Parental Differential Treatment in Families with a Child with a Developmental Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using distributive justice theory as a framework, the purpose of the present mixed methods study was to determine whether parental differential treatment was present and if so, to what degree, in families of children with a developmental disability. Moreover, if present, we examined to what extent parental differential treatment impacted family dynamics. One bilingual (i.e., French-English) family and eight French-speaking families, which were all middle-class families, participated. Mothers, fathers, and siblings who are typically developing were individually questioned during semi-structured interviews and completed the Sibling Inventory of Differential Experiences—Revised questionnaire. Children also completed the Perceived Fairness of Parental Differential Treatment measure. All quantitative data generated by the questionnaires were analyzed descriptively using the SPSS program, whereas interviews were coded using qualitative methods. Specifically, in vivo and axial-thematic coding of the interview data revealed that, according to both parents and children, the degree of parental differential treatment varied across families of children with developmental disabilities; yet, differential treatment was often justified and perceived as necessary by parents and children. These findings provided an overview of struggles and blissful moments that families of children with developmental disabilities may encounter on a daily basis. Implications for practitioners and policy are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.001 |
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".