The Effectiveness of a Training Package Prepared to Teach First Aid Skills to Individuals with Intellectual and Additional Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a training package, which was applied through direct teaching method and included digital storytelling, a first aid manikin and live modeling, in teaching basic first aid skills necessary for cuts, sprains and bee stings to individuals with intellectual and additional disabilities. Three middle school students with multiple developmental disabilities whose ages ranged from 12 to 15 participated in the study. The first aid skills for simple cuts, sprains and bee stings were taught in a small group format. A multiple probe design across behaviors with probe conditions, one of the single-subject designs, was employed in the study. The independent variable of the study was training package and the dependent variables of the study were the participants’ level of acquisition of the target skills (Cut, sprain and bee sting). The results of the study revealed that the package was effective in teaching simple first aid skills to the participants, and they maintained those skills for 1, 3 and 4 weeks after the completion of training. The participants were also able to generalize the skills to other first aid tools, settings and practitioners. Social validity findings showed that the participants enjoyed the classes in which digital storytelling was used. Also, they expressed their desire to have them in other courses.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".