Parent-child interaction and early pragmatic, auditory and linguistic abilities in deaf children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the Parent-Child Interaction (PCI) in prelingually deaf children with hearing aids and cochlear implants; to evaluate correlations between PCI, parental stress and family participation in the intervention programme, as well as between PCI and auditory and spoken language abilities. Methods: Twenty children (12 males, 8 females; mean age 21.8 ± 4.2 months) received a test battery including Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP), Social Conversational Skills Rating Scale for Assertiveness (SCS-A) and for Responsiveness (SCS-R), MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (M-BCDI). PCI was assessed by video analysis, while parental stress and family participation were assessed with the Parenting Stress Index Short Form questionnaire (PSI) and Familiar Involvement Rate Scale (FIRS), respectively. Results: PCI style was "tutorial" in 15%, "modulated control" in 40%, "directive" in 20% and "asynchronous" in 25% of cases. A significant correlation was found between PCI and FIRS score, between PCI and CAP score, and between PCI and SCS-A rating scale score. Conclusions: Assessment of PCI in deaf children is important because it relates to family participation in the intervention programme and affects the development of auditory and pragmatic abilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".