A Meta-Analysis of the Social Competence of Children with Learning Disabilities Compared to Classmates of Low and Average to High Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis synthesized research since 1990 pertaining to the social competence of children with learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Comparisons with average- to high-achieving classmates resulted in medium to large effect sizes for teachers' perceptions of social competence, peer preference ratings, positive peer nominations, global self-worth, and self-perceptions of scholastic performance. A second set of comparisons with children designated as low in academic achievement yielded moderate effect sizes for teachers' perceptions of social competence and for peer social preference ratings. Small effect sizes were obtained for global self-worth and self-perceptions of scholastic performance. It was concluded that (a) children with learning disabilities and children designated as low in academic achievement are at a greater risk for social difficulties than are average- to high-achieving children, and (b) children with learning disabilities and their low-achieving classmates do not appear to have accurate self-perceptions of social acceptance.
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 | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".