A systematic literature review of the physical and psychosocial correlates of Special Olympics participation among individuals with intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Special Olympics (SO) is commonly cited to play an important role in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). The purpose of the current review was to (a) synthesise key findings regarding the physical, psychological/emotional, social and/or intellectual/cognitive correlates of SO participation for individuals with ID and (b) highlight limitations in the extant research as well as directions for future research. METHOD: A systematic review of electronic databases was undertaken. A total of 46 articles were confirmed to meet study criteria. Quality assessments of included studies were conducted using checklists from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology checklists (SIGN 50; SIGN 2008). RESULTS: There was a larger amount of support for physical, psychological/emotional and social outcomes as compared with cognitive/intellectual outcomes; however, many studies were confounded by measurement difficulties, sampling procedures and a lack of replicable methods, which hinder generalisation of results. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for a continued critical focus on SO programme evaluation research with more rigorous and replicable methods.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".