Revised Conceptual Framework of Parent-to-Parent Support for Parents of Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: A Modified Delphi Study
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
BACKGROUND: A scoping review of the literature was conducted, resulting in the development of a conceptual framework of parent-to-parent support for parents with children who are Deaf or hard of hearing. This is the 2nd stage of a dual-stage scoping review. PURPOSE: This study sought stakeholder opinion and feedback with an aim to achieve consensus on the constructs, components, and design of the initial conceptual framework. RESEARCH DESIGN: A modified electronic Delphi study was completed with 21 handpicked experts from 7 countries who have experience in provision, research, or experience in the area of parent-to-parent support. Participants completed an online questionnaire using an 11-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) and open-ended questions to answer various questions related to the descriptor terms, definitions, constructs, components, and overall design of the framework. RESULTS: Participant responses led to the revision of the original conceptual framework. CONCLUSION: The findings from this dual-stage scoping review and electronic Delphi study provide a conceptual framework that defines the vital contribution of parents in Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programs that will be a useful addition to these 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it