MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794759732 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1457089

Conducting participatory photography with children with disabilities: a literature review

2018· review· en· W2794759732 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCitizen journalismPhotographyParticipatory action researchPhoto elicitationMedicineOptometryMedical educationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSociologyVisual artsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This review summarized studies that used participatory photography with children with disabilities, including those with communication impairments, and described modifications made to the methodology to facilitate their participation in qualitative research.Methods: In the fall of 2016, we searched Psycinfo (OVID), ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Science to identify studies that used participatory photography with children with disabilities. The search was repeated in January 2018 to retrieve any new publications. The first author extracted data that described the characteristics of each study and the modifications used.Results: Of the 258 articles identified, 19 met inclusion criteria. Participants ranged from 4–21 years old and had a variety of disabilities. Study topics included education, leisure activities and adulthood. Researchers modified participatory photography to enhance accessibility by: modifying cameras; providing individual training; teaching consent through role play; allowing children to direct adults to take photographs; including additional forms of media; using diaries and questionnaires; providing individual interviews with simplified questions; using multiple forms of communication; and modifying how photographs are shared.Conclusions: Participatory photography can be an effective method for studying the lived experiences of children with disabilities, particularly those with communication impairments. Methodological modifications can enhance the accessibility of this approach for this population.Implications for RehabilitationParticipatory photography may be an effective qualitative research method for learning about the perspectives and experiences of children with disabilities on a wide array of topics.There are many specific modifications that researchers can use to support the inclusion of children with disabilities in participatory photography research.The findings of studies that use participatory photography methodology may provide rehabilitation professionals with important insights into the lives of children with disabilities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.013
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.499
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.094 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it