Features of Non-Verbal Communication of Children with Intellectual Disabilities and Differences from their Normatively Developing Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to study the specific features of non-verbal communication in children with intellectual disabilities in the dynamics of psychological impact. Background: In the 21st century, in terms of diagnostics and the implementation of psychological influences, the problem of identifying the features of the communication skills of children with intellectual disabilities becomes very significant and urgent. At present, intellectual disabilities are understood as a heterogeneous group of intellectual impairments, different in clinical manifestations, but based on the criterion of a decrease in cognitive development. A comparatively large number of works are devoted to the study of the features of the communication skills of children with intellectual disabilities. However, the research on their non-verbal communication skills is rather small. Method: The experimental research was conducted in three stages – first, the initial level of development of the abilities of recognition, naming and use of various communicative, modal and descriptive-pictorial gestures was measured. Results: After that, for ten lessons with children, the program "Lessons of non-verbal communication at school" was carried out, after which abilities were tested repeatedly. Parents and teachers were also interviewed twice. Conclusion: The study was carried out based on educational institutions outside school hours. The study involved 128 children from 6 schools in St. Petersburg. Non-verbal communication of children with mild mental retardation in comparison with normatively developing peers and with mixed specific psychological disorders is characterised by a lower level of development of cognitive, emotional-personal and behavioural components. Moreover, the most pronounced is the underdevelopment of the cognitive component, which is associated with the peculiarities of the impairment of intelligence. The study also showed that the emotional-personal and behavioural components are at a more preserved level of development in children with intellectual disabilities, which can be interpreted as the compensatory ability of the child's psyche.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".