(Unpacking) father involvement in the context of childhood neurodisability research: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past thirty years, theoretical and empirical scholarship on father involvement has emerged and firmly established itself. Efforts to define, measure, and explore outcomes related to father involvement in the context of childhood neurodisability are evident but less well established. The purpose of this study was to systematically map empirical studies on father involvement in the context of childhood neurodisability in order to delineate the current state of research and to highlight profitable directions for future research. METHODS: A rigorous scoping review method was used to select and analyze empirical studies published between the years 1988 and 2016 in order to systematically map research findings about fathers' affective, behavioral, and cognitive involvement. RESULTS: Fifty-four (n = 54) studies (quantitative n = 47 and qualitative n = 7) met inclusion criteria associated with three levels of review. Four main trends emerged: (a) paternal "stress" is a main concept of interest; (b) comparison of mothers and fathers on affective and cognitive involvement; (c) lack of a focus on fathers' behavioral involvement, and (d) the absence of research designs that allow for examination of fathers' unique perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Fathers are generally underrepresented in research in the context of childhood neurodisability. While there is a lack of depth in this area of research, granular analyses revealed important and unique differences about fathers' parenting experiences. Recommendations for research and practice are provided. Implications for rehabilitation Fathers are underrepresented in the parenting in childhood neurodisability literature. Fathers who report feeling competent in parenting and connected to their child also report less parenting distress and more satisfaction in their couple relationship and family environment. Rehabilitation and allied health professionals should include fathers in parenting/family assessments. Manifestation of distress may differ among family members. Rehabilitation and allied health professionals should offer individualized care that is attuned to the needs of all family members.
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 | 0.020 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".