Page 43 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

Structural and Functional Characteristics
The differences in the functional characteristics of the social networks across
groups were analyzed in two ways. First, we analyzed the differences for each
separate function across the three main groups: family, acquaintances and professionals. There were significant main effects on practical/informational
support and on connection, F(2,50) = 6.293, p = .004 and F(1.23, 29.61) = 10.017,
p = .002, respectively. With respect to practical/informational support, higher 2 scores were found for professionals compared to both family and acquaintances
– significant (p = .001) and nearly significant (p = .058) differences. With respect to connection, significantly higher scores were found for acquaintances compared to both family (p = .001), and professionals (p = .005). No significant differences between the scores of the groups on either affection or preferences were found.
The second way in which we examined the functional characteristics of the social networks was to analyze the characteristics within each group of network members (i.e. the family, acquaintances and professionals) for significant differences. Significant differences between the scores on functional characteristics were found for all three groups: for family, F(2.44, 75.50) = 31.726, p < .001; for acquaintances F(1.94, 54.28) = 6.322, p = .004; and for professionals F(2.01, 58.36) = 44.486, p < .001. Post hoc comparisons revealed significantly lower scores on the connection characteristics than on all of the other functional characteristics for each group (p < .01 for all tests); one exception was the difference between connection and practical/informational support for the group of acquaintances alone, which was not significant. The only other significant differences between the functional characteristics within a group were as follows: (a) within the family, significantly higher scores on preference and affection compared to practical/informational support (p = .018 and p = .037, respectively); (b) within professionals higher score on practical/informational support compared to preference, p = .008. In sum, the participants judged the extent to which network members meet their need for connection relatively low, particularly when compared to the meeting of their other needs.
41