A systematic review of disability awareness interventions for children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".