The Effectiveness of Portage Early Intervention Program in Improving Adaptive Behavior Skills with Intellectual Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to find the effectiveness of the Portage Program for Early Intervention in improving cognitive competencies of mothers with children having intellectual disabilities in applying portage program, and in developing those children’s adaptive behavior. The experimental sample included 10 children from Irbid Governorate with simple intellectual disabilities, using single-group experimentation. To achieve the goal of the study, the Portage Program (second edition) was adopted as well as the cognitive competence scale for pre and post-test, and the adaptive behavior scale for children with intellectual disabilities. Data from the implemented scales were treated statistically using proper statistical methods. The study reached the following results: There were statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α=0.05) between the means of the pre- and post-test for performance of mothers of children with simple intellectual disabilities in the cognitive competence scale. There were statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α=0.05) between the pre- and post-test means for performance of children with simple intellectual disabilities in the adaptive behavior scale. There were statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α=0.05) between the post and follow up test means for performance of children with simple intellectual disabilities in the adaptive behavior scale. The study sets various recommendations in the fields of education and research. The results of the qualitative analysis indicated a noticeable improvement in the performance of the adaptive behavior skills of the individuals participated in study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".