The Psychosocial Effects of Having a Sibling with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Siblings play an important role in one another’s overall development; thus, the sibling relationship is an important subsystem within the family unit. However, in families where one child has an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, the dynamics between siblings may be different than in families with typically developing children due to the associated deficits in communication. Therefore, this mixed-method study examined the perceptions of six typically developing children regarding their relationship with a sibling with autism. Parents were heterosexual couples, and families were white and mostly middle class. Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires regarding the sibling relationship were administered to the typically developing child. Identification of major themes followed by focused coding was conducted to capture the essence of what was said and to categorize the most frequent themes. Overall, typically developing children highlighted both positive and negative features of their relationships, for example play, feeling proud, embarrassment, and anger. Additionally, children seemed to be at a loss for coping strategies they considered helpful, perhaps due to their own poor and/or developing emotional regulation skills. The findings emphasize the need to support typically developing children and their personal and social development.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".