Using Cognitively Accessible Survey Software on a Tablet Computer to PromoteSelf-Determination among People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) identify “speaking for oneself” as a highly salient aspect of self-advocacy and self-determination (SABE, 2011), yet limitations in cognition or language often limit their direct participation in surveys. This study describes a self-administered survey procedure that used supportive software on an iPad to create a survey interface that was easily navigable by respondents with I/DD. A survey based on items from the National Core Indicator (NCI) Adult Consumer Survey (HSRI & NASDDDS, 2001) was developed that included five items on choice-making which have been previously studied by Lakin et al. (2008) and Stancliffe et al. (2011). Cognitively diverse groups of self-advocates were recruited to take the iPad survey at both a national and state self-advocacy conference. The results indicated that the iPad survey platform enabled people with varying degrees of I/DD to respond independently to a self-administered survey with little training or assistance. The resulting iPad-gathered data on the NCI choice items supported the validity of the procedure by conforming to patterns from standard NCI interviews. This self-administered survey technology holds great promise for gathering many types of survey information directly from people with I/DD, allowing them to more actively participate in the design of supports, services, and environments that affect their lives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".