Self-concepts and socioemotional functioning of children with Mild Intellectual Disability (MID) and parents' attributions for their children's academic struggles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the academic self-concepts and socioemotional functioning of children with Mild Intellectual Disability (MID; IQs of 70-85) and also explored how parents interpret and respond to these children's academic difficulties. Previous research has shown that children with MID are likely to underachieve academically (e.g., Karande et al., 2008). Frequent experiences of academic difficulty may relate to the development of negative academic self-perceptions, especially amongst children with MID attending full-time regular education classes who are forced to compare themselves to higher achieving peers, as well as socioemotional dysfunction. Moreover, because children with MID may lack a formal cognitive diagnosis, their parents may often be unaware of their intellectual limitations. Unaware parents may erroneously attribute academic difficulties to motivational factors and subsequently respond with more negative/ less positive parenting behaviours. Misattributions may be particularly common amongst lower functioning parents with problem-solving difficulties. Study hypotheses were addressed through administration of child self-concept/socioemotional functioning and parent attribution/behaviour measures to a convenience sample of 96 school-aged children (ages 6-13) and their parents with estimated Full Scale IQs (IQ) broadly falling in the MID range or higher. Analyses revealed a positive relationship between child IQ and academic self-concept that was not moderated by full-time regular classroom placement. Moreover, an inverse relationship was uncovered between receipt of special education services and academic self-concept, suggesting the need for sensitive delivery of academic interventions to children with MID in the regular classroom. Socioemotionally, children with MID demonstrated higher levels of externalizing and overall dysfunction than did children with higher IQs. While low child IQ did not predict the tendency for parents to attribute instances of academic difficulty to motivational factors, it did inversely predict parents' degree of cognitive stimulation on a challenging academic task; these findings suggested that parents may often be aware of the cognitive limitations of their children with MID. Finally, lower functioning parents of children with MID evidenced a somewhat uninvolved style of parenting when interacting with their children on a difficult academic task, thus highlighting the need for interventions aimed at optimizing parents' contributions to the academic/psychosocial development of children with MID.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".