Preliminary Evaluation of the Step‐by‐Step Parenting Program for Expectant Parents With Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the Step-by-Step Parenting Program (SBSPP) to prepare expectant parents with intellectual disabilities to care for their newborns. METHOD: Two expectant parents with intellectual disabilities were seen once or twice weekly in their homes for about 2 h over 16 and 20 weeks (21 and 27 sessions), respectively. The key measure was percentage correct scores on parenting skill checklists with an infant simulator (IS) and eventually the newborn. Newborn-care skills trained were sponge bath, dressing, ear and nose care, and treating cradle cap. SBSPP-IS training consisted of instructions, prompting, modelling, and feedback. Multiple baselines across skills and participant designs were used. RESULTS: Trained skills increased and transferred to the newborns. Both parents have maintained custody of their infants for over 1 year. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that prenatal parent training may help expectant parents with intellectual disabilities to properly care for their newborns.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".