Relationship Focused Intervention (RFI): Enhancing the Role of Parents in Children's Developmental Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".