Development of a family-centered intervention to support self-determination in adolescents and young adults with intellectual disability in home environments: Protocol for a multistage mixed methods design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews and observations with families of young children with disabilities to examine how the home environment influenced the strategies they used to support their children's self-determination.The authors identified several strategies used by these families, such as encouraging children to choose what they want to eat, creating spaces for play and interaction with others, supporting independent movement around the house, teaching goal achievement during play with toys, and providing opportunities for children to control their personal space and privacy [19,22].Another notable gap identified in Dean et al.'s [31] review was the scarcity of interventions focused on family support and self-determination, with only three studies reporting such interventions.The scarcity of interventions, specifically in Spain, was also highlighted in a previous study by Arellano and Peralta [18] that examined Spanish parents' attitudes towards young children with intellectual disability. Study purpose and research questionsThis paper reports the protocol for a multistage mixed methods study.In order to address the gaps in the body of research discussed above, the purpose of this mixed methods study is to determine how self-determination develops and is supported in home environments in adolescents and young adults with intellectual disability and a mild or moderate level of support, with the aim of developing an intervention to promote self-determination in these environments.The study is based on a family-centered approach, thus considering the family as a unit of intervention and as the key factor in implementing the study.This approach relies on collaboration between families and professionals to achieve the design of the intervention.We aim to answer the following research questions:Research question 1: How do families of adolescents and young adults with intellectual disability support the self-determination of these individuals in their home environments in Spain?Research question 2: What context-sensitive strategies and practical actions are identified by professionals, adolescents and young adults with intellectual disability, and their families as relevant and feasible to support the self-determination of adolescents and young adults with this disability in home environments in Spain?Research question 3: What are the main elements of a desirable context-sensitive intervention to support the self-determination of adolescents and young adults with intellectual disability in their home environments in Spain?Research question 4: What strategies should be used to implement this intervention?
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 | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".