Training programme for community service providers who support adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic quantitative literature review of <scp>single‐case</scp> research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on training direct support professionals to address challenging behaviour exhibited by adults with intellectual disabilities is essential in generating effective training approaches for this sector. This systematic review's objective was to evaluate the effects of training types and whether specific training delivery components influenced outcomes. METHODS: Following PRISMA (2020) guidelines, 16 single-case design studies were included that directly evaluated behaviour change of service providers training for adults with intellectual disabilities in community settings. Study quality was assessed using Horner et al. (Exceptional Children, 2005, 71(2), 165-180) criteria. The database searched included Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, Psych Info, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis of effect size outcomes suggested that all training types were associated with improved outcomes. Further, in situ training was associated with improved service provider performance. Interestingly, feedback was associated with poorer service provider performance. CONCLUSIONS: We provide possible explanations for this surprising outcome and propose future research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".