Parenting style and locus of control, motivation, and school adaptation among students with borderline intellectual functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background</b><br /> Parenting style impacts children’s psychosocial development. Students with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) are especially sensitive to the quality of parental care. The objective of this study was to compare parenting styles of mothers of children with BIF and mothers of typically developing peers, and establish associations between parenting styles and children’s psychosocial traits, which determine their school functioning.<br /> <br /> <b>Participants and procedure</b><br /> Forty-two primary school students in Grades 4 to 6, their teachers, and mothers participated in the study. Based on their IQ level they comprised two groups: students with BIF (criterion group; n = 21) and students with average IQ (comparison group; n = 21). A series of measures were used to assess mothers’ parenting style and students’ psychosocial traits. Questionnaires measuring students’ psychosocial properties were administered to children and their teachers in order to compare their perspectives.<br /> <br /> <b>Results</b><br /> Mothers of children with BIF in comparison to mothers in the control group presented greater inclinations towards over-parenting. Based on self-reports, students with BIF did not differ from their typically developing classmates in terms of school motivation, anxiety, locus of control, or social adjustment, despite their lower academic performance. According to teachers, students with BIF had significantly lower school motivation and delayed socialization. For students with BIF but not for the comparison group, a negative correlation was found between mothers’ tendency to dominate over their child and students’ locus of control and school motivation.<br /> <br /> <b>Conclusions</b><br /> Children with BIF are especially sensitive to the quality of mothers’ parenting style, which can have an adverse effect on their school adjustment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".