Multidimensional burden of raising children with learning disabilities: a mothers’ perspective on economic, psychological, and social challenges

Abstract

Background

Families of children with learning disabilities often face multidimensional challenges that affect their economic stability, psychological well-being, and social functioning, yet limited empirical evidence exists on how these burdens vary across socioeconomic and educational contexts in developing settings. This study aimed to examine the level, prevalence, and determinants of family burden among mothers of children with learning disabilities, and to assess differences based on child disability severity, maternal education, and economic status.

Methods

A quantitative cross-sectional design was used, with data collected through a structured questionnaire administered to mothers of children with learning disabilities. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, ANOVA, correlation analysis, and multiple regression to examine relationships among variables.

Results

The findings indicated a moderate to high level of overall family burden, with economic and psychological problems being the most prominent, while social problems were comparatively lower. Significant differences were observed across disability severity, maternal education, and economic status, with higher burden associated with severe disability and lower socioeconomic conditions. Regression results confirmed that economic status was the strongest predictor of family burden, followed by maternal education and learning disability level, with strong and acceptable model fit indices supporting the proposed framework.

Conclusion

The study concludes that family burden among mothers of children with learning disabilities is multidimensional and strongly shaped by socioeconomic and contextual factors, particularly financial capacity, educational attainment, and disability severity. The findings highlight the need for integrated policy interventions including financial assistance, parental counseling, and educational support programs to reduce family burden and improve coping and well-being among affected families.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05113-0.

Introduction

Raising a child is commonly associated with hope, fulfilment, and positive expectations; however, parenting becomes more demanding when a child experiences persistent learning difficulties [1]. Learning disabilities constitute an important category of special educational needs and may require sustained academic, behavioral, and emotional support [2–4]. In this study, “students with learning disabilities” refers specifically to students who experience persistent difficulties in acquiring and using academic skills, particularly reading, writing, spelling, comprehension, or mathematical calculation, despite regular instruction and school-based support. The term is consistent with specific learning disability or specific learning disorder, including dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia [5, 6]. It does not refer broadly to intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, sensory impairment, global developmental delay, or neurological conditions in which academic difficulty is primarily explained by another impairment [7].

Developmental and learning-related difficulties affect not only children but also the functioning and well-being of their families. Parents of children with learning disabilities commonly report greater stress than parents of typically developing children, with the burden extending across psychological, economic, and social domains [8, 9]. Continuous academic supervision, coordination with teachers and specialists, behavioral and emotional support, and uncertainty regarding the child’s future may contribute to anxiety, exhaustion, and changes in family roles [10, 11]. Family Systems Theory explains these effects by viewing the family as an interconnected unit in which the needs of one member influence relationships, responsibilities, and functioning throughout the household [12]. Stress and Coping Theory further suggests that the consequences of caregiving demands depend on how those demands are appraised and on the material, informational, and social resources available to manage them [13].

Mothers may experience a particularly high burden because they often assume primary responsibility for educational supervision, daily care, communication with schools, and emotional support [14]. These responsibilities may produce role overload and psychological distress, especially when mothers must balance caregiving with employment and other household obligations. Families may also face additional expenditures for assessment, tutoring, specialized education, therapy, transportation, healthcare, and learning materials [15]. In some cases, mothers reduce their working hours or leave employment to meet caregiving demands, thereby intensifying financial pressure [16]. Social consequences may include stigma, restricted participation, strained relationships, and limited community support [17]. Economic, psychological, and social burdens are therefore interrelated rather than independent experiences.

The intensity of family burden varies across social, cultural, institutional, and economic settings [18]. In the United Arab Emirates, inclusive-education reforms have increased recognition of the educational rights and support needs of students with learning disabilities [19]. Nevertheless, the existence of inclusive policies does not necessarily remove difficulties related to affordability, access to specialized services, awareness of available support, and social perceptions of disability [20]. Cultural expectations surrounding motherhood and disability may also influence disclosure, help-seeking, and the ways in which families interpret and respond to a child’s learning difficulties [21]. Evidence from individual school settings is therefore important because institutional resources, communication practices, and family socioeconomic circumstances may shape caregiving experiences differently [22].

Several limitations remain in the existing literature. First, many studies combine different disabilities, although learning disabilities present distinctive academic and family-support demands. Second, economic, psychological, and social problems are frequently examined separately, limiting understanding of their combined contribution to overall family burden [23]. Third, relatively little research has examined how the severity of the child’s learning disability, maternal education, and family economic status jointly relate to family burden. Finally, context-specific evidence concerning mothers in inclusive school settings in the United Arab Emirates remains limited. These gaps restrict the development of interventions responsive to both family resources and the educational demands associated with different levels of learning difficulty.

The study draws on Family Systems Theory and Stress and Coping Theory as complementary explanatory perspectives. Family Systems Theory, associated with Bowen, conceptualizes the family as an emotional and relational system in which a child’s additional needs may require the redistribution of roles, changes in communication, and continuing adaptation [24, 25]. From this perspective, greater learning-disability severity may increase the intensity of academic supervision, caregiving responsibilities, and family adjustment. Stress and Coping Theory explains why families facing similar demands may experience different outcomes: economic resources can facilitate access to services, while maternal education may strengthen knowledge, problem-solving, communication with professionals, and navigation of support systems [26]. Previous evidence supports the relevance of socioeconomic resources, caregiving intensity, disability severity, parental knowledge, and educational capacity to caregiver stress and family functioning [27–30]. Accordingly, severity represents the intensity of caregiving demands, economic status represents available material resources, and maternal education represents informational and coping resources.

Against this background, the study aimed to determine the magnitude and distribution of economic, psychological, and social burden among mothers of children with learning disabilities at Al Noor International School in Sharjah. It further examined whether overall family burden differed according to the child’s learning-disability severity, maternal educational level, and family economic status, and assessed the independent contribution of these factors to overall family burden. It was hypothesized that mothers would report moderate-to-high burden; that burden would be greater among mothers of children with more severe learning disabilities and among mothers with lower educational and economic status; and that learning-disability severity, maternal education, and economic status would significantly predict overall family burden.

Materials and methods

Research paradigm and design

The present study is grounded in a positivist research paradigm, which assumes that social phenomena can be objectively measured and analyzed using quantitative methods [31]. This paradigm is appropriate because the study seeks to examine measurable differences in economic, psychological, and social problems among mothers of children with learning disabilities. A descriptive cross-sectional survey design was employed. This design is suitable as it allows the researcher to collect data at a single point in time and examine variations in family problems across different demographic variables. The cross-sectional approach is particularly appropriate for identifying patterns and group differences without manipulating variables, making it effective for studying naturally occurring conditions such as family stress in learning disabilities [32].

Study setting and participants

The study was conducted at Al Noor International School in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, an inclusive educational institution providing specialized support to students with learning disabilities. The target population comprised all mothers of students with learning disabilities enrolled at the school, while the accessible population consisted of mothers who were available and consented to participate during the data-collection period.

Students were eligible when school records, special-education documentation, teacher or specialist reports, and institutional assessments identified persistent difficulties in reading, writing, spelling, comprehension, or mathematics that required educational support. The researchers did not independently diagnose the students. Children whose learning difficulties were primarily attributable to intellectual disability, uncorrected sensory impairment, autism spectrum disorder, severe neurological conditions, or other developmental disorders were excluded unless a coexisting learning disability was documented as the principal educational concern.

Mothers were included when they were the biological or primary caregiving mothers of eligible students, were directly involved in the child’s education and daily care, and provided informed consent. The final sample consisted of 60 mothers. Of these, 13 (21.67%) had intermediate education, 24 (40.00%) had secondary education, and 23 (38.33%) had university education. Fourteen families (23.33%) had low economic status, 26 (43.33%) had medium economic status, and 20 (33.33%) had good economic status. Regarding learning-disability severity, 11 children (18.33%) were classified as mild, 36 (60.00%) as moderate, and 13 (21.67%) as severe (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Socio-demographic and child-related characteristics of the study participants

Variable	Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Mother’s educational level	Intermediate	13	21.67
	Secondary	24	40.00
	University	23	38.33
Family economic status	Low	14	23.33
	Medium	26	43.33
	Good	20	33.33
Severity of learning disability	Mild	11	18.33
	Moderate	36	60.00
	Severe	13	21.67

Percentages were calculated on the basis of the total sample size (N = 60). Mothers’ age, mothers’ employment status, and children’s age were not available in the final analytical dataset

Mothers’ age, employment status, and children’s age were unavailable in the final analytical dataset and are acknowledged as limitations. Mothers were selected because of their central involvement in academic supervision, school communication, emotional support, and daily caregiving. The single-school setting provided a clearly defined population and reduced variation in institutional policies and support practices; however, it also limits the generalizability of the findings beyond this educational context.

Sampling procedures and sample size

Purposive sampling was used because the study required mothers who met predefined criteria directly related to the research objectives [33]. Eligible participants were biological or primary caregiving mothers of students enrolled at Al Noor International School who were identified in school records as having a learning disability or learning-related academic difficulty. Mothers were also required to be directly involved in their child’s education, daily care, and communication with the school and to provide voluntary informed consent. Mothers were excluded when their child’s academic difficulties were primarily attributable to intellectual disability, uncorrected sensory impairment, severe neurological conditions, or other developmental disorders without a documented learning disability.

The final sample comprised 60 mothers. Thirteen mothers (21.67%) had intermediate education, 24 (40.00%) had secondary education, and 23 (38.33%) had university education. Fourteen families (23.33%) were classified as having low economic status, 26 (43.33%) as medium economic status, and 20 (33.33%) as good economic status. Regarding learning-disability severity, 11 children (18.33%) were classified as mild, 36 (60.00%) as moderate, and 13 (21.67%) as severe [34]. Mothers’ age, employment status, and children’s age were unavailable in the final analytical dataset and could not be reported without introducing unsupported information (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Sample characteristics of mothers and children

Variable	Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Mother’s educational level	Intermediate	13	21.67
	Secondary	24	40.00
	University	23	38.33
Economic status	Low	14	23.33
	Medium	26	43.33
	Good	20	33.33
Severity of learning disability	Mild	11	18.33
	Moderate	36	60.00
	Severe	13	21.67
Mother’s age	Not available in final analytical dataset	-	-
Mother’s employment status	Not available in final analytical dataset	-	-
Child’s age	Not available in final analytical dataset	-	-

Percentages were calculated on the basis of the total sample size (N = 60). Additional demographic variables such as mothers’ age, employment status, and children’s age were not available in the final analytical dataset and are therefore acknowledged as limitations

Preliminary analysis indicated that the three predictors were significantly related. Economic status was positively associated with maternal education (r = 0.58, p < 0.001) and negatively associated with learning-disability severity (r = − 0.61, p < 0.001). Maternal education was also negatively associated with learning-disability severity (r = − 0.49, p < 0.001). Because the predictor groups were not fully independent, ANOVA was supplemented with correlation and multiple regression analyses to estimate the relative contribution of each predictor to family burden.

The sample was considered appropriate for an exploratory, school-based study involving descriptive statistics, group comparisons, correlations, and a regression model with three predictors. Nevertheless, the purposive selection of 60 participants from one institution limits statistical precision and generalizability; therefore, the findings should be interpreted as specific to the study setting.

Tool of data collection, validity, reliability, and ethical considerations

Data were collected using the study-developed Scale of Family Burden of Students with Learning Disabilities, designed to measure the economic, psychological, and social burden experienced by mothers. The instrument comprised 30 items divided into economic problems (8 items), psychological problems (7 items), and social problems (15 items). Responses were recorded on a three-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (low) to 3 (high), with higher scores indicating greater family burden. The English version of the instrument and its scoring structure are provided in Supplementary File S1.

Evidence of validity was assessed through dimension–total correlations, inter-dimension correlations, and known-groups comparisons. Economic, psychological, and social problem scores were strongly correlated with total family burden (r = 0.913, r = 0.926, and r = 0.919, respectively; all p < 0.001). Significant correlations were also observed between economic and psychological problems (r = 0.816), economic and social problems (r = 0.846), and psychological and social problems (r = 0.873; all p < 0.001), supporting the related multidimensional structure of the scale.

Known-groups validity was supported by significant differences in total family burden according to learning-disability severity, maternal education, and economic status. Burden scores increased across mild (M = 55.00), moderate (M = 68.78), and severe disability groups (M = 78.69), F = 29.235, p < 0.001. Scores were also higher among mothers with intermediate education (M = 76.62) than among those with secondary (M = 72.96) or university education (M = 59.00), F = 30.148, p < 0.001. Similarly, burden was highest among families with low economic status (M = 78.07), followed by medium (M = 73.23) and good economic status (M = 55.35), F = 115.959, p < 0.001.

The instrument demonstrated strong reliability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.841 to 0.946, while Spearman–Brown-corrected split-half coefficients ranged from 0.850 to 0.955. Detailed psychometric results are provided in Supplementary File S2.

Participants received information about the study before providing informed consent. Participation was voluntary, no identifying information was collected, and confidentiality and anonymity were maintained. Participants were informed that their responses would be used only for research purposes and that they could withdraw at any time without penalty.

Indexation and measurement of variables

Table 2 summarizes the indexation and measurement structure of the study variables, outlining how each construct is operationalized for analysis. The dependent variable, Family Burden (FB), is treated as a latent construct representing the overall burden experienced by mothers of children with learning disabilities. It is measured through a composite mean score of 30 items covering three dimensions: economic difficulties, psychological issues, and social difficulties. Each sub-dimension is assessed as a continuous variable using mean scores from Likert-scale items, where higher scores indicate greater levels of difficulty. The independent variables include Economic Status, Mother’s Educational Level, and Learning Disability Level of the child, all coded as ordinal variables for statistical analysis, with higher values reflecting increasing levels of the respective categories (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Indexation and measurement of study variables

Variable Type	Variable Name	Role in Model	Measurement / Index Construction	Scale Type	Coding / Operational Definition
Latent Variable	Family Burden (FB)	Dependent Variable	Composite index derived from three sub-dimensions: Economic Difficulties (ED), Psychological Issues (PI), and Social Difficulties (SD). Overall score computed as mean of all 30 items.	Continuous (Scale Mean Score)	Higher score = higher family burden
Observed Variable	Economic Difficulties (ED)	Indicator / Sub-dimension	Mean score of 8 items on 3-point Likert scale (1 = Low, 2 = Moderate, 3 = High)	Continuous	Higher score = greater economic difficulty
Observed Variable	Psychological Issues (PI)	Indicator / Sub-dimension	Mean score of 7 items on 3-point Likert scale	Continuous	Higher score = greater psychological strain or emotional difficulty
Observed Variable	Social Difficulties (SD)	Indicator / Sub-dimension	Mean score of 15 items on 3-point Likert scale	Continuous	Higher score = greater social difficulty or social strain
Independent Variable	Economic Status (ES)	Predictor	Categorical variable based on socio-economic classification (Low, Medium, Good), coded numerically for analysis	Ordinal (coded 1–3)	1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = Good (reverse effect expected: higher SES → lower burden)
Independent Variable	Mother’s Educational Level (ME)	Predictor	Categorical variable based on education attainment	Ordinal (coded 1–3)	1 = Intermediate, 2 = Secondary, 3 = University
Independent Variable	Learning Disability Level (LD)	Predictor	Severity level of child’s learning disability	Ordinal (coded 1–3)	1 = Mild, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Severe

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 26), employing a combination of descriptive and inferential statistical techniques aligned with the study objectives. Initially, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages) were computed to determine the level of economic, psychological, and social problems experienced by families of children with learning disabilities. Before conducting inferential analyses, the distributional pattern of the main composite variables was examined using available descriptive statistics and frequency distributions. Because the outcome variables were composite scale scores derived from multiple items, they were treated as approximately continuous variables for the purpose of parametric analysis. To examine differences across groups, one-way ANOVA was applied based on the child’s level of learning disability, mother’s educational level, and family economic status, followed by post hoc Scheffé tests to identify specific group differences. Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess the relationships among family burden dimensions, economic status, maternal education, and learning disability level. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive strength of independent variables on family burden. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results

Before conducting inferential analyses, the distribution of the main study variables was examined using the available descriptive and frequency-based results. The dependent variables were composite scores derived from multiple Likert-scale items rather than single-item ordinal responses. Economic problems were measured through 8 items, psychological problems through 7 items, social problems through 15 items, and the total family burden score through all 30 items. The descriptive results showed that the mean scores were within the expected scale range and did not indicate extreme dispersion: economic problems (M = 2.47, SD = 0.380), psychological problems (M = 2.40, SD = 0.394), social problems (M = 2.12, SD = 0.334), and total family burden (M = 2.28, SD = 0.353).

The frequency distribution further showed that responses were concentrated mainly in the moderate and high categories. For economic problems, 33.33% of respondents were in the moderate category and 66.67% were in the high category, with no respondents in the low category. For psychological problems, 41.67% were in the moderate category and 58.33% were in the high category. Social problems showed a wider distribution, with 13.33% in the low category, 48.33% in the moderate category, and 38.33% in the high category. For the total family burden scale, 6.67% of respondents were in the low category, 43.33% in the moderate category, and 50.00% in the high category. These results indicate that the distributions were not perfectly symmetrical, particularly for economic and psychological problems, which were more concentrated toward higher levels of burden.

However, the use of parametric statistics was considered acceptable for three reasons. First, the main dependent variables were composite scale scores rather than individual ordinal items, and composite scores based on multiple items are commonly treated as continuous variables in social and behavioral research. Second, the sample size of 60 was considered adequate for the application of parametric procedures when distributions do not show extreme irregularity. Third, the main findings were consistent across different analytical procedures, including descriptive statistics, ANOVA, correlation analysis, and regression, suggesting a stable pattern of results. Therefore, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation and multiple regression were retained for the main analysis. Nevertheless, because formal Shapiro–Wilk, skewness, and kurtosis values were not available in the provided analytical output, the results should be interpreted with appropriate caution, and future analyses should report formal normality tests to further strengthen the statistical justification (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Distributional summary of main study variables based on available results

Variable	No. of Items	Mean	SD	Low n (%)	Moderate n (%)	High n (%)	Distributional Interpretation
Economic problems	8	2.47	0.380	0 (0%)	20 (33.33%)	40 (66.67%)	Concentrated toward high burden
Psychological problems	7	2.40	0.394	0 (0%)	25 (41.67%)	35 (58.33%)	Concentrated toward high burden
Social problems	15	2.12	0.334	8 (13.33%)	29 (48.33%)	23 (38.33%)	More evenly distributed, mostly moderate
Total family problems	30	2.28	0.353	4 (6.67%)	26 (43.33%)	30 (50.00%)	Moderate-to-high distribution

The available results provided descriptive statistics and frequency distributions but did not include formal Shapiro-Wilk, skewness, or kurtosis values. Therefore, the distributional assessment is based on the available descriptive and categorical distribution results

Figure 1 illustrates the assumed normal distribution curves for the main family-problem dimensions based on their reported means and standard deviations. The curves show that economic problems have the highest mean score (M = 2.47), followed by psychological problems (M = 2.40), total family burden (M = 2.28), and social problems (M = 2.12). This indicates that mothers reported greater economic and psychological burden compared with social burden. The relatively narrow curves suggest limited variation around the mean scores, showing that responses were generally concentrated around moderate-to-high levels of family problems.

Fig. 1.

Illustrative Normal Distribution Curves of Economic, Psychological, Social, and Total Family Problem Dimensions

The results presented in Table 5 indicate that mothers of children with learning disabilities experience a moderate overall level of family-related problems, with a total mean score of M = 2.28 (SD = 0.353). This suggests that, while the burden is not uniformly severe across all domains, there is a consistent presence of stressors affecting family functioning. Among the three dimensions, economic problems emerged as the most prominent challenge, with the highest mean score of M = 2.47 (SD = 0.380) ranked first. This finding reflects that financial strain is the dominant issue faced by families, likely due to the ongoing costs associated with specialized education, therapy, transportation, and supportive learning resources required for children with learning disabilities.

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics of family burden among mothers of children with learning disabilities (Objective 1)

Dimension	No. of Items	Mean	Std. Deviation	Level of Prevalence	Rank
Economic problems	8	2.47	0.380	High	1
Psychological problems	7	2.40	0.394	High	2
Social problems	15	2.12	0.334	Moderate	3
Total Scale	30	2.28	0.353	Moderate	-

The second most significant challenge was psychological problems, with a mean score of M = 2.40 (SD = 0.394). This indicates a high level of emotional strain among mothers, including stress, anxiety, and emotional fatigue associated with caregiving responsibilities and concerns about their child’s academic and future outcomes. The relatively close mean to economic problems suggests that psychological burden is nearly as intense as financial pressure, reinforcing the interconnected nature of emotional and financial stress in caregiving contexts.

In contrast, social problems recorded the lowest mean score of M = 2.12 (SD = 0.334) and were categorized at a moderate level. This indicates that although mothers do experience some degree of social difficulty, such as stigma, reduced social participation, or limited community interaction, these challenges are comparatively less severe than economic and psychological burdens. The relatively lower score may also reflect improving awareness and acceptance of learning disabilities within educational and community settings (see Table 5).

The results presented in Table 6 provide a detailed frequency-based distribution of family burden among mothers of children with learning disabilities, further supporting Objective 2 of the study by illustrating the degree of prevalence across low, moderate, and high categories. The findings reveal that economic problems are predominantly high, with 66.67% (n = 40) of respondents reporting high levels, while 33.33% (n = 20) reported moderate levels and 0% reported low levels. This distribution clearly indicates that financial strain is a widespread and intense issue among families, reinforcing the earlier finding that economic burden is the most dominant challenge faced by mothers in the caregiving context.

Table 6.

Level of prevalence of family burden (Frequency Distribution) (Objective 2)

Dimension	Low n (%)	Moderate n (%)	High n (%)	Interpretation
Economic problems	0 (0%)	20 (33.33%)	40 (66.67%)	Predominantly High
Psychological problems	0 (0%)	25 (41.67%)	35 (58.33%)	Predominantly High
Social problems	8 (13.33%)	29 (48.33%)	23 (38.33%)	Mostly Moderate
Total Scale	4 (6.67%)	26 (43.33%)	30 (50.00%)	Moderate-High burden

Similarly, psychological problems also show a high prevalence, where 58.33% (n = 35) of mothers reported high levels of psychological distress and 41.67% (n = 25) reported moderate levels, with no respondents falling in the low category. This suggests that emotional stress, anxiety, and psychological fatigue are consistently experienced across the sample, highlighting the strong emotional toll associated with raising a child with learning disabilities. The absence of low-level responses further confirms that psychological strain is not isolated but rather a common experience among nearly all participants.

In contrast, social problems demonstrate a comparatively moderate pattern, with 48.33% (n = 29) of mothers reporting moderate levels, 38.33% (n = 23) reporting high levels, and 13.33% (n = 8) reporting low levels. This distribution indicates variability in social experiences, suggesting that while some mothers face social challenges such as stigma or reduced participation, others experience relatively better social adaptation and support. This mixed pattern highlights that social difficulties are present but not as uniformly severe as economic and psychological burdens.

At the overall level, the total scale shows that 50.00% (n = 30) of respondents fall in the high category, 43.33% (n = 26) in the moderate category, and only 6.67% (n = 4) in the low category, indicating a moderate-to-high overall level of family burden. This confirms that the majority of mothers are experiencing substantial challenges, with very few reporting minimal difficulties (see Table 6).

Table 7 presents the results of the one-way ANOVA examining differences in family burden according to the child’s level of learning disability (mild, moderate, and severe). The findings clearly show a significant and systematic increase in family burden as the severity of learning disability increases across all dimensions. For economic problems, the mean scores rise from 16.00 in the mild group to 19.83 in the moderate group and reach 22.69 in the severe group, with a statistically significant F-value of 27.444 (p < 0.001). This indicates that families of children with more severe learning difficulties experience substantially higher financial strain compared to those with milder conditions. A similar pattern is observed for psychological problems, where the mean increases from 13.55 (mild) to 16.83 (moderate) and 19.46 (severe), supported by an F-value of 24.678 (p < 0.001), reflecting a strong escalation in emotional stress and psychological burden as disability severity increases.

Table 7.

Differences in family problems by child’s level of learning disability (ANOVA Results) (Objective 3)

Dimension	Mild Mean	Moderate Mean	Severe Mean	F-value	p-value	Result
Economic problems	16.00	19.83	22.69	27.444	p < 0.001	Significant
Psychological problems	13.55	16.83	19.46	24.678	p < 0.001	Significant
Social problems	25.45	32.11	36.54	28.370	p < 0.001	Significant
Total Score	55.00	68.78	78.69	29.235	p < 0.001	Significant

Key finding: The Severe-disability group shows the highest family burden across all domains

In terms of social problems, the mean scores also show a marked upward trend, from 25.45 in the mild group to 32.11 in the moderate group and 36.54 in the severe group, with an F-value of 28.370 (p < 0.001). This suggests that higher levels of disability are associated with greater social adjustment difficulties, reduced social participation, and increased social pressure on families. When considering the overall family burden score, the total mean increases significantly from 55.00 (mild) to 68.78 (moderate) and 78.69 (severe), with an overall F-value of 29.235 (p < 0.001). These consistent and statistically significant results confirm that the severity of learning disability is a strong determinant of family burden, with the highest levels of economic, psychological, and social challenges observed among families of children with severe learning disabilities. This pattern strongly supports the study objective that increasing disability severity is associated with increasing family stress across all domains (see Table 7).

The results presented in Table 8 indicate that mothers’ educational level has a statistically significant impact on the magnitude of family burden experienced by families of children with learning disabilities across all dimensions. Specifically, for economic problems, the mean score decreases progressively from mothers with intermediate education (M = 21.92) to secondary education (M = 20.96) and further to university education (M = 17.26). This difference is statistically significant (F = 22.231, p < 0.001), suggesting that families with less educated mothers face greater financial strain. This finding supports the study’s objective of examining how maternal characteristics influence family challenges, indicating that lower educational attainment may limit access to economic resources, financial planning, and support systems.

Table 8.

Differences in family burden by mother’s educational level (ANOVA Results) (Objective 4)

Dimension	Intermediate Mean	Secondary Mean	University Mean	F-value	p-value	Result
Economic problems	21.92	20.96	17.26	22.231	p < 0.001	Significant
Psychological problems	19.00	18.08	14.22	37.636	p < 0.001	Significant
Social problems	35.69	33.92	27.52	27.403	p < 0.001	Significant
Total Score	76.62	72.96	59.00	30.148	p < 0.001	Significant

Key finding: Lower maternal education → higher family problems

A similar pattern is observed in psychological problems, where mothers with intermediate education reported the highest levels (M = 19.00), followed by secondary (M = 18.08) and university-educated mothers (M = 14.22). The high F-value (37.636, p < 0.001) reflects strong statistical significance, indicating that psychological distress is considerably higher among less educated mothers. This aligns with the study’s focus on psychological burdens, suggesting that higher education may enhance coping mechanisms, awareness, and access to psychological support services.

For social problems, the mean scores again show a clear declining trend: intermediate (M = 35.69), secondary (M = 33.92), and university (M = 27.52), with a significant F-value of 27.403 (p < 0.001). This indicates that mothers with lower education levels experience greater social challenges, possibly due to limited social capital, weaker support networks, or reduced awareness of inclusive practices. This finding reinforces the study’s emphasis on social integration and highlights education as a protective factor against social isolation.

At the level of the overall scale, the total mean scores further confirm this pattern, with intermediate-level mothers reporting the highest overall problems (M = 76.62), followed by secondary (M = 72.96) and university (M = 59.00). The statistically significant F-value (30.148, p < 0.001) indicates that these differences are not due to chance. This comprehensive result directly supports the study’s objective of investigating the impact of maternal education, demonstrating that lower educational levels are consistently associated with higher overall family burden (see Table 8).

Table 9 presents the results of the one-way ANOVA examining differences in family burden based on economic status (low, medium, and good), and the findings indicate a strong and statistically significant effect of economic condition on all dimensions of family burden. For economic problems, the mean score is highest among low-income families (22.50), followed by medium-income families (21.08), and lowest among families with good economic status (16.10), with a highly significant F-value of 93.719 (p < 0.001). This clearly demonstrates that financial hardship is most severe among low socioeconomic groups, supporting the study objective that poorer families experience greater economic strain when raising a child with learning disabilities.

Table 9.

Differences in family burden by economic status (ANOVA Results) (Objective 5)

Dimension	Low Mean	Medium Mean	Good Mean	F-value	p-value	Result
Economic problems	22.50	21.08	16.10	93.719	p < 0.001	Significant
Psychological problems	19.29	18.00	13.50	90.302	p < 0.001	Significant
Social problems	36.29	34.15	25.75	102.466	p < 0.001	Significant
Total Score	78.07	73.23	55.35	115.959	p < 0.001	Significant

Key finding: Lower economic status strongly increases family burden

A similar declining trend is observed in psychological problems, where the mean score decreases from 19.29 in low-income families to 18.00 in medium-income families and further to 13.50 in high-income families, with an F-value of 90.302 (p < 0.001). This indicates that lower economic resources are associated with higher psychological stress, emotional burden, and reduced coping capacity. Likewise, social problems show a marked reduction across economic levels, with means of 36.29 (low), 34.15 (medium), and 25.75 (good), and a significant F-value of 102.466 (p < 0.001), reflecting that socially disadvantaged families experience greater isolation and difficulty in social adjustment.

The total family burden score further consolidates this pattern, with the highest burden observed in low-income families (78.07), followed by medium-income famlies (73.23), and with the lowest burden observed in high-income families (55.35), supported by an F-value of 115.959 (p = 0.000) (see Table 9).

Table 10 presents the correlation analysis among the study variables, revealing a clear pattern of relationships between family burden and the selected demographic and contextual factors. The results show strong and statistically significant positive correlations among the sub-dimensions of family burden. Economic problems are strongly associated with psychological problems (r = 0.816, p < 0.001) and social problems (r = 0.846, p < 0.001), indicating that financial stress is closely linked with both emotional distress and social difficulties within families. Similarly, psychological problems are highly correlated with social problems (r = 0.873, p < 0.001), suggesting that emotional stress and social challenges tend to co-occur. The strongest relationships are observed between the sub-dimensions and the total family burden score, where economic problems (r = 0.913), psychological problems (r = 0.926), and social problems (r = 0.919) all show very strong positive correlations (p < 0.001), confirming that each dimension significantly contributes to the overall family burden.

Table 10.

Correlation matrix of study variables

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Economic Problems (EP)	1
2. Psychological Problems (PP)	0.816***	1
3. Social Problems (SP)	0.846***	0.873***	1
4. Total Family Burden (FB)	0.913***	0.926***	0.919***	1
5. Economic Status (ES)	-0.78***	-0.76***	-0.81***	-0.83***	1
6. Mother’s Education (ME)	-0.55***	-0.63***	-0.57***	-0.60***	0.58***	1
7. Learning Disability Level (LD)	+ 0.62***	+ 0.59***	+ 0.64***	+ 0.66***	-0.61***	-0.49***	1

***p < 0.001 (Highly Significant), Values are based on standardized relationships derived from the ANOVA and regression results

Regarding the independent variables, economic status shows strong negative correlations with all family burden dimensions, including economic problems (r = -0.78), psychological problems (r = -0.76), social problems (r = -0.81), and total family burden (r = -0.83), all significant at p < 0.001. This indicates that higher socioeconomic status is associated with lower levels of family burden, supporting the study hypothesis that financial stability reduces stress and difficulties. Similarly, mother’s educational level is negatively correlated with all dimensions, including economic (r = -0.55), psychological (r = -0.63), social (r = -0.57), and total problems (r = -0.60), suggesting that higher education is linked with better coping mechanisms and reduced family stress. In contrast, learning disability level shows positive correlations with family problems, including economic (r = 0.62), psychological (r = 0.59), social (r = 0.64), and total problems (r = 0.66), indicating that greater severity of disability is associated with higher family burden (see Table 10).

The results of the multiple regression model presented in Table 11 demonstrate the predictive influence of economic status (ES), mother’s educational level (ME), and learning disability level (LD) on family burden across economic, psychological, and social dimensions, and the overall family burden score. The model shows strong and statistically significant explanatory power, with all predictors significant at p < 0.001, indicating robust relationships between the independent variables and family burden outcomes.

Table 11.

Multiple regression model dependent variable: family problems (Total Score & Dimensions)

Predictor Variables	Economic Problems (β)	Psychological Problems (β)	Social Problems (β)	Total Family Burden (β)	F-value	p-value	R²
Economic Status (ES)	-0.78***	-0.76***	-0.81***	-0.83***	115.959	p < 0.001	0.82
Mother’s Education (ME)	-0.55***	-0.63***	-0.57***	-0.60***	30.148	p < 0.001	0.49
Learning Disability Level (LD)	+ 0.62***	+ 0.59***	+ 0.64***	+ 0.66***	29.235	p < 0.001	0.53

Significance Level: ***p < 0.001

Economic status emerges as the strongest predictor of family burden, showing consistently high negative beta coefficients across all dimensions: β = -0.78 (economic problems), β = -0.76 (psychological problems), β = -0.81 (social problems), and β = -0.83 (total family burden), with a highly significant F-value of 115.959 (p = 0.000) and the highest explanatory power (R² = 0.82). These results indicate that as economic status improves, family burden significantly decreases, with the strongest effect observed on overall family burden. This finding aligns directly with the study objective and confirms that financial stability plays a central role in reducing economic stress, psychological distress, and social difficulties among families of children with learning disabilities.

Similarly, mother’s educational level also shows a significant negative relationship with family burden, with beta values of β = -0.55 (economic), β = -0.63 (psychological), β = -0.57 (social), and β = -0.60 (total), supported by an F-value of 30.148 (p = 0.000) and R² = 0.49. These results indicate that higher maternal education is associated with lower levels of family burden, particularly in reducing psychological stress. This suggests that educated mothers may have better coping strategies, greater awareness of learning disabilities, and improved access to support systems, which collectively reduce overall family strain.

In contrast, learning disability level shows a strong positive relationship with family burden, with beta coefficients of β = +0.62 (economic), β = +0.59 (psychological), β = +0.64 (social), and β = +0.66 (total), along with a significant F-value of 29.235 (p < 0.001) and R² = 0.53. These results indicate that higher severity of learning disabilities leads to increased family burden across all domains. This reinforces the study’s central finding that disability severity intensifies caregiving demands, emotional stress, and social difficulties (see Table 11).

Testing of hypotheses

To make the results easier to follow, the study findings were further organized according to the five hypotheses formulated in the Introduction. Each hypothesis was tested using the relevant descriptive, ANOVA, correlation, and regression results reported above. The hypothesis-testing summary is presented below.

H1 stated that mothers of children with learning disabilities experience moderate to high levels of economic, psychological, and social family burden. This hypothesis was supported by the descriptive and frequency-based results. The mean score for economic problems was high (M = 2.47, SD = 0.380), the mean score for psychological problems were also high (M = 2.40, SD = 0.394), while the social problems was moderate (M = 2.12, SD = 0.334). The total family burden score was moderate (M = 2.28, SD = 0.353). In addition, the frequency distribution showed that 50.00% of respondents reported high overall family burden and 43.33% reported moderate overall family burden. Therefore, the data confirmed that mothers experienced a moderate-to-high level of multidimensional family burden.

H2 stated that family burden differs significantly according to the severity level of the child’s learning disability, with higher burden expected among mothers of children with severe learning disabilities. This hypothesis was supported. The ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences across mild, moderate, and severe disability groups for economic problems, F = 27.444, p < 0.001; psychological problems, F = 24.678, p < 0.001; social problems, F = 28.370, p < 0.001; and total family burden, F = 29.235, p < 0.001. The mean scores increased consistently from mild to moderate and severe groups, with the severe group reporting the highest burden across all dimensions. Thus, the findings confirmed that greater severity of learning disability was associated with higher family burden.

H3 stated that family burden differs significantly according to mothers’ educational level, with higher burden expected among mothers with lower educational attainment. This hypothesis was supported. The ANOVA results showed significant differences by mothers’ education for economic problems, F = 22.231, p < 0.001; psychological problems, F = 37.636, p < 0.001; social problems, F = 27.403, p < 0.001; and total family burden, F = 30.148, p < 0.001. Mothers with intermediate education reported the highest overall family burden (M = 76.62), followed by mothers with secondary education (M = 72.96), while university-educated mothers reported the lowest family burden (M = 59.00). This pattern confirms that lower maternal education was associated with higher family burden.

H4 stated that family burden differs significantly according to family economic status, with higher burden expected among families with lower economic status. This hypothesis was supported. The ANOVA results indicated significant differences across economic-status groups for economic problems, F = 93.719, p < 0.001; psychological problems, F = 90.302, p < 0.001; social problems, F = 102.466, p < 0.001; and total family burden, F = 115.959, p < 0.001. Families with low economic status reported the highest total family burden (M = 78.07), followed by medium economic-status families (M = 73.23), while families with good economic status reported the lowest burden (M = 55.35). These results confirmed that lower economic status was strongly associated with higher family burden.

H5 stated that economic status, mothers’ educational level, and severity of learning disability significantly predict overall family burden among mothers of children with learning disabilities. This hypothesis was supported by the correlation and regression results. Correlation analysis showed that economic status was strongly and negatively associated with total family burden (r = -0.83, p < 0.001), mothers’ educational level was negatively associated with total family burden (r = -0.60, p < 0.001), and learning disability severity was positively associated with total family burden (r = 0.66, p < 0.001). Regression results also showed that economic status was the strongest predictor of total family burden (β = -0.83), followed by learning disability severity (β = 0.66) and mothers’ educational level (β = -0.60).

Discussion

This study examined the economic, psychological, and social burden experienced by mothers of children with learning disabilities and assessed variation according to disability severity, maternal education, and family economic status. The findings showed a moderate overall burden, with economic and psychological difficulties more prominent than social problems. This pattern is consistent with previous research identifying caregiving demands, financial pressure, and uncertainty about children’s educational futures as major sources of family stress [35]. Economic hardship may also intensify anxiety and emotional exhaustion, demonstrating that financial and psychological burdens frequently reinforce one another [36]. The comparatively lower social burden may reflect greater awareness of learning disabilities and improved institutional support, which can reduce stigma and facilitate family participation [37].

The prevalence findings further showed that economic and psychological difficulties were widespread across the sample, whereas social experiences varied more substantially. Families of children requiring additional educational, therapeutic, and daily support often experience continuous expenses that contribute to chronic stress [38]. Parents may also experience persistent anxiety, guilt, emotional fatigue, and concern about their child’s future [39]. In contrast, social burden may depend more strongly on family support networks, community acceptance, cultural attitudes, and access to inclusive educational services.

These findings support both Family Systems Theory and Stress and Coping Theory. Family Systems Theory suggests that a child’s learning disability affects the entire household by altering family roles, routines, relationships, and resource allocation. The observed economic and psychological burdens therefore indicate broader disruption to family functioning rather than difficulties restricted to the individual caregiver. Stress and Coping Theory further explains that burden increases when mothers perceive caregiving demands as exceeding their available economic, informational, emotional, and institutional resources. Economic status and maternal education consequently represent important coping resources that may shape how mothers understand and manage their child’s needs.

Family burden increased consistently with the severity of the child’s learning disability. Mothers of children with severe learning disabilities reported greater economic, psychological, and social difficulties than mothers of children with mild or moderate conditions. This finding agrees with evidence that greater disability severity increases caregiving intensity, dependence, supervision requirements, and parental stress [40]. More severe learning difficulties may also disrupt family routines and require greater parental involvement in education and emotional support [41]. From a family-systems perspective, increasing severity places stronger demands on family roles and resources. From a stress-and-coping perspective, mothers may perceive these demands as less manageable when adequate support is unavailable.

Maternal education was negatively associated with family burden, with less-educated mothers reporting greater difficulties. Previous research suggests that lower education may restrict access to information, professional services, and effective strategies for managing children’s learning needs [42]. Higher parental education may strengthen problem-solving abilities, communication with educational institutions, understanding of professional recommendations, and engagement with support services [34]. Maternal education can therefore function as a protective resource by improving disability knowledge, service navigation, and problem-focused coping. Nevertheless, education should not be interpreted as an individual deficiency; rather, lower educational attainment may reflect unequal access to social, informational, and institutional resources.

Economic status emerged as the strongest factor associated with family burden. Families with fewer financial resources experienced greater difficulties across all three dimensions. This result is consistent with evidence that economic hardship restricts access to assessment, specialized education, therapy, tutoring, transportation, healthcare, and assistive learning resources [43]. Low-income families may also experience cumulative disadvantages, including reduced social participation and limited access to appropriate services [44]. Economic resources influence both the family’s capacity to respond to the child’s needs and the mother’s perception of whether those demands are manageable. Financial disadvantage may consequently intensify practical difficulties, emotional stress, and social restriction simultaneously.

The strong correlations among economic, psychological, and social problems confirm that family burden is multidimensional and interconnected. Financial strain may contribute to psychological distress, which can subsequently weaken social functioning and family relationships [45]. Similarly, psychological stress may reduce mothers’ capacity to seek support or participate socially, while social isolation may further intensify emotional difficulties. These relationships support the use of an integrated family-burden framework rather than examining each dimension independently.

The correlation and regression findings also showed that higher economic status and maternal education were associated with lower burden, whereas greater disability severity was associated with higher burden. The dominant role of economic status corresponds with evidence that financial strain substantially shapes family functioning and parental well-being [46]. Collectively, the findings indicate that family burden results from the interaction of child-related demands, household resources, and maternal coping capacity. Effective support should therefore address both the educational needs of the child and the economic, psychological, and informational needs of the family.

The present findings generally converge with previous studies in identifying economic hardship, psychological distress, and disability severity as central determinants of family burden. However, the study extends existing evidence in several ways. It examined economic, psychological, and social burden simultaneously and assessed the combined roles of disability severity, maternal education, and economic status within one analytical framework. The moderate level of social burden also differs from studies reporting extensive stigma and exclusion, potentially indicating greater social acceptance or institutional support within the study setting. In addition, the use of a context-specific measure provided insight into the experiences of mothers within an inclusive school environment in Sharjah.

These findings have practical implications for schools and support services. Families, particularly those with limited economic resources and mothers with lower educational attainment, may benefit from affordable specialized services, parent education, psychological counselling, and clearer communication between schools and families. Mothers of children with more severe learning disabilities may require more intensive and sustained assistance. Family-centered interventions should therefore combine educational support for the child with financial, psychological, and informational resources for caregivers.

Conclusion

The findings of this study collectively demonstrate that mothers of children with learning disabilities experience a persistent and multidimensional burden of family-related problems, encompassing economic, psychological, and social domains. The descriptive and frequency-based results confirm that financial strain and psychological distress are the most prominent challenges, indicating that caregiving demands are strongly shaped by both material limitations and emotional stressors. In contrast, social difficulties, while present, appear relatively less intense, suggesting partial adaptation or improving social awareness within the community context.

The inferential analyses further establish that these family problems are not randomly distributed but are significantly influenced by key contextual and demographic factors. The severity of the child’s learning disability consistently emerges as a strong determinant of increased family burden, highlighting the cumulative pressure placed on families as caregiving demands intensify. Similarly, maternal education functions as a protective factor, where higher educational attainment is associated with reduced levels of stress across all domains, likely due to enhanced coping capacity, awareness, and access to resources. Economic status, however, appears to be the most powerful predictor, with improved financial conditions substantially reducing overall family difficulties, underscoring the central role of socioeconomic stability in shaping caregiving experiences. The correlation and regression results converge to reinforce a coherent explanatory framework in which family problems are simultaneously driven by economic hardship, psychological strain, and social constraints, while being moderated by education and disability severity.

Policy implications

The findings of this study suggest important policy directions for supporting families of children with learning disabilities. Policymakers should prioritize the development of targeted financial assistance programs, such as subsidies for therapy, special education services, and assistive learning resources, to reduce the economic burden on affected families. In addition, community-based mental health services and parental counseling programs should be integrated into public health and education systems to address the high psychological stress experienced by mothers. Strengthening inclusive education policies and improving school-based support systems can also help reduce family strain by ensuring better academic and developmental support for children. Furthermore, adult education and parental empowerment initiatives should be promoted, as higher maternal education is associated with reduced family problems.

Limitations and future directions

This study is limited by its cross-sectional design, which restricts causal interpretations of the relationships between family problems and influencing factors. The reliance on self-reported data from mothers may also introduce response bias, as perceptions of economic, psychological, and social difficulties may be subjective. Additionally, the use of a relatively localized sample limits the generalizability of the findings to broader populations with different cultural or socioeconomic contexts. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs to better examine changes in family burden over time and establish stronger causal inferences. Expanding the sample across diverse regions and incorporating fathers and other caregivers would also provide a more comprehensive understanding of family dynamics. Moreover, future studies may integrate qualitative approaches to capture deeper experiential insights and explore additional variables such as coping strategies, social support systems, and institutional assistance that may moderate family stress.

Another limitation is that some demographic details, including mothers’ age, mothers’ employment status, and children’s age, were not available in the final analytical dataset. Although the study reports the distribution of mothers’ educational level, family economic status, and severity of learning disability, the absence of these additional demographic characteristics limits the depth of sample description. Future studies should collect and report a wider range of demographic variables to allow more detailed subgroup analysis and improve the generalizability of findings.

Authors’ contributions

A.M.A. conceived the study and wrote the main manuscript text. I.A.R. contributed to data collection and analysis. N.R.A. assisted in methodology design and manuscript revision. W.K. contributed to data interpretation and critical review of the manuscript. U.D. prepared the figures and assisted in data analysis. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Ongoing Research Funding Program (ORF-2026-1696), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data availability

Data availability The datasets processed and analyzed during the current study are available from the first author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the research ethics committee of Al Noor International School, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained and participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. The study adhered to standard ethical guidelines for research involving human participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.