Validating the Construct of Coercion in Family Routines: Expanding the Unit of Analysis in Behavioral Assessment with Families of Children with Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted an observational study of parent-child interaction in home activity settings (routines) of families raising young children with developmental disabilities and problem behavior. Our aim was to empirically investigate the construct validity of coercion in typical but unsuccessful family routines. The long-term goal was to develop an expanded ecological unit of analysis that may contribute to sustainable behavioral family intervention. Ten children with autism and/or mental retardation and their families participated. Videotaped observations were conducted in typical but unsuccessful home routines. Parent-child interaction in routines was coded in real time and sequential analyses were conducted to test hypotheses about coercive processes. Following observation, families were interviewed about the social validity of the construct. Results confirmed the presence of statistically significant, attention-driven coercive processes in routines in which parents were occupied with non-child centered tasks. Results partially confirmed the presence of escape-driven coercive processes in routines in which parent demands are common. Additional analysis revealed an alternative pattern with greater magnitude. Family perspectives suggested the social validity of the construct. Results are discussed in terms of preliminary, partial evidence for coercive processes in routines of families of children with developmental disabilities. Implications for behavioral assessment and intervention design are discussed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".