Child and Caregiver Perspectives on Conversation Club Therapy: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Conversation Club is a community-based intervention developed to support social and conversation skills in both neurodiverse and neurotypical children who may need additional support in these areas. The purpose of this preliminary evaluation is to examine the efficacy of Conversation Club delivered in the local setting. METHODS: This mixed-methods case study involved a child-caregiver dyad. Pre-post intervention data were collected through interview and battery of tests assessing social skills (e.g., Social Skills Improvement System; Social Responsiveness Scale). RESULTS: Both the child and caregiver shared that they were satisfied with Conversation Club and felt that the child benefitted from the curriculum. Results also indicated that the child made a reliable change on both self- and caregiver-measures of social and conversation skills, but results were mixed for behaviour indices. Interestingly, the child rated their social skills as average before and after intervention, compared to elevated social impairments perceived by the caregiver at both time points. CONCLUSION: An overall strength of this case study was to include the perspective of the child participant, in addition to the caregiver report, to evaluate the social validity and acceptance of the intervention for teaching conversation skills.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".