Engagement in community life: perspectives of youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities on families’ roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The main objectives of this study were to learn from youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities about the ways their families were involved in their engagement in community life and to capture how they felt about such involvement.Method: The current study is a secondary analysis of a larger study, the Voices of Youths Research Project, framed by inclusive research methods. Thirty-eight semi-structured interviews that discussed perspectives on friendship, social inclusion, and quality of life from 20 participants (ages 13 to 24 years) were included in this paper. All interviews were video-recorded and coded using NVivo 10. Thematic analysis of the coded segments was guided by a constructivist grounded theory approach.Results: Three major themes emerged from the experiences of youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities on family involvement in their social and community engagement: (1) complex of supports and influences, (2) community engagement with and through family, and (3) points of tension.Conclusions: These thematic findings offer insights into the lived experiences of youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities about engagement in community life. These findings provide an understanding, outside of conventional schemas, of transition into young adulthood for these youths.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRehabilitation professionals often work with youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities who face barriers to reaching transition goals identified either by themselves or others.Family members’ views that may focus on goals of maximizing functional independence and/or decreasing caregiver demands can often overshadow the goals or views of youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities themselves.Rehabilitation professionals should find ways to explore with youth their family’s roles in engagement and belonging in community life so that they can link youths to appropriate community resources and plan optimal interventions/programs.Rehabilitation professionals need to be aware of and respond to points of tension that can emerge between youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their family during transition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".