Parenting styles in caregivers of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and effects of service dogs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have parenting styles that differ from parents of typically developing children. Integration of a service dog (SD) at home has been demonstrated as having multiple effects within families of children with ASD. Our aims were to investigate if (a) specific parenting styles can be identified during parents’ interactions with their child with ASD using ethological methods, and (b) integration of a SD have an effect on these styles. Methods Behavioural coding was performed on videos recorded at home by 20 parents of 6-12-years old children with ASD before SD integration. Parents were asked to record themselves and their child while making a puzzle. 14 parents performed a second similar recording 3-6 months after SD integration. Data were analysed using Principal Component Analysis, Hierarchical Cluster Analysis and non-parametric tests. Results Three parenting styles emerged: Parents Involved in the Task (PIT), Parents Relaxed in the Interaction (PRI), and Parents Disengaged from the Interaction (PDI). PIT were characterised as more controlling and verbally focused on the activity. PRI were less controlling and talk about things other than the activity. The same applied to PDI, except that they were less warm in their interactions. Analysis performed after SD integration revealed that these groups also diverged in the evolution of certain behaviours. Conclusion This study is the first to demonstrate that behavioural observations can highlight different parenting styles in caregivers of children with ASD, and that the integration of a SD has effects on these styles, with variation according to parents’ style prior to SD integration. Indeed, a decrease in activity control behaviours was observed in parents with an initial profile characterise by higher expression of such behaviours (i.e., PIT), while an increase of those behaviours was observed in parents initially with an initial profile characterise by a weaker expression of such behaviours (i.e., PRI). Interestingly, the last profile characterized by less engagement in the interaction and activity (i.e., PDI) did not seem to show significant changes.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».