Social Support,Education Levels,and Parents’ Involvement: A Comparison Between Mothers and Fathers of Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

Parental involvement plays a critical role in the development of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and can promote children’s developmental and educational outcomes. This study aimed to compare mothers and fathers of children with ASD’s social support and education levels in relation to their level of involvement. Participants included 107 parents (61 mothers, 46 fathers) of children with ASD aged 2 to 7 years. Three instruments measured parents’ involvement, formal and informal social support, and education levels. As hypothesized, mothers reported higher levels of involvement than fathers, which related to their informal support (non-formal relatives), while fathers reported receiving greater formal support than mothers. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed unique gender differences in the predictors of parental involvement. For example, parental education positively predicted involvement only among fathers. Practical implications for services and child–family interventions are discussed.

Keywords

parental involvement social support autism spectrum disorder parental education formal support informal support

Research evidence demonstrates the significant role of parental involvement in the care of their children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and its beneficial effect on the children’s developmental and educational outcomes (Azeem, Imran, & Khawaja, 2016; Casenhiser, Shanker, & Stieben, 2011; Mareoiu, Bland, Dobbins, & Niemeyer, 2015). Studies emphasize that the support parents receive is of great importance for their performance and their involvement in promoting the care of a child with a disability (Coogle, Guerette, & Hanline, 2013; Ingber, Al-Yagon, & Dromi, 2010). Parents receive both formal and informal support. Formal support comes from a variety of people, such as doctors, social workers, and special education teachers, while informal support comes from others, such as family, friends, and support groups (Coogle et al., 2013). Mothers and fathers often view these types of support differently, with mothers reporting that they receive greater informal social support than fathers (Altiere, 2006). At the same time, mothers of children with ASD often report higher levels of involvement and parenting responsibility compared with fathers (Foody, James, & Leader, 2015). Beyond social support, parent’s education is also associated with their levels of involvement (Cheng & Wu, 2016; Gaunt, 2008), but this aspect has been only minimally explored and revealed inconsistent results. Gaining a better understanding of how education, social support, and level of involvement relate to each other can help practitioners find effective ways to promote parents’ involvement in the care of their child with ASD.

Mothers’ and Fathers’ Involvement in the Care of Their Child With ASD

In recent decades, parents are increasingly involved in their children’s development and education, and are generally ready to invest emotional, social, and economic resources in their promotion (Ule, Živoder, & du Bois-Reymond, 2015). However, differences have been found between mothers and fathers regarding this involvement. For example, mothers, more than fathers, have been found to be involved with and participate in their child’s therapy sessions (Duhig, Phares, & Birkeland, 2002). In addition, a higher level of maternal identity salience was found to be negatively related to the amount of fathers’ involvement in their child’s care (Gaunt & Scott, 2014).

For children with ASD, parental involvement is considered a crucial and significant component in every stage of development and treatment (Azeem et al., 2016), particularly early childhood, early education, and early intervention (Mareoiu et al., 2015). As such, parents of children with ASD often are heavily involved in their children’s early development and education (Casenhiser et al., 2011). For example, they often are engaged in their child’s services and interact with their service providers (Coogle et al., 2013). This includes multiple areas, such as the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), intervention program, academic transition, or educational framework (Hebel, 2014; Lee, McCoy, Zucker, & Mathur, 2014; Zhang & Spencer, 2015). Parental involvement also takes a variety of forms, such as communication with the intervention team or implementation of the program directly with the child. Researchers have noted that to learn about the effectiveness of these forms of involvement or their predictive ability, it is important to understand the parents’ points of view regarding their involvement (Granger, Riviéres-Pigeon, Sabourin, & Forget, 2012).

Parents of children with ASD’s involvement in caregiving have been found to relate to positive child outcomes, behaviors, and personality components, as well as to positive relations between families and the educational system, and to contribute significantly to the child’s development and well-being (Azeem et al., 2016; Casenhiser et al., 2011; Mareoiu et al., 2015). As with the findings relating to typically developing children, differences have been documented between mothers’ and fathers’ level of involvement in their child with ASD’s care. For example, mothers of children with ASD have been found to play more active roles in their child’s care than fathers (Behrani & Shah, 2016). At the same time, both mothers and fathers of children with ASD have reported high levels of stress relating to their parental role (Rivard, Terroux, Parent-Boursier, & Mercier, 2014).

Studies comparing parenting stress and parenting responsibility between mothers and fathers of children with ASD reveal that mothers show higher levels of parenting responsibility than fathers and are significantly less likely to be employed full-time than fathers. It has been suggested that higher levels of parenting involvement among mothers and fathers of children with ASD is related to higher levels of distress, anxiety, and depression (Foody et al., 2015). Studies of parents of children with other disabilities (e.g., hearing loss) have shown that their involvement is affected by their emotional states and the social support they receive (Ingber et al., 2010). In line with these findings, parents of young children with ASD have indicated that they value opportunities to be involved with the early intervention team (service providers) to receive support in learning how to help their children (Coogle et al., 2013). Furthermore, studies have documented the relation between the social support parents of children with ASD receive and their adaptive coping and well-being (Altiere, 2006; Armstrong, Birnie-Lefcovitch, & Unger, 2005; Behrani & Shah, 2016).

Mothers’ and Fathers’ Formal and Informal Social Support

Parents of children with ASD report positive perceptions that emerge from having a child with autism as well as psychological and physical distress. Hastings and colleagues (2005) found that parents report that having a child with ASD has helped them learn patience or has helped bring their family closer together. In addition, the authors found that mothers, more than fathers, report these positive perceptions (Hastings et al., 2005). At the same time, parents of a child with ASD are at an increased risk of experiencing serious psychological and physical distress, more than parents of children with other disabilities or with typical development (Bromley, Hare, Davison, & Emerson, 2004; Miranda, Tárraga, Fernández, Colomer, & Pastor, 2015). This is frequently attributed to the cognitive limitations and challenging behavior of children with ASD (Boyd, 2002; Bromley et al., 2004; Hastings et al., 2005). Social support has been found to be a major component of adaptive coping in parents of a child with ASD or an intellectual disability (Behrani & Shah, 2016). Child ASD characteristics, especially their cognitive limitations and the long-term dependency that ensues, have been associated with mothers’ urge to seek social support. Moreover, mothers of a child with ASD who reported being under greater stress have reported being more inclined to pursue social support (Boyd, 2002).

Social support theory suggests two major models in explaining the relations between social support and family well-being—the main effect and the buffering effect. According to the main effect model, social support is defined as social integration and has a beneficial effect on well-being, regardless of stress. The buffering model proposes that social support protects individuals from the possible harmful effects of stressful events (Armstrong et al., 2005). The crucial importance and impact of social support on the well-being of parents of children with ASD is well documented in studies and has been identified as a protective mechanism with main and buffering effects that can influence family well-being (Altiere, 2006; Armstrong et al., 2005; Boyd, 2002; Dunst, Trivette, & Hamby, 2007; Kaniel & Siman-Tov, 2011). Rivard et al. (2014) emphasize the crucial role of social support for families of young children with ASD during the period after the child’s diagnosis and while waiting to receive services.

Parents of children with ASD tend to first seek formal social support, such as medical doctors, respite care, psychologists, social workers, and special education teachers, to aid in caring for the child (Altiere, 2006). These parents express appreciation for formal support, noting that it provides relationships with service providers in their child’s early intervention program. They pinpoint the important role of service providers in helping those learning new skills and conveying knowledge to help their children (Coogle et al., 2013). After acquiring formal social support to fulfill the physical and psychological needs of the child, parents typically seek informal social support, such as family members outside of the home, friends, and support groups (Altiere, 2006).

In comparisons between mothers and fathers of a child with ASD, mothers have reported receiving more informal social support than fathers (Altiere, 2006), and informal support had been found to be more effective than formal support in reducing mothers’ stress (Boyd, 2002). One way that mothers of children with ASD frequently receive informal support (informational and emotional) and provide support to other parents is through the use of online communication (Reinke & Solheim, 2015). Studies of fathers are less common, but in one study, fathers of children with ASD report both formal and informal support that help their involvement in their children’s education, including education professionals, support groups, and advocacy (Meadan, Stoner, & Angell, 2015). In addition to perceived formal and informal support, parents’ education has also been found to relate to mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in their child’s care, for children both with and without disabilities (e.g., Gaunt, 2008; Zand et al., 2015).

Parental Education in Relation to Mothers’ and Fathers’ Involvement

Studies examining parental education and its relation to their level of involvement with their typically developing children have yielded inconsistent results. For example, among couples with 6- to 36-month-old children, higher levels of parents’ education was found to be associated with higher levels of involvement and responsibility in their child’s care (Gaunt, 2008). However, in another study involving parents of young children, parents’ education and involvement in child care tasks were not found to relate to one another (Gaunt & Scott, 2014). Differences have been found in single parent families between mothers’ and fathers’ education level and their level of involvement. Specifically, the association between higher level parental education and more parent–child activities and greater parental awareness is more pronounced among single fathers than single mothers (Cheng & Wu, 2016). Regarding children with disabilities, higher levels of mothers’ education has been found to be related to increased knowledge about child development and child care (Zand et al., 2015). Education is also related to the well-being of parents’ of children with and without disabilities, such that higher education is positively related to parents’ positive affect and negatively related to parents’ negative affect. Moreover, education level relates to family supports and family resources (Trivette, Dunst, & Hamby, 2010). Based on the limited and inconsistent research in this area, our investigation of parents’ education was largely exploratory.

In conclusion, the extant literature shows that parents of children with ASD play an essential role in their children’s care, and that their involvement in their children’s educational and therapeutic planning is crucial, particularly in early development. Mothers are generally more involved than fathers in their child’s care, and their involvement has been found to relate to perceived social support, particularly to informal support. At the same time, these parents tend to report high levels of stress and a need for social support for their own and their child’s well-being. Beyond this, the existing research has not fully explored the impact of parents’ education on the care of a child with ASD. The current study thus aimed to compare between mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in their care of their child with ASD, and to examine the social support (formal and informal) that these mothers’ and fathers’ report receiving and their levels of education in relation to their levels of involvement. We expected to replicate previous research showing that mothers would be more involved than fathers in the care of their child with ASD. We further hypothesized that the type of support (formal, informal), as well as parental education, would predict variation between mothers’ and fathers’ levels of involvement.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 107 Israeli parents of children diagnosed with ASD. To receive a diagnosis of ASD, in line with the Israel Ministry of Health (2013) requirements, and following the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), children must undergo evaluations of physical, neurological, and emotional development. These must be conducted by at least two professionals, one medical doctor (psychiatrist or neurologist) and one clinical psychologist, who must agree on the diagnosis. Of the participants, 61 mothers were 21 to 45 years of age (M = 35.04, SD = 5.73) and the 46 fathers were 24 to 59 years of age (M = 37.91, SD = 6.62). A majority of mothers had a college education, and among fathers, an equal number had a high school and a college education (see Table 1). All participants live in central Israel and most were from a middle socio-economic status.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics (N = 107).

Characteristics	Mothersn = 61		Fathersn = 46
Characteristics	n	(%)	n	(%)
Marital status
Married	52	(85)	41	(89)
Divorced	3	(4.9)	5	(10.9)
Single	6	(9.8)
Education
Primary or secondary education (7–12 years of education)	24	(39.3)	19	(41.3)
College education (13–16 years of education)	28	(45.9)	19	(41.3)
Graduate or postgraduate (17–20 years of education)	9	(14.8)	8	(17.4)
Income
Low income	15	(24.6)	10	(21.7)
Average and above	42	(68.9)	35	(76.1)
Well above average	4	(6.6)	1	(2.2)
Employment
Full-time	32	(52.5)	37	(80.4)
Part-time	13	(21.3)	5	(10.9)
Unemployed	16	(26.2)	4	(8.7)
Number of children
1 child	12	(19)	4	(8.7)
2 children	32	(52.5)	17	(37)
3 children	13	(21.3)	15	(32.6)
More than 3 children	4	(6.5)	10	(21.7)

Most of the children with ASD were male (74.77%) and aged between 2 and 7 years (M = 4.18, SD = 1.13). Nearly all the children (94.6%) attended special kindergartens for children with ASD or communication difficulties, and five children (5.4%) under the age of 3 attended a special day care for children diagnosed with ASD.

Measures

Parents’ involvement

The Parents’ Involvement Scale (Ingber, 2004) consists of 23 items written in Hebrew, and was originally designed to assess the level and type of parent involvement in a family-focused program for children with special needs. Respondents score their answers on a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The full Parents’ Involvement Scale (23 items) that was used in the study obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .89. Five subscales were used to measure specific aspects of parents’ involvement. The Interest and Attendance subscale includes five items (e.g., I’m looking for information and updates regarding my child’s functioning) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .60; the Communication Pattern subscale includes four items (e.g., I maintain regular contact with my child’s health care team: personally, by telephone, in writing) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .73; the Collaboration subscale includes seven items (e.g., I actively take part in my child’s treatment) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .78; the Social Involvement subscale includes four items (e.g., I am in contact with other families to obtain information and support) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .65; the Initiative and Responsibility subscale includes three items and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .35.

The five subscales that are empirically derived dimensions of the Parents’ Involvement Scale were included in the score of the full scale in the current study. However, as the Initiative and Responsibility subscale had a low internal consistency, and no significant findings emerged in analyses regarding the individual subscales; only four subscales are presented in the analyses detailed below.

Social support (Family Support Scale)

The Hebrew translation of the Family Support Scale (Dunst, Jenkins, & Trivette, 1984; Raif, 1992) was used to measure social support. The scale consists of 20 items on which each parent registers the amount of support they feel they receive from a variety of sources. Respondents score their answers on a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The full scale obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .74 in the present study. The full Family Support Scale (20 items) is based on six factors of support and has been divided into different subscale structures in different studies (Almasri, Saleh, & Dunst, 2014; Raif, 1992). In the current study, to more specifically explore the types of support, the scale was divided into four subscales: Two subscales refer to informal support: the Non-Formal Kinship scale includes six items (e.g., How much help do you receive from your work colleagues?) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .63; the Formal Kinship scale includes five items (e.g., How much help do you receive from your parents?) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .65. Two subscales refer to formal support: the Specialized Services scale includes five items (e.g., How much help do you receive from the kindergarten teacher?) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .61; the Generic Services scale includes four items (e.g., How much help do you receive from the child’s doctor?) and obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .56.

Demographics

Parents were asked to fill out a questionnaire soliciting demographic data. The questionnaire included items addressing the following: age, marital status, education, job status, income, number of children, age and gender of the children, age and gender of the child with ASD, and age at time of diagnosis.

Procedure

Mothers and fathers were recruited primarily through kindergarten teachers in special education kindergartens in central Israel; a small number (three mothers, five fathers) were recruited through online support groups. Parents received a letter that explained the purpose of the study and its importance and were invited to participate. The research questionnaires were sent to study participants by mail or by hand by one of the researchers. Participants were asked to complete and return the questionnaires to the teacher within 2 weeks of receipt. It was made clear to participants that participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous and that the study adhered to all ethical guidelines.

Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 23) was used for all statistical analyses. Initial analyses included computing descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients for the research instruments (Cronbach’s alphas), and bivariate correlations to examine the relations between involvement, support, and demographic variables. Parent’s education was leveled as follows: Level 1, education of 7 to 12 years—elementary or high school education; Level 2, education of 13 to 16 years—college education; Level 3, education of 17 to 20 years—graduate education. In addition, a MANOVA was conducted to test group differences (mothers vs. fathers/education; Level 1 vs. Level 2 vs. Level 3). To test the interaction source, four separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted for the three levels of education with gender as the independent variable, and separately for gender with education as the independent variable, including $η_{p}^{2}$ as an estimate of effect size (Cohen, 1988). Finally, two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the predicted factors in the involvement model while controlling for group (mothers/fathers). To examine both general involvement and general social support along with the specific aspects of involvement and support, composite scale scores and subscale scores were entered into the Pearson and MANOVA analyses. To examine the unique contribution of the different aspects of support in explaining the level of parental involvement, only the subscale scores were entered into the regression analyses.

Results

To examine the relations between level of involvement and the support variables and demographic variables, Pearson correlations were performed separately for mothers and fathers. Different sets of positive, significant intercorrelations were found for mothers and fathers (see Table 2). A significant positive correlation was found for mothers between involvement and general support, and between involvement and one of the informal support subscales (Informal Kinship support). For fathers, a significant correlation was found between involvement and one of the formal support subscales (Generic Services support). An examination of the relation between parents’ involvement and demographic variables revealed a significant positive relation between involvement and education and income only for fathers (see Table 3). For both mothers and fathers, no significant correlation was found between involvement and Formal Kinship or Specialized Services among the support variables. Similarly, no relations were demonstrated between involvement and mother’s age, number of children, religion, or work status (part-time, full-time, etc.).

Table 2.

Pearson Correlations Between Involvement and Support Variables for Mothers and Fathers.

Variable	Overall support	Informal kinship	Formal kinship	Specialized services	Generic services
1. Involvement
Mothers (n = 61)	.40**	.47**	.13	.09	.24
Fathers (n = 46)	.28	.17	–.09	.21	.33*

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.

Pearson Correlations Between Involvement and Demographic Variables for Mothers and Fathers.

Variable	Age	Income	Education	No. of children	Religion	Work status
1. Involvement
Mothers (n = 61)	.01	.09	.06	–.08	–.04	–.18
Fathers (n = 46)	.10	.34*	.40**	–.05	–.17	–.04

p < .05. **p < .01.

Group Differences

To decrease the chance of Type 1 errors, a MANOVA was conducted with groups (gender [mothers/fathers] education [Level 1/Level 2/Level 3]) as the independent variables, and with the following dependent variables: general support scale and the four support subscales (informal support: Formal kinship, Informal kinship; formal support: Specialized Services, and Generic Services), and general involvement scale and four involvement subscales (Interest and Attendance, Communication Pattern, Collaboration, and Social Involvement). As the fifth subscale (Initiative and Responsibility) had low internal consistency and did not reveal significant findings, only the four subscales are presented. The overall scales as well as the specific subscales were included to specifically examine the different types of support and involvement. Results revealed a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 101) = 3.31, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .326, and no significant main effect for education, F(1, 101) = 5.69, p > .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .163. Findings revealed significant differences between mothers and fathers on the formal support subscale of Specialized Services (see Table 4). Fathers reported more specialized services support, like social workers or professional therapists, while mothers reported higher levels of general involvement and all subtypes of involvement measured on the subscales. Mothers reported that they were more interested in and have higher levels of attendance in their child’s educational program. Mothers’ communication pattern was also higher—they were more involved in maintaining constant contact, updating, and participating in frequent meetings with the care team, and mothers coordinated between all the child’s caregivers more than fathers. Mothers were also more collaborative in their child’s educational therapeutic program, and socialized with other parents of children from their child’s kindergarten than fathers.

Table 4.

Comparisons Between Gender and Level of Education.

Variable	Gender						Education
	MothersN = 61		FathersN = 46		F(1, 107)	$η_{p}^{2}$	1 (7–12)N = 44		2 (13–16)N = 46		3 (17–20)N = 17		F(2, 107)	$η_{p}^{2}$	Bonferroni
	M	(SD)	M	(SD)	F(1, 107)	$η_{p}^{2}$	M	(SD)	M	(SD)	M	(SD)	F(2, 107)	$η_{p}^{2}$	Bonferroni
Support	1.78	(0.51)	1.97	(0.43)	1.37	.013	1.71	(0.48)	1.97	(0.48)	1.98	(0.40)	4.33*	.079	2>1
1. Informal kinship	1.18	(0.60)	1.30	(0.75)	.008	.000	1.06	(0.62)	1.28	(0.67)	1.54	(0.69)	3.54*	.065	3>1
2. Formal kinship	1.95	(0.95)	1.96	(0.81)	.201	.002	1.96	(1.02)	1.98	(0.82)	1.94	(0.74)	.149	.003
3. Specialized services	2.34	(0.72)	2.52	(0.78)	11.312***	.101	2.17	(0.72)	2.67	(0.79)	2.41	(0.47)	5.11**	.092	2>1
4. Generic services	1.68	(0.95)	1.70	(0.86)	.082	.001	1.63	(0.92)	1.85	(0.92)	1.41	(0.79)	1.75	.034
Involvement	3.74	(0.55)	3.37	(0.63)	11.32***	.101	3.46	(0.75)	3.62	(0.46)	3.78	(0.55)	2.99	.05
1. Interest and attendance	4.58	(0.32)	4.20	(0.53)	14.438***	.125	4.35	(0.54)	4.45	(0.37)	4.50	(0.43)	1.78	.034
2. Communication pattern	4.16	(0.64)	3.56	(0.78)	14.921***	.129	3.75	(0.90)	3.98	(0.63)	4.05	(0.65)	2.18	.118
3. Collaboration	3.60	(0.73)	3.27	(0.82)	6.56*	.061	3.30	(0.90)	3.54	(0.64)	3.63	(0.80)	2.25	.043
4. Social involvement	2.71	(0.99)	2.34	(0.84)	5.85*	.055	2.41	(1.04)	2.50	(0.81)	3.04	(0.88)	3.74*	.069	3>1

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The MANOVA exploring the interaction revealed a significant interaction between gender and education, F(1, 101) = 2.12, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .235. The comparison between mothers and fathers with different levels of education (Level 1, education of 7–12 years—elementary-high school; Level 2, education of 13–16 years—college education; Level 3, education of 17–20 years—graduate education) revealed significant differences between the genders in overall support and two support subscales: Informal Kinship support and Specialized Services support (see Table 4). Mothers and fathers with Education Levels 2 and 3 reported more general support than parents with Education Level 1. Mothers and fathers with Education Level 3 had more Informal Kinship support than mothers and fathers with Level 1, but not more than mothers and fathers with Level 2. Mothers and fathers with Education Level 2 reported more Specialized Services support than mothers and fathers with Level 1, but not more than mothers and fathers with Level 3. No differences were found between any involvement subscales with the exception of Social Involvement. Mothers and fathers with a higher level of education reported more Social Involvement than mothers and fathers with the lowest level. However, an interaction between group (mothers/fathers) and education (Levels 1, 2, 3) in general involvement and three involvement subscales (Interest and Attendance, Collaboration, Social Involvement) was found. The interaction revealed that mothers with Education Level 1 were more generally involved and were more interested and had greater attendance than fathers with Education Level 1 but were less involved than mothers with Education Level 3. In addition, mothers with Education Level 3 were more involved and more interested and had greater attendance than fathers with Education Level 3. No differences were found in the level of general involvement and interest and attendance between mothers and fathers with Education Level 2. However, fathers with Education Level 2 were more involved than fathers with Education Level 1.

Mothers with Education Level 1 collaborated more and were more socially involved than fathers with Education Level 1, but no differences were found between mothers and fathers in collaboration and social involvement than parents with the other education levels (Levels 2 and 3). Fathers with Education Level 2 collaborated more than fathers with Education Level 1. No differences were found regarding collaboration between fathers with Education Levels 2 and 3. Fathers with Education Levels 2 and 3 were more socially involved than fathers with Education Level 1. Mothers with Education Level 3 were more socially involved than mothers with Education Level 2, but not more than mothers with Education Level 1.

Prediction of Involvement

To examine the variables predicting mothers and fathers involvement, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted separately for mothers and fathers, with self-reported involvement as the dependent variable.

Mothers

In the analysis conducted for mothers, to control for education, it was entered in the first step, and showed an insignificant contribution. As seen in Table 5, the four support subscale measures were entered in the second step, explaining 25% of the overall variance. Informal Kinship support had a unique explanation of mothers’ involvement and predicted higher levels of involvement. The other support subscales did not significantly predict mothers’ involvement.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Predicting Involvement for Fathers and for Mothers.

Step	Variables	Mothers				Fathers
Step	Variables	R	R ²	Beta	F	R	R ²	Beta	F
1	Education	.06	.00	.01	.18	.39	.16	.40**	8.33**
2		.50	.25		3.01*	.52	.27		2.39*
	Education			–.01				.63*
	Informal kinship			.42**				.03
	Formal kinship			–.02				–.10
	Specialized services			–.08				.07
	Generic services			.08				.29

p < .05. **p < .01.

Fathers

In contrast to mothers, fathers’ education showed a significant contribution, explaining 16% of the variance in the first step (see Table 5). The support subscales measure was entered in the second step, but showed an insignificant contribution. Step 2 added 11% to the explanation of the variance, reaching a total explanation of 27%.

In sum, overall, the perceived social support and parents’ education revealed a small, but significant contribution to parental involvement. Specifically, a unique contribution in explaining parental involvement emerged for informal kinship support only for the mothers. In addition, parental education had a unique contribution in predicting higher levels of involvement only for fathers.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare mothers’ and fathers’ involvement and perceptions of the social support (formal and informal) they receive, and to explore which types of social support and levels of parental education predict variation in mothers’ and fathers’ involvement with their child with ASD. Coinciding with the scientific literature (Behrani & Shah, 2016; Foody et al., 2015; Ingber et al., 2010), we hypothesized that mothers would report higher levels of parental involvement than fathers and that different types of social support (formal and informal) would have a unique contribution in explaining variation in mothers’ and fathers’ involvement. Furthermore, mothers would report receiving greater levels of informal support, which would predict their level of involvement, and higher parental education levels would predict variation in mothers’ and fathers’ involvement.

As hypothesized, mothers reported significantly higher levels of involvement in all aspects of their child’s care than fathers. Mothers were more interested in and had greater attendance to their child’s educational program, and coordinated and were more involved in maintaining constant contact between all the child’s caregivers. These results indicate an uneven contribution to the child’s care between mothers and fathers, with mothers reporting taking on most of the responsibility. As higher levels of maternal involvement are associated with higher levels of parental distress (Foody et al., 2015), it is important that we gain an understanding of the type and level of social support that is most related to parents’ care of their young child with ASD, as detailed below.

Mothers’ and Fathers’ Social Support in Relation to Parental Involvement

While the relation between social support and parental involvement has been documented in parents of children with disabilities (Ingber et al., 2010; Meadan et al., 2015), regarding mothers and fathers of children with ASD, this area is still in its infancy. We hypothesized that mothers and fathers would identify receiving different types of support (mothers would perceive more informal support than fathers), which would relate to their involvement in the care of their child with ASD. This hypothesis was partially supported. While fathers reported receiving formal support (e.g., a kindergarten teacher) more than mothers, unexpectedly, and in contrast with previous studies (Altiere, 2006), mothers did not report receiving more informal support than fathers. At the same time, positive relations between involvement and informal support (informal kinship) were found only among mothers. Mothers who had higher levels of general support, particularly, support from informal kinship like friends or other parents of children with ASD, were more involved in caring for their child with ASD. These results are in line with previous findings that mothers of children with disabilities (e.g., hearing loss) who had greater perceived informal support were more involved in their child’s care and early intervention (Ingber et al., 2010). Our findings are also in line with studies that emphasize the buffering effect of informal support more than formal support on the psychological distress of mothers of children with ASD (Boyd, 2002), and how their distress was related to their involvement (Rivard et al., 2014). Among fathers, those who had higher levels of formal support (generic services such as a family doctor) were more involved in the care of their child with ASD. Recognizing the specific types of social support and how they relate to the involvement of mothers and fathers of children with ASD adds to the limited, existing body of knowledge and can help identify effective types of social support for parents. Understanding that each parent has unique characteristics and support needs, it is important for therapists and practitioners to ask parents what they feel is the most effective type of support that can help them to become more involved in their child’s care. Other types of support can be proposed that parents may not have considered, which may then lead to greater involvement. It is also important that practitioners and policy makers bear in mind that culture can have an impact on gender roles and levels of involvement and be sensitive to these differences when designing interventions (Division for Early Childhood, 2014).

Mothers’ and Fathers’ Support and Involvement in Relation to Their Education

In general, level of education has been found to relate to parents’ involvement and children’s achievement at school (de Boer & van der Werf, 2015). In the current study, we examined how mothers’ and fathers’ involvement and social support related to their education. This study thus contributes to the literature in recognizing factors such as parental education and its unique relation to the social support that mothers and fathers perceive and to their level of involvement. We found positive relations between mothers’ and fathers’ education and their social support as well as their social involvement. Mothers and fathers with more than a high school education reported receiving more general support, formal support (specialized services), and informal support (informal kinship) than those with only an elementary or high school education. Both mothers and fathers with higher education reported greater social involvement than those with a lower level of education. In addition, the differences between mothers and fathers in collaboration and social involvement were found only in those with lower education, in favor of mothers, while no differences were found between mothers and fathers with higher education.

Beyond the differences between mothers’ and fathers’ involvement, differences within the group of fathers were revealed. Fathers with higher levels of education collaborated more and were more socially involved than those with lower levels of education. Among mothers, those who had higher levels of education were more socially involved than those with lower education. The study’s results emphasize the importance of adapting the support that parents receive to take into account differences in gender and education, with the goal of increasing the various types of parental involvement. For example, practitioners can be guided to provide more information regarding children with ASD’s development and types of therapies to parents with lower levels of education. In addition, fathers can be encouraged to participate in support groups that can be designed to integrate formal support, such as practical information.

Social Support and Parental Education in Predicting Mothers’ and Fathers’ Involvement

As hypothesized, the factors that predict parental involvement differed between mothers and fathers. Perceived informal support (informal kinship, such as friends or coworkers) had a unique, positive contribution in explaining involvement only among mothers. On the contrary, level of education had a unique and positive contribution in explaining involvement only among fathers. These findings can be linked to recent research on single mothers and fathers in Taiwan, which revealed that an association between higher parental education and parental involvement was more pronounced among single fathers than among single mothers (Cheng & Wu, 2016). Given the dearth of studies on married couples examining the relation between education and involvement, the current study’s results can help identify factors that explain the level of involvement of parents of a child with ASD, especially fathers, who reported lower levels of involvement.

Limitations and Further Research

There are a number of limitations to the study’s findings. First, the study focused on mothers’ and fathers’ viewpoints. Additional sources of information, such as therapists’ and educators’ perceptions, may add important perspectives to the self-perceptions of parental involvement. Beyond this, the current study did not distinguish between parents based on the severity of ASD symptoms in the children. Previous research (e.g., Benson, 2006) has found that parents’ stress levels were predicted by child symptom severity. As such, future studies at the national level should take this aspect of children’s characteristics and their impact upon family stress into account when evaluating parents’ involvement and social support. Regarding the family system, future research that examines involvement and social support may want to consider matching between couples and should not be limited to parents. Siblings play an important role in the development of a child with ASD’s development and they are affected by each other (e.g., Orsmond, Kuo, & Seltzer, 2009). It is important to study their unique contribution to their sibling with ASD’s development and their involvement possibilities with respect to their age, strength, and needs. Other limitations relate to the study’s design. In addition, the reliabilities of some of the subscales were relatively low but still fell within the acceptable range (Almasri et al., 2014). Future studies should examine these subscales among other larger groups of participants. Finally, the study’s results are based on correlational data, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. To better understand the causal implications of the relationships between the variables, the longevity of parents’ perceptions over time, or in-depth understandings, other research designs can be used in future studies.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

The current study highlights the central role of mothers in maintaining constant contact with the educational system and the professionals who help care for their young child with ASD. It is in the best interest of educators and family therapists who work with families with children with ASD to support the cohesiveness of the family and the collaboration of the parents by understanding and respecting the way each member addresses the responsibilities of parenting a child with ASD (Division for Early Childhood, 2014; Meadan et al., 2015). This is particularly important regarding mothers, who have been found to carry most of the burden, which leads to increased stress that can influence their spouse and the family climate. For example, maternal stress was positively related to their spouse’s level of depression (Hastings et al., 2005). Moreover, fathers tend to appreciate the benefit of working together with their spouses on a common goal of addressing their child’s educational needs (Meadan et al., 2015). Thus, it is extremely important to support and give both mothers and fathers the resources that they perceive will help them best cope with the challenges of raising a child with ASD. For example, educators and practitioners who work with the child and his or her family can encourage parents to understand their rights based on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Similarly, practitioners can direct parents to evidence-based practices (National Autism Center, 2015) so they can make the best-informed choices regarding their child.

This study also revealed different relations between mothers’ and fathers’ involvement and the specific social support they report receiving. These findings add to the limited, existing body of knowledge in this area. In addition, these results highlight the importance of identifying and addressing the particular support needs of mothers and fathers, which can help promote their level of involvement. When designing child and family interventions, family therapists and educators should take into consideration gender differences identified in parental involvement and the relation to the social support they receive.

Finally, the current study found a significant relationship between level of education, particularly for fathers, and parental support and level of involvement. In light of these findings, it is important to explore ways to reduce gaps between parents, especially between fathers with higher and lower levels of education, and adjust the support they receive. Hopefully, this can increase fathers’ level of involvement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Almasri

N. A.

Saleh

Dunst

C. J.

(2014). Psychometric properties of the Arabic Family Support Scale for families of children and youth with cerebral palsy in Jordan. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 39, 223–232.

Altiere

M. J.

(2006). Family functioning and coping behaviors in parents of children with autism (Master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, Paper 54).

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Armstrong

M. I.

Birnie-Lefcovitch

Unger

M. T.

(2005). Pathways between social support, family well being, quality of parenting, and child resilience: What we know. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 269–281. doi:10.1007/s10826-005-5054-4

Azeem

M. W.

Imran

Khawaja

I. S.

(2016). Autism spectrum disorder: An update. Psychiatric Annals, 46, 58–62.

Behrani

Shah

(2016). The coping patterns of fathers and mothers of children with disability: A comparative study. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 7, 535–539.

Benson

P. R.

(2006). The impact of child symptom severity on depressed mood among parents of children with ASD: The mediating role of stress proliferation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 685–695.

Boyd

B. A.

(2002). Examining the relationship between stress and lack of social support in mothers of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17, 208–215.

Bromley

Hare

D. J.

Davison

Emerson

(2004). Mothers supporting children with autistic spectrum disorders. Autism, 8, 409–423. doi:10.1177/1362361304047224

10.

Casenhiser

D. M.

Shanker

S. G.

Stieben

(2011). Learning through interaction in children with autism: Preliminary data from a social-communication-based intervention. Autism, 17, 220–241. doi:10.1177/1362361311422052

11.

Cheng

Y. A.

F. F.

(2016). Going it alone and adrift: The socioeconomic profile and parental involvement of single-father and single-mother families in post-industrial Taiwan. Pop Research, 33, 147–172. doi:10.1007/s12546-016-9158-z

12.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Coogle

C. G.

Guerette

A. R.

Hanline

M. F.

(2013). Early intervention experiences of families of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A qualitative pilot study. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 15, 1–11.

14.

de Boer

van der Werf

M. P. C

. (2015). Influence of misaligned parents’ aspirations on long-term student academic performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21, 232–257. doi:10.1080/13803611.2015.1039548

15.

Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices

16.

Duhig

A. M.

Phares

Birkeland

R. W.

(2002). Involvement of fathers in therapy: A survey of clinicians. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 389–395.

17.

Dunst

C. J.

Jenkins

Trivette

C. M.

(1984). Family support scale: Reliability & validity. Journal of Individual, Family & Community Wellness, 1, 45–52.

18.

Dunst

C. J.

Trivette

C. M.

Hamby

D. W.

(2007). Meta-analysis of family-centered helpgiving practices research. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 370–378. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20176

19.

Foody

James

J. E.

Leader

(2015). Parenting stress, salivary biomarkers, and ambulatory blood pressure: A comparison between mothers and fathers of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1084–1095. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2263-y

20.

Gaunt

(2008). Maternal gatekeeping: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 374–395. doi:10.1177/0192513X07307851

21.

Gaunt

Scott

(2014). Parents’ involvement in childcare: Do parental and work identities matter? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 475–489. doi:10.1177/0361684314533484

22.

Granger

Riviéres-Pigeon

Sabourin

Forget

(2012). Mothers’ reports of their involvement in early intensive behavioral intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32(2), 68–77. doi:10.1177/0271121410393285

23.

Hastings

R. P.

Kovshoff

Ward

N. J.

delgi Espinosa

Brown

Remington

(2005). Systems analysis of stress and positive perceptions in mothers and fathers of pre-school children with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 635–644. doi:10.1007/s10803-005-0007-8

24.

Hebel

(2014). Parental involvement in the individual educational program for Israeli students with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 58–68.

25.

Ingber

(2004). The philosophy and practice of parental involvement in early intervention for children with hearing impairment in Israel (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. (In Hebrew)

26.

Ingber

Al-Yagon

Dromi

(2010). Mothers’ involvement in early intervention for children with hearing loss. The role of maternal characteristics and context-based perceptions. Journal of Early Intervention, 32, 351–369. doi:10.1177/1053815110387066

27.

Israel Ministry of Health. (2013). Ivhun yeladim b’spectrum ha’autism [Evaluating children on the Autism spectrum]. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.il/hozer/mk15_2013.pdf

28.

Kaniel

Siman-Tov

(2011). Comparison between mothers and fathers in coping with autistic children: A multivariate model. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26, 479–493. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.597186

29.

Lee

McCoy

K. M.

Zucker

H. S.

Mathur

S. R.

(2014). ASD academic transitions: Trends in parental perspective. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 576–593.

30.

Mareoiu

Bland

Dobbins

Niemeyer

J. A.

(2015). Exploring perspectives on child care with families of children with Autism. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 17, 1–13.

31.

Meadan

Stoner

J. B.

Angell

M. E.

(2015). Fathers of children with autism: Perceived roles, responsibilities, and support needs. Early Child Development and Care, 185, 1678–1694. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1019876

32.

Miranda

Tárraga

Fernández

M. I.

Colomer

Pastor

(2015). Parenting stress in families of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD. Exceptional Children, 82, 81–95. doi:10.1177/0014402915585479

33.

National Autism Center. (2015). Findings and conclusions: National standards project, phase 2. Randolph, MA: Author.

34.

Orsmond

G. I.

Kuo

H. Y.

Seltzer

M. M.

(2009). Siblings of individuals with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: Sibling relationships and wellbeing in adolescence and adulthood. Autism, 13, 59–80.

35.

Raif

(1992). Feelings of coherence, social support, and willingness for out-of-home placement in parents of young children with a developmental disability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. (In Hebrew)

36.

Reinke

J. S.

Solheim

C. A.

(2015). Online social support experiences of mothers of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2364–2373. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0039-9

37.

Rivard

Terroux

Parent-Boursier

Mercier

(2014). Determinants of stress in parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 1609–1620. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-2082-z

38.

Trivette

C. M.

Dunst

C. J.

Hamby

D. W.

(2010). Influences of family-systems intervention practices on parent–child interactions and child development. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 3–19. doi:10.1177/0271121410364250

39.

Ule

Živoder

du Bois-Reymond

(2015). “Simply the best for my children”: Patterns of parental involvement in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 329–348.

40.

U. S. Department of Education. (2015). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Public awareness program—Information for parents. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/c/d/303.301

41.

Zand

D. H.

Pierce

K. J.

Bultas

M. W.

McMillin

S. E.

Gott

R. M.

Wilmott

(2015). Accuracy of knowledge of child development in mothers of children receiving early intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention, 37, 226–240. doi:10.1177/1053815115610633

42.

Zhang

Spencer

V. G.

(2015). Addressing the needs of students with autism and other disabilities in China: Perspectives from the field. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62, 168–181. doi:10.1080/1034912x.2014.998175