Strategies for Inclusion in Play among Children with Physical Disabilities in Childcare Centers: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this integrative review was to examine strategies that facilitate inclusion in play among children with physical disabilities in childcare centers. Nine databases were systematically searched for peer reviewed empirical studies investigating inclusion strategies for play in childcare settings among preschoolers with physical disabilities. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were appraised using the McMaster Critical Review Forms. The inclusion approaches identified were grouped into relevant strategies during analysis. Two main strategies were identified: role of the adult facilitator and environmental factors. substrategies within the role of the adult facilitator included: customize approach for specific child's needs; adult facilitator self-awareness of presence; prompting and praise; and promote fairness, equity, and play interaction. Substrategies within the environmental factors included: physical setting; type of toys; and type of play activity. The findings suggest play inclusion strategies in the childcare environment. Therapists are encouraged to apply inclusion strategies to improve play opportunities for children with disabilities, but future research is necessary to confirm the effectiveness of these strategies using higher quality study designs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".