Page 44 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

Chapter 2
Table 4 Functional characteristics of the social network: Means along a five-point scale (SD)
Affection
Connection
Preference
Practical/ Informational Support
Family Partner/children Parents Brothers/Sisters Other Family
Acquaintances Friends
Colleagues Neighbours
Other acquaintances
Professionals
2.4 Discussion
3.93 (0.7) 4.47 (0.6) 4.33 (0.7) 3.61 (1.3) 3.64 (1.1)
3.80 (0.6) 3.69 (0.7) 4.14 (0.7) 4.29 (1.0) 3.10 (1.1)
4.00 (0.8)
2.91 (0.8) 3.21 (1.2) 3.00 (1.1) 2.64 (1.1) 2.71 (1.0)
3.32 (0.8) 3.33 (0.8) 3.23 (1.0) 3.93 (0.9) 2.81 (1.3)
2.35 (1.1)
4.09 (0.6) 4.65 (0.8) 4.37 (0.8) 3.93 (1.1) 3.80 (0.9)
4.00 (0.6) 3.96 (0.8) 4.11 (0.6) 4.43 (0.8) 3.80 (1.1)
3.90 (0.8)
3.63 (0.8) 4.18 (1.2) 4.02 (1.2) 3.46 (1.5) 3.49 (1.3)
3.75 (1.0) 3.76 (1.0) 4.02 (1.2) 3.71 (1.5) 3.61 (1.0)
4.30 (0.8)
In this study, we investigated the structural and functional characteristics of the social networks of people with mild ID from their own perspective. Several findings are noteworthy in relation to the existing literature and for their practical implications. First, the results with regard to the size of the social networks are in line with the results of previous research on the social networks of individuals with ID although the size in the research literature varies from a median of six network members (Robertson et al., 2001) to an average of 11.67 (Lippold & Burns, 2009) and 22 (Forrester-Jones et al., 2006) for people with ID in community- based residences. Differences across studies in the size of the social networks of people with ID may also be attributable to the use of different instruments: the MSNA (Baars, 1994), which was used in the present research; the Social Network Map (Robertson et al., 2001; Tracy & Abell, 1994); the Social Network Guide (Forrester-Jones et al., 2006); or the Social Support Self Report (Lippold & Burns, 2009). Similarly, interviewing the participants themselves (Forrester-Jones et al., 2006; Lippold & Burns, 2009) versus proxy informants like support staff (Robertson et al., 2001) could contribute to the observed variation in the size of the social networks reported across studies. In the present study, the individuals with the mild ID served as the informants as they are the experts on their feelings, experiences and thus on their own opinions (Cambridge & Forrester-Jones, 2003; Forrester-Jones et al., 2006); research has also shown people with mild ID to be reliable reporters of social support (Lunsky & Benson, 1997).
42