MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135375817 · doi:10.5539/ies.v14n4p11

Effect of Hemsball Shooting on Fine Motor Proficiency in Hearing Impaired Children

2021· article· en· W3135375817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meltem Işık, İbrahim Kılıç

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAfyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi
KeywordsPsychologyTest (biology)Hearing impairedAudiologyMotor skillDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, which was designed in pre-test – post-test and experimental-control model, it was aimed to determine the effect of hemsball shooting techniques on fine motor proficiency and manual dexterity in hearing-impaired children between the age range of 7-11. The study group was composed of 26 children (13 for the experimental group + 13 for the control group) aged between 7-11 years old with hearing loss above 56 dB and having no second impairment and sports background. The children in the experimental group were subjected to a training program to improve their fine motor skills and manual dexterity for three days a week, one hour each day throughout 10 weeks, which involved hemsball shooting techniques. Fine motor proficiency and manual dexterity of hearing-impaired children were measured by the three sub-tests (fine motor precision, fine motor integration, manual dexterity) of Bruiniks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2). In the research, the group experiment-control and measurements (pre-test – post-test) were compared with independent samples t-test and paired samples t-test. As a result of the study, it was revealed that hemsball shooting techniques had a significant effect on the fine motor proficiency levels of hearing-impaired children, including fine motor precision, fine motor integration, and manual dexterity. Furthermore, it was determined that the effect of hemsball shooting techniques on motor proficiency did not differ significantly according to gender and that the application performed had positive effects on both girls and boys.

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)0.000
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207