Stress and coping in mothers caring for a child with severe learning difficulties: A test of Lazarus' transactional model of coping

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The literature on psychological stress among women consistently points to the adverse effects of child rearing on mothers, particularly those caring for children with physical or mental handicaps. Early studies of the effects on family functioning of caring for a child with severe learning difficulties adopted a pathological approach in which it was assumed that psychological distress was inevitable among family members, particularly mothers. Recent research has emphasised that many families cope with and adapt to the stress they experience, and seeks to discover how they do so.The paper reports on a study of 166 mothers caring for a child with severe learning difficulties. The aim of the study was to investigate both the factors associated with maternal stress and those which might mediate or buffer the effects of stress. The study used the Folkman and Lazarus' (1979) transactional model of stress. Stress is the condition that results when person/environment transactions lead the individual to perceive a discrepancy between the demands of a situation and his/her resources or ability to cope with those demands. The nature and type of coping generated by a person will be determined by the coping resources in the person's environment. The model identifies five categories of coping resource: utilitarian resources, health/morale, social networks, general and specific beliefs, and problem solving skills. In our study, the five coping resources were represented by the mother's social class and appraisal of her financial worries, physical health, social support, acceptance of and adjustment to the child, and assessment of coping skills. Stress was measured by the Malaise Inventory (Rutter, 1970).Four of the five coping resources were found to be significant contributors in a hierarchical regression analysis of stress scores, contributing additional variance beyond that of behavioural and other child characteristics. Altogether, 55% of the variance in stress scores was explained.