A Systematic Review of Studies on Social Skills Development for Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim and Significance: The systematic literature review is developed as an investigation of existing and recommended evidence based social skills and strategies to adopt in improving adolescents with ASD social skills. The systematic review was developed based on the understanding that a majority of the studies have focused on children below 11 years social skills. The need to analsye and establish the age specific social skills and strategies required informed the review development. This ystematic review evaluates the available published studies on group-based social skills interventions in the United States and the realm of Canada to improve the social skills among adolescents with ASD Methods: The systematic review developed an online search for peer reviewed articles published on the Medline, PsycINFO, Psychoarticle, Psychology and behaviour and Web of Science, through a PubMed-NCBI, an EBSCO and the Ovid databases. Key words and phrases were used to search for relevant literature. Once results were obtained, an inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied to narrow down the studies to applicable and most relevant studies. Results and Discussion: Three categories of social skills interventions have been identified to be effective in improving social and communication skills. They are (i) the use of the PEERS, (ii) social skills training group and (iii) group skills training. The recommendation for future research should focus on comparing protocols of various social skills training in clinical settings of the real-world.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".