Program factors influencing parents’ engagement in a friendship-making intervention for youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to examine parents' experiences of engagement in a friendship-making intervention for youth with physical and developmental disabilities. METHOD: This mixed methods study used a convergent parallel design where quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed independently, and then merged into an overall interpretation. Four parents completed the Pediatric Rehabilitation Intervention Measure of Engagement-Parent version at four points during the 8-week program. They also took part in post-intervention interviews about their engagement-related experiences, including their involvement, interest, and confidence in the parent sessions. RESULTS: Parents' engagement experiences were captured in four themes involving the person-intervention fit: the relevance of program content, the usefulness of the content, their behavioral involvement in planning and group discussions, and seeing youth experience success. The themes corroborated the quantitative measurement of engagement and illustrated and elaborated on how program factors influenced engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the value of including a parent component in a youth friendship-making intervention, and points to the importance of considering relevance, usefulness, behavioral involvement, and success in designing these sessions. The four themes reflect important program factors that may be broadly relevant to the design of group-based interventions for parents of youth with disabilities.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe findings indicate the value of including a parent component in youth interventions.Parents are engaged when they feel programs are relevant and useful, are behaviorally involved, and see youth experience success-these factors should be considered in optimal program design.It is important to optimize parent engagement by personalizing content, such as by providing choices and options to increase relevance and decrease burden.Transparent communication about program content and the benefits experienced by other parents will help new parents be more fully informed about what to expect.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".