The Effect of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation Program Related Teaching on Problem Behavior and Communication/Social Skills with a Blind and Autistic Child
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with disabilities display problem behaviors frequently. This case study presents an analysis of the extent to which one student’s pattern of multiple problem behaviors and the potential efficacy of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) as a model for linking families, schools, and special education settings to address educational concerns in order to reduce problem behaviors, increasing communication and social skills for a child with visual impairment and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The child with, multiple disabilities his parents, school teachers, and consultant were involved in conjoint consultation, a model of cross-system collaboration to address shared concerns for educational needs. In this structured educational model, parent, teacher, and special education teacher (consultant) worked collaboratively in interdisciplinary joint decision making with extensive input regarding child’s individuality. The study incorporated a delayed non-concurrent multiple probe design across behaviors using qualitative explanations in mixed design. Outcome measures included parent and school teachers observations of child functioning across home, school and special education settings as a result of consultation-mediated interventions and social validity indices assessing acceptability and consumer satisfaction. Results suggested the impression that CBC is a socially valid procedure for addressing concerns of child with multiple disabilities across home, school and special education systems. Both parents and school teacher reported the consultation process to be highly acceptable although limitations with the methodology of single subject design. Research is needed to determine the contexts and conditions under which the model is more or less effective using increased number of participants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".