Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a social skills program designed to improve the behavior, social skills, and coping skills of children with learning disabilities. This type of program could also have potential benefits for children without LD who have social skills deficiencies. The current study focused on the impact of the 10-week Better Emotional and Social Times program delivered through the Windsor-Essex chapter of the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario for 36 children (28 boys, 8 girls), 8 to 12 years of age, from Southwestern Ontario. These children completed pre- and post-treatment the Social Skills Rating System as a measure of social skills and the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale as a measure of self-concept. T-tests were conducted comparing pre- and post-treatment scores on the inventories. Results indicated that significant improvements occurred in parent rating of assertion, cooperation, responsibility, internalizing behaviors, and social skills and problem behaviors in general. Improvements were found in the children's rating of intellectual and school status only. When examining subgroups, it was found that items indicating improvements in responsibility, internalizing behavior, hyperactivity, and overall problem behaviors were endorsed by parents of children with ADD/ADHD diagnoses. Parents of children with primary deficits in the verbal domain of cognitive functioning endorsed items indicating an improvement in cooperation, self-control, and social skills in general. For children with primary deficits in the nonverbal domain of intellectual functioning, parents reported a decrease in overall problem behaviors and improvements were found in child rating of cooperation. These results and their relation to previous research are discussed and limitations of the present study as well as suggestions for future research are also presented.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2004 .D78. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 43-03, page: 1007. Adviser: Joseph E. Casey. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2004.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".