Capacity-Building Program for Parents of Children with SEN: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
Purpose: This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Strategies and Skill Learning and Development of Parent Capacity-Building Program in improving the parenting capacity of Chinese parents of children with special educational needs. Method: A total of 109 parents (mean age = 38.60 years old) were randomized into either an intervention or waitlist control group using block randomization. Results: The intervention group experienced significant improvements in parenting stress and parenting style when compared to the control group. The pooled analyses indicated that parents exhibited significant improvements in all outcome measures from pre- to post-intervention, and these improvements were sustained or further enhanced at the two-month follow-up. Moreover, the qualitative data further validated the program’s effectiveness, with participants reporting increased self-efficacy and decreased parental stress because of their participation. Discussion: This study highlights the potential of incorporating in vivo practice in parenting programs to empower parents to translate their knowledge into practice.
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 | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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