An access technology delivery protocol for children with severe and multiple disabilities: A case demonstration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study applied response efficiency theory to create the Access Technology Delivery Protocol (ATDP), a child and family-centred collaborative approach to the implementation of access technologies. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, mixed methods case study to demonstrate the ATDP method with a 12-year-old boy with no reliable means of access to an external device. Evaluations of response efficiency, satisfaction, goal attainment, technology use and participation were made after 8 and 16 weeks of training with a custom smile-based access technology. RESULTS: At the 16 week mark, the new access technology offered better response quality; teacher satisfaction was high; average technology usage was 3-4 times per week for up to 1 h each time; switch sensitivity and specificity reached 78% and 64%, respectively, and participation scores increased by 38%. CONCLUSION: This case supports further development and testing of the ATDP with additional children with multiple or severe disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".