Parenting with a physical disability: A scoping review of assessment methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Daily childcare can be challenging for parents with a physical disability who have young children. Occupational therapists are valuable facilitators to family participation. However, occupational therapists have reported significant gaps in knowledge when documenting the parenting role of parents with a physical disability in occupational therapy practice. This study explored and described the parenting assessment methods used with parents with a physical disability in the scientific literature. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, and search results were reviewed by two separate reviewers. The search strategy was applied to five databases (Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, HaPI, PsycInfo). Numerical and thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Four thousand one hundred fifty articles were screened, and 73 relevant scientific articles were included. Seventy-six assessment methods were identified, including 20 assessment instruments with few reported population-specific psychometric studies. Most assessments were conducted via interviews (n = 45), followed by questionnaires (n = 27), and only six were performance based. Parenting practices and experience were the two dimensions most assessed, with little attention given to parenting responsibility. Mothers with multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, rheumatoid arthritis, and cerebral palsy were the most assessed. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to develop specific, multidimensional, and validated parenting assessments for all parents with a physical disability, including performance-based assessments. Formal assessments should be conducted by professionals, including occupational therapists, who have the necessary training.
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 | 0.036 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".