Clinical Outcomes as a Function of Target Selection Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchLanguage1 Apr 2003Clinical Outcomes as a Function of Target Selection StrategyA Response to Morrisette and Gierut Susan Rvachew, andPhD Michele Nowak Susan Rvachew Contact author: Susan Rvachew, PhD, 1266 Pine Avenue West, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montréal, Québec H3G1A8, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada Google Scholar More articles by this author and Michele Nowak Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/031) SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Creaghead, N. A., Newman, P. W., & Secord, W. A. (1989). Assessment and remediation of articulatory and phonological disorders (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar Gierut, J. A., Elbert, M., & Dinnsen, D. A. (1987). A functional analysis of phonological knowledge and generalization learning in misarticulating children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 462–479. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Gierut, J. A., Morrisette, M. L., Hughes, M. T., & Rowland, S. (1996). Phonological treatment efficacy and developmental norms.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 215–230. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Morrisette, M. L., & Gierut, J. A. (2003). Unified treatment recommendations: A response to Rvachew and Nowak (2001).Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 382–385. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Rvachew, S., & Nowak, M. (2001). The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 610–623. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology24:4 (637-658)1 Nov 2015A Randomized Trial of 12-Week Interventions for the Treatment of Developmental Phonological Disorder in Francophone ChildrenSusan Rvachew and Françoise Brosseau-Lapré (2015) A Practical Update Children's Speech Sound Disorders10.1002/9781119180418.part127 Aug 2015 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools42:2 (102-139)1 Apr 2011Evidence-Based Practice for Children With Speech Sound Disorders: Part 1 Narrative ReviewElise Baker and Sharynne McLeod (2011) Références Traitements du Langage Oral Chez L'enfant10.1016/B978-2-294-71450-4.00011-9 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology19:1 (34-50)1 Feb 2010Clinical Implications of Dynamic Systems Theory for Phonological DevelopmentSusan Rvachew and Barbara May BernhardtAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology17:3 (277-298)1 Aug 2008Principles of Motor Learning in Treatment of Motor Speech DisordersEdwin Maas, Donald A. Robin, Shannon N. Austermann Hula, Skott E. Freedman, Gabriele Wulf, Kirrie J. Ballard and Richard A. Schmidt Advances in Speech Language Pathology8:3 (207-219)1 Jan 2006Applications of learnability theory to clinical phonologyMichele L. Morrisette, Ashley W. Farris and Judith A. Gierut Child Language Teaching and Therapy20:3 (199-219)1 Oct 2004The ICF: a framework for setting goals for children with speech impairmentSharynne McLeod and Ken Bleile Volume 46Issue 2April 2003Pages: 386-389 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library HistoryReceived: Jul 27, 2002Accepted: Dec 17, 2002 Published in issue: Apr 1, 2003 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsKeywordstarget selection strategyphonological interventionphonological disorderstreatment efficacyCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2003 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".