Autism & Developmental

Impact on siblings of children with intellectual disability: the role of child behavior problems.

Neece et al. (2010) · American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities 2010
★ The Verdict

Child problem behavior, not the ID label, drives negative sibling impact—so write behavior plans first.

✓ Read this if BCBAs working with families who have a child with ID plus a typically developing sibling.
✗ Skip if Clinicians serving only typically developing sibling pairs or adult clients.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Researchers tracked families with a child who has an intellectual disability and a typically developing brother or sister. They asked parents how the sibling was doing and how tough the disabled child’s behavior was. Then they ran the numbers to see if the disability label or the day-to-day behavior problems predicted sibling stress.

02

What they found

At first glance, siblings of kids with ID looked worse off. Once the team factored in behavior problems—hitting, screaming, non-compliance—the disability effect vanished. Early behavior trouble in the child, not the ID diagnosis itself, forecast later sibling strain in both groups.

03

How this fits with other research

Totsika et al. (2014) saw the same Australian cohort and showed warm parent-child ties cut later behavior problems. Together the papers form a chain: better parenting now → fewer child problems next year → lighter sibling impact later.

Begum et al. (2011) looked at older ID siblings and found warmth patterns differ by sex and birth order. Their mixed results extend our paper’s warning: behavior still matters in adolescence, but relationship rules change with age.

HilMedeiros et al. (2015) conceptually replicate the core idea in mild-borderline ID: parent-child bond quality links to externalizing problems more than discipline style. The message is consistent—target the relationship and the behavior, not the label.

04

Why it matters

Stop treating the ID diagnosis as the stress source. Write behavior-reduction goals for the target child and you protect the sibling at the same time. Share this data with parents to shift blame away from the diagnosis and onto actionable behavior targets. Add sibling-support goals only when problem behavior is already under control.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add one proactive behavior-reduction goal for the client’s most annoying topographies and track sibling stress as a secondary outcome.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
114
Population
intellectual disability, neurotypical
Finding
positive
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

The impact on everyday life for siblings of children with intellectual disability or typical development was examined. Participants were families of children with intellectual disability (n=39) or typical development (n=75). Child behavior problems and sibling impact were assessed at child ages 5, 6, 7, and 8. Results indicate that siblings of children with intellectual disability were consistently reported by mothers and fathers to be more negatively impacted compared to siblings of typically developing children. When child behavior problems were accounted for, however, there was no longer a significant relationship between child intellectual status and sibling impact. For both intellectual disability and typical development groups, cross-lagged panel analyses indicate that early child behavior problems lead to increased sibling negative impact over time.

American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2010 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-115.4.291