| If quality of life is viewed as a measure of adaptation in children with disabilities, then it becomes increasingly important to know why some children with disabilities appear to achieve a higher level of quality of life than others. According to social ecological theory, multiple factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to the child can combine to affect child outcomes. It is therefore important that any study of the quality of life of children take into account not only the child's personal attributes, but also factors related to the child's environment.One particularly important element of a child's environment is the family. Previous research indicates that families of children with disabilities experience more stress when compared to families of children without disabilities (Breslau & Davis, 1986). The attitudes and perceptions parents have in regard to themselves, their child, and the stressor are also likely to influence their coping ability. In addition, coping abilities are influenced by social and psychological resources available to the individual. Therefore, the role of family strengths as well as personal and professional support are critical in facilitating positive child outcomes.The purpose of this study was to examine quality of life in 71 children with spina bifida between the ages of 6 and 17, with particular attention to intrapersonal and environmental factors which may impact their quality of life. Three research questions were posed: (a) how well do child educational and psychological characteristics predict child's perceived quality of life? (b) how well does functional status predict child's perceived quality of life? and (c) how well do family characteristics predict child's perceived quality of life? Data were collected through surveys, interviews, and review of medical files.Results indicate that children reported as having more academic or social difficulties are given lower quality of life ratings by their parents. Significant but complex relationships also exist between child functional status and perceived quality of life. Family characteristics and social support, however, are not significant predictors of quality of life. These findings are discussed in terms of implications for intervention, policy, and future research on quality of life. |
