**4. Discussion and conclusions**

138 Learning Disabilities

Multivariate contrasts indicate high and statistically significant results, with a very large effect size for both the group of *families of children with NA* [F (24, 26) = 3.777, p = .001, η2 = .777], and for *families of children with ADHD* [F (24, 23) = 2.847, p = .007, η2 = .748]. For *families of pupils with LD* we found no statistically significant differences by including all FAOP scales together as dependent variables [F (24, 21) = 1.710, p = .109, η2 = .661]. Nevertheless, they were found when we did an individual analysis of each of the FAOP

Tests of inter-subject effects show which variables and between which groups there are statistically significant differences. Taking the variables obtained through FAOP-IM as a starting point, we observed that in both the NA group of families and the families of ADHD children parents' perceptions of home involvement (NA: Mparent = 60.2 vs. Mchild= 53.7, p <.001; ADHD Mparent = 56.6 vs. Mchild = 51.3, p = .008) and academic co-stimulation at home are higher than that of their children (NA: Mparent = 28.4 vs. Mchild = 25.1, p = .001; ADHD Mparent = 26.2 vs. Mchild = 22.1, p = .003). Likewise, parents of NA pupils report more motivation and academic support at home (Mparent = 31.8 vs. Mchild = 25.5, p <.001) and greater educational involvement in general than that recognized by their own children (Mparent = 91.2 vs. Mchild = 84.5, p = .011). For families of pupils with LD, the main differences between the views of parents and children, close to the statistical significance, are in terms of school-family communication (Mparent = 3.78 vs. Mchild = 4.21, p = 0.065) and overall involvement in it (Mparent = 29.1 vs. Mchild = 32.4, p = 0.084), with children's

In the FAOP-PRAES subscale, differences occur between parents and ADHD children in relation to the level of motivation towards writing offered at home, with parents scoring this type of activity higher (Mparent = 12.4 vs. Mchild = 10.3, p = .003). Meanwhile, families of pupils with LD showed the greatest statistically significant differences between parents and children. In this case, the children themselves identified a higher stimulation towards the use of higher psychological processes involved in writing composition than their parents (Mparent = 11.1 vs. Mchild = 12.6, p = 0.060), as well as feelings of effectiveness in writing instruction (Mparent = 35.1 vs. Mchild = 39.8, p = 0.019) and in the overall development of

Regarding the FAOP-HOME scale, there are differences in the case of families of children with NA in the perception of the use of an authoritarian management style, with children scoring this higher (Mparent = 10.4 vs. Mchild = 12, p = .001). Meanwhile, in the case of families of children with ADHD, parents report feeling more acceptance (Mparent = 34.5 vs. Mchild = 32, p = .037) and rejection of their children (Mparent = 20.4 vs. Mchild = 17.5, p = .035) than reported by their children, similar to what happens in NA families, but only

Finally, in the FAOP-FES subscale, there are significant differences between parents and children in the three groups in expressiveness, with parents scoring higher (NA, p = .006; LD, p <.001, and ADHD, p = .013). For NA (Mparent = 21.4 vs. Mchild = 19.7, p = 0.097) and LD families (Mparent = 21.3 vs. Mchild = 18.4, p = .010) parents also report better family relations. ADHD families report a higher degree of stimulation towards intellectual-cultural activities (Mparent = 5.92 vs. Mchild = 4.79, p = 0.068). LD children perceive more parental

written composition (= 70 vs. Mparent. Mchild = 76.8, p = 0.049).

regarding acceptance (Mparent = 35.2 vs. Mchild = 32.8, p = .017).

**3.2 Parent vs. child role** 

perceptions scoring higher.

subscales, except for the FAOP-HOME scale.

Interest in LD and ADHD has been gradually shifting towards more holistic perspectives in terms of analysis and treatment, where not only the person is considered, but also all the social agents surrounding her/him (Dyson, 2010; Gortmaker, Daly, McCurdy, Persampieri, & Hergenrader, 2007; Mautone, Lefler, & Power, 2011; Polloway, Bursuck, & Epstein, 2001). However, despite progress in this area, there have been few and inconclusive results up to now (Dyson, 2010; Hegarty, 2008; Heiman & Berger, 2008; Xía, 2010). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further research to jointly analyze the family dynamic and stable variables in relation to the academic performance of children with ADHD or LD. This will allow us to offer alternative multicomponent forms of intervention to promote these pupils' development.

The main objective of this research was to analyze the possible differences in the structural and dynamic family variables in relation to the characterization of pupils by comparing three groups of families organized by their children's typology and to study parents' and children's perceptions within each group.

When we look at the results for the structural variables in more detail, we see that the level of education of parents of children with LD is lower than that of parents of NA children. Families with lower levels of education provide less stimulating and literate home environments, so that children are at risk of starting school with lower levels of development of basic skills, which is particularly important in the case of LD (Dearing et al. 2009; Jordan & Levine, 2009; Park 2008; Van Stennsel, 2006; Williams & Dawson, 2011).

Furthermore, it should be stressed that LD has a strong genetic component, so that the limited education level of parents which was identified in this subgroup of children can be related to their own learning difficulties and thus biologically explain the deficits inherited by children (Berninger, Abbott & Thompson, 2001; Lyytinen, Eklund, & Lyytinen, 2005; Monuteaux, Faraone, Herzig, Navsari, & Biederman, 2005; Shalev, et al. 2001; Snowling, et al., 2007). Notwithstanding these circumstances, parental learning disabilities were not verified in the sample studied, and may be a future focus of analysis.

Also in relation to structural variables, the results of this study indicate that families of children with ADHD are bigger than those of the other two groups analyzed. Pupils with ADHD need a lot of academic support, and demand more attention from their parents than usual. Parents who have several children need to split their attention between them, so they can become overworked and stressed. This can affect their ability to interact sensitively with the child's the demands, leading them to develop an intrusive educational style (Ryan, 2002).

future.

The Family Environment of Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD 141

Regarding the results obtained from *FAOP-HOME*, we saw that parents of children with ADHD reported feeling more rejection of their children than parents of the other two groups (Presentation, et al. 2009; Shur-fen, 2007, Taylor et al., 1996). However, when comparing the perceptions of rejection/acceptance between parents and children of the ADHD group, adults scored higher on both. In relation to acceptance, the data is indeed negative, as the emotional and behavioral development of children with ADHD is mediated by external variables such as perceived acceptance or rejection of their family (Lifford, Harold, & Thapar, 2008; Murris, Meesters, & Van der Berg, 2003; Shaw, et al., 1998). While we need to be aware that this conclusion is mediated by the fact that perceptions of children with ADHD, obtained through self-reports, may be distorted by their disorder (Bauermeister, et al. 2005; Walcott & Landau, 2004), this is something that should be monitored in the

Other conclusions drawn from the data obtained through FAOP-HOME relate to parental educational styles. In this case, the parents of NA children exerted more democratic parenting styles than parents of pupils with ADHD, who seemed to be largely permissive. This may be due to the lack of positive reinforcement that they perceive during child rearing or to the highly prevalent strain the disorder puts on family relationships, as previous

Analysis of *FAOP-FES* variables has led us to several conclusions. We have confirmed that the families of pupils with ADHD have less adaptive relational patterns than those of children with NA, followed by the LD group. Specifically, in families where the children have no problems there is a greater tendency to act openly, freely expressing one's feelings. One explanation for this result would be that the problems these children suffer affect their socioemotional development, which may account for the lower level of expression in intrafamily relationships (Mason & Mason, 2005). It was also found that the level of family cohesion in the case of ADHD was lower than that experienced by the families of NA pupils (Bao-Yu & Lin, 2004; Wells, et al., 2000). The more intense feelings of attachment in families of NA pupils possibly facilitate the positive expression of feelings, and the lack of serious problems means there are no blockages to this dynamic. Finally, results indicate higher levels of conflict in families with ADHD compared with to the families of children with LD,

As for the overall growth dimension, one can conclude that the families of NA children show more favorable patterns regarding their overall development, by offering a variety of cultural and intellectual or leisure activities. This can be explained by the fact that in families where children have no problems parents are able to encourage such activities more often. However, in the case of children with LD or ADHD it is possible that leisure time is used to focus on academic tasks or on trying to alleviate the problems arising from the disorder itself, as demonstrated in studies that confirm that in these households performanceoriented activities are prioritized (Stoll, 2000), therefore the time and interest in leisure or

Finally, regarding the maintenance stability dimension, results show that such patterns of action are more common in the NA group than in the other two groups, especially that of exercising control, which is much greater in the NA group than in the LD group. Order and family rules promote children's development and learning, which could explain the

research has shown (Goldstein, et al. 2007; Keown & Woodward, 2002).

possibly due to higher level of external expression of this disorder.

other cultural activities is lower.

Secondly, when we look at the *dynamic dimension* and organize our data around the elements evaluated through the FAOP scale, we can draw several interesting conclusions.

Looking at the variables addressed through *FAOP-IM* we can conclude that parental educational involvement is greater in families of children with ADHD (Smith & Adams, 2006), even when compared with families of children with LD. One possible explanation for this is that the Spanish legislation at the time of the research had not yet enacted measures to address the specific needs of pupils with LD. Therefore, the pupils studied received no specific attention for their LD. This, together with the fact that LD is less apparent in external behavior than ADHD and the problems become apparent in writing when the pupil already has a fairly advanced schooling, may hinder parental diagnosis and explain the lack of continuous contact with the teachers (Bull, 2003; Dyson, 2010; Karende, Mehta, & Kulkarni, 2007; Rolfsen & Martinez, 2008; Stoll, 2000). It is also important to recognize a specific limitation of this research - a certain bias in the selection of the sample. Participants were obtained through intentional sampling, based on the voluntary cooperation of families. Also, in the case of families of children with ADHD, we found them mainly through associations or groups of families, so parents were aware of the problem the child faced.

In terms of home involvement, the parents of NA children reported more academic collaboration than those of pupils with LD, which is in line with studies that indicate that school success of children is positively related to the level of parental involvement and support in the home (Alomar, 2006; Knollmann & Wild, 2007; Phillipson, 2010; Pomerantz, Wang, & Fei-Ying, 2005; Regner, et al. 2009; Urdan et al., 2007). However, if we compare the perceptions of parents and children in each group, we see that parents of NA and ADHD children report higher academic involvement at home than that perceived by their children. These data are derived from the opinions of a group of parents that were aware that their responses were difficult to verify and, therefore, were more likely to exaggerate in order to achieve socially desirable responses.

Looking at the results derived from *FAOP-PRAES*, we can conclude that the families of pupils with LD differ negatively from families of NA children regarding parental perception of efficacy in writing instruction and in overall cooperation in teaching writing skills. The lower parental sense of efficacy in teaching writing in LD families may be explained by the fact that because children in this group have disabilities in this area, the help they require from their parents is very specific and they may not feel able to provide it (Bloomfield, Kendall, & Fortuna, 2010; Kay, & Fitzgerald, 1994). As for the degree of involvement in the general teaching of writing in the LD group, previous research has shown that a reason parents fail to cooperate on educational issues is their own lack of training in this respect, which will be even more salient in the case of helping children that require a very high level of expertise (Karende, et al., 2007). Thus, a practical implication derived from this result is the need to develop training programs for parents to enable them to contribute to the education of children with LD.

Finally, families of NA children, unlike those of pupils with ADHD, seem to encourage writing on a daily basis, offering models and materials at home for its development. This may be because children with ADHD often have a wide range of needs that may mean that communicative competence is not especially valued and that even if its is addressed it is done in less depth or in combination with other elements.

Secondly, when we look at the *dynamic dimension* and organize our data around the elements

Looking at the variables addressed through *FAOP-IM* we can conclude that parental educational involvement is greater in families of children with ADHD (Smith & Adams, 2006), even when compared with families of children with LD. One possible explanation for this is that the Spanish legislation at the time of the research had not yet enacted measures to address the specific needs of pupils with LD. Therefore, the pupils studied received no specific attention for their LD. This, together with the fact that LD is less apparent in external behavior than ADHD and the problems become apparent in writing when the pupil already has a fairly advanced schooling, may hinder parental diagnosis and explain the lack of continuous contact with the teachers (Bull, 2003; Dyson, 2010; Karende, Mehta, & Kulkarni, 2007; Rolfsen & Martinez, 2008; Stoll, 2000). It is also important to recognize a specific limitation of this research - a certain bias in the selection of the sample. Participants were obtained through intentional sampling, based on the voluntary cooperation of families. Also, in the case of families of children with ADHD, we found them mainly through associations or groups of families, so parents were aware of the problem the child faced.

In terms of home involvement, the parents of NA children reported more academic collaboration than those of pupils with LD, which is in line with studies that indicate that school success of children is positively related to the level of parental involvement and support in the home (Alomar, 2006; Knollmann & Wild, 2007; Phillipson, 2010; Pomerantz, Wang, & Fei-Ying, 2005; Regner, et al. 2009; Urdan et al., 2007). However, if we compare the perceptions of parents and children in each group, we see that parents of NA and ADHD children report higher academic involvement at home than that perceived by their children. These data are derived from the opinions of a group of parents that were aware that their responses were difficult to verify and, therefore, were more likely to exaggerate in order to

Looking at the results derived from *FAOP-PRAES*, we can conclude that the families of pupils with LD differ negatively from families of NA children regarding parental perception of efficacy in writing instruction and in overall cooperation in teaching writing skills. The lower parental sense of efficacy in teaching writing in LD families may be explained by the fact that because children in this group have disabilities in this area, the help they require from their parents is very specific and they may not feel able to provide it (Bloomfield, Kendall, & Fortuna, 2010; Kay, & Fitzgerald, 1994). As for the degree of involvement in the general teaching of writing in the LD group, previous research has shown that a reason parents fail to cooperate on educational issues is their own lack of training in this respect, which will be even more salient in the case of helping children that require a very high level of expertise (Karende, et al., 2007). Thus, a practical implication derived from this result is the need to develop training programs for parents to enable them to contribute to the

Finally, families of NA children, unlike those of pupils with ADHD, seem to encourage writing on a daily basis, offering models and materials at home for its development. This may be because children with ADHD often have a wide range of needs that may mean that communicative competence is not especially valued and that even if its is addressed it is

achieve socially desirable responses.

education of children with LD.

done in less depth or in combination with other elements.

evaluated through the FAOP scale, we can draw several interesting conclusions.

Regarding the results obtained from *FAOP-HOME*, we saw that parents of children with ADHD reported feeling more rejection of their children than parents of the other two groups (Presentation, et al. 2009; Shur-fen, 2007, Taylor et al., 1996). However, when comparing the perceptions of rejection/acceptance between parents and children of the ADHD group, adults scored higher on both. In relation to acceptance, the data is indeed negative, as the emotional and behavioral development of children with ADHD is mediated by external variables such as perceived acceptance or rejection of their family (Lifford, Harold, & Thapar, 2008; Murris, Meesters, & Van der Berg, 2003; Shaw, et al., 1998). While we need to be aware that this conclusion is mediated by the fact that perceptions of children with ADHD, obtained through self-reports, may be distorted by their disorder (Bauermeister, et al. 2005; Walcott & Landau, 2004), this is something that should be monitored in the future.

Other conclusions drawn from the data obtained through FAOP-HOME relate to parental educational styles. In this case, the parents of NA children exerted more democratic parenting styles than parents of pupils with ADHD, who seemed to be largely permissive. This may be due to the lack of positive reinforcement that they perceive during child rearing or to the highly prevalent strain the disorder puts on family relationships, as previous research has shown (Goldstein, et al. 2007; Keown & Woodward, 2002).

Analysis of *FAOP-FES* variables has led us to several conclusions. We have confirmed that the families of pupils with ADHD have less adaptive relational patterns than those of children with NA, followed by the LD group. Specifically, in families where the children have no problems there is a greater tendency to act openly, freely expressing one's feelings. One explanation for this result would be that the problems these children suffer affect their socioemotional development, which may account for the lower level of expression in intrafamily relationships (Mason & Mason, 2005). It was also found that the level of family cohesion in the case of ADHD was lower than that experienced by the families of NA pupils (Bao-Yu & Lin, 2004; Wells, et al., 2000). The more intense feelings of attachment in families of NA pupils possibly facilitate the positive expression of feelings, and the lack of serious problems means there are no blockages to this dynamic. Finally, results indicate higher levels of conflict in families with ADHD compared with to the families of children with LD, possibly due to higher level of external expression of this disorder.

As for the overall growth dimension, one can conclude that the families of NA children show more favorable patterns regarding their overall development, by offering a variety of cultural and intellectual or leisure activities. This can be explained by the fact that in families where children have no problems parents are able to encourage such activities more often. However, in the case of children with LD or ADHD it is possible that leisure time is used to focus on academic tasks or on trying to alleviate the problems arising from the disorder itself, as demonstrated in studies that confirm that in these households performanceoriented activities are prioritized (Stoll, 2000), therefore the time and interest in leisure or other cultural activities is lower.

Finally, regarding the maintenance stability dimension, results show that such patterns of action are more common in the NA group than in the other two groups, especially that of exercising control, which is much greater in the NA group than in the LD group. Order and family rules promote children's development and learning, which could explain the

The Family Environment of Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD 143

Alomar, B. (2006). Personal and family paths to pupil achievement. *Social Behavior and* 

American Psychiatric Association (2002). *DSM-IV-TR. Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los* 

American Psychiatric Association (2003). *Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos* 

Antshel, K. M. & Joseph, G. (2006). Maternal stress in nonverbal learning disorder: A comparison with Reading disorder. *Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39*, 194-205. Bao-Yu, W., & Lin-Yan, S. (2004). Family environment and the development of behavior in children with ADHD. *Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12*, 145-146. Barkauskiene, R. (2009). The role of parenting for adjustment of children with and without

Bauermeister, J., Matos, M., Reina, G., Salas, C. Martínez, J., & Cumba, E. (2005).

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., & Thompson, J. (2001). Language phenotype for reading and

Biederman, J., Faraone, S., Milberger, S., Guite, J., Mick, E., Chen, I., & Perrin, J. (1996). A

Bloomfield, L., Kendall, S., & Fortuna, S. (2010). Supporting parents: development of a tool

Bull, L. (2003). The use of support groups by parents of children with behaviour. *Early Child* 

Burnett, K., & Farkas, G. (2009). Poverty and family structure effects on children's

Campbell, J., & Verna, A. (2007). Effective parental influence: academic home climate linked to children´s achievement. *Educational Research and Evaluation, 13*(6), 501-519. Cattell, R., & Cattell, A. (2001). *Test de factor "g", escalas 2 y 3 [G factor test, scales 2 and 3]*. TEA

Conners, CK. (2001). *Conners Parent Rating Scale-Revised: long version (CPRS-R:L) and Conners Teacher Rating Scale-Revised: long version (CTRS-R:L).* New York: MHS. Dearing, E., Taylor, B., & McCartney, K. (2009). Does higher quality child care promote low-

Dyson L. (2010). Unanticipated effects of children with learning disabilities on their families.

*Learning Disabilities*, *38*(4), 303-309. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2009.00607.x Bodovski, K., & Youn, M. (2010). Love, discipline, and elementary school achievement: the

role of family emotinal climate. *Social Science Research, 39*, 585.

*Social Science Journal, 46*, 297-318. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.12.009

writing disability. *Scientific Studies of Reading, 5*(1), 59-106.

*Archives of General Psychiatry, 53,* 437-446.

*Development and Care, 173*(2-3), 341-347.

Ediciones: Madrid.

*Development, 80*(5), 1329-1349.

*Learning Disability Quarterly,* 33, 44-55.

*trastornos mentales [Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disease]*. Barcelona:

*mentales [Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disease]. DSM-IV-TR.* Barcelona:

learning disabilities: a person-oriented approach. *Learning Disabilities: a* 

Comparison of the DSM-IV combined and inattentive types of ADHD in a school bases sample of latino/hispanic children. *Journal Child Psychology Psychiatry, 46,*

prospective 4-year follow-up study of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders.

to measure self-efficacy of parents with learning disabilities. *British Journal of* 

mathematics achievement: estimates from random and fixed effects models. *The* 

income children´s math and reading achievement in middle Childhood? *Child* 

**6. References** 

Masson.

166-179.

*Personality, 34*(8), 907-922.

Masson (Edición original, 2000).

*Contemporary Journal, 7*(2), 1-17.

better performance of children without problems and be a risk factor in the case of pupils with LD.

When we examined *expectations* regarding the academic future of children, we found that pupils whose parents are more optimistic about them, NA group parents, show better academic performance (Fang, & Sen, 2006; Neuenschwander, Life, Garrett, & Eccles, 2007; Rubie-Davies, Peterson, Irving, Widdowson, & Dixon, 2010). In addition, the high expectations of parents of NA children were projected on the pupils themselves, who were also the most optimistic about their academic future. It is possible that pupils with problems, as well as being aware of their difficulties, perceive their parents really low aspirations and therefore express less favorable opinions about their own academic performance.

Finally, in response to *parental satisfaction with teachers* and based on the results, we can confirm that parents of NA children, as opposed to mainly those of children with ADHD, are those that show higher patterns of satisfaction. The fact that the educational needs of children with standardized performance are not significant and that they demand less attention, possibly means that teachers' performance is appropriate to them and therefore parents are satisfied in this regard (Gershwin et al., 2008). As for parents of children with LD, as we have seen, results indicate that the pattern of satisfaction is quite similar to that of parents of NA children. Possibly, the lack of a clear diagnosis and treatment of LD at the time of the study, made the parents of these pupils unaware that their children had significant learning problems, which is one of the reasons that could explain the level of overall satisfaction. Nevertheless, compared to the NA group, these parents identified a shortage of professional competence of teachers as well as a considerable lack of interest in their children's learning.

In short, this study confirms a trend indicating that contextual family elements are the most affected, and shows characteristics that are less favorable for learning in families in which children have ADHD or LD. These contextual elements emerge as potential risk factors to control. Therefore, these variables require greater empirical attention in the immediate future, in order to provide comprehensive treatment optimized for these pupils and their families. Similarly, we confirmed that the way family life is perceived is not the same for parents as for children, thus providing an overview of the specific needs of each family member, which may facilitate the establishment of specific interventions adapted to each particular case.
