Measuring family outcomes in parenting programs for children with neurodisabilities: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Parenting programs for families of children with neurodisabilities are recommended as standard care because they often target child behavior problems that are tied to both child and parent well-being. Despite the family environment being the context in which skills learned through parenting programs are implemented, study outcomes typically focus on child and parent factors without consistently examining the family unit.Aims To identify how family-level outcomes are measured in the context of parenting programs for families of children living with neurodisabilities and comorbid behavior problems.Methods Scoping review methodology was used to identify and synthesize evidence related to parenting programs for families of children living with neurodisabilities that included some measurement of family well-being.Results Included in this review were 29 studies of parenting programs that involved some measure of family well-being. The results highlight the diversity in which family-level outcomes and family characteristics are conceptualized. General family functioning was the most frequently measured construct, though several disability-specific family measures were also identified.Conclusions Future research on parenting programs should include family-level outcomes beyond child and parent well-being. Researchers are encouraged to contextualize results based on the underlying theoretical frameworks that help to explain the family-related construct being measured.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it