Exploring the Development of Playfulness among Youth with Disabilities in the HB FIRST® Robotics Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Youth with disabilities often have less opportunities to play than their typically developing peers. An adapted robotics program is a promising way to help address problems in play development while learning educational content relevant for success across the lifespan.Objective: To understand the impact of using an adapted robotics program on the development of playfulness among youth with disabilities, aged 9 to 14 years. Methods: Observational research design using a pre-post video analysis on video-recorded raw data using the normalized and standardized assessment tool, the Test of Playfulness. Results: Participants exhibited significantly more playful behaviours following the completion of the adapted robotics program (Δ=0.8, p=0.001). Prior enrollment in the program also significantly impacted playfulness (F(1.0, 25)=10.0, p=0.004) Age, gender and disability type did not improve playfulness. Conclusion: The adapted robotics program improved the playfulness scores of youth with disabilities while enrolled in the program. These findings suggest that youth with disabilities can improve their playfulness through recreational and/or leisurely means.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".