Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Dec 29.
Published in final edited form as: Fam Process. 2020 Nov 27;60(4):1331–1346. doi: 10.1111/famp.12617

Use and Benefit of Dyadic Coping for Couple Relationship Satisfaction in Parents of Children with Autism

Jennifer M Putney 1,*, Jessica L Greenlee 1, Sigan L Hartley 1
PMCID: PMC8155113  NIHMSID: NIHMS1672631  PMID: 33247443

Abstract

Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are at increased risk for unsatisfying and conflict-ridden couple relationships (i.e., marital or romantic partner relationships). There is a critical need to identify the couple-level processes that contribute to this risk. The current study examined the use of dyadic coping, defined as the appraisals and behaviors that partners in relationships use and receive to manage stressors, and to examine whether dyadic coping mediated the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction in parents who have a child with ASD and in parents who do not have a child with ASD. In total, 184 couples that had a child with ASD (aged 5 to 12 years) and comparison group of 183 couples who have a child without a neurodevelopmental condition participated in the study. A multivariate analysis of co-variance indicated that parents of children with ASD reported less positive and more negative dyadic coping than did parents in the compaison group. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that dyadic coping mediated the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction. Findings have important implications for programs aimed at enhancing parent-couple relationship in families of children with ASD.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has grown over time in the United States with 1 in 54 children currently estimated to meet ASD criteria (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). ASD is a neurodevelopmental condition that involves social communication impairments and restricted and repetitive behaviors (American Psychiatric Association, 2017), and often co-occurring behavior problems such as inattention and anxiety (e.g., Matson & Shoemaker, 2009). Parents of children with ASD have an increased risk for maladaptive couple relationships (i.e., marital or romantic partner relationships). Relative to their peers who have children without neurodevelopmental disabilities, parents of children with ASD report greater couple relationship dissatisfaction (e.g. Brobst, Glopton, & Hendrick, 2009), more frequent and severe couple conflict (Hartley et al., 2017), and more separation/divorce (Berg et al., 2016; Hartley et al., 2010). To date, little research has examined the specific couple processes that contribute to these maladaptive couple outcomes. The objective of the current study was to examine dyadic coping (i.e., how partners communicate and support one another around stressors) in parents of children with ASD relative to those of children without a neurodevelopmental condition, and to determine its association with couple relationship satisfaction.

One model that may help explain why parents of children with ASD are at an increased risk for maladaptive couple relationships is vulnerability-stress-adaptation (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). This model provides a blueprint for understanding how multiple factors interact to influence couple relationship satisfaction and relationship stability across time. The model posits that extra-dyadic stressors (i.e., stress originating outside of the couple relationship) can strain the couple’s ability to engage in adaptive couple processes (e.g., communication and support). To date, studies that have used the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model have focused on extra-dyadic stressors pertaining to finances, work, and health (e.g., Badr, Carmack, Kashy, Cristofanilli, & Revenson, 2010; Falconier, Jackson, Hilpert, & Bodenmann, 2015). However, parents of children with ASD are arguably also at-risk for extra-dyadic stressors originating from child-related challenges. These child-related stressors stem from difficulty managing their child’s ASD symptoms and behavior problems (e.g., McStay, Dissanayake, Scheeren, Koot, & Begeer 2014), frustrations with the healthcare and educational system (e.g., Ryan & Quinlan, 2018), and social stigmas (Gray, 2002).

In line with the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model, mothers and fathers of children with ASD report higher subjective level of parenting stress than parents of typically developing children (e.g., Estes et al., 2013) and parents of children with other types of neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., Rezendes & Scarpa, 2011). Among parents of children with ASD, there is also evidence that level of parenting stress is related to couple relationship satisfaction. Indeed, parents of children with ASD who report the highest level of parenting stress also report the lowest level of couple relationship satisfaction (Brobst et al., 2008). Moreover, the severity of behavior problems by the child with ASD has been found to be negatively associated with parent couple relationship satisfaction in global measures (Langley, Totsika, & Hastings, 2017) and at a daily level using a 14-day daily diary (Hartley, Bolt, & Papp, 2018). Thus, at both a global and day-to-day level, parenting stress may serve as an extra-dyadic stressor that for some couples reduces relationship satisfaction.

In the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model, extra-dyadic stressors lead to couple relationship dissatisfaction by reducing adaptive couple processes (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), including dyadic coping,, defined as the processes used by partners in the face of stress to cope with adversity (Bodenmann & Cina, 2006). Positive dyadic coping is the adaptive ways that partners communicate and support one another with stress and includes partner support (e.g., one partner helps the other identify solutions or provides emotional support), delegated coping (e.g., one partner takes responsibility over stressor) and common coping (e.g., partners share in the stressor and work together). In cntrast, negative dyadic coping is when partners are ambivalent (e.g., do not take their partner’s stress seriously), respond with anger (e.g., blame partner), and/or have shallow concern (e.g., support, but unwillingly) or a lack of action (e.g., withdraws). In the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model, extra-dyadic stressors reduce positive dyadic coping and increase negative dyadic coping, which over time leads to reductions in couple relationship satisfaction.

Research on the general population has shown that partners who report engaging in more positive dyadic coping experience better couple relationship outcomes (Falconier, Nussbeck et al., 2015). For example, in a 5-year longitudinal study of Swiss couples from a general population sample, stable and satisfied couples reported more supportive dyadic coping (type of positive dyadic coping) when faced with stressors relative to couples who were distressed or separated-divorced (Bodenmann & Cina, 2006). Similarly, there is evidence from populations experiencing health-related stressors (e.g., cancer) that couples who report more positive dyadic coping are less likely to experience declines in couple relationship satisfaction across time, and some even become more satisfied in their relationship (e.g., Falconier, Nussbeck et al., 2015; Fife, Weaver, Cook, & Stump, 2013). In line with these findings, in a recent study, parents of children with ASD who reported using and receiving more (vs. less) supportive dyadic coping (type of positive dyadic coping) reported higher marital satisfaction (García-López, Sarriá, Pozo, & Recio, 2016), suggesting that positive dyadic coping is similarly important for couple relationship satisfaction in the context of child ASD.

To-date, there are no published studies comparing dyadic coping in parents of children with ASD to that of comparison groups nor have studies examined the potential mediation effect of dyadic coping in the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction in the context of child ASD. Given their heightened level of parenting stress (Estes et al., 2013), parents of children with ASD may use and receive more maladaptive dyadic coping (i.e., higher negative and lower positive dyadic coping) than their peers who have children without neurodevelopmental conditions. In turn, positive and negative dyadic coping may mediate the pathway between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction. Moving the field forward, it is also important to identify the specific types of positive and negative dyadic coping under or over-utilized by parents of children with ASD. In other populations under high stress, partners were found to be especially likely to perceiveiminished partner-provided positive dyadic coping as opposed to reductions in their own coping efforts (Falconier, Nussbeck et al., 2015). Information about the profile of dyadic coping experienced by parents of children with ASD relative to their peers can help tailor interventions.

Current Study

The current study sought to understand the use and benefit of dyadic coping in parents of children with ASD. The two study aims were: 1) compare self-reported use of positive and negative dyadic coping in parents of children with ASD versus a comparison group of parents of children without neurodevelopmental disabilities; and 2) determine whether positive and negative dyadic coping mediate the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction in parents of children with and without ASD using cross-sectional data. Analyses included 184 couples who had a child with ASD and a comparison group of 183 couples who had typically developing children. Parents of children with ASD were hypothesized to report less positive and more negative dyadic coping than the comparison group. This prediction was based on the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Based on other populations under high stress (Falconier, Nussbeck et al., 2015), we predcted that parents of children with ASD would report the greatest deficits, relative to the comparison group, in partner-provided positive dyadic coping. We predicted that positive and negative dyadic coping would mediate the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction in both the ASD and comparison groups. In other words, the ASD group was hypothesized to experience more maladaptive dyadic coping given their elevated parenting stress (relative to the comparison group), however, the mediation process (parenting stress leads to poor dyadic coping, which in turn, reduces couple relationship satisfaction) was expected to occur in both groups based on the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model.

Findings from the study could have important intervention implications. If dyadic coping is a couple process that differentiates parents of children with ASD from their peers, and drives the pathway from parenting stress to couple relationship dissatisfaction (regardless of group), this may be a key intervention target. Specifically, efforts to enhance dyadic coping in families under high parenting stress may be a way to protect the couple relationship. Given that high stress occurs more often in ASD families, and thus these families may be at-risk for maladaptive dyadic coping, these efforts are of particular importance to ASD families.

Methods

The current study used the first time point of a longitudinal study ( R01MH199091; Hartleyspan style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">) originally involving 189 parent couples of children with ASD (mothers: M = 38.73 [SD = 5.63] years; fathers: M = 40.76 [SD = 6.22] years). A comparison group of 189 parent couples of children without neurodevelopmental conditions was also included (mothers: M = 38.70 [SD = 6.00]; fathers: M = 40.46 [SD = 6.70] years). The target child (i.e., study focus) in both groups was aged 5–12 years. If couples had multiple children with ASD in the age range of 5–12 years, the eldest was the target child, as this is most likely representative of when parenting in the context of ASD began. Recruitment involved fliers posted in public settings and mailed to ASD clinics, schools, and research registries. Parents had to be in a cohabiting committed couple relationship (≥ 3 years). Most couples were married (97% ASD and 96% comparison). <="" span="" style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Diagnosis Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord et al., 2000) was used in evaluations. Mothers in the ASD and comparison groups completed the Social Responsiveness Scale-Second Edition (SRS-2; Constantino & Gruber, 2012) and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Five children in the ASD group received an SRS-2 t-score below 60, and thus did not currently have clinically elevated ASD symptoms (Constantino & Gruber, 2012) and were removed resulting in 184 couples. Screening questions were used to verify that comparison group children had not received Birth-to-Three or special education services and had no known or suspected neurodevelopmental disabilities. Six comparison group children received an SRS-2 score above 60 and were removed, resulting in 183 couples. Table 1 displays group socio-demographics.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and comparison groups

ASD
N = 184		 Comparison
N=183		 t value or x2, p value
Mother
 Age in years [M (SD)] 38.73 (5.63) 38.70 (6.00) t (366)=.049, p = .961
 Race/ethnicitya [N (%)]
  White, non-Latina 162 (88%) 158 (86%) χ2 (2, 366) = 0.29, p =.625
 Education [N (%)]
  No High School degree 3 (2%) 5 (3%) χ2 (5, 361) = 9.83, p= .043
  High School degree or equivalency 11 (6%) 10 (5%)
  Some college 30 (16%) 18 (10%)
  Associates or bachelor’s degree 97 (52%) 87 (47%)
  Graduate degree 38 (20%) 62 (33%)
 Parenting Stress [M (SD)] 22.70 (8.86) 9.17 (5.43) t (366) =17.63, p < .001
 Couple Relationship Satisfaction [M (SD)] 114.15 (32.10) 126.85(29.30) t (366) = −3.96, p <.001
Father
 Age in yrs [M (SD)] 40.76 (6.22) 40.46 (6.70) t (366) = 0.45, p = .657
 Race/ethnicityb [N (%)]
 White, non-Latino 160 (87%) 153 (84%) χ2 (2, 366)= 0.82, p =.365
 Education [N (%)]
 No High School degree 10 (5%) 4 (2%) χ2 (5, 361)= 6.82, p = .145
 High School degree or equivalency 22 (25%) 16 (9%)
 Some college 29 (16%) 26 (14%)
 Associates or bachelor’s degree 90 (48%) 88 (48%)
 Graduate degree 33 (18%) 49 (27%)
 Parenting Stress [M (SD)] 20.61 (8.01) 8.19 (5.22) t (366) = 17.59, p < .001
 Couple Relationship Satisfaction [M (SD)] 114.15 (32.10) 126.85 (29.93) t (366) = −3.92, p = .001
Couples’ Relationship
 Relationship length in yrs [M (SD)] 14.52 (5.87) 15.50 (5.30) t (366) = −1.67, p = .094
 Household incomec [M (SD)] 9.16 (3.08) 10.54 (2.98) t (362) = −4.36, p < .001
Target child
 Male [N (%)] 160 (86%) 154 (83%) χ2 (2, 366) = 0.58, p = .445
 Child Age [M (SD)] 7.90 (2.34) 7.96 (2.36) t (366) = −0.25, p = .812
 Intellectual Disability [N (%)] 65 (35%) 0 χ2 (2, 366) = 77.92, p < .001
 Social Responsiveness Scale [M (SD)] 77.82 (10.65) 49.67 (8.26) t (366) = 28.28, p < .001
 Child Behavior Checklist [M (SD)] 65.45 (9.89) 49.41 (10.26) t (366) = 15.25, p < .001
Open in a new tab

Note.

a

Break down of non-white or Latina ASD mothers: 41% Latina, 17% Black, 18% Asian, 0.5% Native American, and 23% multiple race/ethnicity. Breakdown of non-white/Latina Comparison mothers: 40% Latina, 20% Black, 16% Asian, 24% multiple race/ethnicity. Break down of non-white or Latino ASD fathers: 46% Latino, 21% Black, 17% Asian, and 17% multiple race/ethnicity. Breakdown of non-white or Latino Comparison fathers: 37% Latino, 23% Black, 17% Asian, and 23% multiple race/ethnicity, Household income: 1 ($1 – $9,999) to 14 ($160,000 +); ASD group: M = $81,600, SD = $20,800 and comparison group: M = $95,400 with SD = $20,980.

Procedure

The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institutional Review Board approved the study. After providing informed consent, couples participated in a 2.5-hour lab or home visit. Parents were jointly interviewed about family socio-demographics and then placed in separate rooms to complete self-report measures. Each parent was given $50.

Measures

Family socio-demographics.

Socio-demographics were jointly reported by parents. Parent gender was coded: mothers = 0 and fathers = 1. Parent education was coded: no high school diploma (0), high school diploma/equivalent (1), some college (2), college degree (3), some graduate school (4), and graduate/professional degree (5). Due to a low number in any one minority racial/ethnic group, parent race/ethnicity was coded: White, non-Latino/a (0) vs. other (1). The month and year couples entered into the couple relationship was used to calculate relationship length (in years). Child age was coded in years.

Dyadic Coping.

The Dyadic Coping Inventory (Bodenmann, 2008) is a 37-item self-report measure. Five dimensions (supportive coping-oneself, supportive coping-partner, delegated coping-oneself, delegated coping-partner, and common) are summed to create the Positive Dyadic Coping score. The supportive dyadic coping subscale measures the level of support for fixing a problem and/or emotions around problem (10 items). The delegated coping subscale measures one partner taking over the stressor responsibility to lower their partner’s stress (4 items). The common coping subscale measures the level to which both partners experience stress and work together (5 items). Subscales of positive dyadic coping had good internal consistently (Cronbach α 0.67 – 0.85 across groups). Two dimensions (negative dyadic coping-self and negative dyadic coping- partner) are summed in the Negative Dyadic Coping score, which assesses ambivalent, angry, or shallow concern/actions with the intention of causing harm (8 items/dimension). Items are rated on a 5-point scale: 1(very rarely) to 5(very often). Sample item: “When I am too busy, my partner helps me out.” The measure had good internal reliability in general population samples (Bodenmann, 2008) and the current study (ASD: Cronbach α = 0.92; comparison: Cronbach α = 0.93).

Parenting Stress.

Parents completed the Burden Interview (Zarit, Reever, & Bach-Peterson, 1980), a subjective measure of the perception of difficulty in caregiving. The measure has 29 items rated on a 4-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (extremely) and had strong reliability and concurrent validity in the general population (Vitaliano et al., 1991). The measure had good internal consistency in the current study (Cronbach’s alpha: ASD = 0.87; comparison = 0.72).

Couple Relationship Satisfaction.

Parents completed the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007), a 32-item self-report measure of couple relationship satisfaction. A Likert-type rating is used for 25 questions and a semantic scale for 7 questions. All items are summed for a total score. In the current study, the measure had good internal consistency in the ASD (Cronbach α = .84) and comparison (Cronbach α = .86) group.

Data Analysis Plan

Bivariate relations among variables and distributional assumptions (i.e., normality) were examined using correlations and boxplots for the ASD and comparison groups. Independent sample t-tests and chi-square statistics were used to examine differences in socio-demographics (e.g., parent education, parent race/ethnicity, household income, child age, and couple relationship length) between the ASD and comparison group. To address study aim 1, we then used SPSS version 25 to compare the dyadic coping total scores and dimensions (five positive and two negative) for mothers and fathers in the ASD and comparison groups (four groups) using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), controlling for socio-demographics that differed by group. Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to identify group differences. We had 90% chance of detecting medium-sized effects using an alpha of .05.

To address study aim 2, we first conducted point biserial and Pearson correlations to examine the association between family socio-demographics and our main study variables (parenting stress, dyadic coping, and couple relationship satisfaction) to identify covariates to include in subsequent models. Next, we examined the hypothesized mediation effect of dyadic coping (Positive and Negative Dyadic Coping total scores) in the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction using dyadic multilevel models (MLM; Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013) conducted with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM version 7.03) software (Raudenbush et al., 2011). Analyses were cross-sectional; all data came from the same study time point. We followed Zhang et al.’s (2009) 3-step centered within context approach, focusing on the 2–2-1 pathway, which simultaneously controls for mediation at a within-couple (level 1) and between-family level (level 2). The mediation effect was tested by examining the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction (step 1), association between parenting stress and positive and negative dyadic coping (step 2), and association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction controlling for positive and negative dyadic coping (step 3). For each step, predictor variables were entered at level 1 (group-mean centered) and level 2 (average of mother and father scores) and group (un-centered: ASD vs. comparison) was added at level 2. Relevant socio-demographics (i.e., those significantly correlated with dependent variable) were also included at level 2 and grand-mean centered. Models were run separately for Positive and Negative Dyadic Coping. Change in the coefficient for the association between parenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction was compared from step 1 (without mediator) to step 3 (mediator included). The significance of the coefficient reduction was tested using a t statistic as described by Freeman and Schatizkin (1992) and recommended by Zhang et al. (2009). Both random and fixed slopes were tested. Follow-up models were run to test the interaction of parent gender and group (ASD vs. comparison) on the mediation. Based on PINT (Power analysis IN Two-level designs) using estimated HLM coefficients, we had 70% of detecting medium-sized effects using an alpha of .05. We focused on the mediation effect at the between-family level, to determine if some parents experience unsatisfying couple relationships under high parenting stress because they do not adaptively work with their partner to cope, as hypothesized by the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model. Dyadic coping is inherently a couple-level process, shaped by the behaviors of both partners. Thus, the focus was on the level 2 mediation effect – averaged positive or negative dyadic coping score from partners within a couple.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Variables were examined for kurtosis (range −0.688–0.273) and skew (range −0.81–0.688). There were no indications of significant non-normality. Fifteen parents in the ASD group did not complete one of our main measures (parenting stress, couple relationship satisfaction, dyadic coping) and were removed. These 15 participants did not significantly differ from remaining ASD participants in child age, parent education, parent race/ethnicity, income, couple relationship length, or severity of child ASD symptoms or behavior problems based on chi square tests and independent sample t-tests (p >.05). Of those remaining, no one had > 5% of items missing on a measure. The Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) null assumption was upheld; thus, mean imputation was used to fill in missing items.

ASD versus Comparison use of Dyadic Coping

We first compared socio-demographics between the ASD and comparison groups using independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests. There was a significant difference between ASD and comparison mothers in education (χ2 = 9.83, p = 0.043), thus, this variable was controlled in the MANCOVA. In addition, mothers in the ASD group reported higher parenting stress (t (366) = 17.63, p < 0.001) and lower couple relationship satisfaction (t (366) = −3.96 p < 0.001) than comparison mothers. Fathers in the ASD group reported higher parenting stress (t (366) = 17.59, p < 0.001) and lower couple relationship satisfaction (t (366) = −3.92, p = 0.001) than comparison fathers. These differences were expected and consistent with prior research. Group differences in child characteristics were also significant and in expected directions; children with ASD had a higher severity of ASD symptoms (t (366) = 28.28, p < 0.001), behavioral problems (t (366) = 15.25, p < 0.001), and intellectual disability (t (366) = 77.92, p <.001) than comparison children. These later parent (paenting stress and couple relationship satisfaction) and child (SRS-2, CBCL, and intellectual disability) factors were not controlled in the MANCOVA because they are considered reflective of ASD (grouping variable of interest). Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 38–49. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/10.1177/1088357608323699

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and multivariate analysis of covariance analysis for dyadic coping in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and comparison group

ASD Comparison
Mother
N= 179
(A) 		Father
N=178
(B) 		Mom
N=179
(C) 		Father
N=179
(D) 		F value P value ηp2 Significant Group Diff
Supportive -Oneself (M, [SD]) 17.34 (2.81) 17.64 (2.91) 18.61 (2.88) 18.02 (2.93) 6.62 <0.001 0.026 A< C
B< C
Delegated - Oneself (M, [SD]) 7.07 (1.41) 7.53 (1.38) 7.66 (1.43) 7.65 (1.33) 7.36 <0.001 0.029 A < B, C, D
Negative-Oneself (M, [SD]) 8.39 (2.30) 8.61 (3.12) 7.33 (2.85) 7.78 (3.04) 6.92 <0.001 0.027 A > C
B > C, D
Supportive-Partner (M, [SD]) 16.71 (4.09) 16.64 (3.83) 18.65 (3.68) 18.24 (3.90) 13.09 <0.001 0.052 A< C, D
B< C, D
Delegated- Partner (M, [SD]) 6.665 (1.94) 6.270 (1.74) 7.173 (1.50) 6.257 (1.47) 11.58 <0.001 0.046 A< C
B< C
D< C
Negative-Partner (M, [SD]) 9.43 (3.50) 9.01 (3.28) 8.24 (3.41) 7.39 (3.02) 13.63 <0.001 0.054 A > C, D
B > D
C > D
Common (M, [SD]) 15.80 (4.42) 15.65 (3.78) 17.27 (4.26) 16.38 (3.95) 5.82 <0.001 0.023 A < C
B < C
Positive Dyadic Coping (M, [SD]) 63.59 (11.40) 63.72 (10.18) 69.34 (11.09) 66.57 (10.96) 11.38 <0.001 0.043 A < C, D
B < C, D
Negative Dyadic Coping (M, [SD]) 17.83 (5.70) 17.61 (5.69) 15.57 (5.50) 15.17 (5.34) 11.13 <0.001 0.038 A > C, D
B > C, D
Open in a new tab

Note: Covariates included maternal education. η2 p = partial eta squared.

Table 3.

Correlations among study variables for parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and comparison parents. Mother values are above the diagonal (and shaded) and father values are below the diagonal (and unshaded).

ASD Group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Parent Education --- .020 .446** .062 −.022 −.049 .108 −.077 .082
2. Parent race/ethnicity −.057 --- −.107 −.021 −.013 −.041 −.027 −.026 −.134
3. Household income .450** −.237** --- .181* .113 .038 −.088 .085 −.031
4. Relationship length .210** −.124 .181* ---- .328** −.034 .029 −.024 .057
5. Child age .082 −.127 .113 .328** --- .108 −.074 .071 −.134
6. Positive DC −.056 −.058 −.105 .164 .009 --- −.736** .767* −.298**
7. Negative DC −.015 .095 −.090 .233 .006 −.557** --- −.649** .396**
8. CSI .045 −.088 .000 −.020 .030 .648** −.599** --- −.231**
9. Parenting Stress .023 −.189* .011 .132 −.110 −.135 .440** −.269** ---
Comparison Group
1. Parent Education --- −.045 .454** .255* −.066 −.003 −.102 .097 −.030
2. Parent race/ethnicity −.029 --- −.181* .025 −.113 .048 −.117 .060 −.019
3. Household income .350** −.286** --- .387** .167* −.033 −.159* .131 −.249**
4. Relationship length .178* −.149* .387** --- .399** .004 −.017 .047 −.168*
5. Child age .004 −.096 .167* .399** --- .121 −.049 .060 −.099
6. Positive DC .118 −.011 .109 .010 .057 --- −.608** .712** −.327**
7. Negative DC .074 −.088 .218** .128 .007 −.501** --- −.657** .328**
8. CSI .045 −.095 .125 .014 .000 .668** −.641** --- −.354**
9. Parenting Stress −.048 .008 −.125 −.059 .025 −.243** .308** −.276** ---
Open in a new tab

Note.

**

p<0.001

*

p<0.05.

DC = Dyadic Coping; CSI = Couple Satisfaction Index

Table 4.

Models testing Negative and Positive Dyadic Coping as Mediator of Association between Parenting Stress and Couple Relationship Satisfaction

Negative Dyadic Coping Positive Dyadic Coping
Model 1 (step 1) Model 2 (step 2) Model 3 (step 3) Model 1 (step 1) Model 2 (step 2) Model 3 (step 3)
 Dependent Variable Couple Relationship Satisfaction Negative DC Couple Relationship Satisfaction Couple Relationship Satisfaction Positive DC Couple Relationship Satisfaction
Predictor Variables
Intercept 135.79 (8.30) 11.98 (1.24) 184.79 (6.76) 135.23 (8.31) 71.29 (2.87) −8.96 (9.78)
Parental stress (level 2) −1.06 (0.22)** 0.29 (0.04)** 0.00 (0.20) −1.05 (0.23)** −0.40 (0.08)** −0.22 (0.15)
Parental stress (level 1) −1.08 (0.16)** 0.31 (0.05)** −0.40 (0.15)** −1.06 (0.17)** −0.22 (0.07)** −0.79 (0.14)**
Negative/Positive DC (level 2) −3.76 (0.25)** 2.06 (0.13)**
Negative/Positive DC (level 1) −2.29 (0.23)** 1.28 (0.11)**
Variance
Between-family 443.38 (21.03)** 10.69 (3.27)** 218.49 (14.78)** 441.25 (21.01)** 46.47 (6.82)** 163.01 (12.77)**
Within-couple 355.72 (18.84) 16.50 (4.06) 268.46 (16.38) 354.74 (18.83) 65.94 (8.13) 249.27 (15.70)
Open in a new tab

Note. Level 2 covariates: parent race/ethnicity (1 =White, Non-Latino/a; 2 = other), household income, and couple relationship length

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.001. DC = dyadic coping.

Example equation Step 1:

Level-1: (Couple relationship satisfaction)ij = β0j + β1j*( parental stressij) + rij

Level-2: β0j = γ00 + γ01*(household incomej) + γ02*( mom race/ethnicity) + γ04*(dad race/ethnicity) + γ05*(relationship length) + γ06*(couple group mean for level of parental stressj) + u0j

β1j = γ10

Example equation Step 2:

Level-1: Positive or Negative Dyadic Copingij = β0j + β1j*(parental stressij) + rij

Level-2: β0j = γ00 + γ01*(household incomej) + γ02*( mom race/ethnicity) + γ04*(dad race/ethnicity) + γ05*(relationship length) + γ06*(couple group mean for level of parental stressj) + u0j

β1j = γ10

Example equation Step 3:

Level-1: Couple Satisfactionij = β0j + β1j*(negative or positive dyadic copingij) + β2j*(parental stressij) + rij

Level-2: β0j = γ00 + γ01*(household incomej) + γ02*(mom race/ethnicity) +/span>γ03*(dad race/ethnicity) + γ04*(relationship lengthj) + γ06*(couple level group mean positive or negative DCIj) + γ07*(couple level group mean for level of parenting stressj) + u0j

Acknowledgments

Funding Information

National Institute of Mental Health R01MH099190 Sigan L.Hartley U54 HD090256 Q. Chang 5T32 HD007489 Sigan L. Hartley

References

  1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018). Autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/addm.html
  2. Constantino JN, & Gruber CP (2012). Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2). Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services. [Google Scholar]
  3. Estes A, Olson E, Sullivan K, Greenson J, Winter J, Dawson G, & Munson J (2012). Parenting-related stress and psychological distress in mothers of toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. Brain and Development, 35, 133–138. 10.1016/j.braindev.2012.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Falconier MK, Jackson JB, Hilpert P, & Bodenmann G (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Falconier MK, Nussbeck F, Bodenmann G, Schneider H, & Bradbury T (2015). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intradyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well-being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41, 221–235. 10.1111/jmft.12073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fife BL, Weaver MT, Cook WL, & Stump TT (2013). Partner interdependence and coping with life-threatening illness: The impact on dyadic adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 702–711. 10.1037/a0033871 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Freedman LS, & Schatzkin A (1992). Sample size for studying intermediate endpoints within intervention trials of observational studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 136, 1148–1159. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.aa116581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Funk JL & Rogge RD (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. García-López C, Sarriá E, Pozo P, & Recio P (2016). Supportive dyadic coping and psychological adaptation in couples parenting children with autism spectrum disorder: The role of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 3434–3447. 10.1007/s10803-016-2883-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gray DE (2002). ‘Everybody just freezes. Everybody is just embarrassed’: Felt and enacted stigma among parents of children with high functioning autism. Sociology of Health & Illness, 24, 734–749. 10.1111/1467-9566.00316 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hanzal A, & Segrin C (2009). The role of conflict resolution styles in mediating the relationship between enduring vulnerabilities and marital quality. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 150–169. 10.1080/15267430902945612 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hartley SL, Barker ET, Seltzer MM, Floyd F, Greenberg J, Orsmond G, & Bolt D (2010). The relative risk and timing of divorce in families of children with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 449–457. 10.1037/a0019847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hartley SL, Papp LM, Mihaila I, Bussanich PM, Goetz G, & Hickey EJ (2017). Couple Conflict in Parents of Children with versus without Autism: Self-Reported and Observed Findings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2152–2165. 10.1007/s10826-017-0737-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hartley SL, Papp LM, & Bolt D (2018). Spillover of marital interactions and parenting stress in families of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(sup1), S88–S99. 10.1080/15374416.2016.1152552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Langley E, Totsika V, & Hastings RP (2017). Parental relationship satisfaction in families of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): A multilevel analysis. Autism Research, 10, 1259–1268. 10.1002/aur.1773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH Jr, Leventhal BL, DiLavore PC, … & Rutter M (2000). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205–223. 10.1023/A:1005592401947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. McStay RL, Dissanayake C, Scheeren A, Koot HM, & Begeer S (2014). Parenting stress and autism: The role of age, autism severity, quality of life and problem behaviour of children and adolescents with autism. Autism, 18, 502–510. 10.1177/1362361313485163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Matson JL, & Shoemaker M (2009). Intellectual disability and its relationship to autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1107–1114. 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pagani AF, Parise M, Donato S, Gable SL, & Schoebi D (2020). If you shared my happiness, you are part of me: Capitalization and the experience of couple identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46, 258–269. 10.1177/0146167219854449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Cheong AS, Fai YF, Congdon RT, & du Toit M (2011). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rezendes DL, & Scarpa A (2011). Associations between parental anxiety/depression and child behavior problems related to autism spectrum disorders: The roles of parenting stress and parenting self-efficacy. Autism Research and Treatment, 2011. 10.1155/2011/395190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ryan C, & Quinlan E (2018). Whoever shouts the loudest: Listening to parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31, 203–214. 10.1111/jar.12354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vitaliano PP, Russo J, Young HM, Teri L, & Maiuro RD (1991). Predictors of burden in spouse caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Psychology and Aging, 6, 392. 10.1037/0882-7974.6.3.392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Zarit SH, Reever KE, & Bach-Peterson J (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: Correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist, 20, 649–655. 10.1093/geront/20.6.649 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang Z, Zyphur MJ, & Preacher KJ (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695–719. 10.1177/1094428108327450 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES