Exploring parenting factors as possible predictors and moderators of mothers' cognitive appraisals of the family impact of raising their child with a neurodisability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families raising a child with a neurodisability face challenges in various areas of their lives due to caregiving demands. When compared to typically-developing children of the same age, children with a neurodisability have multiple needs related to their functional and behavioural challenges. Many parents are nonetheless able to appraise the positive impact of raising their child along with the negative impact. The construct of cognitive appraisal of the family impact of childhood disability refers to parents' subjective interpretation of this phenomenon and serves as the main construct of interest in this study. Given the presence of difficult behaviour and health complexity in children with a neurodisability, whether factors related to mothers' experience of their parenting, such as their parenting behaviours and attributions, could affect their cognitive appraisals of the family impact were assessed. The overall aim of the present study was to learn about the experiences of families with a child with a neurodisability and to gather new knowledge to develop improved intervention for improving family outcomes. The specific research questions were to investigate whether parenting factors were predictive of, and moderated mothers' formation of positive and negative cognitive appraisals of the family impact of caring for their child with a neurodisability. The first set of hypotheses addressed whether certain child (i.e., difficult behaviour and health complexity) and parenting (i.e., parenting behaviours and parent attributions) characteristics predicted the outcome variables, mothers' positive and negative cognitive appraisals of the family impact of child neurodisability. The second set of hypotheses addressed whether the relationship between the child's difficult behaviour and mothers' cognitive appraisals changed (i.e., was moderated) depending on the parenting factors (i.e., parenting behaviours and parent attributions). For example, did the relationship between the child's difficult behaviour and mothers' negative cognitive appraisals change depending on their level of hostile/ineffective parenting behaviour? This study was conducted as a secondary data analysis of the CIHR funded Parenting Matters! study dataset. The sample consisted of 196 Canadian mothers with a child with a neurodisability age 4 to 12 years old, and were recruited from major health centers in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. The first set of hypotheses were analyzed using two hierarchical multiple regressions, and the second set, via a moderation analysis. The variance in positive cognitive appraisal was predicted by three variables and the relationships were inverse; household income, child's age at diagnosis, and parent attribution of adult control over failure. Child health complexity predicted negative cognitive appraisal and the relationship was direct. None of the parenting behaviour variables nor parenting attribution variables moderated the relationship between the child's difficult behaviour and mothers' negative or positive cognitive appraisals. The findings have increased the knowledge of the factors that contribute to the cognitive appraisal of the family impact of raising a child with a neurodisability. The discussion is focused on explaining the results within a family context, and the implications for families raising a child with a neurodisability.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".