Evaluating Use of Responsive Interaction Strategies by Related-Service Providers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responsive interaction strategies (RIS) are commonly recommended to encourage engagement, joint attention, and communication in young children with and without disabilities in authentic contexts. Related-service providers, including behavior support specialists and school psychologists, commonly address communication-related goals of young children but may lack adequate training in naturalistic instruction, including RIS. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate baseline-level performance of pre-service related service providers to better understand their use of RIS before receiving training, as well as to identify areas that need specific attention when planning training. Second, the extent to which these professionals displayed increased and accurate use of RIS following training embedded within a university-based course on communication was evaluated. Participants were generally responsive during the pre-test but lacked skills in tailoring linguistic input to and offering play-based support for the child. Following the training, the results were mixed. Pre-service professionals likely need ongoing support to implement naturalistic strategies at criterion. Findings, implications for instructors and researchers, and limitations of this study are provided.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it