Congregational Participation and Supports for Children and Adults with Disabilities: Parent Perceptions
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
Although religion and spirituality have received relatively limited attention in the literature addressing people with disabilities, each is strongly associated with a host of positive outcomes, including enhanced quality of life. One way to participate in religious activities and enhance spirituality is to participate in a faith community. In this article, we report findings from a survey of 416 parents exploring the ways in which they and their children with disabilities participated in their congregations and examining factors associated with participation and inclusion in those communities. Consistent with findings from general social surveys, the majority of parents indicated their faith was important to them and many-along with their sons or daughters with disabilities-participated in congregational activities. Although parents reported their sons and daughters with disabilities participated in somewhat fewer types of activities than they did, this involvement occurred most often in activities involving peers without disabilities. However, parents generally were not satisfied with the level of supports provided by faith communities, and they highly valued a welcoming and supportive attitude by the community. We discuss implications for extending inclusive efforts into congregational contexts and suggest future research directions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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