The effects of the Tripartite Intervention on students’ attitudes towards disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor attitudes towards disability held by one’s peers can negatively impact the social experiences of students with exceptionalities. Fortunately, educational intervention efforts can serve to enhance children’s attitudes towards disability. This quasi‐experimental study tested the effectiveness of the Tripartite Intervention (TI), a 12‐lesson educational intervention aimed at improving students’ attitudes towards disability. Two Grade 4 classes from a large rural school in Southwestern Ontario made up the control and experimental groups. The CATCH scale was used to measure students’ attitudes towards disability before and after the intervention. 2 × 2 mixed ANOVAs were calculated to measure the effectiveness of the intervention. There was a significant main effect for time, but a non‐significant interaction effect when global attitude scores were examined. A significant interaction effect was found, however, for the cognitive dimension. These findings indicate that the TI had an impact on how students thought about disability. Determinant factors were also examined. Having a family member was associated with more positive attitudes towards disability, whereas self‐reported gender and friendship with someone who has a disability were not. Replication studies on the effects of the TI with larger and more diverse samples are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".