Parenting children with neurodevelopmental disorders and/or behaviour problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenting behaviours influence child well-being and development. However, much of the research on parenting behaviours and their correlates has focused on caregivers of healthy, typically developing children. Relatively less is known about the parenting behaviours of caregivers of children with chronic health conditions. OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare three parenting behaviours (positive interactions, consistency and ineffective parenting) among caregivers of children with neurodevelopmental disorders and/or externalizing behaviour problems, before and after accounting for child and family socio-demographic characteristics. METHODS: Participants (n= 14 226) were drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, a long-term study of Canadian children that follows their development and well-being from birth to early adulthood. Children (and their caregivers) were divided into four groups according to the presence of a neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD; n= 815), the presence of an externalizing behaviour problem (EBP; n= 1322), the presence of both conditions (BOTH; n= 452) or neither of these conditions (NEITHER; n= 11 376). RESULTS: Caregivers of children in the NEITHER group reported significantly higher positive interaction scores and lower ineffective parenting behaviours than caregivers of children in any of the other three groups. Caregivers of children in the EBP and BOTH groups reported similar levels of consistency, but significantly lower levels than caregivers of NDD or NEITHER children. These associations largely remained after accounting for child and family socio-demographic characteristics, with two exceptions: caregivers' reports of positive interactions were no longer significantly associated with child's NDD and BOTH conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Parenting children with multiple health conditions can be associated with less positive, less consistent and more ineffective parenting behaviours. Understanding the factors that are associated with the challenges of caring for these children may require additional research attention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".