Young adults with intellectual disabilities participating in employment‐related activities using the pathways and resources for engagement and participation intervention: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Participation‐focused interventions are gaining momentum. The Pathways and Resources for Engagement and Participation (PREP) is one such intervention, and it was investigated in this study for its effectiveness in supporting participation in employment‐related activities for young adults with intellectual disabilities in Australia. Methods The application of the PREP approach was adapted to accommodate COVID‐19 restrictions. Data were gathered from multiple sources in a triangulating manner following a case study design. Measures of performance, satisfaction, and a third measure of involvement were collected using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in a multiple baseline format. The work questionnaire from the Assessment of Life Habits (Life‐H) was administered at three time points, and qualitative data were collected post‐intervention via a separate semi‐structured interview with four young adults with intellectual disabilities and the two occupational therapist facilitators. Findings Performance, satisfaction and involvement scores had increased for 75% or more of employment‐related goals at follow‐up, although these changes were not statistically significant. Visual analysis indicated improved Life‐H accomplishment scores post‐intervention, but satisfaction with employment scores did not change. PREP was positively perceived, but the young adults reported needing more support from their participation teams. Conclusions The PREP intervention shifts the focus from a skills‐based approach to a participation approach to practice and empowers young adults with intellectual disabilities to have greater independence over employment goals and related activities. COVID‐19 restrictions limited the application of the PREP approach, but the experience was still valued by the participants, although additional training and support for them and the PREP participation team working with them may have further enhanced their experience and participation outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".