Speech therapy in adolescents with Down syndrome: In pursuit of communication as a fundamental human right
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The achievement of speech intelligibility by persons with Down syndrome facilitates their participation in society. Denial of speech therapy services by virtue of low cognitive skills is a violation of their fundamental human rights as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in general and in Article 19 in particular. Here, we describe the differential response of an adolescent with Down syndrome to three speech therapy interventions and demonstrate the use of a single subject randomisation design to identify effective treatments for children with complex communication disorders. METHOD: Over six weeks, 18 speech therapy sessions were provided with treatment conditions randomly assigned to targets and sessions within weeks, specifically comparing auditory-motor integration prepractice and phonological planning prepractice to a control condition that included no prepractice. All treatments involved high intensity practice of nonsense word targets paired with tangible referents. RESULT: A measure of generalisation from taught words to untaught real words in phrases revealed superior learning in the auditory-motor integration condition. CONCLUSION: The intervention outcomes may serve to justify the provision of appropriate supports to persons with Down syndrome so that they may achieve their full potential to receive information and express themselves.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".