Quality of Life in Individuals With Disabilities Through a Student-Led Service-Learning Program: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis to Examine the Reciprocal Benefits of Service Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : The efficacy of service learning in physical activity (PA) intervention is generally not centered around perceptions of the service recipients, posing questions when the efficacy of an intervention is crucial, such as PA in people with disabilities. The present study examined perceptions of the recipients in a student-led service-learning program through a quality of life survey and interviews. Method : Undergraduate students led a 13-week PA intervention. Before and after the intervention, people with disabilities ( N = 56) completed quality of life surveys (i.e., the National Institute of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System). A face-to-face interview was conducted with N = 6. Results : All quality of life items, except for Mental Health–Anxiety, improved ( p < .01). The interviews suggested that environmental factors (i.e., encouragement from students, the open space that allowed interactions) positively impacted the program. Discussion : The environment may be a key factor in the program’s success in PA intervention from the recipients’ perspective.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".