Mothering with Intellectual Disabilities: Relationship Between Social Support, Health and Well‐Being, Parenting and Child Behaviour Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is a general agreement in the literature that no systematic correlation exists between parental intellectual disability per se and parenting performance. Yet, a few studies in the field of parents and parenting with intellectual disability have explored other potential determinants of parenting and child outcomes. In this study, we examined the relationship between maternal social support, psychological well‐being, parenting style, quality of the home environment and child problem behaviours. Materials and Methods The sample included 32 mothers recruited through agencies that offer services exclusively to persons with intellectual disabilities and their families, and each mother’s oldest child in the 2‐ to 13‐year age range. In a series of semi‐structured interviews, participating mothers completed a demographic and social support questionnaire, the SF‐36 (health measure), the Parenting Stress Index, the HOME Inventory and the Child Behavior Checklist. Parenting style was assessed using the Canadian National Longitudinal Study on Children and Youth parenting questionnaire. Results On an average, the participating mothers reported poorer physical and mental health compared with population norms. However, a few reported clinically significant levels of parenting stress. Overall, the target children did not have significant problem behaviours, but these were more common in older children. Main findings include a significant correlation between parenting stress, parenting style and perceived child problem behaviours. Conclusion Global assessment, including health status (mental and physical) and level of parenting stress, as well as everyday life and parenting skills is recommended as basis for designing individualized supports and services for mothers with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".