MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401842411 · doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106076

A theory building critical realist evaluation of an integrated cognitive-behavioural fluency enhancing stuttering treatment for school-age children. Part 1: Development of a preliminary program theory from expert speech-language pathologist data.

2024· article· en· W4401842411 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle C. Swift, Marilyn Langevin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluency Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsStutteringFluencyPsychologyCognitionDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyMathematics educationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study initiated a program of research that aims to develop a program theory underlying integrated cognitive-behavioural fluency enhancing stuttering treatments for school-age children. This research asks, what in the treatment program works (or does not work), for whom, in what contexts, and why. METHODS: Using a critical realist evaluation approach, seven speech-language pathologists (SLPs) with extensive experience in treating children who stutter were asked about barriers and facilitators of optimal treatment outcomes within the context of the Comprehensive Stuttering Program - School-aged Children (CSP-SC). From these data discrete resource mechanisms, contexts, within child reasoning mechanisms, and outcomes were derived and a preliminary program theory was proposed. RESULTS: Facilitating and impeding child physiology, treatment and SLP resource mechanisms, family and school contexts, and within-child mechanisms were identified. Facilitating mechanisms included motivation, personality/psychological characteristics, understanding and trust of the treatment process, experience of speaking with less effort, and self-efficacy. Impeding mechanisms included reduced motivation, impeding personality/psychological characteristics, lack of buy-in, and, for some children, a prohibitive cost of effort in using learned strategies. CONCLUSION: A preliminary program theory was hypothesized which will be further developed in future analysis of data obtained from children and parents who participated in the CSP-SC at the same centre from which the SLPs came. Subsequent research with new cohorts of SLPs, children, and parents from other treatment programs and centres will be needed to establish the generalizability of the program theory generated in this program of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluency DisordersSame topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207