A systematic review of self-determination interventions for children and youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Developing self-determination skills is an important component of youth's maturation. However, many youths with disabilities lack opportunities to engage in activities that can promote these skills. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of self-determination interventions for children and youth with disabilities. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on seven international databases that identified 28 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Among the 28 studies, 5184 youth with disabilities (aged 9-29, mean age 16.8 years) were represented across three countries. The interventions varied in duration, length, number of sessions, and delivery format, which included curriculum-based, workshops, experiential or residential learning, peer coaching and mentoring, self-directed individual learning, computer games, and multi-component designs. 19/28 studies reported a significant improvement in self-determination. Of these 13/18 studies showed improvements as measured by Arc's self-determination scale, while 8/13 studies reported a significant improvement as measured by AIR self-determination scale. Other significant differences were reported in vocational skills self-efficacy and self-determination inventory. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that there are several types of interventions that have the potential to improve self-determination for youth with disabilities. Further research is needed to understand what program components could help youth to obtain optimal outcomes.Implications for RehabilitationSeveral types of interventions (school-based, community, online) have potential to influence self-determination for youth with disabilities.Clinicians and educators should consider having multiple components including workshops, one-to-one and group-based learning, mentoring and coaching for optimal program outcomes.Interventions that are targeted to enhance self-determination for youth with disabilities should be theoretically informed and use a validated measure to assess their effectiveness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".