A pilot study to determine the feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention to change peer attitudes towards children who stutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of research, prior study is needed to determine the feasibility of a future large-scale RCT study. Objectives: This pilot study, therefore, aimed to determine feasibility of an RCT by exploring: (1) procedural issues and (2) treatment effect of the Classroom Communication Resource (CCR), an intervention for changing peer attitudes towards children who stutter. Method: A pilot cluster stratified RCT design was employed whereby the recruitment took place first at school-level and then at individual level. The dropout rate was reported at baseline, 1 and 6 months post-intervention. For treatment effect, schools were the unit of randomisation and were randomised to receive either the CCR intervention administered by teachers or usual practice, using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The stuttering resource outcomes measure (SROM) measured treatment effect at baseline, 1 and 6 months post-intervention overall and within the constructs (positive social distance, social pressure and verbal interaction). Results: For school recruitment, 11 schools were invited to participate and 82% (n = 9) were recruited. Based on the school recruitment, N = 610 participants were eligible for this study while only n = 449 were recruited, where there was n = 183 in the intervention group and n = 266 in the control group. The dropout rate from recruitment to baseline was as follows: intervention, 23% (n = 34), and control, 6% (n = 15). At 1 month a dropout rate of 7% (n = 10) was noted in the intervention and 6% (n = 15) in the control group, whereas at 6 months, dropout rates of 7% (n = 10) and 17% (n = 44) were found in the intervention and control groups, respectively. For treatment effect on the SROM, the estimated mean differences between intervention and control groups were (95% Confidence Interval (CI): -1.07, 5.11) at 1 month and 3.01 (95% CI: -0.69, 6.69) at 6 months. A statistically significant difference was observed at 6 months on the VI subscale of the SROM, with 1.35 (95% CI: 0.58, 2.13). Conclusion: A high recruitment rate of schools and participants was observed with a high dropout rate of participants. Significant differences were only noted at 6 months post-intervention within one of the constructs of the SROM. These findings suggest that a future RCT study is warranted and feasible.
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 | 0.048 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".