Enhancing classroom participation of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have been found to participate less in school-based activities. PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a combined in-service and collaborative consultation intervention model for enhancing classroom participation of students with IDD. METHOD: The Collaborative Consultation for Participation of Students With IDD (Co-PID) program involved a multidisciplinary team (an occupational therapist and 17 teachers) as well as 35 students and was compared to an in-service program (20 teachers and 34 students). Students were 8 to 20 years old. The programs aimed to enhance three classroom participation components: communicating, choosing, and initiating. FINDINGS: The Co-PID was found to significantly improve students' participation in all areas, whereas the participation of the students in the in-service group decreased. IMPLICATIONS: A school-based multidisciplinary intervention program for students with IDD, combining in-service and collaborative consultation (e.g., Co-PID), may assist in enhancing classroom participation among students with IDD.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".