Análisis comparativo del efecto de tres programas de sensibilización hacia la discapacidad en Educación Física (Comparative analysis of the effect of three Physical Education programs on awareness toward disability)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo del estudio fue analizar el efecto de tres programas educativos diseñados para sensibilizar o modificar positivamente las actitudes hacia las personas con discapacidad. Cada uno de los programas se implementó desde el área de Educación Física en ocho sesiones de clase. Con este fin se configuraron cuatro grupos: uno recibió una intervención basada en la técnica de contacto (n = 87), otro grupo en la técnica de simulación (n = 97), un tercer grupo recibió una intervención basada en contacto y simulación (n = 93) y un cuarto grupo hizo de testigo o control sin recibir intervención alguna (n = 93). Las actitudes hacia la discapacidad se midieron en tres ocasiones: antes de la intervención (pre), al finalizar la intervención (post) y cuatro meses después (seguimiento), utilizando para ello la traducción al castellano de la escala Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes Toward Children with Handicaps (CATCH). Los datos fueron analizados mediante un modelo lineal general de medidas repetidas y ajuste de variables (MANCOVA). Los resultados permiten concluir que el programa que combina un mayor número de técnicas (contacto y simulación) es más efectivo que el resto. Si bien, otros datos analizados en el presente trabajo indican que es conveniente diseñar programas con más de ocho sesiones de clase para garantizar una modificación de actitudes de efecto significativo y estable en el tiempo. Finalmente, se dan a conocer los tres programas educativos de sensibilización hacia las personas con discapacidad. Abstract. The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of three educational programs designed for the attentiveness and the positive modification of attitudes toward people with disabilities. Each of the programs was implemented from the area of Physical Education during eight class sessions. For this purpose, four groups were configured: one received an intervention based on the contact technique (n = 87); another group in the simulation technique (n = 97); a third group received an intervention based on contact and simulation (n = 93); and a fourth group was a witness or control without any intervention (n = 93). Attitudes towards disability were measured on three occasions: before intervention (pre), at the end of the intervention (post) and four months later (follow-up), using the Spanish translation of the Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes Toward Children with Handicaps Scale (CATCH). Data were analyzed using general linear model of repeated measures and adjustment of variables (MANCOVA). The results allow to conclude that the program that combines a greater number of techniques (contact and simulation) is more effective than the rest. However, other data analyzed in the present study indicate that it is convenient to design programs with more than eight class sessions to guarantee a modification of attitudes that have a significant and stable effect over time. Finally, the three educational programs to improve awareness of people with disabilities are presented.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".