The present study analyzes the psychological adaptation of parents with children having congenital disabilities. The study included 83 men and 96 women, who were parents of children with severe spina bifida, cerebral palsy, cleft lip and cleft palate. The Millon Index of Personality Styles was used to identify the most distinctive personality styles of parents caring for a child with a chronic disability and parental psychological adjustment. We also investigated if personality profiles differ by gender, and educational and socioeconomic level. The personality styles identified may serve as indicators of the way parents adapt to the child with a congenital disability. The results also suggest that a child’s disability has a differential impact on men and women. Gender issues are evaluated, as well as any repercussions these may have on women.
The physical and psychological health of parents with children suffering from congenital malformations or diseases has become a topic of increasing interest. A review of the literature shows that most studies focus on the risks and vulnerabilities most frequently observed in this group [
Practically every study confirms that the birth of a child with a chronic disease or disability involves painful long-term experiences and that parents are at increased risk of developing psychosocial problems [
Other studies have investigated the process of adaptation to chronic stress induced by caring for a child with a disability [
In the context of caring for disabled children, personality variables also have been identified as powerful factors that could explain individual differences in how parents face chronic stress. Most of these studies have identified personality traits using factorial models [
Less frequent in this context are studies in which personality has been regarded as a mediating variable or as a predictor of coping [
The present study used Millon’s Personality Model [
Thus, a personality style is regarded as a set of traits derived from biological tendencies and experiential learning that characterizes a relatively stable way of behaving. The personality styles have proved more susceptible to environmental changes than traditional traits (more stable and definitive), and sufficiently sensitive to evaluate the adaptive functioning with more consistency and stability than other variables more situationally determined [
In contrast to factorial models or multi-trait concepts, the Millon model involves a multidimensional approach to normal personality, and is based on integrating bio-psychosocial, evolutionary, and ecological viewpoints. Millon’s concept of normal personality and his comprehensive approach to the person as a whole means that the MIPS (MIPS-Millon) [
The MIPS also includes a Clinical Index [
Within the framework of this model, we studied the medium- and long-term impact on parental psychological organization and functioning, of having a child with a disability. The study aims were as follows: To identify stable adaptive functioning styles in these mothers and fathers, and their differences with normative population; to evaluate parental psychological adjustment and adaptability by using the Clinical Index; and to analyze the modulating effect of gender, educational and the socioeconomic level, on parent’s personality styles and psychological adjustment.
The study included parents of children with severe spina bifida or Myelomeningocele (MM), cerebral palsy, and cleft lip and cleft palate. MM is the most common and severe form of spina bifida and the most common of the neural tube defects, a congenital medical condition in which the neural tube fails to close completely during early gestation, and is associated with sensory, motor and cognitive impairments [
Taking into account the literature and the study aims, we formed three hypotheses: firstly, parents of children with disabilities will present personality styles significantly different from the normative population revealing a differential adaptive functioning; secondly, since mothers normally carry the main workload of caring for the child, mothers in this group will show a psychological adjustment (Clinical Index) significantly lower than women in the normative population, and also lower than the parents in this group; thirdly, the gender, the educational and the socioeconomic level of the parents, will moderate the differences observed in personality styles and psychological adjustment.
The study included 83 men (46.4%) and 96 women (53.6%), both of Spanish nationality, who were parents of children with severe spina bifida (MM), cerebral palsy, and cleft lip and cleft palate. Of these, 87.2% (78 couples) belong to the same family, that is, they are fathers and mothers of the same child; and 12.8% not belonging to the same family, that is, only one parent has participated (5 fathers and 18 mothers). The age of the parents ranged from 22 years to 72 years M = 39.81, SD = 8.27). There were no statistically significant differences between the age of fathers and mothers [t (177) = 1.43; p < 0.15].
In total, 88.8% of the participants were married, 2.8% were separated or divorced, 1.1% were widows or widowers, and approximately 7.3% were single. The educational level was evenly distributed in the sample (35.2% had completed primary education, 34.6% secondary education, and 30.2% higher education). A significantly greater percentage of participants were working at the time of the study (74.9%); 18.2% were housewives, 3.4% were unemployed, and the remaining 2.8% were retired. Around 57% of participants had a low to medium socioeconomic level, whereas 43% had a medium to high level.
The mean age of the children was 8.04 (SD = 7.88), 12.3% are one year old or younger, 30.2% (1 thru 4) 36.3% (4 thru 12) and 21.2% are o are twelve year old or greater (to 28) ranging from 4 months to 28 years. Of these, 67 (66.3%) were diagnosed with severe spina bifida (myelomeningocele), 20 (19.8%) with cleft lip and cleft palate, and 14 (13.9%) with cerebral palsy. As an indicator of the severity of the child’s disability, functional limitation was calculated and expressed in percentages using Spanish instruments that followed the WHO international guidelines [
Questionnaire on socio-demographic data and the child’s disease:
The parents completed a socio-demographic and clinical questionnaire, designed for this study. The first questionnaire collected basic demographic data of participants as the age, number of children, sex, marital status, place of residence, educational level, socioeconomic status and employment status or occupation. Socioeconomic status was measured as a combination of economic status, education and employment status or occupation.
The secondly collected child’s clinical data: the child’s diagnosis and severity of the disability; number of surgeries and hospitalizations; physical and neurological complications such as phonatory alterations, alterations of deglutition, paralysis, poor renal function, Arnold Chiari II malformation, scoliosis, back pain, and worsening bowel and/or bladder function, etc.; as well other difficulties, e.g. executive functions, selective attention or focused attention.
Millon Index of Personality Styles (MIPS):
This instrument adapted and validated for use in the Spanish population by Sánchez-López, Díaz, and Aparicio [
The MIPS also incorporates an adjustment index (Clinical Index-Millon) [
The selection of participants was performed with the collaboration of Spanish parent associations of children with spina bifida, cerebral palsy, cleft lip and palate. The selection criterion used to recruit participants was having a child with a chronic physical illness.
The tests were administered by the clinical psychologist leading the study. The study protocol was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Murcia and all participants gave their informed consent after the purpose of the research was explained and participation was voluntary. The anonymity of the data was also ensured. Parent associations provided space in their own centres, sent out the invitations by post, and scheduled the interviews and test administration sessions with both parents, who filled in the tests independently.
Data were analyzed using the statistical software package SPSS 19.0 for Windows. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to analyze the linear relationship between the psychological and demographic variables. Differences between the sample mean and the normative mean were analyzed using the Student t-test, (95% confidence interval) and the mean scores for the Spanish population were used as the test value [
A Multiple Analysis of Covariance (MANOVA) was performed to investigate the moderating effect of gender and sociodemographic variables on the differences in personality styles and psychological adjustment. We have followed a process of statistical modeling in which as a first step we tested the significance of the more complete model. The independent variables or factors to control for the differences between groups were gender, educational level and socioeconomic level. The covariates were age (age of parents and child) and the severity of the disability. However we have found no relationship between these covariates and dependent variables, so we have chosen not to include it. Before performing the MANOVA, normality and homogeneity of variance were verified (Box Test, Levene’s test) as well as the correlation between the dependent variables (Bartlett’s test of sphericity). The indexes for the effect size were also calculated using Partial Eta Squared (η2), which indicates the proportion of variance explained by each variation source [
Analysis of the MIPS indexes indicates that, in general, the parents did not attempt to give either a very positive image (M score IP = 3.3; SD = 2.1) or a very negative image of themselves (M score IN = 2.7; SD = 2.2). Furthermore, the mean value obtained for Consistency (M score C = 3.5; SD = 1.1), and the analysis of minimum values (range = 2 - 5), confirmed that the parents were consistent in their responses. There no statistically significant correlations were between the personality scales and the age of parents and children.
MIPS scales | MIPS Personality Styles (N = 179) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Men (n = 83) | Women (n = 96) | |||||||
M (SD) | t(82) | p | d | M (SD) | t(95) | p | d | |
Motivating Styles | ||||||||
1A. Pleasure-Enhancing | 25.95 (6.33) | 3.27 | 0.002 | 0.33 (mod.) | 22.65 (7.32) | −0.57 | 0.572 | |
1B. Pain-Avoiding | 12.47 (8.43) | −5.21 | 0.000 | −0.49 (mod.) | 18.54 (10.52) | −0.15 | 0.883 | |
2A. Actively Modifying | 26.52 (8.66) | −0.71 | 0.482 | 24.91 (8.41) | −1.19 | 0.236 | ||
2B. Passively Accommodating | 20.75 (8.98) | −1.60 | 0.115 | 23.84 (8.88) | 1.17 | 0.243 | ||
3A. Self-Indulging | 17.54 (7.30) | −4.28 | 0.000 | −0.46 (mod.) | 14.51 (5.90) | −4.28*** | 0.000 | −0.34 (mod.) |
3B. Other Nurturing | 29.20 (8.15) | 1.45 | 0.152 | 34.15 (6.54) | 3.93*** | 0.000 | 0.35 (mod.) | |
Thinking Styles | ||||||||
4A. Externally Focused | 24.76 (8.58) | 1.77 | 0.080 | 23.64 (8.19) | −1.36 | 0.178 | ||
4B. Internally Focused | 10.42 (6.97) | −3.66 | 0.000 | −0.39 (mod.) | 11.61 (6.99) | 0.26 | 0.796 | |
5A. Realistic/Sensing | 21.45 (5.67) | 2.76 | 0.007 | 0.29 (low) | 20.98 (5.09) | 2.46* | 0.016 | 0.22 (low) |
5B. Imaginative/Intuiting | 15.33 (6.65) | −5.12 | 0.000 | −0.45 (mod.) | 17.15 (6.90) | −2.19* | 0.031 | −0.19 (low) |
6A. Thought-Guided | 22.25 (8.13) | −0.88 | 0.380 | 14.67 (8.06) | −3.76*** | 0.000 | −0.38 (mod.) | |
6B. Feeling-Guided | 24.02 (7.97) | −2.05 | 0.043 | −0.21 (low) | 30.59 (7.99) | 1.78 | 0.078 | |
7A. Conservation-Seeking | 36.42 (10.69) | 0.85 | 0.400 | 34.98 (9.92) | −1.42 | 0.158 | ||
7B. Innovation-Seeking | 20.80 (7.72) | −3.89 | 0.000 | −0.37 (mod.) | 20.65 (8.25) | −2.36* | 0.021 | −0.22 (low) |
Behaving Styles | ||||||||
8A. Asocial/withdrawing | 19.84 (8.70) | 1.93 | 0.057 | −0.20 (low) | 19.82 (8.11 ) | 0.31 | 0.761 | |
8B. Gregarious/outgoing | 31.19 (12.19) | 0.33 | 0.742 | 26.05 (9.68) | −3.37*** | 0.001 | −0.32 (mod.) | |
9A. Anxious/hesitating | 14.31 (8.83) | −4.39 | 0.000 | −0.42 (mod.) | 19.81 (10.44) | 0.97 | 0.335 | |
9B. Confident/asserting | 34.81 (11.36) | 1.42 | 0.160 | 26.34 (8.96) | −4.01*** | 0.000 | −0.35 (mod.) | |
10A. Unconventional/dissenting | 17.67 (8.28) | −5.33 | 0.000 | −0.57 (high) | 17.18 (6.97) | −3.34*** | 0.001 | −0.27 (low) |
10B. Dutiful/conforming | 40.99 (9.08) | 1.05 | 0.296 | 40.09 (8.58) | 0.95 | 0.343 | ||
11A. Submissive/yielding | 13.76 (6.51) | −3.92 | 0.000 | −3.36 (mod.) | 17.03 (8.00) | 0.17 | 0.863 | |
11B. Dominant/controlling | 24.06 (8.19) | −0.70 | 0.486 | 19.06 (−2.39) | −3.68*** | 0.000 | −0.32 (mod.) | |
12A. Dissatisfed/complaining | 18.35 (8.75) | −6.00 | 0.000 | −0.63 (high) | 8.70 (9.59) | −3.92*** | 0.000 | −0.39 (mod.) |
12B. Cooperative/agreeing | 36.11 (9.05) | 2.78 | 0.007 | 0.33 (mod.) | 41.45 (8.18) | 4.00*** | 0.000 | 0.36 (mod.) |
Iaj.t. Clinical Index | 51.50 (12.30) | 0.85 | 0.339 | 43.45 (13.45) | −4.56*** | 0.000 | −0.59 (high) |
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
There were statistically significant differences between the fathers and the men from the normative population
on 14 scales. According to the MIPS guidelines, statistically significant differences in a given bipolarity enhance the meaning of the scales regarding personality traits. Thus, the statistically significant differences in 3 bipolarities (Pleasure/Enhancing and Pain/Avoiding, Realistic/Sensing and Imaginative/Intuiting, Dissatisfied/complaining and Cooperative/agreeing), indicate that the personality style of the fathers in our sample is more motivated towards finding pleasure and enhancing in their lives (pleasure/enhancing), more oriented towards concrete and observable information (sensation), as well as more agreeableness in interpersonal relationships.
There were statistically significant differences between the mothers and the women from the normative population on 12 scales. Statistically significant differences in 3 bipolarities (Self-Indulging and Other Nurturing, Realistic/Sensing and Imaginative/Intuiting, Dissatisfied/complaining and Cooperative/agreeing) suggest that the mothers of the sample favor a style which is strongly protective, oriented to sensation (concrete and observable information) and more agreeable and acquiescent. Finally, the Clinical Index indicated a significantly lower level of psychological adjustment in the mothers’ sample than in the normative group, the size of the effect was high ((Hypotheses 2)
Before performing the MANOVA (Hypothesis 3), the inclusion in the model of the covariates parental age (age of parents and child) and disability level was analyzed. We found no relationship between these covariates and the dependent variables.
The multivariate analysis Pillai’s Trace show a statistically significant effect for gender [Pillai’s (25, 150) = 0.55; p < 0.000] and educational level (Pillai’s (50, 302) = 0.38; p < 0.035); but not for socioeconomic level (Pillai’s (25, 150) = 0.18, p < 0.171), so we can say that the differences are explained by the gender of the subjects and their level of education. Therefore, we can state that multivariate differences are explained by the gender of the subjects and their level of education.
The univariate tests (see
Economic level also was significant in 10 of the 24 scales and in the Clinical Index, with small and moderate sizes of the effect. The medium-low group obtained significantly higher scores than the medium-high group in: Passively Accommodating, Asocial/withdrawing, Anxious/hesitating and Submissive/yielding scales (p < 0.05). On the contrary, this group obtained significantly lower scores than the medium-high group in: Actively Modifying scale (p < 0.01), Externally Focused and Conservation-Seeking scales (p < 0.05), Gregarious/outgoing and Confident/asserting scales (p < 0.01) and in the Clinical Index (p < 0.01).
As stated in the first hypothesis, personality styles are a proven source of information on the psychological organization/pattern and adaptive behavior of parents with a disabled child. We have identified personality profiles which are significantly different from those in the normative population.
Taking these differences into account, we can provide a characteristic profile of personality for fathers and mothers in the three dimensions mentioned above: motivating styles, thinking styles, and behaving styles.
In the group of men, the differences suggest a motivating style characterized by vitality, energy, optimism, and the search for positive reinforcement in the light of misfortune (pleasure-enhancing); less tendency towards preservation, pessimism and avoidance, than the normative population; and less individuality than men from the normative population. This motivating style suggests the presence of a strong protective factor, given that the decreased use of coping strategies based on escape-avoidance has been associated with greater psychological adjustment [
MIPS scales | GENDER | EDUCATIONAL LEVEL | SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fathera (n = 83) Motherb (n = 96) | Primary education1 (n = 63) Secondary education2 (n = 62) Higher education3 (n = 54) | Medium-Lowa (n = 102) Medium-Highb (n = 77) | |||||||
F (1, 174) | η2 | Contrast | F (2, 164) | η2 | Contrast | F (1, 164) | η2 | Contrast | |
Motivating Styles | |||||||||
1A. Pleasure-Enhancing | 12.15*** | 0.065 | a > b | 0.14 | 0.002 | 7.75** | 0.043 | a < b | |
1B. Pain?Avoiding | 24.82*** | 0.125 | a < b | 1.01 | 0.011 | 3.50 | 0.020 | ||
2A. Actively Modifying | 6.10** | 0.034 | a > b | 1.50 | 0.017 | 6.95** | 0.038 | a < b | |
2B. Passively Accommodating | 19.99*** | 0.103 | a < b | 0.32 | 0.004 | 5.71* | 0.032 | a > b | |
3A. Self-Indulging | 5.34* | 0.030 | a > b | 0.54 | 0.006 | 0.09 | 0.000 | ||
3B. Other Nurturing | 22.09*** | 0.113 | a < b | 5.31** | 0.057 | 1 > 2 | 1.36 | 0.008 | |
Thinking Styles | |||||||||
4A. Externally Focused | 4.10* | 0.023 | a > b | 0.62 | 0.007 | 5.67* | 0.032 | a < b | |
4B. Internally Focused | 14.53*** | 0.077 | a < b | 1.52 | 0.017 | 0.76 | 0.004 | ||
5A. Realistic/Sensing | 4.90* | 0.027 | a > b | 1.40 | 0.016 | 1.68 | 0.004 | ||
5B. Imaginative/Intuiting | 13.98*** | 0.074 | a < b | 0.08 | 0.001 | 0.39 | 0.002 | ||
6A. Thought-Guided | 43.05*** | 0.198 | a > b | 1.70 | 0.019 | 1.07 | 0.006 | ||
6B. Feeling-Guided | 53.82*** | 0.236 | a < b | 1.51 | 0.017 | 0.01 | 0.000 | ||
7A. Conservation-Seeking | 5.10* | 0.028 | a > b | 5.87** | 0.063 | 1 > 3, 2 > 3 | 5.43* | 0.030 | a < b |
7B. Innovation-Seeking | 0.32 | 0.002 | 0.31 | 0.004 | 0.14 | 0.001 | |||
Behaving Styles | |||||||||
8A. Asocial/withdrawing | 3.33 | 0.019 | 0.10 | 0.001 | 4.93* | 0.028 | a > b | ||
8B. Gregarious/outgoing | 4.46* | 0.025 | a > b | 0.22 | 0.003 | 13.907*** | 0.074 | a < b | |
9A. Anxious/ hesitating | 25.79*** | 0.129 | a < b | 1.25 | 0.014 | 4.44* | 0.025 | a > b | |
9B. Confident/asserting | 44.41*** | 0.203 | a > b | 0.36 | 0.004 | 7.82** | 0.043 | a < b | |
10A. Unconventional/dissenting | 2.07 | 0.012 | 2.28 | 0.025 | 0.04 | 0.000 | |||
10B. Dutiful/conforming | 0.34 | 0.002 | 3.74* | 0.041 | 1 > 3 | 2.02 | 0.011 | ||
11A. Submissive/yielding | 12.29*** | 0.066 | a < b | 0.34 | 0.004 | 4.37* | 0.024 | a > b | |
11B. Dominant/controlling | 23.84*** | 0.120 | a > b | 0.26 | 0.003 | 3.51 | 0.020 | ||
12A. Dissatisfed/complaining | 3.54 | 0.020 | 1.96 | 0.022 | 1.79 | 0.010 | |||
12B. Cooperative/agreeing | 8.32** | 0.046 | a < b | 0.78 | 0.009 | 0.38 | 0.002 | ||
Iaj.t. Clinical Index | 17.72*** | 0.092 | a > b | 0.06 | 0.001 | 7.61** | 0.042 | a < b |
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
The presence of a markedly pleasure-enhancing and motivating style is also related to the impulse to improve
their own and other people’s lives, and to reinforce their survival ability. This style would explain the great capacity to adapt to stress reported in other studies [
On the other hand, mothers of children with chronic disabilities have a motivating style characterized by a strong predisposition toward caring for others, at the expense of oneself. Their style of being oriented to caring for others at the expense of themselves is closely related to caring for the child that mainly falls to mothers, and is also related to demands involved in taking care of a disabled child [
Secondly, the differences found in the cognitive dimension suggest that both fathers and mothers have a greater cognitive orientation toward direct experience, observable phenomena, and practical, real and objective information; they also indicate an extremely low predisposition to handle abstract and ambiguous information, such an abstract reasoning with a symbolic character. This cognitive style is related to a pragmatic coping strategy that shows a clear preference for the specific aspects of the present and the need to plan day-by-day. This propensity has been identified by other studies as an important factor of psychological adjustment that helps parents to face the daily stressors associated with taking care of children, protecting themselves from pain, and improving self-esteem and efficiency [
Regarding behaving styles, that encompass the way people relate with each other, the parents in our sample appear maintain good control in their interpersonal relationships, are not submissive, are not submissive, and show good adjustment to social norms (conventional behavior). Both, although more accentuated in mothers, show an interpersonal style in which cooperation, harmony and engagement has priority over any individual interest.
No significant effects of the age and severity of child’s disability. Although some studies associate the severity of a chronic condition in children with the psychological health of their mothers [
Despite the wide age range of children in our study, child age was not a particularly influential variable on families of children with chronic disability. Results agree with those of Wiegner and Donders [
The second hypothesis was also confirmed. As predicted, the different levels of psychological adjustment found between fathers and mothers indicate lower psychological adjustment among mothers and therefore, the existence of cognitive, affective or interpersonal behaviors that are not positive for their health and well-being. Our results are consistent with many other studies that suggest that mothers are at increased risk due to being the main caregiver [
The third hypothesis suggested that the gender, educational level and socioeconomic level would modulate the differences found in personality.
Concerning the moderating role of gender, the results are consistent with studies previous [
In this regard, it is commonly agreed that the level of stress and psychological maladjustment among mothers is higher, and this is mainly due to the differences in the caregiving and work roles within the relationship [
On the other hand, educational and socioeconomic levels, independently of being a man or a woman, seem to moderate to some extent the differences found in personality variables and psychological adjustment.
In this sense, taking into account that some styles may be more effective than others regarding satisfactory adaptation to the environment [
Regarding these findings, the economic level of the family has been associated with coping and psychological discomfort among parents in previous studies [
The present study analyzes the psychological adaptation of parents with children with congenital disabilities based on a model that focuses on the identification of adaptive resources, rather than on dysfunctional aspects. The personality styles evaluated provide a measure of the stability of the processes involved in parents’ psychological adaptation, independently of the developmental stage of the child or the disease, and account for a wide range of psychologically relevant behavior, which may be of use to future research and intervention.
The results show significant behavioral tendencies that identify certain areas of vulnerability where parents may be putting their psychological health at risk, and at the same time, indicate behavioral resources that may act as protective factors.
Being a man or a woman has a differential impact that appears to be related to the adopting traditional gender roles by parents, as a way of facing and adapting to the situation. This would place mothers in a situation of greater vulnerability, as they show less psychological adjustment and adaptive personality styles than fathers. Therefore, gender issues may be acting in concert to differentiate how such mothers and fathers adapt psychologically. The educational and socioeconomic levels of parents could also act as risk factors in their adaptive functioning. Researchers and clinicians should explore these sociodemographic factors as they may contribute to the psychological adjustment of parents.
The present study has some limitations. The sample is comprised exclusively by parents belonging to parents’ associations of children with chronic physical illness. To further our understanding of psychological adaptation of parents of children with a congenital disability, it would be relevant to study a more diverse sample. Finally, it underlines the limit of the use of self-report questionnaires. Although this study goes beyond the use of self-report measures, and provides a psychometrically standardized measure, to further our understanding of parental adaptation to chronic stress, future studies should include information gathered via multiple methods and from multiple sources.
Although these profiles may not always account for the great diversity of parental responses, they may serve as indicators of the way parents face to child’s disability. Gaining a deeper understanding of the motivational, cognitive and behavioral dimensions involved in the adaptive functioning of these parents, and identifying those variables that are relevant to their well-being and psychological adjustment―as well as the educational and socioeconomic level of the family―could be of great use to the professional teams who provide these families with help and counselling, and may help them to design better intervention strategies to optimize personal resources.
We thank all fathers and mothers of children with spina bifida, cerebral palsy, cleft lip and palate, and their respective associations, for their commitment and involvement in the project.
Rosa M.Limiñana-Gras,María del PilarSánchez-López,María TeresaCalvo-Llena,Francisco JavierCorbalán,11, (2015) Personality Styles, Psychological Adjustment and Gender Differences in Parents of Children with Congenital Disabilities. Health,07,1492-1505. doi: 10.4236/health.2015.711163
NAMES AND SURNAMES: _________________________________________________________________
NATIONALITY: ___________________________________________________________________________
DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH: ______________________________________________________________
ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________________________________
MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS: ____________________________________________________________________
DATE OF FIRST DIAGNOSIS: _______________________________________________________________
PERCENTAGE OF DISABILITY AND DATE OF ISSUE: _________________________________________
ASSOCIATION TO WHICH BELONGS: _______________________________________________________
NUMBER OF SURGERIES: ___________________ NUMBER OF HOSPITALIZATIONS: ______________
PHYSICAL AND NEUROLOGICAL COMPLICATIONS, MALFORMATIONS, OR DISEASESASSOCIATED:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
OTHER ALTERATIONS ASSOCIATED: _______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
PERSONAL DATA OF THE FATHER:NATIONALITY: ___________________________________________________________________________
DATE OF BIRTH AND AGE: _________________________________________________________________
PROFESSION: _____________________________________________________________________________
MARITAL STATUS:
Single ___________________________ 1 Married __________________ 2
Separated/divorced _________________ 3 Widowed _________________ 4
LEVEL OF STUDIES COMPLETED:
Withoutstudies _____________________ 1 Primaryeducation ___________ 2
Secondaryeducation _________________ 3 Highereducation ____________ 4
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT SITUATION
Employed _________________________ 1 Household chores ___________ 2
Employed _________________________ 3 Unemployed _______________ 4
Retiredorpensioner __________________ 5 Others ____________________ 6
SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL:
Level upper-middle __________________ 1 Level lower-middle __________ 2
PERSONAL DATA OF THE MATHER:NATIONALITY: ___________________________________________________________________________
DATE OF BIRTH AND AGE: _________________________________________________________________
PROFESSION: _____________________________________________________________________________
MARITAL STATUS:
Single ___________________________ 1 Married __________________ 2
Separated/divorced _________________ 3 Widowed _________________ 4
LEVEL OF STUDIES COMPLETED:
Withoutstudies _____________________ 1 Primaryeducation ___________ 2
Secondaryeducation _________________ 3 Highereducation ____________ 4
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT SITUATION
Employed _________________________ 1 Household chores ___________ 2
Employed _________________________ 3 Unemployed _______________ 4
Retiredorpensioner __________________ 5 Others ____________________ 6
SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL:
Level upper-middle __________________ 1 Level lower-middle __________ 2