Understanding Parent Perceptions of Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis and Intervention Services Through A Culturally Responsive Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the process of obtaining an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis for a child can involve several challenges for parents (Keenan, Dillenburger, Doherty, Byrne, & Gallagher, 2010), this process may be even more complex for immigrant parents (Begeer, El Bouk, Boussaid, Terwogt, & Koot, 2009; Jegatheesan, Fowler, & Miller, 2010). This qualitative study utilized an eco-cultural framework (Super & Harkness, 1986) to explore the experiences of eight immigrant families during their process of obtaining a diagnosis and services for their children with ASD. Each family participated in two in-depth, semi-structured interviews (45-90 minutes) with many open-ended questions to permit parents to recount their story of obtaining the ASD diagnosis and services for their children. Using open and axial coding, the data were analyzed inductively and deductively to reveal various themes related to the diagnosis, treatment services, relationships with professionals, and future expectations for their children. Given that Montreal is such a highly multicultural metropolis (Statistics Canada, 2007), it is important that professionals recognize how parental beliefs about the ASD diagnosis could shape their treatment decisions and adherence (Dale, Jahoda, & Knott, 2006). Data from this qualitative study support the importance of adopting a culturally responsive practice when working with families by considering families’ perceptions and the core meaning of their experiences (Harry, 2002). That is, a culturally responsive practice helps to ensure that parents are given a voice, permits professionals to understand how parent perceptions may be formed, and allows for professionals to revisit any relevant problems that may interfere with parents’ negotiation of services.
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 | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".