Methodological Trends in Secondary Education and Transition Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevailing policy and practice in the field of transition emphasizes the importance of designing services and supports based on research-based practices. We reviewed every article published across the 35-year history of Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals (CDTEI) to document methodological trends in research focused on equipping youth and young adults with disabilities for adulthood. Although experimental research articles have assumed increasing prominence within the journal since the late 1980s, the vast majority of published studies could be characterized as primarily descriptive in focus. While almost one quarter of research articles involved some type of intervention evaluation, only 25 studies reported using research designs that could allow causal claims to be made. The data collection approaches used in these studies were quite diverse, with self-report surveys and questionnaires representing the dominant approach. We summarize the current methodological legacy of CDTEI and offer some modest recommendations for where the field might go next in its efforts to conduct rigorous research that enables youth with disabilities to flourish.
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 | 0.652 | 0.747 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".