Family Adjustment to Childhood Developmental Disability: A Measure of Parent Appraisal of Family Impacts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop the Family Impact of Childhood Disability Scale (FICD) to assess subjective interpretation or "primary appraisal" of parents regarding the impact of a child with developmental disabilities on the family. METHOD: A random sample of 87 families was assessed while children with developmental disabilities were in the preschool years. After 7 years had elapsed, 64 of these families were interviewed again when the children were in the preteen years. A set of standardized self-report measures provided mother and father views of child, parent, and family functioning. RESULTS: The FICD demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with some evidence of discriminant and predictive validity. The FICD total score, based on the discrepancy between positive and negative subscale scores, was found to be a significant predictor of future parenting stress of mothers and of fathers, even when controlling for other important explanatory variables such as marital adjustment and level of disability in a child. CONCLUSIONS: The 15-item FICD offers a brief assessment of both positive and negative parent appraisals, with a total discrepancy score that predicts long-term parenting stress.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it