MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800229474 · doi:10.12965/jer.1835194.597

Effects of 12-week combined exercise program on self-efficacy, physical activity level, and health related physical fitness of adults with intellectual disability

2018· article· en· W2800229474 on OpenAlexaff
Garam Jo, Brenda Rossow-Kimball, Yongho Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise Rehabilitation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical fitnessFlexibility (engineering)Intellectual disabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGrip strengthPhysical strengthTest (biology)Cardiorespiratory fitnessPsychologyBody mass index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined the effects of an exercise program on health related physical fitness, self-efficacy, and physical activity levels in adults with intellectual disability. The study used pre- and posttest experimental research design with a control group. Total of 23 adults with intellectual disability were recruited with 12 assigned for the exercise group and 11 for the control group, separately. The measures of health related physical fitness included cardio pulmonary endurance (step-test), body composition (bioelectrical impedance analysis), flexibility (sit and reach), muscle endurance (sit-up), and strength (hand grip strength). Self-efficacy was measured using the physical self-efficacy scale. Accelerometers were used to measure physical activity levels. All variables were measured and evaluated twice at baseline and at the end of the program. The exercise program consisted of band exercises and rhythmic activity for 90 min, twice per week for 12 weeks. After the intervention, significant improvements were found in the experimental group in muscle endurance, self-efficacy, and physical activity levels. An exercise program may be recommended as a nonpharmaceutical method to improve the health of adults with intellectual 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise RehabilitationSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207