Parenting a Child With a Cochlear Implant: A Critical Incident Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to describe and categorize the attributes that parents of young children with cochlear implants (CIs) consider as facilitating their parental coping experience. I interviewed 15 hearing mothers and 13 hearing fathers (including 12 married couples) whose children had CIs, using the critical incident technique that asked parents to describe significant incidents (observable behaviors, thoughts, feelings) that facilitated their parenting experience. A total of 430 critical incidents were documented and sorted into 20 categories. Further analyses supported the suggested categorical system's validity and reliability. Results indicated various sources of influence on parents' coping experience, associated with social contextual aspects (e.g., professionals' support, sharing experience with others, family's/friends' consistent involvement, intervention services), with the parent himself or herself (e.g., taking action, personal resources, incorporating deafness into daily life), and with the child (e.g., child characteristics, identifying progress and success). The current research substantiates the soundness of implementing early intervention models such as the developmental system model (Guralnick, 2001) and the support approach to early intervention (McWilliam & Scott, 2001), which coincide with ecological theory and recognize that families need various combinations of resources, social support, information, and services to help them address the stressors associated with parenting in general and parenting a child with special needs in particular.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".