INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the study of the family efficacy on parents of special needs children in Tripura. The samples of present study are drawn randomly from the Department of Special Education & Rehabilitation (DoSE&R) Lab ICFAI University, Tripura and the information is tabulated. The case history which is taken at the time of admission of the selected 91 students is well studied. There are 2 types of respondents comprising of (n=86 mothers) and (n= 86 fathers). Their information is presented in the subsequent paragraphs.
The total number of students selected for the study during the field work consists of 91students. Each student is selected from the Department of Special Education& Rehabilitation lab ICFAI University, Tripura. The researcher visited personally to collect the information through the case history of the students available at the Department of Special Education & Rehabilitation Lab. The staff’s lab assistant was very helpful at the time of collecting data. The information is presented in the table 4.
STUDENTS
TABLE.4.1: Distribution of students in the Faculty of Special Education (DoSE&R) Lab ICFAI University Tripura.
Name of the study centre Number of students
Male (M)Female (F)N
Department of Special Education& Rehabilitation Lab
ICFAI University, Tripura 65 25 91
Different discussions have been made for the students and parents separately for the convenience of the present study. It is given below.
The above Table shows that among 91 students selected for the study, 65 were male. The number of male students were higher in study centers then the female students as the parent feel hesitation to bring out and admit their girl child to the special or inclusive education centers.
Figure 4.1: Percent distribution of students in the Special Education & Rehabilitation Lab ICFAI University, Tripura.
It is clearly shown that the percentages of male students were 36% and female were 14%.
CATEGORY OF RETARDATION AND LEVEL OF LEARNING
The study also reveals about the students of different categories of retardation and different level of learning.
TABLE 4.2.3: Distribution of student on the category of retardation
Category of
Retardation Male (M) % Female(F) % Total(M+F) %
Mild 5 7.35 0 0 05 5.49
Moderate 24 35.29 8 34.78 32 35.16
Severe 21 30.88 7 1.61 28 30.76
Multiple Disability 1 1.47 2 8.69 3 3.29
B/L Profound SN
Hearing Loss 2 2.94 2 8.69 4 4.39
Locomotor
Disability 5 7.35 1 4.34 6 6.59
Congenital
rudimentary left hand 1 1.47 0 0 1 1.09
PPRP RT
Upper+Lower limb
with residual equniousdefoi 1 1.47 0 0 1 1.09
Lowvision 1 1.47 0 0 1 1.09
CP with Congenital Peraperesis with Gross wasting of
muscle BL. 2 2.92 1 4.34 3 3.29
Autism with Mr 1 1.47 0 0 1 1.09
Intellectual
Disability 3 4.41 1 4.34 4 4.39
Autism(No PWD
Certificate) 1 1.47 1 4.34 2 2.19
Total 68 100.00 23 100.00 91 100.00
STUDENTS
Background information of the parents and the students including sex, age, Education, residence is given in Table 4.3.1
Table 4.3.1: Distribution of Background Characteristics about the students
Background characteristics Male % Female % Total %
Gender 64 70.32 27 29.67 91 100
Age 5-10 04 4.39 01 1.09 05 5.49
11-152628.571516.484145.05
16-203235.16077.693942.85
21-25022.19022.19044.39
25-30011.09011.09022.19
Siblings Yes 28 66.66 14 33.33 42 46.15
No3877.551122.444953.84
Socio economic status High 03 4.68 00 00 03 3.29
Upper
Middle 02 3.12 01 3.70 03 3.29
Lower
Middle 09 14.06 03 11.11 12 13.18
Low5078.122385.187380.21
Residential Area : Rural (R) 34 69.38 15 30.61 49 53.84
Urban (U)1565.210834.782325.27
Semi-Urban
(S-U) 16 88.88 02 11.11 18 19.78
Type of Family Nuclear (N) 04 66.66 02 33.33 06 6.59
Joint (J)6172.612327.388492.30
Figures 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Percentage on Gender
The above table 4.3.1 shows that among 91 students selected for the study, 70.32 % were male and 29.67were female. The majority number of male is more higher than the number of female
Figure 4.3.2: Percent Age of the Students
4.39
1.09 Age of the Students of special needs Children
Male Ranging from 5 to 3F0emYealaers
28.57 35.16
2.19 2.19
16.48 7.69
1.09 1.09
Majority of the different category of the students, i.e. the age group of 5-10 Years of students were 5.49% and 11 -15 Years were 45.05% which were highest among the age group. The age group of the students 16-20 Years were (42.85%) and 21-25 Years of students were (4.39%) and the age group of 25-30 Years were (2.19%).
Figure 4.3.3 Percentage of the students about siblings
The above table also highlighted that the majority of the Students in Regarding the those who have sibling of male were 67% and female who has sibling were 33%.
Fig 4.3.4 Percentage of students of their residential area.
The above table also highlighted the Students residential residing in rural areas were 53.84% and urban areas were 25.27% and semi-urban were 19.78% of the students. Almost all of the students were residing in Rural areas which is higher than the other residential areas.
Figure:4.3.5 Percentage of students in the types of family
PARENTS
The study collected information from the parents both the fathers and mothers of Special needs children those who are enrolled in the Department of Special Education & Rehabilitation ICFAI University, Tripura Lab in Tripura. Among them 86 were Fathers and 86 were Mothers. The information gathered from them was useful to understand thoroughly the problems of the family, strong and prosperous family, the family’s uniqueness and degree of strength, about the problems they faced and their opinion and suggestions they could make out for further improvement from the family efficacy on the parents of special needs children.
Table:4.3.2 The distribution of the background characteristics about parents.
Background characteristics Fathers % Mothers % Total %
Gender 86 50 86 50 172 100
Occupation Services 20 23.25 03 3.48 23 13.37
Business2124.4100002112.20
Daily Labour1618.60022.321810.46
Home Maker00007587.207543.60
Any other2933.72066.973520.34
Figure 4.3.7: Graphical representation of Gender from respondent’s characteristics.
Figure 4.3.8: Graphical representation of Occupations from respondent characteristics.
Areas I: Sacrifice
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.3: Distribution of Parents by Sacrifice
Areas I Fathers Mothers
Sacrifice Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment % Baseli ne % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Individual should be considered important
for the family. 29 15.26 28 14.58 15 1.46 17 8.67
b. Decisions should be
taken for the good of the entire family. 20 10.52 20 10.41 54 26.86 56 28.19
c. Work together jointly
for the welfare of the entire family 141 74.21 144 75 132 65.67 123 62.75
Area I - Total: 190 100.00 192 100.00 201 100.00 196 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e. 11.25%were of the mothers and fathers about the individual should be considered important for the family. The decisions should be taken for the good of the entire family were 18.92% and Work together jointly for the welfare of the entire family were 69.82%. Parents were taking special role to build the required characteristics for the development for the students.
The parents in the 1st Assessment were 11.59% about the individual should be considered important for the family. The decisions should be taken for the good of the entire family were 19.58% and Work together jointly for the welfare of the entire family were 68.81%.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 201 and is higher than the fathers. The 1st Assessment in the mothers were196 which is higher than the fathers.
Figure 4.3.10: Graphical representation of Sacrifice from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Sacrifice from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Sacrifice from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Sacrifice from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas II: Faith in God
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Faith in God.
Areas II Fathers Mothers
Faith in God Baseline % 1st
Asses sment % Baseli ne % 1st
Asses sment %
a. whatever happens in life is determined by
God 32 18.60 17 8.33 23 11.97 22 11.51
b. God helps only those
who help themselves. 96 55.81 129 63.23 129 67.18 123 64.39
c.Only those who are
weak, seek the help of God. 44 25.58 58 28.43 40 20.83 46 24.08
Area II - Total: 172 100.00 204 100.00 192 100.00 191 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e. 15.10% were of the mothers and fathers aboutwhatever happens in life is determined by God. God helps only those who help themselves were 61.81% and only those who are weak, seek the help of God.were 23.07%.
The parents in the 1st Assessment about whatever happens in life is determined by Godwere 9.87%. God helps only those who help themselves were 63.79% and only those who are weak, seek the help of God were 26.32%.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 192 and is higher than the fathers. The 1st Assessment in the fathers were204 which is higher than the mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Faith in God from respondent characteristics
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Faith in God from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Faith in God from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas III: Financial
Table 4.3.2 shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Financial.
Areas III Fathers Mothers
Financial Baselin e % 1st
Asses
smen t % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Family is able to meet all these expenses
easily 44 28.75 74 48.05 81 49.69 87 52.72
b.Family is neither
there is any excess, nor there is acute shortage. 93 60.78 63 40.90 46 28.22 42 25.45
c. Family has lot of difficulty in meeting the
expenses 16 10.45 17 11.03 36 22.08 36 21.81
Area III - Total: 153 100.00 154 100.00 163 100.00 165 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e. 39.55% werefamily is able to meet all these expenses easily. Family is neither there is any excess, nor there is acute shortage were 43.98% and Family has lot of difficulty in meeting the expenses were 16.45%.The parents in the 1st Assessment50.47%werefamily is able to meet all these expenses easily. Family is neither there is any excess, nor there is acute shortage were 32.91% and Family has lot of difficulty in meeting the expenses were 16.61%.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 163 is higher than the fathers. The 1st Assessment in the mothers were 165 which is higher than the fathers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Financial from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Financial from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Financial from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas IV: Value
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by values.
Areas IV Fathers Mothers
Values Base line % 1st
Asses sment % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Some families give
more importance to human life 52 29.54 84 51.21 74 43.78 68 40
b.Some families consider it important to acquire lot of wealth and
obtain, material goods 28 15.90 26 15.85 26 15.38 27 15.88
c. But, some families give importance to both living a value based life
as well as earn money and material goods. 96 54.54 54 32.92 69 40.82 75 44.11
Area IV - Total: 176 100.00 164 100.00 169 100.00 170 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.36.52% were some families give more importance to human life. Some families consider it important to acquire lot of wealth and obtain, material goods were 15.65%. But, some families give importance to both living a value based life as well as earn money and material goods were 47.82%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents 45.50% were some families give more importance to human life. Some families consider it important to acquire lot of wealth and obtain, material goods were 15.86%. But, some families give importance to both living a value based life as well as earn money and material goods were 38.62%.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in fathers 176 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in mothers were 170 which is higher than the fathers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Values from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Values from respondent characteristics.
Values
1st Assessment- Mothers and Fathers
c. But, some families give importance to bo hMlivoitnhgers
a value based life as well as earn money and…
b.Some families consider it important to acquire lot
of wealth and obtain, material goods
a. Some families give more importance to human life
Fathers 44.11
32.92
15.8815.85
4051.21
4.3.2 Areas V: Health
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Health
Areas V Fathers Mothers
Health Base line % 1st
Asses sment % Baseli ne % 1st
Asses sment %
a.Family members do
fall sick sometimes 50 29.23 80 42.55 80 44.94 80 45.97
b.Family members are
health and fitness conscious 90 52.63 93 49.46 78 43.82 72 41.37
c.Most of the family members remain unwell and sick most of the
time. 31 18.12 15 7.97 20 11.23 22 12.64
Area V - Total: 171 100.00 188 100.00 178 100.00 174 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.37.24% were Family members do fall sick sometimes and Family members are health and fitness conscious were 48.13%. Most of the family members remain unwell and sick most of the time were 14.61%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents 44.19% were Family members do fall sick sometimes and Family members are health and fitness conscious were 45.58%. Most of the family members remain unwell and sick most of the time were 10.22%The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 178 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in fathers were 188 which is higher than the mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Health from respondent characteristics.
Health Mothers Fathers
Baseline - Mothers and Fathers
c. Most of the family members
remain unwell and sick most of the
time.
b. Family members are health and fitness conscious
a. Family members do fall sick sometimes
11.23
18.12
43.82
52.63
44.94
29.23
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Health from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Health from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas VI: Trust
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Trust
Areas VI Fathers Mothers
Trust Basel ine % 1st
Asses sment % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Family members spontaneously come to help and have complete faith and trust in each
other 45 30 93 50.54 69 40.82 63 37.72
b. Family members rarely come to help, most of the times one
cannot depend on the family 37 24.66 19 10.32 26 15.38 26 15.56
c. Family members do help sometimes, one
can depend on them on few occasions, while 68 45.33 72 39.13 74 43.78 78 46.70
in some occasions has
to resolve the problems by self.
Area VI - Total: 150 100.00 184 100.00 169 100.00 167 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e. 35.73% were Family members spontaneously come to help and have complete faith and trust in each other. Family members rarely come to help, most of the times one cannot depend on the family were 19.74%. Family members do help sometimes, one can depend on them on few occasions, while in some occasions has to resolve the problems by self were 44.51%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents 44.44% were Family members spontaneously come to help and have complete faith and trust in each other. Family members rarely come to help, most of the times one cannot depend on the family were 12.82%. Family members do help sometimes, one can depend on them on few occasions, while in some occasions has to resolve the problems by self. were 42.73%. The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 169 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in fathers were 184 which is higher than the mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Trust from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Trust from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Trust from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Financial from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas IV: Values
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by values.
Areas IV Fathers Mothers
Values Base line % 1st
Asses sment % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Some families give
more importance to human life 52 29.54 84 51.21 74 43.78 68 40
b.Some families consider it important to acquire lot of wealth and
obtain, material goods 28 15.90 26 15.85 26 15.38 27 15.88
c. But, some families give importance to both living a value based life
as well as earn money and material goods. 96 54.54 54 32.92 69 40.82 75 44.11
Area IV - Total: 176 100.00 164 100.00 169 100.00 170 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.36.52% were some families give more importance to human life. Some families consider it important to acquire lot of wealth and obtain, material goods were 15.65%. But, some families give importance to both living a value based life as well as earn money and material goods were 47.82%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents 45.50% were some families give more importance to human life. Some families consider it important to acquire lot of wealth and obtain, material goods were 15.86%. But, some families give importance to both living a value based life as well as earn money and material goods were 38.62%.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in fathers 176 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in mothers were 170 which is higher than the fathers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Values from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Values from respondent characteristics
Values
1st Assessment- Mothers and Fathers
c. But, some families give importance to bo hMlivoitnhgers
a value based life as well as earn money and…
b.Some families consider it important to acquire lot
of wealth and obtain, material goods
a. Some families give more importance to human life
Fathers 44.11
32.92
15.8815.85
4051.21
4.3.2 Areas V: Health
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Health
Areas V Fathers Mothers
Health Base line % 1st
Asses sment % Baseli ne % 1st
Asses sment %
a.Family members do
fall sick sometimes 50 29.23 80 42.55 80 44.94 80 45.97
b.Family members are
health and fitness conscious 90 52.63 93 49.46 78 43.82 72 41.37
c.Most of the family members remain unwell and sick most of the
time. 31 18.12 15 7.97 20 11.23 22 12.64
Area V - Total: 171 100.00 188 100.00 178 100.00 174 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.37.24% were Family members do fall sick sometimes and Family members are health and fitness conscious were 48.13%. Most of the family members remain unwell and sick most of the time were 14.61%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents 44.19% were Family members do fall sick sometimes and Family members are health and fitness conscious were 45.58%. Most of the family members remain unwell and sick most of the time were 10.22%The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 178 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in fathers were 188 which is higher than the mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Health from respondent characteristics.
Health Mothers Fathers
Baseline - Mothers and Fathers
c. Most of the family members
remain unwell and sick most of the
time.
b. Family members are health and fitness conscious
a. Family members do fall sick sometimes
11.23
18.12
43.82
52.63
44.94
29.23
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Health from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Health from respondent characteristics
4.3.2 Areas VI: Trust
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Trust
Areas VI Fathers Mothers
Trust Basel ine % 1st
Asses sment % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Family members spontaneously come to help and have complete faith and trust in each
other 45 30 93 50.54 69 40.82 63 37.72
b. Family members rarely come to help, most of the times one
cannot depend on the family 37 24.66 19 10.32 26 15.38 26 15.56
c. Family members do help sometimes, one
can depend on them on few occasions, while 68 45.33 72 39.13 74 43.78 78 46.70
in some occasions has
to resolve the problems by self.
Area VI - Total: 150 100.00 184 100.00 169 100.00 167 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e. 35.73% were Family members spontaneously come to help and have complete faith and trust in each other. Family members rarely come to help, most of the times one cannot depend on the family were 19.74%. Family members do help sometimes, one can depend on them on few occasions, while in some occasions has to resolve the problems by self were 44.51%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents 44.44% were Family members spontaneously come to help and have complete faith and trust in each other. Family members rarely come to help, most of the times one cannot depend on the family were 12.82%. Family members do help sometimes, one can depend on them on few occasions, while in some occasions has to resolve the problems by self. were 42.73%. The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 169 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in fathers were 184 which is higher than the mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Trust from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Trust from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Trust from respondent characteristics
4.3.2 Areas VII: Acceptance
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Acceptance
Areas VII Fathers Mothers
Acceptance Basel ine % 1st
Asses sment % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Family does not provide full acceptance and support and sometimes the family is
unconcerned. 62 36.25 58 31.35 135 50 135 50.37
b. Family takes care of family members in whatever situation they
are in. 81 47.36 105 56.75 120 44.44 117 43.65
c. Family members feel like outsider and the family remains
unconcerned. 28 16.37 22 11.89 15 5.55 16 5.97
Area VII - Total: 171 100.00 185 100.00 270 100.00 268 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e. 44.67% wereFamily does not provide full acceptance and support and sometimes the family is unconcerned. Family takes care of family members in whatever situation they are in were 45.57%. Family members feel like outsider and the family remains unconcerned were 9.75%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents 42.60% wereFamily does not provide full acceptance and support and sometimes the family is unconcerned. Family takes care of family members in whatever situation they are in were 49.00%. Family members feel like outsider and the family remains unconcerned were 8.38%.The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 270 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in mothers were 268 which is higher than the fathers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Acceptance from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Acceptance from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas VIII: Crisis
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Crisis
Areas VIII Fathers Mothers
Crisis Basel ine % 1st
Asses smen
t % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a.In all situations the family gets together and face the challenge
jointly, by helping each other. 48 29.81 63 36.84 66 39.52 63 38.18
b.On certain situations
the family will come together and face the 86 56.41 86 50.29 74 44.31 74 44.84
challenge jointly, while on certain occasions the family to face the
situation themselves?
c. The family falls apart or blames each other and do not help each
other at all. 27 16.77 22 12.86 27 16.16 28 16.96
Area VIII - Total: 161 100.00 171 100.00 167 100.00 165 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e. 34.75% were in all situations the family gets together and face the challenge jointly, by helping each other. On certain situations the family will come together and face the challenge jointly, while on certain occasions the family to face the situation themselves were 48.78%. The family falls apart or blames each other and do not help each other at all were 16.46%. In the 1st Assessment of the parents37.50% were in all situations the family gets together and face the challenge jointly, by helping each other. On certain situations the family will come together and face the challenge jointly, while on certain occasions the family to face the situation themselves were 47.61%. The family falls apart or blames each other and do not help each other at all were 14.88% The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers 167 is higher. In the 1st Assessment in mothers were 165 which were lower than the fathers
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Crisis from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas IX: Social Support
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Social support
Areas IX Fathers Mothers
Social Support Basel ine % 1st
Asses sment % Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment %
a.Friends and
neighbours are not at all 28 16.76 16 7.88 22 12.29 21 11.66
helpful and the family
cannot rely on them.
b.Sometimes friends and neighbours do provide help or come to
the rescue of the family. 70 41.91 46 22.66 70 39.10 72 40
c.Friends and neighbours help always and stand by the family
in need. 69 41.31 141 69.45 87 48.60 87 48.33
Area IX - Total: 167 100.00 203 100.00 179 100.00 180 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.14.45 % Friends and neighbours are not at all helpful and the family cannot rely on them. Sometimes friends and neighbours do provide help or come to the rescue of the family were 40.46%.Friends and neighbours help always and stand by the family in need were 71.67%.In the 1st Assessment of the parents9.66 % were Friends and neighbours are not at all helpful and the family cannot rely on them. Sometimes friends and neighbours do provide help or come to the rescue of the family were 30.80%. Friends and neighbours help always and stand by the family in need were 59.53%. The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers were score 179 which is higher than that of the fathers. In the 1st Assessment in fathers score were 203 which is higher than mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Social Support from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas X: Communication
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Communication
Areas X Fathers Mothers
Communication Basel ine % 1st
Asses sment % Baselin e % 1st
Asses sment %
a.Family members share their experiences and concerns with each
other. They talk to each other freely. 48 30.18 54 32.92 81 47.09 81 47.64
b.Most members in the family do not talk to each other freely. They do not share their experiences, views or
concerns. 29 18.23 30 18.29 27 15.69 29 17.05
c.Family members have limited communication with each other. They talk to each other only when, it is absolutely
necessary. 82 51.57 80 48.78 64 37.20 60 35.29
Area X - Total: 159 100.00 164 100.00 172 100.00 170 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.38.97% wereFamily members share their experiences and concerns with each other. 16.91%. were Most members in the family do not talk to each other freely. They do not share their experiences, views or concerns.44.10% were Family members have limited communication with each other. They talk to each other only when, it is absolutely necessary. In the 1st Assessment of the parents40.41%wereFamily members share their experiences and concerns with each other’s. Most members in the family do not talk to each other freely. They do not share their experiences; views or concerns were 17.66%. Family members have limited communication with each other. They talk to each other only when, it is absolutely necessary were 41.91%The family efficacy in the Baseline in mothers score were 172 which is higher than that of the fathers. In the 1st Assessment in fathers score were 170 which is higher than mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Communication from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas XI: Roles and responsibilities
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Roles and responsibilities
Areas XI Fathers Mothers
Roles and Baselin % 1st % Baselin % 1st %
responsibilitieseAsseseAsses
smensment
t
a. Family members are unable to take over the role and duties, as nobody has the time, or
nobody wants to help. 25 13.08 24 12.43 24 13.79 23 12.92
b.Family members offer
help to some extent only. 34 17.80 34 17.61 72 41.37 74 41.57
c.Family members rise to the occasion in the
times of difficulty, and take over the role 132 69.10 135 69.94 78 44.82 81 45.50
Area XI - Total: 191 100.00 193 100.00 174 100.00 178 100.00
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.13.42% wereFamily members are unable to take over the role and duties, as nobody has the time, or nobody wants to help.29.04% were Family members offer help to some extent only. 57.53% were Family members rise to the occasion in the times of difficulty, and take over the role.
In the 1st Assessment of the parents12.66%wereFamily members are unable to take over the role and duties, as nobody has the time, or nobody wants to help. 29.11% were Family members offer help to some extent only. 58.22% were Family members rise to the occasion in the times of difficulty, and take over the role.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in fathers score were 191 which is higher than that of the mothers. In the 1st Assessment in fathers score were 193 which is higher than mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Roles and Responsibility from respondent characteristics.
Roles and Responsibility
Baseline- Mothers and Fathers
c.Family members rise to the occasion in the MothersFathers
times of 44.82 69.1
difficulty, and take over the role
b.Family members offer help to some extent only. 41.37 17.8
a. Family members are unable to take over the role 13.79 13.08
and duties, as nobody has the time, or nobody wants…
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Roles and Responsibility from respondent characteristics
4.3.2 Areas XII: Optimism
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Optimism
Areas XII Fathers Mothers
Optimism Baselin e % 1st
Assess ment % Baseli ne % 1st
Assess ment %
a. Somewhat optimism is maintained, only to some extent family members encourage
each other. 90 44.33 88 44.44 50 26.17 52 28.57
b. Members of our family positively encourage each other to
maintain positive 108 53.20 105 53.03 120 62.82 105 57.69
outlook and hope for
the best.
c. Rather encouraging our family members criticise or blame each
other, can’t think positively. 05 2.46 05 2.52 21 10.99 25 13.73
Area XII - Total: 203 100.0
0 198 100.0
0 191 100.00 182 100.0
0
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.35.53%Somewhat optimism is maintained, only to some extent family members encourage each other.57.86% were Members of our family positively encourage each other to maintain positive outlook and hope for the best.6.59% were Rather encouraging our family members criticise or blame each other, can’t think positively. In the 1st Assessment of the parents36.84% were Somewhat optimism is maintained, only to some extent family members encourage each other. 55.26% were Members of our family positively encourage each other to maintain positive outlook and hope for the best.7.89% Rather encouraging our family members criticise or blame each other, can’t think positively. The family efficacy in the Baseline in fathers score were 203 which is higher than that of the mothers. In the 1st Assessment in fathers score were 198 which is higher than mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Optimism from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Optimism from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas XIII: Decisions
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Decisions
Areas XIII Fathers Mothers
Decisions Basel ine % 1stAsse ssment % Baseli ne % 1stAss essme
nt %
a.Juniors in the family are consulted, but the decision is taken only by the elders. 84 44.21 84 44.68 16 8.69 24 13.18
b.Elders in the family take decisions keeping in view the best interest of the entire family. 13 6.84 14 7.44 33 17.93 32 17.58
c.Family members are given an opportunity to discuss the matter with
each other. 93 48.94 90 47.87 135 73.36 126 69.23
Area XIII - Total: 190 100.00 188 100.00 184 100.0
0 182 100.0
0
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.26.73% were Juniors in the family are consulted, but the decision is taken only by the elders.12.29% were Elders in the family take decisions keeping in view the best interest of the entire family. 60.96% were Family members are given an opportunity to discuss the matter with each other.
In the 1st Assessment of the parents 29.189% were Juniors in the family are consulted, but the decision is taken only by the elders.12.43% were Elders in the family take decisions keeping in view the best interest of the entire family. 58.37% were Family members are given an opportunity to discuss the matter with each other.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in fathers score were 190 which is higher than that of the mothers. In the 1st Assessment in fathers score were 188 which is higher than mothers.
Graphical representation of Decisions from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Decision from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas XIV: Time
Table 4.3.2shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Time
Areas XIV Fathers Mothers
Time Baselin e % 1st
Assess ment % Baselin e % 1st
Asses sment %
a.We spend lot of time together. We always find time for each other, no matter how busy
we are. 144 73.84 135 71.05 93 53.14 96 54.54
b.Everybody is so busy. Nobody, has time to
spend with each other. 25 12.82 27 13.15 28 16 28 15.90
c.Occasionally whenever it is possible we spend time each
other. 26 13.33 28 14.73 54 30.85 52 29.54
Area XIV - Total: 195 100.00 190 100.0
0 175 100.0
0 176 100.0
0
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.64.05% We spend lot of time together. We always find time for each other, no matter how busy we are.14.32% were everybody is so busy. Nobody, has time to spend with each other.21.62 % were Occasionally whenever it is possible we spend time each other.
In the 1st Assessment of the parents 63.11% We spend lot of time together. We always find time for each other, no matter how busy we are.15.02% were Everybody is so busy. Nobody, has time to spend with each other.21.85% were Occasionally whenever it is possible we spend time each other.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in fathers score were 195 which is higher than that of the mothers. In the 1st Assessment in fathers score were 190 which is higher than mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Optimism from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Optimism from respondent characteristics.
4.3.2 Areas XV: Independence
Table 4.4shows in detail about Information on responses of parents regarding the needs on Information condition
TABLE 4.3.2: Distribution of Parents by Independence
Areas XV Fathers Mothers
Independence Basel ine % 1st
Assess ment % Baselin e % 1st
Asses sment %
a.There are a lot of restrictions by the family on the individual to do things what the family members consider is the best for
them. 23 10.90 23 11.85 30 17.96 30 17.96
b.In certain areas complete liberty is given to family members while in some areas restriction placed
by the family. 38 19.68 36 18.55 58 34.31 62 37.12
c.Family members are given full liberty to achieve what they
consider is best for them. 132 68.39 135 69.58 81 47.92 75 44.91
Area XV - Total: 193 100.0
0 194 100.00 169 100.00 167 100.0
0
The above table shows in detail about the majority of the parents in the Baseline i.e.14.64% There are a lot of restrictions by the family on the individual to do things what the family members consider is the best for them. 26.51% were in certain areas complete liberty is given to family members while in some areas restriction placed by the family.58.83% were Family members are given full liberty to achieve what they consider is best for them.
In the 1st Assessment of the parents 14.68% There are a lot of restrictions by the family on the individual to do things what the family members consider is the best for them. 27.14% were in certain areas complete liberty is given to family members while in some areas restriction placed by the family.58.17% were Family members are given full liberty to achieve what they consider is best for them.
The family efficacy in the Baseline in fathers score were 193 which is higher than that of the mothers. In the 1st Assessment in fathers score were 194 which is higher than mothers.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Independence from respondent characteristics.
Figure 4.3.1: Graphical representation of Optimism from respondent characteristics.
4.3.17: Parents family efficacy profile in Baseline and 1st Assessment Table 4.3.17: Distribution of the total family efficacy profile of the parents
Areas Fathers Mothers
Baseline1st AssessmentBaseline1st Assessment
Obtained scoreObtained
score Obtained
score Obtained
score
1.SACRIFICE 190 192 201 196
2.FAITH IN GOD 172 204 192 191
3.FINANCIAL 153 154 163 165
4.VALUES 176 164 169 170
5.HEALTH 171 188 178 174
6.TRUST 150 184 169 167
7.ACCEPTANCE 171 185 270 268
8.CRISIS 161 171 167 165
9.SOCIAL SUPPORT 167 203 179 180
10.COMMUNICATION 159 164 172 170
11.ROLES &
RESPONSIBILITIES 191 193 174 178
12.OPTIMISM 203 198 191 182
13.DECISIONS 190 188 184 182
14.TIME 195 190 175 176
15.INDEPENDENCE 193 194 169 167
GRAND TOTAL 2,642 2,772 2,753 2731
• Baseline: The above table shows in detail that the total scores in the Baseline of both the parents is that the total scores of the fathers were 26,42 and mothers score i.e. 2,753 and is higher than that of the Father in the Baseline.
1st Assessment:
• The above table shows in detail that the total scores in the NIMH –FES) in the Family efficacy of the special needs of both the parents. Fathers has a higher score i.e. 2,772 scores in the1stAssessmentandby the fathers and 2731by the mothers.
Summary
The study explored family efficacy in families of children with special needs, focusing on their collective strengths, challenges, and support requirements. Data from 91 students and 182 parents revealed that each family operates under unique conditions and faces varied needs for intervention and support.
Findings show that Indian families, despite socioeconomic challenges, display strong resilience and coping abilities. Parents expressed needs in areas of communication, health, trust, social support, and shared responsibilities. The study also highlighted variations in family responses across domains such as sacrifice, faith, values, financial management, health, trust, acceptance, optimism, decision-making, and independence.
Quantitative analysis indicated differences between baseline and first assessment scores, with areas like Acceptance, Social Support, Trust, and Health showing higher endorsement in the first assessment. This suggests that families tend to improve efficacy when supported by structured interventions.
Overall, the results indicate that family efficacy in households of children with special needs requires intentional strategies—such as strengthening communication, accessing social support, and involving in family-based interventions. Acceptance emerged as the strongest domain, showing families’ capacity to care for their members unconditionally.
Download PDF
Download XML
