Tess Tournier1,2, Alexander H C Hendriks3, Andrew Jahoda4, Richard P Hastings5,6, Sanne A H Giesbers1, Ad A Vermulst7, Petri J C M Embregts1. 1. Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 2. ASVZ, Sliedrecht, The Netherlands. 3. School of Pedagogical and Educational Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 5. Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 6. Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia. 7. GGZ (Mental Health Care) Oost Brabant, Boekel, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on self-reported social capital, different typologies of family networks of people with intellectual disabilities were examined. Associations between behavioural and emotional problems or well-being and typologies were investigated. METHOD: 137 participants with mild intellectual disability were interviewed using the Family Network Method-Intellectual Disability to assess their emotionally supportive family relationships. Data on participants' well-being and behavioural and emotional problems were also gathered. Latent class analysis was used to identify family typologies based on social network measures. RESULTS: Four distinguishable typologies were identified, two supportive and two less supportive. A small association was found with behavioural and emotional problems and one of the supportive typologies. Associations with constructs of well-being were found for both supportive and less supportive typologies. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of family types were found, with implications for sensitive professional support.
BACKGROUND: Based on self-reported social capital, different typologies of family networks of people with intellectual disabilities were examined. Associations between behavioural and emotional problems or well-being and typologies were investigated. METHOD: 137 participants with mild intellectual disability were interviewed using the Family Network Method-Intellectual Disability to assess their emotionally supportive family relationships. Data on participants' well-being and behavioural and emotional problems were also gathered. Latent class analysis was used to identify family typologies based on social network measures. RESULTS: Four distinguishable typologies were identified, two supportive and two less supportive. A small association was found with behavioural and emotional problems and one of the supportive typologies. Associations with constructs of well-being were found for both supportive and less supportive typologies. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of family types were found, with implications for sensitive professional support.