Sibling Relationships in Families of Autistic and Typical Children: Similarities and Differences in the Perspectives of Siblings and Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates mothers' and siblings' perspectives regarding similarities and differences in siblingships with and without autism. Twenty-nine typical children (M age = 8.78 years, SD = 2.05) whose younger siblings have a diagnosis of autism and their mothers constituted the ‘autism group.’ Forty-six typical children (M age = 9.12 years, SD = 2.06) with younger typical siblings and their mothers constituted the ‘typical group’. Children and mothers completed the Sibling Relationship Questionnaires and were interviewed. Children's reports illustrated similarities in sibling relationships across groups, with no between-group differences in overall warmth, conflict, rivalry, or relative power in the sibling relationship. Mothers of autistic children reported their children to have less warmth and closeness (F (1,72) = 5.63, p = .02, η2 = .073) and less conflict (F (1,72) = 6.66, p = .012, η 2 = .085) with their siblings than mothers of typical children. More disagreement was found between mothers and children in the autism group than in the typical group. Mothers and children reported less intimacy and less quarreling between the siblings in the autism group than in the typical group. The qualitative analysis suggests that siblings focused on the present experience, while mothers also referred to processes in the sibling relationship. Interviewees in the autism group referred to various specificities in the siblingships without explicitly using the term “autism”. The findings highlight a typical-like experience for siblings of autistic children. At the same time, mothers' perspectives emphasize differences and challenges in siblingships, reporting a pattern of decreased involvement. It is important to consider both perspectives in research and clinical work with families of autistic children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".