Assessment of the Social Interaction Abilities of Adolescents With Communication Disability: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".