Understanding the sibling experience: an in-depth mixed-method study of siblings of disabled children in Albania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis conducts an extensive examination of the psychological well-being, emotional experiences, and sibling dynamics among typically developing children aged 7 to 12 who have a sibling with a disability, situated within the cultural milieu of Albania. Anchored in Family Systems Theory, Attachment Theory, Ecological Systems Theory, and Family Stress and Coping Theory, the research employs a mixed-methods methodology to investigate both risk factors and adaptive strengths inherent in this demographic. The quantitative component engaged 39 children who completed a series of standardized psychological assessments: the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, the STAI-C (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children), the TAS-20 (Toronto Alexithymia Scale), the RSE (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), and the SRQ (Sibling Relationship Questionnaire). The results indicated alarmingly elevated levels of anxiety (83.8%), significant instances of alexithymia (45%), and a spectrum of self-esteem ranging from low to moderate, alongside ambivalent patterns in sibling relationships characterized by both intimacy and perceptions of inequity. The qualitative segment, consisting of focus groups and in-depth interviews, elucidated five predominant themes: emotional burden, psychological struggles, emotional ambiguity and regulation, identity formation, and the quality of sibling relationships. Emotional suppression, parentification, and feelings of invisibility were recurrently articulated, though numerous participants also conveyed experiences of heightened empathy and emotional maturation. This investigation underscores the imperative for culturally attuned, family-centered support systems and offers novel insights into sibling resilience within the framework of disability. The findings aspire to inform forthcoming psychological, educational, and policy-oriented interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".