Dating and romantic relationships of adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescents with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) are at high risk for sexual exploitation, yet there is a paucity of research on their romantic relationships. The objectives of this study were to examine the romantic understanding and experiences of youth with IDD. METHODS: Thirty-one adolescents (16-19 years; 21 males and 10 females) with IDD (12 participants with additional diagnosis of ASD) were recruited from a community health clinic. Individual interviews and questionnaires assessed cross-sectionally these youths': (1) romantic conceptualizations; (2) romantic awareness (knowledge of: romantic relationships, sexual behaviours, initiating relationships); (3) involvement; (4) social competence; and (5) expectations for autonomy. Parent perspectives on these topics were also captured through questionnaires. RESULTS: While 85% reported an immediate desire for a romantic relationship, only 35% were currently in a relationship. Qualitative findings indicated that 14% of youth were unable to differentiate between a romantic relationship and a friendship. Among those who could make this distinction, romantic relationships were conceptualized as serious, commitment for life, and primarily for companionship. Adolescents with ASD, compared to those without ASD, showed weaker social competence and lower romantic awareness. Parents were adolescents' primary source of information about relationships. Finally, parents and adolescents differed in their perception of the age at which they were ready to date. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to our understanding of the romantic experiences of youth with IDD. Prevention efforts focused on education may be important to help ensure these youth develop safe and healthy relationships.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".