Self-Esteem Among Individuals with Speech Disorders in Light of Some Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to identify the level of self-esteem among individuals with speech disorders; fluency, articulation, and voice disorders, in light of some variables. Researchers used Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale on the study sample consisted of (97) individuals with speech disorders in hearing, speech clinics and special education centers in Jordan. Results showed that the level of self-esteem among individuals with speech disorders was moderate, and the type of disorder was the most influential factor on self-esteem, as individuals with speech and voice disorders had more self-esteem compared to those with fluency disorders (stuttering), results also indicated that individuals with category of less than (18) years old show more self-esteem than those of more than (18) years old, and that those with mild and moderate disorders have more self-esteem than those with severe and very severe disorders, furthermore, study pointed out that there were no statistically significant differences in the degree of self-esteem among individuals with speech disorders attributed to the variables of gender, social status, and monthly income of the family. The study concluded with a number of recommendations, as establishing specific groups for self and inclusive-support to develop self-esteem among individuals with speech disorders.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".