Empowerment in parents of school‐aged children with and without developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of the term 'empowerment' in clinical literature to describe both a desirable process and the outcome of service delivery, the term remains more of a theoretical than practical construct. This study examined the factors that contribute to empowerment in parents of school-aged children with and without developmental disabilities (DD) using the Double ABCX model of family adaptation contrasted with the linear ACBX model. METHODS: Parents of children with (n = 100, 97% mothers) and without (n = 100, 98% mothers) DD completed questionnaires relating to child behaviour problems, parent stress and well-being, and formal and informal support. Structural equation modelling was used RESULTS: Parents of children with DD reported more child behaviour problems, more stress, less well-being and more social support than parents of children without DD. Structural equation modelling supported the ACBX model for both groups. A linear relationship was found in which parent well-being and resources mediated the relationship between the stressor (child behaviour problems) and the outcome (empowerment). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study support Hastings and Taunt's assertion in 2002, in that empowerment was adequately explained using a traditional model of family functioning. The significant prediction offered by the parent's resources points to the need to deliver services in a manner that is more family-centred. In the education system, this means providing parents with clear messages regarding the schools goals, clarifying the parent's rights and responsibilities, including the parent in planning and decision making, respecting their knowledge as caregivers and supporting their hopes for their child.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".