Parents’ Knowledge, Perception, and Attitudes Towards Speech and Language Therapy Services of Individuals with Cerebral Palsy: A Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between parental knowledge, perception, and attitudes toward speech and language therapy for children with cerebral palsy. The study adopted a descriptive research design of correlational type. Purposive sampling was used to identify fifty parents of individuals with cerebral palsy as respondents in the Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria. Self-structured questionnaires on parental knowledge, perception, and attitudes toward speech and language therapy were used for data collection from the respondents. The findings revealed that parents had moderate knowledge about speech and language therapy, with varying levels of perception and attitudes toward speech and language therapy. The study's limitations include the small sample size, sampling bias, self-reported data, and limited geographic scope. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the study's findings. Despite these constraints, this research provides valuable insights into the complexities of parental perspectives on speech and language therapy for children with cerebral palsy. It highlights the need for further exploration in this area. Future research should address these limitations to understand parental experiences and perspectives in diverse contexts comprehensively.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".