Parental Perceptions of the Education of Children with Pervasive Developmental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents of 69 children (59 male, 10 female, ranging in age from 4 to 19) with pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) were surveyed about their perceptions of, and their satisfaction with the education their children were receiving. The survey examined parental perceptions related to their children's classroom environment and education team, and whether perceptions were affected depending on the children's communication ability, class placement, age, and whether there was more than one child with PDD in the family. Kruskall-Wallis and Mann Whitney U statistics of the total scores found no significant differences across educational settings, but did find significant differences between verbal and nonverbal children, and number of children with PDD in the family on classroom environment and education team items, and for age on education team items only. Parents of nonverbal children rated the items more highly, as did parents of the youngest age group and parents of more than one child with PDD, indicating either a more positive perception or greater satisfaction with the educational system. Results were also examined in terms of how parents felt their children were progressing, their satisfaction with their child's current placement, and if they felt their children were learning useful life skills. Of 49 parents identifying needs for services or programs for their children, 14 (28.6%) identified more autism-specific education and training for school personnel working with their children as a key need. Implications for inservice training regarding the nature of PDD, home-school collaboration, and educational inclusion are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".