Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many clinicians, educators, and employers lack disability confidence which can affect their interactions with, and inclusion of people with disabilities. Our objective was to explore how disability confidence developed among youth who volunteered with children who have a disability. METHODS: We conducted 30 in-depth interviews (16 without a disability, 14 with disabilities), with youth aged 15-25. We analyzed our data using an interpretive, qualitative, thematic approach. RESULTS: We identified four main themes that led to the progression of disability confidence including: (1) "disability discomfort," referring to lacking knowledge about disability and experiencing unease around people with disabilities; (2) "reaching beyond comfort zone" where participants increased their understanding of disability and became sensitized to difference; (3) "broadened perspectives" where youth gained exposure to people with disabilities and challenged common misperceptions and stereotypes; and (4) "disability confidence" which includes having knowledge of people with disabilities, inclusive, and positive attitudes towards them. CONCLUSIONS: Volunteering is one way that can help to develop disability confidence. Youth with and without disabilities both reported a similar process of developing disability confidence; however, there were nuances between the two groups. Implications for Rehabilitation The development of disability confidence is important for enhancing the social inclusion of people with disabilities. Volunteering with people who have a disability, or a disability different from their own, can help to develop disability confidence which involves positive attitudes, empathy, and appropriate communication skills. Clinicians, educators, and employers should consider promoting working with disabled people through such avenues as volunteering or service learning to gain disability confidence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".