Parenting Styles and Peer Influence as Correlates of Expressive Language Skills among Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: It is more difficult for children with limited communication to understand the intentions of others and to communicate their own needs, feelings, and ideas because of their impaired expressive language skills. Objectives: This study investigated parenting styles and the peer-influence as correlates of expressive language skills in children with autism spectrum disorders. Methods: Convenient sampling was used to select 30 (male = 22; female = 8; age range 6 – 14 years old) children with an autism spectrum disorder. The instruments used for data collection were tagged Parenting Style Questionnaire, Peer Influence Questionnaire, and Expressive Language Skills Scale. The internal consistency of the Parenting Style Questionnaire, Peer Influence Questionnaire, and Expressive Language Skills Scale were Cronbach's > 0.70, 0.64, and 0.63, respectively. The scale suitability for participants was determined, and it yielded a Cronbach's α of 0.79. Results: The findings revealed that the different parenting styles, such as authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful, had a positive relationship with expressive language skills of children with autism spectrum disorder, but the relation was not significant. Moreover, peer influence positively correlated with respondents’ language skills, but it was not significant. Conclusions: Based on the findings, it can be conclusively stated that regardless of parenting styles used, there was a positive relationship between respondents’ language skills, but the relationship was not significant. Therefore, further studies must be conducted to determine factors that are likely to contribute significantly to the language skills of children with an autism spectrum disorder.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".