MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097484062 · doi:10.1177/1362361313483595

The association between parental interaction style and children’s joint engagement in families with toddlers with autism

2013· article· en· W2097484062 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephanie Patterson, Lauren Elder, Amanda C. Gulsrud, Connie Kasari

Bibliographic record

VenueAutism · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAutism Speaks
KeywordsPsychologyAutismDevelopmental psychologyJoint attentionToddlerAssociation (psychology)Social relationStyle (visual arts)Autism spectrum disorderSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study examines the relationship between parental interaction style (responsive vs directive) and child-initiated joint engagement within caregiver-child interactions with toddlers diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. METHOD: Videotaped interactions of 85 toddler-caregiver dyads were coded for child engagement and both parental responsiveness and directiveness. RESULTS: Altogether, children spent less than one-third of the interaction jointly engaged. After controlling for child characteristics, parental style was associated with the initiator (child or parent) of joint engagement. Specifically, responsiveness predicted total time in child-initiated joint engagement, while directiveness predicted total time in parent-initiated joint engagement. Children's social behaviours were associated with child-initiated joint engagement. DISCUSSION: Social initiations are a key target for children with autism spectrum disorders. Results demonstrate that child initiations and global social behaviour ratings are associated with parental responsivity. Responsivity may be a critical factor to facilitate children's initiations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutismSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207