The Social Functioning of Siblings of Children With Cancer
Classroom-based peer-reported data indicated no differences in social functioning between siblings and comparison classmates (Table II). Peer reports of social behavior/reputation on the RCP demonstrated no differences in rate of nominations for siblings and comparison children on any of the four dimensions. There were no significant group differences in total best friend nominations or number of reciprocated friendships. Finally, peer acceptance ratings were not significantly different for siblings versus comparison classmates.
Self-ratings by siblings and comparison classmates on the RCP did not differ in regard to the Leadership-Popularity, Aggressive-Disruptive, or Sensitive-Isolated dimensions. However, siblings rated themselves higher on the Prosocial scale. Similarly, teachers rated siblings and comparison classmates equally on the Aggressive and Withdrawal subscales of the PEI, but rated siblings as more Likeable than comparison classmates.
There were significant, but small, differences between siblings and comparison children on the parent-report CBCL. MANOVA, using raw scores, revealed a statistically significant effect across the three social subscales (Wilks λ = .86; F = 3.14, p = .03, partial η = .14). Follow-up univariate analyses (Table III) revealed no differences between siblings and comparison children on the social subscale. However, parents rated target siblings as less involved in activities and performing poorer at school than comparison peers. The size of these significant effects was small. T-scores and the percentage of participants falling outside the normal range on each scale are summarized in Table III.
Siblings (M = 35.78; SD = 12.13) and comparison peers (M = 32.85; SD = 13.43) did not differ significantly on reports of loneliness within the classroom (t = 1.28, p = .21) or social support across sources (Wilks λ = .94; F = 1.21, p = .31, partial η = .06). Follow-up univariate comparisons (Table IV) indicated no significant differences between siblings and comparisons in amount of support from friends, classmates, or others in school. Siblings' ratings of friendship quality were no different from comparison peers' ratings (Wilks λ = .91; F = .98, p = .45, partial η = .09). Follow-up univariate analyses (Table IV) revealed no differences between siblings and comparisons on any friendship quality subscale.
Results
Social Reputation, Best Friend Nominations, and Acceptance: Peer Report, Self-report and Teacher Report
Classroom-based peer-reported data indicated no differences in social functioning between siblings and comparison classmates (Table II). Peer reports of social behavior/reputation on the RCP demonstrated no differences in rate of nominations for siblings and comparison children on any of the four dimensions. There were no significant group differences in total best friend nominations or number of reciprocated friendships. Finally, peer acceptance ratings were not significantly different for siblings versus comparison classmates.
Self-ratings by siblings and comparison classmates on the RCP did not differ in regard to the Leadership-Popularity, Aggressive-Disruptive, or Sensitive-Isolated dimensions. However, siblings rated themselves higher on the Prosocial scale. Similarly, teachers rated siblings and comparison classmates equally on the Aggressive and Withdrawal subscales of the PEI, but rated siblings as more Likeable than comparison classmates.
School Performance, Engagement in Activities, and Social Functioning: Mothers' Reports
There were significant, but small, differences between siblings and comparison children on the parent-report CBCL. MANOVA, using raw scores, revealed a statistically significant effect across the three social subscales (Wilks λ = .86; F = 3.14, p = .03, partial η = .14). Follow-up univariate analyses (Table III) revealed no differences between siblings and comparison children on the social subscale. However, parents rated target siblings as less involved in activities and performing poorer at school than comparison peers. The size of these significant effects was small. T-scores and the percentage of participants falling outside the normal range on each scale are summarized in Table III.
Loneliness, Social Support, and Relationship Quality: Sibling and Comparison Self-reports
Siblings (M = 35.78; SD = 12.13) and comparison peers (M = 32.85; SD = 13.43) did not differ significantly on reports of loneliness within the classroom (t = 1.28, p = .21) or social support across sources (Wilks λ = .94; F = 1.21, p = .31, partial η = .06). Follow-up univariate comparisons (Table IV) indicated no significant differences between siblings and comparisons in amount of support from friends, classmates, or others in school. Siblings' ratings of friendship quality were no different from comparison peers' ratings (Wilks λ = .91; F = .98, p = .45, partial η = .09). Follow-up univariate analyses (Table IV) revealed no differences between siblings and comparisons on any friendship quality subscale.