ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Negotiating autonomy within the family: the experiences of young adults with intellectual disabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Accessible summary In this study we asked six young people with intellectual disabilities what they thought about becoming independent in their families. One person wanted more independence within her family and sometimes this caused fights. Three people were happy with the independence they had in their families and did not want things to change. Two people, with the help and support of their families, were trying to be more independent. Families play an important part in young people becoming more independent. It was important for this group of young people for their families to understand and support their points of view. Summary There is a small but expanding literature about the transition to adulthood for young people with intellectual disabilities. However, voices of young people with intellectual disabilities are under‐represented. This study explored the perspectives of young people with intellectual disabilities on their transition to adulthood, focusing particularly on the process of negotiating autonomy within the family. This exploratory study employed a life history approach, involving six young people with mild intellectual disabilities, aged 18–25 years, and two waves of responsive interviews. First interviews explored participants’ life roles, relationships and goals. Second interviews focused on the process of negotiating autonomy within the family. Three approaches to negotiating autonomy within the family were identified: defiant, passive and proactive. The particular approach taken by each participant was associated with the level of congruence between their perceived and desired levels of autonomy and parental support. The study suggests that the transition to adulthood for young people with intellectual disabilities and their parents is not inevitably conflict‐ridden. Parents and professionals may support young people with intellectual disabilities through this life stage by including them in family and service decision‐making, and by supporting them to take on varied and valued roles and responsibilities within the family and community.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».