Effects of music, dance and drama therapies for people with an intellectual disability: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary There are different forms of arts therapy including music, dance and drama therapies. Music, dance and drama can help people with an intellectual disability to improve their wellbeing. To encourage the inclusion of music, dance and drama therapies in different services, it is important to look at their effects on people with an intellectual disability. Music, dance and drama help with self‐esteem, social skills, expression and management of emotions. Arts therapies could also increase social inclusion and self‐determination. Abstract Background Arts therapies take different forms, including music, dance and drama therapies. Access to meaningful activities is limited for people with an intellectual disability. Music, dance and drama therapies could be relevant strategies to improve well‐being of people with an intellectual disability. To encourage the inclusion of these modalities in services offered to this population, it is important to look at the effects of music, dance and drama therapies for people with an intellectual disability. Methods This scoping review aimed to document the effects of music, dance and drama therapies for people with an intellectual disability. Findings 72 documents were selected and analysed. Depending on the modality of art therapy, various physical, emotional, cognitive and spiritual benefits were noted. Most of studies presented a limited sample size and had no group control. Conclusion The use of arts therapy modalities music, dance and drama shows promise for people with an intellectual disability. The results of this study may contribute to the development of diversified and meaningful activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".