Parents' Most Salient Beliefs About Parental Support of Physical Activity In Children With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on data from similar groups with low PA levels, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) may be useful in the study of relationships between parental support (PS), it determinants, and the PA of children with cerebral palsy (CP). As a first step in such an investigation, an elicitation study is advantageous because the source of the information about salient beliefs is the parents, rather than the researcher. This could lead to a better understanding of PS determinants and eventually to new PA interventions for children with CP. PURPOSE: To determine, for parents of children with CP, their most salient behavioral, normative (sources of social pressure), and control beliefs about their behavior which supports their child's PA. METHODS: Ten parents of an ambulatory child with CP, 6-12 years old, answered 12 open-ended questions concerning behavioral, normative and control beliefs. To determine which beliefs were most salient, two researchers independently analyzed response content, labeled themes, and listed them in order of frequency. To adequately cover beliefs, 75% of reported beliefs were included. RESULTS: Saturation of responses was achieved with 10 participants. Twelve behavioral beliefs emerged. The most frequently cited of the 8 PS advantages was "improving the child's endurance" (80%). The most frequently cited of the 4 disadvantages were "increasing the child's fatigue" and "decreasing the child's self-esteem" (40%). Seven normative beliefs emerged. The most frequently cited of the 6 individuals or groups who approved of PS was the child's physical therapist (90%). One group, the extended family, disapproved (30%). Nine control beliefs emerged. Of the 3 PS facilitators, "having an appropriate place for PA" was most frequently cited (90%). Of the 6 PS obstacles, the most frequently cited was "the cost of appropriate PA programs" (50%). CONCLUSION: Parents have positive and negative attitudes towards PS, perceive that most people and individuals approve of PS, and perceive more barriers than facilitators to PS. The results of this study are presently being used to develop structured items for a TPB questionnaire. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire items will be assessed in the next phase of this project. Supported by FQRSC Grant 2010-NP-131870.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".