MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053719104 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.702850

A systematic review of disability awareness interventions for children and youth

2012· review· en· W2053719104 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionInclusion (mineral)PsychologyScopusIntervention (counseling)CurriculumRelevance (law)Clinical psychologyMEDLINEPsychiatrySocial psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Children’s lack of knowledge about disability can adversely impact their attitudes toward people with disabilities. The purpose of this study is to review the common elements of effective disability awareness interventions. Methods: A systematic review of disability awareness interventions for children and youth was conducted to assess the effective components of these interventions. Electronic searches were conducted using OVID, CENTRAL, PsychInfo, ERIC, Social Science Citation Index, GreyNET Scopus and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria included (i) an intervention raising awareness about disability, (ii) school-age children with the average age between 5–19 years old, (iii) at least one measurable outcome focusing on knowledge about disability or attitudes towards and/or acceptance of people with a disability and (iv) published article or grey literature. Results: Of the 1031 articles that were identified in the search, 42 met the criteria to be included in the review. We classified the disability awareness interventions into 5 broad types including (i) social contact, (ii) simulation, (iii) curriculum, (iv) multi-media curriculum and (v) multiple components. Thirty-four studies showed an improvement in attitudes towards and/or acceptance of peers with disabilities. Eight of these studies also demonstrated an improvement in knowledge of people with disabilities. Five of the interventions found no support for improving knowledge about, or acceptance of people with disabilities. Conclusion: Disability awareness interventions can successfully improve children’s knowledge about and attitudes towards peers with a disability; they should include several different components over multiple sessions. Relevance: These findings are being used to further develop disability awareness interventions to help improve the social inclusion and participation of children with disabilities within mainstream classrooms.Implications for RehabilitationWell-designed disability awareness interventions for children and youth can help improve knowledge about disability, attitudes towards people with a disability and acceptance of peers with a disability.Rehabilitation health care providers and educators should be trained to recognize when children with disabilities are being socially excluded and be prepared to provide or recommend appropriate resources and interventions on how to address this issue.Clinicians, educators and children with disabilities should all be involved in the development of disability awareness programs.Educators should carefully choose an appropriate intervention to meet the needs of the children in their class while considering age appropriateness and diversity of the students. It is also important for educators to be cognizant of the broader societal influences that impact attitudes towards disability.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it