Outcomes and predictors in preschoolers with speech-language and/or developmental mobility impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to describe communicative-participation outcomes measured by the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS © ; Thomas-Stonell et al., 2013) for interventions provided by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in different community settings for preschoolers with speech-language impairments (Sp/LI) with and without developmental mobility impairments (MI). The predictive relationships between communicative-participation and (1) functioning-and-disability, and (2) contextual factors, was also investigated. Sixty-one preschoolers with Sp/LI and their parents participated. Twenty-six preschoolers were identified with Sp/LI and received speech-language interventions (Group 1), 20 preschoolers were identified with Sp/LI and MI and received speech-language interventions (Group 2), and 15 preschoolers with Sp/LI awaiting intervention served as waitlist controls (Group 3). Parents completed structured interviews about children’s communicative-participation outcomes using the FOCUS © at three time points (pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 3-months post-intervention) with an SLP. Only Groups 1 and 2 experienced statistically and clinically meaningful communicative-participation outcomes over time as measured by the FOCUS © . Pre- to post-intervention communicative-participation was predicted by functioning-and-disability and contextual factors, initial social skills and intervention status, respectively. Post-intervention to 3-month post-intervention scores were also predicted by functioning-and-disability and contextual factors, risk status (Sp/LI only, Sp/LI+developmental MI) and intervention status, respectively. Significant and clinically meaningful changes in communicative-participation over time are associated with speech-language interventions for preschoolers with Sp/LI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".