Evaluation of an Abuse Prevention Education Program for Adults with Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract\nAn evaluation of an abuse protection education program was conducted for adults with developmental disabilities who receive supports and services from two Community Living Ontario agencies. Abuse education is mandated within the province of Ontario but few empirically evaluated curricula exist to help organizations provide effective education for this vulnerable population. A sample of 61 adults with varying degrees of cognitive ability were randomly assigned to one of three groups: control; information-only educational lessons; and an expanded program providing additional lessons on decision-making and behavioural skills thought necessary to prevent, recognize and report abuse. This program has been developed to be easy to use, inexpensive, comprehensive, engaging and sensitive to the potential for re-traumatization for participants with an abuse history.\nResults indicated that regardless of treatment group assignment, people with higher cognitive abilities performed better on all test instruments at pretest and posttest as compared to people with lower cognitive abilities and that women generally performed better than men. In regards to treatment impact there was limited statistically significant evidence but substantial anecdotal evidence to indicate that participants who received the entire curriculum demonstrated improvements in abuse protection knowledge and skill acquisition at posttest. However, the gains made eroded within 5 weeks of education. Similar results were seen in a naturalistic case study group of 13 adults with higher cognitive abilities. Previous research suggests that if programs such as this one were delivered over longer periods of time and included regular ‘booster’ lessons, statistically significant findings could be more robust. Access to reliable and valid instruments to measure abuse protection knowledge and skills remains a limitation for accurate evaluation of programs such as this one. The results have implications for agencies in Ontario who are required by legislation to provide abuse awareness for adults with developmental disabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".