MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136345205 · doi:10.1177/0741932514533998

Efficacy of an Intervention to Enhance Reading Comprehension of Students With High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder

2014· article· en· W2136345205 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Roux, Éric Dion, Anne Barrette, Véronique Dupéré, Douglas Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueRemedial and Special Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading comprehensionPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Autism spectrum disorderVocabularyComprehensionHigh-functioning autismReading (process)Meaning (existential)AutismDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines whether explicit reading comprehension instruction is relevant for students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Forty-five students ( M age = 9 years) were randomly assigned to two conditions: control or intervention. Those assigned to the intervention condition received instruction on vocabulary, main idea identification, text structure, and anaphoric relations. Compared with their peers in the control condition, students in the intervention condition showed greater improvement on one measure of reading comprehension. They also knew the meaning of more words and were better able to identify main ideas and anaphoric relations, with some of these gains still being detectable at the follow-up. Although additional adaptations appear warranted, students with high-functioning ASD clearly benefited from instruction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemedial and Special EducationSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207