Enhancing Emotion Regulation and Critical Thinking in Hearing-Impaired Individuals through Sensory Integration Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) in improving emotion regulation and critical thinking skills in individuals with hearing impairments. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 30 participants (15 in the intervention group receiving SIT and 15 in the control group). The intervention consisted of ten 75-minute SIT sessions over a two-month period. Emotion regulation and critical thinking were measured at three time points: pre-intervention, post-intervention, and two-month follow-up, using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), respectively. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Significant improvements in emotion regulation were observed in the intervention group from pre-intervention (M = 95.45, SD = 12.78) to post-intervention (M = 81.32, SD = 11.45), and maintained at follow-up (M = 82.67, SD = 12.01). The control group showed no significant changes. For critical thinking, the intervention group’s scores increased significantly from pre-intervention (M = 28.67, SD = 5.23) to post-intervention (M = 36.78, SD = 4.89), and remained high at follow-up (M = 35.54, SD = 4.67). The control group’s scores did not change significantly. ANOVA results indicated significant main effects for time and group for both variables (p < .001), with significant interaction effects (p < .001). Sensory Integration Therapy significantly improves emotion regulation and critical thinking in individuals with hearing impairments, with effects sustained over a two-month follow-up. These findings support the use of SIT as an effective intervention for enhancing cognitive and emotional skills in this population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".