MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001592255 · doi:10.1111/bld.12313

Meeting vision needs of children with special educational needs: Case studies of the impact on behaviour and academic achievement

2020· article· en· W3001592255 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lyn McKerr, Emma McConnell, Shelley Black, Julie McClelland, Julie‐Anne Little, Kathryn J. Saunders, Karola Dillenburger

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Learning Disabilities · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastUlster UniversityAction Medical ResearchDepartment for the Economy
KeywordsBespokeSpecial needsSpecial educational needsPsychological interventionPsychologySpecial educationIntervention (counseling)Learning disabilityMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyMathematics educationMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accessible summary Children with learning disabilities often have problems with their eyesight. We tested the eyes of nine children and checked whether they needed glasses or bigger print. We found that when they got what they needed to see better, their behaviour improved. This is important because children with learning disabilities need to be able to see as well as anyone else. Abstract Background Children with identified special educational needs are at higher risk than other children of having visual needs that are not adequately met. This paper evaluates the impact of addressing the visual needs of these children on behaviour and academic achievements in a number of case studies. Method Nine children (4–11 years of age, from four classrooms), who attended a special school in a medium‐sized town in the UK, took part in the case studies reported here. The children were part of the Special Education Eyecare (SEE) Project. Six of the children were selected because they had unmet visual needs at baseline and required bespoke interventions to meet these needs; the other three children were selected because their visual needs had been met prior to the study and no further adjustments were needed. Repeated direct observations were conducted to assess the impact of the intervention on the children's behaviour in the classroom. The observer was “blind” with regard to the visual needs of the participants. Parents and teachers completed the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for each child, before and after the intervention. School files were analysed to assess effects on academic achievement. Findings Subsequent to the implementation of bespoke visual adjustments, for example prescription of spectacles or changed seating in classroom, significant and sustained changes were observed with regard to the children's behaviour (i.e., increased engagement with peers and/or teachers and decreased off‐task behaviour). Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire scores showed improvements regarding total difficulties, emotional difficulties, hyperactivity and prosocial (kind and helpful) behaviour. Due to highly variable data in school files, the effects on academic achievement were inconclusive. Discussion The case studies reported here explored changes in behaviour of children with identified special educational needs after their visual needs were met. Findings show a positive overall effect on the behaviour of these children.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Learning DisabilitiesSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207