Research Patterns in the Treatment of Adults With Problem Behavior and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Quantitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research featuring adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who engage in problem behavior has outlined various treatment approaches. The current quantitative systematic literature review identified and coded 76 peer-reviewed and gray literature articles published between January 2002 and September 2022. Following article identification and coding, we calculated effect size estimates (i.e., Tau Baseline Corrected) and assessed the methodological rigor of included articles. Through this work, we uncovered 42 unique multi-protocol treatments (i.e., treatments incorporating multiple therapeutic elements). Multi-protocol treatments were associated with larger effect sizes (more effective) compared to single-protocol treatments. The average methodological rigor score associated with peer-reviewed works was 1.6 (out of 4), while gray literature works scored 1.2. We offer commentary in response to these outcomes, alongside recommendations for future research to address the many avenues of inquiry that appear to remain largely neglected (e.g., component analysis to evaluate individual treatment elements and their efficacy).
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 | 0.124 | 0.356 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".