Comparing Sensory Processing and Perceived Motor Competence Between Three Groups of Students with Special Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Identifying the contributing factors to a specific learning disorder and comparing these factors in different types of this disorder will lead to using more proper interventions in the future. Therefore, this study aimed to compare sensory processing skills and perceived motor competence between three groups of students with specific learning disabilities (reading and writing disorders, math disorders, and combination disorders). Materials and Methods: The present study was a cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study. The participants were 48 children (16 in each group, aged 8-12 years). They were selected from Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province, Iran, by the simple convenience sampling method. The participants’ sensory processing was measured with sensory profile 2 and their perceived motor competency with Marsh perceived motor competence questionnaire. Results: The results showed a significant difference between the three groups in the sensory sensitivity, low registration sensory patterns and processing of tactile, and body position senses (P <0.05). However, no significant differences were observed between groups in other components of sensory processing and perceived motor competence (P> 0.05). Conclusion: The results indicate that therapeutic interventions in the group with reading and writing disorders should focus on increasing sensory registration and processing of tactile and body position senses and reducing sensory sensitivity in the mathematical group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".