MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementation of a manualized communication intervention for school‐aged children with pragmatic and social communication needs in a randomized controlled trial: the Social Communication Intervention Project

2012· article· en· W1497041683 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenNuffield Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionFidelityRandomized controlled trialPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)Augmentative and alternative communicationInterpersonal communicationChecklistMedical educationMedicineComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Speech-language interventions are often complex in nature, involving multiple observations, variable outcomes and individualization in treatment delivery. The accepted procedure associated with randomized controlled trials (RCT) of such complex interventions is to develop and implement a manual of intervention in order that reliable treatment delivery can be achieved. AIMS: To present the rationale, structure and content of an intensive manualized intervention as implemented within an RCT for children with complex pragmatic and social communication needs; to investigate factors associated with implementation in a mainstream school environment; and to determine treatment fidelity. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The manualized SCIP intervention, including procedures for developing individualized treatment plans, was developed and then implemented within an RCT with 57 school-aged children with complex pragmatic communication needs (CwPLI). The paper describes the delivery protocol, staffing requirements, and content and structure of the intervention. A mapping procedure for individualization of intervention and the implemented components of intervention are presented. The findings from a school-therapy alliance checklist for recording factors affecting implementation in a school context are also reported. Treatment fidelity was carried out using measures of delivered versus planned treatment content and quality of therapy. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The manual was effective at detailing intervention procedures and allowing for development of individualized treatment plans whilst maintaining satisfactory treatment fidelity. Treatment planning and delivery required continuous specialist speech and language therapist input with assistants needing substantive training and supervision. Key components of intervention for CwPLI were therapies aimed at improving conversation skills, narrative construction, comprehension monitoring, understanding of social cues and metapragmatic awareness. The school-therapy alliance checklist indicated high rates of therapist-education staff and therapist-parent liaison. Parents were nearly always involved in treatment planning though only half-attended therapy sessions. Learning support provision in schools for participating children was highly variable. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Predetermining theoretical background, structure, and content in a treatment manual contributed towards the quality and reliability of intervention within the context of an RCT. The implementation of SCIP intervention in a broader clinical context is discussed with reference to staff expertise, the therapeutic process and the essential ingredients of social communication intervention.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it