MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394999544 · doi:10.61838/kman.jarac.5.5.10

Investigating The Effect of Excellent Parenting Program on The Behavioral Problems of Hearing Impaired Children

2023· article· en· W4394999544 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Aghaziarati, Mohammad Ashori, Ghasem Norouzi, Daniel P. Hallahan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Safety, and Science Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHearing impairedPsychologyAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This research was aimed at the effect of excellent parenting program on the behavioral problems of hearing impaired children. Materials and Methods: The present research method was quasi-experimental with a pre-test, post-test and follow-up design. The statistical population includes all parents of 4-6-year-old hearing-impaired children in Tehran in 2022, which was selected by simple random method among deaf and hard-of-hearing centers and associations. The number of samples in this study was 30 parents who were randomly assigned to two groups of 15 people, test and control. The experimental group was trained in 13 sessions of 90 minutes, 3 sessions a week; while for the control group, no special action was taken. After the training course, the parents of both groups were subjected to a post-test. The follow-up phase was also implemented after 45 days. The tools used were the child's abilities and behavioral problems questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). Findings: Data analysis was carried out using analysis of variance with repeated measurements and the results showed that excellent parenting program had a significant effect on the behavioral problems of hearing impaired children (p<0.05). Conclusion: Based on the findings, it can be concluded that excellent parenting program leads to reduction of behavioral problems of hearing impaired 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation, Safety, and Science StudiesFrench-language works237,207