Effectiveness of two visual‐pedagogical methods for toothbrushing skills in autistic children: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two visual pedagogy methods, video modeling and educational posters, on improving tooth‐brushing autonomy in 10–12‐year‐old children with mild autism. Methods Sixty‐four autistic children were randomly assigned to either the video or poster groups using the Rand function in Excel. Toothbrushing skills were divided into five stages: preparation, buccal, occlusal, lingual surfaces, and the end. These five stages comprised a total of 20 steps, with each step scored from 1 (not done at all) to 5 (done independently). The final score was calculated by averaging the scores of the five stages. The FONES method of toothbrushing was used for training. Follow‐up assessments were conducted after 1 and 3 months. The data were analyzed using SPSS V26, including t‐tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, and repeated‐measures ANOVA. Results After 3 months, there were significant improvements in autonomy scores for both groups, with the video group showing greater benefits (4.37 ± 0.43) compared to the poster group (4.11 ± 0.49) (p = .03), with an effect size of η2 = .07. Conclusion Both video and poster methods were effective in improving tooth‐brushing skills, but video modeling was associated with a higher total autonomy score.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".