Examining everyday functioning in family-centred services for children with neurodevelopmental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) refer to conditions that can be present during a child’s early developmental period, and are typically characterized by challenges in a child’s personal, social, academic, or occupational functioning. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is an example of NDD, impacting 1 in 66 children in Canada. While interventions vary across this heterogeneous group of impairments, everyday functioning is an important outcome to families. However, this concept of functioning needs further examination with respect to whether and how it is incorporated within the instruments and concepts used in family-centred services (FCS), and how this is understood by parents. This thesis is composed of two studies: a narrative review identifying function-focused measures published in the literature for children with NDD; and a qualitative study examining how parents of children with ASD perceive their child’s abilities in relation to family-centred services. Fourteen clinical measures were described in the review based on how they utilized the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) to describe child functioning. In the qualitative study, five themes (Parenting Approaches, Accepting My Child, Managing Child’s Challenges, Doing the Right Thing for My Child, and “The Disability Tag”) were identified as influential factors that can affect how parents perceive their child’s abilities and functioning. As the cultural shift within interventions for children with NDD continue to move beyond the historically prominent deficit-focused lens, and towards the integration of neurodiverse abilities, this study enables us to understand better how concepts of function-focused care are operationalized in family-centred services and intervention systems.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".