Using wordless books to support clinical consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Based on a literature and practice review, the purpose of this paper is to examine the theoretical and clinical basis for using wordless books with patients who have intellectual disabilities (ID) and/or autism. Design/methodology/approach A literature review identified seminal peer-reviewed English language articles relating to the neuroscience of information and emotion processing for adults with ID and/or autism. In addition to published examples, illustrative case examples were contributed by clinicians regularly using wordless books. Findings Many people, including those with ID, selectively attend to visual information. Minimising the cognitive load by using wordless pictorial narrative reduces anxiety, and empowers the patient. Clinicians using such resources describe positive clinical outcomes. Only the Beyond Words wordless books have been identified in published clinical trials. Research limitations/implications Although existing evidence suggests a strong positive impact, further research into the use of wordless books for people with ID is needed. Practical implications Wordless books are reported to help develop staff skills and empathy for supporting adults with ID. The books facilitate some legally required reasonable adjustments to increase service access. Staff training is needed for effective use of wordless books. Originality/value Wordless books specifically designed with and for adults with word processing difficulties, ID and/or autism to enhance health literacy and explore their own narratives and emotional responses around health experiences and personal traumas are a unique approach. This paper may also offer the first exploration of their neuropsychological underpinnings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".