MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753046238 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1370497

(Unpacking) father involvement in the context of childhood neurodisability research: a scoping review

2017· review· en· W2753046238 on OpenAlexafffund
Aline Bogossian, Gillian King, Lucyna Lach, Melissa Currie, David Nicholas, Ted McNeill, Michael Saini

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychologyFeelingDevelopmental psychologyEmpirical researchCognitionDistressQualitative researchSocial psychologyClinical psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.363
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207