Stress in Parents of Adults with Intellectual Disabilities Attending Special Olympics Competitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It is important to determine how programmes serving the individual with intellectual disability may also help to reduce stress in parents of adult children with intellectual disabilities. The aim of this study was to test whether parents who frequently watch their children at Special Olympics (SO) competitions report less stress than those who watch with less frequency. Methods A total of 57 mothers and 39 fathers completed the Parenting Stress Index in reference to their children with intellectual disability, whose ages ranged from 17 to 42.3 years. Frequency of parental attendance at competition and volunteering for SO was also assessed. Results Parents who frequently attended their children's competitions reported less stress than those who attended with less frequency. Mothers who volunteer, reported more child‐related stress than those who did not. A number of other gender‐specific relations were found. Conclusions These results support the hypothesis that parents who frequently see their children compete in SO have a more positive parent–child experience than those who do not attend with the same frequency. Experimental research, with controlled pre–post designs, is needed to directly assess any causal effect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".