Family quality of life among families with a member who has an intellectual disability: an exploratory examination of key domains and dimensions of the revised FQOL Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Family Quality of Life Survey (FQOLS-2006) was developed as the result of increased interest in family quality of life (FQOL) among families with a member who has an intellectual disability (ID). The instrument includes nine life domains and six dimensions reflecting the main areas and characteristics of FQOL. The aim of the current study was to provide a descriptive analysis of the domains and dimensions of the survey and to explore their relationship to one another and to global satisfaction. METHOD: A convenience sample of 35 participants with a family member who had ID completed the FQOLS-2006 in a large urban centre in Canada. The data were analysed using descriptive analyses. RESULTS: The findings showed that although participants differentiated between different domains and dimensions, as reflected in their variability, stability was also found. For example, support from others was rated lowest across most dimensions, while family relationships and health of the family were generally rated higher. CONCLUSIONS: The findings strengthen the importance of examining both the overall perception of FQOL as well as the perceptions in individual life domains. Moreover, they highlight the need to examine each life domain according to its various dimensions. In sum, the results call for further examination of the FQOLS-2006 as a useful tool for assessing FQOL and for implementing services based on it.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it