A component analysis of behavioral skills training with volunteers teaching motor skills to individuals with developmental disabilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study included a component analysis of behavioral skills training (BST) for teaching volunteers how to use this training method to support individuals with developmental disabilities in a physical education program. In an alternating treatment design embedded within a multiple baseline design across five participants, the number of BST steps that volunteers completed correctly while teaching four motor skills was measured. In the initial training phase, each motor skill was taught to volunteers using a specific component of BST (i.e., instructions, modeling, rehearsal, or feedback). In subsequent training phases, BST components were combined to teach the volunteers the motor skills for which they did not reach a predetermined mastery criterion (a score of four correct responses across two consecutive trials). Maintenance was assessed. Results indicated that individual components of BST alone were sufficient for volunteers to meet the mastery criterion; however, the full BST framework was necessary for skill maintenance. Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for future research are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it