Development and evaluation of <scp>T</scp>he <scp>KIT</scp>: <scp>K</scp>eeping <scp>I</scp>t <scp>T</scp>ogether<scp>™</scp> <i>for</i> <scp><i>Y</i></scp><i>outh</i> (the ‘<scp>Y</scp>outh <scp>KIT</scp>’) to assist youth with disabilities in managing information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article presents findings from the development and evaluation of The KIT: Keeping It Together™ for Youth (the 'Youth KIT'). The Youth KIT is a resource intended to assist youth with disabilities during their teenage years and during the transition to adulthood to give information to others about themselves, get from others about themselves, and organize their own information to the best of their ability. METHODS: Thirty-six youth between the ages of 12 and 25 with physical and developmental disabilities were active participants in the development of the Youth KIT and partnered with a multidisciplinary team to conduct the qualitative evaluation. Focus groups and individual interviews were used in three phases of evaluation. RESULTS: The results of qualitative content analysis found the Youth KIT to be useful for a variety of youth in different contexts. The themes that emerged about the utility and impact of the Youth KIT were: (1) self-discovery for youth; and (2) the importance of the 'fit' between youth and mentors to support youth as they started to use the Youth KIT. CONCLUSION: Clinical implications for healthcare providers working with youth during the transition to adulthood include recognition that discussions about adult goals should be a continuous dialogue throughout adolescence rather than a 'special' conversation occurring at the time of discharge from paediatric 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".