The Implications of “Working Alliance” for the Measurement and Evaluation of Family-centered Practice in Childhood Disability Services
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-centered practice in childhood disability services has been found to be positively related to consumer satisfaction. This study explores the relationship between family-centered practice and parental satisfaction with services, while controlling for the quality of the relational dimension or “working alliance” between professionals and parents. Mothers of young children who were 4 years of age on average and with developmental and cognitive disabilities were surveyed in 103 Canadian families after they had been receiving community-based services for approximately 18 months. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that family-centered practice continued to be strongly related to positive consumer satisfaction with child disability services, even when the influence of working alliance was controlled. This finding was consistently found when 2 well-established measures of “family-centeredness” (Measure of Processes of Care-20 and Family Centered Behavior Scale) were independently utilized to evaluate the delivery of childhood disability services. Findings suggest that “working alliance” is a unique practice element that appears to operate in concert with family-centered methods in the achievement of positive consumer satisfaction when delivering family-centered childhood disability services.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it