The Impact of Childhood Hearing Loss on the Family: Mothers’ and Fathers’ Stress and Coping Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting children who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) presents unique long-term challenges that can place the parents at a greater risk for elevated levels of parenting stress. Adaptation of families to the various challenges presented by childhood hearing loss is influenced by their personal and social coping resources available for managing these stressors and challenges. The current study examined differences in parenting stress and personal (i.e., acceptance of the child who is D/HH and parents' sense of parenting self-efficacy) and social (i.e., formal and informal social support) coping resources between mothers and fathers of children who are D/HH in the Arab sector in Israel. Further, the study examined the relations between coping resources and parenting stress among these parents. Participants included 30 Israeli Arab mother-father couples (n = 60) having a child who is D/HH aged 3-8 years. Findings revealed no significant differences between mothers and fathers regarding parenting stress, child acceptance, or parental support systems. However, mothers reported significantly higher self-efficacy. In addition, correlation analysis indicated that higher coping resources decreased parenting stress levels. Theoretical and practical implications of parental gender in the context of cultural background are discussed regarding parent intervention programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".