Accentuate the positive to mitigate the negative: Mother psychological coping resources and family adjustment in childhood disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mothers' cognitive appraisal of the family impact of childhood disability and their positive affect as a psychological coping resource, both key elements of the process model of stress and coping, were tested as explanatory variables of family adjustment. METHOD: In a sample of Canadian families, 195 mothers of children with intellectual and developmental disability completed telephone interviews. RESULTS: In regression modelling, 35% of the variance in family adjustment was explained by mothers' positive cognitive appraisal of family impacts of childhood disability and by their positivity (ratio of positive to negative affect). After controlling for positivity, negative cognitive appraisal of family impacts of childhood disability was non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Family adjustment to childhood disability is associated with elements of strength in mothers' psychological coping; namely, their ability to perceive positive family consequences of childhood disability and to maintain higher proportions of positive emotion in their daily activities. The findings of this study provide support for the broaden-and-build theory to explain the role of positivity in mothers' coping and adjustment to childhood disability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".