Resilience intervention to Strengthen Self-Regulation in adolescent students with hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The importance of strong self-regulation (SR) abilities for academic and social success is known, yet relatively few studies examine students’ SR and how it can be promoted especially in adolescents with special needs, such as those students with hearing loss. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a resilience intervention program enhances SR in adolescents with hearing loss. Methods: This study was experimental with a pre-test, post-test, follow up and control group design. Participants included 122 students with hearing loss in mainstream settings randomly assigned to intervention and control groups (61 students in each group). The interventional group had training for six weeks (two times per week for 75 min). The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory was used to measure the self-regulation of students. Results: The results indicated a significant difference between the control and interventional groups in SR, short SR, and Long SR after the intervention, at both the 6-week and 14-week measurements (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study’s findings indicate that implementing resilience intervention programs can promote the self-regulation skills in adolescent students with hearing loss.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".