MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413137535 · doi:10.1044/2025_lshss-24-00081

Assessment of the Social Interaction Abilities of Adolescents With Communication Disability: A Scoping Review

2025· article· en· W4413137535 on OpenAlexaff
Nichola Shelton, Natalie Munro, Julia Starling, Lyn Tieu, Melanie Keep

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsycINFOCINAHLPsychologyApplied psychologyScopusMEDLINEDevelopmental psychologyMedical educationClinical psychologyPsychological interventionMedicineRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We sought to identify the constructs and measures used to evaluate the social interaction abilities of young people (12-17 years) with communication disability, drawing from three frameworks: a taxonomy of pediatric cognitive-communication disorders, a taxonomy to describe language assessments of school-aged children, and the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHOD: A scoping review was conducted, guided by the five-stage methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). Ten databases were searched (CENTRAL, CINAHL, ERIC, LLBA, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, speechBITE, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global). RESULTS: In total, 173 peer-reviewed publications were identified and included in this review. Most papers measured the construct of pragmatics/social communication and behavior using standardized, norm-referenced, static, and decontextualized instruments that focused on the ICF's Activity component, with fewer papers evaluating young people's social interaction skills at the Participation level. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for more Participation-focused measures. Such measures could enable speech-language pathologists to support young people's development and participation in ways that are meaningful to them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.370 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Speech and Hearing Services in SchoolsSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207