Self‐concept research with school‐aged youth with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on the self-concept of youth with intellectual disabilities has not been summarized in more than four decades. The present systematic review addresses this gap. METHOD: A systematic literature search was performed in nine databases and 21 studies, published between 1979 and 2017, met our inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Significant differences between the self-concepts of youth with intellectual disabilities and typically developing (TD) youth were found in: (a) cognitive-academic self-concept in disfavour of youth with intellectual disabilities; (b) global self-concept and cognitive-academic self-concept in disfavour of children with intellectual disabilities; and (c) global, behavioural, and cognitive-academic self-concept in disfavour of youth with intellectual disabilities schooled in a special class. Additionally, except for age, intellectual functioning and school placement, no significant relations were found between the self-concept dimensions and academic achievement and sex. CONCLUSION: Studies on self-concept research with school-aged youth with intellectual disabilities have several weaknesses that need to be advanced in future research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".