MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410302803 · doi:10.1037/rep0000624

Gender is not related to disability acceptance among individuals with disabilities in Korea: A longitudinal observational study.

2025· article· en· W4410302803 on OpenAlexaff
Heerak Choi, Hyun‐Ju Ju, Connie Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPsychologyLongitudinal studyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Disability acceptance is an evolving process influenced by personal and contextual predictors, with gender potentially playing a role. This study aimed to examine gender differences in the trajectory of disability acceptance and its predictors among individuals with disabilities in the Republic of Korea (hereafter, Korea). RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: We analyzed 4-year longitudinal data (2016-2019) from the Panel Survey of Employment for Persons With Disabilities using multigroup latent growth modeling. The sample consisted of 1,007 men and 1,040 women with disabilities. RESULTS: = .70). Multigroup latent growth modeling results indicated that perceived socioeconomic status, disability-related stress, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and satisfaction with friend relationships significantly predicted disability acceptance over most years, with no gender differences in these predictors. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: Gender did not predict longitudinal changes in disability acceptance. However, modifiable factors, such as perceived socioeconomic status, disability-related stress, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and satisfaction with friend relationships, were associated with disability acceptance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRehabilitation PsychologySame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207