Socio-Sexual Assessment for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: A Twenty- and Forty-Year Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little is known about the socio-sexual knowledge and attitudes of adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) and tools to measure these constructs are limited. The purpose of the current study was to compare areas of importance in socio-sexual assessment for individuals with ID with those reported approximately twenty (Griffiths & Lunsky, 2000) and forty (Wish et al., 1980) years ago. A total of 42 professionals in the field, including psychologists, clinicians, and staff members who work with individuals with ID completed a questionnaire where they were asked to rate their perceived importance of topics to be included in socio-sexual assessment for individuals with ID. Changes in the importance of topics between years are explored and explained in relation to existing literature on issues of sexuality in society, specifically for individuals with ID. In overall ratings, results suggest that some topics remain valued across years such as inappropriate physical contact, intercourse, body parts, and sexually transmitted infections. Certain changes between years appear to reflect a general increase in the acceptance and understanding of the sexuality of individuals with ID. For instance, topics of sexual orientation, birth control, and adult movies/literature appear to be of much greater importance in 2020. Ultimately, the comparison of topics of importance between years provides an up-to-date portrait of the necessary components of socio-sexual assessment for individuals with ID. The implications of this work highlight that an update in assessment can lead to more current understandings of the needs of this population as well as allow for more tailored approaches to sexual education.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".