A content analysis of caregiver perspectives on strengths and protective factors in youth with FASD and criminal legal system involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) experience complex challenges and may be at an increased risk of contact with the criminal legal system (CLS). However, youth and their families often have strengths and resources that can be leveraged to support positive outcomes. Research in both the FASD and the youth CLS literatures have been predominantly deficit-focused, research that includes strengths and protective factors presents a more balanced perspective and is being recognized as important for youth with FASD. As such, using a directed content analysis guided by the Values in Action (VIA) character strengths framework, the current study explored the perspectives of caregivers regarding strengths and protective factors present in their youth with FASD and CLS involvement. Caregivers reported on 32 independent youth (87.5% male), all of whom had confirmed or suspected FASD and had current or past involvement with the criminal legal system between the ages of 12 and 24. Caregivers mentioned individual-level strengths and protective factors most frequently, followed by relational/familial level factors and broader contextual level factors. Of the individual-level strengths mentioned, over three quarters (76.4%) fell within the VIA character strengths framework. Results suggest that strengths are present in this population across ecological system levels. Findings contribute to a shared understanding of factors that promote overall wellbeing for youth with FASD and CLS involvement from a caregiver perspective. Approaches promoting strengths use may be an advantageous, under-researched method for enhancing well-being in this population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".