Reconceptualizing the Family to Improve Inclusion in Childhood Disability Research and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health recognizes that environmental factors impact well-being and life participation for children with disabilities. A primary environment in which children grow and learn is the family. The importance of family has long been recognized in family-centered practice and family-centered research. Although family-centered services and research have been critically explored, the concept of family has received less critical attention in rehabilitation literature. The family construct is due for an updated conceptualization with careful consideration of the implications for childhood disability rehabilitation practice and research. Interrogating the family construct asks questions such as: who is included as a part of the family? Which family structures are prioritized and valued? What is the potential harm when some families are ignored or underrepresented in childhood disability practice and research? What implications could a modern rethinking of the concept of family have on the future of childhood rehabilitation practice and research? This perspective article raises these critical questions from the authors' perspectives as parents of children with disabilities, child focused rehabilitation professionals, and researchers that focus on service delivery in children's rehabilitation and family engagement in research. A critical reflection is presented, focused on how the construct of family affects children's rehabilitation practice and research, integrating concepts of equity, inclusion and human rights. Practical suggestions for children's rehabilitation service providers and researchers are provided to aid in inclusive practices, critical reflection, and advocacy.
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 | 0.140 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".