverside,
UCLA, and Pennsylvania State University. We
also acknowledge the helpful feedback from col-
leagues Steve Lopez and Robert Rueda. We es-
pecially appreciate the participation of the fami-
lies who made this research possible. Requests for
reprints should be sent to Jan Blacher, Graduate
School of Education, UC Riverside, Riverside,
CA. 92521. E-mail: jan.blacher@ucr.edu

VOLUME 112, NUMBER 5: 348 円 JULY 2007 AMERICAN JOURNAL ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Errata
In the July 2007 issue of AJMR, pp. 239–299 (Narrative Development in Adolescents and Young Adults
With Fragile X Syndrome, by Yolanda D. Keller-Bell and Leonard D. Abbeduto), there should be no
middle initial for Leonard Abbeduto.

348 䉷 American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities