Acceptability and effects of acquiring an assistance or companion dog for families of children on the autism spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Assistance and companion dogs have numerous positive effects for family of autistic children, such as supporting their rehabilitation and improving their quality of life. To date, very few studies have compared the effects of both types of dogs. This comparison, considering the limited access to assistance dogs, could be helpful for families wanting to adopt a dog.Methods An explanatory sequential design with a mixed-method approach was used. First, 85 parents (nassistance dogs = 57; ncompanion dogs = 28) of children aged between 3 and 17 years old (M = 10.73, SD = 3.67) completed an online questionnaire including sociodemographic questions and the Treatment Acceptability Rating Form-Revised (TARF-R). Then, 17 of these participants (nassistance dogs = 14; ncompanion dogs = 3) completed a semi-structured interview.Results The quantitative data analyses showed that parents with assistance dogs were significantly more satisfied: t (83) = −2.12, p = .037, d = 0.49. Significant associations between some sociodemographic variables (e.g., number of children, comorbid condition, reasons for acquiring a dog) and acceptability/satisfaction (TARF-R total scores) were found. The qualitative analysis revealed that families with both dog types observed positive effects.Conclusions In brief, having an assistance dog constitutes a significant added value; nevertheless, both types of dogs are appreciated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".