MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111464214 · doi:10.20489/intjecse.27930

Relationship Focused Intervention (RFI): Enhancing the Role of Parents in Children's Developmental Intervention

2014· article· en· W2111464214 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald Mahoney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyArgument (complex analysis)Child developmentFunction (biology)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes Relationship Focused Intervention (RFI) which attempts to promote the development of young children with developmental delays and disabilities by encouraging parents to engage in highly responsive interactions during daily routines with their children. This approach to intervention is based upon the Parenting Model of child development and was derived from research on parent-child interaction. Evidence is presented that RFI can be effective both at helping parents to learn how to interact more responsively with their children as well as at promoting children's development and social emotional function. The argument is made, that although there is no research comparing the effectiveness of RFI to interventions derived from the Educational model of child development which places less emphasis on parent involvement and stresses direct instructional activities, still the effectiveness of all interventions appears to be related to the degree to which parents are involved in and become more responsive with their children. As such RFI may not simple be an alternative model for early intervention, but may reflect a paradigm shift pointing to the effectiveness of parent involvement and responsive interaction as key elements of early intervention practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207