Keeping It Together<sup>TM</sup>: an information KIT for parents of children and youth with special needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Provision and use of information about their children is a major concern to families who have a child with a disability. Strategies or systems to influence parents' abilities to receive, give and use information in a way that is satisfying to them have not been well validated. METHODS: This paper reports on the development and evaluation of a Parent Information KIT ('Keeping It Together') information management system and child advocacy tool. The KIT was designed to assist parents in giving, getting and organizing information in an effective way. The KIT was evaluated by a sample of 440 parents, with outcomes of use, utility, impact and perceptions of family-centred care measured at baseline, and after 6 months, and 15 months. RESULTS: Parents' perceptions of their ability, confidence and satisfaction when using information improved significantly after using the KIT. Parents' perceptions of care, as measured with the Measure of Processes of Care, also improved significantly in the areas of 'Enabling/Partnership' and 'Providing General Information'. Parents' ratings of the use and utility of the KIT were associated with increased impact and, in turn, predicted improved perceptions of care. CONCLUSION: Parents who received and actively used the Parent Information KIT experienced significant increases in their perception of their ability and self-confidence in getting, giving and using information to assist their child with a disability. Strategies for improving the use of the KIT among parents are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".