A metacognitive training pilot study for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: Lessons learned from the preliminary stages of intervention development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cognitive differences, including deficits in self-awareness, are common in high-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and represent a fruitful target for intervention. The current project presents the preliminary research undertaken in the development of metacognitive training (MCT), an intervention designed to increase knowledge about personal strengths and challenges in adolescents with ASD.Method Two groups of 4 adolescents with ASD completed MCT, as well as measures to assess satisfaction and adverse effects. Visual inspection and thematic analysis were used to interpret the data.Results Overall, both participants and their parents rated MCT favourably; the youth most enjoyed the interactive activities, whereas parents appreciated the opportunity for socialising and psychoeducation. There were no systematic changes on quantitative measures of adverse effects (i.e. self-esteem or depression).Conclusion Although the results suggest further investigation of MCT may be warranted, certain modifications to the MCT protocol and research methodology are needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it