Cumulative Rehearsal and Auditory Verbal Memory of Persons with Down Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the characteristics of persons with Down syndrome is poor memory, especially the Auditory-Verbal Memory (AVM). Lack of verbal memory among persons with Down syndrome is one major factor that inhibits learning. This is why the effort towards enhancing AVM of persons with Down syndrome is evolving. This study, therefore, investigated the efficacy of cumulative rehearsal on auditory verbal memory of persons with Down syndrome with speech production and gender as moderator variables. A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial matrix of pretest-posttest control group experimental design was used in the study. A sample of thirty participants was drawn from a population of 44 persons with Down syndrome and randomly assigned to control and experimental groups in two special schools; National Orthopaedic Special School, Igbobi, and Modupe Cole Memorial Childcare and Treatment Home/School, Akoka. Data was collected using a validated self-developed instrument, Auditory Verbal Memory Assessment Scale (AVMAS) (r-0.86). Two hypotheses were tested using ANCOVA. Findings from the study revealed that: cumulative rehearsal therapy significantly impacted the auditory-verbal memory of persons with Down syndrome, with significant improvement observed. There was no significant interaction effect of speech level and gender with the therapy. It was thus concluded that cumulative rehearsal therapy is effective in enhancing auditory-verbal memory and so recommended for the improvement of AVM of persons with Down syndrome.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".