Self-Efficacy and Alexithymia as Moderators between Perceived Social Support and Stress among Parents of Children with Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to examine Self-Efficacy and Alexithymia as moderators between perceived social support and Stress among parents of children with Learning Disabilities. The convenience sample of the study consisted of 98 parents of children with Learning Disabilities from Ahwaz (Iran). This descriptive correlational study was conducted in 2014-15. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GCE), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) were completed by parents. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine the moderating role of Self-Efficacy and Alexithymia. The results revealed that Self-Efficacy and Alexithymia were moderators in the relationship between Perceived social support and Stress. The findings supported the hypothesis that higher levels of self-efficacy (see: Figure 1) would be associated with lower levels of Stress, and that lower levels of Alexithymia (see: Figure 2) would be associated with lower levels of Stress.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".