Parenting styles and dimensions in parents of children with developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting influences child development. There is limited research, however, related to parenting children who have developmental disabilities. The aims of this study were to: (1) describe the parenting styles and dimensions of parents of children with developmental disabilities and (2) assess differences in parenting styles and dimensions among parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Down syndrome (DS), and spina bifida (SB). Secondary data analysis was conducted from a nationwide cross-sectional study of 496 parents of children aged 5-16 years with ASD (n = 180), DS (n = 156), or SB (n = 160). Parent scores indicated high use of the authoritative parenting style and associated parenting dimensions, mid-to-low use of the permissive parenting style, and low use of the authoritarian parenting style and associated dimensions. Variation in parenting styles and dimensions among parents was primarily related to the child's diagnosis and family income. An unanticipated but positive finding was that parents with lower family incomes had significantly higher scores for the authoritative parenting style. Results from this study can inform future research that might inform clinical practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".