Page 80 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

Chapter 4
Table 1 Demographic characteristics (%) of participants in the ID, ASD and REF group compared
ID
(n = 33)
ASD
(n = 30)
REF
(n = 42)
χ2
p
Gender (% Male)
Intimate relationship (% Partner)
Living situation (% Living together)a
Work situation (% Work & outdoor activities)b
48.5 66.7 51.5 53.3 30.3 46.7 78.8 60.0
45.2 3.514 .173 85.7 12.451 .002 81.0 20.422 .000 95.2 13.626 .001
a With partner and/or children; b A job, supported employment, sheltered workshop, day activity program or school.
Although the three groups were thus matched for age and gender, Table 1 shows that for having an intimate relationship, living situation and work situation the groups did differ significantly. Further analyses showed that the participants of the REF group had a partner significantly more often and lived with this partner and/or their children than both other groups. They also more often had work or outdoor activities during the day. The differences between ID and ASD were not significant on these demographic characteristics.
4.2.2 Measures
Maastricht Social Network Analysis
The structural and functional characteristics of the social networks of the participants in this study were mapped in an interview using the Maastricht Social Network Analysis (MSNA; Baars, 1994). With the MSNA important network members were listed on three cards; one for family members (e.g. partner, parents, siblings and other family members), one for acquaintances (e.g. friends, colleagues, neighbours, other acquaintances) and one for professionals (e.g. support staff, therapists, social workers, coaches). Each member of the network of family and acquaintances was then scored on 20 items. For family and acquaintances, items included structural characteristics (e.g. demographic characteristics, frequency of contact, length of the relationship, initiation of contact) and functional characteristics (i.e. the supportiveness of the contact). The functional characteristics were operationalized along four dimensions: affection (e.g. feeling safe and secure with the person, loving the person), connection (e.g. liking the same things), preference (e.g. preference for contact with the person, liking the contact), and practical/informational support (e.g. being helped by the person when you don’t know something or aren’t able to do something). Each dimension was measured by one question per network
78