SLPCohortJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026

Trajectories of Mother-Child Closeness and Child Behavioural and Emotional Outcomes in Families of Children With Intellectual Disabilities.

Emma L Taylor, Paul A Thompson, Samantha Flynn and 2 others

PMID 42101134

WHAT IT FOUND

Mothers who reported a closer relationship with their child also reported more prosocial behaviour from that child across three time points.

Closeness and behaviour problems were linked only at the first time point, not over time, once other family factors were accounted for.

Key findings

01Over three time points, mothers who felt closer to their child also reported more prosocial behaviour from that child, both at the first point and as time went on, and the link was still there after taking maternal distress, family finances, the child's communication skills and autism into account.

02Closeness and behaviour problems were linked only at the first time point: higher closeness went with fewer externalising and internalising problems at Wave 1, but the two did not move together across the three waves once the other family factors were accounted for.

03On average the families changed little over the three waves: neither closeness nor any of the three behaviour scores showed a significant average change over time.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only three time points were available, so only straight-line change could be tested. A link that takes longer to appear, or that curves, would not show up. Everything came from the mother's own report, including the child's behaviour. No one observed mothers and children together, and parents may find it harder to spot internalising problems such as worry than behaviour they can see. The closeness questionnaire was developed and checked with families of children without intellectual disabilities. Its validity has not been tested in families of children with intellectual disabilities, and the short form may be poor at picking up change over time. The families who stayed in the study were mostly White British and educated to degree level, with 52.41% holding a degree, so they are not representative of all UK families of children with intellectual disabilities. 1184 families started the cohort and 353 were analysed, so the families in this analysis may differ from those who dropped out. The child's age was not accounted for, and the authors say this may explain why their results differ from studies that did adjust for it. The study watched families over time without intervening, so it cannot show that closeness shapes behaviour or the reverse. The researchers changed how they measured family financial difficulty from what they had pre-registered, because the income figure they planned to use was not available at Wave 2.

Declared interests

The work was funded by a PhD studentship from the Economic and Social Research Council Midlands Graduate School Doctoral Training Partnership, and the 1000 Families Study itself by the University of Warwick, the Economic and Social Research Council Warwick Doctoral Training Centre and Cerebra UK. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. No company that sells a treatment was involved.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as proof that changing how close you feel to your child will change their behaviour, or the reverse. The study followed families without intervening and everything was reported by the mothers, and once other family factors such as maternal distress and the child's communication were included, closeness and behaviour problems no longer moved together over time.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →