Choosing a measure of support need: implications for research and policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The paradigm surrounding the delivery of care for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) is shifting from a deficit-based approach to a support-based approach. However, it is unclear whether measures of support act as a proxy for adaptive functioning. METHODS: A sample of 40 staff or family members of individuals with ID completed the Supports Intensity Scale and the Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised, Short Form. Correlations were used to examine the relationship between these scales. RESULTS: The subscales of the Supports Intensity Scale as well as the overall support needs index were highly correlated with both the Broad Independence W score and the support score (which reflects both maladaptive and adaptive behaviours) of the Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised. CONCLUSIONS: The strong correlations between these two scales confirm previous findings that current measures of support and measures of adaptive behaviour tap into the same underlying construct. These findings have implications for the development, use and interpretation of research and planning tools.
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 | 0.016 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".