Comparison of Cognitive and Emotional Deficiencies Between Parents of Children with Special Needs and Parents of Typically Developing Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Parenting a child with special needs poses unique challenges that can significantly impact the cognitive and emotional well-being of parents. This study aims to compare cognitive and emotional deficiencies between parents of children with special needs and parents of typically developing children to understand the extent of these challenges and inform targeted interventions. Methodology: This descriptive, causal-comparative study included 120 parents, divided into two groups: 60 parents of children with special needs and 60 parents of typically developing children, all from Kashan, Iran. Participants completed the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). Data analysis involved descriptive statistics and inferential statistics using ANOVA to compare cognitive and emotional deficiencies between the groups. Findings: The study found that parents of children with special needs had significantly higher levels of cognitive deficiencies, including distraction, memory-related problems, inadvertent errors, and failure to recall names, compared to parents of typically developing children. Additionally, these parents exhibited greater emotional deficiencies, such as difficulty identifying and describing feelings and externally oriented thinking. Conclusion: Parents of children with special needs experience substantial cognitive and emotional challenges, likely due to the increased caregiving demands and chronic stress. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions, such as emotional regulation training and enhanced social support, to improve the well-being of these parents and their ability to care for their children effectively.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".