A preliminary study of perceived stress in adults with intellectual disabilities according to self‐report and informant ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stress is a major risk factor for mental health problems in individuals with intellectual disabilities, however few studies on stress have been conducted that take into account the perspective of both the person with the disability and the caregiver. The present study evaluated an informant version of the Lifestress Inventory, and compared it to the self-report version. METHOD: Seventy individuals with intellectual disability paired with their caregivers completed the Lifestress Inventory, the Inventory of Negative Social Interactions and the Birleson Depression Scale. RESULTS: Informant and self-report ratings on the Lifestress Inventory were internally reliable, showed modest agreement with each other and correlated with the Negative Social Interactions and Depression measures. The most troublesome stressors reported by informants and self-reports differed, however, and families tended to agree more with self-reports than did staff informants. CONCLUSIONS: The informant version of the Lifestress Inventory is a suitable parallel instrument but not a replacement for self-reports.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".