ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Negotiating autonomy within the family: the experiences of young adults with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary In this study we asked six young people with intellectual disabilities what they thought about becoming independent in their families. One person wanted more independence within her family and sometimes this caused fights. Three people were happy with the independence they had in their families and did not want things to change. Two people, with the help and support of their families, were trying to be more independent. Families play an important part in young people becoming more independent. It was important for this group of young people for their families to understand and support their points of view. Summary There is a small but expanding literature about the transition to adulthood for young people with intellectual disabilities. However, voices of young people with intellectual disabilities are under‐represented. This study explored the perspectives of young people with intellectual disabilities on their transition to adulthood, focusing particularly on the process of negotiating autonomy within the family. This exploratory study employed a life history approach, involving six young people with mild intellectual disabilities, aged 18–25 years, and two waves of responsive interviews. First interviews explored participants’ life roles, relationships and goals. Second interviews focused on the process of negotiating autonomy within the family. Three approaches to negotiating autonomy within the family were identified: defiant, passive and proactive. The particular approach taken by each participant was associated with the level of congruence between their perceived and desired levels of autonomy and parental support. The study suggests that the transition to adulthood for young people with intellectual disabilities and their parents is not inevitably conflict‐ridden. Parents and professionals may support young people with intellectual disabilities through this life stage by including them in family and service decision‐making, and by supporting them to take on varied and valued roles and responsibilities within the family and community.
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 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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".