Including people with intellectual and other cognitive disabilities in research and evaluation teams: A scoping review of the empirical knowledge base
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a rapid scoping review of empirical studies to identify how persons with intellectual and other cognitive disabilities have been engaged as active members of research and evaluation teams. We conducted a literature search using a systematic method that accessed peer reviewed studies in relevant library databases and all major evaluation journals. The search resulted in 6,624 potential articles, of which 32 met the inclusion criteria for this study. The findings address three categories of interest: 1) methodological underpinnings and practical justifications for using inclusive approaches, 2) different inclusion processes, and 3) reflections by researchers with and without intellectual and other cognitive disabilities. Findings provide conceptual and practical insights for researchers and evaluators when designing inclusive methods involving persons with intellectual and other cognitive disabilities. Gaps in inclusive research and evaluation are discussed and suggestions for future research are proposed.
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 | 0.098 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".