Social Validity of a Kindergarten-Readiness Behavoural Intervention for Children with Autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social validity assessments measure consumer satisfaction with the goals, procedures, and outcomes of a program. This study aimed to measure the social validity of a modified early intensive behavioural intervention (EIBI) for 5-year-old children with a formal autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. We evaluated a pilot program developed by St.Amant called the Pre-Kindergarten Program (PKP). Eight populations were surveyed using six unique questionnaires to measure indirect consumers', immediate community members', and extended community members' satisfaction with the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the PKP. Questionnaires were distributed via email and mail containing a webbrowser link and/or a paper questionnaire. A total of 82 responses across all populations were analyzed for within-group and between-group differences using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations to make recommendations for how Pre-Kindergarten EIBI programs can most effectively meet consumer needs. The PKP had good social validity overall. Waitlist families and families being served were the most satisfied overall; clinicians outside the program were the least satisfied group. Lack of parental involvement and limited service hours were recurring concerns mentioned among various populations in open-ended questions. Further research is required to determine the social validity of other EIBI programs and the factors that relate to social validity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".