Mobile monitoring parents’ behaviors for supporting self-management in children with disabilities

  • Adrian Macias
  • Jesus Ramos
  • Concepcion Valdez
  • Ignacio Garcia
  • Gabael Paez
  • Karina Caro
  • Luis A. CastroEmail author
Original Research


One of the main factors affecting autonomy in children with disabilities is parents’ behaviors. Understanding parents’ behaviors is important for their effects over time. However, measuring and quantifying parents’ behaviors through ubiquitous technology has remained largely unexplored. In this work, we use mobile sensing to monitor behaviors in parents of individuals with Down syndrome. Through our approach, we identified some behaviors that have been reported to be associated with directive and facilitating behaviors of mothers of children with Down syndrome. We also discuss how this mobile sensing-based approach can be used as a supplementary technique to enhance behavioral analysis with these types of populations. This work offers a promising approach for deploying mobile sensing technology for advancing research in this area.


Monitoring behavior Parents’ behavior Children with Down syndrome Mobile sensing 



This work has been partially funded by the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) in Mexico through a scholarship provided to the second author. Also, this work has been partially funded by the Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora (ITSON) through the PROFAPI program.


  1. Adenzato M, Ardito RB, Izard E (2006) Impact of maternal directiveness and overprotectiveness on the personality development of a sample of individuals with acquired blindness. Soc Behav Pers 34:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blomquist K, Brown G, Peersen A, Presler E (1998) Transitioning to independence: challenges for young people with disabilities and their caregivers. Orthop Nurs 17:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bontinck C, Warreyn P, Meirsschaut M, Roeyers H (2018) Parent–child interaction in children with autism spectrum disorder and their siblings: choosing a coding strategy. J Child Fam Stud 27:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borel S, Schneider P, Newman C (2011) Video analysis software increases the interrater reliability of video gait assessments in children with cerebral palsy. Gait Posture 33:727–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady N, Warren S, Fleming K, Keller J, Sterling A (2014) Effect of sustained maternal responsivity on later vocabulary development in children with fragile X syndrome. J Speech Lang Hear Res 57:212–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro LA, Favela J, Quintana E, Perez M (2015) Behavioral data gathering for assessing functional status and health in older adults using mobile phones. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19:379–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawley SB, Spiker D (1983) Mother–child interactions involving two-year-olds with Down syndrome: a look at individual differences. Child Dev 54:1312–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cress CJ, Moskal L, Hoffmann A (2008) Parent directiveness in free play with young children with physical impairments. Commun Disord Q 29:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuskelly M, Gilmore L, Carroll A (2013) Self-regulation and mastery motivation in individuals with developmental disabilities: Barriers, supports, and strategies. In: Fox NA, Morgan GA, Fidler DJ, Daunhauer LA, Barrett KC (eds) Handbook of self-regulatory processes in development: new directions and international perspectives. Taylor and Francis, New York, pp 381–404Google Scholar
  10. Eastlack ME, Arvidson J, Snyder-Mackler L, Danoff JV, McGarvey CL (1991) Interrater reliability of videotaped observational gait-analysis assessments. Phys Ther 71:465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Félix IR, Castro LA, Rodríguez L-F, Ruíz EC (2016) Component-based model for on-device pre-processing in mobile phone sensing campaigns. In: García CR, Caballero-Gil P, Burmester M, Quesada-Arencibia A (eds) Ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence: 10th international conference, UCAmI 2016, Part I. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 201–206.
  12. Flynn V, Masur EF (2007) Characteristics of maternal verbal style: responsiveness and directiveness in two natural contexts. J Child Lang 34:519–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frenken T, Vester B, Brell M, Hein A (2011) aTUG: fully-automated timed up and go assessment using ambient sensor technologies. In: 5th International conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (PervasiveHealth 2011), Dublin. IEEE, pp 55–62Google Scholar
  14. Frenken T, Lohmann O, Frenken M, Steen E-E, Hein A (2014) Performing gait analysis within the timed up and go assessment test: comparison of aTUG to a marker-based tracking system. Inform Health Soc Care 39:232–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilmore L, Cuskelly M (2011) Observational assessment and maternal reports of motivation in children and adolescents with Down syndrome. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 116:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilmore L, Cuskelly M (2017) Associations of child and adolescent mastery motivation and self-regulation with adult outcomes: a longitudinal study of individuals with Down syndrome. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 122:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilmore L, Cuskelly M, Jobling A, Hayes A (2009) Maternal support for autonomy: relationships with persistence for children with Down syndrome and typically developing children. Res Dev Disabil 30:1023–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes M, Dote-Kwan J, Dolendo J (1999) Characteristics of maternal directiveness and responsiveness with young children with visual impairments. Child Care Health Dev 25:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joussemet M, Landry R, Koestner R (2008) A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Can Psychol 49:194–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitchner KS (1983) Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Hum Dev 26:222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lane ND, Miluzzo E, Lu H, Peebles D, Choudhury T, Campbell AT (2010) A survey of mobile phone sensing. IEEE Commun Mag 48:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madan A, Cebrian M, Lazer D, Pentland A (2010) Social sensing for epidemiological behavior change. In: Paper presented at the 12th ACM international conference on ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp 2010), Copenhagen, Sep 26–29Google Scholar
  23. Marfo K (1990) Maternal directiveness in interactions with mentally handicapped children: an analytical commentary. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 31:531–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maya-Zapata D, Félix IR, Castro LA, Rodríguez L-F, Domitsu M (2017) Couplable components for data processing in mobile sensing campaigns. In: Ochoa SF, Singh P, Bravo J (eds) Ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDougall D (1998) Research on self-management techniques used by students with disabilities in general education settings: a descriptive review. Remedial Spec Educ 19:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moorman EA, Pomerantz EM (2008) The role of mothers’ control in children’s mastery orientation: a time frame analysis. J Fam Psychol 22:734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morgan GA, Harmon RJ, Maslin-Cole CA (1990) Mastery motivation: definition and measurement. Early Educ Dev 1:318–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nutter F Jr, Gleason M, Jenco J, Christians N (1993) Assessing the accuracy, intra-rater repeatability, and inter-rater reliability of disease assessment systems. Phytopathology 83:806–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perez M, Castro LA, Favela J (2011) InCense: a research kit to facilitate behavioral data gathering from populations of mobile phone users. In: Paper presented at the 5th international symposium of ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence (UCAmI 2011), Riviera Maya, Dec 5–9Google Scholar
  30. Pintrich PR, Blazevski JL (2004) Applications of a model of goal orientation and self-regulated learning to individuals with learning problems. Int Rev Res Ment Retard 28:31–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramos-Monteon J, Castro LA, Rodriguez L-F, Banos O (2018) InCense IoT: a collective sensing system for behavior data in shared spaces. In: Paper presented at the 12th international conference on ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence (UCAmI 2018) Punta Cana (accepted) Google Scholar
  32. Roach MA, Barratt MS, Miller JF, Leavitt LA (1998) The structure of mother–child play: young children with Down syndrome and typically developing children. Dev Psychol 34:77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose-Krasnor L (1996) The relation of maternal directiveness and child attachment security to social competence in preschoolers. Int J Behav Dev 19:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan RM, Deci EL, Grolnick WS, La Guardia JG (2006) The significance of autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ (eds) Developmental psychopathology, vol 1, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  35. Sansour T (2016) Interactional style and subjective stress in mothers of young children with fragile X syndrome, Down’s syndrome or typical development. Eur J Spec Educ Res 1:100–119Google Scholar
  36. Spielholz P, Silverstein B, Morgan M, Checkoway H, Kaufman J (2001) Comparison of self-report, video observation and direct measurement methods for upper extremity musculoskeletal disorder physical risk factors. Ergonomics 44:588–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sterling A, Warren SF (2014) Maternal responsivity in mothers of young children with Down syndrome. Dev Neurorehabilitation 17:306–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Szymańska A (2015) Developmetric Report on Properties of Aggressive and Warm-hearted Directiveness Scale (DAiS-R) and its application for measurement of parental communication style. Studia Psychol 15:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ward MJ (2005) An historical perspective of self-determination in special education: accomplishments and challenges. Res Pract Pers Sev Disabil 30:108–112. Google Scholar
  40. Wehmeyer ML, Little LTD (2013) Self-determination. In: Wehmeyer ML (ed) The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 116–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie L, Antle AN, Motamedi N (2008) Are tangibles more fun? Comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Paper presented at the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, Bonn, Feb 18–21Google Scholar
  42. Zimmerman BJ (1990) Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: the emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educ Psychol Rev 2:173–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Computing and DesignSonora Institute of Technology (ITSON)Ciudad ObregonMexico
  2. 2.Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC)EnsenadaMexico

Personalised recommendations