A Peer-guided Exercise Program For Youth With Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth with intellectual disabilities (ID) do not engage in sufficient physical activity and, in turn, have lower fitness levels and higher body fat than their peers. This group faces unique barriers to physical activity participation due to cognitive, social, motor and behavioral limitations. Peer support is an important determinant of physical activity among adolescents and may be one strategy to address barriers encountered by youth with ID. Although peer modeling and peer-tutoring have been associated with positive physical activity outcomes in youth with ID, additional research is needed to determine if peer mediated interventions are effective. PURPOSE: To investigate the extent to which youth with and without ID adhered to a peer-guided exercise program, and to determine if participation enhanced health-related fitness. METHOD: Twenty adolescents with mild ID were paired with a trained partner (i.e. nondisabled adolescent) to exercise 2 days/week for 1 hour over 15 weeks. Each pair provided reciprocal support during structured, individualized exercise sessions led by certified fitness trainers. The intervention was implemented at two YMCA fitness centers and daily sessions included 20 min each of aerobic exercise, weight training, and core strengthening activities. RESULTS: Attendance and adherence to the program was high and no adolescents with ID dropped out of the study. All youth successfully engaged in the planned exercises, although a greater proportion of the aerobic and core activities were completed compared to the weight training. Repeated measures ANOVA with Group (Participant or Partner) as a factor revealed there was significant improvement in modified curl-ups F(1,32) = 11.45, p =.002, h2 =.263 and 6-minute walk distance F(1,32) = 43.087, p <.001, h2 =.574. There was no change in grip strength F(1,32) =.760, p =.390, h2 =.023; sit and reach F(1,30) = 2.148, p =.153, h2 =.067; or BMI F(1,32) = 4.133, p =.050, h2 =.114. In addition, there were no significant Group x Fitness variable interactions (p >.05). CONCLUSION: This peer-guided model integrates social and instructional support for adolescents with ID and was effective for engaging our sample in exercise. The findings are encouraging for health promotion in an underserved population of youth. The project was funded by the Medical Foundation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".