How Does a Learning Disability Affect Parent Experience and Advocacy Following Their Child’s Psychoeducational Feedback Meeting?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Psychoeducational feedback meetings involve the dissemination of assessment results from the psychologist who completed the assessment to relevant stakeholders, including parents, school staff, or other practitioners. These meetings are vital, not only from an ethical perspective, but also in their potential for enhancing a parent’s understanding of their child and enriching parent-school collaboration. Parents with a learning disability (LD) have unique learning needs given their potential difficulties with processing and comprehension, which clinicians must consider when presenting assessment information. Despite the importance of feedback meetings and the important role of parents participating in and implementing relevant information obtained from these meetings, no current literature exists pertaining to parents participating in feedback meetings who have been diagnosed with an LD. It is crucial to study this group to ensure that psychologists can deliver assessment results in a well-informed manner that considers the unique needs of parents with an LD. This qualitative case study examines the lived experiences of four parents who have been diagnosed with an LD and participated in a feedback meeting following their child’s psychoeducational assessment. The aim was to understand what methods, supports, or accommodations may help parents with an LD better understand assessment results, and which factors may impact their ability to advocate for their children following the meeting. Findings indicate that parents with LDs experienced a range of emotions connected to the feedback meeting, with an overall sense that the feedback meeting was highly validating. Though they generally understood the results of their child’s assessment, most parents indicated that they would prefer certain instruments and processes to be utilized during the meeting to help with processing and comprehension. Though some participants had negative historical experiences as students, all parents felt supported by the school team involved in their child’s care and confident in their ability to advocate for their child. This study highlights the importance of practitioners considering parents’ individual learning and emotional needs to ensure that appropriate accommodations are utilized and that there is a connection with the school staff.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».