Emotional Intelligence Levels of Students with Sensory Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at revealing the emotional intelligence levels of students with sensory disability in Amman in Jordan. The participants of the study were 200 students; 140 hearing impaired students and 60 visual impaired students enrolled in the special education schools and centers for the academic year 2016-2017. The study adopted the descriptive Approach. To achieve the goals of the study, the researchers prepared an emotional intelligence scale consisted of 30 items distributed into four fields: emotional knowledge, emotion regulation, empathy, and social efficiency. The scale’s reliability and validity were verified. Results showed that the total degree of the emotional intelligence of the students with hearing impairment was low and it was moderate for the students with visual impairment. Additionally, results revealed statistical significant differences between the students with hearing impairment and students with visual impairment in all the fields in favor of the students with visual impairment.The study confirmed the necessity to encourage people with sensory disabilities to take part in well-prepared activities and programs that allow them to express their emotions freely as drawing, acting, music and others to develop their emotional intelligence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".