Key Word Signing Usage in Residential and Day Care Programs for Adults With Intellectual Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Key word signing ( KWS ) is a means of augmentative and alternative communication frequently used with adults with intellectual disabilities ( ID ). Their acquisition of KWS has been described in the literature; however, little is known about the everyday KWS use among adults with ID and their support staff. This study aimed to give an account of the prevalence of KWS and the sign knowledge of adults with ID and their support staff in F lemish residential programs ( RP s) and day care programs ( DCP s). Communication specialists in all RP s and DCP s for adults with ID in F landers, the D utch‐speaking part of B elgium, were contacted by phone and were asked whether they used KWS , and if so, whether they were willing to fill out a questionnaire about the KWS use of support staff and clients. Findings show that of 347 RP s and DCP s in F landers, 85% met the inclusion criteria. Half (51.2%) of these programs used KWS . Of these 152 programs, 93 (61.2%) completed our questionnaire. A quarter (26.6%) of their adult clients with ID used KWS . Most of them knew 10–50 signs, whereas most support staff knew fewer than 10 signs. The presence of a speech and language therapist as well as sign knowledge and attitude of support staff were significantly related to the sign knowledge of their clients. Motivational problems for staff to use KWS were quite common. KWS support should be more widespread and more easily accessible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".