Page 83 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

Comparison of Social Networks
brothers/sisters and other family members); acquaintances (i.e. friends, colleagues, neighbours and other acquaintances) and professionals. Network members were included in the analyses if they were over the age of 12 years. With respect to wishes, the first expressed wish was coded and categorized further. Decisions concerning the coding and categorization of the wishes were discussed among researchers in the research group.
In the analyses several steps were undertaken. First, mean scores
were calculated with regard to the structural characteristics (i.e. size of the
social network, frequency of contact, initiation of contact and length of the relationships) and the functional characteristics (i.e. affection, connection, preference and practical/informational support). In a previous article these
analyses are described in detail (van Asselt-Goverts et al., 2013). Second,
the satisfaction of the participants with their current social networks, and
their wishes with regard to these current social networks were determined. 4 Percentages were calculated for this purpose. Third, in order to investigate
whether the three groups (ID, ASD and REF) had different social networks,
one way ANOVA’s (GLM) were performed for continuous outcome variables
(i.e. for the structural and functional characteristics) and Chi Squared for categorical variables (i.e. for satisfaction and wishes). When applicable, Post
hoc comparisons were conducted to determine which groups differed.
4.3 Results
4.3.1 Structural characteristics of the social networks
Size
Table 2 gives information on the size of the social networks (i.e. the number of network members). On analysis of the number of network members shown on the ecogram (i.e. the visualization of the social network excluding family), there were several significant differences between the three groups. Post hoc comparisons showed that participants with ID or ASD had significantly less network members on the ecogram than participants of the REF group (respectively p < .001; p = .012). Concerning the average number of network members on the MSNA (i.e. people from both genogram and ecogram who were considered important enough to put them on the MSNA according to
81