Expertise in research-informed clinical decision making: Working effectively with families of children with little or no functional speech
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we consider what is known about how to work effectively with families of children with disabilities, including those with little or no functional speech. Existing evidence about what families want from services is considered, along with information about how expert therapists practice. Our review indicates the importance of understanding family needs, preferences, and priorities, and of being sensitive to the demands of interventions on family life. The augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) literature is linked to the broader literature, confirming what is known about how to work effectively with families and illuminating the contribution of AAC research to this area of knowledge. In general, the AAC literature highlights the importance of the parent-practitioner relationship, of parental involvement and engagement in the intervention process, and of considering the demands that interventions place on families. We conclude that AAC intervention will benefit from continuing therapist efforts to strengthen the client–practitioner relationship through greater situational understanding and appreciation of family perspectives and life circumstances. Therapists’ efforts should also focus on customizing intervention strategies in order to optimize clients’ sense of control, meaningfulness, and engagement.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it