Thriving for Adolescents With Intellectual Disability: A Photo‐Elicitation Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a shift in recent decades towards studying the strengths of people with intellectual disability to promote wellbeing. This study developed a conceptualisation of thriving specific to adolescents with intellectual disability. METHOD: A photo-elicitation qualitative design was used. Participants were 12 adolescents (ages 12-19) with a diagnosis of intellectual disability and their parents. Adolescents and their parents separately chose photos demonstrating thriving for the adolescent. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. RESULTS: Reflexive thematic analysis was used. Five core themes that interact and contribute to thriving were developed: Enjoying Life, Developing, Having a Positive Sense of Self, Connecting, and Mattering. Parents also identified the importance of adolescents being Safe & Supported. CONCLUSIONS: This thriving framework can serve as a guiding template for community supports and future quantitative research studies for adolescents with intellectual disability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".