Having a Sibling with ASD: Perspectives of Siblings and Their Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall purpose of this research was to explore the experiences of families living with a child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This paper reports the experiences of siblings of children with ASD, from the perspective of both siblings and parents. Using a phenomenological case study design, participants completed face sheets to provide context for one-on-one, semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed verbatim, and verified via member checks. Van Manen's (1990) selective approach was used for data analysis. Siblings and parents described that the children with ASD made their siblings the targets of their aggression, and siblings spent less time with parents the children with ASD required more attention. It was also acknowledged that the siblings were more mature as a result of having a sibling with ASD. Families acknowledged that the relationship between children with ASD and their siblings would not differ if their children did not have ASD. This work highlights the importance of examining the family as a unit to provide a multifaceted perspective of how having a child with ASD affects their siblings.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".