An integrated methods study of the experiences of youth with severe disabilities in leisure activity settings: the importance of belonging, fun, and control and choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to examine the leisure activity setting experiences of two groups of youth with severe disabilities - those with complex continuing care (CCC) needs and those who have little functional speech and communicate using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). METHOD: Twelve youth took part in a mixed methods study, in which their experiences were ascertained using qualitative methods (observations, photo elicitation and interviews) and the measure of Self-Reported Experiences of Activity Settings (SEAS). Data integration occurred using a "following a thread" technique and case-by-case analysis. RESULTS: The analysis revealed several highly valued aspects of leisure activity setting experiences for youth, including engagement with others, enjoying the moment, and control and choice in selection and participation in activity settings. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide preliminary insights into the nature of optimal activity settings for youth with severe disabilities, and the mediators of these experiences. Compared to other youth, the data illustrate both the commonalities of experiences and differences in the ways in which these experiences are attained. Implications for research concern the utility of mixed methods approaches in understanding the complex nature of participation experiences. Implications for clinical practice concern the importance of not assuming the nature of youths' experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".